tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470995059384390571.post8425571564985947467..comments2023-12-14T05:22:45.323-07:00Comments on geothought: Ordnance Survey free data: right decision, various wrong justifications citedPeter Battyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10803273537153805225noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470995059384390571.post-8766366346062616982010-03-24T08:54:50.499-06:002010-03-24T08:54:50.499-06:00@Anonymous, yes I think this was an error in the G...@Anonymous, yes I think this was an error in the Guardian article - the general guidance was scales 1:10,000 and smaller, which would include 1:25,000 and 1:50,000, but not the most detailed maps at 1:1250 and 1:2500. The exact details of which products will be released is still to be determined.Peter Battyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10803273537153805225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470995059384390571.post-26859910396929146522010-03-23T16:19:35.707-06:002010-03-23T16:19:35.707-06:00I'm trying to understand the Guardian article ...I'm trying to understand the Guardian article to work out what map scales are actually being considered. I am confused where it says: <i>"The prime minister said that by April he hoped a consultation would be completed on the free provision of Ordnance Survey maps down to a scale of 1:10,000, (not the scale of a typical Landranger map set at 1:25,000)."</i><br /><br />Why "<i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470995059384390571.post-25469151891814734232009-11-23T12:03:38.203-07:002009-11-23T12:03:38.203-07:00@charles I simply mean (and talking ballpark numbe...@charles I simply mean (and talking ballpark numbers here) that you have to make up for 50 million pounds in lost revenue from non-government sources (if you make all Ordnance Survey data free). You argue here that some costs could be saved in terms of OS legal, licensing, etc, and that may well be true, but I have seen no evidence that these savings would be anywhere close to 50 million, which Peter Battyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10803273537153805225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470995059384390571.post-15889093092185988852009-11-20T10:16:28.678-07:002009-11-20T10:16:28.678-07:00"making all Ordnance Survey data free would c..."making all Ordnance Survey data free would cost the UK taxpayer an extra 50 million pounds a year (a total of 100 million pounds a year)."<br /><br />Don't follow this. OS's income from the public sector is £50m pa (roughly). End those charges and you "save" £50m of public spending. You then have to fund OS's collection and collation of data, but not its licensingUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01889058585755189801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470995059384390571.post-51572630591915012102009-11-18T15:51:05.778-07:002009-11-18T15:51:05.778-07:00Thanks James, I appreciate the feedback! I have be...Thanks James, I appreciate the feedback! I have been thinking of writing a more critical review of the Cambridge report but haven't got round to it yet. It says what pretty much everyone in the geo industry wants to hear, that they should get data for free, so I don't think anyone has been inclined to point out various glaring issues which are there if you read it with even a slightly Peter Battyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10803273537153805225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8470995059384390571.post-21469649389579947062009-11-18T15:17:12.678-07:002009-11-18T15:17:12.678-07:00Peter
Great piece. Have pointed up other flaws in...Peter<br /><br />Great piece. Have pointed up other flaws in the Guardian's reporting myself! Also mentioned similar concerns regarding the 'Cambridge Study' earlier in the year to one of those at the table yesterday. With scant other props not surprising it is the fallback position, however flawed. More independent work is certainly required on the costs and benefits of data by Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12921702055203147904noreply@blogger.com