Re: [Talk-ca] Qualiuty of OSM data

On 2016-08-31 06:31 PM, Adam Martin wrote: > I would also like to take a read through that document. Sounds interesting. It *may* have been this one: “Node location anomaly — Jochen Topf” but I may be misremembering. > A giant

Re: [Talk-ca] Qualiuty of OSM data

I would also like to take a read through that document. Sounds interesting. CANVEC has been good for the Canadian mapping efforts, but it is stale data and not highly accurate. Yet it provides us a base to work from and has the benefit of filling the map with ... something. A giant blank gap for

Re: [Talk-ca] Qualiuty of OSM data

I've read it in the past, I do agree cavec is not 100% accurate, but in areas with absolutely nothing, it is better than a blank map: which is useless. On Aug 31, 2016 6:02 PM, "dega" wrote: Hi everybody! On 2016-08-31 Stewart C. Russell wrote: > A paper published in the

[Talk-ca] Qualiuty of OSM data

Hi everybody! On 2016-08-31 Stewart C. Russell wrote: > A paper published in the last couple of years (by Anita Graser, maybe?) > showed that CanVec imports were the largest source of spurious precision > in the entire OSM database. If somebody has a link to that document, I would like to get it.