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

NopMap ekkehart at gmx.de
Tue Feb 2 11:26:40 GMT 2010


Kai Krueger wrote:
> Interesting. I think that could also be "spun" positively ;-) It means 
> people in the industry are starting to take OSM seriously and actually 
> invest money to evaluate how far it has come and be prepared for when it 
> does reach a sufficient quality or need to quickly switch. It also means 
> they must have had some confidence in that the process of crowd sourcing 
> map data can work. 
That's not quite the way they put it. They evaluated it in order not to miss
a major development there, but concluded that it is no alternative and
dropped the idea of using it for good.

Kai Krueger wrote:
> Again I would agree with you that geometry is good 
> and attribution still somewhat lacking. Osm is missing loads of turn 
> restriction, height or weight restrictions, speed restrictions and 
> housenumbers to name a few, even in areas with very good geometry 
> coverage. But from a point of view of being disillusioned, I think in 
> the majority of cases they are missing and seldomly wrong. So it just 
> needs a lot more mappers and some time and that should be achievable too.
> Without knowing the company and any more of what they concluded I 
> obviously can't say if the above statement is true for your example. But 
> I have at least been peripherally involved with writing the turn-by-turn 
>   routing support of GpsMid that is based on OSM data and in my limited 
> testing, the routes it found in high coverage areas, were not really 
> worse than those found by a TomTom or Navigon that I had for comparison. 
> Each had parts where it was better and worse than the others. So I do 
> think it would be possible to make good routing from OSM, given good 
> (commercial?) software.
I guess this boils down to a matter of personal conviction. As long as we
are using the same tag with three or more different meanings, I hold that
there is no way to make decent conclusions from that. And I do not see a
positive tendency, in my field of intereset I have now observed 14 months of
repetitive discussion with zero progress towards any sort of cohesion.

Kai Krueger wrote:
> So as I stated above, I don't think the _main_ problem at the moment is 
> the anarchistic tagging, but still too limited coverage, especially on 
> tagging relevant for routing.

Again, this is not how the company put it. The evaluation failed due to the
tagging, so even a full coverage with the same tagging would not be a
sufficient basis.


View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Fwd-Nav4All-navigation-shut-down-by-Navteq-tp4488024p4500254.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the talk mailing list