On Nov 26, 2010, at 3:03 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > The metrics TeleAtlas and NAVTEQ give you are all smokescreens and impossible > to verify.
Can you expand on that - what are they? > Completeness and spatial accuracy are interesting but what will be your > reference to measure against? What I think is interesting is something you > could call crowd quality, where you measure things like how many users have > been active in an area, what is their experience / reputation, and how does > their mapping activity affect individual features: how many versions, growing > attribute richness, spatial convergence. If you can correlate this to the > 'objective' quality metric (completeness, accuracy) you could predict how > "good" OSM is even in places where you don't have any reference data to > measure against. > > Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org > laziness – impatience – hubris > http://schaaltreinen.nl | http://martijnvanexel.nl | > http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ > twitter / skype: mvexel > flickr: rhodes > > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:49 PM, SteveC <st...@asklater.com> wrote: > > On Nov 26, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > > ...and some metric that tells you that the data covers 99.1273% of reality. > > fwiw. But there's a point there, serious users want to know more about > > quality than they can find out easily right now. How you define quality, > > that's another discussion. > > And that's kind of the problem - what is it? > > Everyone wants a simple definition and metric but it just doesn't exist. > > Even when you compare to ground truth, commercial providers are almost as > wrong as they are right. That means if OSM has 100 turn restrictions and they > have 100 it doesn't tell you very much about which ones are right and which > are wrong. Which is counter-intuituve and hard to explain when advocating OSM > as a source. > > > > > > > Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org > > laziness – impatience – hubris > > http://schaaltreinen.nl | http://martijnvanexel.nl | > > http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ > > twitter / skype: mvexel > > flickr: rhodes > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:36 PM, SteveC <st...@asklater.com> wrote: > > Speaking personally about what large orgs and what they want, I think it's > > pretty simple. Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what > > are the main things missing? Addressing for geocoding and turn restrictions > > for routing. > > > > > > On Nov 26, 2010, at 1:27 AM, Ed Avis wrote: > > > > > I think everyone agrees that detailed legal discussion belongs on the > > > legal list. > > > > > > Questions such as how any licence transition should proceed, deletion of > > > existing > > > bits of map, and how to organize the voting process are not legal arcana > > > but > > > questions of project governance, and surely belong on this list. > > > > > > I am sorry I asked about what Microsoft and others would like to see from > > > OSM's > > > licensing terms. I hoped that some concrete answers would help > > > discussion to > > > move on from the mostly fixed positions and legal nitpicking we see on > > > the legal > > > mailing list (of which I am just as guilty as anyone else). But I guess > > > the > > > big mapping sites are not willing to make a public statement for fear of > > > being > > > seen to influence the project. That is a shame, since we are somewhat in > > > the > > > dark about what the rest of the world thinks. > > > > > > -- > > > Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > talk mailing list > > > talk@openstreetmap.org > > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > > > > > Steve > > > > stevecoast.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > talk mailing list > > talk@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > > Steve > > stevecoast.com > > Steve stevecoast.com _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
