[OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
shalabh.w at gmail.com
Mon Nov 2 07:48:46 GMT 2009
Hi Nop, thanks for your email. I take your point, it would be difficult to
delete and then we would be purely depending on the mapper's diligence. So
yeah, I think I would rather use the suggestions given by Dan than advocate
an auto track feature.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Nop <ekkehart at gmx.de> wrote:
> Shalabh schrieb:
> Given my limited understanding of mapping and even more limited
>> understanding of computing, I think it would be better if JOSM assumed the
>> trails to be correct and drew nodes on it on its own.
> This is possible combining several features. However, it is a bad idea,
> most ways added this way are in horrible state and need correction.
> - way too many nodes. The API does not return more than 50000 nodes in one
> request, so many tracks with 1500 nodes each quickly make it impossible to
> download a sizable area
> - the GPs is inaccurate. If you just stupidly add the track, all the
> mismeasurements are added to the DB. While drawing the way, you can smooth
> out the obvious zigzags of errors and deviations of known bad reception.
> Also, as the distance of nodes (usually 1m) is way smaller than the basic
> error of the GPS, it makes no sense to add this sort of misleading
> - those ways are then unconnected to all other ways. It is very difficult
> and tedious to create the proper connections
> - most people who take this "easy way" don't connect and simplify the way
> properly, you will often find ways that are simply created over existing,
> manually edited versions of the same way.
> So in practice this doesn't work out. If you process your track properly,
> it is quite some work either way, but using the track directly encourages
> quick and sloppy adding of bad geometry.
> It has been suggested several times, that the possibility to do this
> indirectly be removed from JOSM altogether and having corrected many bad
> direct uploads I am rather in favour of this.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk