> Firstly, I have seen a few buildings that have an AED pictogram sign outside, suggesting that there is a defibrillator inside.
I know of two defib boxes near me that are in fact empty, despite being lit and signed. That's quite a high proportion of the tiny number (<10) that I'm aware of. On Sat, 14 Nov 2020 at 15:40, Cj Malone < [email protected]> wrote: > > > Firstly, I have seen a few buildings that have an AED pictogram sign > > outside, suggesting that there is a defibrillator inside. Is this > > considered sufficient 'on the ground' evidence to add to the map. > > These are often locations that are noted up on the Survey Me! tool, > > but not always. > > I would argue so, we add phone numbers to hotels from outside signs. > > There is a question of if private defibs should be added to OSM, and > again I would argue for there addition. We aren't using these defibs > for routing in emergencies. We have no access liability with Ambulance > Services. These are added to OSM for education purposes, so that local > people can be better informed about there situation and so people can > process the data to workout areas that are under served, improve > coverage and save lives. > > > Secondly, I notice that Rob's otherwise excellent Survey Me! tool > > occasionally incorrectly matches a point quite far away, and so flags > > up a missing defibrillator, even though it is correctly mapped in the > > location expected by the tool. Is there an easy way to resolve these, > > or is this just too complex a problem? > > I don't think Rob has manual matching on his defib site, but I may be > wrong. > > The underlying issue is the quality of the source data, they don't > typically have coordinates, just a postcode so the location isn't that > accurate. They also don't have refs so we can't match defibs. > > Hopefully there will eventually be a central list of defibs that OSM > can work with and improve, BHF has hopes of doing this but it seems to > be a bit stagnant. I also hope this will be released Open Data, OSMUK > would be happy to help with that. > > > Either way, it just highlights another reason why this too cannot be > used to add data to OSM. > > The copyright situation is the external reason, it'll put OSMF in a bad > position. Copying this data is just as bad as using Google Maps as a > source. > > > However, next time I am passing by the station, I think there is one > > missing that I can add. This might fix this incorrect matching… > > I have noticed that the more defibs in OSM, the better the matching > gets. But that's not always the case. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
