On 19/12/17 14:46, Brian Prangle wrote:
For those who decry the approach of using third party data, preferring
instead the personally surveyed approach, I echo Ilya's and Warin's
sentiments: Lloyds TSB demerged in 2013 and we still have 200 instances
of Lloyds TSB, TA Centres became Army Reserve Centres at about the same
time and we still have about 40 instances of TA Centre, Shell
purchased Total filling stations in 2012, and during the recent
validation exercise on Shell data, name=Total was the commonest error.
What about the the wholesale closure and transfer of Post Offices or
the planned closure of thousands of BT phone boxes? We don't have the
number of motivated mappers to do this, and expecting evrything to be
ground surveyed might be a reason why we have such a high attrition
rate; so we should emulate the rest of society and use automated IT
methods to assist us and make our lives easier where appropriate. OSM is
a balance between IT imported data/automated edits and human ground
surveys.
Which is exactly what everybody said about OSM when it started - that it
couldn't possibly work and there'd never be enough people.
Pretty sure we proved them wrong.
The fundamental problem of imports that conflate with existing data is
that you have way of knowing whether or not you are actually improving
anything - you are making an assumption that an "official" source will
be up to date and accurate but in the real world they are often anything
but.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
