Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi! Ed Loach schrieb: As I think someone else pointed out, if it is abusable then we could abuse it and not lose any data with the switch. Yep, we would just loose the people and the credibility. This could only be considerd a last resort for data of people that still cannot be reached after trying really hard. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
I wrote: As I think someone else pointed out, if it is abusable then we could abuse it and not lose any data with the switch. And before the flood of emails - I forgot the smiley. I'm sure I read somewhere lots of suggestions about what would happen to various items based on whether the people who created it/amended it agreed to the new licence or not, but can't find where. Was it in the wiki or on an email list? Can anyone remember. Anyway, I don't understand all these legal aspects. I joined the project to help improve the map and will continue to do so whether the licence changes or not, hoping that those people who do know what they are talking about are acting in the best interest of the project. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
Ian Dees schrieb: On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:51 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com mailto:st...@asklater.com wrote: I asked the CM designers for some quick hacks on what different front pages could look like which you can see on the wiki page below. There are some very quick ideas there but it's not a full picture by a long way. To get some conversation going: I really like the Fp4.jpg[1] example on the URL you gave, Steve. It's important to make the map (and thus its data) the largest GUI element on the page. The buttons along the top draw my eye up there to see what's available. I also like the Shop link idea. After looking at all of the examples, Fp4.jpg seems to be the one that is the simplest and most eye-catching. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Fp4.jpg I also like that. Unfortunately i can´t find a link to the wiki :-) I think the wiki is very important and must get a big link. I also like Fp1.jpg because of the news section. I would change Edit to Edit Map! Jonas ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] problem compilint mod_tile under debian etch
On Tuesday 03 March 2009 12:48:43 you wrote: /usr/share/apr-1.0/build/libtool: line 1222: i486-linux-gnu-gcc: command not found make: *** [mod_tile.slo] Error 1 It looks like you don't have gcc installed. You should start with running: $ sudo aptitude build-essential that solved that problem - now one more: /usr/share/apr-1.0/build/libtool --silent --mode=link i486-linux-gnu-gcc -I. -DLINUX=2 -D_GNU_SOURCE -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -D_REENTRANT - I/usr/include/apr-1.0 -I/usr/include/openssl -I/usr/include/postgresql - I/usr/include/xmltok -pthread -o mod_tile.la -rpath /usr/lib/apache2/modules -module -avoid-version mod_tile.lo dir_utils.lo store.lo g++ -o renderd store.c daemon.c gen_tile.cpp dir_utils.c protocol.h render_config.h dir_utils.h store.h -g -lmapnik -L/usr/lib/mapnik/0.5/ -g -O2 - Wall -I/usr/include/mapnik -I/usr/include/freetype2 gen_tile.cpp: In function ‘protoCmd render(mapnik::Map, char*, mapnik::projection, int, int, int, unsigned int, metaTile)’: gen_tile.cpp:245: error: ‘class mapnik::Map’ has no member named ‘set_buffer_size’ gen_tile.cpp:257: error: ‘save_to_string’ was not declared in this scope make: *** [renderd] Error 1 as far as I know, all the dependencies are done (I installed mapnik through apt-get install python-mapnik) -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
Ian Dees wrote: To get some conversation going: I really like the Fp4.jpg[1] example on the URL you gave, Steve. It's important to make the map (and thus its data) the largest GUI element on the page. The buttons along the top draw my eye up there to see what's available. I also like the Shop link idea. It's probably my favourite in many ways, but I don't like the way it has tabs for things which aren't tabs - things like Blog and Shop which would presumably replace the whole page and take you to another site. Unless of course the suggestion is that we would iframe those sites in so they really did behave like tabs. In which case I hate it ;-) Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
D Tucny wrote: I must say, I like that one too... but... So many sites and applications these days seem to be going with all the options at the top/bottom and a full width content section, while at the same time most 4:3 screens are being replaced with 16:10 screens... Screen size is of course irrelevant to browser window size, unless you're one of those weird web designers that seems to think everybody runs their browser full screen all the time... Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
SteveC wrote: The other thing that could be better is the search engine optimisation of the front page so that it shows up higher for some search terms like free maps and stuff. Why do I always want to barf when I hear somebody mention SEO... Anyway some thoughts are jotted down here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Front_Page There are a bunch of open questions like what design elements should stay, what should go, what colour schemes would be neat. Feel free to contribute and if it's useful we can build a design brief based on comments and ideas... then if it's useful to the community we can have them do some more design work to build some cool front page mockups. In some ways of course the design is the easy bit, then we need a volunteer to do battle with javascript and try and implement the changes which is no mean feat on our frontpage I can assure you ;-) Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] problem compilint mod_tile under debian etch
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 13:38 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: that solved that problem - now one more: /usr/share/apr-1.0/build/libtool --silent --mode=link i486-linux-gnu-gcc -I. -DLINUX=2 -D_GNU_SOURCE -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -D_REENTRANT - I/usr/include/apr-1.0 -I/usr/include/openssl -I/usr/include/postgresql - I/usr/include/xmltok -pthread -o mod_tile.la -rpath /usr/lib/apache2/modules -module -avoid-version mod_tile.lo dir_utils.lo store.lo g++ -o renderd store.c daemon.c gen_tile.cpp dir_utils.c protocol.h render_config.h dir_utils.h store.h -g -lmapnik -L/usr/lib/mapnik/0.5/ -g -O2 - Wall -I/usr/include/mapnik -I/usr/include/freetype2 gen_tile.cpp: In function ‘protoCmd render(mapnik::Map, char*, mapnik::projection, int, int, int, unsigned int, metaTile)’: gen_tile.cpp:245: error: ‘class mapnik::Map’ has no member named ‘set_buffer_size’ gen_tile.cpp:257: error: ‘save_to_string’ was not declared in this scope make: *** [renderd] Error 1 as far as I know, all the dependencies are done (I installed mapnik through apt-get install python-mapnik) The current mod_tile code requires you to use a newer version of Mapnik than is available in the debian packages. I'm afraid you will have to compile an SVN version of Mapnik too. Jon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] problem compilint mod_tile under debian etch
On Tuesday 03 March 2009 14:07:11 Jon Burgess wrote: as far as I know, all the dependencies are done (I installed mapnik through apt-get install python-mapnik) The current mod_tile code requires you to use a newer version of Mapnik than is available in the debian packages. I'm afraid you will have to compile an SVN version of Mapnik too. no problem - will do -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 09:16:21AM +0100, Jonas Krückel (John07) wrote: Ian Dees schrieb: On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:51 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com mailto:st...@asklater.com wrote: I asked the CM designers for some quick hacks on what different front pages could look like which you can see on the wiki page below. There are some very quick ideas there but it's not a full picture by a long way. To get some conversation going: I really like the Fp4.jpg[1] example on the URL you gave, Steve. It's important to make the map (and thus its data) the largest GUI element on the page. The buttons along the top draw my eye up there to see what's available. I also like the Shop link idea. After looking at all of the examples, Fp4.jpg seems to be the one that is the simplest and most eye-catching. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Fp4.jpg I also like that. Unfortunately i can´t find a link to the wiki :-) I think the wiki is very important and must get a big link. Yep in fp4 Wiki is missing and we have User diaries, News and Blog. Without entering in the opengeodata blog war i think they are similar things I also like Fp1.jpg because of the news section. I would change Edit to Edit Map! I prefer fp1. Anyway I think the greatest thing of the new designs is to show the 'Map Legend' -- Celso González (PerroVerd) http://mitago.net ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] odd rendering + county boundaries
As Jon says we are on the case, but it is not simple. BTW not done deliberately, more a result of counties/countries being put in relations and then picking up styling by default that was designed with some other instance in mind. This is equally true of rendering names along boundaries which was not designed for, but is an artefact of the same process. Cheers STEVE(8) -Original Message- From: Jon Burgess [mailto:jburgess...@googlemail.com] Sent: Mon 3/2/2009 7:00 PM To: ke...@kevinpeat.com Cc: Thomas Wood; OSM Talk; Steve Chilton Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] odd rendering + county boundaries On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 13:00 +, Kevin Peat wrote: It's two thingsthe county boundary shouldn't go up rivers in the first place but also the part of the boundary that follows the coast would be better not being rendered. It seems to me that it must be included in a relation so that the county is an area but would be better not being visible. Kevin I discussed this with Steve8 a few days ago on IRC and the plan is to: - Hide any boundary rendering on ways with natural=coastline - When there is more than one boundary on a given way, only render the one with the lowest admin_level. This corresponds to the most important boundary. It is complicated by the fact that the information has to be cross-referenced across multiple objects. This will need some extra processing in osm2pgsql to implement and it may be a few weeks before I get around to it. Jon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=tertiary[_link?] (was: Re: highway=secondary_link)
One particular use of the foo_link info is that all down to secondary have a seperate position in the mapnik rendering order (painter model) - BEFORE all non_link instances. This means that the ugly junctions between say a motorway_link and a less importantly ranked road are now avoided, and they merge properly. It used to overprint the motorway_link over the lesser one and look wrong. So, I would encourage using the foo_link tags when merging road types. Cheers STEVE -Original Message- From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org on behalf of Andrew Chadwick (email lists) Sent: Mon 3/2/2009 12:49 PM To: OSM Cc: Subject: [OSM-talk] highway=tertiary[_link?] (was: Re: highway=secondary_link) Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Would adding also highway=tertiary_link be too much? :-) I'm not sure I can think of any examples in the areas I'm familiar with. Perhaps that's just due to local road design though: link-like structures seem to be reserved for faster, more multi-lane road designs. Not having link roads: a concrete criterion for highway=tertiary? :-) -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
wer-ist-roger wrote: First of all we will lose data. We won't get everyone to agree on the new license. No matter why. Maybe they don't approve the new license or we just can't reach them anymore. There's three categories to consider relating to existing data. 1. People who have made edits and can't be contacted. This is the hard one. (As said previously, I think _minor_ contributors - whose work isn't substantial - could be moved across automatically if they don't respond, though still given the right to withdraw at a later time, but this isn't a universally-held opinion.) 2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. _Assuming_ we can get the bugs sorted in ODbL, and we can't take that for granted yet, this percentage should be very small. I'm reminded of a participant at the SOTM licence debate (I won't identify him, he can speak up if he wants) who spoke fervently against PD - which of course isn't what's being proposed here - but later said I think if you moved to PD, I wouldn't withdraw my data, I just wouldn't contribute any more. If that's the case for PD then surely he wouldn't withdraw from a different share-alike/attribution licence. 3. Large organisations. I believe Canada has been done with the expectation of a move anyway; the US is PD so no bother; it's immaterial to Yahoo. So the issue is largely reassuring the original owners of the European imports. IMO ODbL should always be better for them because of its contribute back the source of improvements clause, which of course CC-BY-SA doesn't have: so, AND (for example) are guaranteed access to all improvements based upon their work. But this is probably an evangelism job for the foundation. So all in all, if done right (and that's a big if), the amount of data we lose _should_ be very small assuming that ODbL is deemed acceptable and the bugs are ironed out. There's then a second question: how does a licence move change future contributions? Much harder to measure, but my gut feeling is that because the licences are both attribution/share-alike, the move will be largely neutral, maybe even positive. I know a bunch of people who haven't contributed significantly to OSM because of CC-BY-SA, generally either because of unclarity (I don't have any confidence this will stand up, so I'm not contributing to something that could easily be exploited) or the old derived work issue. For myself, I'm spending every evening this week working on a detailed map of the Chesterfield Canal and the surrounding area: data which I'd put into OSM under ODbL, but which at present I do entirely standalone under Adobe Illustrator, because of CC-BY-SA. This is a regular occurrence (our magazine runs a detailed set of canal maps every month) and it frustrates me every time. But, on the other side, there will be a handful who genuinely prefer CC-BY-SA, and we'll lose them. Re: automatically moving from CC-BY-SA to ODbL via a licence upgrade: for those who don't follow legal-talk, I raised the idea there in the expectation that the nice chap from Creative Commons would respond, and sure enough, he did. However, his reply was that CC's position is that data should be licensed as public domain, so they wouldn't be interested in such a move. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22304926.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
I can't see how any plan that involves deleting non-trivial amounts of data is ever going to work anyway as who is going to stop people from re-uploading the data with minor changes to tags and all the nodes moved by a metre or two? Kevin Ed Loach wrote: I wrote: As I think someone else pointed out, if it is abusable then we could abuse it and not lose any data with the switch. And before the flood of emails - I forgot the smiley. I'm sure I read somewhere lots of suggestions about what would happen to various items based on whether the people who created it/amended it agreed to the new licence or not, but can't find where. Was it in the wiki or on an email list? Can anyone remember. Anyway, I don't understand all these legal aspects. I joined the project to help improve the map and will continue to do so whether the licence changes or not, hoping that those people who do know what they are talking about are acting in the best interest of the project. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi, wer-ist-roger wrote: But we could lose even more! The ones that don't agree on the change might start a fork and that would be the worst thing that could happen. That's why we talk to each other before taking the next step. If people feel rushed or left out then they are likely to fork; if we work hard to include as many people as possible - sometimes a symbolic gesture is enough to make people feel that their concerns are heard, sometimes the wording of the license needs to be adapted -, then we might just get this through. And one more thing. How can we be sure that the coming up license suites the project? I don't want to have this discussion in 3 years again. The ODbL has a provision for automatic upgrades to later versions. It is currently unclear (a) who decides what a later version is, (b) whether we can convince everybody to trust them enough, and (c) how we can be sure that *if* we require a change to the license, a matching later version will be provided by them. But if these things are sorted out then we should be reasonably safe... Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 07:41:38 +0200, talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Something that's come up a few times in chatting to people is the front page design of the website and how it's been pretty static for a long time. That's pretty cool as nobody has felt the need to hack it I make a quick poll (1) on which which screen resolution osm'ers are using... (1) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Poll/Screen_resolution Roman ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
Hi, Ian Dees wrote: I really like the Fp4.jpg[1] example on the URL you gave, Steve. I'm a bit concerned about the similarity to maps.cloudmade.com; I would not want people to think that OSM was a CloudMade spin-off ;-) then again there's not much freedom, design-wise, in making a page with a large map on it so everyone is probably going to look pretty much the same anyway. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
2009/3/3 Celso González ce...@mitago.net: On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 09:16:21AM +0100, Jonas Krückel (John07) wrote: Ian Dees schrieb: On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:51 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com mailto:st...@asklater.com wrote: I asked the CM designers for some quick hacks on what different front pages could look like which you can see on the wiki page below. There are some very quick ideas there but it's not a full picture by a long way. To get some conversation going: I really like the Fp4.jpg[1] example on the URL you gave, Steve. It's important to make the map (and thus its data) the largest GUI element on the page. The buttons along the top draw my eye up there to see what's available. I also like the Shop link idea. After looking at all of the examples, Fp4.jpg seems to be the one that is the simplest and most eye-catching. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Fp4.jpg I also like that. Unfortunately i can´t find a link to the wiki :-) I think the wiki is very important and must get a big link. Yep in fp4 Wiki is missing and we have User diaries, News and Blog. Without entering in the opengeodata blog war i think they are similar things I also like Fp1.jpg because of the news section. I would change Edit to Edit Map! I prefer fp1. Anyway I think the greatest thing of the new designs is to show the 'Map Legend' You mean like when you click Map key on the current front page? That does bring up a valid point though -- the current page does not make the map controls obvious. The classic one is when you tell someone the front page has multiple styles. The little + sign is just ignored by most people (until you've encountered enough OL sites that use it... then you just can't help but investigate what layers they're hiding). Some of those deigns go with the drop down approach for layer selection... I keep wanting to scream every time I see it say Mapnik.. as if three of the layers there aren't actually rendered using Mapnik anyway :-) I can't imagine what a newbie will think a Mapnik is. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
2009/3/3 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu D Tucny wrote: I must say, I like that one too... but... So many sites and applications these days seem to be going with all the options at the top/bottom and a full width content section, while at the same time most 4:3 screens are being replaced with 16:10 screens... Screen size is of course irrelevant to browser window size, unless you're one of those weird web designers that seems to think everybody runs their browser full screen all the time... I guess that makes me a weird web user for always having browsers full screen... Or at least, someone without enough screen space to comfortably do otherwise :(... d ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi, Richard Fairhurst wrote: There's three categories to consider relating to existing data. 1. People who have made edits and can't be contacted. 2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. 3. Large organisations. I have a fourth category to add: 4. People who don't dislike ODbL per se but dislike the manner in which it was brought about, and thus feel rushed/excluded. People who make sensible suggestions for improvement but see their suggestions brushed away or simply ignored because this would just delay the license release (which seems to be planned for 28th March), or people who have legitimate concerns and find them answered with an I don't know from the legal counsel and an we'll press ahead anyway from OSMF. Having a proper process that takes our project members and their concerns seriously, rather than holding a gun to their heads and saying agree to this license or go away, is not only important for keeping as much data as possible, it is also, in my eyes, a requirement of project ethics. I can live with some data being lost. But I would like to avoid press headlines like 20% of OpenStreetMap members quit over license row / Disgruntled mappers say they feel ignored / Fake SteveC: 'Crisis? What Crisis?' - I think *that* kind of thing would hurt us more than having to redraw a few villages. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
D Tucny wrote: 2009/3/3 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu mailto:t...@compton.nu Screen size is of course irrelevant to browser window size, unless you're one of those weird web designers that seems to think everybody runs their browser full screen all the time... I guess that makes me a weird web user for always having browsers full screen... Or at least, someone without enough screen space to comfortably do otherwise :(... Sure, if I'm on my eee then it will be fullscreen. If I'm on a 1600x1200 desktop, or a 3760x1600 desktop like the one I use at the office, then it won't be. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
Hi, Tom Hughes wrote: If I'm on a 1600x1200 desktop, or a 3760x1600 desktop like the one I use at the office, then it won't be. Good for you, because if you displayed our slippy map in 3760x1600 then we would have to block your IP for bulk downloading ;-) Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
On 03/03/2009 09:42, D Tucny wrote: 2009/3/3 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu mailto:t...@compton.nu D Tucny wrote: I must say, I like that one too... but... So many sites and applications these days seem to be going with all the options at the top/bottom and a full width content section, while at the same time most 4:3 screens are being replaced with 16:10 screens... Screen size is of course irrelevant to browser window size, unless you're one of those weird web designers that seems to think everybody runs their browser full screen all the time... I guess that makes me a weird web user for always having browsers full screen... Or at least, someone without enough screen space to comfortably do otherwise :(... I've been working on a website recently where the key component is a large picture which they need to see as much of as possible (not dissimilar in what most people would want from a map I guess). I've found my users fall into two distinct camps 1. I've got a big screen, why can't I see more of the picture to make use of it. These people have 1400 pixels or more, some over 2000. 2. It goes off the edge, I have to keep scrolling. A lot of people are still working on screens 1024 pixels wide, which means you're down to the mid 900s once you take all the borders, scroll bars and things into account. Of course, I've changed things to scale within reason so I can keep both happy, but I was surprised quite how many people are still working on tiny screens (and not just because they're on net books - these are ordinary desktop computers; in once case the screen is huge but run at extremely low res because of the user's poor eyesight). David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Rights of way again
Hello everyone, Have had a think about this, primarily as part of developing new styles for the shortly to be relaunched Freemap (UK) / OpenFootMap (worldwide, potentially) OSM site for walkers/hikers/horse riders. I now think the designation tag is a good thing as it simplifies the Mapnik XML rendering rules significantly. It could always be internationalised, for instance in the UK it could be public_footpath, public_bridleway, permissive_footpath etc, while in other countries it could be the equivalent. This could then be combined with tags representing the type of way, e.g. track, footway and path (treating the last two equivalently for the moment) and surface tags to indicate the surface. From a rendering point of view I can envisage two layers, one for the physical ways and another to indicate where walkers/horse riders are allowed to go. The layer would show double dashed lines for tracks or single dashed lines for paths/footways, and then the second layer could have thicker transparent lines for actual rights of way (or permissive routes), a bit like the cycle map. Tracks known to be private (something the Ordnance Survey do not show, and therefore something that could be a big advantage over OS maps) could be overlaid by a transparent red line to indicate do not go here. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
Hey guys gals, get these thoughts onto the wiki! I've added some already: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Front_Page Thanks to Steve the CloudMade designers for giving this some energy! Regards, Tom On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 09:37:29 +, Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.uk wrote: 2009/3/3 Celso González ce...@mitago.net: On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 09:16:21AM +0100, Jonas Krückel (John07) wrote: Ian Dees schrieb: On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:51 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com mailto:st...@asklater.com wrote: I asked the CM designers for some quick hacks on what different front pages could look like which you can see on the wiki page below. There are some very quick ideas there but it's not a full picture by a long way. To get some conversation going: I really like the Fp4.jpg[1] example on the URL you gave, Steve. It's important to make the map (and thus its data) the largest GUI element on the page. The buttons along the top draw my eye up there to see what's available. I also like the Shop link idea. After looking at all of the examples, Fp4.jpg seems to be the one that is the simplest and most eye-catching. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Fp4.jpg I also like that. Unfortunately i can´t find a link to the wiki :-) I think the wiki is very important and must get a big link. Yep in fp4 Wiki is missing and we have User diaries, News and Blog. Without entering in the opengeodata blog war i think they are similar things I also like Fp1.jpg because of the news section. I would change Edit to Edit Map! I prefer fp1. Anyway I think the greatest thing of the new designs is to show the 'Map Legend' You mean like when you click Map key on the current front page? That does bring up a valid point though -- the current page does not make the map controls obvious. The classic one is when you tell someone the front page has multiple styles. The little + sign is just ignored by most people (until you've encountered enough OL sites that use it... then you just can't help but investigate what layers they're hiding). Some of those deigns go with the drop down approach for layer selection... I keep wanting to scream every time I see it say Mapnik.. as if three of the layers there aren't actually rendered using Mapnik anyway :-) I can't imagine what a newbie will think a Mapnik is. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
Tom Hughes wrote: Screen size is of course irrelevant to browser window size, unless you're one of those weird web designers that seems to think everybody runs their browser full screen all the time... IMX it's a platform thing. Windows people genuinely do run their web browser, and most things, full screen. Hence the aberration that is MDI. Us Mac people, by contrast, usually have about 57 different non-full screen windows overlapping - that's why Apple came up with Expose to help us find them all. I dunno what Linux people do - whatever RMS has decreed is in the best interests of some weird notion of freedom, I guess. runs away very very fast cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Front-page-design-and-SEO-tp22302099p22305671.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
SteveC wrote: I asked the CM designers for some quick hacks on what different front pages could look like which you can see on the wiki page below. Very pretty in a sort of let's-polish-the-CSS way, which isn't a bad thing at all. In a let's ask for the stars way, though, how about: - a little draggable I've found a problem icon - yeah yeah, OSB integration :) - something that says Hey! We're a fun community!; maybe two forthcoming events in tiny type? - some visualisation like Mikel's old activity tracker, showing where people have been editing recently - so you get a real sense of how alive the project is; would only want this at, say z1-10 - as per Dave's e-mail: lots of visibility for you get different views on the same data, maybe with a More... link to featured images, or a gallery, or something - downloadable Fake SteveC mascot for your desktop which installs some spyware and stuff like that cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Front-page-design-and-SEO-tp22302099p22305733.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Tom Hughes wrote: Screen size is of course irrelevant to browser window size, unless you're one of those weird web designers that seems to think everybody runs their browser full screen all the time... IMX it's a platform thing. Windows people genuinely do run their web browser, and most things, full screen. Hence the aberration that is MDI. Us Mac people, by contrast, usually have about 57 different non-full screen windows overlapping - that's why Apple came up with Expose to help us find them all. I dunno what Linux people do - whatever RMS has decreed is in the best interests of some weird notion of freedom, I guess. runs away very very fast That's a bit pot calling the kettle black though - back when I was using Macs, which admittedly was quite a long time ago, everything ran full screen all the time and you were forever flipping back and forth between applications. All long after Windows had given you the ability to have multiple things open alongside each other. Hell, even Windows 1 let you do that - it just could overlap the windows at all ;-) Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] problem compilint mod_tile under debian etch
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 03:43:04PM +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: did you notice lenny has been out for half a month now ? ;) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Frederik Ramm schrieb: Hi, Richard Fairhurst wrote: There's three categories to consider relating to existing data. 1. People who have made edits and can't be contacted. 2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. 3. Large organisations. I have a fourth category to add: 4. People who don't dislike ODbL per se but dislike the manner in which it was brought about, and thus feel rushed/excluded. People who make sensible suggestions for improvement but see their suggestions brushed away or simply ignored because this would just delay the license release (which seems to be planned for 28th March), or people who have legitimate concerns and find them answered with an I don't know from the legal counsel and an we'll press ahead anyway from OSMF. Having a proper process that takes our project members and their concerns seriously, rather than holding a gun to their heads and saying agree to this license or go away, is not only important for keeping as much data as possible, it is also, in my eyes, a requirement of project ethics. I can live with some data being lost. But I would like to avoid press headlines like 20% of OpenStreetMap members quit over license row / Disgruntled mappers say they feel ignored / Fake SteveC: 'Crisis? What Crisis?' - I think *that* kind of thing would hurt us more than having to redraw a few villages. FULL ACK!!! Personally I am feeling excluded from what's going on behind the scenes and I think this is not the way for a project that has open in his name ... There were only very few news on talk/talk-de available for such an important thing as a license change. A little bit more respect to the people that actually did the mapping work would probably be a very good idea. We're only loosing 5% of the data is a very, very strange attitude for me. Not because of the data but because of the people behind that data. I must say that this is the first time that I'm seriously thinking about to stop my effort with OpenStreetMap completely and I'm feeling very sorry about that. But I just won't continue to spend effort if OSM in the long run probably ends up as a commercial thing. You're probably not aware, but with the way the current license discussion is done you are spreading a lot of FUD on your own project :-( Just wanted to let you know how the current actions are received from people not being directly involved in legal talk ... Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] problem compilint mod_tile under debian etch
On Tuesday 03 March 2009 15:51:51 Raphaël Jacquot wrote: On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 03:43:04PM +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: did you notice lenny has been out for half a month now ? ;) does it work out of the box with lenny? -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi, Ulf Lamping wrote: We're only loosing 5% of the data is a very, very strange attitude for me. Not because of the data but because of the people behind that data. Well, we always said we have unlimited free labour ,-) But I just won't continue to spend effort if OSM in the long run probably ends up as a commercial thing. The idea that the new license is somehow paving the way for OSM to end up as a commercial thing is utterly wrong, and whoever claims this should be hit over the head with a large cluebat. However the fact that there seem to more such people than cluebats tells us that somewhere there's a lesson to be learned about communication. It seems that the new license effort, so far, has been a prime example of how *not* to do it. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] problem compilint mod_tile under debian etch
On Tuesday 03 March 2009 14:07:11 you wrote: as far as I know, all the dependencies are done (I installed mapnik through apt-get install python-mapnik) The current mod_tile code requires you to use a newer version of Mapnik than is available in the debian packages. I'm afraid you will have to compile an SVN version of Mapnik too. well, tried that - all dependencies were satisfied, but then I got this: src/graphics.cpp: In constructor ‘mapnik::Image32::Image32(Cairo::RefPtrCairo::ImageSurface)’: src/graphics.cpp:51: error: ‘class Cairo::ImageSurface’ has no member named ‘get_format’ src/graphics.cpp:57: error: ‘class Cairo::ImageSurface’ has no member named ‘get_stride’ src/graphics.cpp:60: error: ‘class Cairo::ImageSurface’ has no member named ‘get_data’ scons: *** [src/graphics.os] Error 1 scons: building terminated because of errors. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] canvec2osm v0.05 is now available
Hi everyone! canvec2osm v0.05 is now available to view comment. You can download it from the wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canvec2osm I have gone over in detail the 'transportation' and 'buildings structures' themes; thanks to those on the talk-ca list and everyone who emailed me, its better now. The other themes are also all entered mostly good, but for this version it isn't top notch. And so, as a reminder like before .. please DONT upload any of this data to OSM, as the script is not fully complete. Cheers, Sam Vekemans Across Canada Trails P.S. The best way i found is to open up a second window of JOSM and view all the files at once so you can see it all. Then from the 1st JOSM window open up just 1 file your interested in viewing.. then download the OSM area to view what it would look like. Again, don't upload anything :-) I'm looking for feedback on how these features can be better tagged. -- Posted By Across Canada Trails to The Across Canada Trails Foundation: Supporting the Free Garmin GPS Route Maphttp://acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com/2009/03/canvec2osm-v005-now-available.htmlat 3/02/2009 02:34:00 PM ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
Tom Hughes wrote: Richard Fairhurst wrote: IMX it's a platform thing. Windows people genuinely do run their web browser, and most things, full screen. Hence the aberration that is MDI. Us Mac people, by contrast, usually have about 57 different non-full screen windows overlapping - that's why Apple came up with Expose to help us find them all. I dunno what Linux people do - whatever RMS has decreed is in the best interests of some weird notion of freedom, I guess. runs away very very fast That's a bit pot calling the kettle black though - back when I was using Macs, which admittedly was quite a long time ago Goodness me, it must have been - Macs have been like this since at least System 7 in 1991ish... Seriously, though, it does depend on the app. Right now I've got open TextEdit, Safari, TextMate, Cyberduck, Colloquy, Mail, Preview, and Terminal: the only ones I can imagine making any sense full-screen are possibly Mail and Terminal, and I don't think I've ever used either as such. OS X, and System 7/8/9 before it, makes much heavier use of drag-and-drop between apps than Windows has ever done, and users are expected to think that way. (The classic Finder didn't have copy and paste for files, for example; it was assumed you'd drag from one window to another. It's only in OS X as a borrowing of the Windows paradigm.) But Word and Excel borrow so much from Windows that they can make more sense full-screen, and the Adobe stuff is as ever a law unto itself - so many bloody floating palettes, one screen sometimes doesn't feel enough. (http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/ is brilliantly observed and puts all our parody blogs to shame.) And even Apple have been getting a bit too full-screen for my liking with some of the iLife apps. Where was I? cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Tom Hughes wrote: Richard Fairhurst wrote: IMX it's a platform thing. Windows people genuinely do run their web browser, and most things, full screen. Hence the aberration that is MDI. Us Mac people, by contrast, usually have about 57 different non-full screen windows overlapping - that's why Apple came up with Expose to help us find them all. I dunno what Linux people do - whatever RMS has decreed is in the best interests of some weird notion of freedom, I guess. runs away very very fast That's a bit pot calling the kettle black though - back when I was using Macs, which admittedly was quite a long time ago Goodness me, it must have been - Macs have been like this since at least System 7 in 1991ish... I did say it was quite a long time ago ;-) System 7 and 7.5 IIRC, between about 1990 and 1993. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Ulf Lamping wrote: Personally I am feeling excluded from what's going on behind the scenes and I think this is not the way for a project that has open in his name ... If it helps, there _isn't_ anything going on behind the scenes... well, at least not that I know of. Post in German, or French, or whatever, on here if you like - we all have Google Translate, someone will step up to translate manually, and it's a million times better than not posting. Put stuff on the wiki. Ask questions. Vent. Rant. Anything from a misplaced capital in ODbL to a serious doubt about the entire licensing philosophy. Just say it. Far, far better that you speak up and post I'm worried about this because..., even in Schwabisch dialect if you like, than you sit there in silence thinking there's this conspiracy to make OSM commercial and I feel left out. Because There Is No Cabal. Look around you - who's organised enough to come up with a conspiracy? If there was a conspiracy they'd be doing it better. But OSM is at heart a disorganised rabble - that's why the communication on the licence issue has been shit, yes, but that's also why we've mapped large portions of the world, because you couldn't organise it better than that. I've said it a million times before but: there is no you in this project, there is only us. Of course, this might be why Steve thinks I'm a filthy communist. If I could cross-post this to talk-de, talk-fr, talk-it and the rest, I would do. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22306472.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.uk wrote: I keep wanting to scream every time I see it say Mapnik.. as if three of the layers there aren't actually rendered using Mapnik anyway :-) I can't imagine what a newbie will think a Mapnik is. Quite. Can someone please come up with names for the two main styles that aren't just the technology that creates them? s/osmarender/ti...@home/ would be a start (osmarender is 'just' the technology currently used in generating the t...@h map), and as you say, the other three are all generated using mapnik (maybe postgis/mapnik for the gnu/linux tards amongst us?) so having mapnik is a bit weird, and I'm sure causes half the problems on the mapnik MLs where people are actually talking about the main OSM rendering and not the mapnik library itself. Suggestions on a postcard? Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Sent: 03 March 2009 10:05 AM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO SteveC wrote: I asked the CM designers for some quick hacks on what different front pages could look like which you can see on the wiki page below. Very pretty in a sort of let's-polish-the-CSS way, which isn't a bad thing at all. In a let's ask for the stars way, though, how about: - a little draggable I've found a problem icon - yeah yeah, OSB integration :) - something that says Hey! We're a fun community!; maybe two forthcoming events in tiny type? - some visualisation like Mikel's old activity tracker, showing where people have been editing recently - so you get a real sense of how alive the project is; would only want this at, say z1-10 - as per Dave's e-mail: lots of visibility for you get different views on the same data, maybe with a More... link to featured images, or a gallery, or something - downloadable Fake SteveC mascot for your desktop which installs some spyware and stuff like that These are all great star gazing ideas, well, maybe excluding the last ;-) Whatever happens, my view is that it's not the converted mapper that needs the focus of the front page. Most of us who are active with the project day to day will always be looking at the map but rarely do we need to use the front page or any of the other services. We probably have all those bookmarked anyway. Instead the front page should be speaking to everyone else, those we want to hook in (viewer or contributor). So, like Richard I don't like the idea of just tinkering with the css and layout. Better to be radical. Ideally a concerted effort for different people and web developers to come up with the look and feel and then compare the different versions. One is likely to win out, or perhaps more than one will be preferable, just like the German portal I am sure is probably used by many German speakers as their first point of call. What the experienced community should probably do is set the target message and focus ideas that should be incorporated. Richards's suggestions are a good start. I'd add stronger local community building to the list since we know that if you can build a local focus/interest group a lot more gets accomplished and everyone has fun doing so. Cheers Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
Andy Allan wrote: Quite. Can someone please come up with names for the two main styles that aren't just the technology that creates them? Mapnik - Standard (or maybe 'Classic') Osmarender - Community cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Front-page-design-and-SEO-tp22302099p22306623.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way again
I am always coming across private roads, which are physically there but not rights of way, and occasionally footpaths which are rights of way but not physically passable! I am surprised that a schema for representing this hasn't been developed already. I have seen access=private suggested for the former case. Although often there are privately roads which are still accessible to the public, for example the track past some playing fields to a sports pavilion, or the pavement of London's South Bank which is privately owned but a public space. If you wanted to be fully general you would have a table of flags, for example a bridle path: Physical Designation Foot yesyes Bicycle yesyes Horse yesyes Motorcar yesno I think this is going too far. I would be happy with designation=footpath, designation=bridle_path, and designation=byway to mark ways which look unpaved physically but are rights of way, and access=private to mark those which look inviting but are in practice unusable by the public. The in-between cases of a privately owned space which is open to the public (like the South Bank) and a road which is not public but not completely forbidden either (like a drive leading to a country hotel) I would be happy to leave untagged. There are also some where you're not quite sure if they are private or not, like a track between two houses leading to a shared garage area. I tend to map these as highway=track, which fairly represents the physical condition of the road and also gives a hint to the map reader that they might be semi-private. I don't feel a burning need for a tag to represent this, especially as IANAL and I don't know exactly what the access rights are. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way again
Tracks known to be private (something the Ordnance Survey do not show, and therefore something that could be a big advantage over OS maps) could be overlaid by a transparent red line to indicate do not go here. I personally would be very wary of this approach, as known to be private can be a matter of opinion. Some landowners go to great lengths to deny access to anyone on their land, regardless of whether there is a public right of way or not. I have seen big Private signs in places which aren't private at all. Just the other day I was approached by a security guard on an industrial estate and told it was private property and that I had no right to be there and would I please remove myself. I checked later on an OS map and it turns out that I certainly would have a right to be there as a pedestrian (although in fact I was in a car at the time), so we shouldn't just trust what someone with a vested interest tells us. For that matter, the road I live on is unadopted, so could technically be described as private (as indeed many unadopted roads are), but it wouldn't make any sense to mark it as private on OSM. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] images are Produced Works
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: My position is that images are Produced Works, not a derived OSM database. Rendered images are a creative work that requires skill and judgement. This is an important use case and ODbL Section 1 Definitions specifically includes images in the definition of Produced Work. Cool, I definitely agree with you on this, when considering the cycle map. However, instead of rasters, what about vector images, e.g. SVG? To me they could be construed as mini databases, since they're a structured list of attributes and properties. I'd be interested in what you think on this. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
Andy Allan wrote: On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.uk wrote: I keep wanting to scream every time I see it say Mapnik.. as if three of the layers there aren't actually rendered using Mapnik anyway :-) I can't imagine what a newbie will think a Mapnik is. Quite. Can someone please come up with names for the two main styles that aren't just the technology that creates them? s/osmarender/ti...@home/ would be a start (osmarender is 'just' the technology currently used in generating the t...@h map) I hate to point this out, but ti...@home is also just the name of part of the technology used. Osmarender is the name of the rendering software, ti...@home is the name of the distributed rendering system. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: Andy Allan wrote: On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.uk wrote: I keep wanting to scream every time I see it say Mapnik.. as if three of the layers there aren't actually rendered using Mapnik anyway :-) I can't imagine what a newbie will think a Mapnik is. Quite. Can someone please come up with names for the two main styles that aren't just the technology that creates them? s/osmarender/ti...@home/ would be a start (osmarender is 'just' the technology currently used in generating the t...@h map) I hate to point this out, but ti...@home is also just the name of part of the technology used. Osmarender is the name of the rendering software, ti...@home is the name of the distributed rendering system. I see it as the name of the project - the t...@h project produces the map, but the osmarender project leads to many different things, t...@h being only one of them. Unless, of course, the t...@h guys have another collective name for themselves? Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
Andy Allan wrote: On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: Osmarender is the name of the rendering software, ti...@home is the name of the distributed rendering system. I see it as the name of the project - the t...@h project produces the map, but the osmarender project leads to many different things, t...@h being only one of them. Unless, of course, the t...@h guys have another collective name for themselves? Well one key point of course is that I believe t...@h actually produces several different renderings, all using Osmarender and t...@h but using different stylesheets ;-) Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, Derivative Databases Produced Works
I've been reading the Use Cases on the wiki and I'm confused. Can anyone help me with where I'm going wrong? I know there's still some discussion about when something becomes a Produced Work so I'm trying to make the use case below a clear cut Produced Work. I download a substantial amount of OSM data to make my map, I then add some extra data, change several bad road names, and correct some geometry, all to improve the data (thus indisputably a derivative database), and I then use this Derivative Database to create a paper map (ie: a Produced Work) which I publish. The edited OSM data sits on my hard disk, never to see the light of day. The legal council says for a very similar Use Case: The example suggests that the map is a “Produced Work” that would require notice under Section 4.3 of the ODbL; access to the “Derivative Database” upon which the Produced Work is based would also have to be made available. Also a number of people on various lists have been asserting similar things. So where in the ODbL does it say I have to publish that derived database at all? I don't at any point publicly Convey the Derivative Database so 4.2, 4.4, 4.6 onwards does not apply unless I'm forced to publish. 4.5 explicitly states using a derivative database internally to an organisation is not covered by 4.4. A Produced Work does not create a Derivative Database for the purposes of section 4.4 either. And Using a Produced Work is explicitly excluded from the definition of Convey From 4.3: ...You must include a notice ... as part of the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses ... the Produced Work aware that content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database and that the Database is available under this Licence From reading that I think I have to state: This map contains information from a derivative of the OSM database. The OSM database is made available here under the Open Database Licence (ODbL) And that's the end of my obligations. Am I missing something obvious, or am I just being sneaky in some way? And is there a way it can be made more obvious in the license if it's actually intended to be that way? Thanks, Dave ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, Derivative Databases Produced Works
Dave Stubbs wrote: Am I missing something obvious, or am I just being sneaky in some way? And is there a way it can be made more obvious in the license if it's actually intended to be that way? I think this is a serious error in the ODbL draft 0.9. (I believe Frederik is of the same opinion.) It wasn't the case in the previous draft of ODbL. I can only assume it was a drafting error in the revision. We raised it directly on the ODC list at http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2009-March/date.html cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ODbL%2C-Derivative-Databases---Produced-Works-tp22307257p22307343.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
A little bit more respect to the people that actually did the mapping work would probably be a very good idea. We're only loosing 5% of the data is a very, very strange attitude for me. Not because of the data but because of the people behind that data. Losing 5% of data will do much more damage than it looks - as we can probably assume, that the 5% would be rather randomly distributed, random 5% of objects would disappear. Now you need to go through the remaining 95% and check/remap it, especially for areas that are already mapped almost completely, to find out what was lost and redraw it. People will be stuck for weeks/months checking the data and repairing the damage - and some of them may get frustrated and leave the project. I think we should find some way to avoid deleting at all. For some transitional time (in which the data will be still under cc-by-sa but we will be collecting consent of users for ODbL) mark data coming from/derived from people uncontactable/disagreeing with license with some special tag. Let people delete these parts and redraw them from scratch (from allowed sources/existing GPS tracks, anything except the original data). Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO - layer names
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 03:12:21 -0800 (PST), Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Andy Allan wrote: Quite. Can someone please come up with names for the two main styles that aren't just the technology that creates them? Mapnik - Standard (or maybe 'Classic') Osmarender - Community A good suggestion, although your choices are a bit loaded. It's not clear that it's the distributed rendering of the data that makes one more community than the other. The data is all community, as are the style sheets more or less. Without getting into a lengthy explanation, all that distinguishes the first two layers is the technology to render them and the cartographic style. The next two layers are for a transport mode and for mappers. So on the simple basis that one technology came before another, and it's all a matter of personal taste, and one style is the default: - Standard map - Classic map - Cycle map - Missing names (I can't help think this would be better as an overlay like maplint) Regards, Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, Derivative Databases Produced Works
2009/3/3 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net: Dave Stubbs wrote: Am I missing something obvious, or am I just being sneaky in some way? And is there a way it can be made more obvious in the license if it's actually intended to be that way? I think this is a serious error in the ODbL draft 0.9. (I believe Frederik is of the same opinion.) It wasn't the case in the previous draft of ODbL. I can only assume it was a drafting error in the revision. We raised it directly on the ODC list at http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2009-March/date.html Yay! I'm not mad :-) I'll add that thread to my bookmarks. Thanks, Dave ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO - layer names
Tom Chance wrote: It's not clear that it's the distributed rendering of the data that makes one more community than the other. That's not quite what I was thinking of - it was more the cartographic style than the mechanics behind it. The Osmarender layer tends to prioritise more POIs, more differentiation among little details of OSM tagging, than the Mapnik one which is a very focused classic cartographical approach - more so than most webmaps, indeed, which is one of the reasons I like it so much. But certainly the Osmarender layer is a fuller depiction of the breadth of our community. So maybe Classic style Community style would be clearer than a bald Classic/Community. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Front-page-design-and-SEO-tp22302099p22308134.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: Andy Allan wrote: On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: Osmarender is the name of the rendering software, ti...@home is the name of the distributed rendering system. I see it as the name of the project - the t...@h project produces the map, but the osmarender project leads to many different things, t...@h being only one of them. Unless, of course, the t...@h guys have another collective name for themselves? Well one key point of course is that I believe t...@h actually produces several different renderings, all using Osmarender and t...@h but using different stylesheets ;-) Gah! You've got a point. I guess Maplint is one of them. Looking at their layers code, they name the main one tile and describe it as default. http://trac.openstreetmap.org/browser/applications/rendering/tilesAtHome/layers.conf Ho-hum. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: 2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. _Assuming_ we can get the bugs sorted in ODbL, and we can't take that for granted yet, this percentage should be very small. except that the ODbL does represent a fundamental change in licensing of map images - previously they were sharealike, but with ODbL it will only require attribution? This could potentially alienate anyone who wonders why they are doing surveying for free so that cartographers can sell all-rights-reserved map images based on their data. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
OJ W wrote: This could potentially alienate anyone who wonders why they are doing surveying for free so that cartographers can sell all-rights- reserved map images based on their data. Yeah, just like I lie in bed at night fretting that people can sell all-rights-reserved, closed-source routing services based on my data. Come on. cheers Richard (On a point of order, I don't believe ODbL _does_ allow all-rights-reserved anyway; that's what the reverse-engineering clause is about.) -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22308562.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
MP singularita at gmail.com writes: I think we should find some way to avoid deleting at all. For some transitional time (in which the data will be still under cc-by-sa but we will be collecting consent of users for ODbL) mark data coming from/derived from people uncontactable/disagreeing with license with some special tag. Let people delete these parts and redraw them from scratch (from allowed sources/existing GPS tracks, anything except the original data). You would have to be very careful about doing that. I don't think it would work to view the map, see a street tagged 'bad licence', delete it and then add it back. Even if you were honest enough to close your eyes, turn around three times and then re-trace it from the aerial photography, it still looks very suspect. And when deleting the street you would have to delete all its nodes, including those that are intersections with other streets, since it obviously doesn't do anything to delete the way but leave all the nodes there to be straightaway reconnected. Try this thought experiment: suppose a user imported data from Google Maps and randomly scattered it around the map. But he added a special tag to it so that people could later delete these tainted map features and recreate them. Even after the last bit of tagged data had been deleted and re-added, could you really claim that the resulting map was clean and legally sound? If a mishmash of CC-BY-SA and ODbL licensed map data is workable, then let's trace all the missing towns from Google Maps right now and mark them with a special tag to be replaced later when we get round to it. I'm sure the Google licence doesn't allow you to mix it with your own data and release the result under a licence of your choice, but then neither does CC-BY-SA or the permission grant made by users when they sign up to the project. Since the reason for relicensing is to be ultra-cautious and take care of certain theoretical legal bogeymen, it makes sense to be ultra-cautious in removing possibly tainted data. There is no point doing a relicensing that leaves the project in a more questionable legal situation than before. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] form input field for GPS Traces
I recommend to add a form input field for GPS Traces where a user can easily search for a tag, let's say GPS tracks for Paris. You can easily upload your tracks but you cannot easily search. I know that I can of course type a tag into the browser's address field like http://www.openstreetmap.org/traces/tag/Paris But a normal user may not know it. And: if I write it wrongly like http://www.openstreetmap.org/traces/tag/Pariss or http://www.openstreetmap.org/traces/Paris I get: Application error Change this error message for exceptions thrown outside of an action (like in Dispatcher setups or broken Ruby code) in public/500.html Roman ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: OJ W wrote: This could potentially alienate anyone who wonders why they are doing surveying for free so that cartographers can sell all-rights- reserved map images based on their data. Yeah, just like I lie in bed at night fretting that people can sell all-rights-reserved, closed-source routing services based on my data. Come on. Could you expand that answer? Removing cartography from the scope of OSM's license would seem to deserve a better explanation than a dismissal like that. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:13 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: 2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. _Assuming_ we can get the bugs sorted in ODbL, and we can't take that for granted yet, this percentage should be very small. It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with the license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer the following questions: - do you delete only data from contributors who explicitly say 'no' to the new licence or also if you have no response ? what is the argument to consider an absence of response to be a 'yes' or 'no' ? - do you delete data from big contributors only or also all small or single contributions ? - if you decide to delete contributions and those contributions are only part of the history of objects, do you rollback to a previous version of these objects ? remove completely the objects if the contributor is the creator or the last modifier ? only if the contributor is the single contributor on the whole history of the object ? - if the objects you delete are part of a relation, do you keep the relation at the end even if all members have to be deleted ? or you also delete the relation in this case ? what happen if another contributor (who accepted the new license) added/changed properties of a relation where all members have to be deleted ? - if someone says 'no' to the new license and wrote a bot, do you also delete the bot contributions ? - after deletion, do you keep the trace in the history of other related objects ? will it be possible for someone else to revert the deletion through Potlatch for instance ? Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:13 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: except that the ODbL does represent a fundamental change in licensing of map images - previously they were sharealike, but with ODbL it will only require attribution? That is hos the license is understood by most people, yes. Some questions on the final wording are still outstanding, as you have probably seen. This could potentially alienate anyone who wonders why they are doing surveying for free so that cartographers can sell all-rights-reserved map images based on their data. It could, potentially, even if I agree with Richard. I think it is important to explain why this change is to the better in the majority of the cases. It is no longer possible to make massive amendments to the OSM data set, make a mp of this and not share the data. Previously, you had to share the map image, including design elements like pictograms, but to get the updated map data into the database again, someone would have to to georectification of the map and trace the changes. With the ODbL, the image of the map does not have to be free, but the data have to be shared. This means that the design elements are proprietary, but the data are easily available. This also opens up uses where you can combine data sources with different licenses. One example could be digital elevation models combined with data from OSM, to make a good hiking map. Two examples: I want to make a map of Copenhagen, with some good beer pubs. I am a lousy artist, and would like to grab some pictograms from istockphoto.com to make a good looking map. This is not possible today, and the map will lack good pictograms. I will also be adding some extra pubs and other information which is not in the database today. If anyone want to add this extra information to the database, so they will be available for other users, they will have to do this manually and the project gains very little. Cloudmade and Geofabrik have some nice looking stylesheets that I would like to base the above map on. Even if the map tiles are available to me, they are little of no use to me. I will need to customize some things, like rendering of pubs and restaurants, and cannot use the tiles directly. The share alike properties of these images is not worth very much to me. I think the bottom line here, is that the _data_ are very much more valuable than any image made with them. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Pieren wrote: It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with the license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer the following questions: It's not been decided. What do you think should happen? Everything is up for debate. ODbL itself is up for debate. As Jordan (co-author) said on odc-discuss earlier re: a point we raised: It (like the rest of the ODbL) isn't set in stone and so totally open for discussion. Really, there's no evil force presenting a fait accompli here. brokenrecordThere is no you or them, only us./brokenrecord cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22310154.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
Richard Fairhurst wrote: IMX it's a platform thing. Windows people genuinely do run their web browser, and most things, full screen. Hence the aberration that is MDI. Us Mac people, by contrast, usually have about 57 different non-full screen windows overlapping - that's why Apple came up with Expose to help us find them all. I dunno what Linux people do - whatever RMS has decreed is in the best interests of some weird notion of freedom, I guess. runs away very very fast We have a screen full of terminal windows and access web servers with telnet :-P Jon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net writes: Under CC-BY-SA, as I'm sure you know, a printed map can only be licensed as copyleft. The cartographer therefore no longer has exclusive rights to their added value (colours, selection of data to include, and so on), which are clearly apparent from the map. These can be trivially copied. Under CC-BY-SA, a routing service does not have to be licensed as copyleft.[1] The author of the routing service does not have to disclose their added value (weightings for different types of road, any transformations applied to the data, etc.). These cannot be trivially copied: to do so would require reverse-engineering a near-infinite set of requests and you'd probably be banned for DoSing before that. ;) But I don't see how arguing for full disclosure by cartographers, but not by routing system authors, is tenable. What you wrote above is a very good argument for it. Rendering the data into a printed map is not a great deal of effort. Anyone can do it and many already do so. There are not many people who would be put off from rendering maps by being unable to make the result proprietary. The copyleft requirement is pretty trivial and doesn't create disincentives to rendering a map, because rendering a map is so easy. (In any case, even though you can freely copy a PNG file of a map or photocopy a page, and even though you can see for yourself what colour scheme was used, you don't have the program code that was used to render the ways and the text, which is the hard part. That code doesn't have to be distributed.) On the other hand, the data for a routing service such as road weightings takes a bit of effort to get right and is something that many companies wish to keep secret (while nobody thinks that map coloration can be a secret). If using OSM data meant you also had to reveal your routing database, it might act as a serious brake on use of OSM by the commercial routing services, and perhaps even in academic projects. Tele Atlas are quite happy to license their data without insisting that you disclose your algorithms or weights, and if OSM ends up being more restrictive then the companies won't use it. No loss to them - only to us. I support the principle of copyleft, but it is important not to get too greedy. Just because some seeming bad use of the data can technically be prevented by a certain extra clause in the licence does not mean that it should be. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Ed Avis wrote: What you wrote above is a very good argument for it. Rendering the data into a printed map is not a great deal of effort. Anyone can do it and many already do so. There are not many people who would be put off from rendering maps by being unable to make the result proprietary. The copyleft requirement is pretty trivial and doesn't create disincentives to rendering a map, because rendering a map is so easy. I think you're approaching that from a very programmatic perspective, and this confirms it: (In any case, even though you can freely copy a PNG file of a map or photocopy a page, and even though you can see for yourself what colour scheme was used, you don't have the program code that was used to render the ways and the text, which is the hard part. No, no, no, no, no, no. It might be easy to do an automated rendering. That's not what I'm talking about. What concerns me is hand-drawn cartography. The program code for that, in my case, is something like Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator, which anyone can have - but that's incidental. I spend days on getting the cartography right for the maps we produce in the magazine every month. It isn't rendering. It's entirely done by hand. Getting the label placement right, choosing the colour set, working on the pull-outs, generalising features so that they don't collide but the user doesn't notice the distortion: that _is_ a great deal of effort. I try to aspire to OS Landranger quality of cartography, not MapQuest! http://www.systemeD.net/osm/caldon_2.jpg http://www.systemeD.net/osm/caldon_3.jpg http://www.systemeD.net/osm/caldon_4.jpg (There's no OSM data in there - and conversely, OSM doesn't have all that data either; and even if the maps were CC-BY-SA, which they weren't, the generalisation is such that CC-BY-SA doesn't give much useful return to the project.) Believe me, I first wrote a passable routing program with reasonably decent weighting at the age of 19 or so (heh, I found a review - http://www.thecompclub.org.uk/newsletters/12.pdf), and it was a whole host more trivial than the n years of experience that have, I hope, given me the skills to design attractive maps. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22311108.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
2009/3/3 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:13 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: 2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. _Assuming_ we can get the bugs sorted in ODbL, and we can't take that for granted yet, this percentage should be very small. It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with the license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer the following questions: As has been said, a lot of this is up for discussion of various kinds... here's my brief attempt at answering... all responses are just my interpretation... feel free to say I'm wrong :-) - do you delete only data from contributors who explicitly say 'no' to the new licence or also if you have no response ? what is the argument to consider an absence of response to be a 'yes' or 'no' ? No response == no... but they might change their mind later and ask for their data to be reintegrated which really is /fun/. See next q though. - do you delete data from big contributors only or also all small or single contributions ? YMMV on this one. For cleanest DB you delete everything, for most data kept we run the risk with small uncopyrightable contributions. Also we may treat no response differently to no for this. From now on I'm assuming a cleanest DB scenario... - if you decide to delete contributions and those contributions are only part of the history of objects, do you rollback to a previous version of these objects ? yes remove completely the objects if the contributor is the creator or the last modifier ? yes for creator, revert for modifier only if the contributor is the single contributor on the whole history of the object ? yes - if the objects you delete are part of a relation, do you keep the relation at the end even if all members have to be deleted ? or do you revert the relation to the point before the object was added to the relation, or even to the point before the object was edited (as otherwise your remaining relation maybe derived from the object). Personally I think you're probably OK removing the object. Does an empty, unreferenced relation serve any purpose? And if it doesn't do we care? or you also delete the relation in this case ? what happen if another contributor (who accepted the new license) added/changed properties of a relation where all members have to be deleted ? relations are like any other object -- revert to the relation state before the person edited, then start removing things from it. - if someone says 'no' to the new license and wrote a bot, do you also delete the bot contributions ? we can't tell the difference, so yes. But we may be able to mark most of the edits as trivial and not remove them. - after deletion, do you keep the trace in the history of other related objects ? will it be possible for someone else to revert the deletion through Potlatch for instance ? Nasty question :-) Really the history should be deleted. You can leave a trace that something happened, but details shouldn't be available, neither should revert. We don't currently have a way to do that. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:22 PM, wer-ist-roger juwelier-onl...@web.dewrote: The only thing I'm missing right now is a little more explenation on the wiki page. For example why needs the database a license at all? The database is nothing without the data init. So first of all why dose the database need a license and why do we need two different licenses for database and the data within? What is an appropriate wiki page? - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On 03/03/09 09:43, Frederik Ramm wrote: 4. People who don't dislike ODbL per se but dislike the manner in which it was brought about, and thus feel rushed/excluded. People who make sensible suggestions for improvement but see their suggestions brushed away or simply ignored because this would just delay the license release (which seems to be planned for 28th March), I agree that the timeline is too tight, particularly given that people have to manage communication with communities other than English. But where are suggestions being brushed away? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] It's all too fast...
The GPLv3 public revision process was 18 months in multiple phases, and it was based on an existing licence. We are trying to analyse a completely new and untested one and get it to a final version in 1 month. I don't advocate the N years that the GPLv3 took, but currently the plan says: 2nd March * Finalise implementation plan following review of plan comments... (So the deadline for commenting on the timeline has already passed? That's too fast on its own.) 12th March * Working group meeting. Review of community feedback received to date. So all significant feedback has to be in within two weeks of the announcement? This is all far, far too fast. Remember that: - Some people don't log into or contribute to OSM every week; they may not even find out about this for a couple of weeks. - We need to get input from communities which don't speak English; this requires things (including the licence) to be translated so they can comment on it. As a straw man suggestion for comment, I suggest three months for comment and discussion, then a revision based on those comments, then another comment period, perhaps shorter. We can make sure the existing-people-problem doesn't get worse meantime by making people creating new accounts agree to dual licensing under CC-BY-SA and ODbL 1.0. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
I think we should find some way to avoid deleting at all. For some transitional time (in which the data will be still under cc-by-sa but we will be collecting consent of users for ODbL) mark data coming from/derived from people uncontactable/disagreeing with license with some special tag. Let people delete these parts and redraw them from scratch (from allowed sources/existing GPS tracks, anything except the original data). You would have to be very careful about doing that. I don't think it would work to view the map, see a street tagged 'bad licence', delete it and then add it back. Even if you were honest enough to close your eyes, turn around three times and then re-trace it from the aerial photography, it still looks very suspect. And when deleting the street you would have to delete all its nodes, including those that are intersections with other streets, since it obviously doesn't do anything to delete the way but leave all the nodes there to be straightaway reconnected. Sometimes (if current data are drawn very inaccurately and do not contain any valuable tags like name, etc..) I do this - delete current data, then draw it again from scratch from aerial photography with greater accuracy. It is faster than trying to move existing vertices around, splitting and merging the ways in the process. Yes, you have to be very catious when redrawing, but I think it may be possible. Try this thought experiment: suppose a user imported data from Google Well, this is disallowed completely in first place. But here we have good data, just under different (but similar) license. Since the reason for relicensing is to be ultra-cautious and take care of certain theoretical legal bogeymen, it makes sense to be ultra-cautious in removing possibly tainted data. There is no point doing a relicensing that leaves the project in a more questionable legal situation than before. Well, but how can you then explain to users that half of the data is lost just due to small incompatibilities between cc and odbl? Also, technically, when mixing licenses, we won't have mashup of cc-by-sa and odbl, we will have mashup of cc-by-sa without consent to relicense later under odbl and cc-by-sa with consent to relicense later under odbl. I think such mashup could work for short time (before we persuade all to get consent or delete and replace their data if we have no consent), once we have all cc-by-sa with consent for odbl, we can just switch to odbl. Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] It's all too fast...
We can make sure the existing-people-problem doesn't get worse meantime by making people creating new accounts agree to dual licensing under CC-BY-SA and ODbL 1.0. Perhaps give option to agree to ODbL also to existing accounts (though do not make it mandatory for now). This could also solve some problems if people leave the project in the meantime (perhaps because they have already mapped their area of interest or whatever ...) Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
2009/3/3 MP singular...@gmail.com: I think we should find some way to avoid deleting at all. For some transitional time (in which the data will be still under cc-by-sa but we will be collecting consent of users for ODbL) mark data coming from/derived from people uncontactable/disagreeing with license with some special tag. Let people delete these parts and redraw them from scratch (from allowed sources/existing GPS tracks, anything except the original data). You would have to be very careful about doing that. I don't think it would work to view the map, see a street tagged 'bad licence', delete it and then add it back. Even if you were honest enough to close your eyes, turn around three times and then re-trace it from the aerial photography, it still looks very suspect. And when deleting the street you would have to delete all its nodes, including those that are intersections with other streets, since it obviously doesn't do anything to delete the way but leave all the nodes there to be straightaway reconnected. Sometimes (if current data are drawn very inaccurately and do not contain any valuable tags like name, etc..) I do this - delete current data, then draw it again from scratch from aerial photography with greater accuracy. It is faster than trying to move existing vertices around, splitting and merging the ways in the process. Yes, you have to be very catious when redrawing, but I think it may be possible. Try this thought experiment: suppose a user imported data from Google Well, this is disallowed completely in first place. But here we have good data, just under different (but similar) license. And what makes Google's data /bad/? Presumably that it's copyrighted and we can't copy it right? Well, guess what... so's the cc-by-sa data. Since the reason for relicensing is to be ultra-cautious and take care of certain theoretical legal bogeymen, it makes sense to be ultra-cautious in removing possibly tainted data. There is no point doing a relicensing that leaves the project in a more questionable legal situation than before. Well, but how can you then explain to users that half of the data is lost just due to small incompatibilities between cc and odbl? By telling them? No body wants to loose data here. That doesn't mean we can just go around violating our own license. Also, technically, when mixing licenses, we won't have mashup of cc-by-sa and odbl, we will have mashup of cc-by-sa without consent to relicense later under odbl and cc-by-sa with consent to relicense later under odbl. I think such mashup could work for short time (before we persuade all to get consent or delete and replace their data if we have no consent), once we have all cc-by-sa with consent for odbl, we can just switch to odbl. Sure, but somebody copying the data and then deleting the original doesn't make it OK and with consent. All this idea does is muddy the water by inviting people to copy data and cause us problems. If we have to delete stuff, we should delete it properly and keep ourselves clean. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] It's all too fast...
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote: The GPLv3 public revision process was 18 months in multiple phases, and it was based on an existing licence. We are trying to analyse a completely new and untested one and get it to a final version in 1 month. We've been talking about the ODbL for a lng time now, way more than 18 months. It's not completely new. The previous draft was dated April 2008. If you're new to the discussions, then welcome, but don't make like the ODbL has never been seen before and that we're trying to do everything in 1 month. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi, Gervase Markham wrote: 4. People who don't dislike ODbL per se but dislike the manner in which it was brought about, and thus feel rushed/excluded. People who make sensible suggestions for improvement but see their suggestions brushed away or simply ignored because this would just delay the license release (which seems to be planned for 28th March), I agree that the timeline is too tight, particularly given that people have to manage communication with communities other than English. But where are suggestions being brushed away? Nothing has been brushed away as far as I am aware; I just think there is a (considerable IMHO) risk that things will either be brushed away or at least be seen to. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] It's all too fast...
2009/3/3 Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net: The GPLv3 public revision process was 18 months in multiple phases, and it was based on an existing licence. We are trying to analyse a completely new and untested one and get it to a final version in 1 month. It may well be too quick. And given the fairly large questions people have been asking I'm guessing you'll probably see this slip. But it's been around for a lot longer than 1 month. ODbL's been going around since last year at least in one form or another... wiki evidence: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Open_Database_Licenseoldid=77255 Steve sent a link to that to talk on 4th Feb 2008: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-February/022861.html Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net writes: 80n wrote: What percentage of data would other people feel willing to see sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license? I'd be interested to see this related to our userbase and editing stats. If (say) we lose 5%, how many months - at current rates of growth - does it take us to get back to the previous level? It is not that simple. What if those 5% is half of South Africa? You certainly can not interpolate overall OSM growth to re-surveying South Africa. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] It's all too fast...
Hi, Andy Allan wrote: We've been talking about the ODbL for a lng time now, way more than 18 months. It's not completely new. The previous draft was dated April 2008. If you're new to the discussions, then welcome, but don't make like the ODbL has never been seen before and that we're trying to do everything in 1 month. The previous draft was published in April 2008 and there was virtually no two-way communication with those who worked on it. We gathered on legal-talk, we asked questions, we put up use cases, and most of them were not seriously discussed by *anyone* from the license working group; we had no feedback from *any* of the lawyers involved, and no interim versions of the license. Even the OSMF board did not know anything until some time in January. If you look at the legal-talk archives it may look like there were people talking about the license but the truth is that there was virtually no overlap between those who worked on the license (and talked to lawyers) and those who discussed on the list. It is fair to say that there has been next to zero community involvement in producing the 0.9 draft. Now we have a new draft, where certain things have changed. Nobody involved with creating the draft has wasted *one* *single* *minute* to explain which changes have been made and why. The legal counsel's response to our use cases on the Wiki is thin, to say the very least. Many things that could be clarified within minutes in a proper dialogue have been drawn out to last months - for example, if the legal counsel did not understand something about our use cases, it would have been trivial for me or anyone else on the list to explain; instead we now read I would need someone to talk me through this. Words that probably have been sitting in that document for two months before we even saw it, and words that will sit there for another two months before someone finds the time to talk them through it and get a response. The recently quoted discussion on odc-discuss about share-alike extending to interim derived databases (something we all took for granted) seems to show that there are either major intentional differences between the April 08 draft and the just released 0.9, or that serious oversight was involved in preparing 0.9. The fact that the new license is to be hosted by a body known as Open Data Commons is at most 2 months old (because the December board meeting still said hosting options unknown, OSMF may need to host); given that whoever is hosting the license has far-ranging powers over the license, this is not something to tick off lightly. I'm all in favour of ODbL but I currently cannot by the life of me see a way how it could ever be put in force along the timeline published. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] images are Produced Works
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 09:40:08AM -0500, Richard Weait wrote: I see SVG as just another image. Raster or Vector; the image format is not a problem. […} The problem is behaviour. In this case the potential problem is Some Jerk trying to use OSM database without living up to their license obligations. An SVG image may contain a attributes that are far closer to the those from the orignal data, but that makes 4.7 “Reverse Engineering” no less applicable. Just because it is potentially trivial to extract the data from the SVG file does not mean the licence ceases to apply. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Add 'Keep right!' to the list of map links in the 'place' template
Shaun wrote: This crossing of a highway and a railway needs to be tagged as railway=level_crossing Is not quite right as it should also allow railway=crossing. a crossing is a crossing just for pedestrians, while level_crossing is a crossing where larger vehicles can cross too. Thank you, Shaun for the clarification! The check does allow 'railway=crossing' as well as 'railway=level_crossing', but it was not documented that way. I've added that now. Hi Harald, Do you use the saved comments against false positives to improve the checks at all? For example I noted against one such highlighted problem that railway=abandoned meeting a highway=footway probably doesn't need to be tagged as a level_crossing (indeed part of the footway runs along a section of the abandoned railway line). Yes of course, I will use the comments! In fact that's the only purpost of the comment field. Thank you for the hint, I excluded abandoned railways by now. Please note that this change will take effect in the next but one update, as the check process is already running... Having said that I've found a few things to correct around here as well as the false positives, and there are a few things that are highlighted as places I meant to go and finish but forgot about... Ed Thank you, Harald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] It's all too fast...
Martin wrote: Perhaps give option to agree to ODbL also to existing accounts (though do not make it mandatory for now). This could also solve some problems if people leave the project in the meantime (perhaps because they have already mapped their area of interest or whatever ...) I was going to suggest something similar after checking my settings on the OSM section of the website earlier today to see if there was anything there already that I could tick. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 03:28:10PM +0100, Pieren wrote: It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with the license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer the following questions: My take: - do you delete only data from contributors who explicitly say 'no' to the new licence or also if you have no response ? Delete both. what is the argument to consider an absence of response to be a 'yes' or 'no' ? The main thing is, no contributor, unless they have specifically stated otherwise, has (or in some cases, can) assign the rights to OSM, and OSM cannot just assume rights other than those given by the licence they were contributed under. Some users have declared their contributions to be in the public domain (or as close as law permits). Whether or not they respond, I think it’s safe to assume their data can be distributed under the terms of the new licence (I’d hope we’d be polite and ask anyway). - do you delete data from big contributors only or also all small or single contributions ? All data incompatible with the new licence, large or small. - if you decide to delete contributions and those contributions are only part of the history of objects, do you rollback to a previous version of these objects ? Rollback to the last version before any changes incompatible with the new licence are made. There is the idea floating around that modifications to existing data are insubstantial, and successive contributions could potentially be kept without issue, but I think it is safest to remove them. Maybe if a user responds “no”, a further page could ask whether or not they agree with their modifications to other peoples’ data being used under the terms of the new licence. remove completely the objects if the contributor is the creator or the last modifier ? Remove the object completely if the contributor is the creator. If the contributor is the last modifier, revert to the revision before as above. only if the contributor is the single contributor on the whole history of the object ? Remove the object completely. - if the objects you delete are part of a relation, do you keep the relation at the end even if all members have to be deleted ? or you also delete the relation in this case ? I am not sure there is much point in keeping the relation. If someone needs to use a relation to describe the same thing they can always create a new one. There is another question here: If the contributor created a relation and added ways and nodes appropriately, do you delete the relation even when it includes references to objects from other contributors? I think, to be safe, you do, but I also feel there is a looser coupling if the relation only relates objects compatible with the new licence. what happen if another contributor (who accepted the new license) added/changed properties of a relation where all members have to be deleted ? I still don’t think there is much point in keeping the relation. - if someone says 'no' to the new license and wrote a bot, do you also delete the bot contributions ? Yes, unless they say otherwise. It may well be that the bot author feels that, while they do not agree to the new licence for their own modifications, those made by the bot may be insubstantial (e.g. spelling corrections), and say “no” for their own edits, and “yes” for their bot’s edits. - after deletion, do you keep the trace in the history of other related objects ? In the interests of keeping it clean, any reverts made due to incompatible changes would not be kept in the history. A backup can be kept of the old database of CC-by-sa compatible data. It might come in handy if some non‐responders pipe up and say “yes”, or the “no” voters change their minds. will it be possible for someone else to revert the deletion through Potlatch for instance ? It shouldn’t be. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: It might be easy to do an automated rendering. That's not what I'm talking What concerns me is hand-drawn cartography. The program code for that, in my case, is something like Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator, which anyone can have - but that's incidental. I spend days on getting the cartography right for the maps we produce in the magazine every month. It isn't rendering. It's entirely done by hand. Getting the label placement right, choosing the colour set, working on the pull-outs, generalising features so that they don't collide but the user doesn't notice the distortion: that _is_ a great deal of effort. I try to aspire to OS Landranger quality of cartography, not MapQuest! Currently OSM surveyors do their thing in the understanding that cartographers will turn the result into something nice that they can use (and the surveyors know that they will benefit from this due to the map images being sharealike) If the cartographers then devise a new license that says my contributions are more important than yours, I should get exclusive rights over my additions to the map with a paintbrush while you shouldn't get exclusive rights over your additions to the map with a GPS then it reduces the incentive for people to survey, since the work they do can be published in a way that they can't use or copy. The only counter-argument to this seems to be that the freetards are invited to do a free version of cartography themselves, duplicating effort that has already been done in the proprietary world in order to get access to the results (as nice map images) of their own surveying ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 05:21:02PM +0100, Tobias Knerr wrote: because of a change to the data, but the (unpublished) tools creating the images, thus nothing of use would be contributed back to the free world with ODbL. Then we need to make sure as many tools as possible are free software, and are at least as good as the proprietary competition. I have had to explain to free software advocates before (I am one) that OpenStreetMap is about free geodata, not necessarily free software. Still, some free software advocates will go off in a hissy fit because they believe the project has its priorities wrong. The better answer would to get behind the free software tools that are already out there, maybe even help to develop more, and compete with proprietary software the same way free software always has done. It turns out that much of the software for OpenStreetMap is free software. I don't think explaining that data is more useful for us than images will help (I've already tried that), because that won't stop them from demanding both. Similarly, we can put enough free images out there for them to be useful to all, and make the non‐free ones hardly worth the pixels/vectors. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] regarding ODC and OKF
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Ulf Möller use...@ulfm.de wrote: John Wilbanks schrieb: In terms of OKF, hosting licenses is hard, and versioning licenses is really hard, but OKF has been around for a while and is a solid group of folks. If they are going to host your license you are way ahead of the game in terms of having a group that is smart and honest and open in your camp. According to their web site, they are a Company Limited by Guarantee. I couldn't find any information on the owners. Regardless of who they are, why should we give them complete control over the license? It seems, if they were to decide to for example make our project PD, neither the OSMF Board, nor the OSMF members, nor anyone else could do anything about it? would it be better for someone like FSF to host the license? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] Fwd: It's all too fast...
-- Forwarded message -- From: Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 22:04:57 + Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] It's all too fast... To: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org Even now we are getting no explanations from the foundation to our questions. Either this is because they dont know or it is because they dont think they need to contribute. I understand that most directors have not been in the loop so cant contribute. The only person we know has been in the loop is steve. Does he have answers i wonder? If not then no one knows and we are really in trouble. Many of the key issues are on the wiki already and we need a response to them now. Peter On 3/3/09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Andy Allan wrote: We've been talking about the ODbL for a lng time now, way more than 18 months. It's not completely new. The previous draft was dated April 2008. If you're new to the discussions, then welcome, but don't make like the ODbL has never been seen before and that we're trying to do everything in 1 month. The previous draft was published in April 2008 and there was virtually no two-way communication with those who worked on it. We gathered on legal-talk, we asked questions, we put up use cases, and most of them were not seriously discussed by *anyone* from the license working group; we had no feedback from *any* of the lawyers involved, and no interim versions of the license. Even the OSMF board did not know anything until some time in January. If you look at the legal-talk archives it may look like there were people talking about the license but the truth is that there was virtually no overlap between those who worked on the license (and talked to lawyers) and those who discussed on the list. It is fair to say that there has been next to zero community involvement in producing the 0.9 draft. Now we have a new draft, where certain things have changed. Nobody involved with creating the draft has wasted *one* *single* *minute* to explain which changes have been made and why. The legal counsel's response to our use cases on the Wiki is thin, to say the very least. Many things that could be clarified within minutes in a proper dialogue have been drawn out to last months - for example, if the legal counsel did not understand something about our use cases, it would have been trivial for me or anyone else on the list to explain; instead we now read I would need someone to talk me through this. Words that probably have been sitting in that document for two months before we even saw it, and words that will sit there for another two months before someone finds the time to talk them through it and get a response. The recently quoted discussion on odc-discuss about share-alike extending to interim derived databases (something we all took for granted) seems to show that there are either major intentional differences between the April 08 draft and the just released 0.9, or that serious oversight was involved in preparing 0.9. The fact that the new license is to be hosted by a body known as Open Data Commons is at most 2 months old (because the December board meeting still said hosting options unknown, OSMF may need to host); given that whoever is hosting the license has far-ranging powers over the license, this is not something to tick off lightly. I'm all in favour of ODbL but I currently cannot by the life of me see a way how it could ever be put in force along the timeline published. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Sent from Google Mail for mobile | mobile.google.com -- Sent from Google Mail for mobile | mobile.google.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Am Dienstag 03 März 2009 schrieb Gustav Foseid: On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:22 PM, wer-ist-roger juwelier-onl...@web.dewrote: The only thing I'm missing right now is a little more explenation on the wiki page. For example why needs the database a license at all? The database is nothing without the data init. So first of all why dose the database need a license and why do we need two different licenses for database and the data within? What is an appropriate wiki page? - Gustav First of all it would be interesting for what we need the Open Database License and the Factual Information License? So we are actully not talking about just one (everyone just talks about ODbL) but two licenses, so what's als about this factual information license thing? An appropriat wiki page for me would be a page that explains to a law noob like me what happens to my data that I submit. What can be done with the data once it's uploaded (from an contributer and user perspectiv) and what could happen with it in the future (especially concerning the licenses, new versions of them and how we want to prevent another discussion like this). Who is the owner of this material. Maybe one should point out the differences between the current licens and the new licenseS and what it means to the regular contributer. It is not important to show every aspect of the licens but to give a good and short overview. Giving more information about the licenses might be good to get them more popular. Because the more I read about it here on the mailing list the more I get confused and by now I even disagree a little with the license change. A good wiki page that shows a little more then just the current one might help more. Roger ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: The cartographer goes off on a tangent; he does not help us in reaching the goal of a free world map; he is a *user* of the free world map and not a *creator*. It is nice if he makes his work available because it allows us to show off what can be done with our data (although if he at least attributes us that's also a good thing). But him releasing his work does not contribute to the free world map; or, turned the other way round, him keeping his work for himself does not slow us down in any way (because what would we do with his painted maps? trace our data off them?). what would we do with the cartographer's map images? (other than print them to navigate with or, put them in an encyclopedia, seems reasonable after *we* mapped the area...) the obvious one is: we would use them in software currently, there are many different slippy-maps showing different renderings of OSM data. They are all technically compatible (due to the tilenames) and they are all legally compatible (due to the CC-SA license on images). An application can swap between any of the maps (and cache or distribute copies as they please) just by changing a URL. As with many other open standards, this leads to a wealth of innovation in the devices, websites, applications and products which use these mapservers (e.g. tangoGPS, the iphone app, the mediawiki plugin, the variety of OSM website designs) If anyone who converts map data into a map image is provided with WTFYW license and gets to choose who is permitted to use, view, modify, overlay, and copy their images then lots of websites might decide I paid for hosting and rendering, so only people who agree to these conditions can use my maps, leading to a fragmentation of licenses for the various slippy maps available. Do we want to see the slippy-map tileservers becoming a commercial battleground for who can make the most money while imposing the most restrictions, where currently it's a nice easy everything is CC-BY-SA level playing-field where tangogps doesn't have to worry about enforcing the terms and conditions of 20 different rendererers? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Thank you for your post Frederick! I've been lurking on this discussion for awhile and you just summed up exactly my thoughts on it. Hi, OJ W wrote: Currently OSM surveyors do their thing in the understanding that cartographers will turn the result into something nice that they can use (and the surveyors know that they will benefit from this due to the map images being sharealike) This is your assumption, not mine; I have never mapped anything thinking hey, maybe someone else is going to make a nice map from this that I can then use. Not one single time. I don't know if that makes me an exception. Most people I talked to were enthusiastic about the data being collected, and were talking about cool things *they* could do with the data, but I might be moving in the wrong circles ;-) If the cartographers then devise a new license that says my contributions are more important than yours, I should get exclusive rights over my additions to the map with a paintbrush while you shouldn't get exclusive rights over your additions to the map with a GPS I don't like more important. I think that the designer is actually doing something *less* important in the grand scheme of things. (His work might make up 90% of the work that goes into his particular product, but for us, it is negligible.) The surveyors are directly working towards the declared aim of this project; creating a free world map. Everything a surveyor does (well unless he's malicious or extremely stupid) will further this goal; his work is important to us. The cartographer goes off on a tangent; he does not help us in reaching the goal of a free world map; he is a *user* of the free world map and not a *creator*. It is nice if he makes his work available because it allows us to show off what can be done with our data (although if he at least attributes us that's also a good thing). But him releasing his work does not contribute to the free world map; or, turned the other way round, him keeping his work for himself does not slow us down in any way (because what would we do with his painted maps? trace our data off them?). It all boils down to ideology. Forcing the cartographer to release his work means that we're not only about the free world map but also about free map images, free art installations, free t-shirt designs, free computer games, and so on. Concentrating on the data and ignoring the other stuff means, well, concentrating on the free world map. I am a great believer in the principal goodness of men, and I sure would encourage everyone who takes anything from OSM, be it data, or just inspiration, to catch the spirit and give cool things away as well. But trying to *force* people to do so will, I believe, create unnecessary problems and friction and unease (witness inability to use CGIAR data by OpenCycleMap for example) and just make things worse for everyone. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
OJ W wrote: If the cartographers then devise a new license that says my contributions are more important than yours, I should get exclusive rights over my additions to the map with a paintbrush while you shouldn't get exclusive rights over your additions to the map with a GPS then it reduces the incentive for people to survey, since the work they do can be published in a way that they can't use or copy. So to return to the point you have completely ignored, can you tell me why you're happy that the (current) licence doesn't require routing program source code to be released, please? Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] regarding ODC and OKF
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 09:11:13PM +, OJ W wrote: Regardless of who they are, why should we give them complete control over the license? It seems, if they were to decide to for example make our project PD, neither the OSMF Board, nor the OSMF members, nor anyone else could do anything about it? would it be better for someone like FSF to host the license? I think we would have the same concerns as there are with OKF hosting it. I personally think the later version clause should be removed and left for the licensor to decide, or at least written in a similar way to section 14 of the GPL[1], which gives the licensor the option to state version specifics, but has a fallback. If such a change is made, then the community may decide criteria for acceptance of a newer revision of the licence. [1]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section14 Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:14 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: Do we want to see the slippy-map tileservers becoming a commercial battleground for who can make the most money while imposing the most restrictions, where currently it's a nice easy everything is CC-BY-SA level playing-field where tangogps doesn't have to worry about enforcing the terms and conditions of 20 different rendererers? I think you're severely misunderstanding the current situation. There are certainly conditions on the use of the opencyclemap tiles that are not covered by cc-by-sa. You can't scrape all the z18 tiles, because you'll be banned if you try. If you're app relies on being able to scrape all the z18 tiles from tile.osm.org, then it'll be incompatible with the cycle map. Every server that I'm aware of has terms and conditions already, and they are all different. However, you are right in saying that as it stands, once you've actually acquired a tile you can be sure that you have a consistent license. I don't think it's a problem. If someone makes a tileserver with crappy TsCs then someone else can make another one with the same data and TsCs that are acceptable to whichever standard. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: SteveC wrote: I asked the CM designers for some quick hacks on what different front pages could look like which you can see on the wiki page below. Very pretty in a sort of let's-polish-the-CSS way, which isn't a bad thing at all. In a let's ask for the stars way, though, how about: - a little draggable I've found a problem icon - yeah yeah, OSB integration :) - something that says Hey! We're a fun community!; maybe two forthcoming events in tiny type? - some visualisation like Mikel's old activity tracker, showing where people have been editing recently - so you get a real sense of how alive the project is; would only want this at, say z1-10 - as per Dave's e-mail: lots of visibility for you get different views on the same data, maybe with a More... link to featured images, or a gallery, or something - downloadable Fake SteveC mascot for your desktop which installs some spyware and stuff like that +1 to all of those (does the plugin make ICHC update any faster?) there was an idea just to have some big textbox on the page saying tell us what's wrong with what you see that enters an OSB ticket for the region you're looking at. (preferably filtering-out entries telling you that the world looks incomplete) the 'drag problem-marker' idea sounds even better, since javascript is likely to be available for anyone using the slippy-map. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi! OJ W schrieb: If anyone who converts map data into a map image is provided with WTFYW license and gets to choose who is permitted to use, view, modify, overlay, and copy their images then lots of websites might decide I paid for hosting and rendering, so only people who agree to these conditions can use my maps, leading to a fragmentation of licenses for the various slippy maps available. Do we want to see the slippy-map tileservers becoming a commercial battleground for who can make the most money while imposing the most restrictions, where currently it's a nice easy everything is CC-BY-SA level playing-field where tangogps doesn't have to worry about enforcing the terms and conditions of 20 different rendererers? Actually, the opposite is the case. Right now, the restrictive SA-licence keeps the community people from creating better maps using both OSM data and other sources with other licences. At the same time, the data ist not sufficiently protected and any unscrupulous company or person can just grab everything and create a much better map combining any sources, completely disregarding the spirit of the licence. The community could not compete with such multi-sourced maps and puplic usage would likely prefer the stolen, but much more complete maps. The new license will *enable* the community to create better works based on OSM and as long as these are available for free, the evil commercial cartographer has no leverage to sell his commercial products if he doesn't add considerable effort and due to the DB-license everything he adds is available to the community to build upon it, too. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Everything is up for debate. For me, this license change resembles the EULA story with openSuse, see http://zonker.opensuse.org/2008/11/26/opensuse-sports-a-new-license-ding-dong-the-eulas-dead/ and http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/opensuse-ends-eula At least in Germany, this EULA story might had more impact on openSuse than the cooperation of Microsoft and Novell. And it started as a clash of cultures when Novell changed the Suse pages from the Suse way of organizing a site to the Novell way of organizing a site. A lot of end users have been trained to the following way of perceiving: a screen mask that consists of several pages of scrollable text and then two buttons Yes or Abort means We never warrant that any part of this software works. But we always let you pay again when you do something we haven't planned. no matter what's actually written in the text. For a lot of people who are not primarly interested in law, this is what commercial means. So I would like to suggest the following: 1. Create a message like --- We are trying to get out of the caveats and flaws of copyright law and therefore need a new license. The final draft can be found at http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ and http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/fil/ For non-law-experts, this means http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases --- 2. When a useful version of that message exists, request for as many translations as possible. Even doing here on talk@ would be a good place. 3. After some days, make the thing available at every user login. 4. Don't start the license commit itself at most a month after this message has been announced. At least for those who perceive Yes-Abort-pages that way, this would much more look like the behaviour of an open project. And what to users who do not log in with a browser? Cheers, Roland ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: It's all too fast...
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 22:04:57 + Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] It's all too fast... To: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org Even now we are getting no explanations from the foundation to our questions. Either this is because they dont know or it is because they dont think they need to contribute. I understand that most directors have not been in the loop so cant contribute. I really don't want to get into a long discussion about the licence, but what I'm really missing is a rationale document, going through each paragraph explaining why it says what it says. Because there are things in there that I don't understand why they're there. As an aside, Can we get something into the user accounts that allows people to tick a box saying they agree to some kind of licence change. ISTM the easiest way to finish the discussion about deleted data is to get some actual figures as to how much of a problem it is. If it turns out 99.8% of people agree then the question becomes moot. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout klep...@gmail.com http://svana.org/kleptog/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] It's all too fast...
On 03/03/09 18:23, Andy Allan wrote: We've been talking about the ODbL for a lng time now, way more than 18 months. It's not completely new. The previous draft was dated April 2008. If you're new to the discussions, then welcome, but don't make like the ODbL has never been seen before and that we're trying to do everything in 1 month. Everything that Frederik said. There has been no interactive discussion with the editors of the licence, no formal place (as there is now on co-ment.net) for collating and discussing issues, no explanation of the deltas from the previous draft to this, no explanation of how it might work in a range of possible use cases, etc. etc. You say the licence isn't completely new. Where's the document showing the differences from the previously discussed draft, along with the rationale for why each change was made? Something like this: http://gplv3.fsf.org/rationale (PDF document) I believe the GPLv3 process issued three or four of those, although they appear to have taken all but the final one down. Without such a document, it might as well be completely new. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Frederik Ramm wrote: I have never mapped anything thinking hey, maybe someone else is going to make a nice map from this that I can then use. Not one single time. I don't know if that makes me an exception. Most people I talked to were enthusiastic about the data being collected, and were talking about cool things *they* could do with the data, but I might be moving in the wrong circles ;-) My (completely unscientific) observation is that liberal opinions about licensing (esp. PD-advocacy) are more common with people who actually write software / make map styles / do other advanced things with OSM data. Support for liberal licensing also appears to be more prevalent on the mailing lists than anywhere else in the project. One possible explanation might be that these liberals have experienced the problems of incompatible licenses etc. themselves. However, I'm starting to think that there's something else: If people are able to create cool OSM stuff themselves, they care most about licensing not getting in their way. Mappers who don't have the technical or artistic skills or simply the time to do so will still want cool stuff to be done with OSM. Of course, they have to rely on others creating it, and, more importantly, others allowing them to use it under attractive conditions. A license that guarantees the last part might seem rather appealing for many of them. Just a side note because I found this aspect of the statement especially interesting. Most probably overly generalizing, misleading and/or simply wrong. ;-) Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
OJ W wrote: [routing source code] I saw that as a bit of a loophole in the license which is unfortunate but rather difficult to close Ok, that's consistent. Extreme, perhaps, but consistent. But: [...] we can just declare that it should meet sharelike standards to ensure that OSM players are not trying to take advantage of each other. is inordinately offensive. As far as I know there are only two OSM players who are commercial cartographers in some way (though for neither of us is it our main job): me and Steve Chilton. To allege that we are aiming to take advantage of other contributors is, yes, offensive, but also insane beyond belief. You might not like Potlatch, you might not trace from NPE or ever use any traced data, you might never use the Mapnik layer. But there is no denying that all three of them are very major contributions to OSM without any - _any_ - payback. Meanwhile, the guys releasing the routing software are, er, the ones who've got €2.4m of venture capital. I don't begrudge them that - quite the contrary. I don't think anyone does. But you might want to open your eyes. Sheesh. Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22320263.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] It's all too fast...
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.netwrote: On 03/03/09 18:23, Andy Allan wrote: We've been talking about the ODbL for a lng time now, way more than 18 months. It's not completely new. The previous draft was dated April 2008. If you're new to the discussions, then welcome, but don't make like the ODbL has never been seen before and that we're trying to do everything in 1 month. Everything that Frederik said. There has been no interactive discussion with the editors of the licence, no formal place (as there is now on co-ment.net) for collating and discussing issues, no explanation of the deltas from the previous draft to this, no explanation of how it might work in a range of possible use cases, etc. etc. Wilson Sonsini was engaged by OSMF on October 13, 2008. Since then there has been a dialog between Jordan Hatcher and Wilson Sonsini acting on behalf of OSMF. Other than the uses cases document, which was published at the same time as the license, the OSMF board has not received *any* communication from Wilson Sonsini. As far as I am aware any interactive discussion between Clark Asay and Jordan Hatcher has not been documented. 80n You say the licence isn't completely new. Where's the document showing the differences from the previously discussed draft, along with the rationale for why each change was made? Something like this: http://gplv3.fsf.org/rationale (PDF document) I believe the GPLv3 process issued three or four of those, although they appear to have taken all but the final one down. Without such a document, it might as well be completely new. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
- if you decide to delete contributions and those contributions are only part of the history of objects, do you rollback to a previous version of these objects ? Rollback to the last version before any changes incompatible with the new licence are made. This could be perhaps optimized: if user A creates some highway=road, user B changes it to residential and user C changes it to secondary. A and C agrees to new license, B won't. But contribution of B was completely removed by C's edit, so it won't be necessary to revert to highway=road in this case. Basically, if the edits of incompatible users got later reverted or altered so their contribution is not there anymore, there is no need to rollback, just delete their revision from history. This could help in cases where user B just make lot of mistakes that got later reverted/corrected. Technically, for ways we would have problems with restoring old revision, since the nodes referenced by the old revision could have been moved/deleted in the meantime, so that would possibly create some invalid data. There is the idea floating around that modifications to existing data are insubstantial, and successive contributions could potentially be kept without issue, but I think it is safest to remove them. Perhaps for really minor changes, like alterations to created_by or conversion from true to yes or alike we could make an exception. Or in cases where the object was completely modified from the last license-incompatible version. In the interests of keeping it clean, any reverts made due to incompatible changes would not be kept in the history. Would there be at least some information like this object was reverted because of new license (which would signal that the object perhaps need to be re-improved somehow) and for deleted objects information that something was deleted from here? A backup can be kept of the old database of CC-by-sa compatible data. It might come in handy if some non‐responders pipe up and say “yes”, or the “no” voters change their minds. Won't be of much use after longer time, since the missing data are probably first to get readded and merging contribution of people who changed their mind with the parts that was restored by remapping the affected area in meantime would be difficult and won't be posible to automate. Also, what if someone who disagrees to new license deletes some data (either because that data is wrong or is replaced by something else that he draws). Will the deleted data get restored? Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 12:33:56AM +0100, MP wrote: This could be perhaps optimized: if user A creates some highway=road, user B changes it to residential and user C changes it to secondary. A and C agrees to new license, B won't. But contribution of B was completely removed by C's edit, so it won't be necessary to revert to highway=road in this case. Basically, if the edits of incompatible users got later reverted or altered so their contribution is not there anymore, there is no need to rollback, just delete their revision from history. This seems reasonable, but (there’s always one) what happens in the case that A creates highway=road, B changes it to highway=residenital (intentional mis‐spelling), and C corrects it to highway=residential? Unless C can be said to have surveyed it, this looks like an “improvement” to B’s efforts, and a trivial one at that. It should probably be reverted to A’s edit, and tagged for resurvey. There is the idea floating around that modifications to existing data are insubstantial, and successive contributions could potentially be kept without issue, but I think it is safest to remove them. Perhaps for really minor changes, like alterations to created_by or conversion from true to yes or alike we could make an exception. Reasonable: Changes that don’t change the semantics, or are just meta‐data about the change, can be excepted. Would there be at least some information like this object was reverted because of new license (which would signal that the object perhaps need to be re-improved somehow) and for deleted objects information that something was deleted from here? I don’t see why not. Also, what if someone who disagrees to new license deletes some data (either because that data is wrong or is replaced by something else that he draws). Will the deleted data get restored? I know what OSM needs: Changesets! ;) I think all incompatible edits should get restored, although I understand it could lead to a little bit of a mess. Hopefully, in most cases: 1. A scribbles on the map. [compatible change] 2. B removes the scribble [incompatible change]; and 3. B replaces it with a neat road [incompatible change]. B doesn’t agree to the licence and the neat road gets deleted, and the scribble gets added back in. The following looks more messy, however: 1. A scribbles on the map [compatible] 2. B removes the scribble [incompatible] 3. C adds a neat road [compatible] If we follow the rule of reverting incompatible changes only 2 is reverted to 1 (A’s scribble gets added back in). 3 is considered an independent change. We end up with both a scribble and a neat road in the same area. This situation likely won’t be easy to detect until after the changes, when validators will gleefully litter the map with warnings about overlapping ways. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
