[OSM-legal-talk] It's a shame
Next week I will be visiting the Adelaide Hills (South Australia) and was planning to resurvey Mt Barker in order to add the street names to a lot of roads that have not yet had them tagged. However to do so at this stage would be pointless since eithe of two of the three previous editors could effectively auto-delete my work simply by failing to relicence their existing contributions. It is for this reason that I believe clause 3 of the CT is essential. This current situation must not be allowed to happen again. Hopefully by Christmas (another visit to the Adelaide Hills) collaborative mapping will again be possible. Cheers Nick Hocking (nm7s9) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
Liz wrote "The data I have contributed (by ground survey, please note) will remain copyright to myself, and is not going to be included in the ODbL database." Liz, that's a shame. My contributions (also done by ground survey) are donated, by me, for the good of the project. If the project should move in a direction that I didn't like, I would simply reduce or cease my contributions but would never consider deleting my existing ones from the project. Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline
I read on one of these lists that it may take up to a year for compliance to the licence/ct to be effected. Is there a way to shorten this process for Australia, since until all the Australian OSM data is compliant, there is little point in anyone doing any real mapping here. Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline
Hi Ed, "transfer rights to the OSMF" I believe that this is the (only) critical issue. To be open contributions need to be given freely and without restriction, so as to avoid the current situation where some contributors (with varying agendas) seem to be holding OSM to ransom by threatening not to relicence their contributions. This need to be finalised sooner rather than later so that OSM mapping can recommence. As to which licence we run under, it doesn't matter to me at all, since I believe it should be public domain anyway. I'll leave that for others to bicker about but full rights to the data by the project is essential, in my opinion. Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
The problem I have is a bit different. Someone (who has actively declined the CT) has been using nearmap to trace in some roads under construction in the Canberra area. Some of these roads are now complete and open to the public. It would be pointless of me to add information to the nearmapped ways (E.G it's name) since it seems certain that these ways will be deleted from OSM. However it is critical that these roads appear on the map right now, so that emergency services have access to the most up-to-date information available. The only way, I see, out of this mess is for me to map a new set of residential roads, using my actual GPS tracks, alongside the nearmapped ones, make then properly routable, and maybe put a layer tag on them (for the moment) to ensure that routers don't confuse the issue. Once all the nearmap data has been removed then I would remove the layer tags. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Private negotiations.
Andrew said "I live and map in London and some of my contributions would be flushed down the pan if Tim declines to relicense. I agree completely with Frederik." Exactly. In all this kerfuffle the only important thing is the CT. With them collaborative mapping is possible. Without them, as we are now seeing, collaborative mapping is not possible. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
My understanding is that Nearmap wish all contributions to OSM, by any mapper who has agreed to the CT, derived from their imagery (before the 17th June 2011) to be able to be relicenced by OSMF under any licence it (OSMF) chooses at any time. However I also can't see exactly how the published statement meets this wish. Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
Yes Steve - you're right. The "For Clarity" paragraph basically says that contributions from a mapper who hadn't accepted the CT and were derived from Nearmap prior to June 17th 2011 can stay in the data base and do not have to be deleted. They give no time limit or OSM-licence limitations on this allowence to keep the current derived data, therefore I believe that all mappers (who wish their contributions to remain in the OSM project) can now accept the CT without having to worry whether one or more of their contributions was derived from Nearmap. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes.
Frederik, On a related note, what if Mapper A has traced a road from (now) uncompliant imagery. Mapper B has surveyed the road but had decided to leave A's hard work in place and just add the road's name. Mapper A now decides to withdraw from the OSM project and not relicence his contributions. It does not seen fair or reasonable that mapper B's hard work should be destroyed by A's decisions. I think it would be fair and reasonable to leave a "place marker" (with the road's name and any other info put by mapperB) somewhere along the road, when the road traced by mapper a is removed. That way, when another mapper either traces the road from compliant imagery or from the GPS track, mapper's B work can be reinserted. Cheers Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Maxspeed tags in Australia
Hi Would it be possible to have a version of the OSM licence change inspector which completely ignored tags of maxspeed source:maxspeed maxspeed:source whether for addition deletion or modification. This could be just for Australia. The reason is that in Australia an anonymous user has used a bot to add the maxspeed values for residential roads that did not already have them (the vast majority). This user used its own account to do this and has declined the CT. The values are often wrong anyway and it will be benificial for the data quality when these are finally purged. Another (non anonymous) user has used his own account to run another bot to fix some maxspeed:source tags to source:maxspeed. This user is also a decliner. These values are also not usefull in the database. Howevewr while they are there the OSM inspoector is recording them as modifications that will degrade the data at licence change time and painting them yellow. With so many yelow lines on the Australia map due to these 3 tags it is impossible to tell which ways really need to be remapped to avoid unnecessary and damagining way revrsion. Once I have remapped all the "red" ways in areas that I have personally completely surveyed I would very much like to reclaim as much as possible "clean" mappers work from the real yellow roads before we lose that work. Nick PS -If a decliner has actually gone out and observerd the speed limit sign for an existing way edited by an acceptor, (very unlikely), then we would not be alerted to this. I don't see this as a problem. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Maxspeed tags in Australia
Hendrik wrote "There is the possibility to declare a changeset als OK" Hi Hendrik, In this case it is essential to actually get rid of the maxspeed tags. The bot used a completly wrong algorithm and the data is dangerously wrong. Just today I drove down a high traffic road where OSM (curtesy of the bot) had the wrong max speed). So long as the DWG can remove the bots work without removing subsequent good edits to that way then I think they should do it now. Failing this I would love the OSM inspector to be able to ignore these edits so thay I can see what actual damage will occur to the OSM data and hopefully prevent it. Cheers Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Maxspeed tags in Australia
Frederik wrote "Is there a consensus in the Australian communitiy that these tags are worthless and should be removed" How many votes do I need :-) The extent of the Australian community is unclear to me due to recent problems. However these edits will have to be removed eventually since both bot owners have made it 100% clear that they will not change from decliners to acceptors, and even if they did their bot edits could be reapplied. The bottom line is that, in order to visualise what roads need remapping now, to save some good edit's information and to prevent major map degredation if roads or connections disappear, it is necessary to "see below" the maxspeed edits. I can see only two ways to do this. 1) Remove the edits. 2) Get OSM Inspector to ignore them. Either way would be equally good for me to allow me to prepare well for licence changeover. Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Maxspeed tags in Australia
Frederik wrote "Well, nobody shouting "stop, stop, these tags are useful to me!" would already be a start." Although the usefullness(or correctness) of these tags is not being discussed in talk-au, there appears to be a concensus (7-0) about removing them now. Tomorrow and Sunday, I'll trawl through their changesets to identify each and every one. It'll take about 10 or so hours (I think) to accurately pin them all down, so I'll have to fit it in around some other activities. Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL implementation plan - extra phase proposal
Ian wrote "Reasons to change the licence fast? Because editors are still changing nonCT objects - information is still being added to the map every day that is going to be deleted. Bad enough we are losing the nonCT data, worse that we should risk losing new CT data. Also, there are editors hanging back until the deed is done, and we need to start on the community rebuilding and put this behind us. And lastly, editing in a sea of red, orange and green ways is just no fun, we need to get back to a green map where we can edit without looking at the history of every object." I absolutely agree with this. If the licence date changeover were to be delayed then remapping efforts would stop immediately - that's just human nature. Whilst there is non compliant data in the database the community is divided and is being harmed every day. The only beneficiaries of this would the handfull of hostile decliners/non-deciders who, for a variety of reasons, wish to harm OSM. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
The presence of non compliant data in our database can only harm the community and thereby the project. The longer it stays there the more harm is being done to the community/project. We should be trying to minimise the damage to OSM and the only way to do this is to. Remap madly until April 1st then map madly after that to fill in any important "holes". Once this is done then we can concentrate on mapping new areas and adding more value to our current dataset. For these reasons, slipping the April 1st deadline would result in more damage to the project than adhereing to it. PS - It's been well understood that in Australia, remapping all the decliner edits (both traced imported and surveyed) will take a couple of years. I don't understand why some people are now starting to "panic". Maybe it's just that time of month again where we have to rehash the licence debate for the n+1th time. Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Rebuild] Progress update
"I've seen no such demonstration of desire. The only thing we real mappers..." Hi Alan, I'm also a "real mapper" and I do truly desire the "cleansing bot" to weave It's magic as soon as possible. This is because I'm reluctant to add any new data to the project while there is *ANY* date left in the project that was not donated freely for the good of the project. Also, the only thing that I've felt "thrust dowm our throats" is the incessant sniping from the few people who couldn't get there own way during the licence debate. So, in summing up, I'm at least as cross as Richard with the snipers and I also need to clean my bike since I stuck it in the mud (and crashed) twice on my first attempts at mountain biking today. I have made some improvmentsd to the bike tracks on Strolmo Park Forest but my GPS unit didn't survise my crashes so I'll get some more tomorrow... Cheers Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
