On 9 April 2010 19:00, Kevin Peat <ke...@kevinpeat.com> wrote: > > On 9 April 2010 18:40, Robert Scott <li...@humanleg.org.uk> wrote: > > >> Hasn't one of OSM's (many) mantras been "doesn't matter if it's >> approximate: someone can always improve it later" or "rough is better than >> nothing"? Sure, some of the OS data is rough, but it is better than nothing, >> and quite good for a first pass. >> > > +1 on this. > > Speaking for myself...
I'm going to trace OS data where it adds to the map, and I agree that it is always better if *any* data is cross-checked (whether one person's GPS-derived data by another, or OS by GPS, or GPS by OS). The big problem seems to be that we have a chaotic mix of slightly unsatisfactory tools to help people see what needs to be checked, and large parts of the country that I suspect will never be fixed in the way that mine can because I walk around it all the time. Who knows if my footway up Cwm Bychan traced from a GPX file is accurate, or if all the OS-traced areas in (let's face it) the poorer parts of London are accurate? Will people landing on openstreetmap.org and looking at Norwood or Bermondsey in London know that there are missing names (the "nonames" layer isn't exactly in your face), or any of the numerous other problems exist that you can find it you chance upon the many confusing tools people have produced? Will they notice that some of the early mappers made apparently random errors in assigning road classifications in the London Bridge area, and notice smaller streets out into Bermondsey and north Peckham that I won't pick up on when surveying my route into work? Best wishes, Tom p.s. I will be checking Robert's trace of my parents' house in Bedford... -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
