[Talk-GB] Q4 2020 Quarterly Project: Defibrillators

[Edward Bainton]

> Firstly, I have seen a few buildings that have an AED pictogram sign
outside, suggesting that there is a defibrillator inside.

I know of two defib boxes near me that are in fact empty, despite being lit
and signed. That's quite a high proportion of the tiny number (<10) that
I'm aware of.

On Sat, 14 Nov 2020 at 15:40, Cj Malone <
me-osm-talk-gb at keepawayfromfire.co.uk> wrote:

>
> > Firstly, I have seen a few buildings that have an AED pictogram sign
> > outside, suggesting that there is a defibrillator inside. Is this
> > considered sufficient 'on the ground' evidence to add to the map.
> > These are often locations that are noted up on the Survey Me! tool,
> > but not always.
>
> I would argue so, we add phone numbers to hotels from outside signs.
>
> There is a question of if private defibs should be added to OSM, and
> again I would argue for there addition. We aren't using these defibs
> for routing in emergencies. We have no access liability with Ambulance
> Services. These are added to OSM for education purposes, so that local
> people can be better informed about there situation and so people can
> process the data to workout areas that are under served, improve
> coverage and save lives.
>
> > Secondly, I notice that Rob's otherwise excellent Survey Me! tool
> > occasionally incorrectly matches a point quite far away, and so flags
> > up a missing defibrillator, even though it is correctly mapped in the
> > location expected by the tool. Is there an easy way to resolve these,
> > or is this just too complex a problem?
>
> I don't think Rob has manual matching on his defib site, but I may be
> wrong.
>
> The underlying issue is the quality of the source data, they don't
> typically have coordinates, just a postcode so the location isn't that
> accurate. They also don't have refs so we can't match defibs.
>
> Hopefully there will eventually be a central list of defibs that OSM
> can work with and improve, BHF has hopes of doing this but it seems to
> be a bit stagnant. I also hope this will be released Open Data, OSMUK
> would be happy to help with that.
>
> > Either way, it just highlights another reason why this too cannot be
> used to add data to OSM.
>
> The copyright situation is the external reason, it'll put OSMF in a bad
> position. Copying this data is just as bad as using Google Maps as a
> source.
>
> > However, next time I am passing by the station, I think there is one
> > missing that I can add. This might fix this incorrect matching…
>
> I have noticed that the more defibs in OSM, the better the matching
> gets. But that's not always the case.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201114/e1ef221c/attachment.htm>