On 6/11/2015 10:41 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
i am not persuaded that these armchair mappers are paying attention. unless there's a big warning "this imagery is X years old" that can't be ignored, i think the information will frequently be ignored.
I've seen this problem also - an area marked for construction, all roads bulldozed out, - the roads re-appear due to a TIGER<>OSM comparison test because they're in Bing.
An area where all buildings are demolished and a single large entity takes its place, add a circle / rectangle with a NOTE around the area: buildings reappear because they're in Bing.
My current strategy is to leave the original objects, just remove all tagging except for a note about Bing imagery dated xxxx is out of date.
Warning that "this imagery is X years old" will produce many false positives. Imagery will very frequently be older than the last edit for any particular object being updated.
What about a new type of "OSM tagging for the editor"? Tag a closed way with bing=out_of_date , old_date=xxxx? Editors would recognize this tagging and put some sort of X indicator over the imagery if the imagery is still old. Putting up a big X, a series of X's, or the phrase "out of date" over the imagery should catch anyone's attention.
I wish I could find the old Email in which there was an edit war over a roundabout intersection that had been reworked. Finally, someone got an image substituted in the editor that said "Not a Roundabout!".
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
