Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > As for the data consumers, Australia does have one great advantage: you're > an island (albeit a big one!). That makes it perfectly possible for data > consumers to use pre-1st April Australia data and post-1st April for the > rest of the world - probably three lines of Osmosis or so, and a slightly > longer attribution statement. (No integration between the datasets, it's > just a collective work.) Would it be possible to get the Mapnik rendering on openstreetmap.org to do this? Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Andrew wrote: > Would it be an idea to invite international mappers to remotely remap > Australia (or Poland) by, for example, tracing side streets from photographs? > It could well have a stabilising effect that avoids any concer about armchair > mapping damaging communities. I for one would certainly welcome that. I have no concerns about "armchair mapping" at all. We have good aerial imagery in the major cities, and in plenty of places in between. In many cases I've worked on, major roads have sections (eg, one lane of a two lane freeway) that will disappear, and sections that will remain. So it would be perfectly legitimate to delete the former, and use information from the latter (names, route numbers etc) to recreate them, without needing any local knowledge. Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
On 8 March 2012 23:57, Andrew wrote: > > Would it be an idea to invite international mappers to remotely remap > Australia (or Poland) by, ... I believe I have issued such an invitation. Initially, there are large parts of the coast and significant coastal waterways, lakes, islands, and other features, etc that are still nonCT that could benefit from the assistance of careful mappers from around the world. These are clearly visible in OSM Inspector. There are historical and other resources to assist in remapping these (in particular naming bays and rivers) which I can give pointers to. For those more experienced in remapping/osm, the availability of hi-res and well aligned maps in urban areas a few years ago in au resulted in lots of aerial imagery based "tweaks". Roads were split extensively to add roundabouts, traffic slands and speed zones and remapped. These are easy to recognise once you start looking, and there often is good data (well, better than nothing data) to be rescued in the history. ost transition its going to be harder to locate the relevant change sets. Assistance with these sort of tasks would free up local resources to do the local street mapping. Ian. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
Ian Sergeant writes: > The main issue is resources, time and the availability of tools. There > simply hasn't been the time since the tools have become available to > complete what can be done in many areas with the resources we have left.I appreciate that much of the rest of the world is in better shape. Lets face the fact that the Australian OSM community has been splintered by this exercise and we've > lost many good people, good resources, and good maps. I'm also a bit afraid if we stomp too hard on > what's left, it may just stop moving.Ian. > Would it be an idea to invite international mappers to remotely remap Australia (or Poland) by, for example, tracing side streets from photographs? It could well have a stabilising effect that avoids any concer about armchair mapping damaging communities. -- Andrew ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
On 8 March 2012 20:36, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Assuming you're going to be using the Australian government data, which > seems to be the general will of the .au community, you will find it much > easier to integrate that into a post-changeover database. I would gently > suggest you start talking now about how you're going to do that. > > I don't see the Australian government boundaries as relevant. They are only boundaries, are generally poor quality, and many have been removed already without being missed. Some have been useful for adding value when they happen to align with other geographical features (rivers, streams, railways, coastline, etc) but this has always been a manual effort more akin to tracing than importing. Just importing the boundary data again is as simple as it is useless. As for the data consumers, Australia does have one great advantage: you're > an island (albeit a big one!). That makes it perfectly possible for data > consumers to use pre-1st April Australia data and post-1st April for the > rest of the world - probably three lines of Osmosis or so, and a slightly > longer attribution statement. (No integration between the datasets, it's > just a collective work.) > Do we really want to force this kind of workaround downstream? To start cutting up and merging the planet with old and new? The transition likely won't be an overnight exercise in any event. There's lots of data to process. A phased approach is certainly far preferable in my mind to an osmosis merge. As Nick has pointed out, there are probably areas even within Australia that could and should transition right now with no issue. You can look at the raw data to see that the remapping has been successful in Australia so far, with the pace accelerating as the tools have become available to identify tainted data. There isn't really evidence in that I've seen of people holding back at this stage waiting for transition. The main issue is resources, time and the availability of tools. There simply hasn't been the time since the tools have become available to complete what can be done in many areas with the resources we have left. I appreciate that much of the rest of the world is in better shape. Lets face the fact that the Australian OSM community has been splintered by this exercise and we've lost many good people, good resources, and good maps. I'm also a bit afraid if we stomp too hard on what's left, it may just stop moving. Ian. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
Ian Sergeant wrote: > However, if the transition happened today in Sydney, we would lose > every freeway, every trunk road, every primary road, the harbour > crossings, the foreshore. All the rivers. Without wishing to play down your loss at all - I wouldn't want to be an Australian OSM user at this point in time :( - I would reiterate that this is an Australia and Poland problem. The rest of the world is largely ok, and much of it is very good: there are many countries over 99% on the odbl.poole.ch lists. I can't see any way that the UMP situation in Poland is going to be resolved, so there's no advantage delaying there; better to reset and restart. So that leaves Australia. There are two questions: how to get Australia remapped to an acceptable level; and what data consumers should do. The "public perception" flows directly from these. You are not going to get Australia remapped any quicker by holding off on the changeover date. I generally disagree with Andrzej when he says "it's better to remap from a blank slate, rather than remap in-place", but in the case of import-heavy and decliner-heavy areas like Australia and Poland, he's probably right. Assuming you're going to be using the Australian government data, which seems to be the general will of the .au community, you will find it much easier to integrate that into a post-changeover database.[1] I would gently suggest you start talking now about how you're going to do that. As for the data consumers, Australia does have one great advantage: you're an island (albeit a big one!). That makes it perfectly possible for data consumers to use pre-1st April Australia data and post-1st April for the rest of the world - probably three lines of Osmosis or so, and a slightly longer attribution statement. (No integration between the datasets, it's just a collective work.) cheers Richard [1] That is, unless someone wants to revert the ABS2006 import _now_, reimport, then replay any subsequent edits onto the reimported data... which is certainly a possibility and which I'm slightly surprised no-one in .au is doing. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-What-happens-on-April-1-tp5543035p5546893.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
On 8 March 2012 13:50, Nick Hocking wrote: > The presence of non compliant data in our database can only harm > the community and thereby the project. > ... I don't understand why some people are now > starting to "panic". Maybe it's just that time of month again where > we have to rehash the licence debate for the n+1th time. > > Please, lets not confuse the timing issue with the licence debate. Different issues entirely. I appreciate that every time this discussion is raised there are the naysayers that jump in. Let's just apply the appropriate filter and focus on the issue at hand. It has always been a matter of finding the correct balance between the damage being done to the community by having non-compliant data, and the damage done to our data consumers, who we also owe a duty to. If we weren't trying to find this balance, we could have just gone ahead and removed the data in April last year. In some parts of the map, I'm confident that balance has been reached. I'm keener than anyone to see any end to the red and green lines, and go back to "normal" mapping. However, if the transition happened today in Sydney, we would lose every freeway, every trunk road, every primary road, the harbour crossings, the foreshore. All the rivers. We'll lose at least 50 entire suburbs to the very last street and their place names. We'll lose railways, stations, ferry wharfs and routes. We'll lose large chunks of the regional cycle networks. This dataset will be completely, utterly, and entirely unusable by anyone for any purpose. Progress in remapping is being made. It is purposeful and effective, but takes time. We need the right balance to set the timing, and from my perspective I just can't see how we can reach that point in this area by April 1 - unless several additional committed volunteers join the effort full time in the next week. We've tried our best to do it in time, but we've not succeeded. There needs to be a different timing or a different approach. I defy anyone to run OSM Inspector over the Sydney area and say we have the right timing to go now. I therefore repeat my suggestion that we adopt a phased approach over a couple of months, working from the most complete areas to the least. There are other risk-management benefits to this approach beyond giving an extension to the less well developed areas. Still a deadline, still an imperative, just the extra time we need with the tools that we now have to make sure that a very basic usable dataset exists for our consumers on the transition day. Ian. P.S. Anybody who has finished mapping in their area, and is twiddling their thumbs waiting for the transition, we have many tens of thousands of kilometres of rivers, lakes, coastline, long distance railways, etc in Australia that are amenable to aerial remapping! Come visit! ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Nick Hocking wrote: > The presence of non compliant data in our database can only harm > the community and thereby the project. > > The longer it stays there the more harm is being done to the > community/project. Two problems with that: a) You're not quantifying what this "harm" is and whether it's worse than the harm of a massive cutover to inferior quality data. b) As noted, the non compliant data is being steadily replaced. So there is actually no hurry. > We should be trying to minimise the damage to OSM and the only way > to do this is to. But it's not "the only way", as noted. > PS - It's been well understood that in Australia, remapping all the > decliner edits (both traced imported and surveyed) will take a > couple of years. I don't understand why some people are now > starting to "panic". Maybe it's just that time of month again where > we have to rehash the licence debate for the n+1th time. I've made it very clear I'm *not* rehashing the debate. We're discussing ways of mitigating the consequences of the outcome of the licence debate. Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
The presence of non compliant data in our database can only harm the community and thereby the project. The longer it stays there the more harm is being done to the community/project. We should be trying to minimise the damage to OSM and the only way to do this is to. Remap madly until April 1st then map madly after that to fill in any important "holes". Once this is done then we can concentrate on mapping new areas and adding more value to our current dataset. For these reasons, slipping the April 1st deadline would result in more damage to the project than adhereing to it. PS - It's been well understood that in Australia, remapping all the decliner edits (both traced imported and surveyed) will take a couple of years. I don't understand why some people are now starting to "panic". Maybe it's just that time of month again where we have to rehash the licence debate for the n+1th time. Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote: > This is about bad news in the hands of the most connected of people. These > are people who if they hate it will tweet it, facebook it, blog it, and > re-post it. This will be the first contact with OSM for millions, and the > first time many millions more hear about it. It really is in the interest > of our project that the experience for that many people be as positive as we > can practically achieve. Well said. > Maybe we achieve this by having a timetable that starts with the most > complete areas and works down the list, thereby giving a month or so > extension to those countries at the bottom? That way, we don't lose the > deadline, we can go easy on the disc heads, and still grant some sort of > extension to those who have more work to do? If this is possible, this would be great. I would immediately request an extension of 3 months for Australian data. Our situation is, as noted, amongst the worst: much of the major core data was contributed by very active mappers who eventually declined the CTs, and left the community. So not only do we have a bigger hole than most communities, but we have less people to repair the hole. Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
Frederik Ramm wrote on 08/03/2012 10:11:14 AM: > So forgive me if I cannot see any "test case" in the Foursquare issue, > and I would be surprised if anyone else did! Plus, as I and others have > said, they're grown-ups and they must have been aware of the looming change. This isn't about Foursquare the company. The Foursquare community is large and all about geography. (By comparison, geography is incidental to the White House, and German Courts). This is about bad news in the hands of the most connected of people. These are people who if they hate it will tweet it, facebook it, blog it, and re-post it. This will be the first contact with OSM for millions, and the first time many millions more hear about it. It really is in the interest of our project that the experience for that many people be as positive as we can practically achieve. Secondly, given it now looks like the act can be done live, I see no harm in working with the local communities to progressively clean the database in areas where at least the major linking roads are in place first, without losing the deadline or the imperative. Maybe we achieve this by having a timetable that starts with the most complete areas and works down the list, thereby giving a month or so extension to those countries at the bottom? That way, we don't lose the deadline, we can go easy on the disc heads, and still grant some sort of extension to those who have more work to do? Ian. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
On 7 March 2012 16:57, Chris Hill wrote: > On 07/03/12 15:45, andrzej zaborowski wrote: >> >> I was wondering why people think that. Even trying to put myself in >> place of someone who thinks the license change is the best thing since >> sliced bread I still can't see the reasons for remapping. First of >> all it costs more work than adding data from scratch and it takes >> people's time away from doing actual mapping -- creating new data. So >> it's not a zero net gain operation -- i.e. we lose new contributions, >> but we get to keep the same amount of work which would have been >> deleted. Rather, after the potential switch-over we will have less >> data than if we kept on doing on what we always did. > > I have been examining the data marked as something that will be lost in an > area fairly close to me. Much of this was created many years ago and the > original editor has not responded to attempts to contact them. > > Much of this is based on poor-quality aerial imagery. Replacing it with a > survey or even more recent imagery creates much higher quality data, not > least better geometry. I have gone on to improve other work sometimes by > adding extra detail for example roundabout flares, road names (from survey > or other open sources) and adding otherwise missing roads, tracks etc. > > Like-for-like replacement might not be useful, but much of this is a > positive improvement and worthwhile in its own right. I might not have > looked at some of these areas without the process of licence change. I will > now be reviewing the whole area (northern Lincolnshire, UK) over the next > few months and I expect to find lots of potential improvements, just like > anywhere else. Those are useful improvements, I'm not saying they aren't. But you did have to manually delete the existing data, something that is expected to be done by a bot anyway. You may have spent as little as 1% of the mapping time on it, but it is still a slight overhead. Likely it was higher if you had to investigate the situation, install an editor plugin and so on. So if those deletions were done automatically you could have added those same details and a hypothetical 0.01 more. Assuming that there are other things to add to OSM (and I've not yet been to a place where there weren't, maybe except one neighbourhood in Dublin), remapping before the cut-off date can at best have a close to zero negative result. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
On 07/03/12 15:45, andrzej zaborowski wrote: I was wondering why people think that. Even trying to put myself in place of someone who thinks the license change is the best thing since sliced bread I still can't see the reasons for remapping. First of all it costs more work than adding data from scratch and it takes people's time away from doing actual mapping -- creating new data. So it's not a zero net gain operation -- i.e. we lose new contributions, but we get to keep the same amount of work which would have been deleted. Rather, after the potential switch-over we will have less data than if we kept on doing on what we always did. I have been examining the data marked as something that will be lost in an area fairly close to me. Much of this was created many years ago and the original editor has not responded to attempts to contact them. Much of this is based on poor-quality aerial imagery. Replacing it with a survey or even more recent imagery creates much higher quality data, not least better geometry. I have gone on to improve other work sometimes by adding extra detail for example roundabout flares, road names (from survey or other open sources) and adding otherwise missing roads, tracks etc. Like-for-like replacement might not be useful, but much of this is a positive improvement and worthwhile in its own right. I might not have looked at some of these areas without the process of licence change. I will now be reviewing the whole area (northern Lincolnshire, UK) over the next few months and I expect to find lots of potential improvements, just like anywhere else. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
Hi, On 7 March 2012 09:16, Frederik Ramm wrote: > If there really are people actively remapping and our rushing through the > license change would sabotage their work and alienate them then yes, we > should postpone for a month or two. Sadly, here in Germany many people are > of the opposite opinion and they say "let's wait until after the license > change, and then see what's missing and fix it". I would much prefer people > to remap now but it seems that remapping is not for everyone. I was wondering why people think that. Even trying to put myself in place of someone who thinks the license change is the best thing since sliced bread I still can't see the reasons for remapping. First of all it costs more work than adding data from scratch and it takes people's time away from doing actual mapping -- creating new data. So it's not a zero net gain operation -- i.e. we lose new contributions, but we get to keep the same amount of work which would have been deleted. Rather, after the potential switch-over we will have less data than if we kept on doing on what we always did. Secondly mapping after the incompatible (with the LWG's risky definition of compatibility) data has been removed by a non-person, should be *much* preferred for the clean-ness of IP rights. Even if done correctly, the remapping keeps some information from the old non-kosher data (like the fact that "something worthy of featuring was here"). But it's hard for a human to do correctly, most of the times much more information is be copied over consciously or not. The usual thinking process will be "what is the shortest way for me to get that visualisation tool, considering the rules it uses, to show this object in a lower wavelength colour?" It has only a little to do with removing unwanted IP. As an owner of a "declined" account I get messages from people who observe those things. It looks like after the change, which was supposed to make OSM's legal situation cleaner, I think it's safer for a Random Big Company to perhaps use wikimapia. Cheers > The current graphs - http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html - point > steadily downwards but if you extrapolate you'll see that they are unlikely > to reach zero before autumn. > > >> Is there any reason not >> to? > > > I think that a number of people on the OSMF board - Steve and Mikel at least > because I've spoken to them in a management team conference call about a > month ago, but likely others too - are of the opinion that OSMF must be seen > by the world to be reliable and be in charge; they fear that if OSMF should > now renege on the "1st April" promise they've made, then people might come > to the conclusion that OSMF cannot be trusted. However they see a > "trustworthy OSMF" as a necessary basis for dealing with the business > community, and acquiring funding, data, or other support from them. > > In the aforementioned management team telephone conference I said, "You > can't tell me that April 1st is success, and April 2nd is failure" and was > told that "the board thinks different". (This is from memory.) > > (In my eyes, it is a very bad idea for OSMF board to "commit" themselves to > something which is not under their control; and we must definitely avoid > this kind of ambitious goal-setting in the future. OSMF can set goals for > OSMF, but OSMF must not set goals for OSM. But that's a discussion we can, > and should, have after the license change is through.) > > This doesn't mean that a postponement cannot happen; certainly board won't > simply shut down OSM on April 1st until the bot run is complete just to be > able to say that they met their target. But it does mean that a postponement > would need really solid reasons which would allow those on the board who > "committed" themselves to the 1st April "deadline" to save face. > > "If we wait another month then 5% more data can be remapped" is not a solid > reason, and neither is "I'm sure Foursquare would be unhappy to lose a few > roads in the US". These reasons are especially bad because they an be > repeated month after month and thus could make the process drag on > endlessly. > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
>I agree. Another reason not to is that the looming deadline is actually >motivating people to stop waiting for CT-undecideds to respond and do >remapping - I know it's motivating me and other people I've talked to. >Take away the deadline and you demotivate remappers, while also putting >off the contribution from the wait-and-sees as Frederik says. >I suspect that we'll see the highest rates of remapping work in the few >weeks immediately before and after the deadline. For that, we need the >deadline. I'm tending to agree now. TBH I'm not really "for" the licence change given the effect on the data... but given it's going to happen, I'd prefer to get it all over with. For one thing I know I personally will be more motivated to remap if gaping holes appear, than I might be presently... though I have done a bit in the last couple of weeks. Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
On 07/03/12 08:16, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 03/07/12 04:06, Steve Bennett wrote: Given that many people are now actively remapping, is there any prospect of pushing back the cutover deadline? If there really are people actively remapping and our rushing through the license change would sabotage their work and alienate them then yes, we should postpone for a month or two. Sadly, here in Germany many people are of the opposite opinion and they say "let's wait until after the license change, and then see what's missing and fix it". I would much prefer people to remap now but it seems that remapping is not for everyone. The current graphs - http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html - point steadily downwards but if you extrapolate you'll see that they are unlikely to reach zero before autumn. Is there any reason not to? ... "If we wait another month then 5% more data can be remapped" is not a solid reason, and neither is "I'm sure Foursquare would be unhappy to lose a few roads in the US". These reasons are especially bad because they an be repeated month after month and thus could make the process drag on endlessly. I agree. Another reason not to is that the looming deadline is actually motivating people to stop waiting for CT-undecideds to respond and do remapping - I know it's motivating me and other people I've talked to. Take away the deadline and you demotivate remappers, while also putting off the contribution from the wait-and-sees as Frederik says. I suspect that we'll see the highest rates of remapping work in the few weeks immediately before and after the deadline. For that, we need the deadline. Jonathan. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
Hi, On 03/07/12 04:06, Steve Bennett wrote: Could someone explain exactly what will be happening on April 1? I had initially assumed that we would take the database offline, drop all decliners' data, and then come back online. But it now seems that this might not even be required, and that it might be possible to use a bot to make the license change preparations in the live system. "License change preparations" means that every object would be modified into an ODbL compatible state (worst case: deleted); after this bot has completed its work, the database would still be CC-BY-SA, but from that point on, OSMF would, at any time, be able to decree that "as of now" the database was ODbL. Will we really be purging all data from decliners? And if so, is this not terrible timing, given the recent, high-profile signups of companies like foursquare? There are many aspects to this. 1. Any timing is terrible, so why not do it now. 2. We have no obligations to Foursquare; they have made a business decision in the full knowledge about the upcoming license change. 3. If they, or their tile provider, MapBox, don't like what they see after the license change, they may choose to remain with the last CC-BY-SA data set for however long they want. Given that many people are now actively remapping, is there any prospect of pushing back the cutover deadline? If there really are people actively remapping and our rushing through the license change would sabotage their work and alienate them then yes, we should postpone for a month or two. Sadly, here in Germany many people are of the opposite opinion and they say "let's wait until after the license change, and then see what's missing and fix it". I would much prefer people to remap now but it seems that remapping is not for everyone. The current graphs - http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html - point steadily downwards but if you extrapolate you'll see that they are unlikely to reach zero before autumn. Is there any reason not to? I think that a number of people on the OSMF board - Steve and Mikel at least because I've spoken to them in a management team conference call about a month ago, but likely others too - are of the opinion that OSMF must be seen by the world to be reliable and be in charge; they fear that if OSMF should now renege on the "1st April" promise they've made, then people might come to the conclusion that OSMF cannot be trusted. However they see a "trustworthy OSMF" as a necessary basis for dealing with the business community, and acquiring funding, data, or other support from them. In the aforementioned management team telephone conference I said, "You can't tell me that April 1st is success, and April 2nd is failure" and was told that "the board thinks different". (This is from memory.) (In my eyes, it is a very bad idea for OSMF board to "commit" themselves to something which is not under their control; and we must definitely avoid this kind of ambitious goal-setting in the future. OSMF can set goals for OSMF, but OSMF must not set goals for OSM. But that's a discussion we can, and should, have after the license change is through.) This doesn't mean that a postponement cannot happen; certainly board won't simply shut down OSM on April 1st until the bot run is complete just to be able to say that they met their target. But it does mean that a postponement would need really solid reasons which would allow those on the board who "committed" themselves to the 1st April "deadline" to save face. "If we wait another month then 5% more data can be remapped" is not a solid reason, and neither is "I'm sure Foursquare would be unhappy to lose a few roads in the US". These reasons are especially bad because they an be repeated month after month and thus could make the process drag on endlessly. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
