On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:31 AM, David Bannon <dban...@internode.on.net>wrote:
> Guys, can I respectfully suggest that source=survey ? Vicmaps (and > others) sometimes show roads that have been closed, land sold off etc. > Those roads will show up in imagery because the car tracks last a long > time on the ground. Further, visiting the site can clarify the state and > status of a road. Road names on published maps are sometimes wrong, lets > not propagate those errors ! > > Lets restrict mapping via imagery to those situations where survey is > not possible. > > Hi David, The policy shift you're advocating is enormous. You're proposing that virtually all armchair mapping cease, that the rate of OSM mapping be reduced by 100x, and that many contributors essentially stop mapping. Naturally, I oppose this suggestion :) You seem to be falling into the trap of assuming there is some kind of "aerial imagery vs survey" choice. Obviously the best thing for OSM is both. Advantages of aerial mapping: - many times faster - more accurate than GPS traces in some/many/most cases - contribution from people for whom site surveys are not practical/possible/desirable - quickly do the groundwork so a site survey is more efficient and focuses on relevant details Advantages of site surveys: - get details that can't be obtained from the air - GPS traces more accurate than aerial mapping in some/many/most cases - fun (for some people) Me, I do a lot of aerial mapping. When I'm out and about I try to use what I've seen to update OSM. But I don't travel hundreds of kilometres out of my way just to do a bit of site surveying. In summary: let the aerial mappers keep doing their thing, let the ground surveyors do their thing, and let's work together for the good of the project. Steve
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
