Why do you use Google Maps instead of OSM? Because of buildings...

[Ed Avis-2]

I asked an NGO based in London why they use Google Maps instead of OSM on their
'contact us' page <http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/about_us/map>.
The equivalent OSM map would be something like
<http://old-dev.openstreetmap.org/~pafciu17/
?module=map¢er=-0.09529,51.532&zoom=15&width=700&height=600>.

Their web person said, we used to use OSM, but when we moved to our new office
we found the map showed it in the middle of a desolate area.  Nearby there are
some buildings, but in our street (Wharf Road in the centre of the map) none are
shown.  That makes it look like we are in the middle of nowhere.  Google Maps,
on the other hand, doesn't show any buildings at all, so it's not confusing.

This is the reason they told me - not my personal opinion - but I think they
do have a point.  We OSMers are used to browsing a map with different levels
of completion in different areas, but for ordinary map users seeing buildings
in some places creates an expectation that they are mapped everywhere, and so
an area with no buildings shown looks like there are none in the real world.

Obviously in this particular case the ideal answer is to finish mapping that
area and add all of the buildings.  But in general, might it be worth providing
a 'cautious' Mapnik style that renders only basic details - roads, street names
and place names, plus basic amenities like parks and stations - as a replacement
for other mapping providers like Google Maps?

I realize that 'OSM is about data, not slippy maps', and that OSM 'downstream'
organizations such as Cloudmade provide custom-rendered maps for websites.
But even Cloudmade's styles all show buildings; they don't seem to have a
drop-in replacement for Google or Bing Maps.

I wonder if OSM might see more adoption if a less pointy-headed slippy map
or static maps were available?

--
Ed Avis <eda@...>


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Shaun McDonald-3]

On 6 Nov 2009, at 17:08, Ed Avis wrote:

>
> I realize that 'OSM is about data, not slippy maps', and that OSM  
> 'downstream'
> organizations such as Cloudmade provide custom-rendered maps for  
> websites.
> But even Cloudmade's styles all show buildings; they don't seem to  
> have a
> drop-in replacement for Google or Bing Maps.
>

You can turn the buildings off in the CloudMade Style Editor. Here is  
an example style that I created in a matter of minutes:
http://maps.shaunmcdonald.me.uk/?lat=51.520761&lng=-0.098104&zoom=14&layer=1
Switch between the first two items in the style switcher to see the  
difference of the one setting in the Style Editor.

Shaun



_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Andy Allan-2]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Ed Avis <eda@...> wrote:

> I realize that 'OSM is about data, not slippy maps', and that OSM 'downstream'
> organizations such as Cloudmade provide custom-rendered maps for websites.
> But even Cloudmade's styles all show buildings;

I take your general point, but when it comes to CloudMade maps it's
pretty easy to take any of the styles, and use the Style Editor to
turn off buildings.

And back to your main point: yes, some things look daft when
incomplete. The cycle map has never shown residential landuse due to
inconsistencies in it. Nor does it show highway=road, since that's
supposed to be just for mappers and not for the general public. But if
we made a mapnik map with only "complete" things on it, it would have
the European motorway network and not much else :-)

> I wonder if OSM might see more adoption if a less pointy-headed slippy map
> or static maps were available?

I'd rather OSM/OSMF concentrated on encouraging more organisations to
roll their own maps (and map styles), working with ISVs, freelancers,
consulting companies and suchlike, and stayed well clear of anything
that seems to be where OSMF acts as a service provider.

Cheers,
Andy

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Andrew Errington-2]

On Sat, November 7, 2009 02:08, Ed Avis wrote:

> I asked an NGO based in London why they use Google Maps instead of OSM on
> their 'contact us' page <http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/about_us/map>.
> The equivalent OSM map would be something like
> <http://old-dev.openstreetmap.org/~pafciu17/
> ?module=map¢er=-0.09529,51.532&zoom=15&width=700&height=600>.
>
>
> Their web person said, we used to use OSM, but when we moved to our new
> office we found the map showed it in the middle of a desolate area.
> Nearby there are
> some buildings, but in our street (Wharf Road in the centre of the map)
> none are shown.  That makes it look like we are in the middle of nowhere.
> Google Maps,
> on the other hand, doesn't show any buildings at all, so it's not
> confusing.

Funnily enough, in my town Google does show buildings- little '3D' blocks
to indicate the general shape, size and position of the building.
However, what I have noticed is that the buildings shown do not actually
match real-life buildings.  It's as if someone just sprinkled building
seeds on the map to give the impression of a built-up area, but any
similarity between these and real buildings is entirely coincidental.

The OSM map in my town, however, is more accurate (because I made it).
Most buildings are shown only as nodes, but I am tracing the shapes from
Yahoo! aerial, or walking around the building to get a GPS trace.

What the web person *should* have done is looked at OSM in their new
location and fixed the underlying data (if it was wrong or incomplete) or
made their own map based on the data, but omitting the features they
didn't like.

Of course, we all know this.

Andrew


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Kenneth Gonsalves-2]

On Friday 06 Nov 2009 10:38:54 pm Ed Avis wrote:
> Their web person said, we used to use OSM, but when we moved to our new
>  office we found the map showed it in the middle of a desolate
>  area.  Nearby there are some buildings, but in our street (Wharf Road in
>  the centre of the map) none are shown.  That makes it look like we are in
>  the middle of nowhere.  Google Maps, on the other hand, doesn't show any
>  buildings at all, so it's not confusing.
>

the osm way would be to get some members of the NGO to complete the map of
their area ;-) Whenever I attend a meeting called by anyone, I try to complete
the map of the area and make sure the building in question is mapped before I
turn up. (which means going a little early in places where there is no
satellite imagery)
--
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Senior Project Officer
NRC-FOSS
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Dave F.-2]

Ed Avis wrote:
> I asked an NGO based in London why they use Google Maps instead of OSM on their
> 'contact us' page....
To all the people who posted earlier than me:

Yes, you all stated how it could be done & how to correct it, but...

You haven't answered the problem of why they went with G. instead of
OSM. in the first place.

Why were they unaware that you could turn off elements?

What images were they presented with initially that made them knee jerk
back to G.? Mapnik, Osmarender?

"I'd rather OSM/OSMF concentrated on encouraging more organisations to
roll their own maps (and map styles), working with ISVs,
freelancers,consulting companies and suchlike..."

This, evidently, as they've/ gone back/ to G, doesn't appear to be
working at the moment.

"...and stayed well clear of anything that seems to be where OSMF acts
as a service provider."

This sounds like shooting yourself in the foot to me. I believe
guidance, more than encouragement needs to be given.

This laissez faire attitude to how the data is displayed by OSM will
only discourage people like me who spend a lot of free time collecting &
collating the data. I want to see my efforts displayed in a working map.

The OP describes a backward step in the development of OSM.

Dave F.



_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Dave F.-2]

I forgot to mention:

This thread is another 'No' in answer to the thread "Will Google ever
use OSM data?"

Dave F.

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Liz-25]

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, Dave F. wrote:
> > I asked an NGO based in London why they use Google Maps instead of OSM on
> > their 'contact us' page....
>
> To all the people who posted earlier than me:
>
> Yes, you all stated how it could be done & how to correct it, but...
>
> You haven't answered the problem of why they went with G. instead of
> OSM. in the first place.

some see problems and some see opportunities




_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Andrew Errington
<a.errington@...> wrote:
> What the web person *should* have done is looked at OSM in their new
> location and fixed the underlying data (if it was wrong or incomplete) or
> made their own map based on the data, but omitting the features they
> didn't like.

The web person in question probably has a lot of tasks on his hands.
It takes 5 minutes to embed a Google Maps map instead of an OSM map
but tracing a 10-block radius as in this case is going to take half a
day at best, assuming quality aerial imagery.

Likewise setting up your own rendering takes half a day at best if
you're not already familiar with the rendering tools involved.

> Of course, we all know this.

Yes, we know that everyone could probably use OSM maps for their
business website if they spent a week surveying their surrounding area
/ creating custom renderings. But that's not very helpful when they
can just embed Google instantly and get the same results.

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Dave F.-2]

Liz wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, Dave F. wrote:
>  
>>> I asked an NGO based in London why they use Google Maps instead of OSM on
>>> their 'contact us' page....
>>>      
>> To all the people who posted earlier than me:
>>
>> Yes, you all stated how it could be done & how to correct it, but...
>>
>> You haven't answered the problem of why they went with G. instead of
>> OSM. in the first place.
>>    
>
> some see problems and some see opportunities

To take an opportunity / find a solution, you first have to be aware of
& acknowledge a problem.

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Anthony-32]

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
<avarab@...> wrote:
> Yes, we know that everyone could probably use OSM maps for their
> business website if they spent a week surveying their surrounding area
> / creating custom renderings. But that's not very helpful when they
> can just embed Google instantly and get the same results.

If they spent a week surveying their surrounding area they could
probably get much better results than Google.

If what they want is exactly what Google provides, there's really no
way to compete against that.

Anthony

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Shaun McDonald-3]

On 7 Nov 2009, at 13:32, Anthony wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
> <avarab@...> wrote:
>> Yes, we know that everyone could probably use OSM maps for their
>> business website if they spent a week surveying their surrounding  
>> area
>> / creating custom renderings. But that's not very helpful when they
>> can just embed Google instantly and get the same results.
>
> If they spent a week surveying their surrounding area they could
> probably get much better results than Google.
>
> If what they want is exactly what Google provides, there's really no
> way to compete against that.

Maybe we need some method for companies/organisations to be able to  
say that an area isn't surveyed to a level they want and that they  
would like a particular area to be surveyed to a higher degree for a  
specific purpose. OpenStreetBugs is more for point errors, rather than  
larger problems. Maybe OSB needs to be exposed more?

Shaun


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Tom Chance-2]

2009/11/7 Shaun McDonald <shaun@...>

Maybe we need some method for companies/organisations to be able to
say that an area isn't surveyed to a level they want and that they
would like a particular area to be surveyed to a higher degree for a
specific purpose. OpenStreetBugs is more for point errors, rather than
larger problems. Maybe OSB needs to be exposed more?

I think Mappa Mercia, whose template I coped for the Sutton Green Map, is pretty instructive here. The menu along the top very clearly exposes OSB, provides a fairly plain English guide to contributing, and helps people understand how they can use the map: http://mappa-mercia.org/

I don't know what's happening to the oft-floated redesign, but this thread does again show up some basic shortcomings.

Regards,
Tom

--
http://tom.acrewoods.net   http://twitter.com/tom_chance

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Anthony-32]

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Shaun McDonald
<shaun@...> wrote:

>
> On 7 Nov 2009, at 13:32, Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
>> <avarab@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, we know that everyone could probably use OSM maps for their
>>> business website if they spent a week surveying their surrounding area
>>> / creating custom renderings. But that's not very helpful when they
>>> can just embed Google instantly and get the same results.
>>
>> If they spent a week surveying their surrounding area they could
>> probably get much better results than Google.
>>
>> If what they want is exactly what Google provides, there's really no
>> way to compete against that.
>
> Maybe we need some method for companies/organisations to be able to say that
> an area isn't surveyed to a level they want and that they would like a
> particular area to be surveyed to a higher degree for a specific purpose.

Along with a donation of time and/or money and/or data and/or
resources for the purpose of fulfilling that request :).

I hope that unlike Wikipedia, OSM allows and encourages such "paid editing".

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Kenneth Gonsalves-2]

On Saturday 07 Nov 2009 2:30:54 pm Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> Likewise setting up your own rendering takes half a day at best if
> you're not already familiar with the rendering tools involved.
>

OSM reflects changes within minutes
--
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Senior Project Officer
NRC-FOSS
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Lester Caine]

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> Yes, we know that everyone could probably use OSM maps for their
> business website if they spent a week surveying their surrounding area
> / creating custom renderings. But that's not very helpful when they
> can just embed Google instantly and get the same results.

And how many of their competitors would also be linked to that site via
google's linked advertising? OSM simply has no 'baggage' to worry about!

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Anthony-32]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Lester Caine <lester@...> wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> Yes, we know that everyone could probably use OSM maps for their
>> business website if they spent a week surveying their surrounding area
>> / creating custom renderings. But that's not very helpful when they
>> can just embed Google instantly and get the same results.
>
> And how many of their competitors would also be linked to that site via
> google's linked advertising?

In this case (http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/about_us/map), none,
because they plagiarized the map.

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Liz-25]

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Anthony wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Lester Caine <lester@...> wrote:
> > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> >> Yes, we know that everyone could probably use OSM maps for their
> >> business website if they spent a week surveying their surrounding area
> >> / creating custom renderings. But that's not very helpful when they
> >> can just embed Google instantly and get the same results.
> >
> > And how many of their competitors would also be linked to that site via
> > google's linked advertising?
>
> In this case (http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/about_us/map), none,
> because they plagiarized the map.
>

and from http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/terms

The material on this site is protected by international copyright and
trademark laws.

They don't actually claim to own the material.

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Anthony-32]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Liz <edodd@...> wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Anthony wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Lester Caine <lester@...> wrote:
>> > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> >> Yes, we know that everyone could probably use OSM maps for their
>> >> business website if they spent a week surveying their surrounding area
>> >> / creating custom renderings. But that's not very helpful when they
>> >> can just embed Google instantly and get the same results.
>> >
>> > And how many of their competitors would also be linked to that site via
>> > google's linked advertising?
>>
>> In this case (http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/about_us/map), none,
>> because they plagiarized the map.
>>
>
> and from http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/terms
>
> The material on this site is protected by international copyright and
> trademark laws.
>
> They don't actually claim to own the material.

More to the point, they don't claim to have created the material.  But
they do use the work of others without giving those others credit.
There's no mention of Google, and no mention of Tele Atlas.

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Peter Miller-7]

On 8 Nov 2009, at 20:12, Anthony wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Liz <edodd@...> wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Anthony wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Lester Caine <lester@...>  
>>> wrote:
>>>> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>>>> Yes, we know that everyone could probably use OSM maps for their
>>>>> business website if they spent a week surveying their  
>>>>> surrounding area
>>>>> / creating custom renderings. But that's not very helpful when  
>>>>> they
>>>>> can just embed Google instantly and get the same results.
>>>>
>>>> And how many of their competitors would also be linked to that  
>>>> site via
>>>> google's linked advertising?
>>>
>>> In this case (http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/about_us/map), none,
>>> because they plagiarized the map.
>>>
>>
>> and from http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/terms
>>
>> The material on this site is protected by international copyright and
>> trademark laws.
>>
>> They don't actually claim to own the material.
>
> More to the point, they don't claim to have created the material.  But
> they do use the work of others without giving those others credit.
> There's no mention of Google, and no mention of Tele Atlas.

Just to say that Campaign for Better Transport are out friends; they  
played host to a mapping party for use (in 2007?) and are a charitable  
partner for us. They have already provided £6K to the project from a  
charitable donation that needed a charitable partner and are likely to  
be a charitable partner for our purchase of a new exciting batch of  
out-of-copyright OS mapping in the next month (we had a meeting with  
them last week).

They moved offices a few weeks ago and it seems that they actually  
switched from OSM to Google Maps in the move and also failed to  
attribute properly.

I have just spoken to them and they will be back using OSM and will  
have proper attribution within 2 days if not in 2 hours!

So.. the moral of the story is.. assume good faith when attribution  
isn't show and ask them to do so. Only if one gets rebuffed should one  
start assuming the worst.

It on does get ignored then one should add the site to this wiki page.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution


Regards,


Peter


>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk@...
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk