[OSM-talk] TomTom is thumping us

[Thomas Davie]

Certainly Apple mark footpaths as roads in the data that they have used from us, but that's a rendering issue, not a data issue.

Tom Davie

On 29 May 2012, at 09:14, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

> 
> Whatever. I've certainly seen "footpaths classified as roads" in commercial online maps for instance.
> 
> This is a very one sided argument and assumes that commercial online maps are accurate. It also completely neglects the fact that you can use OSM data without a fee andf without someone telling you what you can and cannot do with it. I'd imagine they're running scared at the move away from the restrictive, closed-source model for electronic data.
> 
> Nick
> 
> -----Maarten Deen <mdeen at xs4all.nl> wrote: -----
> To: <talk at openstreetmap.org>
> From: Maarten Deen <mdeen at xs4all.nl>
> Date: 29/05/2012 08:45AM
> Subject: [OSM-talk] TomTom is thumping us
> 
> Ok, they don't name us, but I think "a leading open source map" does 
> refer to us.
> 
> <http://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/licensing/newsletter/201205/didyouknow/>
> 
> Oh wauw. We're not perfect. Let's close up the shop. Thanks to SteveC 
> for all the effort, but it wasn't enough.
> 
> Well, probably one of the very positive effects from OSM is the fact 
> that when we start mapping something, the closed-source mappers follow 
> suit. The fact that Google needs to add gimmicks like kajak routing 
> across the pacific to beat us says enough.
> It's a win-win situation.
> 
> Regards,
> Maarten
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20120529/ceff9cb2/attachment.html>