"Martijn van Oosterhout" wrote:
> So to me it seems the dataset is a catalyst for a huge about of
> programming work. Basically, open-source GIS is waking up due to the
> availability of the dataset
You're intentionally provoking dissense here, don't you !? ;-)
Martin.
--
Unix _IS
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> For the last few months I've been wondering if OSM isn't more of a
>> software project than a database.
>
> An interesting aspect.
What I actually find interesting is that OSM as a project has
subsequently lead to
Hi,
> But that whole argument is a bit theoretical, I wouldn't talk like that
> in public... the press will only quote the wrong parts ("Ramm: OSM
> basically worthless!").
@talk *is* in public :) .
Best regards,
ce
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstr
Hi,
> For the last few months I've been wondering if OSM isn't more of a
> software project than a database.
An interesting aspect.
It is very likely that none of the data we collect now will still be
used 20 years from now, because by then everything is so networked and
fully automatic and we
For the last few months I've been wondering if OSM isn't more of a
software project than a database. I know everyone is spending more
time mapping than writing their software, but coding, testing and
documenting high performance and / or cutting edge software
commercially will cost a lot more per m
> So it may be that it sounds like a good idea to be a "data provider" and
> that other people will provide the primary user-facing interface to your
> data, but that in fact if you want it done well what you have to do is
> go out there and do it yourself. :-)
>
> We're currently caught between th
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 2. Commercially Valuable Product
>
> OSM is creating something of considerable commercial value. The
> estimated market volume of geodata in Europe is way over one billion
> Euros per year (I found varying figures, some even say it's 1.5 billion
> for Germany alone, other
Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Frederik Ramm wrote about OSM vs. Wikipedia:
>
>> Wikipedia does not collect
>> raw data, it collects/creates an end product.
>
> This description of Wikipedia is wrong.
It's not, because...
> It would be better for Wikipedia if more readers went to other
> mirror websit
Frederik Ramm wrote about OSM vs. Wikipedia:
> 3. Not an End Product
>
> Working with Wikipedia, what you see is what is there: You
> always have the current version of some article in front of your
> eyes, and you will usually access this product with your web
> browser and, ultimately, your
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frederik Ramm wrote:
| Hi,
|
| the similarities between OSM and Wikipedia are many, and easily
| spotted. In fact, we owe a lot of our success to Wikipedia as a "trail
| blazer" - if I tell someone "we're like a Wikipedia for maps", that
| saves me
On Jul 29, 2008, at 0:21 , Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> I believe that some people are very quick to simply transfer "lessons
> learned" from Wikipedia onto OSM, sometimes without properly taking
> into
> account that while there are similarities, there are also lots of
> differences.
There's ano
Frederik Ramm wrote:
>Sent: 28 July 2008 11:22 PM
>To: Talk Openstreetmap
>Subject: [OSM-talk] Why OpenStreetMap is not Wikipedia
>
>Hi,
>
>the similarities between OSM and Wikipedia are many, and easily
>spotted. In fact, we owe a lot of our success to Wikipedia as
Hi,
the similarities between OSM and Wikipedia are many, and easily
spotted. In fact, we owe a lot of our success to Wikipedia as a "trail
blazer" - if I tell someone "we're like a Wikipedia for maps", that
saves me about 5 minutes explaining.
However, there are also many conceptual differ
13 matches
Mail list logo
