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

Wed Mar 24 20:14:28 GMT 2010

You are entering... The Twilight Zone!

On Mar 24, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Phil Monger wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> newbies mailing list
> newbies at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies

Yours &c.

Steve