Re: [Talk-GB] Open data (Was: Parliamentary debate mentions OSM)

SK53 writes: > many contributors do it not purely to add stuff to OSM, but for a multitude of other reasons: > to learn more about the places around where one lives; > to get out; > to meet-up with like minded people; > to get some exercise; > to go to the less obvious places; > to

Re: [Talk-GB] Open data (Was: Parliamentary debate mentions OSM)

I'm currently perusing the datasets of Bath & North East Somerset that's been distributed via Bath: Hacked. https://github.com/BathHacked/banes-geographic-data (I'll be posting a separate thread to clarifying a couple of points about it soon). These sets certainly contain useful information,

Re: [Talk-GB] Open data (Was: Parliamentary debate mentions OSM)

Actually I enjoy the process of going out & surveying stuff for OSM. Of course it's nice that we can be better (more up-to-date, more detail, additional attributes etc) than other map providers, but many contributors do it not purely to add stuff to OSM, but for a multitude of other reasons:

Re: [Talk-GB] Open data (Was: Parliamentary debate mentions OSM)

There are two huge advantages to OSM, even just looking at the UK. The first is timeliness. OSM is almost always faster with new features than OS (although accepting you also need a friendly local mapper). Just as a case in point, we were looking at Wickhurst Green, near Horsham, only this

Re: [Talk-GB] Open data (Was: Parliamentary debate mentions OSM)

On 29-Mar-16 10:19, Rob Nickerson wrote: Should we attempt to include everything that is in the open data datasets plus our on the ground additions (manually or, unless we suddenly get many more mappers, by some form of controlled merge) or should we leave the end users with the task of mixing

Re: [Talk-GB] Open data (Was: Parliamentary debate mentions OSM)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 29 Mar 2016, Rob Nickerson wrote: > P.P.S. By which I'm asking: do you think that (unless we get loads of new > mappers) more availability of open data possess a threat to OSM in the UK A decade ago a person called Steve needed a map and

Re: [Talk-GB] Open data (Was: Parliamentary debate mentions OSM)

Thanks all. My other food for thought is: Should we attempt to include everything that is in the open data datasets plus our on the ground additions (manually or, unless we suddenly get many more mappers, by some form of controlled merge) or should we leave the end users with the task of mixing

Re: [Talk-GB] Open data (Was: Parliamentary debate mentions OSM)

On 26 March 2016 at 06:30, Rob Nickerson wrote: > How do we ensure the mix continues to contain a lot of OSM data? At the highest level, by making sure the focus of OpenStreetMap is on-the-ground mapping, which best enables us to capture valuable information that's

Re: [Talk-GB] Open data (Was: Parliamentary debate mentions OSM)

and make sure that on-the-ground changes get into OSM much faster than anyone else - ideally on the day of the change ;-) Brian On 26 March 2016 at 12:06, Andrew Hain wrote: > John Aldridge writes: > > > > By ensuring that OSM data is of higher quality,

Re: [Talk-GB] Open data (Was: Parliamentary debate mentions OSM)

John Aldridge writes: > By ensuring that OSM data is of higher quality, or contains useful > information still absent from those other sources. If we can't or don't > do that, OSM (in the UK) will cease to have a purpose, and can be left > to wither un-mourned. Plus, usefully be

Re: [Talk-GB] Open data (Was: Parliamentary debate mentions OSM)

On 26-Mar-16 06:30, Rob Nickerson wrote: >And there seems to be some more >open data on the way from the OS. Interesting. A good opportunity but maybe also a threat - I wonder what quality of map can now be produced from OGL and other open data and how that compares to OSM. We already have