For *that* particular imagery, yes. My point is that blindly saying that you shouldn't trace from imagery if you haven't visited the place is not a hard rule. There are a lot of circumstances when tracing is actually OK.
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 3:19 AM, John F. Eldredge <j...@jfeldredge.com> wrote: > So, you are saying that you feel OpenStreetMap should reflect the status of > the road when the aerial photo was made, rather than the current status? > > -------Original Email------- > Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced > From :mailto:sea...@gmail.com > Date :Sun Dec 19 10:17:51 America/Chicago 2010 > > > On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:04 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2010/12/15 Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com>: >>> I'm sorry, but no. This is not common practice, nor is it desirable. >>> Could we please not give advice which only reflects personal >>> preferences? >>> >>> Fwiw, highway=road is for when you know *nothing* about a road. Can >>> you tell me, hand on heart, that you would not tag this road: >>> >>> http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-38.107325,145.15275&z=20&t=k&nmd=20101020 >>> >>> as highway=residential, maxspeed=50, surface=paved, lanes=2? >> >> >> If I knew the road I would surely do it. For the _point_ you linked >> to, it seems correct (the maxspeed at least for one direction), but I >> still would have to guess, that this maxspeed is valid for the other >> direction as well (probably yes, but you cannot be sure) and that it >> is valid for the whole road. > > If I was a tourist and I went to that particular spot and saw that > "50" on the ground, I still wouldn't know if the speed limit is just > for one direction or both and if it applies to the whole road. So even > if I were on the ground, my information would not be much better than > if I traced from that particular aerial imagery. > >> Don't know if it is a residential street either (could be unclassified >> or tertiary). Of course you don't know for other restrictions (e.g. >> weight, but also access=destination, ...). You can be quite sure for >> the information you provided above, but still you don't know if some >> important information (like access=destination) that you surely would >> insert if you had visited the place, is missing. > > OSM's a wiki, so other people can add those details. There's no need > to have everything topnotch on the first edit. Otherwise we'd have a > pretty blank map. > >> This discussion is simply about the quality level: are you satisfied >> with probable information derived from an aerial photo depicting the >> situation some years ago, or do you want to insert only information >> you verified on the ground and you can guarantee for? > > For aerial imagery that is of a high resolution and recency as > Nearmap's, I would rather trust an Australian to trace and add data > from that imagery even if he/she has not been to the place than if I > were to actually visit that place and add details from on the ground. > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > -- > John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com > "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to > think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk