Hi Marc
I had a footpath between them.
IMO users should be responsible for their own actions. Users should map
what they believe to be useful or important & objects with little
benefit just to prevent others adding errors. Especially when those
errors aren't "mistakes", but guesses made with aforethought.
I had another such edit from the same user yesterday. I asked him to
review & he's reverted which I'm grateful for, but it can't continue
like this. OSM users/editors can't be expected to be a validator's
validator.
I completely disagree that not adding a footpath makes the map
incorrect. Have you mapped every single physical object in your area?
To make the first edit even worse, a user from Iceland, presumably using
the Streetview image, has added grass, & other entities!
Cheers
Dave F.
On 16/10/2014 07:28, Marc Gemis wrote:
Dave,
IMHO the best way to avoid problems in that spot is to do what other
suggested: add the footpath between the 2 street (thereby fixing the
navigation for pedestrians) and/or adding the small piece of
landuse=grass + the tree.
I assume nobody will remove that just to fix a problem reported by an
QA-site. The site might not even report the problem (as there is a
footpath between the two and not an empty space)
I don't know what is worse, a local mapper that does not add the
footpath between the two streets or a armchair mapper that connects
the two. The map is incorrect in both cases...
The best way to "document" why 2 streets are not connected is by
mapping the obstacle between them or the other type of road between
them. That should exclude the spot from detection algorithms.
just my .5 cent
regards
m
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com
<mailto:dave...@madasafish.com>> wrote:
Ian
I will make & reinforce my point of view vehemently, especially
when misuse of Google is implied, & definitely when repeated
amendments are to the detriment of the database.
Regards
Dave F.
On 14/10/2014 17:22, Ian Dees wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com
<mailto:dave...@madasafish.com>> wrote:
On 13/10/2014 17:18, Aaron Lidman wrote:
Looking at the imagery I can see how it might be thought
they connect, especially when none of us are using google
maps for verification, right?
Wrong. I was using Streetview to confirm to the forum what I
already knew - that the roads don't join. I don't need Google
as I went there & did a proper visual survey, whereas your
employee just "thought" they "might" join. This armchair
guesswork is bad for the OSM database: If you're unsure if an
edit will improve the quality of the map - please don't make it.
I use the validation software you mention, but only to
correct data that I have first hand knowledge of & never to
amend something in another time zone where I've never been.
Even when I do use them, I stop to think whether it is an
accurate error report & not blindly fix it assuming it must
be true.
A reminder to watch our language on the list. Like Frederik said,
assume good intentions and don't use hyperbole or "loud words" to
force your point.
Thanks,
Your friendly list moderator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<http://www.avast.com/>
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast!
Antivirus <http://www.avast.com/> protection is active.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
