<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>18 Aug 2020, 16:28 by aamackie@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div><br></div><div class=""><div class="" dir="ltr">On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 at 09:09, Rob Nickerson <<a href="mailto:rob.j.nickerson@gmail.com" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">rob.j.nickerson@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=""><div dir="auto"><div>For me, once licencing issues have been fully resolved, it comes down to accuracy of data. <br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">For example the TfL cycle data is great as it has been collected by ground survey and with two photos of everything. Some other third party data has been less accurate. At this point it becomes tricky as we've no agreed threshold. We all know that OSM is not perfect but less clear on what level of accuracy we require for imports.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Wouldn't this be partially dependent on the level of mapping in the area in question? <br></div></div></div></blockquote><div>And on preferences of a local<br></div><div>community.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I am not aware about any such case,<br></div><div>but local community may even have<br></div><div>stance "we are against all imports"</div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div class=""><div><br></div><div>In sparsely mapped regions even relatively coarse data might be an improvement. In areas where individual gas lamps have been accurately placed higher precision would be required to avoid misleading entries. </div></div></div></blockquote><div>+1</div> </body>
</html>