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

Ulf Lamping ulf.lamping at googlemail.com
Wed Feb 3 00:08:36 GMT 2010


Am 03.02.2010 00:32, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> Hi,
>
> 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?

Chris argument was about the "none existing" problems of "tag finding" 
and I was responding to that.

Your argument is about what the commercial providers have definitions 
that we lack of. As far as I know that definitions, I agree with you 
that there's no real problem for us :-)

Regards, ULFL





More information about the talk mailing list