I like your reply Gareth! >From my point of view it's wrong trying to compare OSM to Google Maps or other centralized mapping projects because we, OSM Contributors, a huge variety of people, have different interests. I use to compare the way we contribute in OSM as the way free software developers do to improve some programs and, following this idea, I recommend to have a view to the E.S Raymond's essay: "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" [1] . We are the bazaar in the mapping realm!
Cheers Miguel [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar -- *Miguel Sevilla-Callejo* Doctor in Geography - Research Assistance at the Pyrenean Institute of Ecology - Spanish National Research Council - Associate Lecturer at Dpto. of Geography & Territorial Planning at University of Zaragoza (Spain) - Collaborative Mapping / Mapeado Colaborativo / Geoinquietos group co-coordinator (Zaragoza, Spain) - Freelance consultant & researcher - Member #698, Spanish Professional Association of Geographers On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 00:55, Gareth L <o...@live.co.uk> wrote: > It’s easy to forget that OSM is a geographically referenced database of > objects. That just happens to be rendered as a map. If you want to know how > many post boxes have the George the 5th cypher, you can query the > database to find out. If you want to limit that by geographic bounds (say, > a city’s limits) then great, you can do that. > > > > Google maps things to keep people in their ecosystem and find more out > about where people want to go. They care most about points of interest so > they can advertise accordingly, or suggest to those points of > interest/businesses that they may want to pay google money so they get seen > better than they would do normally. It’s why cities have streetview data > barely a year old, but country roads are 7 years out of date. There’s > little money in covering it. > > > > Roads/lane markings are getting a lot of attention because of assistive > driving system development causing a shedload of money being pumped into > that area of interest. > > > > I like adding to OSM as a pedestrian. It’s annoying to walk a circuitous > route to a shop only to find there’s an alleyway that will take you there > in 10% of the time. > > > > The freely available database allows interesting data to be presented with > low barrier to entry. As academia finds, it’s annoying to have to pay to > view a journal behind a paywall, when you dunno if it even has the info you > want. > > > > A couple weaknesses for the main OSM ‘map’ I’ve found: > > Transport routes (particularly buses) change too frequently and would be > better as a separate service that is overlaid onto an OSM derived map. > > > > All the different features that people have as priorities to add are > valid, but it’s sometimes tricky to figure out the best order to add them > in. Why add all the stiles and gates to a field before you have the > footpaths added? Or adding bins and benches by roads before defining what > kind of pavement/sidewalk it has.* > > > > A couple Strengths of OSM: > > > > Updates are fast. Google/bing are less fast at updating areas, and > especially so if in a quiet region. OS only publish a new paper map when > the old one has gone out of print, meaning the Leicestershire map is more > out of date than the more popular peak district ones. > > > > If you want more info available on xyz feature.. you can add it, and > encourage others to do so also. > > > > > > So, back to the philosophical question: I’d say it’s all important. > However, the order that things are best added to the map could be helpful > to know. Not in a tollgate “don’t add z until qrstuvwxy has been added > first” way, but knowing what additional information is enabled to be added > as a result of you adding a certain feature. > > > > *sidewalks are such a nightmare in general in osm with no easy approach on > how to best add them, it seems. > > > > Not an easy question! > > Gareth > > > > *From: *BD <dzide...@tlen.pl> > *Sent: *13 January 2019 23:10 > *To: *talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > *Subject: *[Talk-GB] I have a philosophical question... > > > > Hi All, > > > > I do make my little contribution to the effort of OSM. Recently I added > some data to Mapillary and consider adding more (for the use of other > mappers). > > > > After reading someone's OSM profile I started to think and now have some > doubts... We (mappers) are concentrating on various areas of the map. Some > are dedicated to buildings, some to geographical features others add > businesses etc. Can someone explain what is the aim of OSM, are we trying > to build a map better than Bing and Google (in towns and cities) or are we > planning to create a useful tool for tourists (with paths, places of > interests)? > > > > What is the aim of OSM, what should we concentrate on? > > Should we map roads for sat-nav or buildings for urban area accuracy? > Paths and tourists attractions or schools and electric cars charging points? > > > > many thanks, > > dzidek23 > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
