NSI: Higher Threshold For Amenity Operator Features?

by Lucas 53 views

Hey guys! Let's dive into a discussion about a potential change in how we handle amenity operators within the name-suggestion-index (NSI). Specifically, we're talking about raising the bar for when an operator gets its own entry in the NSI, particularly for schools.

The Current Situation

Currently, the script used by the iD editor and nsi-collector creates an entry for each operator=* value that appears on ten or more elements in OpenStreetMap (OSM). You can see the relevant code here. This threshold has been in place for a while, and over time, it's led to the NSI accumulating quite a few entries for school districts. The kicker? Many of these districts operate just a little over that ten-school threshold.

The School District Dilemma

Because of this existing coverage, contributors often request that we add even tiny rural school districts to the NSI. We're talking about districts that barely meet the minimum number of schools. While we've generally declined these requests, the sheer number of school districts in the U.S. alone – we're talking thousands – that operate ten or more schools means we could easily end up with a massive influx of entries. Check out this link for a glimpse at the numbers. Imagine the maintenance headache!

The Overhead Issue

This brings us to a crucial point: the overhead of managing these individualized entries. As this comment highlights, the small NSI maintainer team is already stretched thin. Adding a ton of entries for smaller school districts places a significant burden on them, and the benefits are questionable. The core purpose of the NSI is to ensure consistent tagging, but when it comes to a small school district, a local mapper should be perfectly capable of maintaining that consistency across the district's facilities themselves.

Brand Recognition and the NSI

Think about it another way. One of the other uses for NSI data is displaying brand icons on maps. But let's be real, the brand recognition of a tiny rural school district isn't exactly widespread. Including their logos might actually be counterproductive, cluttering the map without adding much value for the average user.

A Potential Solution: Raising the Threshold

So, what's the solution? We propose raising the threshold for including amenity operators in the NSI, specifically for amenity=school. While a threshold of ten elements might still make sense for other types of Points of Interest (POIs), for schools, a higher bar seems more appropriate. The current brand=* threshold of 50 schools sounds much more reasonable.

Benefits of a Higher Threshold

Raising the threshold wouldn't automatically erase existing NSI entries, but it would offer contributors a clearer understanding of the intended scope of our operator coverage. It would signal that the NSI is meant for operators with a significant presence, not every small entity. This could help us avoid future discussions about adding extremely localized operators.

Implications and Considerations

Of course, this change isn't without its implications. We need to consider:

  • Impact on existing entries: How do we handle the school districts that currently meet the ten-school threshold but wouldn't meet a higher one? Do we remove them immediately, or do we phase them out over time?
  • Exceptions: Are there any cases where a smaller school district might warrant inclusion in the NSI due to unique circumstances (e.g., a district with a very distinctive name or a significant historical importance)?
  • Community feedback: What do the mappers who actively contribute to school data think about this proposal? Their input is crucial.

Moving Forward: A Call to Action

This is where you guys come in! We want to hear your thoughts on this. Do you think raising the threshold for school operators is a good idea? What are the potential benefits and drawbacks? Are there any specific concerns we should address? Let's have a productive discussion and work together to make the NSI the best resource it can be!

Key Considerations for Discussion

Here’s a summary of the key points to consider as we discuss this proposal:

  • Current threshold: The current threshold of 10 elements for operator=* entries has led to a large number of school district entries in the NSI.
  • Overhead: Maintaining these numerous entries, especially for smaller districts, places a significant burden on the NSI maintainers.
  • Brand recognition: Smaller school districts often lack the brand recognition that makes inclusion in the NSI beneficial.
  • Proposed solution: Raise the threshold for amenity=school to 50, aligning it with the brand=* threshold.
  • Benefits: Clearer scope for NSI coverage, reduced maintenance burden, and better focus on operators with significant presence.
  • Implications: Impact on existing entries, potential exceptions, and community feedback.

Let’s delve deeper into these considerations:

Impact on Existing Entries: A Phased Approach?

One of the most pressing questions is what to do with the school districts that currently meet the 10-school threshold but would fall below a new, higher threshold. Several options are available, each with its own set of pros and cons.

  • Immediate Removal: This approach is the most straightforward. All districts not meeting the new threshold would be removed from the NSI. This would quickly reduce the maintenance burden and clarify the scope of the NSI. However, it could also lead to disruption for mappers who are accustomed to seeing these entries in the iD editor. There's a chance that useful local information might be inadvertently lost if mappers aren't aware of the change.

  • Phased Removal: A phased approach would involve gradually removing entries over time. This could be done by setting a specific date after which the lower-threshold entries would no longer be suggested. This would give mappers time to adjust and update their tagging practices. The downside is that it would prolong the maintenance burden and potentially create confusion during the transition period.

  • Archiving: Instead of outright removal, entries could be archived. This would mean they are no longer actively suggested in the iD editor, but the data would still be available for other uses, such as historical analysis or specialized applications. This option balances the need to reduce clutter with the desire to preserve valuable information.

Potential Exceptions: When Smaller Might Be Justified

While a higher threshold makes sense in general, there might be specific cases where a smaller school district warrants inclusion in the NSI. For example:

  • Unique Names: A district with a highly distinctive or unusual name might benefit from inclusion, as it could help mappers avoid typos and maintain consistency.

  • Historical Significance: A district with a long history or a significant role in its community might be considered for inclusion, even if it doesn't meet the numerical threshold.

  • Complex Administrative Structures: In some regions, school district boundaries can be complex and overlapping. Including these districts in the NSI could help mappers navigate these intricacies.

However, it's crucial to establish clear criteria for these exceptions to avoid opening the floodgates to requests for inclusion based on subjective factors. A well-defined set of guidelines would ensure that exceptions are rare and justified.

Community Feedback: The Most Crucial Element

Ultimately, the success of this proposal hinges on community buy-in. The mappers who actively contribute school data are the ones most affected by this change, and their feedback is essential. We need to hear their perspectives on:

  • The proposed threshold: Do they agree that 50 schools is a reasonable threshold? Should it be higher or lower?

  • The removal process: What approach to removing existing entries do they prefer? Immediate removal, phased removal, or archiving?

  • Potential exceptions: What criteria should be used to determine exceptions? Are there specific districts that should be considered?

This discussion should be as inclusive as possible, involving a wide range of contributors with diverse experiences and perspectives. By listening to the community and addressing their concerns, we can ensure that any changes to the NSI are well-informed and beneficial to the overall mapping effort.

Conclusion: Shaping the Future of NSI

Raising the threshold for amenity operators in the NSI is a significant decision with far-reaching implications. By carefully considering the various factors involved, engaging in open and honest discussion, and incorporating community feedback, we can shape the future of the NSI and ensure that it remains a valuable resource for mappers worldwide. This is an opportunity to refine our approach, streamline our efforts, and focus on the most impactful contributions to OpenStreetMap. Let’s work together to make it happen! This NSI improvement is a team effort!