On Feb 5, 2010, at 12:24 AM, Dave F. wrote: > I realize most people have fallen asleep on this thread, but did anyone > get a detailed report on why OSM was rejected?
It's like Encyclopedia Britannica looking to move to Wikipedia in 2004 or something, printing out a lot of books and getting experts to evaluate empty and broken articles. What do you expect? Of course it's not perfect, but it is very, very good and it's getting better all the time. Exponentially. And if you find a problem you can have the freedom to fix it, together with the freedom to moan about it. Oh and it's Free and zero price. I don't think the people here are saying that the quality doesn't matter, far from it, probably the complete opposite. It's more that the traditional arguments about uniform ontologies, standards etc are from 1976 and it's 2010 now. If you do a lot of work to munge OSM data in to your 1976 toolchain and worldview, there are of course going to be these problems even when we do get to the quality (whatever that means to them) they want. It's like printing out Wikipedia in to 24 bound volumes every year and going door to door to sell it, it just misses the point. Yours &c. Steve _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
