Crowdsourcing yesterday brought us MapQuake. Today brings us the more official one from ECan.
I'll be curious to see which proves the more reliable: the once sourced from official stats, or the one that's crowdsourced.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
3 comments:
As I am randomly likely to delete anonymous comments, please use a handle. Comments on older posts go into moderation; sorry if there are delays in hoisting your comment from the moderation pool. Note also that, due to quirks in Blogger's coding, comments appear date-stamped prior to the original post. Either that or I have remarkably prescient readers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Here's a goodie:
ReplyDeletewww.christchurchquakemap.co.nz
In this case I don't think there will be much difference on reliability; however, the crowdsourced one seems more comprehensive. Most business owners have an incentive to add the status of their premises (open) to the crowdsourced map.
ReplyDeleteI have a question for you: heritage building owners are being asked not to demolish their damaged buildings. If I were the owner I would not want to bear the cost of salvaging the building. As a taxpayer I rather have better services (hospitals, schools or whatever) than a patched up building. So, who should bear the cost?
@Luis: If Council wants to force the owners of heritage buildings to keep them up, Council should bear the cost; that means local ratepayers. Then voters tell Council whether that's the best use of funds.
ReplyDelete