I wanted to revive the discussion inspired by NearMap, regarding making an
easier way to on-ramp new users, since it seemed to have died.
Nick wrote:
So let's bring this back to people who want to create tools to make it
easier for everyone to participate in OSM. How can we get past the
problems
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Kai Krueger wrote:
> You can associate an OpenID to an existing account. You can also switch your
> associated OpenID at any time (provided you are logged in) just like you can
> change your password. (The OpenID is never revealed to anyone other than the
> account
A couple of days ago I wanted to register with some site... ah, yes, it was
Hutch. I was okay about setting up a username and password, but they
offered me the ability to authenticate via Facebook - three clicks and I was
done. Very, very easy and didn't trigger my personal (admittedly quite
high
On 7 August 2010 07:57, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> From how I understand it, NearMap's editor is so simple (can't do complex
> edits) and is often used for one-off edits that I think how NearMap does it
> is pretty spot on in trying to get the most number of contributions. What I
> guess NearMa
So let's bring this back to people who want to create tools to make it easier
for everyone to participate in OSM. How can we get past the problems and make
it easy for people to map?
Auth and new mappers workshop ++
Nick
On 7 Aug 2010, at 01:03, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 7, 2
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 7:43 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 7 August 2010 08:56, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > John Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> Even wikipedia doesn't take that attitude, they're currently being
> >> threatened by the FBI over a SVG image.
> >
> > Nothing to do with copyright, and th
>From how I understand it, NearMap's editor is so simple (can't do complex
edits) and is often used for one-off edits that I think how NearMap does it
is pretty spot on in trying to get the most number of contributions. What I
guess NearMap should do more is to explain about OSM more clearly if a
N
On 7 August 2010 08:27, Ian Dees wrote:
> That's different because the FBI is quite obviously wrong. There is a law
> that says they are wrong.
The FBI are asserting they're right, and wikimedia are asserting
they're right, it's up to a court to be the adjudicator.
> Almost any complaint that so
On 7 August 2010 08:56, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> John Smith wrote:
>>
>> Even wikipedia doesn't take that attitude, they're currently being
>> threatened by the FBI over a SVG image.
>
> Nothing to do with copyright, and thus completely irrelevant in this
> discussion.
Wikimedia is claiming
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
Even wikipedia doesn't take that attitude, they're currently being
threatened by the FBI over a SVG image.
Nothing to do with copyright, and thus completely irrelevant in this
discussion.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E00
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 5:21 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 7 August 2010 03:14, SteveC wrote:
> > If they have several orders of magnitude more money then probably the
> cost/benefit tradeoff would suggest throwing out the data is the better
> option.
>
> Even wikipedia doesn't take that attitude, th
On Aug 6, 2010, at 4:21 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 7 August 2010 03:14, SteveC wrote:
>> If they have several orders of magnitude more money then probably the
>> cost/benefit tradeoff would suggest throwing out the data is the better
>> option.
>
> Even wikipedia doesn't take that attitude, t
On 7 August 2010 03:14, SteveC wrote:
> If they have several orders of magnitude more money then probably the
> cost/benefit tradeoff would suggest throwing out the data is the better
> option.
Even wikipedia doesn't take that attitude, they're currently being
threatened by the FBI over a SVG i
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 12:14 PM, SteveC wrote:
>
> On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:09 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
> > On 7 August 2010 03:04, SteveC wrote:
> >> Sounds like you've never been to court. Who's right or wrong is a
> secondary consideration here, the first order of magnitude issue is who has
> mor
On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:09 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 7 August 2010 03:04, SteveC wrote:
>> Sounds like you've never been to court. Who's right or wrong is a secondary
>> consideration here, the first order of magnitude issue is who has more
>> money. We lose on that one.
>
> So basically anyon
On 7 August 2010 03:04, SteveC wrote:
> Sounds like you've never been to court. Who's right or wrong is a secondary
> consideration here, the first order of magnitude issue is who has more money.
> We lose on that one.
So basically anyone can make any copyright claim they like and OSM
will thro
On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
> SteveC asklater.com> writes:
>
>> The reason is pretty simple - the first line of copyright defense if we get
>> an
>> email from TeleAtlas Legal saying 'user NearMap copied our data' is that we
>> will remove _all_ NearMap data.
>
> Wouldn't you
SteveC asklater.com> writes:
>The reason is pretty simple - the first line of copyright defense if we get an
>email from TeleAtlas Legal saying 'user NearMap copied our data' is that we
>will remove _all_ NearMap data.
Wouldn't you tell them to get lost, since copyright doesn't apply to map data
Richard Fairhurst writes:
> Nick Black wrote:
>> The current mechanism by which Mapzen and Mapzen POI Collector
>> users authenticate against OSM is horrible for users.
>
> At the risk of being really hand-wavy and imprecise, I'd just say: Twitter's
> OAuth UI is really exemplary. It's a great
Nick Black wrote:
> The current mechanism by which Mapzen and Mapzen POI Collector
> users authenticate against OSM is horrible for users.
At the risk of being really hand-wavy and imprecise, I'd just say: Twitter's
OAuth UI is really exemplary. It's a great demonstration of how to get it
right.
On 6 August 2010 20:04, Nick Black wrote:
> How would the people voicing opinions in this thread feel about a hack
> / planning day when editor developers, OSM-F and the OSM server admin
> team can get together to talk through each side's concerns and come up
> with a plan that is good for everyo
Hi Guys,
The current mechanism by which Mapzen and Mapzen POI Collector users
authenticate against OSM is horrible for users. In each user test we
do this is the main area where users fall down. We have several one
star reviews on the App Store for Mapzen POI-C where users have got
lost half way
David Earl wrote:
>
> Are you going to take the email address on trust? It is really very easy
> to set up an OpenID provider which supplies any old email address on
> request. (There are some I think you can trust in principle - we know
> for example that Google and Yahoo provide verified em
On 05/08/10 20:35, David Earl wrote:
Are you going to take the email address on trust? It is really very easy
to set up an OpenID provider which supplies any old email address on
request. (There are some I think you can trust in principle - we know
for example that Google and Yahoo provide verif
On 05/08/2010 14:44, Tom Hughes wrote:
If the OpenID provider supplies sufficient data (basically an email
address and nickname) then they need do little more than click OK to
accept the details and then accept the terms.
Are you going to take the email address on trust? It is really very easy
Hi,
On 5 August 2010 17:09, Andy Allan wrote:
> Let's imagine nearmap have been running their new editor and
> 'cloaking' all their users under the one account for a couple of
> years, and that their editor is great and everyone wants to use it.
>
> * I want to run a mapping party in Sydney - who
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 1:42 PM, SteveC wrote:
> Ben if I read this right then you're hiding the users from OSM and we'll see
> a stream of edits from NearMap which are actually from multiple users. This
> is why CM/matt/others built the OAuth code so that mapzen etc didn't do that,
> because it
JohnSmitty wrote:
>
> Will they still need to register with OSM?
>
Have a look at the link to the source code I posted earlier (I know you are
a coder, so I can send you that way...).
You can also have a look at http://openid.dev.openstreetmap.org/ although
that is by now outdated, has it hasn
On 5 August 2010 23:44, Tom Hughes wrote:
> If the OpenID provider supplies sufficient data (basically an email address
> and nickname) then they need do little more than click OK to accept the
> details and then accept the terms.
That would probably satisfy Nearmap and others trying to minimise
On 05/08/10 14:42, John Smith wrote:
On 5 August 2010 23:34, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 05/08/10 14:33, John Smith wrote:
On 5 August 2010 23:27, Tom Hughes wrote:
Err actually, please don't start OpenID support from scratch as we
already
have a branch with more or less complete OpenID support!
On 5 August 2010 23:34, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 05/08/10 14:33, John Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 5 August 2010 23:27, Tom Hughes wrote:
>>>
>>> Err actually, please don't start OpenID support from scratch as we
>>> already
>>> have a branch with more or less complete OpenID support!
>>
>> Is that OpenID
On 05/08/10 14:33, John Smith wrote:
On 5 August 2010 23:27, Tom Hughes wrote:
Err actually, please don't start OpenID support from scratch as we already
have a branch with more or less complete OpenID support!
Is that OpenID support from other sites, like Nearmap, or is that
OpenID support f
On 5 August 2010 23:27, Tom Hughes wrote:
> Err actually, please don't start OpenID support from scratch as we already
> have a branch with more or less complete OpenID support!
Is that OpenID support from other sites, like Nearmap, or is that
OpenID support from OSM?
___
On 05/08/10 14:23, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
Ben, why not look at the Rails code and offer an OpenID authentication
mechanism. I can't speak for the administrators, but it seems like if
some simple solution could be created that solves this ongoing issue
with OpenID, that it would solve your probl
On 5 August 2010 12:44, Kai Krueger wrote:
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> One signup page, one E-Mail
>> confirmation, and then click "ok" for the OAuth page. How often does the
>> modern Internet user do that every day?
>>
> Exactly that is the problem! I have to sign-up to far too many accounts per
>
It seems to me we have two sides trying to reach the same end point.
Ben and NearMap want to make it easy for people to use and contribute to OSM.
Steve and Frederik want to ensure for technical and legal reasons that
the changes from NearMap users doesn't cause problems in the OSM
database.
It
On 5 August 2010 11:27, Erik Johansson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Ben Last wrote:
>> Actually... I'm not sure you would :) My reasoning is thus; OSM members are
>> interested in mapping, and relish the power of JOSM or Potlatch (I do
>> myself). You don't want a simpler editor, yo
Ben if I read this right then you're hiding the users from OSM and we'll see a
stream of edits from NearMap which are actually from multiple users. This is
why CM/matt/others built the OAuth code so that mapzen etc didn't do that,
because it's horrific.
The reason is pretty simple - the first l
Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> You're trying to remove two "barriers" at the same time, both quite
> unrelated:
>
> 1. The barrier of users having to sign up to OSM;
> 2. The barrier of a (supposedly) complicated editing process.
>
No, they are not really unrelated. If 1 is prerequisite of 2 (which
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Ben Last wrote:
> Actually... I'm not sure you would :) My reasoning is thus; OSM members are
> interested in mapping, and relish the power of JOSM or Potlatch (I do
> myself). You don't want a simpler editor, you want one that helps you do
> OSM mapping. The mot
On 5 August 2010 16:44, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On the other hand, doing "1" in the above, is relatively cheap; we could do
> that ourselves at any time by, say, allowing users to log in to OSM with any
> OpenID credentials (just like we do on help.openstreetmap.org). I guess we
> might even do th
On 5 August 2010 14:44, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> You're trying to remove two "barriers" at the same time, both quite
> unrelated:
> 1. The barrier of users having to sign up to OSM;
> 2. The barrier of a (supposedly) complicated editing process.
>
An interesting take on it :) But I disagree that t
Ben,
Ben Last wrote:
Actually, you can message them, since "they" are us (NearMap). Which
is my point; the edits come from us, and we're the ones taking on the
necessary responsibility. This is us, as a company aiming to support
OSM, trying to remove barriers from contributions; that's going t
On 5 August 2010 09:02, Ian Dees wrote:
> So let's talk about making that process easier instead of using the current
> broken system.
Here we have Nearmap willing to spend time, money and other resources
to address the issue and you want to waste further resources to
discuss something no one els
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Ben Last wrote:
> It's somewhat
> frustrating to find this being immediately classified in the same box
> as anonymous editing and/or vandalism.
>
>
I wanted to make it clear that I'm ecstatic to finally see a simple map
editor coming out. I look forward to seeing
On 4 August 2010 16:27, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> The major problem arises when, for example, a NearMap user starts correcting
> 300 street names using Google Maps as a source
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/blocks/10); or they make a whole bunch of
> fictitious "corrections" a la Charlie Sheen H
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 5:20 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 5 August 2010 08:02, Ian Dees wrote:
> > I think the point that Frederik was trying to make was that this model
> > ("bulk imported in real time") is not ideal. Ideally, we want the users
> > interacting directly with the OSM API rather than
As long as the user is traceable, contactable and blockable (by
Nearmap), and that user is clearly reminded not to copy data off other
maps, then I'd let them get on with it.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:20 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 5 August 2010 08:02, Ian Dees wrote:
>> I think the poin
On 5 August 2010 08:02, Ian Dees wrote:
> I think the point that Frederik was trying to make was that this model
> ("bulk imported in real time") is not ideal. Ideally, we want the users
> interacting directly with the OSM API rather than going through some
> intermediary service.
It's obvious th
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 4:53 PM, John Smith wrote:
> I'm slightly confused by all this talk about needing contractual
> agreements with all the end users and the OSM-F, or needing to
> identify Nearmap users to OSM-F.
>
> OSM already has data in the database from other projects, which was
> communi
I'm slightly confused by all this talk about needing contractual
agreements with all the end users and the OSM-F, or needing to
identify Nearmap users to OSM-F.
OSM already has data in the database from other projects, which was
community sourced and licensed under various cc-by style licenses,
su
On 4 August 2010 15:13, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>
> Let's look at it practically. If a proxy (e.g. nearmap) user commits
> vandalism, there are several things OSM may want to do: 1. undo the
> vandalism, 2. contact the user, 3. block the user.
>
> For 1. it's actually better that the edits are
Hi,
On 4 August 2010 15:47, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>> You kind of have a point there with addresses and all; assume you'd just
>>> produce your very own database of house numbers built by your users, then
>>> release that, say, as PD or CC0. It would only be days until someone in
>>> OSM
>>> came
Andrzej,
You kind of have a point there with addresses and all; assume you'd just
produce your very own database of house numbers built by your users, then
release that, say, as PD or CC0. It would only be days until someone in OSM
came along and proposed to import your database into OSM, which
Hi,
On 4 August 2010 11:10, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Ben,
> Ben Last wrote:
>> Interesting idea, but one aim of this whole effort is to increase the
>> number of people who can contribute to OSM and help bring it to the
>> point where OSM data is a usable way to do geocoding or address-search
>> (w
Ben,
Ben Last wrote:
I'm pretty certain there was some kind of web-based tag editor just before
OAuth was finally set up but I cannot find the mailing list references.
There wasn't a huge discussion back then - it was clear to everyone that
what that editor was doing could be a proof of concept
Ben Last wrote:
In particular ODbL+CT will require a contractual relationship
(i.e. the contributor terms) between OSMF and the user. If
>> you are not exposing the user to the sign-up process, they
>> are not agreeing to this contract.
No, they're agreeing to terms and conditions with us. We
On 4 August 2010 15:06, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Maybe worth taking a clue from Cloudmade here, who have a similar situation
> with their Mapzen editor - they go through some effort to make the process
> as painless as possible for their users while still requiring them to
> register with OSM *as we
Frederik Ramm wrote:
I kind of understand your situation but I think the way forward would be
to either use OpenStreetBugs or set up an OpenStreetBugs like system
yourself, maybe integrate that in your editor - so that users without an
OSM account can only place OSB markers, and those (the slight
Ben Last wrote:
I'm not sure I agree. We don't want to put barriers in the way of an
average user (and I use that term to explicitly distinguish between
the average map site user and a mapping enthusiast) making simple
corrections such as adding address information or naming un-named
streets. I
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> Ben Last wrote:
>> the edits that we're submitting all come from one user
>> (that represents NearMap) since we don't (and can't) require
>> users of our site to all be registered with OSM.
>
> Whenever it has been raised in the past, t
Hi,
Ben Last wrote:
And I've tried to discuss it on a few occasions, and not had much of a
response :) We've (at this point) ruled out asking all our users to
register separately with OSM
Maybe worth taking a clue from Cloudmade here, who have a similar
situation with their Mapzen editor - t
On 4 August 2010 09:45, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Ben Last wrote:
>> the edits that we're submitting all come from one user
>> (that represents NearMap) since we don't (and can't) require
>> users of our site to all be registered with OSM.
> Um... this is the sort of stuff that really, really nee
Ben Last wrote:
> the edits that we're submitting all come from one user
> (that represents NearMap) since we don't (and can't) require
> users of our site to all be registered with OSM.
Um... this is the sort of stuff that really, really needs to be discussed
first.
Whenever it has been raise
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Ben Last wrote:
> I think I remember something like that; however, the edits that we're
> submitting all come from one user (that represents NearMap) since we
> don't (and can't) require users of our site to all be registered with
> OSM. So we obviously don't want
I think I remember something like that; however, the edits that we're
submitting all come from one user (that represents NearMap) since we
don't (and can't) require users of our site to all be registered with
OSM. So we obviously don't want that single username to get banned.
What I'm after is som
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Ben Last wrote:
> On 3 August 2010 18:13, Dave F. wrote:
>
>> Can somebody revert this edit ASAP?
>>
>
> Which reminds me... we at NearMap are preparing to begin rollout of OSM
> editing on our site; simple operations like adding house numbers and
> adding/correct
On 3 August 2010 18:13, Dave F. wrote:
> Can somebody revert this edit ASAP?
>
Which reminds me... we at NearMap are preparing to begin rollout of OSM
editing on our site; simple operations like adding house numbers and
adding/correcting street names. Edits can be made by registered users of
ou
68 matches
Mail list logo
