[Talk-GB] OSM Analysis updated with new OS Locator data and a review of progress to date

[Ed Avis]

Peter Miller <peter.miller at ...> writes:

>>>I have not used commercial mapping while creating the map,  but some
>>>errors in Navteq, TeleAtlas and AA naming locally have subsequently
>>>come to my attention subsequently and I see no reason why these should
>>>not be in also included in not:name.

>>That makes it harder to argue independent creation if for any reason
>>our map starts to closely resemble Navteq's and they allege copying.
>
>I hear your concern.

>You will notice that I hadn't added that information and am not
>rushing to do us.

OK.  I may have made the common mistake of confusing the discussion of an
action on the mailing list with the performance of that action.

Can we agree, then, that it's a bad idea to tag anything in OSM that comes
directly from proprietary maps such as Navteq - even if minor things like
notes of errors in the other map - and so for any check of OS Locator versus
OSM, we don't need to worry about not:name tags that might have been added for
Navteq, because there won't be any.

Thanks again (to you and your employees) for your work on these comparisons.

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>