[OSM-talk] Suggestion more complete mapping verifactiion

[Steve Coast]

On 17 Sep 2007, at 13:10, John Baker wrote:

> I still don't see anything illegal with what I am propsing it is a  
> totally different case to the 192 one.
>

Well, I do.


> However maybe a little more caution with posting results online.
>

Thats what the clauses mentioned are specifically about.


> Maybe there is another database resource then that has offical  
> street names in it.
>

http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/blog/?p=123


> Anyway I am not going to make up a whole site for this and come cap  
> in hand to you after a year.
>
> I offered help and a solution to what I see is as a large problem  
> with this project.
>
> You give me the list of "official" street names in a given area and  
> I will do the rest. And the only advice is you need to do more work  
> yourself before you can help us out.
>
> If you do not have all the streets in you map project how can you  
> ever hope of it being the success you guys want. Once you start  
> having cities that have all the streets in *then* it can become  
> popular. But I cannot see how I/anyone can use/recommend using this  
> project as we never know when a city has a complete listing of  
> streets. I would have thought you would have wanted a more complete  
> city but apparently many here do not.
>

Not being usable by you doesn't make it automatically not usable by  
anyone. Do you have a GIS background? GIS people tend to think OSM is  
either 100% useful or 0% from this 'accuracy/completeness' acid test.  
It's a bit backward.


> I would suggest when someone is offering help to an open source  
> project you try and help them out rather than suggesting higher  
> elistist entry levels for before helping out.
>

Well, I'm only one of 11,000 registered OSM users, any one of them  
can help you.

have fun,

SteveC | steve at asklater.com | http://www.asklater.com/steve/