This doesn’t compensate at all for mapping coverage, which makes it really bad data.
From what little I know of research projects data is never ever complete enough. Or recent enough. Or analysed enough.
OSM is nice because it’s open source but as a mapper I agree it’s far from complete.
@SomeAmateur @balsoft For my purpose at least it is way more complete than any other map. I just wish that businesses would update their own entries properly.
Yes, it is never complete, but you have to compensate for that. Otherwise you kinda end up with a map of openstreetmap coverage quality rather than whatever you were trying to research.
Absolutely
You’re right. It woudl be better to focus on a smaller area with good data instead of a huge area with bad data. Shit in - shit out
Why do you share it?
It looks overengineered to me.
It puts the name of the author above the methodology and the methodology doesn’t even include how it is measured.
Seems fine to me. The author mentioned is in reference to the origin of the name, as an explanation for why it would be called that and what it is measuring. It’s not the author of the website or this tool.
H1: Methodology H2: Overview H3: Project/Author H2: Process H2: Conceptual Framework H2: Data Sources H2: Place Type Taxonomy H2: Scoring Methodology
And nowhere the methodology is explained. The term Methodology is used in the 6th second level header. But it doesn’t describe what they do
For which particular columns of the csv file are you seeking a further explanation?
Wrong post?
