On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 01:00:54PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2013/3/30 Florian Lohoff <f...@zz.de> > > > Define long-term. > > I think you can't define this on a global level, it depends heavily on the > local activity whether it makes sense to enter a mid-term interruption into > OSM or ignore it. > > > When you look into cat manufacturer supplied satnav systems people drive > > around with 4-5 year old maps - which are still perfectly okay. > > With OSM-data I wouldn't expect someone to use 4 or 5 year old data on the > other hand ;-) > > > If we start tagged ultra-short-term problems the maps cant be put into > > offline systems like in-dash satnavs. > > offline systems without updating possibility will always have the problems > you get with a single snapshot (e.g. errors introduced by novice mappers or > for other reasons and corrected shortly after, e.g. recently we had such a > case in the Italian motorway system which caused a deviation for everyone > using this motorway (one of two for North-South-connections, so roughly > half the long-range traffic). I think we should discourage people from > mapping the current state just because it might change in a few months and > people using old data and not updating it would have problems, instead I > believe that real time data will get even more important than it is already > now.
Realtime might be possible in Europe - We have huge areas in the World where realtime is simply impossible due to missing IP infrastructure. And mapping a disruption/destroyed infrastructure is not only a matter of mapping resources but also whether the data is still usable. If there is a local divert - dont delete the bridge if their will be a new one within e.g. 6 Months. The map data with the bridge intact are still usable and fine. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk