[Talk-GB] Canal & River Trust maps

Brian Prangle bprangle at gmail.com
Fri Apr 3 08:02:25 UTC 2015

Couldn't agree more with Jerry's post which shows a pragmatic and real
world view (also Richard F's elsewhere). To me what this highlights is the
need for a more organised and diplomatic approach to promoting OSM in the
UK. Also the need for a whole host of internal housekeeping tasks.



On 2 April 2015 at 19:04, SK53 <sk53.osm at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's worth considering the following;
>    - CRT are using their own (high quality, high consistency) data. No
>    need for OSM data.
>    - OSM detail is highly variable, and parts of CRT's system might not
>    be mapped at an appropriate level of detail or accuracy.
>    - OSM tagging etc. is prone to change which would involve extra
>    expense in tweaking the base cartography rules (see tagging discussion on
>    lock_gates for an example which would affect canal cartography). (See also
>    the discussion of pipeline tagging which directly affected client work of
>    someone on this list).
>    - OSM does not have the funds or people to offer either financial
>    support or equivalent staff involvement which I imagine the partnership
>    with Google involves.
>    - OSM does not have the means to provide services and service delivery
>    on knowable timescales and costs (for instance doing Streetview for
>    towpaths.
>    - There is no OSM technology which a) matches GSVs capabilities; or b)
>    can capture 360 degree panorama images quickly.
>    - Integration of CRTs assets into a widely used search engine and
>    familiar software (GMaps, GSV) is likely to bring tangible benefits to CRT
>    far faster than using OSM. CRT needs to find new sources of funding, so
>    this is a non-trivial issue.
> Lamenting that CRT are not using OSM fails to recognise that OSM are not a
> service provider. Equally, OSM data is not consistent enough to provide a
> base layer for this kind of work. And finally, I imagine, this is done to
> fairly fixed timescales: again something which OSM introduces
> imponderables, aka unknowable risk factors.
> Some of these things can be changed, but others represent things which
> just are not part of OSM and are unlikely to be so in the foreseeable
> future.
> I'm proud that we can be more accurate and up-to-date than Google Maps and
> the Ordnance Survey, but I dont make the mistake of thinking that we are a
> pure substitution play.
> Jerry
> On 2 April 2015 at 17:01, Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Google have the CRT helping them do streetview along the tow paths so,
>> yes, a partnership exists.
>> There is little point getting defensive, the better question to ask would
>> be "what does OpenStreetMap have to do so that next time you use our data
>> rather than Google's?"
>> RichardF may have some insight into that but I'd understand if he'd
>> rather not share his views right now.
>> Rob
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20150403/b9d0545f/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list