Talk:UMP2OSM
Missing Information
There are a few things unclear or missing:
- No information about where to get UMP source files from
- What's the relation between OSM node definition (actually, a reference to UMP file) and UMP source file
- How to configure the environment, so JOSM can find UMP files referenced in UMP2OSM definitions
- mloskot - 14:50, 8 February 2008
Licence compatibility?
It appears UMP use a different license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 (link), while OSM uses CC-BY-SA 2.0. So I think they could use OSM data, but OSM could not use theirs. Do you have their permission to license the data under a different license? Longbow4u 20:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
UMP Data quality - Warsaw
Sorry guys, but I checked my closes area (Warsaw / Ursynów). It seems, that main streets are OK, but small and service streets have realy bad quality. For me it is "unacceptable" quality :(
Moreover, main streets have problems too. They could differ from GPS position even 20m.
IMHO if there are nothing in working area then this data could be usable. But if in working area is something, then it is a big chance, that data in OSM are a lot better. All location (+-20m) and precisious conflicts should be judged to benefit OSM data.
In real, for southern Warsaw, 6.1 point of import procedure should looks like "copy/redraw missing streets on OSM layer, but do not delete anything on those layer, becouse it looks, that current OSM data are more precisely..." :(
Added 10 minutes later: Sorry, after another checking, IMHO 6.1 point of procedure in current form is realy unacceptable for Warsaw. szdowk