By way of update, the response I received from OS is as follows (and I presume this is what most people will receive):
<OS Response> Thank you for your bringing these matters to our attention. Your feedback has been passed to our technical team, who will make any necessary amendments to our mapping in line with Ordnance Survey’s published specification and revision timescales. Thank you for taking the time to report these anomalies to us. </OS response> So it sounds like that'll probably be the last I'll hear of it until it has been verified in future data releases. This means that the time between adding the anomaly to the wiki and marking it fixed will potentially be very long, but I guess it'll have to do for now! Tim On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 17:33 +0100, Peter Miller wrote: > On 9 Jun 2010, at 16:57, Craig Loftus wrote: > > > Perhaps OS would be good enough to edit the appropriate way to remove > > the not:name tag? It would seem like the 'least they could do' in > > return for having the error pointed out to them. > > That would be great, however it may be beyond them for a while! What > was can do it modify the ITO test to highlight redundant 'not:name' > tags which relate to OS Locator (ie not:names for OS Locator that are > not in the current OS Locator dataset). That might need a little more > structure in the OSM data to indicate which dataset the error was in > (OS Locator/Google/Streetview etc) but would require zero additional > activity from the OS which would be a bonus. > > > > One of the few benefits I hope to see from the Tories "Big Society" > > cuts will be some kind of closer relationship being developed between > > OSM and OS. Does anyone know if such discussions are already taking > > place? > > I am not aware of such discussions, however Tom Steinberg from My > Society will probably get the possibilities and is advising the > government. The rumours are however that budgets at the OS have been > significantly cut so they may not know what they are doing for a bit. > > > > > As another thought; I believe it has been mentioned before that the OS > > thinks that OSM could fill a valuable role in keeping footpaths > > up-to-date (as the OS don't)... previous discussions on the list > > seemed to reveal some uncertainty surrounding footpaths. Perhaps if > > the OS did the leg work to open up all the footpaths we could just > > take it off their hands entirely? With them becoming the downstream. > > That would be great and I think we could get there in time. First > steps first though, we have expressed our interest in supporting the > OS with feedback so lets get them to listen to the not:names content > and other feedback from OS Locator for starters. > > I will draw their attention to this thread. > > > > Regards, > > > Peter > > > > > > Craig > > > > On 9 June 2010 16:38, Andrew Ainsworth <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> It's good to hear that those errors will be routed over to OS, one > >> question > >> though. How will we know if they are/have acted upon it other than > >> when > >> OSSV/OSL gets updated as part of the usual update cycle? > >> > >> On 9 June 2010 15:00, Peter Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 9 Jun 2010, at 14:28, Tim Francois wrote: > >>> > >>>> Thanks for all the responses guys. Here's what I did. > >>>> > >>>> 1) email OS [1] with details of the errors. > >>>> 2.a) Add the errors to wiki [2]. > >>>> 2.b) Included note in the description explaining that an email has > >>>> been > >>>> sent to OS. > >>>> > >>>> I'll update the note as and when I get information back from OS. > >>> > >>> Do be aware that the not:name field will also be routed back to > >>> the OS > >>> from the OSM database. > >>> > >>> We are in the process of setting up a reporting mechanism for the OS > >>> (and other providers) using that tag. > >>> > >>> Fyi, there are 77 ways with not:name tags in the UK dataset as of a > >>> couple of days ago. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> Peter > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> Tim > >>>> > >>>> [1] [email protected] > >>>> [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Catalog_of_Errors > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 00:18 +0100, Gregory wrote: > >>>>> How about adding a column(or encouraging a note in the > >>>>> description) > >>>>> to > >>>>> say the date the source was connected and the date the error was > >>>>> known > >>>>> to be fixed? > >>>>> > >>>>> On 8 June 2010 22:16, Nick Austin <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Frederik Ramm > >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Andrew Ainsworth wrote: > >>>>>>> When I reported some errors recently I contacted > >>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>. They passed > >>>>> it onto > >>>>>>> someone and then I received a reply saying they would > >>>>> resurvey and > >>>>>>> correct it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> May I suggest that you create a wiki page and collect these > >>>>> things > >>>>>> there. This can later be used as a good argument for others > >>>>> to release > >>>>>> data: "Look, these guys gave us their data and we helped > >>>>> them improve it > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I listed the error I found here: > >>>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Catalog_of_Errors > >>>>> > >>>>> Nick. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Talk-GB mailing list > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Gregory > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>> http://www.livingwithdragons.com > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> 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 > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
