<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;"><div>
<div>Hi Dharini,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>whether Google's imagery is more recent or not is not really relevant for us because their Terms of Use do not allow us to use their imagery for OSM.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best Regards</div>
<div>Michael</div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding: 10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Dienstag, 24. Mai 2016 um 08:23 Uhr<br/>
<b>Von:</b> "dharini dube" <dharini.dube@gmail.com><br/>
<b>An:</b> hot@openstreetmap.org<br/>
<b>Betreff:</b> [HOT] Imagery</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I am new to OSM and HOT mapping. I was doing the Sri Lanka flood mapping projects 1914 and 1915 and I was looking at the Bing and mapbox satellite imageries and compared them to satellite imagery on Google maps, there was a lot of difference in terms of the features like buildings, streams etc. Many of them are missing here in OSM. Which one is more recent OSM or Google.</p>
<p>Dharini Dube<br/>
New Delhi</p>
_______________________________________________ HOT mailing list HOT@openstreetmap.org <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div class="signature"> </div></div></body></html>