<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/01/2016 11:43 AM, Clifford Snow
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADAoPLr5KjOs+OxVFXJMv+Dn_O710r0nm39qrYuMDT7ZuGaMEw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Dave
Swarthout <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:daveswarthout@gmail.com" target="_blank">daveswarthout@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Sometimes
as I labor over doing these areas correctly I wonder if
someday it will all be made obsolete. I don't know when or
if it will happen but I have to think that some point in
the future OSM will employ aerial imagery as does Google.
Then, instead of a white, featureless background in areas
no OSMer has "filled in" we'll see the earth's surface as
it really is with our routable ways overlaid upon it.</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
David,</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">No doubt someone will do it for a
routing and similar applications. The other data we enter is
valuable for other uses. For example, determine how land a
government sets aside for recreation. </div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Beside, sometimes a rendered map looks
much better than an aerial image. Take Epcot Center from
Google's perspective, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.google.com/maps/@28.3716206,-81.5502018,1346m/data=%213m1%211e3">https://www.google.com/maps/@28.3716206,-81.5502018,1346m/data=!3m1!1e3</a>
and compare it to OSM, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1228099#map=16/28.3703/-81.5488">http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1228099#map=16/28.3703/-81.5488</a>.
Personally I like the OSM rendering.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It is not just a matter of looks. If I want a restfull holiday away
from the city I look for the green areas. Less people, trees .. less
activity. <br>
If the green area is used for timber production.. most of the time
it will be fine, but avoid harvesting and for, say, a year after! <br>
<br>
If I want a place to eat lunch .. again I look for the green areas -
local parks.. even a cemetery! Of course probably somewhere to buy
it too. <br>
<br>
-------------<br>
Here Imagery does not pick the difference between a National Park
and a State Forest .. in fact many National Parks were State Forest
some time ago.<br>
The most you can get from the imagery is land cover .. trees for
some National Park and a State Forest and in some cases there parts
only for example. <br>
</body>
</html>