<!--/*SC*/DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"/*EC*/-->
<html><head><title></title><style type="text/css"><!-- body{padding:1ex;margin:0;font-family:sans-serif;font-size:small}a[href]{color:-moz-hyperlinktext!important;text-decoration:-moz-anchor-decoration}blockquote{margin:0;border-left:2px solid #144fae;padding-left:1em}blockquote blockquote{border-color:#006312}blockquote blockquote blockquote{border-color:#540000} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: medium;" dir="ltr"><div>
> Richard Fairhurst said:</div>
<div>
> The problem with these fast-moving mailing lists is that I get halfway through a reply to Graham's e-mail, go to the pub..</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
My emails often have that effect :) </div>
<div>
That raises the question of why on earth we're still using cliquey semi-private email lists when we could be using nice open public forums with categories, threaded discussions, formatting and voting - but that is a discussion for another day. ;)</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
> Worcester is nominally "complete"; yet despite the assurances of people in this thread that "completeness will bring more mappers", Worcester has just one mapper, Steve, who was active anyway before OSSV came along. Does that not make you stop and think?</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
So again you are basically arguing that we should avoid completing the map because having a patchy incomplete map is what brings in contributors?</div>
<div>
Even if that were true, it is not exactly a sustainable approach.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Personally I'd rather people were drawn in by saying "Wow, what a great map! I want to join in and add my local library/school/house" than "This map is terrible. It doesn't have half the roads in my village."</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
> Bob Kerr said:</div>
<div>
> <span>Using a bot to replace large sections of data in the UK is going to be counterproductive or destructive</span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span>Just to be clear: no one is suggesting using the "OS bot" we are discussing to replace or destroy any existing data.</span></div>
<div>
I think we all agree that would be a very bad idea and as already stated the wiki is very clear about the circumstances under which it would add a "name" tag to a road.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
> <span>the UK is now 80% (road name)complete.</span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span>Terrible news, as apparently the community will grind to a </span>stuttering halt if we make it to 100% :)</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Seriously though, by the OS Locator comparison we still have 179,568 missing road names (many of which will also be missing roads) and we're plodding through them at around 11,176 a month (and falling). So even a generous guesstimate suggests we won't be nearing 100% for well over a year. Anything that helps with this task, especially in areas with no active mapping, is welcome by me.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
> <span>I believe we can both encourage people to join us and use the a bot on small areas at the same time.</span>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Agreed. It's just another tool we can use - nothing more.</div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>