<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 21:55, Andy Mabbett <<a href="mailto:andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk">andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 09:34, TomTom OSM <<a href="mailto:OSM@tomtom.com" target="_blank">OSM@tomtom.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> To create the leads, our experienced GIS engineers compare the<br>
> geometry of the TomTom map to OSM. This geometry has been internally<br>
> validated by TomTom mappers.<br>
<br>
I think this is the sticking point: you were asked "How have these<br>
missing roads been validated?" and your reply is "[they have] been<br>
internally validated".<br>
<br>
So: *How* have they been validated? On-the-ground survey? Aerial<br>
imagery? Google Maps?<br>
<br></blockquote><div>I actually found the speculation about GPS traces more encouraging than the subsequent communication about "up to date imagery sources". </div><div><br></div><div>My initial concern was undrivable "roads" that look good from the air. GPS traces would at least suggest that someone finds them driveable. Saying that GPS data isn't used renews my concern that OSM in the region could degrade to "yet another bunch of remote guesswork".</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
-- <br>
Andy Mabbett<br>
@pigsonthewing<br>
<a href="http://pigsonthewing.org.uk" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://pigsonthewing.org.uk</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>