From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Potential Import of OCM locations into OSM

Now that OCM has over 27,000 electric car charging locations it would make sense to take a closer look at the options surrounding an import or bridge between OCM and OSM.

To this end I have updated the Open Charge Map page and I will post to the imports mail list to get opinions to see if there is general support for such an import.

In any case, OCM is now firmly established in the electric car arena and so it makes sense that there be some degree of coordination between OCM and OSM. I am hoping to trigger some discussion regarding the mapping of electric car charging stations in OSM. It is a new area and as of today there are only 4300 or so listed on OSM. I would like to see a project initiated within OSM related directly to electric car charging stations and this would of course tie in with any import discussions. Paul Churchley (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Open Charge Map Locations

OCM now contains 27,821 locations as of today Paul Churchley (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


OpenChargeMap is a global database not UK specific as stated in the introduction. It contains 8823 Charging Stations (21 September 2012).

More than 15 apps/websites are using the OCM data --Kevin Sharpe 14:58, 21 September 2012 (BST)


Could OCM consider releasing their data as CC-BY instead of CC-BY-SA? As OSM uses ODBL, it's impossible for us to share alike as Creative Commons, as ODBL will never be exactly the same as CC.

I agree. I have asked OCM if they could relicense to CC-BY. Paul Churchley (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


I think if you include website, this url will already contain the ocm ref. In that case, there is no need for ref:ocm anymore. Sites like Openlinkmap can convert ref:ocm into urls of websites though, so just using ref:ocm instead of website would also work and be cleaner.

I know that a ref:ocm=* could be converted to a url but if the station is looked at just through the normal mapping tools that url won't be obvious or available. So if people want to easily like between OSM and OCM then the url must also be tagged. I don't have any strong feelings either way to be honest. Providing the OCM ref is tagged then the link is created and can be followed by those that are interested. Paul Churchley (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Import not Necessary – We Don't Need Your Data

I think that an import of OCM data (indepent which license OCM data has) is not necessary. As it is a automatical bulk import, we will get the same problems as every time and every place you do a bulk import. Bulk imports are often done by a very small group of people (or one single person). But because only this/these person(s) is interested in this type of data, the data won't be maintained very well (removing razed charging stations, change changed operators/networks etc.). If local mappers add the charging stations by themselves because they have seen them in field, they will maintain their stations. There are a couple of examples of badly maintained, imported data (e.g. US, The Netherlands, France) and, in opposite, countries where the data was collected manually, e.g. all German speaking countries. Mappers only care about the objects they have added theirselves to OSM, spending time on.

We had a special weekly task about charging stations at German OSM blog last year (German blog post, English summary). There are already > 1300 stations in DE+AT+CH! These objects have been added manually and checked by local people. If you import your data into OSM, you corrupt the quality of OSM data. OSM should be a hand-made high-quality crowdsource geodatabase and now automatically-mixed dataset like OpenAdresses!

Why don't you as OCM just declare "Hey OSM contributors, this is our database, you can look at it and add our data to OSM."? This would make a manual import possible and local mappers could decide if they import the data or not.

If somebody wants a combined dataset of OSM and OCM data, he needs compatible licenses but not one dataset because every data user can combine the two datasets by himself by just joining them and removing duplicated objects (e.g. looking at ref=*, operator=* and distance). --Nakaner (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

After some discussion with Paul a good week ago, it became clear that they don't actually want to share their data, except maybe for the positions. They want to keep the monopoly over the details for each station though. On the one hand it seems like a good idea to store and keep data up-to-date in one central place, but on the other we'd prefer to have most pertinent details readily available in OSM anyway.
Of course, there is no reason why Openstreetmap couldn't be that central place, but we'll probably keep 'competing'. If they do happen to change their license, we might be able to validate each other's details, but I don't see cooperation going much further than that.
We could go and peek which of their data is licensed with a suitable license and then import that data directly from the original source, or go out and survey for ourselves. And OCM could use OSM data to improve their DB, as long as they add the source and that those tidbits are licensed as ODBL. Adding yet another license to the mix.
Now, I'll go and check whether the handful of charging stations I know about around my city are mapped... the devil is in those details though, which is why I hadn't done so yet.--Polyglot (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)