Frederik Ramm wrote: > I don't think that the line is between "hobby" and "professional". > > OSM with their volunteers does one kind of mapping, and TeleAtlas with > their vans does another kind of mapping. Each has its own distinctive > advantages. There are professional users wo spend money on OSM data when > they *already have* TeleAtlas data. > > The commercial maps have fixed tagging schemes, minimum quality > standards and only accept trained personnel as mappers. They have long > turnaround times and cost a lot of money to maintain. At OSM we have no > fixed tagging schema, *no minimum quality standards*
& you see that as a positive? Did you mean to write it that way? > and anyone can map. > We have super fast turnaround times and cost nothing to maintain. > Different approaches - different results. Not worse or better; different. > > I don't see how you could have the advantages without the disadvantages. > Add a fixed tagging scheme and peer review to OSM and you get more > quality but less data and longer turnaround times; before long you are > TeleAtlas v2.0 and have to charge for maps to pay your mappers because > nobody does it for fun any more. > > So, yes, in my eyes the approach is really "take it or leave it", and if > someone decides he'd rather use TeleAtlas or Navteq then by all means, > let him do it. I don't know why Dave F finds this "VERY disillusioning"; > what was his illusion then? A regular here (Foundation member?) said that OSM would perceived to be a success when someone like Google used OSM data. I agree with that when meaning Google's wide scope of deployment. I wouldn't be disappointed if a map creator criticized OSM out of hand because it's free & created by the public & therefore must be poor. They could always be talked around, but the examples given here are of organizations who have spent a lot of time, effort & money trying to integrate OSM into their systems. For them to conclude that OSM isn't good enough is disillusioning. > For OSM to rule the world? I think the world > is much better of with a few map datasets following different approaches > that with a "one size fits all" But the routing/tagging of OSM doesn't fit anything at the moment. Even the maps produced now with OSM data are expected to be accepted with the OSM foibles built in. -------------------------------- In some following posts commercial ventures have been mentioned. I see this as an irrelevance. Whether the map use is to make money or not , if these ventures aren't taking the data because it's unusable then OSM has to be considered to be failing. Again, disillusioning. Cheers Dave F. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
