[talk-au] Missing streets in Sydney

Stephen Hope slhope at gmail.com
Tue Sep 6 01:31:30 BST 2011

On 5 September 2011 19:18, Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm at gmail.com> wrote:
> Personally, I think people shouldn't  map areas when they don't have any
> knowledge of the topology and layout because I think fixing errors takes
> several orders of magnitude longer than the tracing.

Who cares? That's not the right comparison. Does fixing the errors
take several times longer than editing it from nothing?  If so, after
you've visited it locally and are ready to edit, box select, delete,
now there's nothing, problem solved.  If not, then they've saved you
some work, and almost certainly got a better geometry than just a
local visit and gps can get.  The local visit can certainly add more
details, (street names for a start) but it's damn rare that it will
get a better overall layout positioning. Lot's of gps traces can be
just as good, but that takes multiple visits on different days to get
good averaging.

>   Any perceived time
> saving is illusory, when someone has to visit the area sooner or later
> anyway.

Again, who cares?  If somebody wants to spend the time, that's up to
them.  And in the meantime, we know that there is something there, at
least, and it's not just blank.  Beside which, you're wrong.  I've
done a lot of mapping, and it takes the less time overall to do an
area from good imagery first, then go fill in the details on the
ground than to do it all from tracing.  It also makes the ground visit
quicker, because you have a base map to add the details and
corrections to.

I like spending time outside, mapping.  But I can find a half hour
late at night to spend in front of the computer a lot easier,
especially as I have to go further from home. I try and do stuff where
I can go later and add the other details required. But I'd rather fill
in a area and put something there than leave it blank.


More information about the Talk-au mailing list