On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 2:39 AM, James Ewen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
In general, in areas where people like you or I have been extensively mapping, Openstreetmap will easily beat Google Maps - both in correctness and in extensiveness. The problem that remains for Openstreetmap is that the quality is so variable. It may equal the best that is around here, but only rudimentary 5 km away. Still, we are improving day by day, and if only we keep finding more and more volunteers who want to do their share, however small or large, one day we can say that even the bad parts are at least as good as Google. For some parts of the globe that day is not far off, for some parts it may even be today. -- André Engels, [email protected] _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
