Couldn't agree more with Jerry's post which shows a pragmatic and real world view (also Richard F's elsewhere). To me what this highlights is the need for a more organised and diplomatic approach to promoting OSM in the UK. Also the need for a whole host of internal housekeeping tasks.
Regrds Brian On 2 April 2015 at 19:04, SK53 <sk53....@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
