They usually pull something like "we serve 95% of the population for area XYZ". For starters, there's some level of assumption behind that - having street level coverage in areas that hold 95% of the population does not make the data useful for those same 95% - but it really obfuscates the fact that they may only cover 30% of a country's geography. This may very well be a matter of supply and demand - they are only going to take cross-subsidization so far - but a metric like that does not have any real bearing on quality. I'll check some recent NAVTEQ / TeleAtlas on Monday to see what kind of claims they're making in the metadata.
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 11:11 PM, SteveC <st...@asklater.com> wrote: > > 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
