<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+GKQr20Npey9__w41QpnCZYrMB0-tczresi0xhtSFhuxXzO3g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<ul>
<li>Has the import data helped Japan map to improve and
the community to grow? How is the OSM coverage
compared to other maps?</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I remember before we got the Yahoo/ALPS data. For most of the
country, there were very few roads mapped. You couldn't navigate
using OSM back then, except maybe in a few cities. Once the import
happened, you could navigate well, and you still can.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+GKQr20Npey9__w41QpnCZYrMB0-tczresi0xhtSFhuxXzO3g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<ul>
<li>How to best cleanup the import: continue to leave
the data as is? do a partial revert to make it easy
for new mappers? Organize a nationwide mapping
movement? <br>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
To me as a mapper, importer, hiker, and motorcycle rider, the most
notable thing about the imported data is that in some areas it's
inaccurate by 10-50 meters in some direction. The roads described
mostly exist, though. What I do to improve things is make tracks
when I travel, so I can fix the road, or if I have a track to
properly align some overhead photography I can use that to adjust
other roads in that area.<br>
<br>
I can't see how a revert has any real value. It would destroy much
of the great work the community here has done in the last five
years. And it wouldn't help new mappers. Indeed, if you take a
usable map, remove lots of data, and then say "go fill in the
blanks", people will see all the blanks and go look for a different
map. (But since that seems really obvious, perhaps I have
misunderstood the intent behind some of the previous posts? Feel
free to correct me should that be the case.)<br>
<br>
Removing data like erroneous road width makes good sense. Also
coming from the Yahoo/ALPS import, many rural roads are classified
as "residential" when they are more likely "track" or "unclassified"
or "tertiary". That would be nice to fix. I imagine surveys are
the best way, albeit time consuming.<br>
</body>
</html>