<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed;
font-size: 14px;" lang="x-western">Hi,
<br>
<br>
I'm an Australian looking at a holiday in India. So I downloaded a
map of India (OSM sourced of course). I was dissapointed by the
auto routing .. so I looked at the OSM source to find that quite a
few roads were not correctly connected. So I've been doing some
'editorials' or 'housekeeping' as I call it. Basicly connecting
roads together, adding bridges (using bing to check them first of
course).
<br>
<br>
For 'error' checking/indication I use <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?lon=75&lat=28&zoom=6">http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?lon=75&lat=28&zoom=6</a>
.. you have to use the left side box to check various things .. it
comes up in default as 'geometry' .. 'routing' is what I use .. it
is not infallable but a good indication. 'Highways' is also
usefull. I use JOSM as my editor and use its validator to obtain
the places where things are not connected or crossing.
<br>
<br>
---------
<br>
I also looked at the Red Fort in Agra .. one contributor has used
one offset in their mapping, while another has used a different
offset (comparing using bing). I do realise that there is a shadow
effect due to the side ways look of bing there. But even so they
don't match up. I'm thinking of trying to tide it up. Unfortunatly
neither contributor has detailed the source of their information
so I cannot judge which is better. Thus I'm inclinde to simple go
with Bing .. with no offset.
<br>
<br>
I've made few additions in places of interest to me. One road I
have deleted -- it was not conneted on eitehr end and went through
some tall buildings .. an obvious error. But mostly connectinmg
roads and adding brigdges. Oh .. and a few railway crossings.
<br>
<br>
Thanks for you work to the OSM map
<br>
Warin
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>