 |
 |
I guess that we have very different perspectives. However, my own perspective is that we are moving more and more to a purely digital means of distributing map data, with printed maps only being provided in cases where there is a justification for a particular sheet. That is our own position - we have data to provide a wide range of maps on demand and do so for our users, but we only publish printed maps where we can see a significant and ongoing demand. I see public access to maps moving in the direction of web accessibility of maps that the user can tailor in various ways. I am providing access to Antarctic maps via this means; for the general public a fairly controlled interface is being provided with controlled symbology and intelligent choice of data layers to ensure appropriate choices for the scale of display; For the technical audience I provide access to the digital features. Now, I would see provision of a service like the former being a good use of the NIMSA funding, and there are already moves in that direction. I suspect that Google Earth willl move the OS in that direction faster! I think that the funding of the OS in particular and mapping in general may also have to change in the medium term so that we use a service provider model not a publication provider model. However, I think the tension between us will not go away, and the debate is a healthy one! From your side, of course a printed map has advantages, in particular that it can be provided at a sheet size not usually accessible to the man (or woman) on the Clapham Omnibus. It is also easier to use as a planning tool than the web offerings. However, I see these both as indicating the present immaturity of the technology, not as a reason for not going down the digital route. And, of course, the curatorial problems of digital data are very different from those of paper maps! From my side, digital provision means that the user always has the most up-to-date information available, can manipulate it in ways that are useful to the user, and (best of all!) will not find that the area of interest spans the corners of four maps! There is room for both; as I implied above we provide digital information, customized maps and printed maps. Each has its proper audience; each provides different facilities; each has advantages and disadvantages. However, it is unlikely that we will ever move back to a position where printed output is the leader with the others following behind; it is more likely that we will print general, regional maps and keep the detailed information for other publication channels. Best wishes Paul >>> [log in to unmask] 12 June 2006 22:00 >>> Paul Cooper wrote: > While I would agree with many criticisms of the OS, I am afraid I can't > agree with the "innovatorily stagnant" one! The OS is pretty much in the > forefront of providers of geographic information; has developed the > Digital National Framework and from a data point of view is one of the > leaders in the field. Their adoption and promotion of the "TOID" system is > clearly a move forward in data management, and while it has problems, it > is probably the way forward. However, most of this doesn't appear in > published maps - - and THAT is the nub of the problem. I agree completely with the quality of the database: but the sad fact is that the ordinary man and woman in the street - whose taxes finance an accountancy device called NIMSA which converts a 10 per cent shortfall in OS's operations into an apparent operating profit - has to rough it with 1:25,000 and 1:50,000 maps mostly drawn at least 25 years ago, with no flexibility of output, and an insult to anyone of sensibility masquerading as a 1:100,000! OS must be glad that the Ramblers Association and Cyclists Touring Club are so busy with rights-of-way and traffic law issues that they don't have time to decry this state of things! I would be less indignant were it not that repeated promises of a new generation of small-scale maps generated from the Landline/Mastermap data have so far come to nothing. Richard Oliver (Away for rest of the week) -- This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.