[Osmf-talk] DWG survey on organized editing
helge at toursprung.com
Mon Oct 2 18:53:54 UTC 2017
The survey gave me the impression of an intent to regulate (as in: limit)
corporate edits, instead of embracing them. Maybe the corporate edit that
doesn't happen is the more problematic one?
Three recent real world examples from our customers:
1. The tourism board of a German bundesland uses OSM for bicycle routing
online and in apps, plus for their maps. They collected truckloads of local
feedback of mapping errors and they have a) access to public shape files
(and the permission to use them in OSM) and b) the money and motivation to
pay someone to improve OSM accordingly. (If there was a bounty marketplace
they would have happily set up a €€€ bounty for reviewing and importing
their data and/or checking and fixing the bugs they reported.)
2. A couple of big ski resorts in the alps use OSM for their ski routing
and need 100% correct and routable (!) ski lifts and pistes. Their geodata
is pristine - they built those lifts and pistes after all.
3. A big private tourism organisation has spent a lot of money to
properly map all hiking routes in a large part of the Alpes. Now they
realise that keeping that data up to date is too expensive and they want to
donate the data to OSM, so somebody else keeps it up to date for them.
Their data is currently still much better than what we find on OSM.
And so on - I could give you many more examples, and I am sure every other
technology provider on this list can do, too.
I'm not saying a policy for corporate edits is a bad thing, but: Where's
the corporate embassy, the OSM reception desk to *embrace* such valuable
contributors to the OSM universe?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk