Jerry, As somebody who has used OSM-GB data quite a bit, and as a big fan of the project, I agree with your suggestions below. Some comments on each...
On 23 February 2013 12:47, sk53.osm <[email protected]> wrote: > If OSM-GB is truly "to allow the improvement" of OSM data it needs to do a > few things: > > - Recognise that OSM might from time-to-time be better than OSGB (this > is after all one reason why councils might want to use OSM). > > This could be very easily achieved by using phrases like "noting discrepancies in road names" rather than "correcting discrepancies". ITO have done a good job on this, making it easy to find all the discrepancies and then either fix OSM or note than the OS data appears to be wrong. In the future, noting and chasing up discrepancies would be a really useful way of engaging local authority and other public sector GIS folk. It shows that there is value in OSM/OSM-GB for them, and could provide a sizeable number of mappers interested in chasing them up. > > - Provide information which is easily used by the OSM Mapping > community (more below). > > I agree, though to be honest I've never used their bug layers very much. I have found their WFS service very useful though, see for example http://tom.acrewoods.net/2012/11/08/spotting-problems-with-osm-gbs-web-service/ > > - Engage with the OSM mapping community more directly. The last > minutes on their website have apologies from A. Alan (I presume this is > Andy Allan) representing OSM. > > I'm sure they'd be open to more people getting involved. I've never got the time for their meetings but I get occasional email updates and have found Amir, the main techy, very open and friendly. Have you contacted them directly? Regards, Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
