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

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Tue Feb 2 23:32:19 GMT 2010


Ulf Lamping wrote:
> You're all right when it comes to common stuff, that's documented in Map 
> Features and may already exist in the presets of JOSM/Potlatch. But 
> that's the easy part.
> The hassle begins, when you come to a topic where this isn't the case.

But this thread started with people complaining about lack of commercial 
usability because of "tagging mayhem" (Nic's term). Although I share 
Ivan's sentiment (producing something commercially usable should not be 
our #1 goal), maybe we can stick with that for a moment - let us try and 
find out what data the commercial providers have and which is *not* on 
one simple Wiki page (or a mug).

It can't be the murky details of cycleways and bridleways because the 
commercial providers don't have that, or if they have it then only in 
selected areas. It can't be highway=path and all that because they don't 
have it. It can't be - in my opinion! - the top highway types from 
motorway down to residential because they aren't any better in that than 
we are (or are they).

It could be turn restrictions; I agree that an easy editor for those is 
required - but while the tagging rules are a bit complex for turn 
restrictions, they are not mayhem - they are perfectly clear.

So where is it that

1. the commercial providers have good data
2. OSM hasn't and
3. the reason for OSM not having it is not lack of coverage but lack of 
consensus regarding tagging?


Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

More information about the talk mailing list