On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 06:21, OSMDoudou < 19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote:
> > I wonder if it’s not.better to accept that *any* measure is an estimate, > and let mappers improve the accuracy, just like the drawing of a highway > can be a poor or a great estimate, which improves over time as imagery or > traces permit improvement. > > Even if the imagery is of great precision, it’s not a guarantee > of.accuracy, as the mapper might be in a hurry or might not particularly > care for accuracy, and leave to its successors to improve it. To a certain extent, isn't the height figure that's been entered going to show it's perceived level of accuracy? eg this tree has been entered with a height of 20m, that one over there has been entered as 32.5m. To me at least, that would indicate that 20m is a (calculated?) guess, while 32.5m was a (relatively?) precise measurement. &, do we really need to worry about millimetric precision? As has been stated many times, trees are constantly changing heights; buildings (especially skyscrapers) often have a published height, but does that include the TV antenna on the roof?; there is even on-going disagreement over the height of Mt Everest https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/03/world/asia/mount-everest-how-tall-nepal.html ! So we, as a bunch of enthusiastic, amateur mappers, are going to be pushing things uphill trying to be "exact"! :-) Thanks Graeme
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
