[Talk-GB] OpenKent, OSM coverage estimation

[Peter Miller]

On 3 June 2011 11:45, TimSC <mapping at sheerman-chase.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Some stats on OSM coverage of Kent. I tried to pair the records of KCC
> OpenKent with the OSM database. Assuming the KCC list is complete (which it
> is usually, but not entirely), we can estimate OSM's coverage in the area.
>
> Schools: 618 of 915 (915 (67.54 %)
> Pharmacies: 67 of 274 (274 (24.45 %)
> Doctors: 33 of 286 (286 (11.54 %)
> Libraries: 70 of 101 (101 (69.31 %)
> Opticians: 12 of 170 (170 (7.06 %)
> Hospitals: 24 of 33 (33 (72.73 %)
>
> So, OSM is good on some features and poor on others. It seems "for profit"
> locations are not so well mapped, compared to public services.
>
> My philosophy is that OSM omissions should be regarded as errors. With
> complete lists of addresses, we can go and find exact positions of these
> services. I am still unsure if this is compatible with the relicensing. This
> data is distributed under OGL (and sometimes OS OpenData too). Can LWG
> attempt to reduce the legal uncertainty of this, by a definitive statement?

My experience is that the LWG never makes definitive statements!

I suggest that you turn the tables on them and send them an email
saying that you will import the OGL-licensed data in xx days unless
you get a statement from them in the mean time saying that it would be
violating the OSM licensing terms and compromising your status as a
contributor.

Fyi, I was at a meeting where Francis Maude, the cabinet office
minister, spoke about open data recently. He is very keen or this sort
of use and is pressing for more data to be released and used. In light
of that it would be a brave or foolish council officer who challenged
such an import!

Regarding data formats. Can I suggest that that we gratefully accept
data in whatever format it is provided. We can ask politely for it to
be in an better format but please don't complain either about the
quality of the data or the suitability of the format which may support
councils who will argue that they should delay releasing anything
until they have got it right and in the perfect format. The phrase is
'raw data now' (warts and all).

On a separate note. Would you be able to do a comparison between place
names in NatGaz and in OSM. I think we will be surprised how many
places we are still missing from OSM. My guess is that OSM only
contains about 65% of the 50K places in that database. Here it is:
http://data.gov.uk/dataset/nptg



Regards,


Peter

>
> Regards,
>
> TimSC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>