On 9 Jun 2010, at 16:57, Craig Loftus wrote: > Perhaps OS would be good enough to edit the appropriate way to remove > the not:name tag? It would seem like the 'least they could do' in > return for having the error pointed out to them.
That would be great, however it may be beyond them for a while! What was can do it modify the ITO test to highlight redundant 'not:name' tags which relate to OS Locator (ie not:names for OS Locator that are not in the current OS Locator dataset). That might need a little more structure in the OSM data to indicate which dataset the error was in (OS Locator/Google/Streetview etc) but would require zero additional activity from the OS which would be a bonus. > > One of the few benefits I hope to see from the Tories "Big Society" > cuts will be some kind of closer relationship being developed between > OSM and OS. Does anyone know if such discussions are already taking > place? I am not aware of such discussions, however Tom Steinberg from My Society will probably get the possibilities and is advising the government. The rumours are however that budgets at the OS have been significantly cut so they may not know what they are doing for a bit. > > As another thought; I believe it has been mentioned before that the OS > thinks that OSM could fill a valuable role in keeping footpaths > up-to-date (as the OS don't)... previous discussions on the list > seemed to reveal some uncertainty surrounding footpaths. Perhaps if > the OS did the leg work to open up all the footpaths we could just > take it off their hands entirely? With them becoming the downstream. That would be great and I think we could get there in time. First steps first though, we have expressed our interest in supporting the OS with feedback so lets get them to listen to the not:names content and other feedback from OS Locator for starters. I will draw their attention to this thread. Regards, Peter > > Craig > > On 9 June 2010 16:38, Andrew Ainsworth <andrew.ainswo...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> It's good to hear that those errors will be routed over to OS, one >> question >> though. How will we know if they are/have acted upon it other than >> when >> OSSV/OSL gets updated as part of the usual update cycle? >> >> On 9 June 2010 15:00, Peter Miller <peter.mil...@itoworld.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 9 Jun 2010, at 14:28, Tim Francois wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for all the responses guys. Here's what I did. >>>> >>>> 1) email OS [1] with details of the errors. >>>> 2.a) Add the errors to wiki [2]. >>>> 2.b) Included note in the description explaining that an email has >>>> been >>>> sent to OS. >>>> >>>> I'll update the note as and when I get information back from OS. >>> >>> Do be aware that the not:name field will also be routed back to >>> the OS >>> from the OSM database. >>> >>> We are in the process of setting up a reporting mechanism for the OS >>> (and other providers) using that tag. >>> >>> Fyi, there are 77 ways with not:name tags in the UK dataset as of a >>> couple of days ago. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> [1] customerservi...@ordnancesurvey.co.uk >>>> [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Catalog_of_Errors >>>> >>>> On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 00:18 +0100, Gregory wrote: >>>>> How about adding a column(or encouraging a note in the >>>>> description) >>>>> to >>>>> say the date the source was connected and the date the error was >>>>> known >>>>> to be fixed? >>>>> >>>>> On 8 June 2010 22:16, Nick Austin <nick.w.aus...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Frederik Ramm >>>>> <frede...@remote.org> wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Andrew Ainsworth wrote: >>>>>>> When I reported some errors recently I contacted >>>>>>> customerservi...@ordnancesurvey.co.uk >>>>>>> <mailto:customerservi...@ordnancesurvey.co.uk>. They passed >>>>> it onto >>>>>>> someone and then I received a reply saying they would >>>>> resurvey and >>>>>>> correct it. >>>>>> >>>>>> May I suggest that you create a wiki page and collect these >>>>> things >>>>>> there. This can later be used as a good argument for others >>>>> to release >>>>>> data: "Look, these guys gave us their data and we helped >>>>> them improve it >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I listed the error I found here: >>>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Catalog_of_Errors >>>>> >>>>> Nick. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Talk-GB mailing list >>>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >>>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Gregory >>>>> o...@livingwithdragons.com >>>>> http://www.livingwithdragons.com >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Talk-GB mailing list >>>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >>>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Talk-GB mailing list >>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-GB mailing list >>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
