Dave F. wrote: > I've had a quick look through your document in the limited time I've got. > > "The availability of raster cartography is not a barrier to innovation." > Could you expand on what you mean by that? Do you mean the availability > now, or after the consultation?
Availability now. People are not being stopped from doing innovative, creative things by a lack of a freely-available raster background for web work (the cited reason for releasing 1:25k and 1:50k raster). Raster backgrounds are already widely available through webmap APIs. If you want to produce a good mashup website, you can; and people do. Releasing 1:25k and 1:50k raster maps _would_ save publishing companies, like the one I work for, quite a bit of money for the maps we already license. We could also print off a bunch of copies of maps in popular areas (say, Snowdonia and the Lakes), undercutting the OS by £3 because we don't have an obligation to publish in unprofitable areas. But saving my employer money is not one of the drivers for this consultation, and neither should it be. We charge for our magazine, and if maps are a selling point for it (which they are), then I don't see why we shouldn't have to pay for any OS content we use, just as we'd pay any other contributor. The objective should be to release enough data that people can produce innovative products, while preserving enough of an income stream for the Ordnance Survey so that it can still afford - in a climate of reduced public-sector spending - to survey the country accurately and efficiently. In the extreme case, we could ask OS to release absolutely everything for free; but that entails a ~£100m pa Government commitment, much of which would effectively be a subsidy to companies like ours who could, and do, pay for data and are happy doing so. That won't fly in the current financial climate, and nor should it. IMHO. :) > " the strongly-coloured, dense cartography of the 1:25k and 1:50k > products is entirely > unsuitable for superimposing information." > > Within OSM I'm using the excellently scanned OoC 1:25k by Andy R. with > no problems. > In the wider issue of mash-ups, faded backgrounds could be, & is being > ,used to reduce any perceived obscurant. Well, maybe. The cartographer in me says that the colours are chosen for a reason and that it's better to design a new cartography than dim out an existing one. CloudMade's Pale Dawn style, produced by Stamen, is a really good example of how it should be done - a simple, but effective cartography expressly designed for this purpose. > "Free release of the raster products would also harm public perceptions > of Ordnance Survey." > > The perception of OS is that they're data hoarders (which the tax payer > payed for) in the belief that 'knowledge is power' No, I don't think so. That's the perception of the 20 OSMers and the 30 people who've been following the Guardian's Free Our Data campaign - well, a few more than that, but you know what I mean. IMX the perception of the OS among the general public is very favourable. OS has a reputation for quality. Most people don't understand that OS does "data", they just know of the paper maps - which they like. Every time there's a story on the news about over-trusting numpties driving off a cliff "because my satnav told me too", someone always pipes up in the comments section with "tsk, should have used an OS map". If you can buy the same map from another company, with the OS name relegated to a tiny attribution on the legend, then that will slowly erode the goodwill associated with the OS. Public sector accounting practice is very bad at recognising goodwill, but it certainly exists. > "Though custom cartography is the right answer for many applications, > it will ?nd it dif?cult to compete with the free, > universally-recognised cartography of the OS." > > Are you saying you want to prevent these releases to protect the > likes of OSM? > > Competition leads to improved services through innovation. FWIW: I don't believe that's a universal rule. But your politics are probably different from mine! I wouldn't just say "to protect the likes of OSM". Rather, "to encourage people to create new and innovative maps". If the 1:25k and 1:50k are freely available, there will be less of an incentive for people to produce innovative maps from the source data. > By thoughts will be sent to OS shortly... Good good. The more responses the merrier, and it would be excellent if others were to publish their responses too. (Though you probably want to send it to DCLG as they're doing the consultation. ;) ) cheers Richard _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
