On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Shaun McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Take a look at > <http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=15&lat=6718359.62403&lon=859.10713&layers=B000 > > Actually, those areas aren't the problem at hand - we know someone needs to go get the names, it's pretty obvious someone was tracing and there's plenty of names to be had. The issue is the partially-done, somewhat scrappy areas, like http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=15&lat=6718359.62403&lon=859.10713&layers=B000 I don't know whether Dave or Shaun or Harry or anyone else has gone and checked these roads. And there's no point in me checking them, finding that they don't have a name, and also finding on Wednesday in the pub that all three of them have also checked these roads in the last few weeks. That would be a waste of time, and its this double-over-checking that Dave and SteveC are trying to avoid. And it's a problem that's only really apparent in urban areas with both Yahoo! imagery and lots of overlapping mappers, so it's a concept that only really applies there. I wouldn't suggest that someone goes adding noname tags to rural areas like http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=15&lat=6718359.62403&lon=859.10713&layers=B000 , and if you're not trying to deal with the same problem as we are then the problem might seem nonsensical to you. Cheers, Andy Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
