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

[Andrew Hain]

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 avoid stultifying in front of a screen;
> to collect some data for some other purpose.
> 
> As long as people are motivated by one or all of these reasons, I see no
reason why they won't contribute to OSM. I suspect it's a fallacy that
people only contribute to OSM because other sources of OpenData aren't up to
scratch. If we have competition it is with other types of
volunteer-collected data, not with things like OS Open Data. OSM will never
achieve the consistency of coverage that OSGB do, so there will always be
applications and use-cases which will prefer to use data of this sort 

Only up to a point. I don’t expect OSM to be better for everyone, but I
would stop contributing and find other outlets for my spare time if I ever
feel the ability to be useful (and keep other sources of maps and map data
from being complacent) goes away; I have in fact not mapped bus routes for
some time because I haven’t seen enough reward there.

--
Andrew
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Dave F]

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, but I don't think they 
should be imported directly . Although most are much more complete than 
the equivalent data in OSM, many aren't as accurate. I certainly won't 
be importing footpaths which often veer through hedges & buildings. What 
does appear useful is the meta-data. Each rubbish bins has an ID number. 
Who knew?


I'll be using a combination of Leaflet/Umap to do a contract & compare 
of the datasets & Potlatch's excellent 'Tasks' utility to add 
information, but only after verifying it with a ground survey. I think 
I'm going to be busy.


Dave F.


On 29/03/2016 09:42, Andy Allan wrote:

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 not available in other datasources.

Thanks,
Andy

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[SK53]

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:

   - 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 avoid stultifying in front of a screen;
   - to collect some data for some other purpose.

As long as people are motivated by one or all of these reasons, I see no
reason why they won't contribute to OSM. I suspect it's a fallacy that
people only contribute to OSM because other sources of OpenData aren't up
to scratch. If we have competition it is with other types of
volunteer-collected data, not with things like OS Open Data. OSM will never
achieve the consistency of coverage that OSGB do, so there will always be
applications and use-cases which will prefer to use data of this sort

Anyway, as long as I continue to find on average one bug a week with OS
OpenData streetnames there's room for both of us: particularly as I work to
improve both sets of data together.

Jerry Clough

On 26 March 2016 at 09:46, John Aldridge  wrote:

> 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 some users that mix and match
>> between OSM and other sources.
>>
>> How do we ensure the mix continues to contain a lot of OSM data?
>>
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> John
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Stuart Reynolds]

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 morning. OSM 
has the estate, and has the A264 correctly moved to the new relief road. OS 
(looking at the online OS Maps tool) still has it on the Broadbridge Heath 
Bypass. Google also has the incorrect road designations, by the way.

And the second huge advantage follows directly on from the first - if it is 
wrong, I can edit it myself, and use it straight away.

You will never get that from OS.

Regards,
Stuart



On 29 Mar 2016, at 11:05, Rob Nickerson 
> wrote:


Yeah I think that is a good benefit and will be an element end users consider. 
Mixing data by country is however easy to do from an OSM licence point of view. 
For example telenav use (or at least did use) OSM in the USA but something else 
in other countries quite easily for many months.

Thus, although this helps, it doesn't "solve" everything.

Rob

On 29 Mar 2016 10:58 p.m., "Marc Gemis" 
> wrote:
Isn't one of the main benefits to have the data for the whole world in
1 format ? Compare that to having to download open data files from
government sites from all over the world from sites in different
languages in different formats and having to combine those ...

m

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Rob Nickerson
> wrote:
> Oh come on I'm not here to bash the history of OSM. I think what we have
> done is incredible and I genuinely believe that the presence of OSM has
> pushed both the government (the OS) and Google to where we are now - strong
> competition and more open data.
>
> We have open data now - great. The question is how do we continue to push
> the boundaries of the geospatial industry in the UK? Steve has in the past
> said to focus on addresses. Perhaps if we did that then at some tipping
> point the government will release all addresses as open data - a big success
> and we move on to the next trigger...? But for how long can we continue to
> be a strong trigger unless we can keep up with the status quo? Is it OK to
> leave it to the data users to merge the open data with OSM or is that burden
> too large for them to bother (at which point the pressure of OSM in the UK
> reduces)?
>
> The reason I ask is because I don't have the answers. Hoping some of the
> data users on the list may be able to suggest a point where the burden would
> become too large.
>
> Please, don't get defensive as that gets us nowhere. Hopefully this is
> something we can pick up in the coming year :-)
>
> Best,
> Rob
>
>> On 29 Mar 2016 10:29 p.m., "Paul Sladen" 
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> -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 couldn't get one…
>>>
>>> We are here to assemble and curate data for now and the future, not to
>>> chastise others following that lead and doing the same.
>>>
>>> -Paul
>>>
>>> ie. There is no 'threat' from having legitimately-usable open data: it
>>> is the very premise upon OpenStreetMap was founded.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>>>
>>> iD8DBQFW+kqWc444tukM+iQRAv6JAJ9tkje/oy3kI2dZS33Gc4vaWBTcpgCgxitl
>>> KdZlblnt33m57hNtNcfe4OQ=
>>> =hke9
>>> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>>>
>>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[John Aldridge]

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 OSM with the open
data?


I'm generally not in favour of importing 'definitive' data from other 
sources, and it would be better to have some dynamic overlay procedure 
(which must of course available to normal end-users of the map on 
www.openstreetmap.org, not just to sophisticated OSM data processors).


An example is parish boundaries which, I understand, have been imported 
from Ordnance Survey data. The problem with these are that they often 
get inadvertently corrupted in OSM: they tend to lie along other 
features, which means that it's rather easy to get them inadvertently to 
share nodes, which in turn ends up with them being dragged around by 
mistake.


I appreciate that we don't have such a dynamic overlay procedure, and 
nor do I have a solution to offer, but the problem is real: if we import 
data which is definitively specified elsewhere, we are pretty much 
guaranteeing that OSM's version of that data will be inferior to other 
mapping, even if only because it'll get out of date.


I suppose a satisfactory alternative to dynamic overlay would be if any 
such import were required to have an automated procedure for adopting 
regular updates from the definitive source.


--
Cheers,
John

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Paul Sladen]

-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 couldn't get one…

We are here to assemble and curate data for now and the future, not to
chastise others following that lead and doing the same.

-Paul

ie. There is no 'threat' from having legitimately-usable open data: it
is the very premise upon OpenStreetMap was founded.





-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFW+kqWc444tukM+iQRAv6JAJ9tkje/oy3kI2dZS33Gc4vaWBTcpgCgxitl
KdZlblnt33m57hNtNcfe4OQ=
=hke9
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Rob Nickerson]

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 OSM with the open data?

Regards,
Rob

P.S. The OSM licence allows for mixes but in all but the most simple cases
the user would then have to release the final dataset - something they may
be unwilling to do.

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
unless we get better at merging in the open data?
On 29 Mar 2016 9:42 p.m., "Andy Allan"  wrote:

> 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 not available in other datasources.
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Andy Allan]

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 not available in other datasources.

Thanks,
Andy

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Brian Prangle]

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, 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 part of a worldwide map that people can write worldwide
> tools for.
>
> --
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Andrew Hain]

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 part of a worldwide map that people can write worldwide
tools for.

--
Andrew





___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[John Aldridge]

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 some users that mix and match
between OSM and other sources.

How do we ensure the mix continues to contain a lot of OSM data?


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.


--
Cheers,
John

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb