Also the area we are lacking at the moment is rights of way, these are often not visible on satellite imagery and the only way to map them is to go out and walk them with a GPS.
Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 18/11/2013 13:03 SomeoneElse wrote: Jonathan wrote: ... but are traces really that important now? They have some uses but the bulk of sources now and going forward are from other methods? If "other methods" means "copying from other data sources rather than actually going out and surveying" then you're never going to get "the best map", only "a map that is in some areas almost as good as some others". For example, yesterday I was here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/53.2346/-0.3269 Without going there you'd be able to guess at the exent of the woodland (depending on the age of the Bing imagery) and you'd think (based on what OS OpenData says) that it's called "Stanfield Wood". If you go and have a look you can see the correct name ("Stainfield Wood" - which matches the village to the north), who runs it, and the fact that it's not open to the public. The actual GPS trace is useful for helping to spot places where Bing is offset from reality (although here in flat Lincolnshire it's only a 4-5m at a guess). Cheers, Andy
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
