On 12/05/2008 22:51, Andy Allan wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:16 PM, David Earl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I think it is terribly hard to know whether you have all the footpaths, >> and I think we'd hardly ever mark anywhere "complete" if we did that. > > I think it's terribly hard to know when a map is correct and complete, > regardless of what you're considering.
There will always be some unintentional errors, but I am confident enough of mapping villages and sections of towns systematically to be able to assert that I have completed it to that measure of completeness - that I have visited every street and got every name possible. (But I don't mind using some other word for it if you like, e.g. a confidence level or some such). I think I would have a much harder time being systematic about footpaths, especially the rural ones, so I wouldn't have the same degree of confidence in my mapping of a footpath network. Maybe if that's what I specialised in my confidence would grow, but the concept of junctions where you can note the other routes from from need attention seems a much less well defined concept for footpaths. But the main point about footpaths is that using that as the only measure would be very dispiriting because it would be so hard to complete any reasonable areas to that standard, and completeness at the street level is very useful for lots of purposes that doesn't require footpaths so is worth showing to consumers. David _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk