> > Verifiability is another matter
That's the matter I want to cover. I'm not concerned with the legal side of it. My method is verifiability based on our data set. It can be proven and can be quantified to internal consistency. How does their data set which "consists of street-level imagery collected by their drivers, plus aerial imagery they've licensed from a vendor for the purpose of mapping in OSM" provide more value to Landuse tagging? iD has bing aerial imagery integration, and Mapillary/Bing street-level imagery. As I see it, this data can be used to map all physical attributes relevant to a determination on landuse automatically. How is this data useful aside from that process? I can see residential/retail buildings as I know them, and I map them very frequently from that data. After they're in OSM what _more_ information does this data offer to a determination for unnamed landuse of developed land? I would analyze both datasets the same way. Is this area delineated by roads dominated with single family detached homes? If it is, regardless of the areal imagery, f4map, or osm-carto: it's enough to establish residential land use? (Assuming the other point about "architectural origins" doesn't hold, as it's not documented in the wiki). If we in fact have a system where we support mapping shops as detached single-value houses because mappers functioning as historians viewed that it was likely their role a hundred years prior, then all of this is a fools errand and the data really has much less value then I take it for. -- Evan Carroll - m...@evancarroll.com
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
