I would answer the question asked in the post title from the perspective “Why do we focus on resolving notes?”
It shouldn’t be a goal in itself. Yes, going below 1,000, then below 500, then below 250 etc. shows that we worked on something and improved the map, but that’s about it. In my opinion, a note shouldn’t be closed unless the issue pointed out as been fully resolved. Notes inherently aren’t some pollution to the database we need to get rid of ASAP, they’re a way of less experienced mappers to point out issues. So there’s no inherent reason to try to get to as few open notes as possible, as long as they’re being kept open for some purpose.
From my experience, the vast majority of notes can be categorised as follows.
- Manually added notes (e.g. through the OSM website) which are anonymous. I would treat them as follows: if the information is sufficient (after checking Mapillary, aerial imagery etc.), update OSM; if the information is insufficient, close the note.
- Manually added notes which aren’t anonymous. I’d treat as follows: if the information is sufficient, update OSM; if the information is insufficient, reply to the note; if the author does not reply further, close.
- Notes created by applications that do not allow interaction with the author. I’d suggest treating those as anonymous notes.
- Notes created by applications that do allow interaction with the author (e.g. Geovelo): treat them as non-anonymous notes.
- Import notes (e.g. from the Toerisme Vlaanderen import): I would not close them until checked by aerial imagery, survey, whatever.
- Follow-up notes (e.g. for roadworks, traffic management in towns etc.): I would not close them until the plans have been fully executed or cancelled.
- Notes that require surveying. I would not close these until the location has been surveyed (or e.g. new street-level imagery becomes available, which means someone surveyed the location), but tag them with the proper hashtags.
This boils down to the following guidelines I would suggest:
- Notes should be kept open for as short as possible. Why? Because the older the note, the higher the chance the information is outdated. Most notes should either be resolved by updating OSM with any source available, or closed if that is not possible. This is the reason I strongly support the initiative to resolve notes. It’s not about the number of open notes, it’s about updating OSM before the information becomes redundant.
- The exception to the above would be notes that are being used to follow up on specific situations. Notes can be a good platform for doing this, as they’re linked to a specific location and do not require additional accounts apart from the OSM one. They also allow sharing links (e.g. to plans) and images (e.g. via MapComplete).
I am referring to Hans’s notes here, but not solely; various other mappers have created notes that require follow-up. I would not close these without updating OSM, but I do agree with @Thierry1030 that whoever creates the note should clearly state what needs to be mapped.
If you share a Mapillary link to a street in, let’s say, Herentals, I could follow the entire track and map everything from those pictures. Then I could move to a different track, maybe from a different user, and map based on that. And half a day later I’m mapping in Antwerp and have a changeset with 500-1,000 objects. Now, everything I’d have added has its use, but the reality is that no one has time for that. So one should specify what needs to be mapped now; everything else could be added based on Mapillary later.
Finally, regarding the import notes, these sometimes stay open for long as they often require physical surveying. I wouldn’t close them for the sake of closing the note. Things like benches, bicycle repair points and public toilets are generally relatively static and don’t move around every few years.
Again, this is just my opinion about things. I think, if we would all follow the above guidelines, we’d end up with around 100 open notes at any point at most, and those would be notes that require surveying or follow-up.