Hi, Dave F. wrote: >> The commercial maps have fixed tagging schemes, minimum quality >> standards and only accept trained personnel as mappers. They have long >> turnaround times and cost a lot of money to maintain. At OSM we have no >> fixed tagging schema, *no minimum quality standards* > > & you see that as a positive? Did you mean to write it that way?
I was assessing the pros and cons of either side. Not having minimum quality standards is a "con" on the OSM side, but the super fast turnaround times which I mentioned next are a "pro" that would be killed by introducing minimum quality standards. You can have one of them but not both. >> So, yes, in my eyes the approach is really "take it or leave it", and if >> someone decides he'd rather use TeleAtlas or Navteq then by all means, >> let him do it. I don't know why Dave F finds this "VERY disillusioning"; >> what was his illusion then? > > A regular here (Foundation member?) said that OSM would perceived to be > a success when someone like Google used OSM data. That was surely a very personal statement. Remember, Foundation members are known to hold extreme views. Luckily they are outnumbered by non-member mappers by about 1:500 ;-) > But the routing/tagging of OSM doesn't fit anything at the moment. Huh? > Whether the map use is to make money or not , if these ventures aren't > taking the data because it's unusable then OSM has to be considered to > be failing. Again, disillusioning. I think the single most important reason why some ventures don't, and will not, use OSM data is not the quality but the license. ODbL or no ODbL. Bye Frederik _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
