Author |
Message |
16/11/2014 22:32:08
|
propriome
Joined: 14/11/2014 11:57:55
Messages: 4
Offline
|
Hi there,
I've made a lot of corrections on the US and Alaska (and a lot of other places), using historical and modern sources (NOAA charts in first instance), but it seems places are being systematically bulk-reverted to their (wrong) position by an user named gnis (even being the Geographic Names Information System does not mean they've the truth - several of their locations are wrong)...
i'm wondering what's the point in allowing users to contribute if all the places (at least for US) return shortly back to their previous placement
|
|
|
30/11/2014 22:38:08
|
Larry_28025
Joined: 23/11/2014 23:50:53
Messages: 2
Offline
|
I have the same question. This is claimed to be user-based but so many travel and other websites are tapped into this database (for free or for a fee?) Even though the published disclaimer says they make no warranty because its user based, they are apparently beholden to some groups not to change listings.
Unfortunately, accuracy isn't their main priority.
Check out Santa Clara Island, California. There is a tag for an airport on the west end of the island where there is obviously no airstrip. The only airstrip visible is in the Eastern area. There are also lots of villages that have the airport codes even though users are forbidden from adding the airport code to a political division Toponym.
Sad...
|
|
|
30/11/2014 22:38:08
|
artscoop
Joined: 15/08/2011 06:54:20
Messages: 11
Location: France
Offline
|
You are in the worst case scenario with geonames. Marc has been less present for the last months at least, so you might not get any practical solution.
And I can't see what could prevent such "abuse" from users. Voting systems would be nice, with revisions displayed randomly for users to accept or refuse. But bots can still be a PITA, imo. That seems very, very hard to solve.
|
|
|
01/12/2014 08:11:34
|
marc
Joined: 08/12/2005 07:39:47
Messages: 4416
Offline
|
@propriome
Sorry about this and thanks for pointing it out. There seems to have been a bug with the import of the latest gnis data. I will restore your updates. The gnis update has been blocked till the bug is found and fixed.
@Larry_28025
As discussed in private emails, some of your updates had to be reverted. This was not intentionally. The geonameid should be persistent it cannot be to change the feature to something completley different (like changing an airport into a hospital) and re-inserting the changed feature. The consistency of the database will break with modifications of this type and they have to be reverted.
The overwhelming part of the database is from various sources (databases, from national mapping agencies, census etc) the user contributions are mainly for bug fixing and are a much smaller part of the database.
I don't understand your latest point, can you add a geonameid of the feature you put in question?
|
|
|
|
|