On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) <[email protected]> wrote: > Martin - CycleStreets wrote: >>Sent: 06 April 2010 1:36 AM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Separation of sources >> >> >> >>If I may offer the view of a user of OSM data rather than a creator. >> >>Patchy areas of OSM cause real difficulties for CycleStreets, not only in >>reputational terms but in terms of debugging. Places where the basic road >>pattern is absent undermine our ability to demonstrate that a UK-wide >>system using open data works everywhere - nor can we even promote the >>system effectively because of this. We get plenty of bug reports that >>clearly arise simply as a result of missing basic road data, never mind the >>subtleties of additional cycle infrastructure (which in other areas of OSM, >>are stunningly good). > > Are you feeding this information back to OSM contributors? If we knew where > bugs were being created then some of the community might be happy about > tackling the worst spots to improve the data.
Cyclestreets do a great job of improving the OSM data based on their feedback - not only the main cyclestreets developers but a few other well-known OSM contributors (i.e. Shaun) help out too. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
