In other news, someone somewhere did something, and someone somewhere should deal with it.
Would you care to point out what the problems are, or heaven forbid fix them yourself? We've got this wonderful interface that anyone (even you) can use to change data in the database that people have incorrectly put in. Out of interest, what nearmap imagery is out-of-date? If someone has 'completed' a road which doesnt exist, then how did you map it as a new road? If youre going to talk vague cryptic hints, what exactly are you expecting out of it, since youre obviously not expecting anyone to give an opinion on the changes nor an opinion on the currency of imagery? Maybe youre expecting that a certain unnamed user will (if they happen to see your message) go through their recent edits looking for anything that doesnt match what youve mapped? If you dont educate new users who made mistakes, then what use are you, just a complainer with no interest in rectifying the situations? David On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 20:00 +1000, Nick Hocking wrote: > A nearmapper has decided that badly out-of-date nearmap imagery was > more authorative than my GPS traces (taken last weekend) and has > "completed" a road that is not there any longer. It has been > completely grassed over so that cars can not travel along it, for some > time to come, and barricades have been placed at the ends. > > Well done guys, you are well on the way to making OSM as "good" as > google maps. This reinforces my belief that imagery (whether Bing or > nearmap) should never be used for anything that needs to be routable. > > I hope the user has the gumption to quitely revert his incorrect > changes. I don't suppose anyone wondered why I would go so far out of > my way to map all the new roads and then fail to drive the last bit of > this one. > > > He also found a bit of pavement that I has missed mapping so that was > good. He used a bit of poetic licence to mark it "one way". Even > though there are no "one way" markings on the road itself, the > topography indicates that it can ONLY be one way, so I think that this > action was entirely appropriate even though it departs from "map only > what is on the ground". > > Nearmap ( near enough is good enough) > Sorry Nearmap - I'm not having a go at your excellent imagery, just > the way some people choose to use it. > > PS - I drove back out there again this morning to check on a street > sign where I was sure I had a typo (and I did, although I now can't > fix it). There were some more new roads open so I have mapped them as > well. > > Sorry guys, nearmap will have to fly and process Canberra every week > to keep up with an interested local mapper (and thats only for the > road topology - names are something else again). > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
