<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 07/08/2010 19:34, Richard Moss wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:59079.1281206090@richardmoss.co.uk"
type="cite">
<br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">I take data from OS as evidence
that there is a name for a road/track etc.<br>
<br>
</span>I'm happy with that where I know a road exists, and I have
added names to the farm tracks around the village. But putting
roads on OSM without actually verifying that they exists, that's
another debate :)<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Personally I'd take OS as evidence of the existence of a road as
well. Obviously it would be good to have travelled it as OSL isn't
the most accurate for location & direction, but at least we know
it's there.<br>
<br>
It was concluded in a previous discussion that OS didn't put 'easter
eggs' into their data.<br>
<br>
Do you have any examples of roads not being on the ground?<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:59079.1281206090@richardmoss.co.uk"
type="cite">
<br>
<br>
Tim, I hope you didn't take my point as a criticsm of your work.
Quite the opposite. I was just trying to square the difference
between our perception of how we were doing with the statisitcs
you gave. And around here the answer seems to be a lot to do with
apostrophes and farm tracks, but of course it will be different
everywhere, and you clearly show that we've got a bit to do in for
example, Peterborough. Thanks for the analysis.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
+1 for Tim's work.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Dave F.<br>
</body>
</html>