On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 10:53:07 -0400 Yuri Astrakhan <yuriastrak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 6:19 AM Martin Koppenhoefer > <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > speaking about risks, having an incomplete network of verified, > > correct roads is probably more useful and less troublesome than an > > "overcomplete" one which also contains non-existent roads (e.g. > > waterways interpreted as roads) or shows connections that aren't > > there in reality. > > I think this position should be a bit more nuanced. Taken to > absurdity, OSM map with a one percent of roads is far worse than > having 101% of the roads mapped with the help of AI with 1% of > extras, because fixing that 1% is far less work than adding 99% by > hand. I'm sure we can find a good balance between both positions. Having hiked in areas with 1% maps, and having hiked in areas with 101% maps, I have to say that I prefer the 1% map. With the 1% map, there's at least no question that you're off the map and on your own for route-finding. With the 101% map, it's very easy to get in trouble because the connecting trail you were counting on doesn't exist. -- Mark _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
