The double cutting knife of quality assurance

I’m a huge fan of quality assurance, all these tools like (just for example) osmose and PTNA, they help us improve the map and comply with our agreed standards.

but what should we do with those among us who misunderstand the meaning of a warning, in particular when that’s about incomplete information? for example …

  • a highway and a waterway crossing each other, without specifying ford/culvert/bridge? if the original mapper didn’t see it in the picture, they left it unspecified and the QA tool would highlight it for a local mapper. as remote mappers, I think we should simply leave it standing as a warning, however annoying all these warnings in our map.
  • an office=government, without government=*. I’ve seen instances of people deleting the office=government, just because they didn’t like the osmose flag in their area.
  • making up values just to fill in a missing tag.
  • false positives.
  • changes in agreed tagging, which didn’t make it yet in the QA.
  • programming mistakes in the QA.

reducing coloured flags on any QA is a good thing. or isn’t it?

7 posts - 6 participants

Read full topic

Ce sujet de discussion accompagne la publication sur