You are entering... The Twilight Zone!
On Mar 24, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Phil Monger wrote: > Oh really, guys. You can have the big-bad monopoly argument if you want, but > it's terribly off-base. > > Councils *are not forced* to buy OS mapping. Not even slightly. > > Firstly, there have been, and are, alternatives to OS mapping. UKMap (Google > it) is one such example of an alternative to the large scale product councils > can use that are nothing to do with the OS. > > Furthermore, council demands on OS mapping are internally constructed - they > decided that the only thing they will accept as mapping is OS mapping, and > ergo that's where their money goes. > To liken paying council tax to directly funding the OS is like saying filling > your car with petrol directly supports terrorism. You're confusing cause & > effect. There are a chain of events within that simply cannot be passed aside > by your trite argument. > The councils chose to buy OS mapping because they're either too lazy or too > ignorant to the alternatives. Or simply, their requirements for such are > ludicrously stringent. > > You do not need 1:1250 mapping at c.£150 a square kilometre to show where > schools are, yet they buy it anyway so they can indulge in the ridiculous > process of measuring school applications to the nearest *half a metre* from > the school door. > > Finally, *no* OS data currently in use exists from a survey prior to 1999, > nor incidentally does their infrastructure, which was completely up-heaved at > the same time to make way for their new status. Every means of obtaining OS > product now available has been developed after 2002. OS Mastermap, which > equates to 90% of their total revenue, was developed and launched between > 2000 and 2001. > > Roughly 92-95% of OS revenue comes from largescale data (2500 and 1250 > product and boundary information) of which "Direct to OS" business from LA's > accounts for about 25% - a figure that is dropping year on year as councils > wise up to better ways of doing business (such as training personnel to use > GIS systems and maintain their own mapping of the local area). Other maps, > such as their entire paper range, constitute a tiny amount of revenue because > after retailers have taken their 50% the maps are sold near enough at cost. > (A reason the OS is currently in the process of withdrawing a lot of these > maps as funding to supersede them is missing). Quite on the contrary, > although the LAs may be paying the OS a lot of money, they are paying them a > *LOT* less than they should be - the direct from OS channel is heavily > subsidised in favour of the councils. > > Many, many councils are investing their funds in mapping systems that look > beyond OS mapping - or make use of free mapping made available through their > openspace API to create their own systems. Heck, some boroughs of London are > even making statements about the usefulness of OSM mapping, and how it should > be used in schools. > > You can level a huge number of complaints against the OS (such as the > incredible amount of money wasted on internal bureaucracy, their dis-interest > in adding value to mapping) but to claim that the OS are tax-funded either > through the taxpayer directly or through mandated requirements for their > services completely lacks an understanding of the situation the LA's or the > OS themselves are in today. > > On 24 March 2010 18:49, SteveC <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 24, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Phil Monger wrote: > > > Steve - "The OS gets its money from local councils and other agencies" > > > > No, no they don't. That's exactly what I'm referring to. They haven't done > > this in YEARS since they were mandated to be an independently funded > > organisation. Do a little research. > > I did. I did a FOIA request of my local and borough council and found out how > much money they spend on the OS. You can find it on the wiki. > > > The OS are a 'trading fund' and are required to cover *all* their costs by > > selling product AND have to give a certain amount of this *to the taxpayer* > > to cover the administration of them (as they are a civilian executive > > agency). > > > > Just glance at the UK budget and you will see there are *no fund* allocated > > to Ordnance Survey. > > you're just prevaricating, sorry. > > > > > > > Phil > > > > On 24 March 2010 17:22, SteveC <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mar 23, 2010, at 8:22 PM, Phil Monger wrote: > > > > > Steve Doerr - I don't think I understand your point? > > > > > > As had already been pointed out the OS are not tax funded. They act like > > > any other company within the UK making and selling a product. They have > > > done so for 11 years. > > > > > > The whole campaign has been driven ahead by the public's anger over > > > having to "pay for the mapping my taxes produced" - when in fact no such > > > situation exists. > > > > > > But hey, leading on the ignorance is politics, right? > > > > > > The OS gets its money from local councils and other agencies, who get their > > money from the UK taxpayer. Just saying that because it's indirect that > > it's not really tax money is short sighted, and playing along with the OS's > > own propaganda. > > > > > > > On 21 March 2010 19:56, Steve Doerr <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 20/03/2010 13:34, Mike Harris wrote: > > > > > > > It might be worth bearing in mind that - thanks in part from the > > > > pressures exerted by excellent projects such as OSM - the UK government > > > > and the OS are in the process of considerably liberalising their > > > > position on what may and what may not be done by taxpayers (who have > > > > already funded both the OS and the Highway Authority!) > > > > > > Fallacious argument. Virtually every adult in the UK is a taxpayer, > > > whereas hardly anyone is an OSM mapper. When the OS sells its products > > > to an individual taxpayer, it is a case of 'the many' selling to 'the > > > few': everyone pays for the OS, but only a few use its products, so it's > > > only fair that the few should compensate the many for the investment > > > they've made. > > > > > > -- > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > newbies mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > newbies mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies > > > > Yours &c. > > > > Steve > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > newbies mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies > > > > _______________________________________________ > > newbies mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies > > Yours &c. > > Steve > > > _______________________________________________ > newbies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies > > _______________________________________________ > newbies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies Yours &c. Steve _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
