Now that I’m on a roll…
Don’t use distance mapped, use images taken. In my opinion the perfect distance is 3 meters between images, on a highway much more (double or triple that, lett’s say 10 meters)). But in the context where we are talking I think you can fix it (for now) to 3 meters.
Thus (going into percentages again) on or above 3 meters: 100% score
2 meters: 71% (2/3 = 66%+5; give slightly more then at 3 meters)
1.5 meters: 55% (1.5/3=50%+5, just slightly more then 50%…)
< 1.5 meters I’dd say remove half of the images from the process!! (effectively going to 3 meters…)
(formula is a quicky, prevent from getting more at 2.99 meters then at 3 meters… but you get the point I hope)
If you find this a bit harsh you could go to 1 meters and then go to doubling (effectively going to a minimum of 2 meters)
Mapillary (my main reference in this) went mostly for quantity and attempts to increase quality because of that… When “we” are going “full 360” (i hope?) we do not need to get to a system where multiple “flat images” get combined into a 360-like image (fantastic piece of programming… but never as good as a single good 360)…
I say go for quality, in the broader sense of the word. And that goal should be reflected in the scoring model…
I wrote this @mapillary last year:
do not underestimate the power of scoring / ranking.
In “the good old days” I was one of the top Dutch contributors of the Berkeley SETI@home project (distributed computing project to find ET). The only thing gained were points and a team one could join. I built the statistical engine and graphics for the top Dutch SETI-team. We had competitions with other teams, other members etc! Why? Because we loved the concept and… well never underestimate the power of scoring / ranking
Above all, the scoring system must be transparent and fair… I take great pride in that 100% of my uploaded images are 360 degree images. That doesn’t give me anything in the “leader boards”, I don’t mind, but I do think it would help if Mapillary would implement a scoring system that would be more then just 1 image = 1 point. Give more points to better images… like in that complete the map link earlier (and do give +2 for 360 images ), give like two extra points for never mapped roads, one extra point when the previous image of that spot is over two years old, 1 or so points for an image that has been made less then a week ago etc… something like that!
I realize that would cost some extra CPU power for Mapillary, but I am sure the overall image quality would improve… in the end, quality must win over quantity, must it not?
AD: I think a scoring system I wrote about earlier is even better
PS: to add to the philosophical discussion that started after my post. There is also quality in quantity. But I dare to write there is even more quality when there is more quality in the quantity.