 |
 |
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)