> The other thought is maintenance. I know this is an old chestnut, but I > worry a bit about encouraging huge detail on POIs that are likely to change > often, e.g. takeaways in my part of the world aren't worth the bother of > tracking and are all over the place anyway so you'd never need a map to > find one! But I would like to enter more detail for museums, leisure > centres, libraries and all the other POIs that are easy to maintain.
I see what you mean about the changing of things. I was looking more at the large fast_food chains. Small chip shops and curry houses are not a importance to detail. I was originally going to start with Petrol stations because I work at one and could get a list of sites from head office and put them in. I guess fast_food took my attention because I like my food ;-) I agree we need to look at Museums etc. as they also need to be documented. We need a list of items we need to document and attach priorities to them. > I would have thought that Google is grabbing that data from its search > engine scraping and user submissions anyway, rather than trying to maintain > a database of all businesses? I agree that is how Google has started with its database. I think the copyright thing is a bit of a grey area so I am in the process of asking a few copyright peeps some simple questions on that kind of data gathering technique. An address is not a original piece of work. But I will look into it. I replied to this earlier but forgot to CC the talk-gb list...still getting used to Google Mail. Jack Stringer _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
