[talk-ch] Ask for mediation
gezuru at gmail.com
Sun Sep 4 22:03:13 CEST 2011
My opinion about this issue:
As long as we don't have either up to date, high resolution,
offset-corrected aerial imagery for almost all of switzerland or
positioning devices that are accurate up to a few centimeters, I don't
really see the point of tracing the borders of paths and small roads,
as the accuracy can't be determined by someone who looks at the map.
High details in mapping send a message of accuracy. If that accuracy
can't be guaranteed, it might be better to map less detailed. Else,
people will stop to rely on the OSM data, because they're very unsure
about the accuracy.
As for correcting other people's work, I agree that this should only
be done if one is sure that the other person's changes are indeed
erroneous. E.g. if there are up to date high resolution and *correctly
aligned* satellite images, or if you have accurate GPS traces
yourself. If you're unsure, you should leave it as it is, and check
reality first. Satellite images might be off a little.
Concerning mapping larger objects as wide roads or rivers as areas, I
don't see the problem. But to map the borders of small objects
accurately, one needs an accurate data source.
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
> There was just, for the umpteenth time, exactly this discussion on talk-de,
> without a conclusion.
> Essentially both ways of mapping are "right", the one is more the classical
> generalised way of doing things, the other probably a bit more the chaotic
> OSM way.
> I'm personally more in favour of the later because I believe it leads to
> less problems with
> edits from a large number of editors with very different ways of doing
> But in any case both methods are perfectly valid and ok.
> PS: when everything is mapped as areas including roads the problem will go
> away :-)
> Am 04.09.2011 16:12, schrieb Stéphane Brunner:
>> Hello every body,
>> English bellow.
>> Je suis désolé de cous importuner avec ça mais j'ai un problème avec
>> le contributeur Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott)
>> ou je n'arrive pas du tout avoir une discutions constructive.
>> Ce que je retiens de la discussion c'est qu'il méprise les
>> contributions des autres et que les sienne par contre sont
>> Bien sur j'espère me tromper sur l'image que j'ai de lui et j'ai aussi
>> mon lot d'erreur mais actuellement je suis dans une impasse).
>> Le point central de divergence c'est qu'il veut absolument que toutes
>> les zones aillent jusqu'au centre des routes ce qui va a l’encontre
>> d'un véritable plan de zone de bonne qualité comme .
>> Et il est vrai que je ne veut pas un OSM au rabais.
>> Pour être claire j'ai joint les messages échangé.
>> Actuellement je n'ai pas répondu aux 2 derniers messages.
>> Merci d'avance.
>> I'm sorry to bother you with that but I have a problem with the
>> contributor Shernott (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott) with
>> one I can't have a constructive discussion.
>> What I retain of the discussion is that he despises the contributions
>> of others and hos one are irreproachable.
>> Of course I hope I am wrong on the image I have of him and I also have
>> my share of errors but actually I am at a dead end).
>> The point of divergence is that it insists that all areas go to the
>> center of roads which doesn't go to the direction of having good
>> accurate zone plan like .
>> It is true that I do not want an OSM at a discount.
>> To be clear I join all the exchanged messages.
>> Acctually I havn't responded to the two last message.
>> Thanks in advance.
> talk-ch mailing list
> talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
More information about the talk-ch