On 27 November 2010 08:45, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> I'd much rather see a relative completeness grid map to inspire people to go
> out and visit those grids that seem less than perfect.
There's a tool I'd like to see available, with it own data store, that
overlays the main database. I'd try an
On 27 November 2010 06:25, Ed Avis wrote:
> For addressing, I guess it is usually sufficient to have a street name -
> the
> exact addr:housenumber stuff is not needed I assume?
>
Something I can comment on (speaking as just me, not nearmap for once!)
having been looking recently at some feedback
On 27 November 2010 06:25, Ed Avis wrote:
> For addressing, I guess it is usually sufficient to have a street name -
> the
> exact addr:housenumber stuff is not needed I assume?
>
Something I can comment on (speaking as just me, not nearmap for once!)
having been looking recently at some feedback
SteveC asklater.com> writes:
>>For addressing, I guess it is usually sufficient to have a street name - the
>>exact addr:housenumber stuff is not needed I assume?
>
>Imagine a country where many streets are miles and miles long. Then yes, it
>matters as you could be 10 miles out
Ah, yes. So if
named, rather than numbered, streets
interspersed among the numbered streets, since the city planners back in 1900
apparently decided that streets only one or two blocks long wouldn't have their
names changed.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 22:25 +, Ed Avis wrote:
> SteveC asklater.com> writes:
>
> >Speaking personally about what large orgs and what they want, I think it's
> >pretty simple. Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what are
> >the main things missing? Addressing for geocoding
On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 09:23 -0500, Gerald A wrote:
> Just a small point -- legal-talk is an open and publicly available
> list. I don't think
> suggesting and steering the discussion to the topical list is
> "hiding".
If there was a proposal to change the name to OpenMap instead of
OpenStreetMap,
On Nov 26, 2010, at 3:25 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
> SteveC asklater.com> writes:
>
>> Speaking personally about what large orgs and what they want, I think it's
>> pretty simple. Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what are
>> the main things missing? Addressing for geocoding and t
Certainly in Canada we have been having licensing issues with some levels of
government to be able to include their data in OSM. Part of the problem is
the open ended nature of the new license, the bit where OSM says Oh and we
can change the data license to anything we want to in the future. On a
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Mike N. wrote:
> I would be surprised if there is any realistic way to crowdsource 99% of
> addr:housenumber in the US. It's mindnumbing work, dangerous in some areas
> where pedestrians and bikes are not safe.
In most areas of the US you can crowdsource the co
This is a fun one. CANVEC has address ranges for some Canadian provinces.
Locally after I imported the address ranges I found the missing streets
because you just have the two address lines with no road in the middle.
Working with others such as CANVEC does provide a method of cross checking
for
Speaking personally about what large orgs and what they want, I think it's
pretty simple. Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what
are
the main things missing? Addressing for geocoding and turn restrictions
for
routing.
For addressing, I guess it is usually sufficient to ha
Martijn,
Martijn van Exel wrote:
They usually pull something like "we serve 95% of the population for
area XYZ".
[...]
I've also seen them avoiding the coverage talk completely, and
preferring to say things like: "xy% of our road network is re-checked
per year, and at least zz% has been che
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
> SteveC asklater.com> writes:
>
> >Speaking personally about what large orgs and what they want, I think it's
> >pretty simple. Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what
> are
> >the main things missing? Addressing for geocoding
They usually pull something like "we serve 95% of the population for area
XYZ". For starters, there's some level of assumption behind that - having
street level coverage in areas that hold 95% of the population does not make
the data useful for those same 95% - but it really obfuscates the fact tha
SteveC asklater.com> writes:
>Speaking personally about what large orgs and what they want, I think it's
>pretty simple. Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what are
>the main things missing? Addressing for geocoding and turn restrictions for
>routing.
For addressing, I guess
On Nov 26, 2010, at 3:03 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> The metrics TeleAtlas and NAVTEQ give you are all smokescreens and impossible
> to verify.
Can you expand on that - what are they?
> Completeness and spatial accuracy are interesting but what will be your
> reference to measure against? W
The metrics TeleAtlas and NAVTEQ give you are all smokescreens and
impossible to verify. Completeness and spatial accuracy are interesting but
what will be your reference to measure against? What I think is interesting
is something you could call crowd quality, where you measure things like how
man
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 4:36 PM, SteveC wrote:
> Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what are the main
> things missing?
The main thing missing is consistency. You'll often find a highly
detailed section of map right next to a much more sparsely detailed
section. With commerc
On Nov 26, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> ...and some metric that tells you that the data covers 99.1273% of reality.
> fwiw. But there's a point there, serious users want to know more about
> quality than they can find out easily right now. How you define quality,
> that's anothe
...and some metric that tells you that the data covers 99.1273% of reality.
fwiw. But there's a point there, serious users want to know more about
quality than they can find out easily right now. How you define quality,
that's another discussion.
Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org
laziness – impa
Speaking personally about what large orgs and what they want, I think it's
pretty simple. Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what are
the main things missing? Addressing for geocoding and turn restrictions for
routing.
On Nov 26, 2010, at 1:27 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
> I think e
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 4:59 AM, Simon Ward wrote:
> Any posting of topics specifically covered by a list is now not only
> arrogant, but demeaning to the whole community (on talk) in that they
> are assumed to be incapable of subscribing to another list and choosing
> what subjects to listen to.
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 3:27 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
> I think everyone agrees that detailed legal discussion belongs on the legal
> list.
>
> Questions such as how any licence transition should proceed, deletion of
> existing
> bits of map, and how to organize the voting process are not legal arcana
Hi Johnny,
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Johnny Rose Carlsen wrote:
> Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
>
> > You forgot to say that "talk" is for matters that mappers wish to
> > discuss with the whole community.
> > Perhaps you could respect this and stop hiding stuff [...] important
> [info] on lega
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 06:22:26AM +1100, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
> You forgot to say that "talk" is for matters that mappers wish to
> discuss with the whole community.
> Perhaps you could respect this and stop hiding stuff which is important
> on legal-talk where there are fewer subscribers than on
I think everyone agrees that detailed legal discussion belongs on the legal
list.
Questions such as how any licence transition should proceed, deletion of
existing
bits of map, and how to organize the voting process are not legal arcana but
questions of project governance, and surely belong on t
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
> You forgot to say that "talk" is for matters that mappers wish to
> discuss with the whole community.
> Perhaps you could respect this and stop hiding stuff which is
> important on legal-talk where there are fewer subscribers than on
> talk.
I don't say much here, but I d
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:13:27 -0800 (PST)
> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
>>
>> [follow-ups to legal-talk please]
>>
>> David Murn wrote:
>> > I have no interest in the legal detail of the licence, only
>> > interested in talking about the rami
Just a comment from one of the 130 who has voted yes on the recommendation
of one of the people I thought was fairly sensible here and I now regret
taking his advice. I now strongly suspect I should have spent six months
wading through through the legal talk side of things rather than mapping
beca
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:13:27 -0800 (PST)
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> [follow-ups to legal-talk please]
>
> David Murn wrote:
> > I have no interest in the legal detail of the licence, only
> > interested in talking about the ramifications of the licence
> > on our map data, no matter how man
[follow-ups to legal-talk please]
David Murn wrote:
> I have no interest in the legal detail of the licence, only
> interested in talking about the ramifications of the licence
> on our map data, no matter how many times people try
> to derail this important issue to a legal mailing list.
It
On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 00:11 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 2. The license train has left the station. We've been at this for ages
> and there is no viable alternative. We will certainly not throw away
> years of deliberations just because a handful of US corporations asked
> us to (and imagine t
On 24 November 2010 23:11, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Ed Avis wrote:
>>
>> Well, since there is a licence discussion anyway, how about it? What
>> would
>> Microsoft and others like to see from OSM's licence? It would be great to
>> have
>> some concrete preferences from the most important users.
>
Ed,
Ed Avis wrote:
Well, since there is a licence discussion anyway, how about it? What would
Microsoft and others like to see from OSM's licence? It would be great to have
some concrete preferences from the most important users.
1. Speak for yourself; the "most important users" for me are t
SteveC asklater.com> writes:
>I'd avoid discussion about where we both get value... because OSM isn't really
>a company you can negotiate terms with. The license on the data is what it is,
>take it or leave it. So there's not really any discussion about OSM giving
>anyone more value in that sense
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that Microsoft, Cloudmade or anybody else
should attempt to control the OSM project. ('anybody else' is quite broadly
defined in this case)
But I think it would be great at least to know what are the missing features and
data that these users of OSM would lik
map.org on behalf of Emilie Laffray
> Sent: Wed 11/24/2010 10:33 AM
> To: Peter Wendorff
> Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
>
>
>
>
> On 24 November 2010 18:20, Peter Wendorff wrote:
>
>
> Dangerous qu
On 25 November 2010 00:03, Emilie Laffray wrote:
>> But on the other OSM should not be as a big companies wants it to be.
>
> I agree with the statement that OSM should be what OSM wants to be. If the
> goal of OSM coincides with those companies, good, else we should not move
> out of our way to s
company "driving OSM" - this is NOT what we
want.
Does that make sense?
Steve
From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org on behalf of Emilie Laffray
Sent: Wed 11/24/2010 10:33 AM
To: Peter Wendorff
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Suggest
On 24 November 2010 18:20, Peter Wendorff wrote:
> Dangerous question.
> On the one hand you are right: It would be awesome.
> But on the other OSM should not be as a big companies wants it to be.
>
I agree with the statement that OSM should be what OSM wants to be. If the
goal of OSM coincides
Am 24.11.2010 15:42, schrieb Ed Avis:
Steve Citron-Pousty decarta.com> writes:
deCarta, Mapquest, Bing, and WeoGeo are really excited about where OSM is going
- we would like to have an unconference on how mapping Corps can help OSM - what
do people think?
I think this is a great idea, and I
Steve Citron-Pousty decarta.com> writes:
>deCarta, Mapquest, Bing, and WeoGeo are really excited about where OSM is going
>- we would like to have an unconference on how mapping Corps can help OSM -
>what
>do people think?
I think this is a great idea, and I would also like to know what OSM can
Sounds interesting :)
b
On 24 November 2010 05:45, Steve Citron-Pousty wrote:
>
> Greetings OSM:
> deCarta, Mapquest, Bing, and WeoGeo are really excited about where OSM is
> going - we would like to have an unconference on how mapping Corps can help
> OSM - what do people think? There should be
I suggest to make it a ménage à trois and include the government perspective:
USGS, EuroGeographics, etc. Also, the question of how can we help improve your
product and operation is valid in all directions, not only --> OSM.
Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org
laziness – impatience – hubris
http
Greetings OSM:
deCarta, Mapquest, Bing, and WeoGeo are really excited about where OSM is going
- we would like to have an unconference on how mapping Corps can help OSM -
what do people think? There should be a way we can work together to create
value for everyone. We have more ideas or details
46 matches
Mail list logo
