[Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Exeter, UK Editing

[Richard Fairhurst]

(cc:ed to talk-gb, probably better discussed there)

Ben Ward wrote:

> The other thing that worried me was that the existing 'rough' traces haven't
> been deleted, just left to co-exist with replacement roads.  The editor is
> listed as "Potlatch Alpha",  but there is no hi-res imagery for this area,

On a quick glance I haven't seen whether this is the case or not in  
Exeter, but pre-0.5, Potlatch didn't display "unwayed segments" by  
default. So you do sometimes get ways which were once unwayed segments  
coexisting with Potlatch-drawn ways. Whether this was the fault of  
Potlatch or of people leaving unwayed segments around is a moot point,  
I think. ;)

Potlatch hasn't tagged its edits as "alpha" for a while now so it does  
suggest these are older edits.

> so I'm guessing the mapping comes from GPX traces (right?).  This makes me
> rather suspicious about the completeness of the road names and survey when
> there appear to be quite complex junctions mapped without any traces but
> lots of names.

I've quite often mapped junctions without getting traces for every  
constituent part - instead, just taken a few and noted the layout of  
the junction on paper. When there's a lot of detail involved it's  
usually best not to rely on GPS.

FWIW after a very quick look at Exeter I can't immediately see  
anything untoward.

cheers
Richard