[OSM-newbies] newbies Digest, Vol 37, Issue 32

Wed Mar 24 19:41:26 GMT 2010

Oh really, guys. You can have the big-bad monopoly argument if you want, but
it's terribly off-base.

Councils *are not forced* to buy OS mapping. Not even slightly.

Firstly, there have been, and are, alternatives to OS mapping. UKMap (Google
it) is one such example of an alternative to the large scale product
councils can use that are nothing to do with the OS.

Furthermore, council demands on OS mapping are internally constructed - they
decided that the only thing they will accept as mapping is OS mapping, and
ergo that's where their money goes.
To liken paying council tax to directly funding the OS is like saying
filling your car with petrol directly supports terrorism. You're confusing
cause & effect. There are a chain of events within that simply cannot be
passed aside by your trite argument.
The councils chose to buy OS mapping because they're either too lazy or too
ignorant to the alternatives. Or simply, their requirements for such are
ludicrously stringent.

You do not need 1:1250 mapping at c.£150 a square kilometre to show where
schools are, yet they buy it anyway so they can indulge in the ridiculous
process of measuring school applications to the nearest *half a metre* from
the school door.

Finally, *no* OS data currently in use exists from a survey prior to 1999,
nor incidentally does their infrastructure, which was
completely up-heaved at the same time to make way for their new status.
Every means of obtaining OS product now available has been developed after
2002. *OS Mastermap, which equates to 90% of their total revenue, was
developed and launched between 2000 and 2001.*

Roughly 92-95% of OS revenue comes from largescale data (2500 and 1250
product and boundary information) of which "Direct to OS" business from LA's
accounts for about 25% - a figure that is dropping year on year as councils
wise up to better ways of doing business (such as training personnel to use
GIS systems and maintain their own mapping of the local area). Other maps,
such as their entire paper range, constitute a tiny amount of revenue
because after retailers have taken their 50% the maps are sold near enough
at cost. (A reason the OS is currently in the process of withdrawing a lot
of these maps as funding to supersede them is missing). Quite on the
contrary, although the LAs may be paying the OS a lot of money, they are
paying them a *LOT* less than they should be - the direct from OS channel is
heavily subsidised in favour of the councils.

Many, many councils are investing their funds in mapping systems that look
beyond OS mapping - or make use of free mapping made available through their
openspace API to create their own systems. Heck, some boroughs of London are
even making statements about the usefulness of OSM mapping, and how it
should be used in schools.

You can level a huge number of complaints against the OS (such as the
incredible amount of money wasted on internal bureaucracy, their
dis-interest in adding value to mapping) but to claim that the OS are
tax-funded either through the taxpayer directly or through mandated
requirements for their services completely lacks an understanding of the
situation the LA's or the OS themselves are in today.

On 24 March 2010 18:49, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:

>
> On Mar 24, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Phil Monger wrote:
>
> > Steve - "The OS gets its money from local councils and other agencies"
> >
> > No, no they don't. That's exactly what I'm referring to. They haven't
> done this in YEARS since they were mandated to be an independently funded
> organisation. Do a little research.
>
> I did. I did a FOIA request of my local and borough council and found out
> how much money they spend on the OS. You can find it on the wiki.
>
> > The OS are a 'trading fund' and are required to cover *all* their costs
> by selling product AND have to give a certain amount of this *to the
> taxpayer* to cover the administration of them (as they are a civilian
> executive agency).
> >
> > Just glance at the UK budget and you will see there are *no fund*
> allocated to Ordnance Survey.
>
> you're just prevaricating, sorry.
>
>
>
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > On 24 March 2010 17:22, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 23, 2010, at 8:22 PM, Phil Monger wrote:
> >
> > > Steve Doerr - I don't think I understand your point?
> > >
> > > As had already been pointed out the OS are not tax funded. They act
> like any other company within the UK making and selling a product. They have
> done so for 11 years.
> > >
> > > The whole campaign has been driven ahead by the public's anger over
> having to "pay for the mapping my taxes produced" - when in fact no such
> situation exists.
> > >
> > > But hey, leading on the ignorance is politics, right?
> >
> >
> > The OS gets its money from local councils and other agencies, who get
> their money from the UK taxpayer. Just saying that because it's indirect
> that it's not really tax money is short sighted, and playing along with the
> OS's own propaganda.
> >
> >
> > > On 21 March 2010 19:56, Steve Doerr <steve.doerr at blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > > On 20/03/2010 13:34, Mike Harris wrote:
> > >
> > > > It might be worth bearing in mind that - thanks in part from the
> > > > pressures exerted by excellent projects such as OSM - the UK
> government
> > > > and the OS are in the process of considerably liberalising their
> > > > position on what may and what may not be done by taxpayers (who have
> > > > already funded both the OS and the Highway Authority!)
> > >
> > > Fallacious argument. Virtually every adult in the UK is a taxpayer,
> > > whereas hardly anyone is an OSM mapper. When the OS sells its products
> > > to an individual taxpayer, it is a case of 'the many' selling to 'the
> > > few': everyone pays for the OS, but only a few use its products, so
> it's
> > > only fair that the few should compensate the many for the investment
> > > they've made.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Steve
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > newbies mailing list
> > > newbies at openstreetmap.org
> > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > newbies mailing list
> > > newbies at openstreetmap.org
> > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
> >
> > Yours &c.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > newbies mailing list
> > newbies at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > newbies mailing list
> > newbies at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
>
> Yours &c.
>
> Steve
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> newbies mailing list
> newbies at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/newbies/attachments/20100324/0cea8164/attachment.html>