<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 3 February 2011 11:51, Ed Avis <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eda@waniasset.com">eda@waniasset.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
I think automatically importing the OS data for areas where OSM currently has<br>
little to no coverage - or coverage merely traced from Yahoo imagery - is<br>
a great idea. Many people don't want bots to trample on their 'patch' which they<br>
have carefully surveyed, which is fine. But there is still a huge part of the<br>
country which is very under-mapped. Let's get it complete as soon as possible<br>
using the best data we have. (It is my opinion that the OS data is often of<br>
higher quality than a typical OSM ground survey, although of course multiple<br>
surveys by different people combined with the use of Bing imagery will give the<br>
best possible map.)<br>
<br>
I also think that what is good for ITO is good for the map in general - if there<br>
is a need to have a complete map for some government contract or whatever, then<br>
that is a need that exists in the real world.<br>
<br>
Lastly, I don't believe that adding data from external sources discourages<br>
contributors. Quite the opposite. It is a blank canvas that puts people off.<br>
The way to bring in contributors is to show a map with a few missing details that<br>
are so tempting to fix 'just one thing'...<br></blockquote><div><br>Thank you Ed, I think there are two underlying philosophies running here:<br><br>1) OSM should either be 'right' or the map should be empty (which by definition is not wrong because there is nothing that is wrong on the map). The only way to make sure it is 'right' before adding data is to visit the site.<br>
<br>Or....<br><br>2) An empty bit of the map is by definition 'wrong' and the in the UK the OS data is almost certainly more right than that and as such an edit that adds OS data as an import to blank areas will make it more 'right'. The map can then subsequently be made even more 'right' by people who know or visit the area.<br>
<br>Matt raises a useful side issues that people mapping at a distance should be confident that they are not actually making the map worse by use of out-of-date information. I have suggested a way of adding notes to the background layers or a warning during data upload.<br>
<br>Nick has just commented that such a bot would need to be well tested. I agree and it would need to be trialed in small areas to gain confident. There are well established protocols for doing 'type approval' and MOT's on Bots and allowing for feedback both here and in Wikipedia. This one would need to follow the guidelines.<br>
<br>There is suggestion raised by a number of people, but refuted by others that imports reduce the number of contributors. I believe that more people will correct an error than go and map a huge blank area of the map.<br>
<br><br>Regards,<br><br><br>Peter<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
--<br>
Ed Avis <<a href="mailto:eda@waniasset.com">eda@waniasset.com</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">Talk-GB mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>