Hi there I find myself agreeing with Craig. Coverage and up-to-date'dness would be key to quality. Following that, detail (the difference between a named road, and completely zoned area and typed/named road with POI of important points). The "big name with a g" seems to be what people measure up against, which I dislike. Mostly because they measure the candy, features and looks against real useful data. Adding on to Gerhardus' response, then yes, density comparison, but like him, I have my doubts in its value.
Marlon > Marlon B v/d Linde ( [email protected] ) > [ ▇ ▄ ▅ █ ▇ ▂ ▃ ▁ ▄ ▅ █ ▅ ▇ ] On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Craig Leat <[email protected]> wrote: > The devil is in the detail. I would say you can have a high quality > map, but with limited coverage. Think of the site plan of your house. > To assess quality or coverage I don't think you can compare OSM to > other map providers, as which provider represents the gold standard? I > would change the question to rather look at suitability for a task and > then define the task. > > Craig > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ZA mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-za >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ZA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-za
