On Sep 26, 2012, at 8:13 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > On 26.09.2012 19:44, Richard Weait wrote: >> I think that "drawing all of the nodes and points manually" is an >> important difference, from a quality point of view. Each node or way >> that you draw by hand, is carefully considered and placed, one at a >> time. It isn't perfect; nothing is. I suggest that this leads to a >> kind of automatic quality control, as the nodes and ways are placed. > > To give an example, look at this imported building > > http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/funnybuilding.png
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/182524106 > A very careful tracer of the aerial image might indeed have created more than > just one shape for this, but there is hardly anything there on the imagery > that suggests *such* a complex edifice. It's clearly a "blind" import, that has already been detected and mentioned on the talk-fr list. It's bad. Side note: we have here another big difference between raster and vector imports. Vector can easily be imported quick and dirty, raster can't be quick, but it can be dirty (typical example: bad geo referencing). But it doesn't say anything about the quality of vector vs. raster imports *when done correctly*. And if you assume that the contributors generally work incorrectly, then no guideline will help, only hard quality gates and review processes will. But that's not the OSM spirit. > This is not an example that you only find after a long search; it is a > typical cadastre import building. Until you can back up your claim with solid numbers, your claim, more specifically the word"typical", is just FUD. Furthermore it can hurt many hard working french contributors, who for a single city spent dozens of hours integrating the cadaster into OSM. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
