[OSM-newbies] Data quality

[James Ewen]

Just as a point of interest in relation to the "quality" of the OSM
data in a recent thread...

Google just added more data to my local area. There's some land cover
information, showing treed area versus grassy areas, and they have
also added some of the larger public buildings.

I was immediately unimpressed by the quality of the "building" data. I
went to the OSM/Google transparency site, and had a look to see how
things compare.

I know that the OSM building data is of much better quality, as I
traced the outlines myself. I've spent quite a bit of time around
these buildings with my children over the years, and can guarantee
that the OSM shapes are much more representative of the real
buildings.

http://sautter.com/map/?zoom=16&lat=53.52022&lon=-113.29271&layers=B00000TFFFFF

While OSM is not perfect, don't assume that Google maps are perfect
either. Just because you pay money for something doesn't mean it is of
good quality. Higher cost does not necessarily mean higher data
quality. TeleAtlas data costs a fair amount, and contains a fair
number of problems...

James
VE6SRV