[talk-ch] Ask for mediation

Stéphane Brunner courriel at stephane-brunner.ch
Mon Sep 5 11:10:26 CEST 2011


Hello Danilo,

Globally I'm OK with your message, except two thing.
- Why if in Lausanne we have a good Orthophoto we shouldn't "use it"
because not almost Switzerland have one ?
- Why does we need an Orthophoto that are accurate up to a few
centimeters to place landuse who is at something between 2 and 10
meter to the center of the road ?

CU
Stéphane


On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Danilo <gezuru at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> Danilo
>
>
> 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,
>> naturally
>> without a conclusion.
>>
>> Essentially both ways of mapping  are "right", the one is more the classical
>> cartographers
>> 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
>> things.
>>
>> But in any case both methods are perfectly valid and ok.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>> 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
>>> irréprochable.
>>>
>>> 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 [1].
>>> 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 [1].
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> ====
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://sitn.ne.ch/mapfish/amenagement?map_x=561220&map_y=204650&map_zoom=9&map_visibility_Plan%20cadastral=true&map_opacity_Plan%20cadastral=1&map_visibility_Cartes%20et%20plans%20topographiques%20gris=false&map_opacity_Cartes%20et%20plans%20topographiques%20gris=1&map_visibility_Orthophoto%202008%20gris=false&map_opacity_Orthophoto%202008%20gris=1&map_visibility_Pas%20de%20fond=false&map_opacity_Pas%20de%20fond=1&map_visibility__shared_wms_=true&map_opacity__shared_wms_=1&map_visibility_Cosmetic=true&map_opacity_Cosmetic=1&map_layers__shared_wms_=at14_zones_communales
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk-ch mailing list
>> talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
>>
> _______________________________________________
> talk-ch mailing list
> talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
>



-- 
Envoyé depuis mon lapin
--
Catalogue de cartes OpenStreetMap - http://map.stephane-brunner.ch
Un peu d'espace qui vous suis partout -
https://www.getdropbox.com/referrals/NTk2OTU2Mjk
--



More information about the talk-ch mailing list