On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:00 PM, 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. > > It seems odd to me that we are encouraging people to contribute using often > pretty rubbish mobile phone gps receivers but complaining that the OS data > is not sub-metre accurate.
I think the point is not to assume that where OSSV and OSM disagree, that OSSV is necessarily the correct one. It might generally be, but if you can't go out and check, be very careful what you do. If it's just how curvy it is I generally find checking the OSM GPS traces is a good idea, because you often find the GPS trace just hasn't been followed very well. > > Maybe some people will be put off if the empty areas are filled in with OS > data so they don't have a blank canvas but I bet there are just as many > people out there not knowing where to start who would add street names and > POIs and clean-up any OS errors. That's a very good summary. By far the most important thing is not to leave a mess. Dave _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
