Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] linz dataset for nz - attribution methods summary
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Stephen Gower [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 08:48:18PM +1200, Robin Paulson wrote: if we are going to have an 'attribution' page on the wiki[1], with the fine print regarding sources of various chunks of data, would a link to it be possible, on the main map page? titled say 'data attribution' or 'data sources'? Have you got a definition of main map page? If the cycle map became more popular than the main site (generally, or in NZ) would the agreement you're after force its admins to add links? Or on the other side, if you specify on www.openstreetmap.org what if the project renames? Actually *every* published map that uses OSM data, including OSM's own maps must satisfy the attribution requirement. That's what the BY clause in the CC-BY-SA means. Anyone publishing OSM data must provide attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor is what Creative Commons actually says. The attribution page on the wiki at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attribution would seem like a simple and convenient way of achieving this. 80n s ___ talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Attribution
Up to now there has not been any official guidance on how to comply with the attribution clause of our CC-BY-SA license. This means that people either try to do something that they hope is acceptable or they do nothing. Some of OSM's own outputs fall into the latter category (for example, the API and the planet dump) which sets a bad example for others. At the very least we should be providing advice and guidance on how users of the data can comply with the attribution requirement when they publish OSM data. I'd like to propose that we make the following statement: If you publish OpenStreetMap data you can satisfy the attribution requirement of the license by linking to or referencing http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attribution; Discuss. 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 01:19:15PM +0100, 80n wrote: If you publish OpenStreetMap data you can satisfy the attribution requirement of the license by linking to or referencing http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attribution; Discuss. +1. cu bart ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Up to now there has not been any official guidance on how to comply with the attribution clause of our CC-BY-SA license. This means that people either try to do something that they hope is acceptable or they do nothing. Some of OSM's own outputs fall into the latter category (for example, the API and the planet dump) which sets a bad example for others. At the very least we should be providing advice and guidance on how users of the data can comply with the attribution requirement when they publish OSM data. I'd like to propose that we make the following statement: If you publish OpenStreetMap data you can satisfy the attribution requirement of the license by linking to or referencing http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attribution; Discuss. I understand the logic of using that URL in terms of wanting to comply with attribution requirements for any data we import (though personally I don't think it should be in the wiki for fairly obvious reasons) but in terms of making the attribution advertise our project that is not a good URL to use. I would certainly prefer that people using our data provide a link to www.openstreetmap.org or the top level wiki index page as that would do a better job of advertising our project to people that follow the attribution link, which is surely the whole point of us wanting attribution. Tom -- Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution
Hallo, I'd like to propose that we make the following statement: If you publish OpenStreetMap data you can satisfy the attribution requirement of the license by linking to or referencing http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attribution; But you are aware of the fact that it is not this mailing list, or the foundation, or the majority of mappers, that can make such a statement - it would have to be made by every single licensor. OpenStreetMap, as a project, is not in the legal position to take away the individual mapper's right to specify the kind of attribution *he* wants. I'm not saying this is good, or your idea is bad, I'm just saying I think it is unworkable with the current license. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution
Quoting Michael Collinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I echo Tom's sentiment that www.openstreetmap.org/Attribution would be a cleaner public link to present if possible. You can request under BY-SA 2.0 that a URL be presented with the work. See BY-SA 2.0 section 4.c: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying [...]; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; [...] Assuming attribution can be counted as part of the licensing information this could cover the attribution page. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Tom Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would certainly prefer that people using our data provide a link to www.openstreetmap.org or the top level wiki index page as that would do a better job of advertising our project to people that follow the attribution link, which is surely the whole point of us wanting attribution. The purpose of this is not advertisement of the OSM project. It is so that users can comply with the terms of our license - users of our data have an obligation to provide attribution. The point is that CC-BY-SA allows us to specify a URL that people must quote as attribution when using our work. You are trying to use that requirement as a way to ensure that people link to a page that passes on any nested attribution requirements that come from data we import. I would prefer to use that requirement as a way to advertise our project to people that get works derived from our data. Trying to achieve both aims is obviously the ultimate goal, but it is not an easy thing to do. As Richard says however, it's a bit silly to do anything now when the license may be changing anyway. Tom -- Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution
Michael Collinson wrote: Other than that, well, I think we both share the same opinion that the current license is just unworkable full stop! :-) There's probably not a lot of point making a big song and dance about attribution at present. In a month or two's time, when we're ready to vote on adopting the Open Database Licence, it'll become clearer. cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hallo, I'd like to propose that we make the following statement: If you publish OpenStreetMap data you can satisfy the attribution requirement of the license by linking to or referencing http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attribution; But you are aware of the fact that it is not this mailing list, or the foundation, or the majority of mappers, that can make such a statement - it would have to be made by every single licensor. Yes, except that AFAIK nobody has yet requested or required any special attribution, so they all have what they have asked for. This statement *goes beyond* what existing contributors have asked for and provides a way to satisfy other potential contributors, who do have specific attribution needs. OpenStreetMap, as a project, is not in the legal position to take away the individual mapper's right to specify the kind of attribution *he* wants. No, we can't take away, but this proposal adds. We provide a place where any contributor can add their attribution text, so we are enabling this right by providing a way for contributors to specify the kind of attribution they want. I'm not saying this is good, or your idea is bad, I'm just saying I think it is unworkable with the current license. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution
quote who=80n I would prefer a url like attribution.openstreetmap.org or www.openstreetmap.org/attribution but it should still, IMHO, point to the same wiki page. I agree with www.openstreetma.org/attribution ; however, I don't think that wikifying the attribution would be a good idea. Allowing every user to specify some license details through his/her user page (much like the make all my edits public option), then hack the rails code to show that data in /attribution on the main site, sounds like a sane option. -- Iván Sánchez Ortega [EMAIL PROTECTED] Un ordenador no es un televisor ni un microondas, es una herramienta compleja. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Crown copyright, OS and year of publication
Hi All, On the wiki for out of copyright maps, it states: Maps published by the Ordnance Survey are Crown Copyright as stipulated in the terms of The Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1998 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm). Therein, Chapter X. Section 163, states: *snip* (b) if the work is published commercially before the end of the period of 75 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was made, until the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was first so published. Since most Ordnance Survey maps have been published and and are classed as literary or artistic works produced by a government organisation, not one indetifiable person, Crown Copyright on them expires 50 years after the end of the calendar year in which a mapsheet was FIRST published. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Out_of_copyright Is that interpretation about the FIRST year of publication definitely correct? Or should it be the year of last update? Has this been discussed before? If this is not correct, or it is uncertain, the wiki page should be updated. Regards, Tim ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Crown copyright, OS and year of publication
Tim Sheerman-Chase wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Out_of_copyright Is that interpretation about the FIRST year of publication definitely correct? Or should it be the year of last update? Has this been discussed before? The FIRST is pretty meaningless. The 1954 revision of a map was first published in 1954. The 1959 revision of a map was first published in 1959... and so on. All that means is that a simple reprint doesn't create a new copyright. Where the wiki page says: Consider this actual example for OS 2.5 inch map NZ25 (edition code B/): Made and published by the Director General of the Ordnance Survey, Chessington, 1954. Reprinted with corrections 1959. The date of first publication is by definition the stated date of publication and for this mapsheet is 1954 (not 1959, which indicates it is only a reprint made in 1959). Thus, for this mapsheet Crown Copyright will have expired at 24.00UTC December 31st 2004, even though it shows information correct as of 1959. ...then I believe it's wrong. It's not only a reprint made in 1959, it's a reprint with corrections, and if those corrections are substantial enough to be copyrightable, then a new copyright applies from 1959. The section in question was written by a contributor signing themselves Geo and with no other changes to the OSM wiki to their name. I'll update it. FWIW, I've always erred very much on the side of caution for the NPE scans, using 50 years after the last possible date as the cut-off. cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution
Michael Collinson wrote: I echo Tom's sentiment that www.openstreetmap.org/Attribution http://www.openstreetmap.org/Attribution would be a cleaner public link to present if possible. The shorter, the better (sometimes space is limited). So why not, with a small DNS change: openstreetmap.org/credit ? The www isn't needed if your DNS is set up right; everyone can see it's a web address anyway. And credit is shorter than attribution. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: OSM (Open Street Map) Creative Commons Licence 2.5 (CCL) versus GeoBase Unrestricted Use Licence Agreement (GeoBase licence)
Hello, I've been involved in some ongoing dialogue with Natural Resources, Government of Canada, who are keen for their National Road Network to be used by OSM. There are a few particularities of the license that need clarifying on OSM's party. Natural Resources are happy that OSM's current cc-by-sa license is fully compatible with their own licensing. I would appreciate input from the community here - do we agree with Natural Resources' interpretation of the license? If not can we give them some constructive feedback regarding their own license? If so, I'll move ahead with getting the data imported. See email below: Cheers, -- Forwarded message -- From: Séguin, Claude [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:19 PM Subject: RE: OSM (Open Street Map) Creative Commons Licence 2.5 (CCL) versus GeoBase Unrestricted Use Licence Agreement (GeoBase licence) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Good day Mr Black, Any news or comments following or answers to questions in regards of OSM Creative Commons Licence versus GeoBAse Unrestricted User Licence?? Claude Séguin Coordonnateur CITS Propriété Intellectuelle /CTIS Intellectual property coordinator Centre d'information topographique (CITS) / Centre for Topographic Information (CTIS) Ressources naturelles, Gouvernement du Canada / Natural Resources, Government of Canada 2144, rue King Ouest, bureau 010/2144, King Street West, suite 010, Sherbrooke, (Québec), J1J 2E8 Téléphone/Phone: (819) 564-5600 poste/ext. : 231 Courrier électronique/E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Équipe soutien aux usagers/Customer support group 1-800-661-2638 (Canada et É.-U.) / (Canada and U.S.) (819) 564-4857, Téléc. / Facsimile : (819) 564-5698 [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.cits.rncan.gc.ca / www.ctis.nrcan.gc.ca -Original Message- From: Nick Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 janvier, 2008 10:02 To: Séguin, Claude Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OSM (Open Street Map) Creative Commons Licence 2.5 (CCL) versus GeoBase Unrestricted Use Licence Agreement (GeoBase licence) Séguin, Many thanks for answering some of the concerns that the OSM community has about the license. I've passed on your email to the relevant people within the OpenStreetMap Foundation who I'm sure will be contacting you shortly - we are all very keen to get the GeoBase data into OSM. Best, On Jan 30, 2008 2:41 PM, Séguin, Claude [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To: Mr Nick Black Subject: 'Open Street Map Creative Commons Share Alike Licence' versus compatibility of 'GeoBase Unrestricted Use Licence Agreement' National Road Network data You have expressed concerns about the 'compatibility' between the GeoBase Unrestricted Use Licence Agreement (GeoBase licence) and the Creative Commons Share Alike 2.5 Licence (CCL) used for Open Street Map (OSM). This being a matter of concern for GeoBase, since the main reason for GeoBase is to provide data accessible as possible to users at no cost and closest to the source as possible. Following a review of the GeoBase license versus CCL for OSM users, we do not see any constraints that would prevent OSM users from downloading National Road Network (NRN) or any other type of data from the GeoBase portal and to use this data. We have found that the GeoBase licence is in some respects more 'User permissive' than the CCL. We have provided some comments below that should be of some assistance to you. Please note that this is Not a Legal Opinion and should you have any particular legal concerns in respect of your rights and obligations under the GeoBase license or the CCL, please contact your legal advisor for assistance. -1) Licence Grant (2.0) In paragraph 2, the agreement allows the Licensee to maintain IPRs over any derivatives from the use of the data. This is also very commendable, but not in the spirit of paragraph 1. Under section 2.1 of the GeoBase licence, the user receives broad rights in respect of the data, such as the right to use, incorporate, sublicense, modify, improve, further develop, distribute, manufacture and distribute derivative products from the data. Under section 2.2, the intellectual property rights arising from any modification, improvement, development, translation of data, or from the manufacture of derivative products effected by or for the Licensee will vest in the Licensee or in such person as the Licensee shall decide. It is up to the Licensee who made the modification or improvement to the data to decide downstream distribution of its product. 2) Protection and acknowledgment of source (3.0) - How would the sources be properly acknowledged? The GeoBase licence requires that proper acknowledgement of data
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] linz dataset for nz - attribution methods summary
On 08/04/2008, 80n [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if we are going to have an 'attribution' page on the wiki[1], with the fine print regarding sources of various chunks of data, would a link to it be possible, on the main map page? titled say 'data attribution' or 'data sources'? Have you got a definition of main map page? If the cycle map www.openstreetmap.org . the page with the map became more popular than the main site (generally, or in NZ) would the agreement you're after force its admins to add links? Or on well, osm don't control the cycle map (i think), but cc-by-sa says they have to attribute the data sources, so yes, under the terms of the license they have chosen to use, they must attribute. the other side, if you specify on www.openstreetmap.org what if the project renames? this is very htpotthetical, but it doesn't really matter - the point is to have a link to attribution data at the place where people view/download/whatever the data. if the map page changes, the link gets moved to the new map page Actually *every* published map that uses OSM data, including OSM's own maps must satisfy the attribution requirement. That's what the BY clause in the CC-BY-SA means. Anyone publishing OSM data must provide attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor is what Creative Commons actually says. The attribution page on the wiki at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attribution would seem like a simple and convenient way of achieving this. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: OSM (Open Street Map) Creative Commons Licence 2.5 (CCL) versus GeoBase Unrestricted Use Licence Agreement (GeoBase licence)
Robin Paulson wrote: have i missed something? i thought osm used Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license not Creative Commons Share Alike 2.5 Licence http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/OpenStreetMap_License I assume the name difference was just loose wording; all recent CC licences have included Attribution. It's no longer optional. The version difference may be a significant error; I haven't looked at diffs. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: OSM (Open Street Map) Creative Commons Licence 2.5 (CCL) versus GeoBase Unrestricted Use Licence Agreement (GeoBase licence)
On 08/04/2008, Nick Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I've been involved in some ongoing dialogue with Natural Resources, Government of Canada, who are keen for their National Road Network to be used by OSM. There are a few particularities of the license that need clarifying on OSM's party. Natural Resources are happy that OSM's current cc-by-sa license is fully compatible with their own licensing. I would appreciate input from the community here - do we agree with Natural Resources' interpretation of the license? If not can we give them some constructive feedback regarding their own license? If so, I'll move ahead with getting the data imported. ... Date: Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:19 PM Subject: RE: OSM (Open Street Map) Creative Commons Licence 2.5 (CCL) versus GeoBase Unrestricted Use Licence Agreement (GeoBase licence) You have expressed concerns about the 'compatibility' between the GeoBase Unrestricted Use Licence Agreement (GeoBase licence) and the Creative Commons Share Alike 2.5 Licence (CCL) used for Open Street Map (OSM). have i missed something? i thought osm used Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license not Creative Commons Share Alike 2.5 Licence http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/OpenStreetMap_License ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: OSM (Open Street Map) Creative Commons Licence 2.5 (CCL) versus GeoBase Unrestricted Use Licence Agreement (GeoBase licence)
Nick Black wrote: Hello, I've been involved in some ongoing dialogue with Natural Resources, Government of Canada, who are keen for their National Road Network to be used by OSM. There are a few particularities of the license that need clarifying on OSM's party. Natural Resources are happy that OSM's current cc-by-sa license is fully compatible with their own licensing. I would appreciate input from the community here - do we agree with Natural Resources' interpretation of the license? If not can we give them some constructive feedback regarding their own license? If so, I'll move ahead with getting the data imported. See email below: Cheers, -- Nick Black http://www.blacksworld.net Thanks for the update Nick. It's good to see some progress on this front, especially with 2 more provinces recently signing agreements that will place a much richer data set into Geobase later this year. I'm not sure if you are aware or not but I had started on an initial tool to import the Geobase data last fall, its in the SVN at http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/utils/import/geobase2osm/. I had started developing and testing against the NRN 2.0 data (which currently exists only for P.E.I.), but it should work with a few adjustments for the base NRN data that they are providing currently. If nobody has any qualms with the interpretation of the licenses it should be rather straight forward to move to the next step. We've recently started a talk-ca list for the Canadian users which would be a good place to start moving forward as there will be a number of places that the data that exists will be more thorough then geobase is, similar to what happened with TIGER in places. - Jason Reid Web Technical Administrator Faculty of Social Sciences University of Calgary Social Sciences 515 403-220-7903 - ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] CC-TV, ANPR GATSOs
Is anyone mapping the positioning of these devices in the UK? I don't yet have a GPS :o| Is there an easy guide on how to contribute? For those outside the UK, the UK is currently the most surveiled society in the world. ANPR is a network of automatic numberplate recognition cameras on all routes. All our journeys are logged and kept for two years. We also have more closed circuit cameras that all other countries. GATSOs are the Belgian made traffic speed cameras, which are used partly for safety and partly for revenue generation. Coming to most contries soon :o( ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Copyright and official documents on the web
Hello everyone, Have found evidence that a path I mapped yesterday has cycle rights: http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/southdowns/documents/MicrosoftWord1147-13-1.pdf (see section 6.7.1) Presumably I could tag this as highway=cycleway without there being a copyright issue? I would hope so, as this is not copied from a map - I have merely researched an official document to get the rights on the path. It's not tagged as cycleway yet, just as footway, but if people think it's OK I'll change to cycleway. Thanks, Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
Frederik Ramm wrote: Sent: 07 April 2008 1:52 AM To: Richard Fairhurst Cc: Talk Openstreetmap Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant Hi, If you simply use the ref tag to specify the road number, how would you then use the API to access all ways making up B4027? By using OSMXAPI: http://www.informationfreeway.org/api/0.5/way [ref=B4027] Which will omit anything tagged ref=B4027;B4028 or some such. Ok you said there shouldn't be any of those in the UK anyway so I guess you're fine... That the mainstream API doesn't do it is (if it's deemed useful) a deficiency in the API, not a reason to add duplicate data. I think it is a good idea to group objects that belong together in a relation. Ultimately I'd expect the relation to carry the ref=B4027 tag and to drop that tag from the ways contained therein. Makes a lot of sense from a data modelling viewpoint I think. I think its a leap of faith to think that we will even get to the position were the relationship alone holds the grouped data, such as ref. I see that there will always likely be duplication in this regard with the same information being held on the component parts as well as the relationship. I dont see this as a bad thing, the components may have equal applicability and use as the overall object, especially in different applications. Cheers Andy Agreed that we're not there yet but it is a good thing to aim at. I fully expect most ways to be part of one or more relations some time in the future so why not get used to it. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] linz dataset for nz - attribution methods summary
2008/4/3 Robert Vollmert [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I may be missing something, but why would we need to introduce a read- only attribution tag if we already have it? It's the source tag of the first version of an object, in http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/objtype/id/history fantastic. like it now, one more question: if we are going to have an 'attribution' page on the wiki[1], with the fine print regarding sources of various chunks of data, would a link to it be possible, on the main map page? titled say 'data attribution' or 'data sources'? [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attribution ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-TV, ANPR GATSOs
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Greg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is anyone mapping the positioning of these devices in the UK? I don't yet have a GPS :o| Is there an easy guide on how to contribute? For those outside the UK, the UK is currently the most surveiled society in the world. ANPR is a network of automatic numberplate recognition cameras on all routes. All our journeys are logged and kept for two years. We also have more closed circuit cameras that all other countries. GATSOs are the Belgian made traffic speed cameras, which are used partly for safety and partly for revenue generation. Coming to most contries soon :o( Be aware that wondering around taking pictures of CC-TV cameras is a very good way of getting yourself arrested :-( Police have a tendency to regard this as information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, and while you may be able to convince them you had a reasonable excuse I wouldn't count on it to avoid a lot of inconvenience. I know someone who had 5 police officers erase his camera for taking pictures of cc-tv around the south bank of the thames... which is technically illegal (erasing the pictures without due process), but did mean they then just let him go. You might have more luck with the speed cameras. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote: In the UK, road numbers are unique (apart from about three cases where local councils have cocked up, e.g. the B4027) This isn't entirely true - take, for example, the A31, which goes from Guildford to Winchester and then vanishes as it joins the M3. It then reappears on the Westerly end of the M27 and continues to the West (the A35 does a similar thing, as do quite a lot of other A roads). C roads, of course, are not unique (but their reference numbers tend not to be published). and no road can have more than one ref. I believe that might also be untrue. It doesn't excuse the use of relations though - multiple refs should be specified like: ref=Bfoo;Bbar The relation doesn't give any info over and above that in the standard 'ref' tags - it just increases complexity for both editing and processing. I agree entirely. Presumably the idea of the relation is to allow routing algorithms to rejoin ways which have been split, but this isn't necessary - if the end of 2 ways share the same node and they have the same ref then they can be rejoined. The existence of multiple non-adjacent roads with the same ref doesn't change this and the existence of multiple refs for the same road only adds a minor complication. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote: Which will omit anything tagged ref=B4027;B4028 or some such. Ok you said there shouldn't be any of those in the UK anyway so I guess you're fine... Then the API needs to be improved - we shouldn't be adding unnecessary data to work around deficiencies in the API. I think it is a good idea to group objects that belong together in a relation. Ultimately I'd expect the relation to carry the ref=B4027 tag and to drop that tag from the ways contained therein. Makes a lot of sense from a data modelling viewpoint I think. I am concerned that it adds complexity (which means there is more chance of human error). Complexity in some cases is unavoidable, but in this case I can't see a significant advantage over just tagging the ways and improving the API to allow searching for single values in multi-value tags. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Voting
Hi, stumbled across a quote by David D Clark (of Internet architecture fame) today. He said: We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code. Not that I'm into gurus and such but it's nice to see that I am not the only sane person on earth who doubts that formal voting processes are not necessarily the best thing to have ;-) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting
2008/4/7 Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED]: stumbled across a quote by David D Clark (of Internet architecture fame) today. He said: We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code. maybe someone should tell the government? apparently we're all wasting our time voting for them, and 'rough consensus' should be used to decide who's in power. did he have any basis for it, or was it just a nice pseudo-anarchic sound bite? Not that I'm into gurus and such but it's nice to see that I am not the only sane person on earth who doubts that formal voting processes are not necessarily the best thing to have ;-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
Hi, But this is kind of the point - if you are able to automatically create the relations (and presumably automatically fix them if someone makes the way tags inconsistent with the relation tags) with very little effort, is there a good reason to create them in the first place rather than deriving that data as and when you need it? I assume it will usually be easier to check a machine-readable relation than to compare tags. A grouping relation is a more abstract thing and can be used for other purposes (i.e. many ways might together make up the city bypass, but this might not depend on the road ref but on the road name). I assume that anyone working with the data in earnest will have to support relations anyway, so it seems unnecessary to ask them to also group by tags which involves finding out which tags to group by, which bounding box so search in, splitting tag values at semicolons etc. Rather than have one million systems implement their own ways of guessing what was meant, I'd like to put this explicitly in the database (or at least have *one* central system do the grouping consinstently). But this discussion is becoming much too theoretical. Let's just do what works. You use the ref tags on individual objects, and if at any point in time I see the need for relations generated on the basis of these then I can generate them. My original point why not get used to it now is perhaps the more important one; we're still very much at the beginning concerning relations and the more people get exposed to relations, the better we'll be able to work with them and use them productively. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Copyright and official documents on the web
This probably doesn't apply to Nicks question if he was out in the country, but I take the view that if I find a path that has 2m wide paved surface and it doesn't have a no cycling sign then I will generally give it a cycleway tag on the basis that clearly in practice it can be used as one. Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Allan Sent: 07 April 2008 11:22 AM To: Nick Whitelegg Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Copyright and official documents on the web I would view this as a citeable reference, as opposed to a copyright violation. Cheers, Andy On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Nick Whitelegg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello everyone, Have found evidence that a path I mapped yesterday has cycle rights: http://www.planning- inspectorate.gov.uk/southdowns/documents/MicrosoftWord1147-13-1.pdf (see section 6.7.1) Presumably I could tag this as highway=cycleway without there being a copyright issue? I would hope so, as this is not copied from a map - I have merely researched an official document to get the rights on the path. It's not tagged as cycleway yet, just as footway, but if people think it's OK I'll change to cycleway. Thanks, Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, David Earl wrote: And to take the A11/A14 example again, if the A11 in effect disappears where it is coincident with the A14, the A11 is discontinuous. I'm not sure why we need to treat the whole discontinuous A11 as a single road. In this example, as far as I can tell we have 2 roads called the A11 and a road joining them called the A14 - route planners can deal with this just the same as they can deal with A11 - A14 - A134. Route planners shouldn't be directing you along the A14 just because it happens to also be part of the A11 - they should be directing you down it because it is the best road to get you from A to B. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] linz dataset for nz - attribution methods summary
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 08:48:18PM +1200, Robin Paulson wrote: if we are going to have an 'attribution' page on the wiki[1], with the fine print regarding sources of various chunks of data, would a link to it be possible, on the main map page? titled say 'data attribution' or 'data sources'? Have you got a definition of main map page? If the cycle map became more popular than the main site (generally, or in NZ) would the agreement you're after force its admins to add links? Or on the other side, if you specify on www.openstreetmap.org what if the project renames? s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote: If it's done consistently, one can still create relations automatically later if desired. But this is kind of the point - if you are able to automatically create the relations (and presumably automatically fix them if someone makes the way tags inconsistent with the relation tags) with very little effort, is there a good reason to create them in the first place rather than deriving that data as and when you need it? - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-TV, ANPR GATSOs
Greg wrote: Is anyone mapping the positioning of these devices in the UK? I don't yet have a GPS :o| Is there an easy guide on how to contribute? For those outside the UK, the UK is currently the most surveiled society in the world. ANPR is a network of automatic numberplate recognition cameras on all routes. All our journeys are logged and kept for two years. We also have more closed circuit cameras that all other countries. GATSOs are the Belgian made traffic speed cameras, which are used partly for safety and partly for revenue generation. Coming to most contries soon :o( [Off topic I know - sorry] ANPR cameras are not on all routes, very far from it. All of our journeys are not logged. Many (most?) of the Gatso cameras that needed film didn't have film in them but many of the newer Truvelos are digital. They still only record an image if you exceed the speed limit. cheers, Chris ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Copyright and official documents on the web
I would view this as a citeable reference, as opposed to a copyright violation. Cheers, Andy On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Nick Whitelegg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello everyone, Have found evidence that a path I mapped yesterday has cycle rights: http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/southdowns/documents/MicrosoftWord1147-13-1.pdf (see section 6.7.1) Presumably I could tag this as highway=cycleway without there being a copyright issue? I would hope so, as this is not copied from a map - I have merely researched an official document to get the rights on the path. It's not tagged as cycleway yet, just as footway, but if people think it's OK I'll change to cycleway. Thanks, Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 11:46:10AM +0100, Steve Hill wrote: In this example, as far as I can tell we have 2 roads called the A11 and a road joining them called the A14 - route planners can deal with this just the same as they can deal with A11 - A14 - A134. Route planners shouldn't be directing you along the A14 just because it happens to also be part of the A11 - they should be directing you down it because it is the best road to get you from A to B. Our data's only for route planners? Suppose I wanted to walk the whole of the A34 while I was 34 as a charity gig? OK, that's contrived, but beware of arguments that apply to just one use-case (for what its worth, I'm undecided about if relations in this situation are brilliant or not brilliant). s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote: I assume it will usually be easier to check a machine-readable relation than to compare tags. Possibly. There may be cause for having machine generated relations which are kept up to date by the server when data is committed so the people editing the data don't need to care about them (such relations would need to be read-only and tagged in a way to make it clear they aren't normal editable relations). I think that'd be easier for people submitting the data than having to deal with these relations directly (which as you say, are only there for efficency reasons) In the end, moving *all* tags into relations might be the best thing to do, but I think the editors need a lot of work before that is a viable option. At the moment we have a rather confusing mix. it seems unnecessary to ask them to also group by tags which involves finding out which tags to group by, which bounding box so search in, splitting tag values at semicolons etc. Unless you can ensure that the relations exist on *all* appropriate objects, they will have to group by tags anyway. (And I don't believe you can ensure this without some automatic daemon fixing up the relations on all the data as it is submitted). Rather than have one million systems implement their own ways of guessing what was meant, I'd like to put this explicitly in the database (or at least have *one* central system do the grouping consinstently). This sounds sensible. But as mentioned, I think for it to be achieveable we either need a lot of improvement on the editors to make relations more obvious and intuitive, or we need some automatic stuff to generate the relations that can be unambiguously derived from other data. (Or both) I'm concerned that the data structure might be outpacing the editors too much and this could be raising the bar to entry for mappers. But this discussion is becoming much too theoretical. Well yeah, but sometimes it's good to bash theoretical ideas around to see what works. :) - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
Hi, I am concerned that it adds complexity (which means there is more chance of human error). Complexity in some cases is unavoidable, but in this case I can't see a significant advantage over just tagging the ways and improving the API to allow searching for single values in multi-value tags. If it's done consistently, one can still create relations automatically later if desired. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Richard Fairhurst wrote: | Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: | | If that is the case, then the relationship is essential to convey the | route of the A11 information. If the road just has 2 numbers, then it | isn't - just a semi-colon in the ref would do. | | But bearing in mind that this section _isn't_ the A11 and to tag it | as such is therefore wrong, then we map the facts on the ground - and | that's signage=A14 (A11). Of course, if you want to go round | tagging every single sign then good luck to you, but... It might not be the A11 from the point of view of who is in charge of maintaining it, but it is the A11 from the point of view of someone following the route of the A11 to get somewhere. Therefore it should be in a relationship as part of the A11, but should not be tagged ref=A11. If you tag it ref=A14 (A11), which may not be wrong, then when you ask OSMXAPI for ref=A14 or ref=A11, neither route will be complete. It just has to be a relationship. You can even tag the shared section's membership of the relationship as shared or something. Robert (Jamie) Munro -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH+gd0z+aYVHdncI0RAnUfAJ0Q7BbXpNUJ6bsadnYsWQXx0fW4IgCffbDU OEThxkdqgxx/hrnjqEtCwds= =q0te -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Stephen Gower wrote: Suppose I wanted to walk the whole of the A34 while I was 34 as a charity gig? Ok, either: 1. You have lots of ways tagged with ref=A34 2. You have lots of relations tagged with ref=A34, one for each discontinuous section of the road (which may be multiple ways) 3. You have a single relation tagged with ref=A34, containing all of the ways making up the A34, but with gaps where there are discontinuities. In the case of (1) the API needs some work to make it possible to search for single values in multivalue tags. You can then search for ref=A34 and get a list of ways back. For (2) you can search for ref=A34 and get a list of relations (and therefore a list of ways). For (3) you can search for ref=A34 and get a single relation (and therefore a list of ways). In all of these cases, there is nothing especially non-trivial. You might get a performance improvement from (2) and (3) since you don't have to parse so many tags (and the parsing isn't as complex since they only have a single value in the tag). But (3) doesn't seem to be better than (2). Whichever method you have taken, you end up with the same data - a list of ways with gaps in them where there are discontinuities. You must fill in those gaps yourself (e.g. using a routing algorithm) and OSM can't do this for you. Different people will have different preferences for how to fill in those gaps - car drivers may prefer motorways whilst you, on your walk, probably want a shortest-distance non-motorway route. You may even choose to reference third party data, such as land elevations to allow you to go around large hills instead of over them. OK, that's contrived, but beware of arguments that apply to just one use-case (for what its worth, I'm undecided about if relations in this situation are brilliant or not brilliant). Noted. But I still haven't seen any good explanation as to why we need the whole of a discontinuous road in a single relation. The only good reasoning I've seen for using relations at all is for performance and consistency reasons (which are good points, but I don't think that requires a discontinuous road in a single relation - if we stick to continuous roads in each relation then the relation generation can be automated, which would ensure consistency, reduce the scope for human error and make data submition easier.) - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting
On 7 Apr 2008, at 12:24, Robin Paulson wrote: 2008/4/7 Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED]: stumbled across a quote by David D Clark (of Internet architecture fame) today. He said: We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code. maybe someone should tell the government? apparently we're all wasting our time voting for them, and 'rough consensus' should be used to decide who's in power. Like, er, electing President Bush, or Prime Minister Gordon Brown (no election) ? did he have any basis for it, or was it just a nice pseudo-anarchic sound bite? Not that I'm into gurus and such but it's nice to see that I am not the only sane person on earth who doubts that formal voting processes are not necessarily the best thing to have ;-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] linz dataset for nz - attribution methods summary
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Stephen Gower [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 08:48:18PM +1200, Robin Paulson wrote: if we are going to have an 'attribution' page on the wiki[1], with the fine print regarding sources of various chunks of data, would a link to it be possible, on the main map page? titled say 'data attribution' or 'data sources'? Have you got a definition of main map page? If the cycle map became more popular than the main site (generally, or in NZ) would the agreement you're after force its admins to add links? Or on the other side, if you specify on www.openstreetmap.org what if the project renames? Actually *every* published map that uses OSM data, including OSM's own maps must satisfy the attribution requirement. That's what the BY clause in the CC-BY-SA means. Anyone publishing OSM data must provide attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor is what Creative Commons actually says. The attribution page on the wiki at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attribution would seem like a simple and convenient way of achieving this. 80n s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting
...or as Ken Livingstone said: If voting changed anything they'd abolish it. On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 4:57 AM, SteveC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7 Apr 2008, at 12:24, Robin Paulson wrote: 2008/4/7 Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED]: stumbled across a quote by David D Clark (of Internet architecture fame) today. He said: We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code. maybe someone should tell the government? apparently we're all wasting our time voting for them, and 'rough consensus' should be used to decide who's in power. Like, er, electing President Bush, or Prime Minister Gordon Brown (no election) ? did he have any basis for it, or was it just a nice pseudo-anarchic sound bite? Not that I'm into gurus and such but it's nice to see that I am not the only sane person on earth who doubts that formal voting processes are not necessarily the best thing to have ;-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk -- Tel: +44(0) 7814 517 807 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-TV, ANPR GATSOs
Martin Dodge is a researcher that about 5 years ago did some work on mapping CCTV in Bloomsbury London. I dont know exactly what did come from that, as I was only briefly involved in the data collection process. Might be worth having a chat with him. And no, we didnt get arrested or harrassed thankfully. http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/m.dodge/cybergeography//martin/martin.html Greg wrote: Is anyone mapping the positioning of these devices in the UK? I don't yet have a GPS :o| Is there an easy guide on how to contribute? For those outside the UK, the UK is currently the most surveiled society in the world. ANPR is a network of automatic numberplate recognition cameras on all routes. All our journeys are logged and kept for two years. We also have more closed circuit cameras that all other countries. GATSOs are the Belgian made traffic speed cameras, which are used partly for safety and partly for revenue generation. Coming to most contries soon :o( ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk begin:vcard fn:Patrick Weber n:Weber;Patrick org:University College London adr:;;Gower Street;London;;WC1E 6BT;United Kingdom email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Engineering Doctorate Student tel;work:02077185430 url:http://www.ucl.ac.uk/cemi version:2.1 end:vcard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Steve Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote: In the end, moving *all* tags into relations might be the best thing to do, but I think the editors need a lot of work before that is a viable option. At the moment we have a rather confusing mix. If I peer into my crystal ball, I can see physical attributes (width, surface, lanes) being on ways, and non-physical attributes (references, routes, even street names) moving to relations. Ways will end up being a connected series of nodes, ending where the properties change. That's just my hunch. But there's no hurry. We're short on developers, and documentation writers, and have a huge community to think about. There's no point in forcing the pace on this issue - our efforts would be better focussed on forcing the pace on actual mapping - there's still a staggering amount of streets to be mapped (even just considering Europe), regardless of how we tag them. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Robert (Jamie) Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Richard Fairhurst wrote: | Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: | | If that is the case, then the relationship is essential to convey the | route of the A11 information. If the road just has 2 numbers, then it | isn't - just a semi-colon in the ref would do. | | But bearing in mind that this section _isn't_ the A11 and to tag it | as such is therefore wrong, then we map the facts on the ground - and | that's signage=A14 (A11). Of course, if you want to go round | tagging every single sign then good luck to you, but... It might not be the A11 from the point of view of who is in charge of maintaining it, but it is the A11 from the point of view of someone following the route of the A11 to get somewhere. Therefore it should be in a relationship as part of the A11, but should not be tagged ref=A11. I hate to say it, but if it's not the A11 from the point of view of who is in charge of it, then it isn't the A11, and any route you generate will likely be fairly subjective. I think the failure here is in the assumption UK road refs represent routes, when it seems they don't, even if they sometimes look like they do. Other countries clearly have a different approach where use of a route relation is much more applicable. The difference probably isn't worth worrying about much, except to point out that relations aren't really necessary to model the UK's road refs even if they are desirable for other reasons. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: It might not be the A11 from the point of view of who is in charge of maintaining it, but it is the A11 from the point of view of someone following the route of the A11 to get somewhere. Therefore it should be in a relationship as part of the A11, but should not be tagged ref=A11. I'm not at all convinced that OSM should be making decisions as to what roads should be considered part of the A11 despite not *really* being part of it. However, if you want to do that, isn't this what the route= tag is for? ref= tags a physical entity, route= tags a logical route. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Audio sync with JOSM
Hello Talk I hope I am not making a fool of myself here, but. I have been attempting to do audio syncing in JOSM. That is where an audio recording will match up (in time) to a point within a trace. Try as I might I cannot get this to work. I have a series 60 smartphone and according to the wiki the audio and the trace should match up, but it does not. I am suspecting that the plug-in does NOT match up the time stamp of the start of the recording with the gpx trace itself. Am I right? If so, given that many GPS enabled smartphones etc. have recording capabilities, and therefore share the same clock, would it be possible to make this a feature request? Regards David Janda djanda ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution
At 02:55 PM 4/7/2008, Michael Collinson wrote: At 02:19 PM 4/7/2008, 80n wrote: Up to now there has not been any official guidance on how to comply with the attribution clause of our CC-BY-SA license. This means that people either try to do something that they hope is acceptable or they do nothing. Some of OSM's own outputs fall into the latter category (for example, the API and the planet dump) which sets a bad example for others. At the very least we should be providing advice and guidance on how users of the data can comply with the attribution requirement when they publish OSM data. I'd like to propose that we make the following statement: If you publish OpenStreetMap data you can satisfy the attribution requirement of the license by linking to or referencing http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attributionhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attribution; Discuss. Excellent. Simple therefore workable. I echo Tom's sentiment that www.openstreetmap.org/Attribution would be a cleaner public link to present if possible. Frederick's comment answered separately. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-TV, ANPR GATSOs
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Stefan Baebler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: excuse I wouldn't count on it to avoid a lot of inconvenience. I know someone who had 5 police officers erase his camera for taking pictures of cc-tv around the south bank of the thames... which is technically illegal (erasing the pictures without due process), but did mean they then just let him go. Not to mention it is also highly inefficient unless done properly :) 1 or 10 officers would probably make no difference. :-) If you watched any of the torch protest in london yesterday, then you'll know the met police are very good at forming rings round things... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dave Stubbs wrote: | On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Robert (Jamie) Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- | Hash: SHA1 | | Richard Fairhurst wrote: | | | Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: | | | | If that is the case, then the relationship is essential to convey the | | route of the A11 information. If the road just has 2 numbers, then it | | isn't - just a semi-colon in the ref would do. | | | | But bearing in mind that this section _isn't_ the A11 and to tag it | | as such is therefore wrong, then we map the facts on the ground - and | | that's signage=A14 (A11). Of course, if you want to go round | | tagging every single sign then good luck to you, but... | | It might not be the A11 from the point of view of who is in charge of | maintaining it, but it is the A11 from the point of view of someone | following the route of the A11 to get somewhere. Therefore it should be | in a relationship as part of the A11, but should not be tagged ref=A11. | | I hate to say it, but if it's not the A11 from the point of view of | who is in charge of it, then it isn't the A11, and any route you | generate will likely be fairly subjective. It's not subjective, it is officially signed - the signs say A14 (A11). This happens all over the place in the UK A roads network. Going back on topic, fundamentally, I can't see how you can argue that it is wrong to connect all the ways forming a large numbered road with a relationship, which seems to be what Richard is arguing. It seems to me that it is exactly what relationships are for. Robert (Jamie) Munro -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH+ibsz+aYVHdncI0RAiAxAKCAhocz62EgTHZCKF3Z/6EF6D2yjgCg29c2 ngicRCABnBM0n6gh6FPuA4g= =+owL -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Audio sync with JOSM
David, Have you read the Help at http://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/HowTo/AudioMapping ? The syncing isn't automatic - you have to indicate one point where in your audio corresponds to where in your gps track. The clocks on the two systems will rarely be precisely in sync - and in any case, not all voice recorders time stamp the recordings (mine doesn't). I also strongly recommend you check that the duration of your recording is accurate - see the section on calibration. David On 07/04/2008 14:17, David Janda wrote: Hello Talk I hope I am not making a fool of myself here, but. I have been attempting to do audio syncing in JOSM. That is where an audio recording will match up (in time) to a point within a trace. Try as I might I cannot get this to work. I have a series 60 smartphone and according to the wiki the audio and the trace should match up, but it does not. I am suspecting that the plug-in does NOT match up the time stamp of the start of the recording with the gpx trace itself. Am I right? If so, given that many GPS enabled smartphones etc. have recording capabilities, and therefore share the same clock, would it be possible to make this a feature request? Regards David Janda djanda ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Audio sync with JOSM
Daviud, Have you read the Help at http://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/HowTo/AudioMapping ? The syncing isn't automatic - you have to indicate one point where in your audio corresponds to where in your gps track. The clocks on the two systems will rarely be precisely in sync - and in any case, not all voice recorders time stamp the recordings (mine doesn't). I also strongly recommend you check that the duration of your recording is accurate - see the section on calibration. David On 07/04/2008 14:17, David Janda wrote: Hello Talk I hope I am not making a fool of myself here, but. I have been attempting to do audio syncing in JOSM. That is where an audio recording will match up (in time) to a point within a trace. Try as I might I cannot get this to work. I have a series 60 smartphone and according to the wiki the audio and the trace should match up, but it does not. I am suspecting that the plug-in does NOT match up the time stamp of the start of the recording with the gpx trace itself. Am I right? If so, given that many GPS enabled smartphones etc. have recording capabilities, and therefore share the same clock, would it be possible to make this a feature request? Regards David Janda djanda ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Tom Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Tom Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would certainly prefer that people using our data provide a link to www.openstreetmap.org or the top level wiki index page as that would do a better job of advertising our project to people that follow the attribution link, which is surely the whole point of us wanting attribution. The purpose of this is not advertisement of the OSM project. It is so that users can comply with the terms of our license - users of our data have an obligation to provide attribution. The point is that CC-BY-SA allows us to specify a URL that people must quote as attribution when using our work. You are trying to use that requirement as a way to ensure that people link to a page that passes on any nested attribution requirements that come from data we import. It's not a requirement, its an option. It is however a requirement that *all* publishers of OSM data satisfy any attribution requirements imposed by contributors. At the moment there is no easy way for them to do this and without such a way, it is not easy for potential data contributors to believe that we can satisfy their attribution requirements. I would prefer to use that requirement as a way to advertise our project to people that get works derived from our data. Trying to achieve both aims is obviously the ultimate goal, but it is not an easy thing to do. Agreed, it is not easy to achieve either of these goals. It is harder if we try to make it more complicated than need be. This proposal is about one thing only - attribution. Lets not confuse it with other requirements about publicity etc. which will just make it more complicated and much harder. As Richard says however, it's a bit silly to do anything now when the license may be changing anyway. In what way will the new license affect our attribution obligations? Attribution is the only part of the current license that is not at issue. Tom -- Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert (Jamie) Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not subjective, it is officially signed - the signs say A14 (A11). This happens all over the place in the UK A roads network. I can see why this is confusing. But the identification number A11 is shown in that case because it is indicating the direction you would go to get to the A11, but you have to turn off the A14 to get to it. For instance, near me there are signs showing how to get to the M27 on the A36 - but no-one could say that the road is also the M27. If you look at the documentation for this it makes clear the distinction - for instance http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm Identification numbers of routes to which a particular route leads shall be shown in brackets. So in this case, the sign to which you are referring is saying this is the A14 leading to the A11. It is not also the A11 as you imply. HTH Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Audio sync with JOSM
On 07/04/2008 15:22, David Earl wrote: If so, given that many GPS enabled smartphones etc. have recording capabilities, and therefore share the same clock, would it be possible to make this a feature request? I didn't reply to this bit, sorry. Yes, this would be possible. I think you'll find they don't use the same clock though - the GPS clock has to be much more accurate and is run off the atomic clocks in the satellite while the audio clock (set in the phone) is probably set by you on the phone settings, and will probably drift apart over time. It is always possible that the track recorder will use the device clock not the GPS clock to record its waypoints, in which case they will be in sync of course. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: It's not subjective, it is officially signed - the signs say A14 (A11). This happens all over the place in the UK A roads network. Don't road numbers in brackets generally mean leads to rather than part of? I can't see how you can argue that it is wrong to connect all the ways forming a large numbered road with a relationship, which seems to be what Richard is arguing. It seems to me that it is exactly what relationships are for. I'm not sure anyone is saying it is wrong, merely unnecessary and prone to causing confusion/errors. The fact that there is some disagreement here about _what_ should be part of a relation shows that this stuff isn't really clear cut. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Audio sync with JOSM
Ah, now I see. I do think that sync via creation date would be a good idea, and in my case where I make multiple recordings it would be marvellous. But like you said, even with a smartphone, they *could* be using different clocks, but a feature still worth implementing. Once a user is aware that the onus is down to them to ensure the device clock is correct, then drift will be down to them, and with network time updates this *should* not be a real problem. David Janda djanda -Original Message- From: David Earl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 07 April 2008 15:40 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Audio sync with JOSM On 07/04/2008 15:22, David Earl wrote: If so, given that many GPS enabled smartphones etc. have recording capabilities, and therefore share the same clock, would it be possible to make this a feature request? I didn't reply to this bit, sorry. Yes, this would be possible. I think you'll find they don't use the same clock though - the GPS clock has to be much more accurate and is run off the atomic clocks in the satellite while the audio clock (set in the phone) is probably set by you on the phone settings, and will probably drift apart over time. It is always possible that the track recorder will use the device clock not the GPS clock to record its waypoints, in which case they will be in sync of course. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
Steve Hill wrote: Don't road numbers in brackets generally mean leads to rather than part of? [...] I'm not sure anyone is saying it is wrong, merely unnecessary and prone to causing confusion/errors. +1. Relations are for doing things that can't otherwise be done, or done well. But where there's something that already works well (ref tags), let's not confuse newcomers by requiring them to learn yet another thing. cheers Richard___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Audio sync with JOSM
On 07/04/2008 15:49, David Janda wrote: Ah, now I see. I do think that sync via creation date would be a good idea, and in my case where I make multiple recordings it would be marvellous. If you're making multiple recordings you might want to look at option 3 on the help page in more detail. I refer to additional software to merge the audio links into the GPX file, but in practice this is probably just a text editing job - locating the GPX point nearest your audio time stamp, creating the appropriate waypoint XML structure and adding it into the file. Does your device let you have a one-button operation to add a waypoint and a simultaneous voice note? I wonder whether the following might also be useful: if you selected a folder at the import audio stage, to have JOSM make audio markers for each WAV file in the folder at points on the GPX track determined by the file creation dates. We could allow for an offset in the clocks by a sync in the same way as now, but apply it across all the markers, not just those with a common audio source. But like you said, even with a smartphone, they *could* be using different clocks, but a feature still worth implementing. Once a user is aware that the onus is down to them to ensure the device clock is correct, then drift will be down to them, and with network time updates this *should* not be a real problem. Indeed - an error of less than about 0.5 seconds is not going to matter on a bike - that's typically less than 3m and much less than the inaccuracy of the GPS fix. I wrote the audio stuff primarily with a dictaphone in mind, rather than a networked device. The more I learn about what other kinds of device can do in practice, the more I can tailor this interface. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Audio sync with JOSM
Does your device let you have a one-button operation to add a waypoint and a simultaneous voice note? Alas not. It's a Nokia N95. But it does allow for easy audio recording. I wonder whether the following might also be useful: if you selected a folder at the import audio stage, to have JOSM make audio markers for each WAV file in the folder at points on the GPX track determined by the file creation dates. We could allow for an offset in the clocks by a sync in the same way as now, but apply it across all the markers, not just those with a common audio source. Bingo. THAT would do the job and cater for any drift! I wrote the audio stuff primarily with a dictaphone in mind, rather than a networked device. The more I learn about what other kinds of device can do in practice, the more I can tailor this interface. Well I for one would be a happy man with such a feature. As said, my N95 does not do waypoint marking, and neither does my external Bluetooth data logger which I use with the N95. But being able to sync with audio by file creation would be a bonus. You see, looking at an earlier thread re speed cameras etc an audio note can be, er, how should I put it, more discrete than photo tagging. David djanda ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Audio sync with JOSM
If you're making multiple recordings you might want to look at option 3 on the help page in more detail. I refer to additional software to merge the audio links into the GPX file, but in practice this is probably just a text editing job - locating the GPX point nearest your audio time stamp, creating the appropriate waypoint XML structure and adding it into the file. Just a quick note, Tim and myself are working on changes to GpsEventSync to include the capability to put the 'link' tag into the output gpx file which will make a clickable audio icon appear in JOSM when loaded. Primarily this is for use with Manauton, but should work when time stamp is taken from file time/date stamp. Cheers, Mungewell. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
I'm firmly with Richard so far on this discussion. On one of the issues, Robert, your understanding of what A14 (A11) means seems very different to mine. If I understand you correctly, you're arguing the road should be tagged A11 because it has signs saying (A11) on it, meaning that it's part of at A11 route. As I understand it the sign says (A11) only because the road leads to the A11. Thus many other roads that lead to the A11 will have (A11) marked on signs, which do not fill a gap between two roads that are *actually* the A11, but just lead to a junction with the A11. eg: A14 | | A11--+ | | ++---A11 || || A14 B(A11) This B road is not in any sense part of the A11, but could have signs saying (A11). The direction signs link at http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/Signsandmarkings/index.htm states the following: Motorways shown in brackets can also be reached along the route indicated. Thus a slip road onto the M23 northbound could have a sign with M23 (M25) on it. In no sense is the M23 part of the M25, nor should it ever be tagged as such, nor included in a relation as such. Signs next to the carriageway away from junctions are just confirmation signs of which route you are on, and road references in brackets are still merely indicating that the route you are on leads to that road. I still don't understand the need to have a single contiguous relation for the A11. The A11 isn't contiguous. You could make a route relation, but I'm unsure of it's value. Dave Message: 6 Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:51:43 +0100 From: Robert (Jamie) Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant It's not subjective, it is officially signed - the signs say A14 (A11). This happens all over the place in the UK A roads network. Going back on topic, fundamentally, I can't see how you can argue that it is wrong to connect all the ways forming a large numbered road with a relationship, which seems to be what Richard is arguing. It seems to me that it is exactly what relationships are for. Robert (Jamie) Munro ___ Yahoo! For Good helps you make a difference http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] anonymous contributions still allowed ?
Richard Fairhurst wrote: It's only Potlatch that prohibits such edits. JOSM and the main API permit them. Can we please agree to stop doing that, and then turn off the capability? It's just storing up trouble for later, when and if we want to make licence-related changes... Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] anonymous contributions still allowed ?
Hi, Can we please agree to stop doing that, and then turn off the capability? It's just storing up trouble for later, when and if we want to make licence-related changes... No it's not. The information on who did what is in the database, and always has been. It's just that unless you're public, only the admins can see it. So it will not add to the amount of trouble we're going to have with a license change. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] linz dataset for nz - attribution methods summary
On 08/04/2008, 80n [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if we are going to have an 'attribution' page on the wiki[1], with the fine print regarding sources of various chunks of data, would a link to it be possible, on the main map page? titled say 'data attribution' or 'data sources'? Have you got a definition of main map page? If the cycle map www.openstreetmap.org . the page with the map became more popular than the main site (generally, or in NZ) would the agreement you're after force its admins to add links? Or on well, osm don't control the cycle map (i think), but cc-by-sa says they have to attribute the data sources, so yes, under the terms of the license they have chosen to use, they must attribute. the other side, if you specify on www.openstreetmap.org what if the project renames? this is very htpotthetical, but it doesn't really matter - the point is to have a link to attribution data at the place where people view/download/whatever the data. if the map page changes, the link gets moved to the new map page Actually *every* published map that uses OSM data, including OSM's own maps must satisfy the attribution requirement. That's what the BY clause in the CC-BY-SA means. Anyone publishing OSM data must provide attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor is what Creative Commons actually says. The attribution page on the wiki at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attribution would seem like a simple and convenient way of achieving this. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Mapnik PointSymbolizer question
Hello, Does anyone know if it is possible in Mapnik to place a PointSymbolizer at some offset from the point instead of centering the image above the point. Thanks, Steven ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] linz dataset for nz - attribution methods summary
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Robin Paulson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 08/04/2008, 80n [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if we are going to have an 'attribution' page on the wiki[1], with the fine print regarding sources of various chunks of data, would a link to it be possible, on the main map page? titled say 'data attribution' or 'data sources'? Have you got a definition of main map page? If the cycle map www.openstreetmap.org . the page with the map became more popular than the main site (generally, or in NZ) would the agreement you're after force its admins to add links? Or on well, osm don't control the cycle map (i think), but cc-by-sa says they have to attribute the data sources, so yes, under the terms of the license they have chosen to use, they must attribute. Well, it links to www.openstreetmap.org. I'd have considered that enough, especially if that page contains further attribution information. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 44, Issue 6
2008/4/3 David Ebling [EMAIL PROTECTED]: True, I acknowledge that, but requiring two seperate attributions for OSM data is going to be confusing to people who use the data. So far we have managed to get by on just one attribution. .. It changes the attribution which all data derived from OSM (where NZ is involved) must display to one which is considerably longer. At the moment you can just put (c)openstreetmap CC-by-SA in the bottom corner of a map, right? Won't all derivations and derivations of derivations have two licences and attributions applied to it, even if they are compatible? The fact that we can provide a set-up on the OSM home page that meets LINZ's requirements is one thing. Whether everyone who ever uses the data in future wants to have to display LINZ's copyright is another matter, and the one that concenrs me more. this is a very good point. does someone using the data need to attribute every source, no matter how many steps distant from the original data they are? or if someone uses OSM data, can they just attribute back to osm, and suggest users go to osm to find out the details of the contributors? i guess the answer is yes to the first question, no to the second. but that's the consequence of using cc-by-sa. if a license is chosen, it should be supported - we can't then complain it's too hard to implement, and the same goes for anyone else that uses osm data down the line Imagine if we import data for many counries in the world, each with an extra attribution. Now imagine if I print a map and put it on a leaflet, incorporate the data or a map into some software, etc etc. There may not be easy attribution schemes that meet all the possible uses of OSM data. several options: 1. research the origin of the data you are using, and attribute these only - this wouldn't be too difficult with the api history that someone mentioned earlier 2. quote all the sources to be sure/save time, which may or may not be practical If we carry on down this path and keep adding attribution requirements, we will end up with a map that meets this description: maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical restrictions on their use, holding back people from using them in creative, productive or unexpected ways. Does that sound familiar? It's things like this that make me wish that OSM was public domain not CC-by-SA. Unfortunately I know this will never happen. well, they're not being held back - they have to include some text to acknowledge the work of others. compared to the license on the data of professional map companies, this is incredibly unconstrained etc. As soon as the dataset is imported, it will begin to be merged with OSM data. Removing it again will mean deleting peoples' hard work. So I believe we should be in no rush whatsoever to go ahead, even if we have agreement from LINZ with the proposed solution. very true, retracted ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote: | Frederik Ramm wrote: | Sent: 07 April 2008 1:52 AM | To: Richard Fairhurst | Cc: Talk Openstreetmap | Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant | | Hi, | | If you simply use the ref tag to specify the road number, how would | you then use the API to access all ways making up B4027? | By using OSMXAPI: http://www.informationfreeway.org/api/0.5/way | [ref=B4027] | Which will omit anything tagged ref=B4027;B4028 or some such. Ok you | said there shouldn't be any of those in the UK anyway so I guess | you're fine... | | That the mainstream API doesn't do it is (if it's deemed useful) a | deficiency in the API, not a reason to add duplicate data. | I think it is a good idea to group objects that belong together in a | relation. Ultimately I'd expect the relation to carry the ref=B4027 | tag and to drop that tag from the ways contained therein. Makes a lot | of sense from a data modelling viewpoint I think. | | I think it’s a leap of faith to think that we will even get to the position | were the relationship alone holds the grouped data, such as ref. I see that | there will always likely be duplication in this regard with the same | information being held on the component parts as well as the relationship. I | don’t see this as a bad thing, the components may have equal applicability | and use as the overall object, especially in different applications. IMHO Data duplication is a really bad idea. It will get out of sync, and some renderings will show one version, others will show others. Use of relations allows us to reduce duplication. Robert (Jamie) Munro -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH+q7fz+aYVHdncI0RAqUDAJ9FN90vbUPb6z94JN4EfrAgYI/mNgCcCP+F aZVjVTsX3mqEgdm0OeORZhA= =hQce -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Voting
Frederik Ramm schrieb: Hi, stumbled across a quote by David D Clark (of Internet architecture fame) today. He said: We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code. Not that I'm into gurus and such but it's nice to see that I am not the only sane person on earth who doubts that formal voting processes are not necessarily the best thing to have ;-) Hmmm, you and some other guys effectively sabotaged voting several times. Did you noticed the side effect, that most of the discussion about the proposals almost stopped completely - leading up to almost NO IMPROVEMENTS to the mess of proposals we have. This will certainly help everyone a lot, thank you! Just ignoring the current mess we have in the map features caused in the years past (e.g. no one seemed to care about documenting the features - leading to a LOT OF confusion), sabotaging an actually working voting process to more or less quickly find decisions about how to improve stuff and NOT providing a better way of improving the current situation is, well, strange. You're queueing up to the long list of people just telling us how to not do things, but you also know that we already have enough of those people ... Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] Darstellung von Getränkemärkten
Christoph Eckert wrote: Hallo ist doch schonmal fein. Man könnte noch ein note= oder comment= dranhängen. Ich kenne keine Möglichkeit, dass graphisch die notes hervorgehoben werden (Karte, JOSM). Wenn es sowas gibt, wäre das natürlich sinnvoll zu verwenden. OK. Es gibt immer noch grep. Was wir hier treiben ist ein Hobby. Jeder macht das, wozu er Lust und Laune hat. Woher die Motivation jedes einzelnen dazu kommt kann ich natürlich nicht wissen. Wenn jemand nur einträgt was auch gerendert wird ist das ja auch in Ordnung. Andererseits ist der Umkehrschluss, nämlich dass man nur eintragen darf was in Map Features steht bzw. auch gerendert wird bekanntlich nicht richtig. Hier stimme ich dir auch zu. Ich habe geschrieben: Also ich hätte nicht die Nerven, viel Arbeit auf gut Glück reinzustellen. (Zitat Ende) D.h. nicht dass ich dagegen bin, dass es jemand tut, sondern es heißt, dass ICH eher Symbole zweckentfremden würde und dafür im Namen klar kennzeichnen. Ich weiß nicht, wie du die Karten druckst, aber wenn du die Lösungen vom Thread mit dem Betreff: [Talk-de] Ausdrucken aufgeteilt auf A4-Seiten nimmst, dann läuft es darauf aus, dass nur gedruckt wird, was offiziell im proposal steckt. Jain. Eigentlich sind die Daten ja dazu da, dass man sich einen beliebigen selbstgestalteten Druck erzeugen kann. In einem solchen Druckwerk kann man dann plötzlich auch Daten verwenden, die man mit privaten Tags versehen hat, die in keiner Liste auftauchen. Da es allerdings bisher keine Endanwendersoftware gibt, mit der man sowas leicht bewerkstelligen kann, werden natürlich die fertigen Mapnik oder osmarander-Karten genommen. IMO ist das aber nur eine temporäre Krücke, bis wir was besseres haben. Freu mich schon darauf, wenn es soweit ist. Wollte es mal mit einem selber installierten Mapnik probieren, aber dazu hat mir die Geduld gefehlt (bekam recht schnell eine Fehlermeldung. Aber nochmals: Ich will niemanden verbieten, private Tags zu verwenden. Jeder soll, sofern er kein passendes proposed feature findet, es so machen, wie er es für richtig hält. MfG Stefan ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] Benutzung von FIXME (Re: Darstellu ng von Getränkemärkten )
Am Montag, 7. April 2008 07:11 schrieb Christoph Eckert: Moin, Das habe ich schon verstanden. Ich würde hingegen bevorzugen: * Proposal * Sofern vorhanden, passenstes auswählen und im name kommentieren. Also im konkreten Fall: shop-supermarket - name Getränkemarkt ExampleDrink ist doch schonmal fein. Man könnte noch ein note= oder comment= 'dranhängen. Ich versehe, Sachen die ich gerne im OSM haben möchte, aber für die es zur Zeit keine Einigung gibt immer mit einem note=FIXME text, also in deinem Fall z.B. note=FIXME Ist ein Getränkemarkt oder note=FIXME Kindergarten oder (wenn das GPS Signal auf einem Waldweg ausgesetzt hat, und ich den Weg teilweise erraten habe) note=FIXME ungenau, kann etwas anders liegen Deutsche FIXMEs nutze ich üblicherweise natürlich nur im deutschen Gebiet. Die FIXMEs können recht einfach mit dem validator gefunden werden und man behält einfach den Überblick, was alles noch mit einem Tag versehen werden sollte. Gruß Sven ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Darstellung von Getränkemärkten
ich tagge punkte generell nach dem gpsdrive-schema, fuege aber oft noch ein zusaetzliches osm-bekanntes tag ein (auch wenns nicht ganz passend ist), damit's in osm zumindest angezeigt wird... Das klingt sinnvoll; gibt es irgendwo eine Übersicht über das gpsdrive-Schema? Grüßle, Berni -- -- Schau doch mal wieder bei CrocoPuzzle rein. (www.croco-puzzle.com) ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Bericht von der FOSSGIS
Sven Geggus wrote: Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Die neue Lizenz soll Dich in diesem Fall dazu bringen, die verbesserten Daten freizugeben, waehrend Du mit dem Shirt machen kannst, was Du willst - das nuetzt dem Projekt mehr. Nur ob ich es richtig verstanden habe. Die neue Lizenz schreibt vor: Wenn jemand die Karte ausdruckt und schnell mit Hand etwas einzeichnet (z.B. da ist die Bücherei / Pizzeria, was auch immer), dann MUSS er das händisch skizzierte auch auf die Homepage eintragen? Falls das wirklich so ist, wäre mir die Lizenz zu unfrei. (Natuerlich ist ein Lizenzwechsel nicht moeglich, ohne dass jeder einzelne Mitautor, also ihr alle, einverstanden ist. Irgendwann kommt der grosse Tag, wo eine Rundmail an alle geht...) Und wenn einer der Autoren inzwischen tot ist, muss mit dem Notar / Erben verhandelt werden. Das Urheberrecht verliert man nicht durch Mehrheitsentscheidung. Außer natürlich in der Lizenz ist es explizit geregelt, dass sie mit Mehrheitsentscheidung geändert werden darf. Genau so habe ich mir das vorgestellt. Der Lizenzwechsel wird also niemals stattfinden können. Nun es gäbe die Möglichkeit, dass die neue Lizenz nur für neue Wege gilt. Da zumindest in meiner Gegend noch sehr viel fehlt, würde das auch schon einiges bewirken. MfG Stefan ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] Bad Honnef am 31.5., hat jemand Zeit?
Bzgl. Reisekosten vermute ich ehr nicht-die Veranstaltung an sich ist ja kostenlos(ausschliesslich Verpflegung und Übernachtung sofern erforderlich) Zu der Veranstaltung bilden sich Erfahrungsgemäss viele Fahrgemeinschaften aus ganz Deutschland und dem benachbarten Ausland. Vielleicht kommt das ja für Dich in Frage? Aus welcher Gegend kommst Du den? Gruss Garry ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Freibad
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hallo René, Rene Hertzfeldt schrieb: | Dabei bin ich auf ein Problem gestossen. Ich finde kein Zeichen (Tag) | fuer Freibad oder Spassbad. | Es gibt zwar ein Schwimmbad, allerdings moechte ich keine Baeder als | Schwimmbad taggen, die nicht die Moeglichkeit bieten in Bahnen zu | schwimmen, also wirklich zu trainieren. Gibt es da schon eine | Vorgehensweise? Wie wäre es mit leisure=water_park ? Grüße, Michi -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) iD8DBQFH+n9EKmk3pLlDYV4RAidvAJ9H8AjrOLENUfvTvV6F3fUR3veyMACfeqXa EqeavMYRZSOeYp6xTuGwsU8= =tjUw -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Winkeltool, Talk-de Digest, Vol 21, Issue 28
Hallo, (hoechstens um die Zeit der Software-Entwicklers). Erstmal nicht. Die wird erst benötigt, wenn man zu der Entscheidung kommt, dass die Implementierung eines Konzepts Vorteile bringen würde. Solange kostet es nur den Teilnehmern hier in der Liste ihre wertvolle Zeit. Grüsse Hubert, der es nicht lassen kann, auf diese flapsigen Seitenhiebe zu reagieren ;) -- GMX startet ShortView.de. Hier findest Du Leute mit Deinen Interessen! Jetzt dabei sein: http://www.shortview.de/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] lettre aux collectivités locales
2008/4/6 Marc Quinton [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 2008/4/5 Marc Quinton [EMAIL PROTECTED]: comme promis, voici un premier jet de la lettre aux collectivités locales. voici l'adresse du document ; quand il sera prêt, il faudra le lier sur le Wiki. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Lettre_aux_elus pas très facile de trouver le juste mot sans se répéter tout en restant compréhensible mais convaincant. je viens d'ajouter une seconde lettre que je considère comme manuscrite à joindre à la première qui sera elle imprimée. Cette fois-ci, je pense qu'on touche le but. La lettre manuscrite est plus intime, le document imprimé est plus officiel, descriptif. J'espère que vous aurez compris mon intention. Je pense que je vais utiliser ces documents d'ici quelque temps, je vous ferai part de mon expérience; Il serait très bien de lister les collectivités répondant favorablement ou pas a ces demandes. Est-ce qu'on doit montrer de l'index, je ne pense pas, cela doit rester très cordial. ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [Talk-us] braided streets
I've done this before by: For two split roads intersecting, I make all 4 ways intersect with nodes. For one split road intersecting with one non-split road, I make 2 nodes for the intersection. Does that make sense? On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Alan Millar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so I see that braided streets are 'officially' a problem http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/TIGER_fixup Interesting. Looking at Google Street View, it looks like these are divided streets with an island or restriction running down the middle. It appears the Tiger data has separate segments for each side, with intersection nodes where there is a break in the island. AFAIK Tiger doesn't have the concept of ways like we do; it just has the short segments. I expect that our script takes Tiger segments and assembles them into longer ways. In this case, it appears our script didn't know which segments went with which logical ways. anyone have a good way of fixing them? I'm happy to have a go in SF. With 165 streets like that listed on the wiki, I wouldn't want to edit them by hand myself. And those listed are just in SF. I suspect the problem may exist elsewhere also. I think deleting them and re-uploading them with the script might be worthwhile, if there could be some more discrimination or constraints. I could see it being tricky, though. I can imagine a script that goes through the two ways and identifies the average angle of the street, and swaps node membership in the ways to match which side it should be on. Perhaps Dave Hansen has some insight on the Tiger upload script. Another question is what do we want to do with the intersections? Should it be a single node, or two nodes? I just dealt with this at: http://informationfreeway.org/?lat=45.553593680216935lon=-122.68115036884754zoom=17layers=B000F000F In this case it is a split street with light rail tracks down the middle. I made it three nodes where the two directions of the street and the tracks cross the perpendicular street. Although logically it is one intersection, I think it looks better on the map this way. - Alan ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-us
