On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 19:08 +0000, graham wrote: > Surely completeness is relative to purpose? I have areas where all roads > between settlements are filled in but not the settlements, other urban > areas where all roads are filled in and named, others where all roads > and footpaths are complete. I haven't yet done any areas which have > complete traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, turn restrictions, bus > routes, administrative boundaries, or navigational information for > waterways. The possible purposes are pretty orthogonal - rather than a > set of numbered completeness, you'd need to allow multiple > 'complete_for=purpose' tags. And if you attach that to landuse > boundaries, what do you do in large urban areas where it's all residential?
I had a few roads which I considered "complete", but revisiting them a few months ago, I noticed they were of fairly low quality (node density wise). This could apply to any area. As a sideline, I wonder if wrong GPS traces will become a problem. In this scenario, imagine a road changing position (like the A8 in Port Glasgow [0]). The old GPS traces will still have the old position, so the majority (to start with) of traces are in the old place. [0] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=55.937&lon=-4.697&zoom=16&layers=B0FT -- Bruce Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
