Longer version:
Today, I was looking for documentation in the wiki about what kind of data is accepted in OSM and what is not. In other words, I was looking for OSM’s scope. Because of that, I quickly found a page called Scope - OpenStreetMap Wiki which redirects to Earth - OpenStreetMap Wiki , that basically states that “all verifiable parts of the planet proper are in-scope”. While obvious (there’s no way for anyone to map features outside the Earth even if they wanted to), it is true, but also limited and, potentially, problematic.
As it stands, the page just recognises as scope the geographical scope of the accepted data and leaves out other, more important (or less obvious) criteria that have to do with the types of accepted features. This is partly (or greatly -albeit in a negative form) in this page: Limitations - OpenStreetMap Wiki
IMHO, the scope page should provide information about what falls within OSM remit because it is within its geographical and thematic boundaries. An easy fix would be that the scope page simply linked to those two pages (Earth - OpenStreetMap Wiki and Limitations - OpenStreetMap Wiki), albeit some further context would be appreciated.
While I know how to edit the wiki, I honestly do not know if this is the right place to propose this change, nor what’s the protocol for that. For that reason, I would like to know if someone else thinks that would be a better way to organise the wiki, and if so, what would need to happen for this proposal to be rejected or accepted (and thus, implemented).
While I endorse your attempt as a starting point, I still think that we ought to better define what falls within our scope (and what does not). Thus, there is an overlap with the Limitations page (which I don’t know how to address).
Particularly, I have an issue with:
as a rule of thumb, anything verifiable that falls within the planet Earth, and is not private or copyrighted that is compatible with OSM license and added manually would be welcome.
…that’s arguably the scope of Wikipedia, but not OSM. We don’t (quite) welcome things like
prices of goods and services sold at given locations
names of living individuals, even non-private (think government members, sports teams, creators,…)
There’s certainly more things that theoretically could be put in our database, but are generally considered out of scope. It’s currently touched upon in Limitations#Not_everything_is_mappable_in_OSM, but perhaps could be expanded with more categories and examples.
Thank you for your input. This is precisely the kind of information that I was looking for and the kind of information I’d expect to find in a scope page (even if it is just a page pointing to other resources).
Hopefully, my last edit would address your initial concern, but I acknowledge that even that has its own issues. should we discuss them here?
actually you can map things in space, as long as their position relative to the earth is stationary (in particular, satellites on geostationary orbits), basically you add an altitude to the coords. Some people seem to be doing it already: altitude | Keys | OpenStreetMap Taginfo (those which are indicating just a few hundred meters obviously not).
regarding this sentence, we do include lots of private things, e.g. restaurants, hotels, shops, factories, buildings, driveways, forests, fields and more, private stuff is almost completely in scope, what we do not include is personal information about individuals.
Great work, @ccamara! I made a couple minor tweaks to the page.
I think the next step would be to add links to it from the appropriate places, so that it can be found more easily by those for whom this information may be useful.
Thank you for your kind words and for your contributions!
I honestly believe that it can be useful, specially for newcomers, so I agree in relation to next steps and your proposed links from the aforementioned pages.
In case you aren’t being ironic: I don’t see anything particularly outrageous on the first few pages of results, just opportunities to retag to ele=* and fix number formatting. The handful of features tagged altitude=3540 are in La Paz, which is at about that elevation in meters. There could also be some unit confusion in there, since there’s a natural tendency to express elevations in feet in part of the world.
