[OSM-talk] Fwd: Nav4All navigation shut down by Navteq

80n 80n80n at gmail.com
Mon Feb 1 20:38:29 GMT 2010

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Igor Brejc <igor.brejc at gmail.com> wrote:

> Frederik,
> All this is true, but.... I think we are too concentrated on generating
> content (i.e. mapping) as opposed to actually using this data for some
> meaningful purpose. I guess this is natural, since majority of OSM users
> are mostly map data producers, and only the minority is actively
> involved in map "consuming".
> It is right that we are all concentrating on creation of content.  But,
what we haven't had yet is any commercial map data consumers  telling us
what they need.  Well, in a way, maybe Nav4All is telling us what it
needs... and I sometimes hear Cloudmade banging on about routing.

It would be interesting to have some map consumer tell us what their minimum
mapping needs.  Statements like "OSM has been looked at but is no solution
because there is no full coverage" don't help us to provide what they need.

While mappers might be uncomfortable to mark out an area and tag it with
ok_for_Nav4All=yes, I think I would be happy to mark out areas with
road_network=complete and cycle_network=complete, based on some definition
provided by someone who would actually use that information.

Come on guys tell us what you need.


> My point is that we should listen to people who are trying to use our
> mapping data (both for non-profit and commercially).  After all, isn't
> it the whole point of OSM to produce something useful? Or is just so
> that we can show a nice world map on the main page?
> Regards,
> Igor
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > NopMap wrote:
> >
> >> OSM is quite suitable for any hobby project, but I believe that the
> >> anarchistic nature and the often controversial and sometimes disputed
> and
> >> chaotic tagging are reason enough to deter the use of OSM in any
> >> professional area where you are talking about warranties.
> >>
> >
> > I don't think that the line is between "hobby" and "professional".
> >
> > OSM with their volunteers does one kind of mapping, and TeleAtlas with
> > their vans does another kind of mapping. Each has its own distinctive
> > advantages. There are professional users wo spend money on OSM data when
> > they *already have* TeleAtlas data.
> >
> > The commercial maps have fixed tagging schemes, minimum quality
> > standards and only accept trained personnel as mappers. They have long
> > turnaround times and cost a lot of money to maintain. At OSM we have no
> > fixed tagging schema, no minimum quality standards, and anyone can map.
> > We have super fast turnaround times and cost nothing to maintain.
> > Different approaches - different results. Not worse or better; different.
> >
> > I don't see how you could have the advantages without the disadvantages.
> > Add a fixed tagging scheme and peer review to OSM and you get more
> > quality but less data and longer turnaround times; before long you are
> > TeleAtlas v2.0 and have to charge for maps to pay your mappers because
> > nobody does it for fun any more.
> >
> > So, yes, in my eyes the approach is really "take it or leave it", and if
> > someone decides he'd rather use TeleAtlas or Navteq then by all means,
> > let him do it. I don't know why Dave F finds this "VERY disillusioning";
> > what was his illusion then? For OSM to rule the world? I think the world
> > is much better of with a few map datasets following different approaches
> > that with a "one size fits all" dataset.
> >
> > Bye
> > Frederik
> >
> >
> --
> http://igorbrejc.net
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100201/7140ef0d/attachment.html>

More information about the talk mailing list