Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes

[Richard Fairhurst]

Gorm E. Johnsen wrote:
> Again: Left and right co-exist nicely. I do not propose to convert between
> them. That is of course up to the individual mapper.
> Again: What I _do_ propose, is to rename a tag on some elements. From 
> top to bottom in the example.

It's all right, you can stop explaining. People aren't disagreeing with you
because they don't understand your proposal. People are disagreeing with you
because they don't see the merits of it.

>From this distance, you simply haven't made a convincing case for why this
change should be made.

There is no actual evidence of data consumers finding that "highway=ford" is
a problem. People are not saying "my routing can't work because fords are in
the highway namespace". People aren't saying "I really want to tag
mini-roundabouts in fords and the current system doesn't let me". There
isn't actually a problem. Rather, you appear to be proposing it for some
mythical idea of "consistency" and because "it would be nice".

As SomeoneElse has pointed out, if you change it now, you _will_ break
existing uses of OSM. People who currently compile Garmin cycling maps of
OSM will find that fords suddenly disappear from their rendering, and users
of these maps will have a worse experience. Anyone who uses osm2pgsql will
have to employ an extra column for what is a fairly little-used tag. All
this for a change that achieves nothing.

Tag migrations do happen. Sometimes there are good reasons. I think, for
example, that moving highway=gate to barrier=gate was a sensible change and
enabled finer-grained tagging in the 'barrier' tag. But it was largely a
consensus-driven change and the database evolved from one to the other over
time.

Maybe one day someone will come up with a smart, genuinely beneficial idea
like that, and we can migrate the ford tagging over time. But they haven't
done yet.

Please. Go outside and do some mapping. Stay inside and code. Write or tidy
some documentation. Do something that makes a real _difference_.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/highway-ford-vs-ford-yes-tp5668436p5696548.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes

[Richard Fairhurst]

Dave F. wrote:
> In fact tagging it highway=*, ford=yes makes it *easier* for routers 
> as they have to do less checking to see whether the ways on each 
> side are the same.

Hang on a sec. :)

Gorm has already changed highway=ford on _ways_ to ford=yes,
highway=something_or_other. This has happened. Arguably there could have
been some more discussion beforehand but hey, it's happened.

What's principally under discussion now is changing it on _nodes_. 

John Smith's posting (second in the thread) refers: "There was/is very good
reasons why highway=ford wasn't good enough for ways, but why do nodes need
to be updated at all?" Gorm replied "Simply to de-clutter the highway tag
and to be more consistent". The debate is as to whether this is adequate
reason given the disruption involved.

(Same reply applies to Kevin Peat's posting.)

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/highway-ford-vs-ford-yes-tp5668436p5697874.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Google expands their map data

[Richard Fairhurst]

S Omeone wrote:
> OpenStreetMap has of cause something similar with OpenStreetBugs 
> (which Google may well have used as inspiration), but unfortunately, 
> as too often, less convenient.
> [...]
> Can we perhaps learn something from Google of how to build a nice user 
> friendly crowd sourcing of local knowledge?

Pretty much everyone _already_ knows that
a) OSB is fabulous
b) that sort of functionality should be integrated on the main osm.org site

Unfortunately, of the 000s of people who comprise "pretty much everyone",
exactly 0.0 people have come up with some deployable code to do it.

It's really not complicated. You need some basic OpenLayers knowledge (for a
draggable marker), some basic Rails knowledge (for a Node-like object), and
the ability to write code within a particular style (i.e. fitting with the
current site) rather than imposing your own personal preferences. The design
is very simple: I could probably rattle off a useful spec within about 10
seconds. I and others will be happy to help with suggestions, advice etc. on
#osm whenever you need it.

My own excuse for not having done it is that I'm already spending vast
amounts of development time on Potlatch 2. What's yours?

cheers
Richard



-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Google-expands-their-map-data-tp5735850p5736000.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [talk] New site about the license change

[Richard Fairhurst]

[follow-ups to legal-talk, where this thread really should have started]

Kevin Peat wrote:

Personally I don't care if the current license is weak as most
organisations will respect its spirit and if a few don't who cares,
it doesn't devalue our efforts one cent. I can't see how changing
to an unproven license can possibly be worth fragmenting the
project.


There'll be some fragmentation whatever happens. I've no doubt that,  
as you suggest, some people will leave if OSM moves to ODbL.  
Conversely, if OSM resolved to stick with CC-BY-SA then I'd leave as  
would several others. There is no "let's just carry on as at present"  
option.


Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] tracking deletions

[Richard Fairhurst]

Mikel Maron wrote:
> Is there an easy way to track deletions only in a particular area?

When editing the area in Potlatch, you can press 'U' (for undelete) to find
deleted ways, and recover them if you desire.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tracking-deletions-tp5743084p5743447.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] tracking deletions

[Richard Fairhurst]

Mikel Maron wrote:


that works great, thanks

how does potlatch recover this information? is there an API method I haven't
noticed?


Only in Potlatch 1's AMF API at present, but you can call this from  
Perl, Python or Ruby if you're feeling brave:


http://trac.openstreetmap.org/browser/applications/utils/amf/

cheers
Richard



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Ed Avis wrote:
> Do you mean to say that the earlier statement is true - that it's not 
> possible to produce truly public domain, unrestricted map tiles or 
> printed maps from the ODbL data? 

Yes. ODbL is very clear that there's an attribution requirement (4.3).

(I believe that the "reasonably calculated" in 4.3 imposes a downstream
requirement as part of this: in other words, you must require that
attribution is preserved for adaptations of the Produced Work, otherwise you
have not "reasonably calculated" that the attribution will be shown to "any
Person that views, accesses [etc.]... the Produced Work". At least one
person disagrees with me here. :) )

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Best-license-for-future-tiles-tp5747363p5751683.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Ed Avis wrote:
> It's curious that two of the strongest defences of 'strong share-alike'
> come 
> from yourself and Richard F. - but both of you prefer public domain.  I, 
> too, would prefer public domain over the ODbL.  What's going on?  
> Shouldn't we stop adding more legalese and just focus on transitioning 
> OSM to PD or attribution-only?

Good luck with that, as the phrase goes. :(

Basically, OSM has several outspoken people who won't countenance a
permissive licence (e.g. Etienne and Steve). If you'd like to try and
convince them of the error of their ways you're a braver man than I am.

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Best-license-for-future-tiles-tp5747363p5762573.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Steve Coast Joins Microsoft as Principle Architect ofBing Mobile

[Richard Fairhurst]

Grant Slater wrote:
> Same answer for the Potlatch...
> http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/1602/how-can-i-use-microsofts-aerial-imagery-in-potlatch

Potlatch 2 can now, as of five minutes ago, display Bing-format tiles. We're
waiting for the official "start tracing" announcement, and any provisos
(only through this API, only with this copyright message, only on Tuesdays
etc. etc.), before making it live.

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Steve-Coast-Joins-Microsoft-as-Principle-Architect-of-Bing-Mobile-tp5767431p5767827.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Steve Coast Joins Microsoft as Principle Architect ofBing Mobile

[Richard Fairhurst]

Markus Lindholm wrote:
> Anyone read the fine print of the license under which M$ provides the
> imagery?

It hasn't been released yet. That's why, although we already have Potlatch 2
support coded, it hasn't been deployed on any of the P2 instances (and I
believe the same is true for the JOSM slippy-map plugin). Let's wait and see
what the licence is.

(By the way, it's not M$ any more - you're thinking of GOOGL£...)

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Steve-Coast-Joins-Microsoft-as-Principle-Architect-of-Bing-Mobile-tp5767431p5767964.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference

[Richard Fairhurst]

[follow-ups to legal-talk please]

David Murn wrote:
> I have no interest in the legal detail of the licence, only 
> interested in talking about the ramifications of the licence 
> on our map data, no matter how many times people try 
> to derail this important issue to a legal mailing list.

It is nothing to do with "derailing".

The tagging@ list is there for discussions of how tagging impacts on our map
data. No-one is saying that tagging isn't important: it's just a big subject
that some people have chosen not to be interested in.

The legal-talk@ list is there for discussions of how legal matters impact on
our map data. No-one is saying that legal matters aren't important: they're
just a big subject that some people have chosen not to be interested in.

Please have some respect for your fellow mappers, and let _them_ choose what
they're interested in by subscribing to the right list; don't try and tell
them what they should be interested in by posting everything to talk@
regardless.

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Suggestion-for-an-Unconference-tp5768507p5773851.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch2 almost down?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Dave F. wrote:
> I get a 404 error for P2 via Mapquest & through geowiki It loads 
> the editor & displays a selected background but no data

Could you try the Geowiki instance again? I've just tweaked a little problem
that was showing up. (I tend to forget people use the Yahoo imagery. Roll on
Bing. :) )

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Potlatch2-almost-down-tp5780052p5780072.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing imagery now available in JOSM

[Richard Fairhurst]

Felix Hartmann wrote:
> Is source=bing verified?
> Else it is pretty bad to start mapping

As already posted, there is no formal requirement in the Bing licence to use
a source tag, but it's good OSM practice anyway. FWIW Potlatch 2 has
"source=Bing" as the preset tag.

Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Bing-imagery-now-available-in-JOSM-tp5791483p5792577.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

[Richard Fairhurst]

Simon Poole wrote:
> That however does require the importer/mapper to raise the 
> issue to a level where that support exists. As the LWG has 
> pointed out, that hasn't worked in the past, and there is IMHO 
> no reason to believe that it will magically start working in the 
> future.

Oh, sure, nothing "magically starts working". It requires willingness and
commitment to make it work, just like everything else in OSM. I'm willing to
put effort into licence compatibility (and have made suggestions to LWG,
which they've taken up, to ensure CT compatibility with attribution-required
licences). Are you?

Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5815086.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Richard Fairhurst]

Joseph Reeves wrote:
> An example from my recent past: We display OSM imagery on our 
> website to show people where our offices are. We have one office 
> that was in a town poorly covered by OSM. When the OS Open 
> imagery became available I traced chunks of the town into OSM

Why not just display the OS OpenData imagery on your website and cut out the
middleman? ;)

There can certainly be a case for strategic 'remote mapping' work. Way back
when, the aim was to get placenames into OSM (from NPE, mostly). Soon
afterwards, we had a push to get all the UK's A and B roads mapped; a fair
amount of that involved NPE tracing. More recently, sometimes there are
small strategic gaps in OSM coverage that can be trivially fixed to make the
map much more useful (for a long time there was a half-mile gap in the
mapping of the C2C, Britain's most popular long-distance cycle route). 

And so on. These resulted in significant improvements in OSM coverage with
little or no impact on local mappers, who still had plenty to do. At the
other end of the scale, an occasional five-minute trace of a couple of
footpaths might not be significant - but who could really object to it?

But _intensive_ tracing can and does kill people's motivation. Doesn't
matter whether you think the people are misguided or pompous, it happens.
I've seen it in Worcester, in the East Midlands, in Northern Ireland.

The result is that, rather than having the best map available, we merely
have (especially in the case of OS OpenData) a carbon copy of a map you
could download from somewhere else - and pissed-off mappers who no longer
want to make it any better.

Of course there are compromises. I think in your example I'd have asked the
local mapper "oh, sorry, I wouldn't want to make your volunteer work less
enjoyable - but it would be great for us if we had a map we could use by
this time next month. Would that be ok?".

But if you have an itchy mouse finger and it's cold outside, why not choose
one of the a million and one other ways to make the map better - without
endangering the enthusiasm which is OSM's greatest asset? TIGER fixup is the
most important. Find an untouched US city and align the geometry - so much
more beneficial to the future of OSM than tracing Budleigh Salterton from OS
StreetView. You can trace woodlands, lakes, rivers, building outlines and
other things less suited to local survey. And there's also all the big
non-mapping problems that hold OSM back and sorely need volunteers to tackle
them (abysmal docs etc.)...

There's so much to do. It's got to be more efficient for tracers to tackle
the bits that _aren't_ being catered for by local mappers.

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Bing-maps-is-misplaced-tp5811671p5817457.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Richard Fairhurst]

Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Am 09.12.2010 02:49, schrieb Kenneth Gonsalves:
> > what I object to is mapping a place one has no intention of visiting
> Fine, seems you don't like the wiki principle ...

I think you're getting confused with the Wikipedia Principle: "you have a
right to contribute and edit, no matter if you don't know anything about the
subject". Wikis aren't all like that and OSM certainly isn't.

Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Bing-maps-is-misplaced-tp5811671p5818694.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Massive import of airports

[Richard Fairhurst]

Toby Murray wrote:
> The source is documented in both the changeset comments and on the 
> nodes themselves. I saw a conversation on IRC to the effect that the 
> data is indeed PD so there don't seem to be any worries on that front 
> at least.

A simple assertion that "this is PD" isn't good enough. Lots of people don't
have any understanding of IP in geodata, and will happily trace from Google
Maps then say "I declare the result to be CC-BY/PD/CC-BY-SA/entirely my
copyright/what-have-you". Pretty much the entire quantity of Wikipedia's
co-ordinate data is like this, for example.

We need some confidence as to the actual surveying method before being able
to take a PD declaration on trust.

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Massive-import-of-airports-tp5844802p5844985.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Massive import of airports

[Richard Fairhurst]

Stefan de Konink wrote:


Come on, this is non-sense. If someone accepted the CT and imports the
data, it should be enough.


No. By that logic we'd never revert data which is clearly traced from  
infringing sources. We can, and we do.


The OSM map is a single collaborative project, not a series of  
personal projects. Data (and core code, for that matter) should  
satisfy our collective standards. If I see a badly mapped road, I'll  
delete it and replace it with something better. Exactly the same  
applies to badly licensed data.


cheers
Richard



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL

[Richard Fairhurst]

David Murn wrote:
> So, can you tell from every edit you did, whether you used nearmap as 
> a reference while doing the edit?  If so, you must be one of the very
> small percentage of people who tagged 100% every change they made

or one of the very large percentage of people not from Australia.

Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Objects-versions-ready-for-ODbL-tp5847855p5855515.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Did Googles map quality recently degrade?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Stefan de Konink wrote:
> I'm really wondering who is pulling the strings there, because now 
> it is even more trivial to see how much better we are. Anyone is 
> seeing this happening in their area's as well?

Certainly in the UK there's a lot more 'Google-sourced' data appearing on
the maps, often seemingly scraped from the web.
http://blog.telemapics.com/?p=344 is an amusing take on it all.

I think it's generally assumed that this is a precursor to Google dumping
TeleAtlas data completely and replacing it with their own data, largely
sourced from StreetView cars - just as has happened in the States.

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Did-Googles-map-quality-recently-degrade-tp5858040p5859573.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] What phones do OSMers have?

[Richard Fairhurst]

SteveC wrote:
> Specifically I'm wondering if everyone has androids because we're all 
> open source nuts or if it's more balanced? Only the data will show.

I have a Samsung B130. It's fantastic. You can make phone calls on it, and
stuff. Actually, no. You can make phone calls on it.

According to a user review on CNet it's "proper donky shit" which pretty
much sums it up.

http://www.samsung.com/ph/consumer/mobile-phone/mobile-phone/essential/SGH-B130CNAXTC/index.idx?pagetype=prd_detail

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/What-phones-do-OSMers-have-tp5886033p5886914.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

[Richard Fairhurst]

Peter Miller wrote:
> I will currently be one of the people locked out because I have used 
> the Ordnance Survey open data which is apparently incompatible with 
> the new license.

OS OpenData is AIUI compatible with ODbL and the latest Contributor Terms.

cheers
Richard

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5888953.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

[Richard Fairhurst]

Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
> Clause 2 requires contributors to make a large grant of IP rights 
> to OSMF on any content added to OSM. I believe that the intent 
> here is actually that you only grant OSMF the rights necessary 
> for them to act as described in clauses 3 and 4.

Agreed.

> Lets now consider what rights are necessary for OSMF to act as
> described in clauses 3 and 4. Since the data will be initially
> distributed under CC-By-SA and ODbL, you must have sufficient 
> rights to allow the data you contribute to be distributed in this way.

Agreed.

> Since there is also the possibility of OSM content later being 
> distributed under a license that requires no downstream attribution 
> or share-alike provisions

Agreed on share-alike.

Attribution: CT 4 could (and perhaps should) be more explicitly worded; I
have more confidence that it implies a downstream requirement than that it
doesn't, so I'm happy to agree to CT 1.2.2 and make contributions from (say)
CC-BY sources, but I'm aware that others may disagree.

> [...]
> So if the license you have data under contains share-alike or 
> viral-attribution clauses then you do not have the necessary rights 
> to grant to OSMF, and therefore it cannot be contributed under the 
> terms of clause 2.

Again, agreed on share-alike.

> However, I'm not sure how clause 1 fits into this.
> [...]
> If it is meant to only cover the contributor's own IP rights in 
> the submitted contents, then I think the wording needs to be 
> clarified.

I like Francis's suggestion for such a clarification very much, and have
forwarded it to the LWG with a request that they consider it.

> But then I'd be happy that you'd be able to use OS OpenData under
> those CTs.

\o/

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5892668.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

[Richard Fairhurst]

Mike Collinson wrote:
> given that at least one contributor has been pointlessly editing my 
> personal contributions apparently so that they are no longer "ODbL-ready", 
> sickly sadly all too possible.

That's vandalism, of course. Could you share their user ID?

cheers
Richard

(Rather coincidentally, this was published today:
http://mimiandeunice.com/2011/01/06/ownership/ )


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5896284.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

[Richard Fairhurst]

Gorm E. Johnsen wrote:
> They seem to be evenly spread over the planet and was
> depreciated
> almost three years ago.

"Depreciated" means "reduced in value". You mean "deprecated", but you can
only deprecate a feature from the wiki docs, not from the database.

> I would like to replace them with something better. I was thinking
> highway=road + surface=unpaved.

No. highway=unsurfaced could be what's now commonly tagged as highway=track,
or highway=unclassified, or highway=bridleway. Only one of those three is a
road.

You should create a rendering which highlights highway=unsurfaced, so that
people will find them and modernise the tagging _appropriately_ for that
specific case.

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/highway-unsurfaced-tp5904655p5904843.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

[Richard Fairhurst]

Alex Mauer wrote:
> Which one were you thinking of?  I count two road types in your list: 
> highway=track and highway=unclassified.  And it could be other highway=* 
> types too.

highway=track doesn't imply a road round here; clearly YMV.

> It’s still better to use highway=road even if it turns out to be a 
> bridleway, because highway=road is basically “we don’t know what 
> it is, only that there’s something there; this needs to be (re-)surveyed”.

In the UK there is absolutely no need to use highway=road. We have
high-resolution imagery (Bing) and reliable road classification data
(Ordnance Survey) for the whole of the country. You can reliably infer any
road type from these two sources, remembering too that OSM is an iterative
project and that a "best guess" with a fixme can always be improved upon.

Obviously I can't speak for (and don't really care about) your part of the
world, but I would consider a mass change of highway=unsurfaced to
highway=road in the UK as vandalism, and would take steps to revert it.

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/highway-unsurfaced-tp5904655p5907804.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

[Richard Fairhurst]

Alex Mauer wrote:
> Sounds like the usage is wrong “round there” then.  The example image on 
> the wiki[1] clearly shows a road
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fr%C3%BChlingslandschft_Aaretal_Schweiz.jpg

I think if you described that as a "road" in the UK you'd have the Trades
Descriptions people onto you pretty sharpish. Maybe this explains why our
newspapers get so over-excited when satnavs direct us down bumpy,
inhospitable things and claim they're "roads". That would be described only
as a "track" here.

But it doesn't matter. There is simply no need to fiddle in this way. The
situation is just as it was last time Gorm tried to enforce his own idea of
tag tidiness
(http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-November/054639.html);
again, this change achieves nothing and is at risk of breaking plenty,
including every mkgmap .img based on its default styles.

A cursory glance suggests Britain appears to have more highway=unsurfaced
than other places, and even then there aren't that many. I will happily fix
200 of them _properly_ (i.e. with what the track actually is, not the
cop-out of highway=road) if someone creates a rendering to highlight where
they are. 

cheers
Richard

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/highway-unsurfaced-tp5904655p5908118.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

[Richard Fairhurst]

David Murn wrote:
> Crikey, dont let them see the Old Eyre Highway across southern
> Australia, or the Outback Highway[1] across Central Australia.
> Together over 3000km of highly travelled road, connecting the 
> western coast of the country to the central/eastern regions.

Just goes to show the folly of making global tag changes in areas you don't
know - a UK mapper replacing highway=unsurfaced according to his/her own
understanding would foul up Australia just as an Australian mapper would
foul up the UK.

FWIW I've now replaced several occurrences of highway=unsurfaced in the UK
(thanks to Steve's very timely rendering), starting in areas I know
personally (West Oxfordshire and Rutland), and not a single one would be
described as a road in the UK.

cheers
Richard

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/highway-unsurfaced-tp5904655p5910447.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] surface=unpaved

[Richard Fairhurst]

Asztalos Attila wrote:
> On 11-Jan-2011 15:51, Richard Mann wrote:
>> Which is not to say that knowing which roads are cobbled 
>> wouldn't be handy sometimes (but I probably think of this 
>> as something you need to render for yourself (cue ad for 
>> Maperitive...))
>
> I certainly see the merit of the argument "the data is in there, 
> nobody stops you from using it", but the fact is that even a 
> lot of the other OSM-data-using map sites use the default 
> mapnik and osmarender basemaps

The two aren't contradictory.

Try playing with Maperitive, or Osmarender, or Mapnik, or Halcyon, or
whatever, to have a go at rendering it yourself. Keep playing until you've
got something that looks simple, intuitive and neat. When you've got this
really great rendering, even if it's just a static file, post it somewhere.
If any of the main stylesheet maintainers like it, they could incorporate it
into their work.

Sometimes great work in OSM just comes out of the blue like that. For me,
the single best moment in Potlatch 2 so far was when someone suddenly turned
up with an excellent patch to support tagging multiple objects, a problem
I'd pretty much given up on as "far too hard". Maybe you might do the same
with a rendering idea.

If I could give you two particular bits of cartographic advice:

- Be selective. Showing everything at every zoom level produces a horrid
map. It might often be more effective just to have, say, two styles (the
standard one for "paved road", one for "unpaved road"), and relegate really
crappy tracks (e.g. tracktype=grade5) to a path style instead. A different
style for every surface type would be confusing. 

- Learn _not_ to use colour. One of the things I really like about Ordnance
Survey Landranger maps is their consistent dot/dash scheme for rights of
way: . . . . for footpaths, - - - - - for bridleways, -.-.-.-.-.- for
byways. All three are the same colour. Colour is a great tool but there's
much, much more to map design. 

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/surface-unpaved-tp5910749p5911552.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why I don't use JOSM (was Re: Non-map-based OSM editor)

[Richard Fairhurst]

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Come on people. There's enough editors for everyone. There's a ton 
> of reasons, for *every* editor, why someone would use or not use 
> it. Personally I am glad that this is so

Absolutely.

I'd also add that transferring your expectations of how one editor works
onto another is always going to end in heartache. For example, Martin wrote:
"But Potlatch is much slower, at least for me, once there are several
thousand primitives in view it will become quite unuseable." Yes, if you try
and use Potlatch to show several thousand objects you are certifiably
insane. If you want to work in a JOSM-like manner, use JOSM!

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Why-I-don-t-use-JOSM-was-Re-Non-map-based-OSM-editor-tp5954371p5954929.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Why I don't use JOSM (was Re: Non-map-based OSM editor)

[Richard Fairhurst]

Martin wrote:
> I am not sure for newer potlatch, but the few times I was forced to 
> use it (why the hell there is undelete api available only for Potlatch 
> and not as XML?)

Hey, calm down. Less of the "why the hell", please.

The reason Potlatch 1 can undelete is because I wrote the undelete code. The
reason it isn't exposed via the XML API is that I don't know the first thing
about XML, or Rails, or tying the two together, and I would probably have
broken the entire server if I'd tried. The reason that there isn't any
undelete functionality available via the XML API is... well, that neither
you nor anyone else has coded it, I guess?

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Why-I-don-t-use-JOSM-was-Re-Non-map-based-OSM-editor-tp5954371p5954951.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #450 2019-02-26-2019-03-04

[Richard Fairhurst]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> How did you come to this conclusion? I counted 3 people not so 
> interested in attribution or OK with current state of things and 
> 16 agreeing either explicitly or implicitly with Richard's assessment 
> that there is a problem.

I think WeeklyOSM were being very fair-minded and, mindful of Mikel's
previous comments about them editorialising the news, decided to
editorialise this one in his favour for once. ;)

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] iD influencing tagging

[Richard Fairhurst]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Now while everybody is free to use any tag she likes, I would not 
> expect the OpenStreetMap-Foundation standard editor to 
> introduce new tags through presets. 

It's been happening since Potlatch 1 came online in 2007, so you should have
had a few years to get used to it by now...

Writing software is an art, not a mechanical Turk where results of endless
consultations are fed robotically into a Javascript editor. The iD
developers are remarkably responsive to concerns raised about mapping
standards, much more than I ever was as P1/P2 maintainer and, dare I say it,
more than JOSM's maintainers have historically been. That they don't
mindlessly follow bad tagging practices, but think about the impact and
consistency of tagging, is all to their credit.

I don't follow that iD has any particular status because of its default
location on the edit tab: JOSM arguably has more "heft" because its bulk
editing abilities allow people to impose new tags by force of number, not to
mention you 'orrible lot forever bombarding the poor newbie to use JOSM or
else. ;)

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Richard Fairhurst]

Wiklund Johan wrote:
> Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose but to please poorly
> built 
> routing engines.

Are there actually any such engines, or is this a post-facto justification?

OSRM has routed over platforms since 8 September 2013. Valhalla does - it's
multimodal and you can't do multimodal routing if you can't navigate the
platforms. Graphhopper does.

I could list about 20 editor tagging improvements that would make foot and
bike routing better, and this isn't one of them.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

[Richard Fairhurst]

Andrew Hain wrote:
> Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD.
> Write a new online editor from scratch.
> Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor.

Please stop trolling.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Richard Fairhurst]

SimonPoole wrote:
> the few things that are not nailed down belong to those that we 
> would appreciate feedback on.

This is really good, and very much in accordance with both the text of the
ODbL and the long-standing precedents set by the osm.org/copyright page.
Thank you.

Two small wording clarifications:

"If OpenStreetMap data accounts for a minority (less than 50%) part of the
visible map rendering, attribution with other sources on a separate page
that is visible after user interaction is acceptable."

This probably needs to be qualified to the "currently visible map
rendering", and "50%" phrased as "50% of objects" or similar - just to
clarify the (quite likely) scenario where a map uses OSM data in (say)
Turkey, TomTom everywhere else, and Natural Earth for coastlines/land.

"It is permissible to use a mechanism to collapse the attribution as long as
it is initially fully visible"

This would be better as "It is permissible to provide a user-activated
mechanism to...". There are apps which flash up an OSM credit for under a
second, after which it disappears (including one terrific iOS mapping app
which I would otherwise recommend).

cheers
Richard




--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Richard Fairhurst]

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> It does not in any way address the problem of second rate attribution 
> (i.e. someone else - usually the service provider of the map service 
> or the media outlet publishing the map) is being attributed more 
> prominently than OSM.

That is not something that the ODbL requires. There are licences with an
obnoxious advertising clause but ODbL isn't one.

"Second rate attribution" is not a problem. If Mapco[1] want to put a big
Mapco logo on their maps, that is absolutely fine and dandy according to the
ODbL.

The problem is when there is a big Mapco logo on the map; no OSM attribution
other than the infamous "(i)"; and the latter is justified by saying
"there's no room" when the former clearly disproves that. This is an
infringement of ODbL 4.3 and our favourite "reasonably calculated" clause.

But you can't start requiring that "the OpenStreetMap attribution needs to
be at least on the same level of 
prominence and visibility as... other data providers, designers, service
providers or publicists", because that's not in the ODbL.

> Overall i think this is totally unacceptable and looks pretty much 
> like being written by corporate representatives

Your point 2 is objecting to something I wrote in 2012 when I was editing a
magazine about inland waterways and has been on osm.org/copyright ever
since, so nope. :)

Richard

[1] let's be honest, we're mostly talking about Mapbox and Carto here



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Richard Fairhurst]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

If you look at Apple Maps, and for example zoomed into some place in Denmark, 
there is an i-button which brings you to an overlay which has a TomTom logo and 
a link „and others“
while in Denmark the data is from OpenStreetMap. IMHO this second rate 
attribution clearly goes against „reasonably calculated“ because it’s 
misleading.


I know this, but let's not confuse the matter by calling this "second 
rate attribution". It isn't. It's no attribution.


These new guidelines say that, for 480px+ screens, hiding OSM 
attribution behind a click is not acceptable. That's unambiguous all we 
need. Fussing about what other logos might be on the map is a diversion 
and is not supported by the ODbL.


Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Richard Fairhurst]

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Just for understanding what second rate attribution is:  For example 
> the map on the bottom right of:
> https://www.zeit.de/politik/2019-07/strasse-von-hormus-bundesregierung-marinemission-usa-iran
> printing a prominent "Zeit Online" below the map (self attribution) but 
> showing OSM attribution only on user activity.

Right. The problem there is not that the "Zeit Online" attribution is too
big. The problem is that the OSM attribution is not compliant. Don't make
the issue more complex than it needs to be.

> The purpose of the guideline is to give practical guidiance how 
> to comply with the license.

And if the guidance suggests something that is not in the licence, it will
be - rightly - ignored, and we will have made no progress.

Community Guidelines explain how to apply the ODbL to real-world situations
("ambiguity or grey area in the specific and practical context of the Open
Database License"). You say "it can of course suggest things that are not
strictly required by the license", and sure, it could. It could also tell me
what the weather will be like tomorrow and the relevance of Martin Luther to
21st century religious thought. But that's not what Community Guidelines are
there for. They are here to explain how to apply the ODbL. If you want
somewhere to post good advice that isn't in the ODbL, I believe you have a
blog.

> > Your point 2 is objecting to something I wrote in 2012 when I
> > was editing a magazine about inland waterways and has been on
> > osm.org/copyright ever since, so nope. :)
>
> You are free to disagree with me but i hope you do not consider 
> this statement to be an argument on the matter.
>
> For better understanding:  Point 2 refers to a certain pattern in 
> the design of the document and lists a number of example to 
> demonstrate that.  You could argue the observation of there being 
> such a pattern or you could argue the individual examples.  You 
> however did neither of these in your statement.

For better understanding, you claimed "this looks pretty much like 
being written by corporate representatives", and I pointed out that one 
of the items in point 2 that you object to was written by me in 2012,
so not a corporate representative, and has been at osm.org/copyright
ever since.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Richard Fairhurst]

Kathleen Lu wrote:
> "reasonably calculated" means "reasonable." What does reasonable mean? 
> Well a court would look at what other people in the industry do. Do others 
> in the industry list attribution, especially to multiple data sources,
> after 
> a click (or many clicks)? Yes, all the time.

It would be interesting to get some data behind this.

OSM's position when the current attribution text was drawn up in 2012 has
been exactly that: "reasonably calculated" means "what people would expect
for other data providers".

There are only three other geodata providers with a similar product to OSM,
i.e. a worldwide street-level database used for display maps: Google,
TomTom, and Here. In 2012 all three generally required direct on-map
attribution and my impression is that this is still the case, but real data
about current usage and practices would be great.

> A court would also look at what OSM does. Does OSM list its data sources
> after a link? Yes, sometimes two links (first to
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright, then to
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors). Some of this data is
> also under ODbL! Why is this not reasonable?

OSM expressly states that our "after a link" behaviour is not compliant with
licences such as ODbL and the CC-BY family. Instead, we need to get an
attribution waiver before using any data licensed under such terms. As per
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility :

"Many sources simply require attribution of the source as a condition of
use, however as we cannot provide attribution on works created or derived
from OpenStreetMap data and our licence only requires attribution of the
overall data source, permission for attribution via our central
'Contributors' pages needs to be obtained and documented."

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Governance

[Richard Fairhurst]

Roland Olbricht wrote:
> Imperfect Flow of Information
>
> Although many parts of the OpenStreetMap project are well 
> translated, the tagging documentation has substantial deficiencies.

Yep. Documentation is the biggest problem with tagging.

I don't actually think it's the wiki per se that's the issue. The wiki is...
wiki-like. It's an untidy encyclopaedia of people's preoccupations at the
time they were moved to edit it. Yes, it does have problems: as you say,
"tag definitions being changed after the tag is in widespread use" (remember
the infamous edit that added access=no as a default for all barrier=
values?). But the challenge is bigger than that.

The main thing we're missing is curated, simple information on the main tags
that are _used_. Just as switch2osm took the infinite pages of install docs
on the wiki and boiled them down to one how-to, we need a simple guide to
the common tags in OSM: if you are a data consumer, these are the tags you
need to understand. Wikis don't work for this. It needs an
editor/curator/whatever, to have clear editorial guidelines, and probably to
run on the pull request model rather than open editing.

We're also missing a single-page explanation of OSM tagging principles. One
of the frustrations of watching this list is that there are quite a lot of
plain bad proposals that betray a misunderstanding of basic principles
(verifiability, rich meaningful tags, optimise for the mapper, no-one is
obliged to parse your new tag, etc. etc.). Life is too short to explain this
to everyone and, to be honest, the uber-keen tag proposer doesn't want to
hear their proposal rubbished in the first five minutes so won't listen
anyway. Writing down "this is how OSM tags work" would solve a lot of this
heartache.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Governance

[Richard Fairhurst]

Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> Changing to a github-like system of version management would 
> require some people to serve as "maintainers" or "moderators" 
> of the new, curated list of Map Features / Tags, wouldn't it? While 
> this could be an improvement in the quality and consistency of 
> how decisions are made, it would also limit participation and 
> centralize decision-making.

You misunderstand. I'm not proposing "changing to" anything, but rather,
providing an _additional_ source of edited/curated documentation. The wiki
would continue doing what the wiki does. Same principle as switch2osm.

Richard




--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Governance

[Richard Fairhurst]

Roland Olbricht wrote:
> > Changing to a github-like system of version management
> I thought of Git, not Github.

Again, there's no suggestion of "changing to"; it would be additional.

As Christoph says, the challenge would be "finding, motivating, selecting
and retaining qualified people to work on this". The choice of
technology/platform for such a project would be down to those people and
what they find comfortable.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] EuroVelo routes are out of date

[Richard Fairhurst]

EuroVelo routes are not in a great state in OSM. Many of them appear to have 
been armchaired years ago when routes were "in development", and not updated 
since to reflect the correct route.

A handful of examples:

[France]
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=12!49.2876!2.655
EV3 should follow the new cycleway along the Oise, not the busy D932a

[Czech Republic]
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=11!49.9195!14.4621
EV7 is completely wrong in OSM from the south of Prague to Nahoruby, including 
unrideable tracks and a suggestion that cyclists use a “ferry” that in reality 
is a tourist boat that only operates at weekends

[Spain]
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=13!41.9486!3.1467
EV8 now follows the Pirinexus alignment

…and there are lots more.

I realise people are preoccupied with tagwanking over relation tagging [1] and 
sorting [2] and editor snobbery [3], but there’s not a lot of point fretting 
over how pretty the tagging is on the route relation if the route is actually 
wrong in the first place.

Could I encourage people to check the EuroVelo routes in their home countries 
and update them where necessary?

Richard

[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-August/047790.html
[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-August/047258.html
[3] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-January/042154.html
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] EuroVelo routes are out of date

[Richard Fairhurst]

Maarten Deen wrote:
> Is it an idea to create some kind of ticketing system for this? 

I think we already have this:

- create notes on osm.org, including the word "eurovelo"
- search for "eurovelo" on https://ent8r.github.io/NotesReview/

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] For the sake of peace | Re: Cease use of OpenStreetMap/Antifa logo

[Richard Fairhurst]

Rory McCann wrote:
> The existence of an OSM cycling logo doesn't mean all 
> OSMers have to be cycling activists!

Wait, what?

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Web editors and lane rendering

[Richard Fairhurst]

Paul Johnson wrote:
> Could we get some lane editing/rendering in these editors 
> to cut down on this kind of unintentionally erratic mapping?

Sure, you're welcome to open a friendly issue at
https://github.com/systemed/potlatch2/issues listing the base case for what
you think is required.

> > Not sure whatever Potlatch is still developed,
> I would hope it is if it's still considered an available selection 
> on the website; if not, maybe it's time to retire that option.

It's developed as and when it needs to be. I think it's likely that it will
come off the Edit menu after December this year when Flash Player support is
no longer available in browsers, although it will probably continue to be
available as an executable app via Adobe/Harman AIR.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Digital environmentalism

[Richard Fairhurst]

Kathleen Lu wrote:
> I would not say this is true. Google maps has routing for walking, 
> cycling, and public transit, and their public transit information is 
> probably more complete than OSM's.

It is, but on the other hand Google's walking and cycling routing is _much_
worse.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"

[Richard Fairhurst]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Since cc-by-sa 2.0 times, the suggestion to credit OSM was "© 
> OpenStreetMap contributors", but from the current legal situation
> (all necessary rights granted to the OSMF) it wouldn't be 
> necessary to credit the contributors.

When I wrote the /copyright page all those years ago, the reasons it
required that particular attribution were:

"©" because that's what copyright statements traditionally begin with. I
take Kathleen's point (obviously I do, she's a lawyer and I'm not :) ) that
the ODbL, of course, is not a simple licensing of copyright. But the "©"
serves to say "hey look, here's the required credit, just like the credits
that are required by other maps".

"OpenStreetMap" because... yeah obviously.

"contributors" because I wanted to communicate the nature of the project:
this is an open map with (plural) contributors. Contrast with the
attribution for other map data suppliers which just have a corporate brand:
"TomTom", "Navteq" (as it was), "Ordnance Survey". By saying "OpenStreetMap
contributors", we communicate that the map has many contributors - and,
implicitly, you could be one too. So it serves as a recruiting sergeant for
OSM, while conveying the democratic, grassroots nature of the project. To my
mind the main driver for attribution has always been to get more
contributors and make the map better.

I'm past caring what it says now, but thought the original rationale might
be helpful.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Richard Fairhurst]

Kathleen Lu wrote:
> OSM has imported sources that are ODbL. The attribution to those sources
> does not appear on the map, but rather after several clicks (usually first
> to the copyright page, then the contributors page). If that's not
> acceptable under ODbL for a map that has multiple data sources, then 
> OSM would be violating others' ODbL licenses.

When data is imported from an attribution-required dataset, OSM takes the
view that a waiver from that requirement should be obtained. For example,
for CC-BY licences:

"...attribution to all such sources on an OpenStreetMap-based map or similar
visual display is impossible. Instead, we provide attribution (including
original license information) to major sources like [entity] on our
Contributors page. OpenStreetMap users are then required to attribute
'OpenStreetMap Contributors' in a collective fashion when using any
OpenStreetMap data... we just need you to confirm that you would consider
OpenStreetMap's attribution method to attribute [entity] in a 'reasonable
manner' in accordance with Section 3(a)(1) of the CC BY 4.0 license."

[linked from https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ ]

ODbL's core attribution requirement ("a notice associated with the Produced
Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses,
interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work") is not
materially different from CC-BY's ("any reasonable manner based on the
medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material"). In
other words, given that OSM believes CC-BY implies on-map attribution unless
a waiver is received, it also believes that for ODbL. OSMF has not issued
any such waivers.


> The key difference is between using a service (such as tiles hosted by 
> a company, such as Mapbox), and using open data that originated with 
> but *is not hosted* by an entity.

It really isn't. This has been introduced to the discourse in the last
(AFAICT) three months by Silicon Valley folks. I had never seen it suggested
before then. It certainly wasn't part of the discourse on attribution when
OSM adopted the ODbL and set out its current attribution requirements; you
can go back and ask the major SaaS map providers of the time if you like.

Every single major current webmap, with one exception[1], credits principal
non-OSM _data providers_ on-map on desktop. Google Maps has on-screen
attribution to their principal data providers. Bing does. HERE does (it's
themselves). ViaMichelin does. TomTom (MyDrive) does. Mapquest does. Tencent
does. Qwant does. The USGS National Map does. Esri's ArcGIS "My Map" does.
You can go and check these. I did.

The key word here is "principal". From your previous message:

> Check out HERE's webmap: https://mobile.here.com/?x=ep. It takes 
> 3 clicks to get to this page: https://mobile.here.com/about/notices. 
> And another 4 clicks to get to this page:
> https://legal.here.com/en-gb/terms/general-content-supplier-terms-and-notices

The three clicks take you to a page crediting the public transport authority
for Baden-Wurttemberg for contributing public transport info. Fine. It takes
two clicks on osm.org (Copyright -> Contributors) to get to the equivalent.

That's proportionate. It's not what we are talking about here. We are
talking about maps where 90%+ of the data comes from OSM, yet a credit to
OSM is either missing entirely or deliberately obscured. Please let's not
try to derail the issue of OSM-based maps missing all credit to OSM by
talking about bus timetables in Heidelberg.

Richard

[1] The one exception is Apple Maps, presumably because if you're Apple and
your market cap is $1.2trn you can do what you like. Even then, it's one
click away on mobile, and you could take the view that one click is larger
and more prominent than several other cases under discussion.



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Funding of three infrastructure projects : Nominatim, osm2pgsql, Potlatch 2

[Richard Fairhurst]

Sören Reinecke wrote:
> So far as I understood Adobe dropped Linux support for its
> AIR plattform. If that is right, then I am in doubt that
> supporting the development of Potlatch 2 is not that in
> a sustainable manner.

AIR is not maintained by Adobe, but by Harman, a Samsung subsidiary. AIR for 
Linux is still supported at version 2.6 but not updated 
(https://airsdk.harman.com/faq): Harman is considering future updates. P2 will 
still run on 2.6 - there are explicit workarounds in the code (e.g. in 
net/systemeD/potlatch2/collections/Imagery.as) to ensure backward compatibility.

Nonetheless, even if P2 didn't run on Linux, I'm not sure why this should be an 
issue for other users. No-one says Vespucci isn't sustainable because it 
doesn't run on iOS.

mmd wrote:
> Why aren't we porting Potlatch2 to WebAssembly, then?

I'm not sure who the "we" is in this question, but assuming you're not 
volunteering yourself :), the difficult dependency with P2 is not ActionScript 
3 but the Flash runtime, i.e. the Flash and Flex APIs. There are currently only 
two runtimes capable of running P2: Flash Player and AIR. Ruffle is showing 
promise (https://github.com/ruffle-rs/ruffle) and is under very active 
development, but does not yet support AS3 or the Flash Player features that P2 
needs. I would anticipate that P2 will be able to run as WebAssembly when 
Ruffle reaches feature parity with AIR 2.6.

Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Funding of three infrastructure projects : Nominatim, osm2pgsql, Potlatch 2

[Richard Fairhurst]

Skyler Hawthorne wrote:
> Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I think using any funds at all to
> continue support for a tool that 1% of editors use would be wasteful.
> Flash is, for all intents and purposes, a dead technology. This
> money is better spent on other uses.

The entire point is to move away from a dead technology (Flash Player) to a 
supported one (AIR).

On the percentage stat, it's worth bearing in mind that the P2 project is by a 
long chalk the smallest sum (€2500) of the three that OSMF is proposing here. 
As a point of comparison, iD was initially developed with a $575,000 grant from 
the Knight Foundation in 2012, so roughly $646,000 now. Very conservatively 
estimating the cost of employing 1-2 developers to code on iD since then, you 
get a development cost of roughly €0.004 per (2020) changeset for iD vs $0.0002 
for P2, which is kind of fun.

(I'm actually pleasantly surprised that P2 still has so many changesets - 20 
million last year, and I'm guessing high teens this year - given how difficult 
it is to get Flash Player running in most browsers these days. That suggests 
that P2's users are using it because they want to do so, not because they are 
magically unaware of the existence of other editors. I suspect if you could 
find another way of getting 20 million edits for €2500 then we would snap your 
hand off.)

Looking forward, and continuing the theme of ROI, the other benefit of the 
project is that it enables development work to continue on P2. The reason I 
have bid for funding for this, for the first time in 14 years of developing 
editors for OpenStreetMap, is that it will take a solid chunk of sustained work 
to do the AIR conversion and a bunch of other stuff I believe will make P2 more 
sustainable into the future, and there is a hard deadline for that sustained 
work (i.e. Flash Player switch-off at the end of the year). It's not a project 
that can just be done in evenings here and there. That enables further, 
unfunded developments in the future, and in turn I hope the tradition of other 
editors taking inspiration from P2 can continue - it's not for nothing that 
JOSM has a Potlatch 2 style and a "Potlatch mode" for editing.

But you are, of course, welcome to develop and put forward a project to OSMF 
which you believe will have more bang for the buck. "Other uses" is easy to 
type but doesn't actually mean anything until you identify what those uses are, 
and crucially, find someone who is prepared to do them.

Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Funding of three infrastructure projects : Nominatim, osm2pgsql, Potlatch

[Richard Fairhurst]

mmd wrote:
> I'm wondering if some of the changes that are now needed for AIR
> would make it more difficult to switch to Ruffle later on.

The short answer is (based on the POC work I've done so far) no. :)
The slightly longer answer is that I hope, as part of this project,
to make a number of changes that are not directly AIR-related but
will make P2 maintenance more sustainable into the future.

> I'm a bit worried about AIR being (too) difficult to install
> and run for an average Potlatch user, but that's just a gut feeling.

Couple of things here. One is that AIR isn't any more difficult to
install than Flash Player, but with the difference that it doesn't
break every time there's a browser upgrade and the browser
manufacturer tries to get you to switch it off. The other is that
2020's P2 users, contrary to the cliche of 2010, are actually pretty
skilled and experienced (by definition the beginner users use iD
these days) - many of them have a four-figure number of
changesets - so installing AIR shouldn't be beyond them.

Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions

[Richard Fairhurst]

Michal Migurski wrote:
> FB’s attribution approach in keeping with best practices
> seen from other commercial users of display maps.

In the spirit of Twitter footnoting one of Donald Trump's "I won the election" 
tweets, this is your respectful reminder that Google, Bing, Here, Tencent, 
ViaMichelin, TomTom, Mapquest, Esri, and Qwant all have on-map attribution.

http://www.systemed.net/osm/attribution.png

Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community

[Richard Fairhurst]

Blake Girardot wrote:
> I will just point out a common pattern:

Céline posted an eloquent opening statement that talks about "this dominant 
profile" and the thread has, true to form, largely descended into the same 
dominant profile arguing and "just pointing out" things.

It might therefore be incumbent on us all to shut up and let women be heard. 
Their experiences do not need to be mediated through our mansplaining.

In that spirit I'll post no more on this.

Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Public Rights of Way overlay missing

[Richard Fairhurst]

Jas Ranasinghe wrote:
> Is anyone able to provide any information about the missing Public
> Rights of Way overlay? It is still currently in the overlay list, but the
> Rights of Way do not show up on the map.

I'm guessing this refers to one of the tile layers I host at osm.cycle.travel. 
Unfortunately one of the hosts I use let me down (repeated outages and very 
little support), so I had to move a bunch of stuff at short notice on New 
Year's Eve. I haven't had chance to move a few of the tile layers yet but 
should be able to in the next few days.

cheers
Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors

[Richard Fairhurst]

Courtney wrote:
> Or is it going to keep doing the same old flame wars?

To be honest, the mailing lists have been on the way out for a long time now, 
and talk@ is no exception. Some once busy lists are now basically dead (dev@, 
legal-talk@, talk-de@). Others are noticeably quieter (talk@, talk-fr@, 
osmf-talk@). A few local communities still prefer mailing lists but they're 
fewer in number every year. Generally, the vital new stuff in OSM doesn't 
happen on mailing lists.

So I wouldn't suggest worrying too much about the lists. Theory and practice of 
community interaction elsewhere in OSM is absolutely a valid and interesting 
topic, but the lists belong to pretty much the same period in OSM history as 
IRC and Potlatch, and I say that as someone who still uses both. :)

Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO

[Richard Fairhurst]

SteveC wrote:
> I asked the CM designers for some quick hacks on what different 
> front pages could look like which you can see on the wiki page 
> below.

Very pretty in a sort of let's-polish-the-CSS way, which isn't a bad thing
at all.

In a "let's ask for the stars" way, though, how about:

- a little draggable "I've found a problem" icon - yeah yeah, OSB
integration :)
- something that says "Hey! We're a fun community!"; maybe two forthcoming
events in tiny type?
- some visualisation like Mikel's old activity tracker, showing where people
have been editing recently - so you get a real sense of how alive the
project is; would only want this at, say z1-10
- as per Dave's e-mail: lots of visibility for "you get different views on
the same data", maybe with a "More..." link to featured images, or a
gallery, or something
- downloadable Fake SteveC mascot for your desktop which installs some
spyware and stuff like that

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Front-page-design-and-SEO-tp22302099p22305733.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO

[Richard Fairhurst]

Tom Hughes wrote:

> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> IMX it's a platform thing. Windows people genuinely do run their web
>> browser, and most things, full screen. Hence the aberration that is "MDI".
>> Us Mac people, by contrast, usually have about 57 different non-full screen
>> windows overlapping - that's why Apple came up with Expose to help us find
>> them all. I dunno what Linux people do - whatever RMS has decreed is in the
>> best interests of some weird notion of "freedom", I guess. > very fast>
>
> That's a bit pot calling the kettle black though - back when I was
> using Macs, which admittedly was quite a long time ago

Goodness me, it must have been - Macs have been like this since at  
least System 7 in 1991ish...

Seriously, though, it does depend on the app. Right now I've got open  
TextEdit, Safari, TextMate, Cyberduck, Colloquy, Mail, Preview, and  
Terminal: the only ones I can imagine making any sense full-screen are  
possibly Mail and Terminal, and I don't think I've ever used either as  
such.

OS X, and System 7/8/9 before it, makes much heavier use of  
drag-and-drop between apps than Windows has ever done, and users are  
expected to think that way. (The classic Finder didn't have copy and  
paste for files, for example; it was assumed you'd drag from one  
window to another. It's only in OS X as a "borrowing" of the Windows  
paradigm.)

But Word and Excel borrow so much from Windows that they can make more  
sense full-screen, and the Adobe stuff is as ever a law unto itself -  
so many bloody floating palettes, one screen sometimes doesn't feel  
enough. (http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/ is brilliantly observed and  
puts all our parody blogs to shame.) And even Apple have been getting  
a bit too full-screen for my liking with some of the iLife apps.

Where was I?

cheers
Richard


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Richard Fairhurst]

Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Personally I am feeling excluded from what's going on behind 
> the scenes and I think this is not the way for a project that 
> has "open" in his name ...

If it helps, there _isn't_ anything going on behind the scenes... well, at
least not that I know of.

Post in German, or French, or whatever, on here if you like - we all have
Google Translate, someone will step up to translate manually, and it's a
million times better than not posting. Put stuff on the wiki. Ask questions.
Vent. Rant. Anything from a misplaced capital in ODbL to a serious doubt
about the entire licensing philosophy. Just say it.

Far, far better that you speak up and post "I'm worried about this
because...", even in Schwabisch dialect if you like, than you sit there in
silence thinking "there's this conspiracy to make OSM commercial and I feel
left out". Because There Is No Cabal. Look around you - who's organised
enough to come up with a conspiracy? If there was a conspiracy they'd be
doing it better. But OSM is at heart a disorganised rabble - that's why the
communication on the licence issue has been shit, yes, but that's also why
we've mapped large portions of the world, because you couldn't organise it
better than that.

I've said it a million times before but: there is no "you" in this project,
there is only "us". Of course, this might be why Steve thinks I'm a filthy
communist.

If I could cross-post this to talk-de, talk-fr, talk-it and the rest, I
would do.

cheers
Richard

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22306472.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO

[Richard Fairhurst]

Andy Allan wrote:
> Quite. Can someone please come up with names for the two "main" 
> styles that aren't just the technology that creates them?

Mapnik -> Standard (or maybe 'Classic')
Osmarender -> Community

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Front-page-design-and-SEO-tp22302099p22306623.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, Derivative Databases & Produced Works

[Richard Fairhurst]

Dave Stubbs wrote:
> Am I missing something obvious, or am I just being sneaky in some 
> way? And is there a way it can be made more obvious in the license 
> if it's actually intended to be that way?

I think this is a serious error in the ODbL draft 0.9. (I believe Frederik
is of the same opinion.)

It wasn't the case in the previous draft of ODbL. I can only assume it was a
drafting error in the revision.

We raised it directly on the ODC list at
   http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2009-March/date.html

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/ODbL%2C-Derivative-Databases---Produced-Works-tp22307257p22307343.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO - layer names

[Richard Fairhurst]

Tom Chance wrote:
> It's not clear that it's the distributed rendering of the data that makes 
> one more "community" than the other.

That's not quite what I was thinking of - it was more the cartographic style
than the mechanics behind it.

The Osmarender layer tends to prioritise more POIs, more differentiation
among little details of OSM tagging, than the Mapnik one which is a very
focused "classic cartographical" approach - more so than most webmaps,
indeed, which is one of the reasons I like it so much. But certainly the
Osmarender layer is a fuller depiction of the breadth of our community.

So maybe
  "Classic style"
  "Community style"

would be clearer than a bald Classic/Community.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Front-page-design-and-SEO-tp22302099p22308134.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Richard Fairhurst]

OJ W wrote:
> This could potentially alienate anyone who wonders why they are 
> doing surveying for free so that cartographers can sell all-rights-
> reserved map images based on their data.

Yeah, just like I lie in bed at night fretting that people can sell
all-rights-reserved, closed-source routing services based on my data. Come
on.

cheers
Richard

(On a point of order, I don't believe ODbL _does_ allow all-rights-reserved
anyway; that's what the reverse-engineering clause is about.)
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22308562.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Richard Fairhurst]

OJ W wrote:
> Could you expand that answer?  Removing cartography from the scope 
> of OSM's license would seem to deserve a better explanation than a
> dismissal like that.

Sure.

A printed map; an online routing service (like, say, YOURS,
OpenRoutingService, or CloudMade routing); and a dedicated satnav device all
perform the same function: they communicate a subset of map data to the user
in an understandable, friendly way.

Under CC-BY-SA, as I'm sure you know, a printed map can only be licensed as
copyleft. The cartographer therefore no longer has exclusive rights to their
"added value" (colours, selection of data to include, and so on), which are
clearly apparent from the map. These can be trivially copied.

Under CC-BY-SA, a routing service does not have to be licensed as
copyleft.[1] The author of the routing service does not have to disclose
their "added value" (weightings for different types of road, any
transformations applied to the data, etc.). These cannot be trivially
copied: to do so would require reverse-engineering a near-infinite set of
requests and you'd probably be banned for DoSing before that. ;)

It's an artefact of the fact we're currently using a "creative works"
licence - the copyleft therefore applies to creative works. ODbL is a
database licence, therefore the copyleft applies to data. ODbL is not
interested either in art or in computer source code. The really good thing
is that OSM therefore gets [2] the "added value", the data, in
computer-readable form from both - something CC-BY-SA doesn't offer.

You could, of course, argue the opposite of ODbL - that the routing service
author should have to publish their added value in full, just as the
cartographer does - and indeed Lutz.horn on the wiki has said exactly that.
I think that would be a very honest position to take, and if you're the kind
of guy who believes everything should be Free in the RMS sense, I respect
your opinion though it's obviously not one I share. But I don't see how
arguing for full disclosure by cartographers, but not by routing system
authors, is tenable.

I think Rob Myers summed it up well on legal-talk:

"It's a pragmatic step to ensure that what users of free maps actually need
(free maps generated using quality geodata) isn't denied by ensuring that
the subject of copyleft in the wild is something else (low-resolution maps
rendered from that data)."

cheers
Richard

[1] and indeed several aren't, e.g. CloudMade routing, OpenRouteService
[2] subject to the "bug" Frederik and I raised on odc-discuss yesterday, and
Dave raised on legal-talk today
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22310036.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Richard Fairhurst]

Pieren wrote:
> It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with 
> the license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer 
> the following questions:

It's not been decided. What do you think should happen?

Everything is up for debate. ODbL itself is up for debate. As Jordan
(co-author) said on odc-discuss earlier re: a point we raised: "It (like the
rest of the ODbL) isn't set in stone and so totally open for discussion."

Really, there's no evil force presenting a fait accompli here.
There is no "you" or "them", only "us".

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22310154.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Richard Fairhurst]

Ed Avis wrote:
> What you wrote above is a very good argument for it.
> 
> Rendering the data into a printed map is not a great deal of effort.
> Anyone can do it and many already do so.  There are not many 
> people who would be put off from rendering maps by being unable to 
> make the result proprietary. The copyleft requirement is pretty trivial 
> and doesn't create disincentives to rendering a map, because 
> rendering a map is so easy.

I think you're approaching that from a very programmatic perspective, and
this confirms it:

> (In any case, even though you can freely copy a PNG file of a map 
> or photocopy a page, and even though you can see for yourself what 
> colour scheme was used, you don't have the program code that was 
> used to render the ways and the text, which is the hard part.

No, no, no, no, no, no.

It might be easy to do an automated rendering. That's not what I'm talking
about. What concerns me is hand-drawn cartography. The "program code" for
that, in my case, is something like Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator, which
anyone can have - but that's incidental.

I spend days on getting the cartography right for the maps we produce in the
magazine every month. It isn't "rendering". It's entirely done by hand.
Getting the label placement right, choosing the colour set, working on the
pull-outs, generalising features so that they don't collide but the user
doesn't notice the distortion: that _is_ a great deal of effort. I try to
aspire to OS Landranger quality of cartography, not MapQuest!

http://www.systemeD.net/osm/caldon_2.jpg
http://www.systemeD.net/osm/caldon_3.jpg
http://www.systemeD.net/osm/caldon_4.jpg

(There's no OSM data in there - and conversely, OSM doesn't have all that
data either; and even if the maps were CC-BY-SA, which they weren't, the
generalisation is such that CC-BY-SA doesn't give much useful return to the
project.)

Believe me, I first wrote a passable routing program with reasonably decent
weighting at the age of 19 or so (heh, I found a review -
http://www.thecompclub.org.uk/newsletters/12.pdf), and it was a whole host
more trivial than the n years of experience that have, I hope, given me the
skills to design attractive maps.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22311108.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Richard Fairhurst]

OJ W wrote:

> If the cartographers then devise a new license that says "my
> contributions are more important than yours, I should get exclusive
> rights over my additions to the map with a paintbrush while you
> shouldn't get exclusive rights over your additions to the map with a
> GPS" then it reduces the incentive for people to survey, since the
> work they do can be published in a way that they can't use or copy.

So to return to the point you have completely ignored, can you tell me  
why you're happy that the (current) licence doesn't require routing  
program source code to be released, please?

Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Richard Fairhurst]

OJ W wrote:
> [routing source code]
> I saw that as a bit of a loophole in the license which is unfortunate
> but rather difficult to close

Ok, that's consistent. Extreme, perhaps, but consistent. But:

> [...]
> we can just declare that it should meet sharelike standards to 
> ensure that OSM players are not trying to take advantage of 
> each other.

is inordinately offensive.

As far as I know there are only two "OSM players" who are commercial
cartographers in some way (though for neither of us is it our main job): me
and Steve Chilton. To allege that we are aiming to take advantage of other
contributors is, yes, offensive, but also insane beyond belief. You might
not like Potlatch, you might not trace from NPE or ever use any traced data,
you might never use the Mapnik layer. But there is no denying that all three
of them are very major contributions to OSM without any - _any_ - payback.

Meanwhile, the guys releasing the routing software are, er, the ones who've
got €2.4m of venture capital. I don't begrudge them that - quite the
contrary. I don't think anyone does. But you might want to open your eyes.

Sheesh.

Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22320263.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Richard Fairhurst]

MP wrote:
> We have now tool to convert OSM data to garmin format (Mkgmap). 
> The tool is opensource. Garmin can do routing (at least I assume it can, 
> I don't posses any garmin devices or software myself) and is closed
> source. Would the new license make mkgmap unusable/illegal with 
> odbl'd data?

No. Not at all.

I don't know where this idea is coming from. ODbL does _not_ insist that the
data can only be accessed by open-source programs or in open formats.

A couple of people appear to have suggested that _their_ ideal licence would
require this; but given that a) they haven't actually proposed such a
licence, b) nor have they argued for the easy and obvious step of
browser-sniffing to prevent IE/Safari/Opera users from using osm.org (well,
exactly), I suggest said suggestions are politely ignored until they do.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22327489.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting

[Richard Fairhurst]

Dave Stubbs wrote:
> But don't kid yourselves it's a simple A or B choice.

Absolutely.

Steve actually answers this in his (very good IMO) "Licence to kill" post.
You can theoretically work out a complicated Boolean system of "is this
derived from an ODbL refusenik's work?". You can read every bit of
discussion about what "substantial" might mean in different jurisdictions,
and write some clever fuzzy-matching software to reflect that. I think
that's what people are talking about here.

But as Steve points out, that's a programmer's answer, all very
black-and-white. It doesn't actually work like that.

What really makes the difference, in my very limited understanding (but hey,
I'm a journalist not a programmer, limited understanding is a speciality :)
), is intent. Intent, and acting in good faith at all times. If we can
demonstrate that we've taken reasonable precautions; that we have removed
people's data on request (which, of course, we can do at any time); 


And for those who say "well, let's stick with the clean dataset we have
now":

We don't actually have a clean dataset. Nowhere near. We have material from
Google Maps in there. We have material from the Ordnance Survey. We may even
have entire countries which have been taken from a source not compatible
with our current licence - see the discussion about some of the ex-USSR
states.

The reason we haven't been sued is exactly the same. Intent and good faith.
Things like community pressure, the stuff in the FAQ, and the warning you
get when you start Potlatch. The efforts we go to to gather our own data.
That is real, hard proof. And that won't change - we should make real
efforts, and we will, but clinical boolean precision is a distraction.

(Ed asked how we'd "convince a court of law" - that's how. At the very
least, if Paul The Disaffected Mapper doesn't want to go to ODbL, some of
his stuff somehow remains in, and he says "ha, I'm going to sue", that
_very_ instant a crowd of OSMers would go and survey the place in question
to replace his data. You know what we're like. We like a challenge. :) )

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22329361.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option

[Richard Fairhurst]

Ed Avis wrote:
> I could start tracing in things from Ordnance Survey maps
> right away.  Note that these maps are 'Crown Copyright', not 
> 'Crown Database Right'

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22crown+copyright+and+database+right%22

:)

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22333511.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option

[Richard Fairhurst]

Peter Miller wrote:

> The clear advice (verbal so far) from our lawyer is that in the 
> UK/EU map data is covered by copyright (as well as DB rights).

I will quote the following from an Ordnance Survey agreement as much for
people's amusement as for edification.

"Intellectual Property Rights means copyright, patent, trade 
mark, design right, topography right, database right, trade 
secrets, know-how, rights of confidence, broadcast rights 
and all other similar rights anywhere in the world whether 
or not registered and including applications for registration 
of any of them"

I have not made any of that up. Though I think Fake Ed Parsons put it more
succinctly:

"Not only do we own all your data, we also own your 
trademarks, your logo and your fucking pet cat. Thanks."

As ever with these things, either you join in on the arms race (which is why
ODbL has three prongs: copyright, database right, contract), or you put down
your arms and hope enough people will respect it (PD).

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22334676.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!

[Richard Fairhurst]

Pierre-André Jacquod wrote:
> Was a surprised by the announcement. Read the license and mails. 
> Would probably have said yes.
>
> But I do not like the way this went on. The fact that those who want 
> to change it just say "you do not want to help". That's my free time,
> that's your's.

Seriously, don't react to the style, react to the substance.

I know it's not always easy but we're none of us great at communication,
we're none of us actually paid to think that carefully about what we write,
so it's all too easy to get wound up in a http://xkcd.com/386/ kind of way.
At which point Steve does something between amused and sarcastic, Frederik
does deadpan, I do flying off the handle, Etienne does inscrutable, someone
on talk-de will do BAN POTLATCH!!1!1?lol, etc. etc. < lots of hints for
Fake blogs there

But none of that matters, really. If we're to get things done then
occasionally biting your lip is helpful. The number of mails I write to this
list and then close before sending...

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/OSM-license-change%3A-A-license-to-kill---%3E-How-to-make-a-nightmare-come-true%21-tp22325041p22355771.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] immutable=yes Fwd: DEC Lands

[Richard Fairhurst]

Russ Nelson wrote:
> How do people feel about me importing this data (with all of 
> their metadata), adding an immutable=yes tag, with the intent 
> of tracking their dataset, and deleting --outright-- any changes 
> made by OSM editors.

If it can't be edited, there's no point sending it to the editor. It would
only mean more bandwidth => slower editing. Therefore I would alter
amf_controller so that anything with immutable=yes wasn't sent to Potlatch.

(At which point most of Germany would tag their towns immutable=yes... but I
digress. :) )

So what's the point of having it there? I presume so that people can get it
via the OSM API and via planet dumps (you've said as much in another post:
"consistent metadata and a consistent single-source API").

To me, this is another argument for good libraries in popular scripting
languages, not for putting it in OSM. If I could do a call from Perl or
ActionScript or Ruby whatever to say "get all geodata within this bbox from
openstreetmap.org, and also freesurveyorsstuff.org, and return it in one
object", that would fulfil the need - without bending OSM to do something it
was never intended to do.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/immutable%3Dyes-Fwd%3A-DEC-Lands-tp22419231p22419570.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Cloudmade: "We are the Wikipedia of maps"

[Richard Fairhurst]

Stephen Hope wrote:
> And you can't always blame the journalists, either. Once they 
> send their copy in, the editors can have a go at it as well.

If I may speak up for editors, a lot of journalists could avoid this
unfortunate necessity by Actually Learning To Write.

cheers
Richard

(Incidentally, Tim is absolutely right: good, clear 'Notes to Editors' at
the end of releases are the way to go.)
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Cloudmade%3A-%22We-are-the-Wikipedia-of-maps%22-tp22445658p22452008.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Cloudmade: "We are the Wikipedia of maps"

[Richard Fairhurst]

Lars Aronsson wrote:
> You have to explain how your rants help the project.
> The impression I get is that you cause division rather than unity.

On a point of order, getting all "meta" on a flamewar like this is the most
surefire way to prolong it.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Cloudmade%3A-%22We-are-the-Wikipedia-of-maps%22-tp22445658p22453905.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] California bill to limit detail on online mapping tools

[Richard Fairhurst]

Pieren Pieren wrote:
> May I suggest a new tag:
> landuse=blur

Superb. I've been wanting a tag like that for a while. I have now used it
for the first time, in a location not that far from where I live:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=51.90063&lon=-1.62397&zoom=15&way=32060656

(warning - very _cheesy_ joke that only some UK mappers will get)

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/California-bill-to-limit-detail-on-online-mapping-tools-tp22492051p22496808.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] immutable=yes Fwd: DEC Lands

[Richard Fairhurst]

Russ Nelson wrote:
> There's a reason why people create generalized interfaces and 
> standard metadata and a common currency and a shared language 

We do have all that, of course. It's called, for OSM-historical reasons, the
Rails port. You can get yourself a server (I can probably think of people
who will lend you one); install the Rails port on it; and upload this funky
DEC stuff to it.

People can then access it using exactly the same language/currency/interface
that they're used to with OSM. Hell, if you think having to call two URLs is
too much like hard work, you can augment your data with minutely-updated OSM
dumps, and make everything available from that one place. Given that (AIUI)
you don't think people should edit the DEC data, there won't be any syncing
problems between your server and OSM.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/immutable%3Dyes-Fwd%3A-DEC-Lands-tp22419231p22549420.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Spam] Re: Alternatives to wikipedia?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Peter - are you really sure about geograph? AIUI only the photos are
CC-BY-SA, the geolocation is OS-derived. Please check.

Sorry for crap formatting, moving house so on mobile.

Richard


Peter Miller-7 wrote:
> 
> 
> On 18 Mar 2009, at 17:11, Lester Caine wrote:
> 
>> Tim 'avatar' Bartel wrote:


 If we're going to cooperate with Wikipedia, then they need to
 cooperate with us by not allowing any dangling links.
>>>
>>> There are several reasons why this isn't possible, but the biggest  
>>> one
>>> is the following: Wikipedia isn't controlled by the Wikimedia
>>> Foundation but by the community. With whom do you like to make an
>>> arrangement? It's pretty hard to make an arrangement with a community
>>> consisting out of constantly changing people.
>>
>> That is probably the main reason who I would prefer to find an
>> alternative 'location' to direct links to. And some useful suggestions
>> have already been made.
>>
>> While I CAN appreciate the idea of our own wiki. That would require a
>> lot more hardware. Viovio has several terabytes of images already,  
>> and I
>> suspect wikitravel.org can probably top that. So sharing the load  
>> would
>> sound a lot more sensible?
> 
> As I see it there are a number of different sorts of 'associated' data  
> for OSM that needs a reliable and welcoming home somewhere:
> 
> 1) Photos - these need to have locations and a direction or  
> alternatively two positions, one for the camera and one for the  
> subject of the photo. In addition to that it is useful to know when it  
> was taken and any special attributes, was it taken when it was  
> snowing, was it raining, is it a picture of something pretty or of a  
> defect or of a signpost or what. All of this information would allow  
> applications to decide which ones to use. A journey planner would show  
> pictures of the pretty things on the route but another application  
> might want to show defects to the local council or show illegal  
> parking to the police. So... there is a whole load of stuff to do with  
> photos , some pretty pictures of scenery can go in WikiTravel and  
> Viovio etc, but some of the other stuff wouldn't be appreciated there  
> and we might need to provide a home.
> 
> 2) Articles - background information for a street, when it was  
> constructed, why, where its name came from and possibly plans for its  
> future. Hard to see who else would give this house-room.
> 
> 3) Subjective information about ways - muddy in winter, poor lighting,  
> too narrow for a double buggy, very crowded on market days etc.
> 
> I would like us to think about all this stuff. We need to decide which  
> bit below in Wikipedia (certainly the right place for articles about  
> towns), for Viovio (pretty pictures?), and which nerdy details about  
> traffic, pot poles, traffic signs and bus stop poles and origins of  
> street names belong in OSM and no-where else.
> 
> Finally, lets not be frightened about the cost of another box and the  
> hosting because terrabytes and gigabytes are really cheap these days.  
> We have just bought a box with 7 Terrabytes of disk storage and it  
> cost <£100 per terrabyte. We are also about to import all 1,000,000 of  
> photos of geographic features in the UK  from Geograph (all CCBYSA) to  
> see how it copes.
> 
> Can I suggest that if we are serious about this that we get a wiki  
> page together with the brief for the project and see what it looks  
> like as we work on it. Does this project have a name and are in vague  
> agreement about the scope and the need?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Lester Caine - G8HFL
>> -
>> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
>> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
>> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
>> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
>> Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Alternatives-to-wikipedia--tp22574913p22588822.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

talk@openstreetmap.org

[Richard Fairhurst]

Andrew Chadwick wrote:
> In this case, Richard's right in that it's an old bridleway still 
> used by horses for field access. But it's also been half-surfaced 
> nicely for bicycle use, and has blue low-flying-bicycles signs 
> along it. And a sign saying "bridleway" and hoofprints. Oh, and 
> nearby riding schools and horse mounting steps. And lots of 
> foot traffic, plus private motor access. It's pretty much the
> definition of shared use in path form.

Oooh, and it's the proposed NCN 57 too. (Though I expect NCN 57 might
actually end up going a different way, at least at first.)

Clearly the fact that it's officially a bridleway is worth recording,
because it implies all sorts of useful legal permissions and stuff. Yet
clearly most users will actually use it as a cycleway, because there are
more bikes in Oxford than horses.

So three roughly equivalent suggestions:

1. highway=bridleway, surface=paved
2. highway=cycleway, designation=bridleway
3. create two parallel ways: tag one of them as above, and the other as
highway=bridleway, surface=something_that_implies_mud. Potlatch can do this
for you with its parallel way feature (Other Editors Are Available).

cheers
another cycling Richard from Oxfordshire
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-highway%3Dcycle-footway-tp22661251p22663109.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

talk@openstreetmap.org

[Richard Fairhurst]

David Earl wrote:

> The problem marking it as cycleway now is that in the UK road >
> bridleway > cycleway > footway loosely speaking. Unless there is
> evidence to the contrary, cycles can use bridleways, but horses can't
> use cycleways.

Sort of. There are actually two fairly important exceptions to the  
bridleway > cycleway rule (this is getting a bit UK rights-of-way  
geeky, sorry everyone).

A bridleway is available to cyclists but there is no obligation on the  
land-owner to maintain it for cyclists. Cyclists are also required to  
give way to other users.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4678
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/webfiles/Info%20sheets/ff27.pdf

A "cycle track", however (as declared by a Cycle Tracks Order) confers  
an obligation on the local highway authority to maintain it for  
cyclists. As best as I can see, there is no formally expressed  
priority of use. So in this case cycleway actually > bridleway.

This is kind of what I like about the designation= tag. The Oxford  
example is maintained by the local highway authority as a cycleway. So  
it quacks like a cycleway, looks like a cycleway, but is legally a...  
bridleway. highway=cycleway, designation=bridleway sums this up  
concisely.

cheers
Richard


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

talk@openstreetmap.org

[Richard Fairhurst]

Richard Mann wrote:
> Map Features says that highway=cycleway should be used for ways that 
> are mainly/exclusively for bicycles.

Map Features is wrong. :)

IIRC some divvy inserted this sentence a good while after people had got
accustomed to using highway=cycleway for shared-use paths.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-highway%3Dcycle-footway-tp22661251p22740967.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

talk@openstreetmap.org

[Richard Fairhurst]

Alex Mauer wrote:
>>Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>>> Map Features says that highway=cycleway should be used for ways that 
>>> are mainly/exclusively for bicycles.
>> Map Features is wrong. :)
> So you're saying that highway=cycleway is not intended for ways 
> which are for bicycles?

Thanks for putting words into my mouth. Clearly I'm not.

"mainly/exclusively" is the difference. Access permissions cascade down[1].
We grew out of tagging
highway=secondary;motorcar=yes;foot=yes;horse=yes;motorcycle=yes;bicycle=yes;penguin_on_a_skateboard=yes
about three years ago - people were starting to take the piss
(http://mappinghacks.com/2006/09/18/have-a-nice-metadata/).

So why on earth you think that highway=cycleway;foot=yes is still required,
I have no idea. Unless, of course, you do actually go around tagging
highway=secondary;motorcar=yes;foot=yes etc. etc., in which case full marks
for consistency albeit no marks for clue.

But, you know, well done on finally uploading some GPS tracks in the last
few weeks (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Hawke/traces). Maybe actually
doing some mapping will give your opinions some weight, rather than just
being another tedious wikignome. We live in hope.

Richard

[1] with the well-known exception of highway=motorway
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-highway%3Dcycle-footway-tp22661251p22744086.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

talk@openstreetmap.org

[Richard Fairhurst]

Andrew Chadwick wrote:
> So let it be a cycleway, tagged designation=public_bridleway. Surface 
> I guess we can use the "best" (vehicular) value for it: paved, 
> probably. Acceptable?

*applauds*

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-highway%3Dcycle-footway-tp22661251p22745024.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] OSM April Fools

[Richard Fairhurst]

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Igor%20Shubovych/diary/5772
http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=459
http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2009/04/new-ceo-appointed.html
http://blog.shaunmcdonald.me.uk/2009/04/the-crap-o-surface-detector/

cheers
Richard


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] OSM in Living Spain magazine

[Richard Fairhurst]

Living Spain, a quarterly magazine published by our company, has just  
published its new spring issue and I'm pleased to report that it  
includes OSM mapping for the first time.

The magazine contains pull-out "Instant Guides" to Barcelona and  
Torrevieja, and each one has a city map. For these, we've used OSM  
maps, using the default Mapnik rendering - properly attributed, of  
course!

Big thanks to the Spanish community for the mapping and, of course, to  
Steve Chilton for the cartography.

The magazine will be on sale in the UK in a week or so; I'd be happy  
to post a couple of copies out to the Spanish community if anyone  
wants to give me a postal address.

cheers
Richard



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap in "The Times - atlas of the world" book

[Richard Fairhurst]

Rory McCann wrote:
> So is that book under a creative commons licence?

Collective Work.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-in-%22The-Times---atlas-of-the-world%22-book-tp22734589p22925199.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Using the data...

[Richard Fairhurst]

80n wrote:
> This is correct.  Neither OSM nor OSMF holds any copyright.

Database right, on the other hand... ;)

For a magazine, I use
"OpenStreetMap.org and contributors: CC-BY-SA"
next to the map.

Then in the flannel panel at the start of the magazine (where
copyright/contributor information usually resides, we add something like
"Where an image includes a credit similar to CC-BY-SA, it is made
available under that Creative Commons licence: full details at
www.creativecommons.org."

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Using-the-data...-tp22935531p22945454.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik rendering export has only coastline

[Richard Fairhurst]

Ben Ward wrote:
> This looks like a bug/problem with the Openstreetmap Mapnik 
> Export rendering.  Can anyone confirm, or fix?

Mapnik export doesn't work on Wednesdays while the database is reloaded. I
believe there's an intention to fix this in the medium term (help welcome no
doubt). Meanwhile I'll add it to the FAQ on the wiki.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Mapnik-rendering-export-has-only-coastline-tp22955618p22955846.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] People's Map

[Richard Fairhurst]

Mike Harris wrote:
> Does anyone know anything about People's Map?

It's a tragic waste of good aerial imagery.

http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2007/12/peoples-map-is-deeply-fucked.html

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/People%27s-Map-tp22966717p22967071.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] We're back

[Richard Fairhurst]

...with API 0.6, Postgres and the new server. But everyone's uploading  
at once, so don't expect to do much serious editing for the time  
being. :)

The new changeset stuff is really superb. Have a browse:
   http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changesets

Mad props (as the kids say) to Tom, Grant, Matt et al for getting it  
done. Buy them a beer:
   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Protocol_Version_0.6/Beer

cheers
Richard


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] We're back

[Richard Fairhurst]

Pieren wrote:
> Another short question : empty changesets are possible ? 
> (e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/876923) 
> (I tried to download the xml but no response - I guess it is the 
> server current load).

Indeed, there's no prohibition on empty changesets. Specifically, Potlatch
at present creates a new changeset when you open it, so if you don't
actually make any edits then an empty changeset will result. I'd like to fix
this so it only creates a changeset on your first edit, but it's not
critical.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/We%27re-back-tp23152499p23154119.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] We're back

[Richard Fairhurst]

Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Great. Congratulations to all involved. You pulled a massive, great 
> job. Potlatch seems to be stuck for me at 'Loading Presets'. It does 
> say 0.11. Firefox and Chrome on windows. Is this load-related or 
> something else altogether?

Load-related.

I know of two issues with Potlatch 0.11 at the moment. One is relation
handling (actually I see Ed's just posted about that) - not clear yet
whether this is Potlatch-specific. The other is that there seems to be some
issue with junction nodes which is causing a server error dialogue to come
up, haven't narrowed this one down yet.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/We%27re-back-tp23152499p23155833.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] We're back

[Richard Fairhurst]

Ed Loach wrote:
> When editing, Potlatch no longer shows what relations an 
> existing way is part of. I'm assuming this isn't deliberate.

Still trying to track this one down. It works 100% as intended on my local
test setup, with the latest svn code and the latest Potlatch (though still
running MySQL rather than Postgres). The bug only appears on the live site.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/We%27re-back-tp23152499p23171307.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-talk-be] IMPORTANT - OSM API upgrade - Upgrade finished

[Richard Fairhurst]

Ben Laenen wrote:
> Little warning though: relations are completely broken with Potlatch.

We think we've found the issue. More in half an hour, hopefully.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--OSM-talk-be--IMPORTANT---OSM-API-upgrade---Upgrade-finished-tp23174315p23175635.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-talk-be] IMPORTANT - OSM API upgrade - Upgrade finished

[Richard Fairhurst]

I wrote:
> We think we've found the issue. More in half an hour, hopefully.

Fixed (hopefully) and committed. Will be live later when Tom has a chance to
deploy it.

For those interested, the database was changed in 0.6 to store relation
members as 'Way', 'Node' or 'Relation'. Previously they were stored as
'way', 'node' and 'relation' (I've now updated the wiki documentation to say
this), and Potlatch was still expecting that.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--OSM-talk-be--IMPORTANT---OSM-API-upgrade---Upgrade-finished-tp23174315p23175791.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editor statistics from created_by in changesets

[Richard Fairhurst]

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> Have new editor statistics been compiled from the created_by tag 
> in changesets now that 0.6 is live?

If anyone actually managed to use Potlatch on Tuesday/Wednesday, given the
server speed, I think they deserve some sort of medal.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Editor-statistics-from-created_by-in-changesets-tp23219716p23220578.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia POI import?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Adam Schreiber wrote:
> We don't know where the wikipedia users sourced their cooridinates from.

Oh yes we do: Google Maps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Google_tools

There is absolutely no way that Wikipedia-derived co-ordinates are suitable
for mass import into OSM.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Wikipedia-POI-import--tp23392791p23394016.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia POI import?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Frederik Ramm wrote:
>Thomas Wood wrote:
>> Where's ShakespeareFan00 when you need him? :)
> That poor guy has been told by some self-important OSMers that 
> Wikimapia was an unacceptable source, and they somehow forgot 
> to say that this is just the OSM interpretation. SFan00 dutifully 
> started removing Wikimapia references from Wikipedia ("they're 
> unacceptable, you know"), and ended up on the receiving end of 
> a lot of justified Wikipedians' anger.

You are very charitable, Frederik (well, maybe not to those of us who you've
just called self-important :) ) - probably too charitable. Yes, he did ask
whether he should import them to OSM, and we replied no. To that question,
nothing else. He also asked "so I should remove them from Wikipedia?" (or
something along those lines) and was told that #osm has no power over, or
indeed interest in, Wikipedia.

Why he, or you, or anyone should take comments in #osm to mean "oh, you
should do this in Wikipedia" without even questioning it or - heavens above
- asking some Wikipedia people, I don't know.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Wikipedia-POI-import--tp23392791p23394088.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk