It's worth considering the following; - CRT are using their own (high quality, high consistency) data. No need for OSM data. - OSM detail is highly variable, and parts of CRT's system might not be mapped at an appropriate level of detail or accuracy. - OSM tagging etc. is prone to change which would involve extra expense in tweaking the base cartography rules (see tagging discussion on lock_gates for an example which would affect canal cartography). (See also the discussion of pipeline tagging which directly affected client work of someone on this list). - OSM does not have the funds or people to offer either financial support or equivalent staff involvement which I imagine the partnership with Google involves. - OSM does not have the means to provide services and service delivery on knowable timescales and costs (for instance doing Streetview for towpaths. - There is no OSM technology which a) matches GSVs capabilities; or b) can capture 360 degree panorama images quickly. - Integration of CRTs assets into a widely used search engine and familiar software (GMaps, GSV) is likely to bring tangible benefits to CRT far faster than using OSM. CRT needs to find new sources of funding, so this is a non-trivial issue.
Lamenting that CRT are not using OSM fails to recognise that OSM are not a service provider. Equally, OSM data is not consistent enough to provide a base layer for this kind of work. And finally, I imagine, this is done to fairly fixed timescales: again something which OSM introduces imponderables, aka unknowable risk factors. Some of these things can be changed, but others represent things which just are not part of OSM and are unlikely to be so in the foreseeable future. I'm proud that we can be more accurate and up-to-date than Google Maps and the Ordnance Survey, but I dont make the mistake of thinking that we are a pure substitution play. Jerry On 2 April 2015 at 17:01, Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Google have the CRT helping them do streetview along the tow paths so, > yes, a partnership exists. > > There is little point getting defensive, the better question to ask would > be "what does OpenStreetMap have to do so that next time you use our data > rather than Google's?" > > RichardF may have some insight into that but I'd understand if he'd rather > not share his views right now. > > Rob > > _______________________________________________ > 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
