Hi all,
Some stats on OSM coverage of Kent. I tried to pair the records of KCC
OpenKent with the OSM database. Assuming the KCC list is complete (which
it is usually, but not entirely), we can estimate OSM's coverage in the
area.
Schools: 618 of 915 (915 (67.54 %)
Pharmacies: 67 of 274 (274 (24.45 %)
Doctors: 33 of 286 (286 (11.54 %)
Libraries: 70 of 101 (101 (69.31 %)
Opticians: 12 of 170 (170 (7.06 %)
Hospitals: 24 of 33 (33 (72.73 %)
So, OSM is good on some features and poor on others. It seems "for
profit" locations are not so well mapped, compared to public services.
My philosophy is that OSM omissions should be regarded as errors. With
complete lists of addresses, we can go and find exact positions of these
services. I am still unsure if this is compatible with the relicensing.
This data is distributed under OGL (and sometimes OS OpenData too). Can
LWG attempt to reduce the legal uncertainty of this, by a definitive
statement?
Regards,
TimSC
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
