[OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

[Kevin Cordina]

If the OS data is OK, then how can something that is essentially the same not be OK.  If your point is that the data is incomplete, then there can be no debate.  But the quality of the data that is there is the same as the OS data.

120 errors in road names out of how many roads, and how are those 'errors' categorised?  It depends what you compare the data to.

As you say the OS data suits my needs.  However there seems to be a view that because "you aim higher" my low-level of contribution shouldn't be allowed and are damaging the project.  I find this odd and in contrast to the community nature of OSM.  Everything I do is clearly tagged with the source, so please do come along, survey, correct and add to it.  Everyone is then happy.  I fail to see why my contribution that has a direct and measurable impact on the use of the project, shouldn't be done _in case_ it puts someone off improving it further.

Kevin


----- Original Message -----
From: legal-talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org <legal-talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org>
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tue Sep 28 18:56:57 2010
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

To be clear, I did not describe OS data as crap, I described the 
*quality* of data only based on OS StreetView with no extra surveyed 
data as crap.

So you think that only experienced OSmers add shops, churches, schools, 
footpaths, cycletracks ... ?

In the Hull area there are about 120 roads with the wrong names on OS 
StreetView and OS Locator. OS StreetView is very far from the best 
quality OS data - it has for example approximations for buildings, it 
has most of the excellent OS detail removed and is laid out as a print 
layer.

OS OpenData may suit your needs, but I aim higher.

Kevin Cordina wrote:
> I see the point, but am not convinced.  
> I think categorising the OS data as 'crap' is a huge exaggeration. Yes, there are errors, but in the general scheme of things are minor.
>
> This is also where the source tags come in handy.  A user who is experienced enough to want to add the extra detail is also likely experienced enough to spot the OS source tag and realise a survey would benefit the data.
> As to the usefulness - a map compiled from purely the OS streetview data would serve one of my purposes for OSM data (rendering nameless maps of streets and natural features) 100% perfectly, so it is not a fair assumption that more data = more value.
>
> A fundamental difference arises based on the intended use - my use is better served by better geographic coverage, without the subtleties, and therefore tracing/importing is valuable to me.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: legal-talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org <legal-talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org>
> To: kevin at cordina.org.uk <kevin at cordina.org.uk>; Licensing and other legal discussions. <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Sent: Tue Sep 28 17:55:24 2010
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
>
> kevin at cordina.org.uk wrote:
>   
>> OK, so transferring data isn't as academically pleasing as gaining a GPS trace and basing a map on that, but I don't see how a road in OSM from OS data is worse than no road being present.
>>   
>>     
> Gathering data for OSM on the ground is so much more than just the track 
> of a road. When someone just traces the OS data with the names it 
> superficially looks complete, but all of the additional data that a 
> survey would bring is missing and that is where much of the value comes 
> from. This 'complete' look puts off other OSMers so the net result is 
> long-lasting, crap quality data with all of the OS errors and omissions 
> and no added detail. Speed of completion comes a poor second to real 
> quality in my mind.
>
> There are a few useful imports such as boundary data which are not 
> available from a survey.  Using OS Locator to compare with OSM to help 
> establish what is missing is useful too, but I believe that should lead 
> to a survey to add anything to OSM.
>
>   


-- 
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Olswang LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC343050. It is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

A list of the members (and of the non-members who are designated as partners) of Olswang LLP and their qualifications is available for inspection at its registered office, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6XX.  We use the word partner to refer to a member of Olswang LLP, or an employee or consultant of Olswang LLP or any of its affiliated businesses with equivalent standing and qualification.

Olswang LLP has taken over the practice of Olswang with effect from 1 May 2009.  Please refer to www.olswang.com/legal_notice.asp for information on the transfer of the business and regulatory information.

This email and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is directed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you have received this email and you are not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this email to the intended recipient, please inform our IT Service Desk on +44 20 7067 5000 and then delete the email from your system.  If you are not a named addressee you must not use, disclose, disseminate, distribute, copy, print or reply to this email.  Although Olswang LLP routinely screens for viruses, addressees should scan this email and any attachments for viruses, it makes no representation or warranty as to the absence of viruses in this email or any attachments.  Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of its clients and business, Olswang LLP may monitor and read emails sent to and from our server(s).