On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
On 29 May 2012 15:28, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
And I don't foresee OSM ever being able to catch up. Google is very much a moving target. While OSM is working on catching up on geolocation (address to lat/lon) information, Google is micromapping to the level of detail needed to program a self-driving auto.
OpenStreetMap is working on whatever the contributors want. ;-)
Whereas Google is working on whatever the users want. :-)
That said, even this is somewhat problematic. There is somewhat of a tension in OSM between micromappers and non-micromappers. Not quite as bad as in Wikipedia between "inclusionists" and "deletionists" - for the most part OSM mappers aren't going to outright delete additional information. But there have been disputes over, for example, whether or not it is okay to include short turning lanes in the lane count.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
2012/5/29 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
...if you wanna go this way, I wonder if you "go to en.wikipedia.org and just use it" if you want to plant tomatoes in your garden. I know I wouldn't.
I wouldn't use Britannica either. The context of the article is GPS navigation for automobiles.
I'm sorry, I don't quite get it. When you said that Wikipedia was usable in the real world, I assumed you meant that you can use Wikipedia as an encyclopedia for reference in different aspects of daily life. Now you're saying that you can somehow use Wikipedia for GPS navigation for automobiles?
Nope. I am challenging the following assertion (put in SAT jargon): OSM:tomtom::Wikipedia:Britannica (that is, "OSM is to tomtom as Wikipedia is to Britannica).
In the case of Wikipedia:Britannica, they are compared based on their usefulness as encyclopedia articles, not on their usefulness as how-to books.
In the case of OSM:tomtom, in the context of the tomtom article, they are being compared based on the their usefulness for GPS navigation for automobiles.