[Tagging] Estimated values for height
graemefitz1 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 13 22:16:58 UTC 2018
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 06:21, OSMDoudou <
19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238eee at gmx.com> wrote:
> I wonder if it’s not.better to accept that *any* measure is an estimate,
> and let mappers improve the accuracy, just like the drawing of a highway
> can be a poor or a great estimate, which improves over time as imagery or
> traces permit improvement.
> Even if the imagery is of great precision, it’s not a guarantee
> of.accuracy, as the mapper might be in a hurry or might not particularly
> care for accuracy, and leave to its successors to improve it.
To a certain extent, isn't the height figure that's been entered going to
show it's perceived level of accuracy?
eg this tree has been entered with a height of 20m, that one over there has
been entered as 32.5m. To me at least, that would indicate that 20m is a
(calculated?) guess, while 32.5m was a (relatively?) precise measurement.
&, do we really need to worry about millimetric precision? As has been
stated many times, trees are constantly changing heights; buildings
(especially skyscrapers) often have a published height, but does that
include the TV antenna on the roof?; there is even on-going disagreement
over the height of Mt Everest
So we, as a bunch of enthusiastic, amateur mappers, are going to be pushing
things uphill trying to be "exact"! :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging