[OSM-talk] Fwd: Nav4All navigation shut down by Navteq
NopMap
ekkehart at gmx.de
Tue Feb 2 11:26:40 GMT 2010
Hi!
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.
bye
Nop
--
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