[Talk-GB] I have a philosophical question...

Miguel Sevilla-Callejo msevilla00 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 17 09:05:45 UTC 2019


I like your reply Gareth!

>From my point of view it's wrong trying to compare OSM to Google Maps or
other centralized mapping projects because we, OSM Contributors, a huge
variety of people, have different interests. I use to compare the way we
contribute in OSM as the way free software developers do to improve some
programs and, following this idea, I recommend to have a view to the E.S
Raymond's essay: "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" [1] . We are the bazaar in
the mapping realm!

Cheers

Miguel

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar

--
*Miguel Sevilla-Callejo*
Doctor in Geography
- Research Assistance at the Pyrenean Institute of Ecology - Spanish
National Research Council
- Associate Lecturer at Dpto. of Geography & Territorial Planning at
University of Zaragoza (Spain)
- Collaborative Mapping / Mapeado Colaborativo / Geoinquietos group
co-coordinator (Zaragoza, Spain)
- Freelance consultant & researcher - Member #698, Spanish Professional
Association of Geographers


On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 00:55, Gareth L <o.i at live.co.uk> wrote:

> It’s easy to forget that OSM is a geographically referenced database of
> objects. That just happens to be rendered as a map. If you want to know how
> many post boxes have the George the 5th cypher, you can query the
> database to find out. If you want to limit that by geographic bounds (say,
> a city’s limits) then great, you can do that.
>
>
>
> Google maps things to keep people in their ecosystem and find more out
> about where people want to go. They care most about points of interest so
> they can advertise accordingly, or suggest to those points of
> interest/businesses that they may want to pay google money so they get seen
> better than they would do normally. It’s why cities have streetview data
> barely a year old, but country roads are 7 years out of date. There’s
> little money in covering it.
>
>
>
> Roads/lane markings are getting a lot of attention because of assistive
> driving system development causing a shedload of money being pumped into
> that area of interest.
>
>
>
> I like adding to OSM as a pedestrian. It’s annoying to walk a circuitous
> route to a shop only to find there’s an alleyway that will take you there
> in 10% of the time.
>
>
>
> The freely available database allows interesting data to be presented with
> low barrier to entry. As academia finds, it’s annoying to have to pay to
> view a journal behind a paywall, when you dunno if it even has the info you
> want.
>
>
>
> A couple weaknesses for the main OSM ‘map’ I’ve found:
>
> Transport routes (particularly buses) change too frequently and would be
> better as a separate service that is overlaid onto an OSM derived map.
>
>
>
> All the different features that people have as priorities to add are
> valid, but it’s sometimes tricky to figure out the best order to add them
> in. Why add all the stiles and gates to a field before you have the
> footpaths added? Or adding bins and benches by roads before defining what
> kind of pavement/sidewalk it has.*
>
>
>
> A couple Strengths of OSM:
>
>
>
> Updates are fast. Google/bing are less fast at updating areas, and
> especially so if in a quiet region. OS only publish a new paper map when
> the old one has gone out of print, meaning the Leicestershire map is more
> out of date than the more popular peak district ones.
>
>
>
> If you want more info available on xyz feature.. you can add it, and
> encourage others to do so also.
>
>
>
>
>
> So, back to the philosophical question: I’d say it’s all important.
> However, the order that things are best added to the map could be helpful
> to know. Not in a tollgate “don’t add z until qrstuvwxy has been added
> first” way, but knowing what additional information is enabled to be added
> as a result of you adding a certain feature.
>
>
>
> *sidewalks are such a nightmare in general in osm with no easy approach on
> how to best add them, it seems.
>
>
>
> Not an easy question!
>
> Gareth
>
>
>
> *From: *BD <dzidek23 at tlen.pl>
> *Sent: *13 January 2019 23:10
> *To: *talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *[Talk-GB] I have a philosophical question...
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> I do make my little contribution to the effort of OSM. Recently I added
> some data to Mapillary and consider adding more (for the use of other
> mappers).
>
>
>
> After reading someone's OSM profile I started to think and now have some
> doubts... We (mappers) are concentrating on various areas of the map. Some
> are dedicated to buildings, some to geographical features others add
> businesses etc. Can someone explain what is the aim of OSM, are we trying
> to build a map better than Bing and Google (in towns and cities) or are we
> planning to create a useful tool for tourists (with paths, places of
> interests)?
>
>
>
> What is the aim of OSM, what should we concentrate on?
>
> Should we map roads for sat-nav or buildings for urban area accuracy?
> Paths and tourists attractions or schools and electric cars charging points?
>
>
>
> many thanks,
>
> dzidek23
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190117/0fa23d63/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list