On 5 September 2011 19:18, Ian Sergeant <inas66+...@gmail.com> wrote: > Personally, I think people shouldn't map areas when they don't have any > knowledge of the topology and layout because I think fixing errors takes > several orders of magnitude longer than the tracing.
Who cares? That's not the right comparison. Does fixing the errors take several times longer than editing it from nothing? If so, after you've visited it locally and are ready to edit, box select, delete, now there's nothing, problem solved. If not, then they've saved you some work, and almost certainly got a better geometry than just a local visit and gps can get. The local visit can certainly add more details, (street names for a start) but it's damn rare that it will get a better overall layout positioning. Lot's of gps traces can be just as good, but that takes multiple visits on different days to get good averaging. > Any perceived time > saving is illusory, when someone has to visit the area sooner or later > anyway. Again, who cares? If somebody wants to spend the time, that's up to them. And in the meantime, we know that there is something there, at least, and it's not just blank. Beside which, you're wrong. I've done a lot of mapping, and it takes the less time overall to do an area from good imagery first, then go fill in the details on the ground than to do it all from tracing. It also makes the ground visit quicker, because you have a base map to add the details and corrections to. I like spending time outside, mapping. But I can find a half hour late at night to spend in front of the computer a lot easier, especially as I have to go further from home. I try and do stuff where I can go later and add the other details required. But I'd rather fill in a area and put something there than leave it blank. Stephen _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
