I appreciate OSM for maintaining a higher data quality bar than other projects (Overture places are mostly junk outside of USA), but it's also just artificially limiting itself by not allowing streamlined paths to data contributions.

▲

gopher_space 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It seems like the path is streamlined once they know who you are.

This sort of feels like a generational thing but I would have flown over.

▲

mips_avatar 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Like I have a list of a few hundred osm places websites that are clearly scam sites. I should be going one by one and filing them manually but I found this via a spam filter and it’s very robust. I should have a way of getting these scam sites reported to osm.

	▲	vladms 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You could share it here and let more people remove the spam sites. If everybody removes a couple in no-time all will be removed. Which is probably what might happen if you would have the option to "report them to osm". Someone should check things, because maybe you are a new person to them, maybe the spam filter might not be as robust as you might think, etc. Even if you are perfect, other submission might not be, so someone needs to check/review/etc.

▲

phoronixrly 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The streamlined path has always been to verify your contributions in the field. Everything else is of dubious quality.

▲

Brian_K_White 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It is streamlined for individuals, and I have no interest in it being streamlined for anything else.

I'd rather no data than bad data. There is no seperate baby & bath water. If a bulk source of data contains an unknown mix of good and bad data, that is all one big single item of bad data that is of no use to anyone.

	▲	mips_avatar 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I’m grateful that a principled group of people run OSM. Much like I’m grateful that a principled group run Wikipedia. But the rigidness has costs that I don’t think are being appreciated.