I perioden 8. maj 2024 til 6. maj 2026 er geodataproduktionen for 38 forskellige typer af rekreative data blevet fulgt i hhv. OpenStreetMap Danmark og i GeoFA. Rekreative data i denne undersøgelse kan fx være bænke, bålpladser, shelters, toiletter, udendørs kunstværker osv (se den fulde liste i online regnearket).
Hovedresultater viser, at OpenStreetMap Danmark nu har samlet ca. 145.074 flere objekter end GeoFA. Samlet har GeoFA nu 15.219 objekter og OpenStreetMap Danmark har 160.293 objekter. Vækstraten af nye objekter har på 2 år været 8,9 gange højere i OpenStreetMap Danmark end i GeoFA. Samlet set er OpenStreetMap Danmark i datavolume nu blevet 10,5 gange større end GeoFA.
Hvis OpenStreetMap Danmark stoppede dags dato med at kortlægge flere af disse 38 objekter, så ville det tage GeoFA over 30 år at nå op på det samme niveau.
Der er meget snak i disse år om borgerinddragelse eller at civilsamfundet træder til og løser nogle opgaver. Netop vedr. rekreative friluftsdata er det oplagt at det offentlige og OpenStreetMap Danmark begyndte at samarbejde formelt jf tallene i ovenstående undersøgelse.
OpenStreetMap Danmarks frivillige har slet ikke tabt pusten, tværtimod er antallet af frivillige der redigerer i Danmark rekordhøjt. Ca. 3.121 OpenStreetMap frivillige har det seneste år været inde og redigere i Danmarks område.
Firmaet TomTom sagde i 2012 at de aldrig ville bruge OpenStreetMap data. Det synspunkt ændrede de i 2018 og er nu blevet storforbrugere af OpenStreetMap data verden over. Så det er altså aldrig for sent for det offentlige at ændre synspunkt vedr. OpenStreetMap og indlede et formelt samarbejde.
In what context do the government collect this data? Do they aim for completeness?
With this kind of comparison, nuance is needed. For example, definitions may not be the same. E.g. the 13 theatres they have, I would expect them to mean something very specific with “theatre”, whereas in OSM a theatre is a very flexible concept (could be just an outdoor arena not actually used for theatres, or a theatre room within a cultural centre, …)
The aim is to create a public goverment database for tourism/outdoor tourism which should cover all Denmark. However the content/coverage in many of the 98 danish municipalities is very sporadic. The hope from goverment is that tourist organizations, private companies and municipalities etc. will use these data for creating products for tourist. But there is a long way to go before this goverment database is useful.
Regarding theatre it’s just ordinary theatres with a stage(s) . The danish OSM comunity map only a theatre in this way and meaning.
Sounds quite similar to the Flemish Pin Je Punt project, where the official Flemish tourism organization asked municipalities, provinces and citizens to collect tourism related data in OSM. Exactly because it is so hard to do in a rigid government sector, and because many actors in the tourism sector are looking for these data.
It’s very kind of you to give GeoFA the ‘benefit of the doubt’, but if you read the Danish posts and know about some of the Danish experiences, these often draw a different picture in my experience: GeoFA is often neither particularly complete, nor comprehensive or accurate. Furthermore, the local governments seem to be fairly reluctant to study and / or reconcile these differences.
We need quite detailed and well-prepared comparisons, plus forthcoming local governments, in order to bridge the gaps between these different data sets – and to make new data sets that are much more complete and much more useful to many users.
I’ve worked with enough government data to know that it is often far from perfect - but that even when it is, it can still be used to make OSM better.
What we need is for governments to accept that if they cannot do it on their own, they should stop investing in trying to do it. And instead invest what they have in making OSM better instead. It’s hard to sell, but in some places, minds are finally ready for this.
I totally agree. I would hope myself that minds are finally ready for this, but I also think we need a more structured cooperation regarding the map data. Somehow, local government agencies need to learn how to rely on crowd-sourced data, either by simple trust or by structured, reliable cooperation. It seems to be a surprisingly tricky relationship and my own experiences are somewhat mixed…
Trust alone will never be enough. In my own work, OSM data is never updated in our servers without a (quick) revision. I’ve set up my own system for that, but we’re also looking into using Clearance (github, SotM-EU talk). Basically you make a copy of OSM once (after you validated the data you are interested in), and then you can set up fine grained filters which updates you want to allow automatically vs. want to review manually.
The main risk here is that the gov will give up the work of actually clearing the changes - but only just the fact that changes are not applied immediately, builds in a serious safety mechanism. That in itself stops the idea “anyone can just change the map and deface our product at any time”.
