I also wonder if there is a step before the OS that can help consider the
discrepancies. The naming authority for the streets we have conflict is the
local authority so checking what the naming authority has in its database
may reveal whether the problem is with miss information or incorrect
Hi
I noticed that there is a section in the OS competition for OS_OpenData
http://www.geovation.org.uk/geovationchallenge/
If we could encourage councils to release their data in a nice easy format then
that would help us and OS to validate their data sets. The money could go to
the OSM
great news.
Regarding the not:name tag at the OS, I think we need to be a bit patient.
The OS is a large organisation and do take time to change. They are actually
changing fast at present and have expressed enthusiasm for the not:name
technique and I think it is just a matter of us using it for
It would indeed be a shame if we/they just ignored the not:name data - I
grep'd the current Great Britain OSM dataset and there's 1054 instances of
k=not:name, which is not insignificant. (If anyone wants to see the
results download it in zipped txt format http://tm.com/osm/goog_1770857475
FYI I spoke with the company who run the NLPG, the dataset maintained by
councils, and they were interested in releasing level 1 data. This is
bounding boxes similar to the mapping layer we produced at ITO World, which
would bring all parties to the table.
--
Christopher Osborne
5 matches
Mail list logo
