(cc:ed to talk-gb, probably better discussed there) Ben Ward wrote:
> The other thing that worried me was that the existing 'rough' traces haven't > been deleted, just left to co-exist with replacement roads. The editor is > listed as "Potlatch Alpha", but there is no hi-res imagery for this area, On a quick glance I haven't seen whether this is the case or not in Exeter, but pre-0.5, Potlatch didn't display "unwayed segments" by default. So you do sometimes get ways which were once unwayed segments coexisting with Potlatch-drawn ways. Whether this was the fault of Potlatch or of people leaving unwayed segments around is a moot point, I think. ;) Potlatch hasn't tagged its edits as "alpha" for a while now so it does suggest these are older edits. > so I'm guessing the mapping comes from GPX traces (right?). This makes me > rather suspicious about the completeness of the road names and survey when > there appear to be quite complex junctions mapped without any traces but > lots of names. I've quite often mapped junctions without getting traces for every constituent part - instead, just taken a few and noted the layout of the junction on paper. When there's a lot of detail involved it's usually best not to rely on GPS. FWIW after a very quick look at Exeter I can't immediately see anything untoward. cheers Richard _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
