[Talk-GB] OS StreetView accuracy: caution!
tom at acrewoods.net
Fri Apr 9 19:18:08 BST 2010
On 9 April 2010 19:00, Kevin Peat <kevin at kevinpeat.com> wrote:
> On 9 April 2010 18:40, Robert Scott <lists at humanleg.org.uk> wrote:
>> Hasn't one of OSM's (many) mantras been "doesn't matter if it's
>> approximate: someone can always improve it later" or "rough is better than
>> nothing"? Sure, some of the OS data is rough, but it is better than nothing,
>> and quite good for a first pass.
> +1 on this.
Speaking for myself...
I'm going to trace OS data where it adds to the map, and I agree that it is
always better if *any* data is cross-checked (whether one person's
GPS-derived data by another, or OS by GPS, or GPS by OS). The big problem
seems to be that we have a chaotic mix of slightly unsatisfactory tools to
help people see what needs to be checked, and large parts of the country
that I suspect will never be fixed in the way that mine can because I walk
around it all the time.
Who knows if my footway up Cwm Bychan traced from a GPX file is accurate, or
if all the OS-traced areas in (let's face it) the poorer parts of London are
Will people landing on openstreetmap.org and looking at Norwood or
Bermondsey in London know that there are missing names (the "nonames" layer
isn't exactly in your face), or any of the numerous other problems exist
that you can find it you chance upon the many confusing tools people have
Will they notice that some of the early mappers made apparently random
errors in assigning road classifications in the London Bridge area, and
notice smaller streets out into Bermondsey and north Peckham that I won't
pick up on when surveying my route into work?
p.s. I will be checking Robert's trace of my parents' house in Bedford...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB