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

Dave F. davefox at madasafish.com
Wed Feb 3 16:03:09 GMT 2010

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> Dave F. wrote:
>>> 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?
> I was assessing the pros and cons of either side. Not having minimum 
> quality standards is a "con" on the OSM side, but the super fast 
> turnaround times which I mentioned next are a "pro" that would be 
> killed by introducing minimum quality standards. You can have one of 
> them but not both.
>>> 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.
> That was surely a very personal statement. Remember, Foundation 
> members are known to hold extreme views. Luckily they are outnumbered 
> by non-member mappers by about 1:500 ;-)
>> But the routing/tagging of OSM doesn't fit anything at the moment.
> Huh?

Please take that in context with its following sentence. Can you show me 
a router that can get me door to door no matter where I live?
Or a search utility that returns no false-positives?

>> 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.
> I think the single most important reason why some ventures don't, and 
> will not, use OSM data is not the quality but the license. ODbL or no 
> ODbL.

Evidently this incorrect. the examples given here obviously accepted the 
license by trying to integrate the data. It was rejected because of the 
lack of quality of the data.


Emilie Laffray:
"Indeed, for many companies, the only good data is free (as in beer) 
data, that you don't need to attribute, and that you don't need to 
contribute back. Anything short of that is too much."

This is incorrect.
Let's assume OSM is PD. The above companies would have *still* rejected it.

Irrelevant of the license: Garbage in - Garbage out.

Dave F.

More information about the talk mailing list