Just as a point of interest in relation to the "quality" of the OSM data in a recent thread...
Google just added more data to my local area. There's some land cover information, showing treed area versus grassy areas, and they have also added some of the larger public buildings. I was immediately unimpressed by the quality of the "building" data. I went to the OSM/Google transparency site, and had a look to see how things compare. I know that the OSM building data is of much better quality, as I traced the outlines myself. I've spent quite a bit of time around these buildings with my children over the years, and can guarantee that the OSM shapes are much more representative of the real buildings. http://sautter.com/map/?zoom=16&lat=53.52022&lon=-113.29271&layers=B00000TFFFFF While OSM is not perfect, don't assume that Google maps are perfect either. Just because you pay money for something doesn't mean it is of good quality. Higher cost does not necessarily mean higher data quality. TeleAtlas data costs a fair amount, and contains a fair number of problems... James VE6SRV _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
