[OSM-talk] Fwd: Nav4All navigation shut down by Navteq
davefox at madasafish.com
Wed Feb 3 15:22:10 GMT 2010
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 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*
& you see that as a positive? Did you mean to write it that way?
> 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?
A regular here (Foundation member?) said that OSM would perceived to be
a success when someone like Google used OSM data.
I agree with that when meaning Google's wide scope of deployment.
I wouldn't be disappointed if a map creator criticized OSM out of hand
because it's free & created by the public & therefore must be poor.
They could always be talked around, but the examples given here are of
organizations who have spent a lot of time, effort & money trying to
integrate OSM into their systems. For them to conclude that OSM isn't
good enough is disillusioning.
> 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"
But the routing/tagging of OSM doesn't fit anything at the moment.
Even the maps produced now with OSM data are expected to be accepted
with the OSM foibles built in.
In some following posts commercial ventures have been mentioned. I see
this as an irrelevance.
Whether the map use is to make money or not , if these ventures aren't
taking the data because it's unusable then OSM has to be considered to
be failing. Again, disillusioning.
More information about the talk