In almost all other science and technology fields we use instrumentation to allow us to "see" what would otherwise be too dangerous, expensive or just impossible to see with our unaided human senses. Mapping is no different. We use satellite (more generically overhead) imagery to "see" areas where it would be too expensive, time consuming or in some cases dangerous for us to travel to in person.
There is nothing wrong with overhead imagery. One must just not use it beyond its limits. There are going to be some things that are not obvious and crystal clear from overhead imagery, assumptions should not be made in these cases, and those things should not be mapped based on this one source alone.. Mike On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson <j...@betra.is> wrote: > > Þann 23.8.2014 01:03, skrifaði Dave F.: > > > > http://maproulette.org/#t=osmose-8170-147-soccer/osmose-8170-147-soccer-None-d19295cc3e005283ae80b66bde86f474 > Supposed missing soccer pitch in France. I mean, really? > > I believe these sites add more inaccuracy than accuracy. > > > Hello Dave. On the contrary I've tried the soccer pitch thing and so far > out of around 50 I've drawn only 1 was not a soccer pitch, the rest were > all very obvious soccer pitches with goals, lines and everything. > > Knock it after you try it. > > --Jói > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
