Hi everyone,
I would like to discuss the massive increase of anonymous and unsourced road name related notes in Manitoba, Saskatchawan and Alberta spanning a period of 3 months. These notes cover a area south of the 56th parallel north to the US border and would be nearly impossible to survey.
Agreed, it does seem fairly extensive:
Itâs theoretically conceivable that these are made as a result of driving and noting posted names, but the format makes it less likely: itâs not from a logged in user, and thereâs no app signature. So it is suspicious and could be copying from a disallowed source.
At this point I would let the Data Working Group know, and ask them to mass-close or mass-hide these anonymous notes made within the last couple of months. I would also be interested in checking if theyâre from the same IP, or same user agent (if logged), and if thereâs trends in when theyâre made.
I wish they had made an account, so we could ask about the source. I would prefer to not have to assume bad faith.
I wonder - are these names in Geobase?
Hm, interesting. I happened upon of a few of these sorts of notes that were definitely legitimate, e.g. 4431035, 4431036. I also pre-emptively closed one that seemed very dubious to me, 4431007. Didnât realize they were part of a larger pattern of anonymous notes⌠
Looking at a few of these notes in more detail, I picked the bunch at the unincorporated community of Sinclair, Manitoba (OpenStreetMap) as an example. There are seven notes, two of which are âcorrectionsâ (âsorry, this is Main Streetâ, âthis is actually Lumsden Streetâ), so itâs definitely the work of one person and they donât seem to be automated. Checking Bing, Google, and a map using GeoBase data: they all seem to jive with the notes. Theyâre probably all using the same source, probably CanVec.
However, going a few kilometres ENE thereâs a note saying âEwart Roadâ. Is it actually called âEwart Roadâ, or is it simply the old road to the âghost townâ Ewart (essentially nothing more than a roadside cairn at this point)? All the aforementioned maps in the paragraph above do not call this road âEwart Roadâ; they call it âRoad 165 Wâ, following southern Manitobaâs road grid (â165Wâ = ~165 miles west of the Principal Meridian (97°27â˛28.41âł west)). Some of these âgrid roadsâ have actual ânamesâ in addition to the numerical reference; many donât. See Manitoba - OpenStreetMap Wiki. Given the addition of road names like this that donât exist on commercial maps like Google and Bing, it doesnât seem likely that the user was just blindly, blithely copying from these sorts of (unacceptable) sources.
Given the pattern of these notes, it seems perfectly plausible that an anonymous user could have been travelling along major highways (the Trans-Canada, Manitoba PTH 2 & 16, etc.) and noted the names of the cross-roads every mile or so. 
I think either way, the course of action should be the same:
By policy, anonymous notes must be verified (âThis note includes comments from anonymous users which should be independently verified.â).
If the notes can be verified with license-appropriate sources (e.g. Canvec/Geobase, free-license streetside imagery, or any local open data), then the data can be added.
If not, the data should not be added. (Yes, in practice a lot of times it is, and there have been users who made a lot of changes based on anonymous notes, but the theory is clear that it shouldnât be happening.)
So then, in theory, we donât need the notes. At most, the notes are drawing attention to where we could add data. But there could be other sources for that, like QA tools comparing other data sources with OSM, or even just QA tools that point to OSM roads that have neither a name nor a ref nor noname=yes/noref=yes. In theory.
I really appreciate travelling surveyors, I believe that these notes could be from one legitimate person, and I know other editors who travel and make notes like this (if on a slightly smaller geographical scale). But they need to get an account so they start building up a reputation and their input can be trusted. Otherwise, if you ask, we canât use it.
Agreed, either way the info needs to be independently verified, and yeah, I see your point about these notes becoming essentially superfluous given the info therein canât be taken at face value.
Just a crying shame if this was the diligent work of someone who actually physically surveyed these roads⌠
