Firstly I completely agree with the original point - unless the existing OSM streets are clearly unfinished work (perhaps indicated by being drawn with Potlatch but never given a street name, indicating no ground survey) it is not right to just replace them wholesale with tracing from OS.
However I'd like to point out that 'ground survey' versus 'OS' is a false dichotomy. Firstly the existing OSM topology is not always from ground surveys. More often than not it will be a trace from Yahoo aerial imagery. Secondly, how do you know that the Ordnance Survey does not also use ground surveys? They are not on a mission to make crappy, inaccurate maps, any more than we are. Let's not set ourselves up as some kind of superior body of mappers. But also, let's get priorities straight. Surely the purpose of OSM is to create a freely usable, complete and high-quality map. Providing a fun hobby for people who like to walk around with GPS units is only a side-effect. Anything which helps us complete or improve the map is to be welcomed. (Personally, I have found the OS data provides plenty of motivation to resurvey areas which I had previously considered complete.) -- Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
