Could I just make a silly suggestion that no one seems to have talked about yet. If we find an error in OS Open Data, rather than tag our own data to say someone else has got it wrong, why not just report it to OS. After examining the postcode data for my area recently I found a couple of errors, reported them to OS who have replied saying there is indeed an error and they will send someone out to re-survey the street.
We're now able to get a lot of data for free from OS, I don't think it's unreasonable to report the odd error back to them so they can improve their map. Andrew On 2 June 2010 16:29, Jerry Clough - OSM <[email protected]> wrote: > I for one would miss a publicly-deployed version. The matching of strings > really makes a difference between your data and the ITO one: > > 1. in well-mapped areas one finds a few places which either have not been > surveyed or require a re-survey, whereas the ITO comparison layer largely > shows finger trouble. So far I've found them completely complementary: yours > for the big picture, ITO locator comparison for the nitty-gritty of getting > fluff out of the data. > > 2. in areas with large numbers of nonames the ITO layer just has too much > data (and I have been trying to bang in names N of Liverpool). > > 3. Data from Musical Chairs gives a better handle on completeness, but when > compared with the ITO figures we can assess quality/validation as well. > > Regards, > > Jerry > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Robert Scott <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Wed, 2 June, 2010 12:38:01 > > *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO > > On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Peter Miller wrote: > > Great stuff. We would probably be able to work with a dump of excluded > > OS Locator entries in this DB however users may in the main prefer the > > convenience/familiarity of working directly in Potlatch or what ever > > rather than firing up another tool. Let us know when you start getting > > data into your system and we will see what we can do. > > Well, though I say I will probably continue to develop it a bit, I will > probably not deploy it to the public now (unless there is significant > interest) because I don't want to fragment any efforts. > > > robert. > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
