[Talk-GB] Sources - was "Re: Upcoming changes to OpenStreetMap.org website"

[SomeoneElse]

Jonathan wrote:
> ... but are traces really that important now? They have some uses but 
> the bulk of sources now and going forward are from other methods?

If "other methods" means "copying from other data sources rather than 
actually going out and surveying" then you're never going to get "the 
best map", only "a map that is in some areas almost as good as some others".

For example, yesterday I was here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/53.2346/-0.3269 
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/53.2346/-0.3269>

Without going there you'd be able to guess at the exent of the woodland 
(depending on the age of the Bing imagery) and you'd think (based on 
what OS OpenData says) that it's called "Stanfield Wood".

If you go and have a look you can see the correct name ("Stainfield 
Wood" - which matches the village to the north), who runs it, and the 
fact that it's not open to the public.  The actual GPS trace is useful 
for helping to spot places where Bing is offset from reality (although 
here in flat Lincolnshire it's only a 4-5m at a guess).

Cheers,

Andy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20131118/5b166714/attachment.html>