On 14 Jul 2009, at 20:04, Martin - CycleStreets wrote: > > > Nice to meet you all at SOTM! > > > Peter Miller wrote: > >> OSM coverage of cycle demonstration towns is pretty good already >> and it >> would be truly weird for the Cambridgeshire County Council to pay for >> someone to survey Cambridge! > > As a resident of Cambridge, I can tell you that such mapping is > already > happening.. > > As with the other Cycling Demonstration Towns, this is apparently > coming > from the Cycling England budget rather than local taxation.
I understand that the next batch of mapping will be paid for 50% by the local council and 50% by DfT as per the link in my previous post. I recollect that the original Cycling Demonstration Town bids also required local authority to provide matched-funding which would mean the Cambridgeshire tax payers are paying through local taxes for this although I might be wrong on that. Also, the funding that comes from Cycling England is originally from the DfT and not charitable funds so is central taxation. To be clear, I also think the project is an excellent one, its just the way the mapping is being done that is insensitive and ineffecient. > > I do not know how much money is involved for the first tranche of > towns > being surveyed. I believe the next round to do many more places > involves EU > Tender -level funds and that that process is at an advanced stage. > > I have suggested to a contact I have at Cycling England (a body I > generally > have a lot of respect for) that the data they are collecting into the > CycleNetXChange "standard" be done in such a way that it is not > OS-comingled until after the point it gets into that format. I > understand > from Peter Miller that the standard was written in such a way that > the data > collection could be undertaken without pollution by OS data. Peter - > can > you confirm? I agree that any data collected by the DfT/local taxpayer should be available to third parties and should therefore not be mixed in with OS data at the outset. Personally I suggest that local authorities should be encouraged to use OSM data and support the local OSM group for all its data (roads and paths) where there is an active group and the data is already in a good state. > Whether or not CycleNetXChange -formatted data would be of use to > OSM, I > don't know myself. But I imagine it could be useful for other > purposes, > e.g. cycling groups knowing about cycle lane widths for campaigning > purposes, etc. I would merely be interested in the principle that > new data > being collected at taxpayer expense be compatible with open data > principles > at the very least. I agree completely! Regards, Peter > > > Richard Mann wrote: > >> If I understood the cyclestreets people correctly, they've been >> developing it using some funding from the Cycle Demonstration Towns >> project, so maybe DfT are hedging their bets. > > As previously confirmed, there is no money going into the CycleStreets > journey planner from the DfT / Cycling England. > > .. Funding from other sources is being investigated though! > > > PS As this is my first posting to the list, thanks to all the > mappers, who > enable CycleStreets to exist! > > > Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By > Cyclists > Developer, CycleStreets ** http://www.cyclestreets.net/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
