<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 10 April 2011 23:02, Richard Moss <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:richard@richardmoss.co.uk">richard@richardmoss.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
> Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 08:07:31 +0000 (UTC)<br>
> From: Ed Avis <a href="http://et.com" target="_blank">et.com</a>>To: tal<br>
> k-gb@openstreetmap.orgSubject: Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis and ITO Map now updating daily.<br>
<div class="im">> New stats for OSM Analysis. New overlay maps for ITO Map<br>
</div>> Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<br>
<div class="im">><br>
> Here are some examples of not:name and highway=no:<br>
><br>
</div><div class="im">> n=-0.21501&layers=B0TF><br>
> >From the comparison report you can see only two<br>
</div>> errors remaining. That isbecause the others have been checked, and where OS was wrong a not:name has<br>
<div class="im">> beentagged.<br>
><br>
> If you download the map for that area you'll see some ways tagged with<br>
> highway=no. This is where I visited and found there was no road there any<br>
> more.The highway=no way is just a placeholder to mark the not:name tag for the<br>
> check.<br>
> --<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>I'd not met " highway=no" before, although I have used not:name. But I'm beginning to worry about the principle that we are cluttering up the OSM databse with stuff that is "not" there. OSM is about what is on the ground. I don't know what ITO's particular interests are, but should we really be putting negative stuff on OSM, just because another map is wrong?<br>
</blockquote><div><br><br>I realise that any commercial company will always be under scrutiny over its motives, far more than an individual and that is quite right.<br><br>Firstly, we have recorded our involvement in the project on ITO World page on
the OSM Wiki and there is also an ITO World Category. [3]<br><br>Responding to your particular questions.<br><br>We are interested in transport of all forms everywhere. We would like to know where people can walk, ride a bike or drive a car. We would like to know which railways can transport a hi-cube shipping container and where ferries operate. We would like to know where the public entrances are to buildings and if there is a disabled ramp. This is more information than can be provided from any commercial source and we identified OSM back in mid-2007 as a potential source of much of that data.<br>
<br>At the first State of the Map conference in Manchester in late 2007 I heard Ed Parsons give a keynote talk and he predicted that OSMs big challenges would be over licensing and completeness [1]. This struck a chord with us. Since then ITO have contributed legal time to the debate on licensing and the articles of association, and have also provided a succession of services to support the quality and completeness of the data (OSM Mapper, OSM Analsyis and ITO Map etc). <br>
<br>The not:name and highway=no tags came out of OSM Analysis. The validity of not:name was discussed on this list when we proposed it and it was generally agreed that it had a role to identify common errors to avoid the map going backwards and ensure that incorrect external data didn't keep leaking into OSM. The highway=no proposal came from a couple of people in the community (not ITO) who wanted to get to 100% OSM Analysis completeness and had spotted old data in OS Locator. We added this tag to the service in response.<br>
<br>I think it is best to think of 'highway=no' as part of a feature
lifecycle which will have a role for a maximum of 2-5 years after the road (or other
feature) has been removed. In that time it should be eradicated from
other relevant datasources including current aerial photography. Until then it
probably has a role and after that point it can be removed. See more on the wiki about life cycle concepts here. [2]<br><br>As you may be aware we are also lead industrial partner in Ideas in Transit, a five year government funded research project to understand what role user innovation and user contributed data could have on transport policy. The Ordnance Survey are part of that research project and the DfT are one of the funders. As such we have had various opportunities to highlight the significance of OSM to many policymakers formally and informally. Our relationship with the OS is very simple and we provide them with no information that is not generally available from our products to every contributor.<br>
<br>I hope that helps.<br><br><br>Regard,<br><br><br>Peter Miller<br>ITO World Ltd<br><br>[1] <a href="http://vimeo.com/7347767">http://vimeo.com/7347767</a> (closing comments, but the whole thing is worth watching)<br>[2] <a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Comparison_of_life_cycle_concepts">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Comparison_of_life_cycle_concepts</a><br>
[3] <a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ITO_World">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ITO_World</a><br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Richard<br>
(user: richardm565)<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-GB mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>