On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Maarten Deen <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, they don't name us, but I think "a leading open source map" does refer > to us. > > <http://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/licensing/newsletter/201205/didyouknow/> > > Oh wauw. We're not perfect. Let's close up the shop. Thanks to SteveC for > all the effort, but it wasn't enough. > > Well, probably one of the very positive effects from OSM is the fact that > when we start mapping something, the closed-source mappers follow suit. The > fact that Google needs to add gimmicks like kajak routing across the pacific > to beat us says enough. > It's a win-win situation.
It looks like we're getting to the point where the closed-source mappers are starting to see us as serious competition. If the best they can do is that "In one particular instance" (presumably chosen to make their point as well as possible) we've got "a third less residential road coverage and 16% less basic map attributes" we're well on the way (especially the second part of that). Also, having said that the community is a drawback for Open Source, they then claim their community as an advantage! I doubt that their specialists really go out and check each correction that's sent in; I expect we do more (implicit) checking, as vandalism is reported and undone. I wonder whether their comment on "pedestrians and in city or town centres" can be taken as conceding that we're doing better than them in those areas? The nearest they make to an accurate point is "classification of footpaths as roads" --- I don't think I've seen any of those, but I have found quite a few "unclassified roads" that look more like "tracks" on Bing (and have adjusted them accordingly where confident of it). __John _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
