Quoting Simone Cortesi <[email protected]>:
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Katie Filbert <[email protected]> wrote:
Some of the problematic things I found earlier this week when surveying:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/179039
http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/178197
It's difficult to go back and look at the deleted buildings and say which
were better, but I don't think any were kept as far as i can tell. We even
put in addresses! and they were deleted. I don't think that was necessary.
It is easy to do such things if you take advantage of non local
mappers taking decisions based only on satellite imagery and not local
knowledge.
@alex: how many "import guys" were local from NYC compared to non-local?
--
-S
It really depends on the data and the satellite imagery. The data
might be current, but most likely the satellite imagery is not. That
way a mapper who is not on the actual site cannot make informed
decisions.
Regarding conflating data (keeping existing buildings which are
well-surveyed): it might be hard to do if conflicts occur, for example
when buildings overlap. Something needs to be adjusted. This depends
on the quality of both the existing and the imported data.
One thing which is neither hard nor difficult is to contact the
mappers who have surveyed them, and discuss with them what should be
done with their data. An import should not behave like a steamroller,
since that would only make the case for future imports more difficult,
which is completely understandable
Frank
_______________________________________________
Imports mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
