On 07/03/12 15:45, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
I was wondering why people think that. Even trying to put myself in
place of someone who thinks the license change is the best thing since
sliced bread I still can't see the reasons for remapping. First of
all it costs more work than adding data from scratch and it takes
people's time away from doing actual mapping -- creating new data. So
it's not a zero net gain operation -- i.e. we lose new contributions,
but we get to keep the same amount of work which would have been
deleted. Rather, after the potential switch-over we will have less
data than if we kept on doing on what we always did.
I have been examining the data marked as something that will be lost in
an area fairly close to me. Much of this was created many years ago and
the original editor has not responded to attempts to contact them.
Much of this is based on poor-quality aerial imagery. Replacing it with
a survey or even more recent imagery creates much higher quality data,
not least better geometry. I have gone on to improve other work
sometimes by adding extra detail for example roundabout flares, road
names (from survey or other open sources) and adding otherwise missing
roads, tracks etc.
Like-for-like replacement might not be useful, but much of this is a
positive improvement and worthwhile in its own right. I might not have
looked at some of these areas without the process of licence change. I
will now be reviewing the whole area (northern Lincolnshire, UK) over
the next few months and I expect to find lots of potential improvements,
just like anywhere else.
--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
