Map quality

[madtrucker]

Tom Tom could start with actually implementing the changes users submit in a timely manner.

[Shorty]

Yes - I come from a Data Sourcing background and time-to-map is always an issue.  While one can load MSR reports to your unit between updates on a scale of verified- which is really the internal start of the production process to all submissions (meaning not yet verified even) this is not always a satisfactory solution.  Our database updates can be as quick as 6months from report but are most usually in the next upgrade (a year down the track).  'Not accepted' feedback is not necessarily the end of the matter of course since these go into a "to do" list so could take even longer than 12 months to see in a map in the public domain.  A lot depends on timing of the report when it reaches (internal to the company) final production status.

I think, if it's not yet added we should list 'time-to-map' as part of our nice to have list 

[mvl]

One more suggestion for improvement:

Device-submitted mapshare updates (at least on HOME2-based devices where uploads work) should load to the same system/list as website-submitted updates.

I would envision a flow as follows:

- a customer submits a mapshare change on the device

- device connects to HOME2 to upload the mapshare change

- customer can immediately login to mapshare reporter website, use the same email acct as in HOME2, and immediately see the uploaded change as "pending" update on the website

[mvl]

---

Shorty wrote:

Yes - I come from a Data Sourcing background and time-to-map is always an issue.  While one can load MSR reports to your unit between updates on a scale of verified- which is really the internal start of the production process to all submissions (meaning not yet verified even) this is not always a satisfactory solution.  Our database updates can be as quick as 6months from report but are most usually in the next upgrade (a year down the track).  'Not accepted' feedback is not necessarily the end of the matter of course since these go into a "to do" list so could take even longer than 12 months to see in a map in the public domain.  A lot depends on timing of the report when it reaches (internal to the company) final production status.

I think, if it's not yet added we should list 'time-to-map' as part of our nice to have list 

---

I see two improvements based on what is noted here:

1) There should be two tiers of status.  First is "accepted and in queue for implementation", meaning Tomtom has verified and it will be implemented in a future map.   Then there should be further status of "Implemented in map 895" (etc).  This status specifically confirms for the customer which Tomtom map will be the first one to have the approved change.

2) "Accepted" changes should hit the mapshare "verified changes" server immediately.  Devices should be able to get the updates pushed to them via mapshare immediately once "accepted" status is confirmed.

[Megalos Exalted Voyager Expert (Map quality)]

Yes, I completely agree. On note 2: only 'small' changes (no new roads for example) can be pushed via Map Share of course. Similar to the status 'Implemented in map v895', it could say: 'Distributed via Map Share' for example.

[Shorty]

@ Mercer - - my meaning was the Big Guys or the large companies (players) in the market

@Zsolt - my mistake; I'll go back and fix (as a quote here since I haven't got my mind around actually moving topics yet  

Copying or using data from another not Tom Tom or contracted Tom Tom, will raise serious business ethical issues and any companies involved in such would be in Court's around the World for a long time.  Data is intellectual property.

I'll put the concept on the list as "we should look at expanding our data contributors who can supply already verified data (and let's add, in the formats we can load almost immediately)"

@mzi - thank you.  Three good suggestions and I particularly like your "tiered status" idea.  It may be that we have that on the list already as in "important data should have priority" or words to that effect so defining a ranking to data items extends the idea very neatly.

@ megalos - agreed (with your agreement )  Actually providing feedback to a contributor as to which map release the contribution will appear in, will be a super enhancement for contributors.  It's not easy taking data out there (ask me, I know) and it's very heartening to a contributor to know the progress of that hard work into map-form.

[Shorty]

A question:

This is not intended to cease putting forward and discussing suggestions for MSR improvement but do you think it's time I created a list of suggestions so far, trying my best to prioritise each for inclusion into MSR software and perhaps suggesting a data status ladder?

If so I'll hunt through what we have so far and put it here to be improved upon.

[Zsolt Elite Voyager]

@Shorty: Fair enough, that's why I suggested to look around of licensing Navteq maps also. Maybe not everywhere, but in certain areas, where TT performs far worse.

[Shorty]

Perhaps not so specifically but there's no reason why companies can't collaborate - it's done all over the World so I see no reason why this item cannot be put to the list even though some might see it as a little remote from MSR suggestions specifically.  

We have enormous difficulty on our Continent in finding (accurate enough) local officially surveyed data and more often than not if it does exist the data costs an arm and a leg.  Also there is no centralisation of such, even Provincially let alone Nationally, so one is left to firstly find the authority responsible and then negotiate a deal.  Most times it's easier to send a MoMa van through.

The thing that bugs me a bit is the multiplication of survey work that then has to be completed by each business in this field ... then again monopolies are deeply frowned upon, but no one put up a stink when President Reagan opened the GPS to the common man - at that stage there was but one system; makes you think.

[Shorty]

@Zsolt - I've had a re-think on that fix.  The subject is fine as "Map Coverage in Hungary" and while I never like discussing competitors on open Forum I'll let that stand.  You've made or we've developed the concept of a wider spread of contributions/sources for data here so in that topic let's deal with coverage reality in Hungary