Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Dave F. wrote: >> Please take that in context with its following sentence. Can you show >> me a router that can get me door to door no matter where I live? >> Or a search utility that returns no false-positives? > > Not with OSM, nor with any other dataset available for any amount of > money. > > OSM doesn't let you fly to the moon in 3 seconds either, one of the > many shortcomings that continue to disappoint me. > >>> I think the single most important reason why some ventures don't, >>> and will not, use OSM data is not the quality but the license. ODbL >>> or no ODbL. >> >> Evidently this incorrect. > > This is getting out of hand, foundations-of-debating-logically-wise. > Firstly, you cannot ever have evidence that it is incorrect when I say > "I think ...". Secondly, just because one or two or indeed "n" > examples exist where someone rejected our data because of quality, > this can never prove that there are not n+1 examples where someone > rejected our data for another reason.
And you can't prove the opposite! Please don't use "I think..." as a caveat against criticism. However, please, stick to the point of the thread: Lack of quality data & what can be done about it. > I'm happy to indulge in endless debates but if I have to start > explaining the basics of logic then my patience is exhausted. > > Bye > Frederik > > > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk