On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 08:59 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: > (Personally, I would be arguing against it. "Don't do X because the > result would be less accurate than if you did Y" is an unhelpful kind > of perfectionism. The line makes the point that accuracy is important. > Well, coverage is also important. And you could argue that it's much > more efficient to map from aerial imagery first, then correct errors > with a local visit.) > >
I have absolutely no objection to map from aerial imagery first, then correct errors with a local visit - as along as you are intending to make that visit in the very near future. For example, we were to hold a conference here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=13.03175&lon=77.56565&zoom=17&layers=M before the conference I did a rough sketch from satellite imagery. On arrival at the spot I found that the ground reality was totally at variance with the satellite imagery - and I got lost! what I object to is mapping a place one has no intention of visiting -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
