[Talk-GB] trunk roads
David Earl
david at frankieandshadow.com
Thu Mar 29 17:56:24 BST 2007
> > OSM isn't adequate as it stands because the richness of the cycle route
> > types isn't quite enough - at least for us. For example, where
> a road has
> > cycle lanes and pavement cycling, both are represented *and
> graded* so that
> > if you ask for the 'quietest' route you'll get the pavement and the
> > 'fastest' route you'll get the road. It also gives you the exact path to
> > take through junctions, much more detail than OSM contains, where most
> > junctions are simply single nodes.
>
> But there is no reason they couldn't use OSM as a basis for their
> tracing, rather than Google Maps. If they did, their tracing could be
> incorporated back in to OSM.
Absolutely. The only reason we didn't do this is because it predates useful OSM data. There was nothing useful for Cambridge until the last few months.
Simon Nuttall (who wrote the system) is currently considering how to deploy the
> Could we take their codebase, dump the data, and set it up for Oxford,
> for example, except with our map instead of Google's? We could then try
> to convert our Oxford map into starting traces for their system, which
> could then be refined by their tools.
The current server is already capable of displaying tiles from OSM instead of Google. The reason we haven't switched is because we are then using Google derived data outside the context of the mashup.
If we re-entered all the data for Cambridge now using OSM as the base, we'd be OK; except that a lot of the junction detail came from the satellite images. But I think if we were going to reenter it, it would be good to have a tighter integration since the base OSM data is topoligical in the first place.
David
More information about the Talk-GB
mailing list