On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:35:01 +0900 "Andrew Laughton" <laughton.and...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, very easy to fix, and I have fixed other roads that were also > wrong, the worry is, how many others need fixing and where are they. > Maybe a polite message could solve the problem, or maybe a rough > position is better than no position, and there is no problem. I think there's actually 2 issues you've hit on in this. One you outline here and the other is the issue of what the original author used as a source for the estimation. On the issue you have listed here I'd suggest at some level it would be a good thing to have rough estimations drawn in, at least for major features (which landsat can provide if nothing else), an empty block of map just doesn't help anyone at all really. Data can always get more accurate as time goes by as someone with more specific information refines the paths, much like you are doing in this case. When new data obviously over-rides older data in the map people should not have hesitation correcting things. The other issue is a potentially nastier one, especially given that landsat supports something approximating the traces you made in this case, I worry that your suspicions may be correct, or perhaps that the person who drew it in based it upon personal experience from a long time ago (dodgy source at best ;). I think a polite message suggesting that you are concerned about the source of his data might not go astray in this case. -- Darrin Smith s...@salseast.org _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au