I’ve been looking into trying it out and had streetcomplete recommended to me, I’ve really been a fan of its simple, game-ified interface, what are your opinions on it?
Comment on Road crews carry the world on their shoulders. They just aren't given enough to do what needs doing.
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 1 week agoI contribute to OpenStreetMap through surveying and tracing. It’s given me some perspective on how wasteful our infrastructure is and how colossally unusable it is on foot.
(If anyone’s interested, please, please ask me about it; I highly recommend it as a way to have more fun on walks and hyper-familiarize yourself with where you live. The built-in, web-based iD editor is great on desktop, and the third-party Vespucci editor is great on Android. Unfortunately, the appearance of Go Map!! on iOS seems possibly lackluster, but it seems just as functional.)
Predalien@lemmynsfw.com 1 week ago
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I couldn’t really get into StreetComplete when I tried it, but I think that’s mainly because I’m used to the iD editor’s UI and because it isn’t fully featured. Vespucci solved both of those things for me and gave me a fantastic editing experience. That said, for all I know, recommending Vespucci could leave a newcomer completely overwhelmed with options, so I would say that it’s worth starting with StreetComplete if you want a highly gamified experience for stuff like tag editing for existing objects or starting with Vespucci if you feel like you want something extremely powerful, then trying the other one if your first choice’s UI doesn’t suit you or doesn’t do what you want it to do. (StreetComplete and Vespucci are both available on F-Droid.)
Shezzagrad@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
I’ll be entirely honest, I’m a big map nerd, looking around the world, different infrastructure, city layout, sprawl Vs density, how manmade interacts with the natural etc etc. I’ll give open street maps a try, but I’ve been using gmaps for a while and Google earth is one of the best things I’ve ever seen
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 1 week ago
OSM has a ways to go to be entirely competitive with GMaps as a navigation tool (although it gets the upper hand in other areas). OSM’s major advantages are four-fold:
- It’s open to be used by anyone for any reason for free.
- It can be contributed to by anyone.
- (Crucially) It has a way higher ceiling than GMaps coupd ever hope to have. The level of potential granularity in OSM is absolutely insane. You can mark fire hydrants down to the color, diameter, pressure, and number of couplings. You can mark power lines down to the voltage, shape and material of each individual pole, etc. Individual trees can be marked down to the species. Every street crossing can be marked as having tactile pavings, a type of curb, a material, signals, refuge island, elevated or not, etc. Individual entrances to buildings can be marked as different types. Heights of buildings in meters, whether they have air conditioning, etc., can be marked. This is barely scratching the surface. For navigation, things like this can be superfluous (I would argue that for people with disabilities like blindness, some of these things like the crossing types could be useful), but for research and specific applications, it can in theory crush GMaps rather than just being brought into parity with it.
- The non-satellite map is just way, way better. If I look at my neighborhood which is reasonably well-mapped on OSM and then compare it to GMaps and Bing Maps, the latter two look like an absolute joke and rely heavily on satellite imagery to fill in the gaps. The problem with that of course is that not everything is visible from space, and it often gets fuzzy with minute details.
Emerald@lemmy.world 1 week ago
As a fellow OSM mapper, thanks for advertising. :D