Re: [talk-ph] Bulk contributors in the Philippines and the ODbL license
I am also monitoring the exchanges (hundreds!) regarding the license change. But honestly, there's too much noise than signal. I think we need to clear up the air a little bit to get an objective sense on what the license will be and its implications to our personal contributions and bulk imports. 2 bulk imports in the Philippines should be of concern: 1. Naga City 2. POI import from jklinc,waypoints.ph,rpmap The rest of the bulk imports (coastline, GNS, out-of-copyright maps) shouldn't have much problem. I will comb through the data import page in the next few days. On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Mike, I think maning can answer this more fully since he's the one who keeps tabs on all of the bulk imports in the Philippines. But as far as I am aware, all of the really bulk imports come from public domain data sources (e.g., the Naga City GIS import). Regards, Eugene / seav On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Hallo again, Regarding the OSM's new license process that I just emailed about, I have a question for you. With Germany, the Philippines community has taken an aggressive lead in getting contributions of bulk data from government authorities. Is it necessary to make them aware that we may move to a new license and could there be any repercussion of that? It is still a very similar license - community, private and commercial use OK as long as attribution and share-alike clauses are met - but a change is a change. At the moment we are encouraging informal dialogue with some of our really big contributors such as AND in Holland and perhaps you want to do the same. I'd be grateful for any feedback. If you feel there is a need to make a formal approach, I recommend we wait until we can have a final copy of the license and a clear indication that it is going to be accepted by the OSM community as a whole. Mike OSMF License Working Group ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
Hi, Peter Miller wrote: If we get 99% there with version 1.0 and version 2.0 takes the next two years then the cost benefit, to me, would suggest 1.0 as the better deal. Lets first get the consultation input into Jordan, then lets read the updated draft, then comment again if that is requested, then wait for the final draft for version 1. Yes. For the avoidance of doubt, the current draft is IMO nowhere even near 99% there and it is absolutely clear that changes have to be made. Also, the cost of staying with buggy old CC-BY-SA for a few months longer is rather negligible, so any cost-benefit analysis would have to take that into account. It's not that our house is burning and we need someone with a hose quickly. We can then decide as a community if we are happy to proceed (which I think we will). If there is a big problem then I suspect that a version 1.1 could be turned round quickly to address it. Good for you to be optimistic, however I quote Rufus Pollock from odc-discuss: I'd also point out that it will be possible upgrade the license (a v2.0 if you like) though that is not likely to happen that quickly after a v1.0 release. The worst that could happen would be to talk people into accepting a buggy 1.0 with the promise of a quick upgrade to a fixed 1.1 and then seeing 1.1 take forever. It's not that I expect a license to be perfect, none will ever be; I just expect us to fix the bugs we already see, and reserve the upgrade mechanism for those that pop up later, rather than rushing through something where we already have a list of known bugs. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Also, the cost of staying with buggy old CC-BY-SA for a few months longer is rather negligible, The barn down the road from me was standing on just four 9 beams. We kept saying Boy, that barn has some structural problems. It could fall down at any time. It didn't fall, and it didn't fall. One might be tempted to think that one could go into the barn and pull one valuable things of one sort or another. The barn finally fell down this winter. If it's a bad idea to use the CC-BY-SA, it's a bad idea to use it for a few months longer. Just because its barn hasn't fallen doesn't mean that the risk is not increasing. Everybody knew that the Johnstown dam was going to go ... when it finally did, nobody paid attention because they didn't believe it actually HAD gone out. But all this discussion is kinda pointless. There are two things going on here: the ODbL is being drafted, and we're deciding whether the ODbL meets our needs (I say our because I joined the Foundation a few days ago.) Until the ODbL is finished, we kinda have nothing to talk about. Yes, the ODbL is being drafted with our specific needs in mind, so if the first published version doesn't meet our needs, we can go back to the well and ask for a revision. But until the ODbL is finished, we're spinning our wheels. Can we assume that the lawyers understand the problem and are working on a solution? -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
OJ W wrote: Given that maps need to be regularly updated to stay useful, anyone relying on a CC-BY-SA loophole will be just as SOL if we change the license in a year as if we changed it in time for april fools Shit, I'd better cancel the 25,000 copies of Waterways World rolling off the presses with a largely NPE-derived map of the Chesterfield Canal in, then. I can count on two hands the number of British canals that have moved in the last _century_. The Aire Calder was rerouted because of some mining subsidence. The Ribble Link is new. The Falkirk Wheel caused a realignment of the FC/Union junction. The Worcester Birmingham now swerves to avoid the M42. Er... cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-to-kill-tp22323485p22362869.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
The UK canals don't contribute to the licensing discussions because you mapped them as PD. So we can do whatever we want with the canal data without having to consult anyone. On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: OJ W wrote: Given that maps need to be regularly updated to stay useful, anyone relying on a CC-BY-SA loophole will be just as SOL if we change the license in a year as if we changed it in time for april fools Shit, I'd better cancel the 25,000 copies of Waterways World rolling off the presses with a largely NPE-derived map of the Chesterfield Canal in, then. I can count on two hands the number of British canals that have moved in the last _century_. The Aire Calder was rerouted because of some mining subsidence. The Ribble Link is new. The Falkirk Wheel caused a realignment of the FC/Union junction. The Worcester Birmingham now swerves to avoid the M42. Er... cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-to-kill-tp22323485p22362869.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
OJ W wrote: The UK canals don't contribute to the licensing discussions because you mapped them as PD. I did? I've done comparatively little canal line mapping in OSM, let alone bridges and locks. Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-to-kill-tp22323485p22363001.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
Hi, Richard Fairhurst wrote: OJ W wrote: Given that maps need to be regularly updated to stay useful, anyone relying on a CC-BY-SA loophole will be just as SOL if we change the license in a year as if we changed it in time for april fools Shit, I'd better cancel the 25,000 copies of Waterways World rolling off the presses with a largely NPE-derived map of the Chesterfield Canal in, then. I tend to side with OJW on this. You weren't at the last SOTM (hope to see you this time?) but I had a very nice graph of the expected value of OSM data once the community stops working on it, and, what shall I say, I made it look like life expectancy of mankind after we lose the bees. There may be things that don't change (in another discussion someone pointed out that house numbers could be among them), but in general, the big thing about OSM is not the giant heap of data we have collected (others have more!) but the fact that if you use this data, you have on your side a whole community of people who constantly update, refine, improve, and quality-check the data. I think that without this, OSM is relatively un-interesting. If you had to take OSM data as a basis and then attempt to buy support for it because the community would not do it for you... good luck. Much like OJW in his argument, I have argued for relaxed wording when it comes to the reverse engineering clause in ODbL and for applying less-than-maximum care when dealing with the enforcing the contract issue. My take was that if we have a leak and somehow someone manages to create an OSM derivative that is free of any restrictions (maybe by first exporting it to a corrupt caribbean nation without database law, then employing people to remove the licensing notices and then sending the cleaned thing to the USA or so), and if this becomes a problem for us, we can deal with that *then* because while we cannot take the data that he already has away from him, we can always cut him off from updates. This makes for an altogether better sleep as opposed to the notion that once someone manages to strip off the license then all is lost. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
80n wrote: I support Frederik's view that the community is the most valuable aspect of OSM. Um, I'm not arguing against that. All I'm disputing is this silly little notion that maps automatically lose all value after a year or two. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-to-kill-tp22323485p22367102.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way again
Nick I'm very much with you on this. In fact, I have already started using designated= tags as I think they solve a number of problems that have been discussed here. If there are rendering advantages as well, so much the better. You're more experienced in the mysterious ways of OSM than am I, so I assume that you'll start some sort of polling / voting procedure? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Nick Whitelegg [mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk] Sent: 03 March 2009 09:53 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [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] Rights of way again
How about using highway=service (and even including service=driveway) for some of these as these are existing documented tags? OTOH I do sometimes feel a need for tagging a public right of way footpath that is not physically walkable! Usually I add a note if the presets for obstructions / barriers do not suffice. Some better rendering of some of the barriers e.g. =fence would be nice - - Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Ed Avis [mailto:e...@waniasset.com] Sent: 03 March 2009 11:21 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: 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] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
Hi! SteveC schrieb: We've not always done a great job of communicating for a variety of reasons but it was never with malice. But you have actually succeeded in making quite a number of people suspect malice - and warn others about that. I do not agree, but I think it is a natural reaction, especially in a community concerned about freedom: - You keep me in the dark and suprise me - You try to force my consent while I have had no chance to inform myself = What are you hiding? What are you up to? I don't know you. And I had to google to check your affiliation with OSMF. I have no reason to trust you. I have no reason to suspect you of malice. But your repeated Not our job statements towards this matter worries me a lot. It is your initiative. It is your job. And if you don't do a better job of including the community and breaking the news in an acceptable way to everybody really quick, I fear desaster. You are inviting hundreds of No decisions just because of bad information policy. I recon there was no way to find out about this short of subscribing to legal talk - and why on earth would any mapper do that if he has no idea that anything concerning him is going on? This is the first time an ordinary OSM member had a chance to get notice of the licence change and I bet you that there are 8 account holders who still have no idea that anything is going on - so the process is just starting now. And we still have failed to give notice and understandable (translated) information to the majority of participants. I want to correct something here, there is this view of 100,000 users needing consent. The number is in fact far smaller for people who ever made an edit (about 30% of the users). It's vastly smaller still for anyone who has edited anything significant. It's an easier problem than you might think, is what I'm saying. Far easier than convincing you I don't have a satanic portal in my basement. You know what you're saying? You don't care about 10 people who are interested or want to contribute, you just care about the data of the 8000 (?) who have substantially contributed? This is a community. This is about people. At least it should be. Can't you understand why people do not trust you and suspect you are just out to grab their work when you argue like this? Even though I am in favour of the licence itself, this way of thinking is unacceptable to me. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: Richard Fairhurst 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') I think that the Mapnik layer should be called UK Style. Green trunk roads, Blue motorways etc. are all standard features of British maps, and not in use as much elsewhere. Except maybe one day we'll have the technology to use different colours in different countries - it's not really deliberately a UK style, that is just a side effect of (a) not having support for country specific schemes and (b) the main cartographer doing that layer being UK based. 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
Frederik Ramm wrote: (I see that for some countries people have put up slippy maps covering only that country. I would love to one day interweave these individual servers by way of a cool getTileUrl OpenLayers function so that you can zoom across Europe and see each country as rendered by the national OSM group ;-) I'm not sure delegating to all sort of different servers is the best way to implement such a thing for lots of reasons. We just need the master stylesheet to be able to take location into account when rendering. Aside from anything else if you did it by delegation the style could only change on the edge of a tile. Then again, I'm not sure it works to be changing styles at a land border anyway - it will look very odd if motorways suddenly change colour because you've reached a border. 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] Post tastsic questions of my own
Steve, (Has someone told you that you're overly concerned about your Fake self? He seems to make an appearance in every second post you write.) SteveC wrote: Over IM and email I've had some really positive replies. There are a lot of you out there who personally responded that you liked my posts. Lurkers support me in E-Mail! I know how it feels only I seem to get the E-Mails of those who are unhappy ;-) the tone of these E-Mails is usually: I think the whole process stinks but I am not with the project long enough to feel entitled to say so publicly. - My answer is usually along the lines anyone is entitled to speak their mind so feel free to do so; yes the process stinks but I think that it is worth trying to fix things instead of rejecting the relicensing effort outright. Sometimes good things are delivered in ugly wrapping. You don't like the crappy negative tone of a lot of people. You think the license is a good step. You want to see my satanic portal. I have to ask you why do you do this personally? I know the answer. You have a secret and you want to keep it safe and warm and snuggly in your duvet, away from these posts. It's called sanity. I know. It's hard. But if you post here, and show the End Of The World crew that there are opinions beyond we will all be better. Really. These mailing lists are for communication, for talking to each other and finding solutions. I am not interested in me too postings from people who don't care enough to engage in discussion - from either side of the argument. (Is there either side? Personally I feel that I'm on all sides at the same time. Or on none of them, depending on your point of view.) Someone who is unwilling to defend and argue for his opinion is not a worthy addition to any kind of debate. This is not a whose fanboy are you poll. And before you say that there is more mud-slinging than debate: We had a lot of very sensible debate over on legal-talk; that would have taken us even further had you or someone else from the licensing working group participated in it rather than ignoring it. My second question goes to those who live in the various countries that aren't bankrupt... oh I mean those that aren't in the UK. How is the community there? Is it bad? Is it good? How can we help. What are *you* doing to help? Are you stirring dissent? Are you trying to build a consensus? My view of the community in Germany is that dissent stirs itself, with the major themes being: (1) fear for loss of data because people will not agree to the change - it seems to me that even more so than on the English-language lists, Germans are so protective of the OSM they have helped create that they'd rather keep a crappy and non-working license than to have to delete data. (2) unhappiness about lack of protection for Produced Works, envious/greedy arguments about possible commercial exploitation of same, and unwillingness to accept interim database share-alike as a replacement (3) general unease about the process (feeling left out/rushed; having been told in the past that the OSMF does not want to influence the fate of the project, just operate servers and collect money; generally not having had any say in the new license and a feeling that is unlikely they will ever have a say because the license is being designed by lawyers from another country in another language etc. I'm generally defending the benefits of the new license, subject to the caveats being discussed here; however it is my opinion that the process how we got to where we are now has been wrong and if someone seeks reassurance from me (please tell me that they will listen to our concerns and not try to rush everyone into accepting a new license while important issues are unsolved, please tell me that they won't do funny things behind closed doors, please tell me that we will get a profound legal opinion before they go ahead, please tell me that I won't wake up one morning to find an E-Mail in my inbox saying agree to this license or go away) - then, from past experience in this process, the only thing I can honestly say is: I *hope* so too. If they ask me what has changed between the last license draft and the current one and why, then what can I say; I spent considerable time to provide an (English and German) comparison of the two, but since no information about the rationale has been forthcoming, should I invent something just to hide the inadequacies of the process? They ask why we need a new license at all; I try to explain, I translate RichardF's old opengeodata.org posting; I translate the license itself... I'm keeping the ugliest bits to myself; many things that have surfaced on these lists and that are fuel for conspiracy theorists (process behind closed doors, people on legal-talk being left out/ignored/not answered to, no minutes of discussions with lawyers, OSMF board being sidelined in the process,
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
Hi, Tom Hughes wrote: I'm not sure delegating to all sort of different servers is the best way to implement such a thing for lots of reasons. We just need the master stylesheet to be able to take location into account when rendering. That's how Google does it of course and it is, issues of scale aside, the easy choice. (And yes their motorway style changes, slightly, at many borders e.g. between Germany and France or Austria; maybe that's to denote toll motorways though and not a specifc national style.) Aside from anything else if you did it by delegation the style could only change on the edge of a tile. No; if done cleverly, national servers could produce half transparent tiles at the borders. I know it would be quite a feat to set up something like this, and every time you view a map of Europe then half the tiles would be missing because the Czech or Austrian or Hungarian or German server had a hiccup at that moment and so on. But it would be a really cool thing to have and help us get away from ugly centralism. We work and map and meet regionally; why not champion an architecture that actually takes this into account. Could make a nice Google SoC project and/or even attract EU funding under some kind of unity in diversity programme. I'm not suggesting to take away your holy central tile rendering; I'm sure that will always be needed to be practical. But an extra project on extra hardware with distributed tiles and nationally or even regionally decided styles... would be nice. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License to kill
On 5 Mar 2009, at 00:29, SteveC wrote: For your interest my company's lawyer (acting for ITO World Ltd) is hoping to have her response together in relation to the license by the end of tomorrow. My company will review her comments and hope to be able to make that document publicly available to the community by the end of this week. She may also give opinion on some Use Cases and Open Issues which could be useful. Great. Are those opinions in relation to ITO!s business or from the point of view purely of the use cases? They will be from ITO's business perspective and we will focus mainly on Use Cases that matter to our business however we are in many ways a 'typical' business as as such our advice may well be of relevant to other businesses, especially ones using the same Use Cases and particularly ones that operate in the UK. We will also look at whether the license works for the project as a whole because we want that to work as well however we would encourage other to also get legal opinion from there perspectives. If they can share the advise with the OSM/ODbL community then so much the better. A 'pure' OSM perspective should of course come from the OSMF lawyer and I hope you/the 'licensing group' will be able to explain some of the outstanding Use Cases to him so he can give an opinion. Is that going to be possible within the consultation phase? Regards, Peter Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data
Peter Miller wrote: Sent: 04 March 2009 5:04 PM To: jamicu...@gmail.com Cc: OSM Subject: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data * (extreme example?) A group of 8 year old kids spend a day in a local park mapping out locations where they find butterflies. They map this information using an OSM map and stick a copy on their local parks noticeboard. Surely they shouldn't be made to make this data available to OSM? Its not worth the bother for them (or OSM) * A wildlife group wishes to map the location of endangered species. Lacking money, OSM seems like a good resource, but they can not supply the data and therefore the location of protected species to OSM. So they can not use OSM and have to spend money on another map? Thanks for those. Great examples. I have added them to the Use Cases page. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases One thing we should not loose sight of in this process is what OSM is collecting, and thus the limit of what we might wish to see contributed back. The locations of butterflies and endangered species are examples of transient data and some might argue it's not therefore something we would want in OSM anyway. Limiting the applicability of the licence to relevant data is not something I've personally thought about before, but it might need considering if it has not been thus far. Cheers Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] It's all too fast...
Andy Allan wrote: 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. No, it's absolutely too fast. It's been discussed for a long time - but nearly entirely behind closed doors, with almost nothing concrete to see about progress on the legal mailing list (I'm not a subscriber, but have kept looking at the archives to check on what's happening - which most of the time has seemed to be 'Jordan's looking at it'). Gervase is entirely right. I feel steamrollered, and don't appreciate it. The process seems designed to exaggerate a tendency to 'them and us' rather than community. Please go with Gervase's suggested timetable instead. And build in some extra process for including results of discussion by non-english-speaking countries. Graham Cheers, Andy ___ 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] Map tag in Wikipedia
Ed Loach wrote: Not quite what you're after, but there is also http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Slippy_Map_MediaWiki_Extension which is very similar to map, but allows viewers to drag and zoom. Ah, this slippymap tag is even better than the static map tag. This map features a reset button, to jump back to the coordinates stored in the article. But if I want to change the coordinates stored in the article, can I get the new values from the pan-and-zoom map? Perhaps through a save button next to the reset button? -- Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
2009/3/5 SteveC st...@asklater.com: On 27 Feb 2009, at 05:04, Ben Laenen wrote: It looks like we finally got some kind of License plan for the step towards the new license, so everyone check http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan Let me start with the obvious questions first: * why don't you split between the votes whether you like license X and the question whether you're allowing the change of license on your data? After all, I want to have an idea *how much* of the data will still be there after the second vote. If it turns out that any data from someone who gave his approval would be deleted, then count me as no vote. so vote method is an interesting constraint... but I think we're being really hardcore in making sure that everyone who added data has to agree or we reset the process back to zero. * I still have no response to the question what would happen with my data if it's derived from someone who doesn't give it's approval for a license change. My view, personally, is that it should be dropped. But y'know I just don't think it will happen like that. If we build a positive process and bring people with us then we'll get the majority of the people along. We will lose small bits of data but thats ok, we have fantastic volunteer community to fix those edges, we'll be in shape in no time. And how are you going to check that anyway? You can do lots of things with CC-BY-SA data (copying, splitting, merging) where it's impossible to Well it's all in the database... every single edit (oh and the dump of the segments stuff). Because one day, about 4.5 years ago I knew it would be needed and designed it in. No need to thank me. No. Really. I think he's referring to the more complex derivatives (such as splitting a way) which are clearly logically derived but have no obvious connection in our data model (splitting creates a new way with no history, as well as leaving the original way in place but truncated). But this is only an issue if you're taking the literal unwind objects only approach and still regard such artefacts as in any way significant. Mostly nodes will get in the way anyway and force you to do some kind of cascade delete, but there are still more than a few ways these bits and bobs will leak through. My understanding is for example that if you split a way, there's not a single connection between the two parts of the way telling that one derived from the other. I can't comment on what potlatch does to my beautiful database. You can however comment on your crappy data model that doesn't allow forking an object to share a common history :-) Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
Nop wrote: I want to correct something here, there is this view of 100,000 users needing consent. The number is in fact far smaller for people who ever made an edit (about 30% of the users). It's vastly smaller still for anyone who has edited anything significant. It's an easier problem than you might think, is what I'm saying. Far easier than convincing you I don't have a satanic portal in my basement. You know what you're saying? You don't care about 10 people who are interested or want to contribute, you just care about the data of the 8000 (?) who have substantially contributed? That's not what he is saying at all. Nobody is planning to ditch contributions below some threshold for the sake of it, however things should not stall simply because one person who's contributed one post-box two years ago can't be contacted any more. All he's saying is that although we might have 100K registered users, only 30K of them have made an edits whatsoever. Looking at the stats page, only about 8K are making edits each month (a different 8K each month, sure). This paper (http://tinyurl.com/5p2w65) looked at contributors in the UK, and found that of the 1100 users in their sample some 92 of them had contributed 80% of the data (or 0.08% - about 8K again, a nice coincidence). This is a community. This is about people. At least it should be. Can't you understand why people do not trust you and suspect you are just out to grab their work when you argue like this? Nobody is trying to grab anyone's work. Doing so would take far less effort. But a licence change is effectively like an (internal) fork, and we may find that some people disagree so strongly that their contributions can't be carried forward. Or simply that we decide to be very cautious, and feel we can't take forward data we can't be 100% sure about. It's sensible to understand just what impact that would have, since we are going to lose some data no matter what (some contributors are now dead; we're not going to contact their relatives, so we either unilaterally put their data under a new licence or we remove it). Even though I am in favour of the licence itself, this way of thinking is unacceptable to me. So what are you doing to help? -dair ___ d...@refnum.com http://www.refnum.com/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: It's all too fast...
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: 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. Me too. 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. I don't think this will necessarily help, as it doesn't give you the reasons people might not agree. In my case, I feel I am being told 'agree to this new license which we haven't fully explained by this deadline or we will delete your data'. If that really is the case, I would not agree to the change - not because I think it is a bad license, which I don't know, but because I don't like the process. Graham Have a nice day, ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Post tastsic questions of my own
SteveC wrote: are opinions beyond we will all be better. Really. All of you who have IM'd me or emailed with your kind words, jump in here and keep at it. We'll build a better world with unicorns and water that runs uphill. I replied you privately just because I used a style I usually don't use.. but.. i want to thank you for your email here again! :D I liked your email, the coders-lawyers parallel and the general message it sent. My second question goes to those who live in the various countries that aren't bankrupt... oh I mean those that aren't in the UK. How is the community there? Is it bad? Is it good? How can we help. What are *you* doing to help? Are you stirring dissent? Are you trying to build a consensus? Do you think you're cool enough to fork or do you want to build something better? Because we love you. You are bridging a divide between the foundation, the evil british empire, and all those poor non-english speaking souls. Really, you do a lot of work to communicate between lists what's going on and if you only report the bad stuff then you're responsible for it.. But I don't think you are, are you? Because it's much better if we build a consensus and a happy coexistence of friends toward a free, open, libre, stunning, beautiful, fantastic map of the world. You know, we (as italian) are a little bit melodrammatic :D We thought some evil derive was acting in the licence writing but i read the draft and i don't found any evillness (as INAL). So, now I will try to do know is to ask italian OSM community to read and comment the draft... Edoardo -- Edoardo 'Yossef' Marascalchi ICT Consultant Tel +39.347.008.00.02 website: http://www.edoardomarascalchi.it skype: My status skype:asca_edom?call ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Derived coordinates are facts (was: Re: Question about supplying own data)
Frederik Ramm wrote: We have until now been reluctant to import OA data because many people in OSM felt that these might be tainted, It is important that OSM can continue to function and be useful in Wikipedia and other places. A somewhat paranoid policy is not all bad. At the same time, it's important that we can experiment to find the limits of copyright. How can we find out if e.g. OA data can be legally reused and in what ways? What are the risks and how can we test them? Perhaps we need to find ways outside of OSM for such experimentation? A copyright lab as a separate entity? -- Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way again
Mike Harris mikh43 at googlemail.com writes: [private roads] How about using highway=service (and even including service=driveway) for some of these as these are existing documented tags? Yes, I sometimes use service and sometimes track. In general if it's a dead-end path to a set of garages I call it a 'track', while a well-maintained road that just happens to be private is 'service'. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting
Simon Ward simon at bleah.co.uk writes: Are you responding to my mail, or one earlier in the thread? I stated that everything should be reverted to before each incompatible change. I wanted to make the general point that while technically we can devise rules for deciding what changes are compatible and incompatible, there is a certain maximum level of complexity, and rules that generate long discussions on the mailing list are probably too complex to stand up in court. (Taking a pessimistic view.) -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] It's all too fast...
graham wrote: Please go with Gervase's suggested timetable instead. And build in some extra process for including results of discussion by non-english-speaking countries. I know this is an unpopular view, but I disagree. I rather we had an ODbL 1.0 in as short a time as possible, so that we could look at it and decide if it is, or is not, what we want. Disclaimer: I don't have any special insight into the licence process, would have liked more feedback as it developed, and think (perhaps incorrectly) that the point of having an OSMF is to inform us of things like this. People have been talking about the licence issue for years (literally; there was an hour-long panel about it at SOTM 2007), and we have nothing to show for it other than a large number of I'm not a lawyer, but... threads. We know there are issues with the current licence, and there will be issues with ODbL 1.0 as well. But having that in front of us, in a final form, gives us a choice: is this suitable for what we want, or not? In a perfect world we would know exactly what we want, the licence would be drafted accordingly, and 1.0 could be adopted from day one. But we don't know exactly what we want, and some of us want different things. There's some overlap of course; the 1.0 needs to have some grounding in our overall goal(s), but IMO two years of talking about a new licence needs to come to a conclusion - or we should stop pretending that it ever will. I would be happy to have a bad 1.0 out sooner which was rejected by OSM (perhaps accepted by some other community, who knows), than a perfect 1.0 which never arrived. Finalising a license and adopting it are two separate things - no matter what timetable you pick for the former, the latter will take longer (since someone will pop up and say wait, we're doing what now?!?). Even if we reject 1.0, we can still tackle problems like contacting people, identifying how much data we'd need to redo if we take a strict line and say data doesn't carry forward without explicit consent, etc. -dair ___ d...@refnum.com http://www.refnum.com/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] What if ODBl 1.0 is superseeded by ODBl 2.0
We are discussing about the trouble of switching from CCBYSA to ODBl 1.0. Many people fear the short time given to review this new license, May be the FAQ should point out what could be the trouble to switch from ODBL 1.0 to ODBl 2.0, just in case some oversight become evident in the future. -- Niccolo Rigacci Firenze - Italy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Tile Layer in uDig?
El Jueves, 5 de Marzo de 2009, Daniel A Carleton escribió: Hello List, I'd like to use an OSM raster layer in uDig, and a WMS seems like a convenient way to do it. Is anyone doing something similar to this, or using OSM tiles in uDig generally? Would be grateful for any advice. There is a WMS-over-OSM implementation in the OSM SVN repository, and it doesn't totally suck (you can read that as it doesn't crash all the time - if it doesn't work in your environment, blame goes to me). Cheers, -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es Aviso: Este e-mail es confidencial y no debería ser usado por nadie que no sea el destinatario original. No se permite la reproducción mediante fotocopia, walkie-talkie, emisora de radioaficionado, satélite, televisión por cable, proyector, señales de humo, código morse, braille, lenguaje de signos, taquigrafía o cualquier otro medio. Bajo ningún concepto debe traducirse al francés este e-mail. Este e-mail no puede ser ridiculizado, parodiado, juzgado en una competición, o leído en voz alta con un acento gracioso llevando un bigote falso y/o cualquier tipo de sombrero, incluyendo pero no limitándose a pañuelos. No inciten ni provoquen a este e-mail. Si está medicándose, puede experimentar nauseas, desorientación, histeria, vómitos, pérdida temporal de la memoria a corto plazo y malestar general al leer este e-mail. Consulte a su médico o farmacéutico antes de leer este e-mail. Todas las modelos descritas en este e-mail son mayores de 18 años. Si ha recibido este e-mail por error es probablemente porque estaba bebiendo cuando escribí la dirección del destinatario. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What if ODBl 1.0 is superseeded by ODBl 2.0
May be the FAQ should point out what could be the trouble to switch from ODBL 1.0 to ODBl 2.0, just in case some oversight become evident in the future. I would be very keen to take a leaf out of the GPL world here, and license the data under ODBL 1.0 or later. That means if and when 2.0 comes out (which it surely will) the data are automatically covered by the new version. When 2.0 does come out, that changes to ODBL 2.0 or later for all new data added to the project after that date. As long as we trust the body responsible for creating the ODBL licence to create future versions in keeping with the aims of the licence that we currently understand, that should be no problem. Cheers, Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
Hi, Andy Allan wrote: 1) Make the plan and the draft public. Ask for feedback. 2) Wait for feedback to be taken into account and expect/hope for a final version of the ODbL 3) See if the OSMF board approves 4) See if OSMF members like what results The word final should probably be struck out here because it has kind of gun to your head ring to it: Take this license or be stuck with CC-BY-SA forever. Instead, if either the OSMF board, or the members, are unhappy with the license (which is quite likely given that only ONE week is scheduled for phase 2 and I can safely say that the status quo would not pass a vote), then we need a new iteration; what is your final version then becomes the draft, and back to phase 1. And this must be made clear when the vote is taken; that this is not a vote about ODbL now or CC-BY-SA forever but a vote about ODbL or wait for revisions. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What if ODBl 1.0 is superseeded by ODBl 2.0
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 03:33:45 -0800 (PST), Donald Allwright donald_allwri...@yahoo.com wrote: I would be very keen to take a leaf out of the GPL world here, and license the data under ODBL 1.0 or later. That means if and when 2.0 comes out (which it surely will) the data are automatically covered by the new version. When 2.0 does come out, that changes to ODBL 2.0 or later for all new data I agree completely. If we don't do this we will have this mess again in a few years. Marcus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-legal-talk] New Database Right Exception
FYI : The EU's Database Directive does not have an exemption for people with disabilities in the way that the Copyright Directive and copyright laws have. The Commission asked whether a new exemption in that Directive should be created. The Government said it should. Subject to evaluation of the impact of making such an amendment, it would seem appropriate to ensure that the same conditions apply to an exception including databases as apply to the current exemption dealing with other works, it said. http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=9838 - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What if ODBl 1.0 is superseeded by ODBl 2.0
I would be very keen to take a leaf out of the GPL world here, and license the data under ODBL 1.0 or later. That means if and when 2.0 comes out (which it surely will) the data are automatically covered by the new version. When 2.0 does come out, that changes to ODBL 2.0 or later for all new data I agree completely. If we don't do this we will have this mess again in a few years. Or more likely, a few months with ODBL 1.1, which fixes a use case that no-one thought of. With the best will in the world, it's not going to be perfect first time round, and just as GPLv3 made late changes as a result of an agreement between Microsoft and Novell, there could be a legal case somewhere in the world which highlights the need for a change. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Andy Allan wrote: 1) Make the plan and the draft public. Ask for feedback. 2) Wait for feedback to be taken into account and expect/hope for a final version of the ODbL 3) See if the OSMF board approves 4) See if OSMF members like what results The word final should probably be struck out here because it has kind of gun to your head ring to it: Take this license or be stuck with CC-BY-SA forever. Instead, if either the OSMF board, or the members, are unhappy with the license (which is quite likely given that only ONE week is scheduled for phase 2 and I can safely say that the status quo would not pass a vote), then we need a new iteration; what is your final version then becomes the draft, and back to phase 1. And this must be made clear when the vote is taken; that this is not a vote about ODbL now or CC-BY-SA forever but a vote about ODbL or wait for revisions. Absolutely. I meant final as in non-draft - bad choice of words on my behalf. Like saying when we have a final version of API 0.6 ;-) Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What if ODBl 1.0 is superseeded by ODBl 2.0
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Donald Allwright donald_allwri...@yahoo.com wrote: I would be very keen to take a leaf out of the GPL world here, and license the data under ODBL 1.0 or later. That means if and when 2.0 comes out (which it surely will) the data are automatically covered by the new version. When 2.0 does come out, that changes to ODBL 2.0 or later for all new data added to the project after that date. As long as we trust the body responsible for creating the ODBL licence to create future versions in keeping with the aims of the licence that we currently understand, that should be no problem. I don't feel very confident handing the maintainers of the ODBL a blank cheque for changing the terms under which my works are licensed at a later date via a or later clause given the history of its revision process. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Post tastsic questions of my own
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 3:07 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Over IM and email I've had some really positive replies. There are a lot of you out there who personally responded that you liked my posts. You don't like the crappy negative tone of a lot of people. You think the license is a good step. You want to see my satanic portal. I have to ask you why do you do this personally? I know the answer. You have a secret and you want to keep it safe and warm and snuggly in your duvet, away from these posts. It's called sanity. I know. It's hard. But if you post here, and show the End Of The World crew that there are opinions beyond we will all be better. Really. All of you who have IM'd me or emailed with your kind words, jump in here and keep at it. We'll build a better world with unicorns and water that runs uphill. I have seen enough of you postst to feel that you have contributed to the negative tone. But can we leave the barking about who is the most negative person on the list aside for a few days? My second question goes to those who live in the various countries that aren't bankrupt... oh I mean those that aren't in the UK. Would Norway count? How is the community there? Is it bad? Is it good? Somewhere in between, I would say. How can we help. What are *you* doing to help? I have informed of the process, and think most people interested are on the international mailing list. The response seems positive. Are you stirring dissent? Are you trying to build a consensus? I have provided my view, that the idea behind the license is better than the current CC-BY-SA, but that some legal aspects needs to be sorted out. We have one person from a major Norwegian provider of online maps on the list. He seems to have the same view as the other Steve, that a change is eagerly anticipated by traditional cartographers. Do you think you're cool enough to fork or do you want to build something better? Because we love you. Please... Could you, in addition to asking others to be more positive in their communication, live up to that yourself. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Click-Through required?
Hi, a major issue that we have debated last year was whether or not applying ODbL to OSM would require some sort of click-through. I believe that this is one of the issues where anyone who is asked to vote yes or no is entitled to know exactly where the OSMF stands on the issue. To give a bit of background for potential newcomers; the idea is that in such jurisdictions where there is no database law, the ODbL works as a contract between the person offering and the person receiving the data, where the person receiving the data affirms that they will adhere to ODbL. Which, in turn, would mean that they may only pass the data on to people also affirming their use of ODbL and so on. This leads to two theoretical problems: 1. Is it sufficient to have a note saying by using our data you agree to ..., or do we need to have an explicit click here to agree? The latter would be extremely tedious for some applications (e.g. mirroring of planet files and so on). Even API read requests would require an account and all that. Steve Coast suggests in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ#Will_this_change_how_people_access_OSM_data.3F that: ... it is likely that anonymous download of the data via the API will not be permitted as present. Anonymous download of data will still be possible, but only via a licence acceptance click-through on the OSM website. Access to the planet files will receive similar treatment and future planet files will contain details of the licence., however this statement is 13 months old and may or may not still be current. I raised the same issue on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Open_Issues#What_happens_in_places_where_there_is_no_database_directive.3F and Mike Collinson commented that: ... I think that the assumption is that the contract is implicit - you do stuff with the data, you accept the contract., adding that the cure for breach of a contractual situation is typically how much money did the Licensor lose (open Licensor = none). My personal thinking is that a fully click-trough is near impossible to implement and would pose a major inconvenience at the very least (no data layer without first registering and agreeing to the license...), and I very much like Mike's reading which would amount to us putting some license tag in our XML and be done with it. I would, however, hope that OSMF issue a statement that either says we will request all users to agree to the license and we will only make data available to those who agree, or says we will ask everybody to install proper license tags and that's it. 2. If the chain is broken (by not displaying the click-wrap or by removing the license tag or so), then while the violator has clearly done wrong and can be sued, any user downstream of him can legally use the data without restrictions, because he has not entered a contract. This is probably something that cannot be helped in either case, but it is something that needs to be assessed and documented. What will we do if this happens? How likely is it to happen? Will it cause damage to the project? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What if ODBl 1.0 is superseeded by ODBl 2.0
Hi, Donald Allwright wrote: I would be very keen to take a leaf out of the GPL world here, and license the data under ODBL 1.0 or later. I am surprised that none of the respondents seem to have read the license draft which clearly states that a later version of this license is allowable, as is a license compatible with this license. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] mapnik not accessing postgresql server
hi, I had set up mapnik with mod_tile and openlayers and this worked fine on my local machine. I then set it up on my server - everything works, but mapnik does not attempt to access the postgresql server and only renders the boundaries. I have compiled mapnik --with-postgis, but nothing happens. The only difference between the 2 installs is that the local machine is fedora10 and the server is lenny. It is not a case of failing silently as the postgresql logs show no attempt to access postgres. I even put a wrong username and password to test - but no go. Any suggestions? -- 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] OSM Tile Layer in uDig?
Iván Sánchez Ortega ivan at sanchezortega.es writes: El Jueves, 5 de Marzo de 2009, Daniel A Carleton escribió: Hello List, I'd like to use an OSM raster layer in uDig, and a WMS seems like a convenient way to do it. Is anyone doing something similar to this, or using OSM tiles in uDig generally? Would be grateful for any advice. There is a WMS-over-OSM implementation in the OSM SVN repository, and it doesn't totally suck (you can read that as it doesn't crash all the time - if it doesn't work in your environment, blame goes to me). If you can consider running your own WMS server and you can tolerate MapServer then you can try the instructions from http://trac.osgeo.org/mapserver/wiki/RenderingOsmData. For WMS usage you can stop after Creating the Mapfile section. Mapserver homapage http://mapserver.org shows an example of rendering. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What if ODBl 1.0 is superseeded by ODBl 2.0
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 02:05:36PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: I am surprised that none of the respondents seem to have read the license draft which clearly states that a later version of this license is allowable, as is a license compatible with this license. I read the license, and after all I got that feeling, but is not clear what makes another license compatible. I think this should go into the FAQ, in plain english. Many people feeling pressed too much by the schedule, can relax a bit. Now we face the nightmare of a license change, but the new one can be better in this matter too. -- Niccolo Rigacci Firenze - Italy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
On 4 Mar 2009, at 23:51, Nop wrote: 2. Provide translations of this in the major languages. Most people speak English to some degree, but some don't and something of this importance and with so much legalese involved does need to be in your native language to be sure you understood it. Keep translations current, also. That would be great, when will you start organising them? Would have been the job of OSMF in a more diplomatic process. It seems you didn't get my point. A convincing attempt at informing the community would have had to be organized by the OSMF, not by volunteers stepping in to fix parts of a bungled job. The OSMF *are* volunteers. I'll count you out from pitching in your help then! I can assure you that there is plenty of vitiriol in store for you on the German forum for example that just doesn't make it here yet due to the language barrier. Is that just in general or because of the license process? BAN POTLATCH eh? Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
On 4 Mar 2009, at 23:42, Nop wrote: Hi! SteveC schrieb: To me this is similar to ignorance of the law is no defence. The data, people and facts are out there and it's not our job to serve them up to you in the specific best way you want. We will help all we can when you ask though. Thank your for bringing it down to this simple point. np Actually, it *IS* your job. That simple. You want a change. You want their consent. Your job. Well if you think about it you would want it too, right. Oh you're the guy who doesn't want to help.. I forgot. Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
On 5 Mar 2009, at 00:14, Nop wrote: Hi! SteveC schrieb: We've not always done a great job of communicating for a variety of reasons but it was never with malice. But you have actually succeeded in making quite a number of people suspect malice - and warn others about that. I do not agree, but I think it is a natural reaction, especially in a community concerned about freedom: - You keep me in the dark and suprise me - You try to force my consent while I have had no chance to inform myself Yeah I'm still baffled by this one... where have I or the license working group tried to force any consent? I think we've been clear again and again that the whole process is up for discussion. = What are you hiding? What are you up to? Sorry my satanic portal has just opened up again and 6 legged dinosaur- monkey-spiders have charged through screaming... I don't know you. And I had to google to check your affiliation with OSMF. I have no reason to trust you. I have no reason to suspect you of malice. But your repeated Not our job statements towards this matter worries me a lot. Yeah I'm just a total idiot and you shouldn't trust me because I want your brains. nom nom nom. I only said it's not our job to back up what russ said about there being lots of things you don't know and we can't figure them all out for you. It is your initiative. It is your job. And if you don't do a better job of including the community and breaking the news in an acceptable way to everybody really quick, I fear desaster. You are inviting hundreds of No decisions just because of bad information policy. You can keep blaming me personally for everything. I think when Eve ate that apple it was also my fault at least I think so. Or you could help build the process now. This is the first time an ordinary OSM member had a chance to get notice of the licence change and I bet you that there are 8 account holders who still have no idea that anything is going on - so the process is just starting now. And we still have failed to give notice and understandable (translated) information to the majority of participants. I want to correct something here, there is this view of 100,000 users needing consent. The number is in fact far smaller for people who ever made an edit (about 30% of the users). It's vastly smaller still for anyone who has edited anything significant. It's an easier problem than you might think, is what I'm saying. Far easier than convincing you I don't have a satanic portal in my basement. You know what you're saying? You don't care about 10 people who are interested or want to contribute, you just care about the data of the 8000 (?) who have substantially contributed? No that's your mad interpretation of what I said. Mad. This is a community. This is about people. At least it should be. Look I invented that, and I concentrated on the people and not the technology from the very beginning which is why this project succeeded where others didn't. Can't you understand why people do not trust you and suspect you are just out to grab their work when you argue like this? Of course I can, it's called paranoia. You all attack me when I haven't even been the one responsible for the communications, that was Mikel and Grant. You don't even spend the 2.6 seconds required to think that there is a working group and a board and they might be responsible as well. No no no, it's all steve and his satanic portal. Mwahahhaha. Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
On 4 Mar 2009, at 23:24, 80n wrote: On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:48 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On 4 Mar 2009, at 08:12, Gervase Markham wrote: So lets concentrate on that. Lets build a better process. Lets build a consensus. Absolutely! As long as you allow us the time to (i.e. slow down and stop trying to get it done by the end of March!), then I'm all for that :-) Maybe I'm making a mistake but the end of March is entirely driven by Jordan and the license comment process not me. It's great that Jordan wants to get 1.0 of the license out by April 1st, but that doesn't then require that OSM adopts on the same timescale. If it is published and it still doesn't do what's needed then we just work towards 1.1 We shouldn't let other people's timescales force our own decisions. If more time is needed, and there is a lot of opinion that suggests it is, if the current issues cannot be resolved by April 1 then of course we have the option to give ourselves more time. Sure but we can also build a space laser if we want to. You're taking the benefit side in to account but not the cost. If we get 99% there with version 1.0 and version 2.0 takes the next two years then the cost benefit, to me, would suggest 1.0 as the better deal. Best Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License to kill
On 5 Mar 2009, at 01:11, Peter Miller wrote: On 5 Mar 2009, at 00:29, SteveC wrote: For your interest my company's lawyer (acting for ITO World Ltd) is hoping to have her response together in relation to the license by the end of tomorrow. My company will review her comments and hope to be able to make that document publicly available to the community by the end of this week. She may also give opinion on some Use Cases and Open Issues which could be useful. Great. Are those opinions in relation to ITO!s business or from the point of view purely of the use cases? They will be from ITO's business perspective and we will focus mainly on Use Cases that matter to our business however we are in many ways a 'typical' business as as such our advice may well be of relevant to other businesses, especially ones using the same Use Cases and particularly ones that operate in the UK. We will also look at whether the license works for the project as a whole because we want that to work as well however we would encourage other to also get legal opinion from there perspectives. If they can share the advise with the OSM/ODbL community then so much the better. Cool A 'pure' OSM perspective should of course come from the OSMF lawyer and I hope you/the 'licensing group' will be able to explain some of the outstanding Use Cases to him so he can give an opinion. Is that going to be possible within the consultation phase? I don't see why not - Grant add to the agenda and lets discuss. Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data
On 4 Mar 2009, at 18:03, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, SteveC wrote: One of the things I didn't mention in my long post an that most of you clearly don't understand is that a court takes *intent* in to account as guidence in any license dispute. So like case law you can spend all the time you like reading the letter of the license but if the intent was clearly elsewhere *it doesn't matter*. All the time you say that we mere humans should not talk legalese but leave this to the lawyers. No not really... I'm suggesting that you're intelligent and have great skills but those skills aren't intellectual property law, and its better that if a lawyer has a code question he asks you, and if you have a law question you ask them. Your time is way better spent that way. But if it were all about intent, then we could just write a document in plain English and use that. And there seems to be your misunderstanding of law. 'plain English' often just isn't, every word has special meanings which are open to interpretations you and I just don't know about. In fact I think that in many jurisdictions this would actually give us the same level of protection than a longish license with the added benefit that everybody can understand our intent, whereas - proof is on odc-discuss where there are some people who read the ODbL out of OSM context! - it seems that reading ODbL is not enough to understand our intent. Exactly. Reading the ODbL gives you one 30,000 ft viewpoint but for a full understanding you need to brake open your case of IP lawyers and ask them to look. As soon as you get to that level, its best to hand over the baton to them. That feature is something that was introduced without so much as a word from anyone between the April 2008 and the 0.9 drafts. If this were intentional, then someone had to hang for trying to deceive the community. You're doing it again - jumping to the conclusion that it was all Evil Jordan or Evil Steve. No. I am truly, honestly assuming that this is a blunder that nobody noticed. The previous license draft said quite clearly that if you publicly use a database, which included making a Produced Work (it was called differently then but that doesn't matter) then you would have to make the database available. The new version introduced the word convey instead of use, which is not a big deal, but then defined convey as not applying to making Produced Works. My memory about this is that specific change is because of some recent case law which Clark picked up on. If you have a specific question (I'm not entirely sure what you're asking...) lets queue that up for legal? I think I know the issue and I thought it had been fixed. In doing so, the license went 180° - from forcing people to make available a derived database on which they built Produced Works to not forcing them to do so. All the time, proponents of the license change (which, you might be surprised to see, include me), argued to the hardcore share-alikers: You don't get protection of Produced Works but you get share-alike for interim databases which is much more in line with what we want. This has been, and still is, a fundamental point, an argument without I could not justify ODbL to these people. It seems absolutely inconceivable that someone *knowingly* made such a huge change and not even bothered to tell anyone. Even with my mild degree of paranoia, it still seems absolutely inconceivable. That's why I write if this were intentional, someone had to hang for trying to deceive the community. If someone, anyone, really thought hey, I'll make this change and nobody will notice that this will nicely drop database share-alike for improved data on which Produced Works are built, so that I can, in the future, add my own improvements, publish cool images, and never share my improvements; if anyone really was that devious, that would be absolutely beyond the pale and that person should not be allowed to say the words OpenStreetMap or community ever again. But believe it or not, I don't think that there was such a secret agenda on anyone's part. I think it simply has been overlooked. I have just spent two weeks amid printed paper finalising the second edition of our OSM book and I know perfectly well how easy it is to change a meaning on page 3 by rewording something on page 1, and not noticing it until the proofreader paints it red. The ODbL has been proofread, the problem has been painted red, and I am sure it will be fixed. It *must* be fixed, because otherwise ODbL is dead for OSM; you can claim that intent matters all you want, but you will never be able to get a license past the Share-Alike fraction that allows improvements to our data to be kept privy. Okay... can you summarise this in to a question or set of questions that can be passed on
Re: [OSM-talk] Post tastsic questions of my own
On 4 Mar 2009, at 22:27, Nic Roets wrote: My second question goes to those who live in the various countries that aren't bankrupt... oh I mean those that aren't in the UK. How is the community there? Is it bad? Is it good? How can we help. What are Just to give you an idea of how crazy the world economy has become : Not too far from where I live we have holes in the ground, were we used to dig up some yellow and gray stuff and sell it to you. yeah I bought some yellow stuff in an ETF 5 or 6 months ago. Good choice. Lately you're not interested in the gray stuff [2] (Is the color wrong ?). And you're paying us extra just to put the yellow stuff back into another hole in the ground. [1] As for the community : Ed has finally caught up with us [3]. [1] http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php? fSectionId=563fArticleId=4849212 [2] http://www.commodityonline.com/news/Platinum-Gold-price-differential-almost-zero-15558-3-1.html [3] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-za/2009-February/000382.html Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License to kill
SteveC wrote: A 'pure' OSM perspective should of course come from the OSMF lawyer and I hope you/the 'licensing group' will be able to explain some of the outstanding Use Cases to him so he can give an opinion. Is that going to be possible within the consultation phase? I don't see why not - Grant add to the agenda and lets discuss. No problem, added to the agenda already yesterday. COMMUNITY HELP... Could I ask some guys to please go through the list http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases And flag which one still require a response from the OSMF lawyer including those that require extra explanation to the lawyer. Peter Miller has also suggested on the talk page that some items might be appropriate to merge. Regards Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Post tastsic questions of my own
On 5 Mar 2009, at 00:55, Frederik Ramm wrote: Steve, (Has someone told you that you're overly concerned about your Fake self? He seems to make an appearance in every second post you write.) I love him. I want to *be* him. SteveC wrote: Over IM and email I've had some really positive replies. There are a lot of you out there who personally responded that you liked my posts. Lurkers support me in E-Mail! I know how it feels only I seem to get the E-Mails of those who are unhappy ;-) the tone of these E-Mails is usually: I think the whole process stinks but I am not with the project long enough to feel entitled to say so publicly. - My answer is usually along the lines anyone is entitled to speak their mind so feel free to do so; yes the process stinks but I think that it is worth trying to fix things instead of rejecting the relicensing effort outright. Sometimes good things are delivered in ugly wrapping. /me nods You don't like the crappy negative tone of a lot of people. You think the license is a good step. You want to see my satanic portal. I have to ask you why do you do this personally? I know the answer. You have a secret and you want to keep it safe and warm and snuggly in your duvet, away from these posts. It's called sanity. I know. It's hard. But if you post here, and show the End Of The World crew that there are opinions beyond we will all be better. Really. These mailing lists are for communication, for talking to each other and finding solutions. I am not interested in me too postings from people who don't care enough to engage in discussion - from either side of the argument. (Is there either side? Personally I feel that I'm on all sides at the same time. Or on none of them, depending on your point of view.) Someone who is unwilling to defend and argue for his opinion is not a worthy addition to any kind of debate. This is not a whose fanboy are you poll. And before you say that there is more mud-slinging than debate: We had a lot of very sensible debate over on legal-talk; that would have taken us even further had you or someone else from the licensing working group participated in it rather than ignoring it. agreed... but I wouldn't say we ignored it although I can appreciate thats how it might have looked. My second question goes to those who live in the various countries that aren't bankrupt... oh I mean those that aren't in the UK. How is the community there? Is it bad? Is it good? How can we help. What are *you* doing to help? Are you stirring dissent? Are you trying to build a consensus? My view of the community in Germany is that dissent stirs itself, with the major themes being: (1) fear for loss of data because people will not agree to the change - it seems to me that even more so than on the English- language lists, Germans are so protective of the OSM they have helped create that they'd rather keep a crappy and non-working license than to have to delete data. H I hope we can convince everybody that it will be much better than that. (2) unhappiness about lack of protection for Produced Works, envious/ greedy arguments about possible commercial exploitation of same, and unwillingness to accept interim database share-alike as a replacement One of the things I thought of was Produced Works could drop in to CC- BY-SA. What do you think? (3) general unease about the process (feeling left out/rushed; having been told in the past that the OSMF does not want to influence the fate of the project, just operate servers and collect money; generally not having had any say in the new license and a feeling that is unlikely they will ever have a say because the license is being designed by lawyers from another country in another language etc. You didn't mention BAN POTLATCH? Seriously though... I understand. Lets make it better. I'm generally defending the benefits of the new license, subject to the caveats being discussed here; however it is my opinion that the process how we got to where we are now has been wrong and if someone seeks reassurance from me (please tell me that they will listen to our concerns and not try to rush everyone into accepting a new license while important issues are unsolved, please tell me that they won't do funny things behind closed doors, please tell me that we will get a profound legal opinion before they go ahead, please tell me that I won't wake up one morning to find an E-Mail in my inbox saying agree to this license or go away) - then, from past experience in this process, the only thing I can honestly say is: I *hope* so too. Well the process is all up for discussion, the plan on the wiki etc. The first thing we will do in the license working group call is figure out how to make it more open. Suggestions welcome. If they ask me what
Re: [OSM-talk] Post tastsic questions of my own
On 4 Mar 2009, at 19:46, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: On Thursday 05 March 2009 07:37:28 SteveC wrote: My second question goes to those who live in the various countries that aren't bankrupt... oh I mean those that aren't in the UK. How is the community there? Is it bad? Is it good? How can we help as far as India is concerned we are too busy to worry about licensing at all ;-) Wow. Cool. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
On Thursday 05 March 2009, SteveC wrote: On 4 Mar 2009, at 23:51, Nop wrote: 2. Provide translations of this in the major languages. Most people speak English to some degree, but some don't and something of this importance and with so much legalese involved does need to be in your native language to be sure you understood it. Keep translations current, also. That would be great, when will you start organising them? Would have been the job of OSMF in a more diplomatic process. It seems you didn't get my point. A convincing attempt at informing the community would have had to be organized by the OSMF, not by volunteers stepping in to fix parts of a bungled job. The OSMF *are* volunteers. I'll count you out from pitching in your help then! Right, but volunteering to be in the OSMF is actually volunteering to do all these kinds of tasks, right? Or am I seeing it wrong and is it just there to decide some things now and then without really bothering about it let others sort everything out? Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Post tastsic questions of my own
On 5 Mar 2009, at 04:50, Gustav Foseid wrote: Are you stirring dissent? Are you trying to build a consensus? I have provided my view, that the idea behind the license is better than the current CC-BY-SA, but that some legal aspects needs to be sorted out. We have one person from a major Norwegian provider of online maps on the list. He seems to have the same view as the other Steve, that a change is eagerly anticipated by traditional cartographers. That sounds cool. Do you think you're cool enough to fork or do you want to build something better? Because we love you. Please... Could you, in addition to asking others to be more positive in their communication, live up to that yourself. Sure! As long a FakeSteveC balances it out. :-) Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data
(lost track of who said this, but...) Very unlikely, derived individual coordinates are facts. I've asked multiple lawyers about this personally. Are you saying that facts that are derived from a Produced Work are not covered by the reverse engineering clause? If I derive the location of all the street corners of a city from a rendered map then that is just a collection of facts and not a reverse engineered recreation of the original database? If so, it doesn't seem like the reverse engineering clause is worth the paper its written on. Ordnance Survey seems to take a different view, which is precisely the reason OSM exists. In a way it doesn't matter whether you, I, or even a bunch of lawyers think the opposite if OS can sink OSM just by sucking OSM into a massively expensive legal action. But all the street corners may individually be facts, but the collection of them is a database which you've recreated. The whole point about database IP protection is that there is value in the collection when any individual piece of content is either not protectable or not worth protecting. It would be really nice if a court would actually decide (in a case involving someone who can afford to defend themselves) whether someone geolocating their photo from an OS base and publishing it (or even quoting a grid reference in a book) infringes OS IP, and especially where derivation starts. I did actually try asking OS this once - I put a set of scenarios to them ranging from quoting a grid reference to tracing lines, and all I got back was it's too complicated to answer, we'd be delighted to offer you a license for your circumstances. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Tom Hughes wrote: I'm not sure delegating to all sort of different servers is the best way to implement such a thing for lots of reasons. We just need the master stylesheet to be able to take location into account when rendering. That's how Google does it of course and it is, issues of scale aside, the easy choice. (And yes their motorway style changes, slightly, at many borders e.g. between Germany and France or Austria; maybe that's to denote toll motorways though and not a specifc national style.) Aside from anything else if you did it by delegation the style could only change on the edge of a tile. No; if done cleverly, national servers could produce half transparent tiles at the borders. I know it would be quite a feat to set up something like this, and every time you view a map of Europe then half the tiles would be missing because the Czech or Austrian or Hungarian or German server had a hiccup at that moment and so on. But it would be a really cool thing to have and help us get away from ugly centralism. We work and map and meet regionally; why not champion an architecture that actually takes this into account. Yuk! No! Don't do this! Why produce half-transparent tiles when you could just carry on producing tiles of the neighbouring countries (or even the whole world) in your national style. As a British person who travels to Paraguay, I want to see a map of Paraguay in UK styles (and probably English captions where available). The Mapnik layer currently gives me that. There's no need to take that away when we implement a Paraguay style map. What we need is entire global renderings in different styles. I hate it when I go on holiday and I can't understand the colours of the maps. A choice of UK Style, German Style, USA Style rendering for the whole world would be nice, particularly if it defaulted to whichever country you were in by IP address geolocation. I'm sure it will be easier to impliment than a single map with inconsistent syle, and I'm fairly confident that the resources required are not huge - particulary as introducing new layer servers reduces the load on the existing single tile server. Robert (Jamie) Munro -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmwACAACgkQz+aYVHdncI2Y5ACgznNqvGZ6aBCOae0xXZQ+HC+I 0TUAoKFjtw9pwLfrSI7GKpo7t1VcoUtr =UkrY -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
You too Andy, great post. On 5 Mar 2009, at 02:57, Andy Allan wrote: On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:40 AM, MP singular...@gmail.com wrote: Yes. At least when you expect 10 people to go along and the issue has the potential to break OSM apart, it would not be a bad idea to send monthly information about the state of things. Hmm ... perhaps sometimes it would be good to mass-email all members when it is about changes with possibly devastating (mass deletion) effect. Not everybody reads various blogs or parts of wiki around OSM, but almost everybody reads their email. Hang on, here's something which has been misunderstood. There's a good reason that we haven't emailed all 100,000 people yet. We're not sure whether the OSMF endorses the new license, which is itself still in a draft. If you look at the license plan ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan ) you'll see it comes in the following stages: 1) Make the plan and the draft public. Ask for feedback. 2) Wait for feedback to be taken into account and expect/hope for a final version of the ODbL 3) See if the OSMF board approves 4) See if OSMF members like what results 5) If they do, then start asking the rest of the community *So we're at point 1*. We've always assumed that if you're the kind of person who wants to be involved in drafting licenses, reviewing incomplete licenses and so on you'll get involved. Most people probably don't care. That's why legal-talk subscriptions aren't compulsory in order to use the API. If you feel left out of stage 3, then maybe you should become a member of the OSMF. That's what it's there for. But again, not everyone is interested in the running of the project, doing behind the scenes stuff, holding the OSMF Board to account etc. Which is why OSMF membership isn't compulsory either. There's all chances that the OSMF members won't vote for the license, in which case it won't be put to the community at all Or maybe they will. The way the plan is seems to me a sensible staged approach of involvment - first the Board, then the Members, then the community at large. It needs to get through all three stages to work, and if any group disapproves, it stops. And we involve the smallest group first, then a bigger, then the biggest. Now because things are being done publicly, lots of people who are only interested in stage 5 think that we've skipped a few stages. Maybe we've found some people who want to be invovled in stage 1 who didn't realise until now that they did. Good. It's nice to have more people interested. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
Great post Dair! On 5 Mar 2009, at 02:04, Dair Grant wrote: Nop wrote: I want to correct something here, there is this view of 100,000 users needing consent. The number is in fact far smaller for people who ever made an edit (about 30% of the users). It's vastly smaller still for anyone who has edited anything significant. It's an easier problem than you might think, is what I'm saying. Far easier than convincing you I don't have a satanic portal in my basement. You know what you're saying? You don't care about 10 people who are interested or want to contribute, you just care about the data of the 8000 (?) who have substantially contributed? That's not what he is saying at all. Nobody is planning to ditch contributions below some threshold for the sake of it, however things should not stall simply because one person who's contributed one post-box two years ago can't be contacted any more. All he's saying is that although we might have 100K registered users, only 30K of them have made an edits whatsoever. Looking at the stats page, only about 8K are making edits each month (a different 8K each month, sure). This paper (http://tinyurl.com/5p2w65) looked at contributors in the UK, and found that of the 1100 users in their sample some 92 of them had contributed 80% of the data (or 0.08% - about 8K again, a nice coincidence). This is a community. This is about people. At least it should be. Can't you understand why people do not trust you and suspect you are just out to grab their work when you argue like this? Nobody is trying to grab anyone's work. Doing so would take far less effort. But a licence change is effectively like an (internal) fork, and we may find that some people disagree so strongly that their contributions can't be carried forward. Or simply that we decide to be very cautious, and feel we can't take forward data we can't be 100% sure about. It's sensible to understand just what impact that would have, since we are going to lose some data no matter what (some contributors are now dead; we're not going to contact their relatives, so we either unilaterally put their data under a new licence or we remove it). Even though I am in favour of the licence itself, this way of thinking is unacceptable to me. So what are you doing to help? -dair ___ d...@refnum.com http://www.refnum.com/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
On 5 Mar 2009, at 03:35, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Andy Allan wrote: 1) Make the plan and the draft public. Ask for feedback. 2) Wait for feedback to be taken into account and expect/hope for a final version of the ODbL 3) See if the OSMF board approves 4) See if OSMF members like what results The word final should probably be struck out here because it has kind of gun to your head ring to it: Take this license or be stuck with CC-BY-SA forever. Agreed, I don't think that's the intention. Instead, if either the OSMF board, or the members, are unhappy with the license (which is quite likely given that only ONE week is scheduled for phase 2 and I can safely say that the status quo would not pass a vote), then we need a new iteration; what is your final version then becomes the draft, and back to phase 1. Lets expand it from one week then? And this must be made clear when the vote is taken; that this is not a vote about ODbL now or CC-BY-SA forever but a vote about ODbL or wait for revisions. Right... but we should quantify what the cost/benefit of that will be. Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data
On 5 Mar 2009, at 08:36, David Earl wrote: (lost track of who said this, but...) Very unlikely, derived individual coordinates are facts. I've asked multiple lawyers about this personally. Are you saying that facts that are derived from a Produced Work are not covered by the reverse engineering clause? If I derive the location of all the street corners of a city from a rendered map then that is just a collection of facts and not a reverse engineered recreation of the original database? If so, it doesn't seem like the reverse engineering clause is worth the paper its written on. Ordnance Survey seems to take a different view, which is precisely the reason OSM exists. In a way it doesn't matter whether you, I, or even a bunch of lawyers think the opposite if OS can sink OSM just by sucking OSM into a massively expensive legal action. But all the street corners may individually be facts, but the collection of them is a database which you've recreated. The whole point about database IP protection is that there is value in the collection when any individual piece of content is either not protectable or not worth protecting. It would be really nice if a court would actually decide (in a case involving someone who can afford to defend themselves) whether someone geolocating their photo from an OS base and publishing it (or even quoting a grid reference in a book) infringes OS IP, and especially where derivation starts. I did actually try asking OS this once - I put a set of scenarios to them ranging from quoting a grid reference to tracing lines, and all I got back was it's too complicated to answer, we'd be delighted to offer you a license for your circumstances. Yes then we would have case law to wave around. What did you think of my idea on geowanking that I posted here again yesterday? http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-general/2008-November/30.html David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
SteveC wrote: On 4 Mar 2009, at 23:42, Nop wrote: Hi! SteveC schrieb: To me this is similar to ignorance of the law is no defence. The data, people and facts are out there and it's not our job to serve them up to you in the specific best way you want. We will help all we can when you ask though. Thank your for bringing it down to this simple point. np Actually, it *IS* your job. That simple. You want a change. You want their consent. Your job. Well if you think about it you would want it too, right. Oh you're the guy who doesn't want to help.. I forgot. Sorry, I did not really cared about it. Could have been PD from the begin. Was a surprised by the announcement. Read the license and mails. Would probably have said yes. But I do not like the way this went on. The fact that those who want to change it just say you do not want to help. That's my free time, that's your's. If you think the change is important for the OSM, the better. If you want to do it, your right. But take the burden on you, inform people, ask opinions, and be aware that there are some that disagree, and some indifferent. I do not say you do not help because you do come here helping me mapping my remote place. Your sentences are only rude. F#@@# now I CARE. If I have to choose now, I will say NO. Not due to the license, just due to sarcastic, overstated comments. first last time I loose time on this subject until it is handled on a factual basis. regards ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
Pierre-André Jacquod wrote: Was a surprised by the announcement. Read the license and mails. Would probably have said yes. But I do not like the way this went on. The fact that those who want to change it just say you do not want to help. That's my free time, that's your's. Seriously, don't react to the style, react to the substance. I know it's not always easy but we're none of us great at communication, we're none of us actually paid to think that carefully about what we write, so it's all too easy to get wound up in a http://xkcd.com/386/ kind of way. At which point Steve does something between amused and sarcastic, Frederik does deadpan, I do flying off the handle, Etienne does inscrutable, someone on talk-de will do BAN POTLATCH!!1!1?lol, etc. etc. lots of hints for Fake blogs there But none of that matters, really. If we're to get things done then occasionally biting your lip is helpful. The number of mails I write to this list and then close before sending... cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/OSM-license-change%3A-A-license-to-kill---%3E-How-to-make-a-nightmare-come-true%21-tp22325041p22355771.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
On 5 Mar 2009, at 16:09, SteveC wrote: On 4 Mar 2009, at 23:24, 80n wrote: We shouldn't let other people's timescales force our own decisions. If more time is needed, and there is a lot of opinion that suggests it is, if the current issues cannot be resolved by April 1 then of course we have the option to give ourselves more time. Sure but we can also build a space laser if we want to. You're taking the benefit side in to account but not the cost. If we get 99% there with version 1.0 and version 2.0 takes the next two years then the cost benefit, to me, would suggest 1.0 as the better deal. Lets first get the consultation input into Jordan, then lets read the updated draft, then comment again if that is requested, then wait for the final draft for version 1. We can then decide as a community if we are happy to proceed (which I think we will). If there is a big problem then I suspect that a version 1.1 could be turned round quickly to address it. So Rather than distracting us with discussion of space lasers possibly you could help us by commenting on some of the open issues. I would like you opinion on a few particular ones: 1) What is a substantial extract? 2) What happens in places where there is no database directive? 3) What is the Boundary between a Database and a Produced Work 4) Approval from large donated datasets 5) Which features can be retained in the license change? 6) How can one control what is done with a Produced Work that has been released under Public Domain? These issues and others can be found here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Open_Issues Regards, Peter Best Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
Richard Fairhurst wrote: I know it's not always easy but we're none of us great at communication, we're none of us actually paid to think that carefully about what we write, so it's all too easy to get wound up in a http://xkcd.com/386/ kind of way. At which point Steve does something between amused and sarcastic, Frederik does deadpan, I do flying off the handle, Etienne does inscrutable, someone on talk-de will do BAN POTLATCH!!1!1?lol, etc. etc. Yes, but unfortunately the result is that various threads which were at least discussing/explaining (however confusedly) substantive issues seem to have been hijacked into an attack/defend SteveC thread, which I suspect doesn't interest many people. I really want a better understanding of the licenses and their consequences in terms which a non-lawyer can understand and convey to other people. It doesn't help telling me 'this is magic stuff only a lawyer could understand'. For example, the Italian list is discussing the license in a way which I think shows it's really not understood, but I'm not sure enough of my own understanding to try to explain - maybe they are right and I'm wrong (this centres on the nature of the relationship between the database and factual licenses). The best way I can see to get the explanation at the moment is by listening to substantive discussions on this list. Longer term, I think it would be extremely helpful if the licenses themselves included an explanation for non-lawyers, in the way the gpl always did. Graham ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License to kill
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: COMMUNITY HELP... Could I ask some guys to please go through the list http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases And flag which one still require a response from the OSMF lawyer including those that require extra explanation to the lawyer. Peter Miller has also suggested on the talk page that some items might be appropriate to merge. done. i've stuck some brightly coloured bits of text where either the lawyer needs information from us, or where we need advice from the lawyer. for the avoidance of doubt, i encourage everyone to look over the page in case i have missed something :-) cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
On Mar 5, 2009, at 12:19 PM, graham wrote: I think it would be extremely helpful if the licenses themselves included an explanation for non-lawyers, in the way the gpl always did. Not always a good idea. If your license has any ambiguities, then a judge will go outside your license to see if you've said anything else about the meaning of the license. Potentially, anything you say about the license could become part of the license. So your non-legal explanation actually may have legal import. In principle, you're suggesting that code should be explained in the comments, when actually, comments should explain things that *aren't* in the code. If you want to know what the code says, you should be reading the code, not the comments. If you want to know what a legal agreement says, you should read it. It's tedious, yes, but I've read every one of the OSI approved Open Source licenses at least twice, and I lived through it. if you call this living, of course. I could be a zombie, and how would you know?? -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 04:57, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: If you look at the license plan you'll see it comes in the following stages: 1) Make the plan and the draft public. Ask for feedback. 2) Wait for feedback to be taken into account and expect/hope for a final version of the ODbL 3) See if the OSMF board approves 4) See if OSMF members like what results 5) If they do, then start asking the rest of the community Maybe we've found some people who want to be invovled in stage 1 who didn't realise until now that they did. Good. It's nice to have more people interested. Agreed. It's a good thing that we're getting interest now and not after it's too late. I think some of the anger that's resulted from all of this is because we're writing an OSM license -- yes, I know it's not *just* an OSM license, but we look to be the first big user and seem to be one of the major forces behind its creation -- at arm's length through ODC. The dark side of the free-as-in-speech nature of open source/databases/etc. is that people get very unhappy when they feel like they haven't been able to contribute. Not having the license as an OSM project, or even prominently pointed out from the OSM site, makes people feel left out. I think three months would be reasonable if a finalized ODbL 1.0 had been published for a while or we were going to some other license that had already had the what-ifs answered and/or dealt with, but when the text isn't finalized yet and there's already a timeline with specific dates to move to the new license, it feels like we're being pushed. Personally, I'd love to see 5 moved up to before or concurrent with 3 and 4, even if it's just a straw poll that results in x% say they they think OSM should adopt ODbL, y% say they would probably agree to the license but think it still needs work, z% say they don't want to change, and w% of the people who logged in didn't answer the poll. I assume that there would be a second vote required to actually approve moving to the new license, but it lets people feel like they're involved before the OSMF and/or its board make any decision. -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What if ODBl 1.0 is superseeded by ODBl 2.0
Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes: I am surprised that none of the respondents seem to have read the license draft which clearly states that a later version of this license is allowable, as is a license compatible with this license. Hmm, I would prefer it if they didn't put that in the licence itself but left it to individual projects to decide if they are willing to license under 'ODbL 1, or (at your option) any later version', as the GPL does. I'll mention this on the legal mailing list just as soon as I can get messages through to it (at the moment, at least when sent via Gmane, they seem to get lost somewhere waiting for moderator approval or something). -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote: On Mar 5, 2009, at 12:19 PM, graham wrote: I think it would be extremely helpful if the licenses themselves included an explanation for non-lawyers, in the way the gpl always did. Not always a good idea. If your license has any ambiguities, then a judge will go outside your license to see if you've said anything else about the meaning of the license. Potentially, anything you say about the license could become part of the license. So your non-legal explanation actually may have legal import. ummm good? as long as the explanation doesn't contradict the license, what is the problem? In principle, you're suggesting that code should be explained in the comments, when actually, comments should explain things that *aren't* in the code. isn't it more like comments having an effect on program behaviour (like openmp annotations)? i'm not endorsing it - its really nasty to work with - just trying to clarify the analogy... :-( If you want to know what the code says, you should be reading the code, not the comments. If you want to know what a legal agreement says, you should read it. but if the code confuses you then you read the comments for enlightenment, right? i don't think you're saying that code without comments is OK (although a heated discussion to have on another day, perhaps), so why should a license without an explanation be OK? i've been looking at the use cases for this sort of extra information, but it wouldn't hurt to have more information, especially in lay language that can be translated for our non-english-speaking comrades. It's tedious, yes, but I've read every one of the OSI approved Open Source licenses at least twice, and I lived through it. if you call this living, of course. I could be a zombie, and how would you know?? did you come out of steve's evil basement portal of dooom? :-P cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License to kill
Hi, Peter Miller wrote: If we get 99% there with version 1.0 and version 2.0 takes the next two years then the cost benefit, to me, would suggest 1.0 as the better deal. Lets first get the consultation input into Jordan, then lets read the updated draft, then comment again if that is requested, then wait for the final draft for version 1. Yes. For the avoidance of doubt, the current draft is IMO nowhere even near 99% there and it is absolutely clear that changes have to be made. Also, the cost of staying with buggy old CC-BY-SA for a few months longer is rather negligible, so any cost-benefit analysis would have to take that into account. It's not that our house is burning and we need someone with a hose quickly. We can then decide as a community if we are happy to proceed (which I think we will). If there is a big problem then I suspect that a version 1.1 could be turned round quickly to address it. Good for you to be optimistic, however I quote Rufus Pollock from odc-discuss: I'd also point out that it will be possible upgrade the license (a v2.0 if you like) though that is not likely to happen that quickly after a v1.0 release. The worst that could happen would be to talk people into accepting a buggy 1.0 with the promise of a quick upgrade to a fixed 1.1 and then seeing 1.1 take forever. It's not that I expect a license to be perfect, none will ever be; I just expect us to fix the bugs we already see, and reserve the upgrade mechanism for those that pop up later, rather than rushing through something where we already have a list of known bugs. 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] License to kill
On 5 Mar 2009, at 17:36, Matt Amos wrote: On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: COMMUNITY HELP... Could I ask some guys to please go through the list http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases And flag which one still require a response from the OSMF lawyer including those that require extra explanation to the lawyer. Peter Miller has also suggested on the talk page that some items might be appropriate to merge. done. i've stuck some brightly coloured bits of text where either the lawyer needs information from us, or where we need advice from the lawyer. for the avoidance of doubt, i encourage everyone to look over the page in case i have missed something :-) I am going through the Use Cases at present, clarifying the language, generalising and merging in some cases, and ensuring that each use case only tests one element of the license or one particular application. While doing this I have been dumping the legal review text where I have changed the language but do remember the legal review is both available in the history for the page and on the pdf that michael published on the foundation website. Bear with me for the next hour or so. Regards, Peter cheers, matt ___ 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] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Matt Amos wrote: ummm good? as long as the explanation doesn't contradict the license, what is the problem? The problem is that you've got an impedance mismatch. If you comment about your license, it can become PART OF your license, which means that you need to be careful that everything you say has a proper legal meaning, which breaks the idea of explaining things without using legalese. but if the code confuses you then you read the comments for enlightenment, right? /* Add one to the length */ length += l; i don't think you're saying that code without comments is OK (although a heated discussion to have on another day, perhaps), so why should a license without an explanation be OK? Code: interpreted by computer; comments: interpreted by a human. License: interpreted by a human; comments: interpreted by a human. And my point from above is that the barrier between the two is not hard and fast. did you come out of steve's evil basement portal of dooom? :-P I don't understand why people think steve has an evil portal of doom in his basement. It's in his attic. -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License to kill
On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Also, the cost of staying with buggy old CC-BY-SA for a few months longer is rather negligible, The barn down the road from me was standing on just four 9 beams. We kept saying Boy, that barn has some structural problems. It could fall down at any time. It didn't fall, and it didn't fall. One might be tempted to think that one could go into the barn and pull one valuable things of one sort or another. The barn finally fell down this winter. If it's a bad idea to use the CC-BY-SA, it's a bad idea to use it for a few months longer. Just because its barn hasn't fallen doesn't mean that the risk is not increasing. Everybody knew that the Johnstown dam was going to go ... when it finally did, nobody paid attention because they didn't believe it actually HAD gone out. But all this discussion is kinda pointless. There are two things going on here: the ODbL is being drafted, and we're deciding whether the ODbL meets our needs (I say our because I joined the Foundation a few days ago.) Until the ODbL is finished, we kinda have nothing to talk about. Yes, the ODbL is being drafted with our specific needs in mind, so if the first published version doesn't meet our needs, we can go back to the well and ask for a revision. But until the ODbL is finished, we're spinning our wheels. Can we assume that the lawyers understand the problem and are working on a solution? -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote: On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Matt Amos wrote: ummm good? as long as the explanation doesn't contradict the license, what is the problem? The problem is that you've got an impedance mismatch. If you comment about your license, it can become PART OF your license, which means that you need to be careful that everything you say has a proper legal meaning, which breaks the idea of explaining things without using legalese. i assumed from your explanation that the judge, realising that he's going outside the license for context, wouldn't apply the same hardcore legal interpretation to these comments. in any case, isn't the cat out of the bag anyway with the comments on the co-ment.net site? wouldn't a court look to those as well? but if the code confuses you then you read the comments for enlightenment, right? /* Add one to the length */ length += l; as you said: comments should explain things that *aren't* in the code, not repeat the code (incorrectly) in english. your example of a bad comment doesn't answer my question: if you are reading code and you do not understand why it is written the way it is, don't you read the comments to find out? to turn the analogy around: us trying to read a complex license without comments is like lawyers trying to read complex code without comments. i don't think you're saying that code without comments is OK (although a heated discussion to have on another day, perhaps), so why should a license without an explanation be OK? Code: interpreted by computer; comments: interpreted by a human. code is interpreted both by a computer and humans, but i understand your point. License: interpreted by a human; comments: interpreted by a human. And my point from above is that the barrier between the two is not hard and fast. i understand, but lawyers have been doing this for a while and surely they have a way of explaining stuff to people who aren't going to understand hardcore legal documents. maybe we could have a background image repeating without prejudice all over the document? just as a compiler shouldn't interpret comments, isn't there a way of shielding comments from the court? did you come out of steve's evil basement portal of dooom? :-P I don't understand why people think steve has an evil portal of doom in his basement. It's in his attic. if thats in his attic, what were all those ghastly and inhuman screams coming from his basement? cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
On Mar 5, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Matt Amos wrote: us trying to read a complex license without comments is like lawyers trying to read complex code without comments. They're mostly hard to read because they're tedious in their detail. Legal writing isn't actually THAT impenetrable, if you can stay awake (no, seriously, I can only read 2-3 licenses at a time before I start to nod off. Takes me DAYS to read all the OSI-approved licenses). i understand, but lawyers have been doing this for a while and surely they have a way of explaining stuff to people who aren't going to understand hardcore legal documents. Yes, well, since a legal document is written for a customer, the lawyer explains it in confidence to the customer. Everyone else is supposed to rely on the text of the license itself. Or, at least, that's my experience of how it's supposed to go. I may be wrong. if thats in his attic, what were all those ghastly and inhuman screams coming from his basement? Oh, that's from the people who've ridden home with him in the back seat of his convertible. -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OSM group on linkedin has reached 400+ members
Just to let you guys know.. We have reached 400 members this week (429 actually) Thanks for all your support and spread the OSM word ! http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/61515/458CE625572D Best regards Rob ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote: On Mar 5, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Matt Amos wrote: us trying to read a complex license without comments is like lawyers trying to read complex code without comments. They're mostly hard to read because they're tedious in their detail. Legal writing isn't actually THAT impenetrable, if you can stay awake (no, seriously, I can only read 2-3 licenses at a time before I start to nod off. Takes me DAYS to read all the OSI-approved licenses). and, as has been pointed out by steve and others, you can't 100% understand a license unless you also understand the case law. so it seems to me that some extra information (comments, advice - call it what you will) is needed for those of us without 7-8 years of law school and an army of paralegals. Yes, well, since a legal document is written for a customer, the lawyer explains it in confidence to the customer. Everyone else is supposed to rely on the text of the license itself. Or, at least, that's my experience of how it's supposed to go. I may be wrong. i guess its difficult having a whole community with varied opinions as a customer. with a single customer the question well, what do you want it to be like? can be sensibly and quickly answered... does anyone know if a similar situation arises in class action lawsuits? cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
2009/3/5 Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com: On Mar 5, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Matt Amos wrote: us trying to read a complex license without comments is like lawyers trying to read complex code without comments. They're mostly hard to read because they're tedious in their detail. Legal writing isn't actually THAT impenetrable, if you can stay awake (no, seriously, I can only read 2-3 licenses at a time before I start to nod off. Takes me DAYS to read all the OSI-approved licenses). The whole code/comments analogy seems the wrong one. Most people are after the user manual -- I don't want a step by step description of how the license works, I want a nice manual telling me how to use it. And like most open source projects there currently isn't one (at least not an up-to-date one). And for pretty much the same reasons (lack of people who are not one of: busy coding, rubbish at writing manuals, don't understand the program). Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
2009/3/5 Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.uk: 2009/3/5 Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com: On Mar 5, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Matt Amos wrote: us trying to read a complex license without comments is like lawyers trying to read complex code without comments. They're mostly hard to read because they're tedious in their detail. Legal writing isn't actually THAT impenetrable, if you can stay awake (no, seriously, I can only read 2-3 licenses at a time before I start to nod off. Takes me DAYS to read all the OSI-approved licenses). The whole code/comments analogy seems the wrong one. Most people are after the user manual -- I don't want a step by step description of how the license works, I want a nice manual telling me how to use it. And like most open source projects there currently isn't one (at least not an up-to-date one). And for pretty much the same reasons (lack of people who are not one of: busy coding, rubbish at writing manuals, don't understand the program). And I should have added don't understand the user to that list. But then I'm rubbish at writing manuals :-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote: On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Also, the cost of staying with buggy old CC-BY-SA for a few months longer is rather negligible, The barn down the road from me was standing on just four 9 beams. We kept saying Boy, that barn has some structural problems. It could fall down at any time. It didn't fall, and it didn't fall. One might be tempted to think that one could go into the barn and pull one valuable things of one sort or another. The barn finally fell down this winter. If it's a bad idea to use the CC-BY-SA, it's a bad idea to use it for a few months longer. Given that maps need to be regularly updated to stay useful, anyone relying on a CC-BY-SA loophole will be just as SOL if we change the license in a year as if we changed it in time for april fools, as their update stream stops when the license changes. However, changing to a license before finding out exactly how that license works is like taking out Russ's barn beams and letting the structure fall onto untested supports. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
On Mar 5, 2009, at 3:34 PM, OJ W wrote: Given that maps need to be regularly updated to stay useful, anyone relying on a CC-BY-SA loophole will be just as SOL if we change the license in a year as if we changed it in time for april fools, as their update stream stops when the license changes. that's my argument from community, which I made last january in a comment on the OSM blog -- that the license doesn't matter -- and if you try to separate yourself from the community, you just cause your own shunning -- which is how the Amish feel about it. However, changing to a license before finding out exactly how that license works is like taking out Russ's barn beams and letting the structure fall onto untested supports. Several people have made that point, including 80N and SteveC (and maybe Andy Allen -- but I'm too lazy to do the research). We don't want to wait too short a time before switching to the new license -- NOR too long a time. For better or worse, pro-bono lawyers are like open source programmers -- you can't make them work on a schedule. They work until they're satisfied with the result. -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
as you said: comments should explain things that *aren't* in the code, not repeat the code (incorrectly) in english. your example of a bad comment doesn't answer my question: if you are reading code and you do not understand why it is written the way it is, don't you read the comments to find out? Comments allow also to see what is the code about - without needing to fully understand what is in. Comments like this function does fast fourier transform usually are enough to understand what the function does (if you know what FFT is) without need to look at the code and all the bloody mathematical stuff inside (if you don't know about FFT you won't have much idea about what the code does after reading it anyway). Same can be done for GPL for instance - if you distribute GPL'd program, you must give people complete source code and give them the same rights to program you have. Maybe too simple (full details of how can source be distributed, what exactly is source, etc ... are in the license), but good enough for most people to have idea what they can and cannot do with GPL'd stuff. We need the same for ODBL. did you come out of steve's evil basement portal of dooom? :-P I don't understand why people think steve has an evil portal of doom in his basement. It's in his attic. if thats in his attic, what were all those ghastly and inhuman screams coming from his basement? Eh ... interdimensinal portal to the attic? Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Conflating Tracks?
Hello List, Are any of you aware of a conflation algorithm that snaps GPS tracks to the street grid? This could be a useful way to verify existing road networks and fill in any gaps. e.g. I go out and ride on city streets, overlay my GPS track on the OSM grid, and the algorithm shows me where I traveled over unknown segments of road or deviated a disproportionate amount. Cheers, - Daniel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Tile Layer in uDig?
On Mar 5, 2009, at 3:20 AM, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: There is a WMS-over-OSM implementation in the OSM SVN repository, and it doesn't totally suck (you can read that as it doesn't crash all the time - if it doesn't work in your environment, blame goes to me). Ok, great, thanks. This question may have an obvious answer. Using this component will I need to serve my own tiles, or can I somehow proxy the main Mapnik servers? - Daniel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote: I think it would be extremely helpful if the licenses themselves included an explanation for non-lawyers, in the way the gpl always did. Not always a good idea. If your license has any ambiguities, then a judge will go outside your license to see if you've said anything else about the meaning of the license. Potentially, anything you say about the license could become part of the license. So your non-legal explanation actually may have legal import. On the other hand, it's a good thing. In AU you have the Acts Interpretation Act which explicitly states that any accompanying rationale documents/discussions/etc to an act/bill must be taken into account when considering it. The reason is that people aren't gods and occasionally screw up and it's useful if the judge has the rationale document saying what the *intended* ramifications were. Yes, the rationale document is binding but it's often much more readable than the act itself. If there's a contradiction, well that's what a judge is for. Given this licence is breaking new ground I think it's doubly important to have an official FAQ/rationale/etc so that any future judge has some proper source explaining the intended end results (as opposed to the licence itself which only describes the means). You don't want a judge who knows nothing about computing trying to *guess* what you're trying to achieve, surely? 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] OSM Tile Layer in uDig?
El Jueves, 5 de Marzo de 2009, Daniel A Carleton escribió: This question may have an obvious answer. Using this component will I need to serve my own tiles, or can I somehow proxy the main Mapnik servers? No, my WMS implementation uses an old version of Osmarender and works directly against the XAPI. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es MSN:i_eat_s_p_a_m_for_breakf...@hotmail.com Jabber:ivansanc...@jabber.org ; ivansanc...@kdetalk.net signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - How to make a nightmare come true!
Hi! Ok, first of all, when I use the term you I don't mean you personally, I mean the OSMF as a group. I have no idea who's in charge of what there, I just know that none of you has taken care of an information process and you are currently listening. SteveC schrieb: But you have actually succeeded in making quite a number of people suspect malice - and warn others about that. I do not agree, but I think it is a natural reaction, especially in a community concerned about freedom: - You keep me in the dark and suprise me - You try to force my consent while I have had no chance to inform myself Yeah I'm still baffled by this one... where have I or the license working group tried to force any consent? I think we've been clear again and again that the whole process is up for discussion. = What are you hiding? What are you up to? I was trying to explain the way how many people have reacted to the proposed time table in absence of comprehensive and comprehensible information. And there's quite some posts on this list that express exactly that reaction. You (the OSMF) have not been clear on anything - a clear, official announcement is exactly what is sorely missing. It is your initiative. It is your job. And if you don't do a better job of including the community and breaking the news in an acceptable way to everybody really quick, I fear desaster. You are inviting hundreds of No decisions just because of bad information policy. You can keep blaming me personally for everything. I think when Eve ate that apple it was also my fault at least I think so. (* Again - you as the OSMF). Or you could help build the process now. I am sorry, but I cannot write the official information bulletin with your* ideas and your* intentions for you*. I also cannot take the initative for you*. And I cannot restore your credibility. You* will need to do that yourself. You* need to be source of the information. What I can do is translate it into German and continue from there. Actually, I bet you* would be surprised about how many volunteers you* get to help you* in spreading the news - if you* ever had started any organized information process. But I don't remember ever seeing a request: Here we have the rationale we want everybody to understand - who can translate it? So maybe you* want to start a proper information campaign now? I am waiting to help. And personally, I would prefer doing some constructive work for a good plan over opposing a disastrous plan any time. This is the first time an ordinary OSM member had a chance to get notice of the licence change and I bet you that there are 8 account holders who still have no idea that anything is going on - so the process is just starting now. And we still have failed to give notice and understandable (translated) information to the majority of participants. I want to correct something here, there is this view of 100,000 users needing consent. The number is in fact far smaller for people who ever made an edit (about 30% of the users). It's vastly smaller still for anyone who has edited anything significant. It's an easier problem than you might think, is what I'm saying. Far easier than convincing you I don't have a satanic portal in my basement. You know what you're saying? You don't care about 10 people who are interested or want to contribute, you just care about the data of the 8000 (?) who have substantially contributed? No that's your mad interpretation of what I said. Mad. This is a community. This is about people. At least it should be. Look I invented that, and I concentrated on the people and not the technology from the very beginning which is why this project succeeded where others didn't. Can't you understand why people do not trust you and suspect you are just out to grab their work when you argue like this? If you want the community to adopt the new licence (as opposed to fork off in protest), you need to convince the people in the community. If I think this way, I count 10 people who should at least be able to make an informed decision. If you want to narrow it down to only the people who did significant edits, that is a suspiciously data-oriented view. The community also needs the people who are developing tools or who edit wiki pages or who are still working up to become big mappers. It would be great if they all consented rather than to split off. Shouldn't the more important question be: How many *people* do I loose? instead of How much *data* do I loose? If we can agree on that then I guess I really misunderstood you there. bye Nop PS: And I really don't care how many demons you keep in your basement. That's between you and your landlord. :-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill
Hi, Russ Nelson wrote: The barn down the road from me was standing on just four 9 beams. We kept saying Boy, that barn has some structural problems. It could fall down at any time. It didn't fall, and it didn't fall. One might be tempted to think that one could go into the barn and pull one valuable things of one sort or another. The barn finally fell down this winter. Sure. But assume you have the choice of either replacing the barn today with one where you know the roof leaks and you'll have a hard time fixing it, or wait another few months for the barn designers to get their job done... and we're deciding whether the ODbL meets our needs (I say our because I joined the Foundation a few days ago.) I believe the Foundation intends to give a vote *only* to those who were members in good standing as of January 23rd so your few days had better be 40-ish if you want to have a say in the matter. Until the ODbL is finished, we kinda have nothing to talk about. 1. Are you aware that the initial OSMF timeline planned for ODbL final to come out on 28th March and OSMF member votes due on 7th April? Do you think that these 10 days would be sufficient to have a fruitful discussion? 2. If we wait until it is finished and *then* complain about things that were known even now and that we could have helped to fix in advance of the date, then Steve would (for once) rightfully complain about people just sniping from the sides and not having an interest to help. No? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Conflating Tracks?
Hello Daniel, Hi Daniel, I wrote a program (osmunda) that scans a GPX tracklog for maneuvers that are 'impossible' according to the given OSM data. There's a reasonable description of it in the 'routing' archive of August 2008. It's part of gosmore. Do an SVN checkout of one of the August / September versions if you want to give it a try. I know Gary68 has a tool for searching for routing irregularities, but at some point, I'd like to implement a better one : For each node a Calculate an, the location 10 meter North of a. If the route between a and an exceeds some threshold, flag the node as suspect (e.g. maplint). Repeat for other directions (s, w, e). Regards, Nic ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] It's all too fast...
2009/3/5 graham gra...@theseamans.net No, it's absolutely too fast. It's been discussed for a long time - but nearly entirely behind closed doors, with almost nothing concrete to see about progress on the legal mailing list (I'm not a subscriber, but have kept looking at the archives to check on what's happening - which most of the time has seemed to be 'Jordan's looking at it'). Gervase is entirely right. Yes it's too fast, it's so difficult accept now the new license Graham Luca ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 09:42:54AM -, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: One thing we should not loose sight of in this process is what OSM is collecting, and thus the limit of what we might wish to see contributed back. The locations of butterflies and endangered species are examples of transient data and some might argue it's not therefore something we would want in OSM anyway. Limiting the applicability of the licence to relevant data is not something I've personally thought about before, but it might need considering if it has not been thus far. That assumes that derivative data always goes back to OSM. If OSM doesn’t want the locations of butterflies, then it doesn’t have to incorporate it. Someone else may want to use the locations of butterflies. If they’re licensed under a free licence, this should be possible. Distributing free data doesn’t mean always contributing directly back to the original project (that’s quite restrictive IMO, and fails the desert island test[1] (a test for free software, but the same principle applies)), it means making it available for others to use. [1]: http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#desert_island -- 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] licence plan - Question about supplying own data
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 05:32:20PM -0800, SteveC wrote: I think it would be a beautiful day if it was seen as bad form to use 'IANAL' and everything like that was instead rephrased as 'lets ask a lawyer and I wont give you my opinion' Ugh, so we’re not to question the lawyers now and just trust them? I know, you said it before, they’re the experts. That doesn’t mean everyone should just shut up. If there’s one thing the non‐experts are good at, it’s finding holes, the ones the experts don’t think of because they are used to doing things a certain way. Ask the experts a question, they give an answer, they may even have to think about it, and that’s when they start to question themselves—“why is it like this?”—and improve their own understanding. 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] Post tastsic questions of my own
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 09:55:39AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: (Has someone told you that you're overly concerned about your Fake self? He seems to make an appearance in every second post you write.) Fake Steve C = Steve C, you know it. He just tries to make it out that it’s all Richard F. ;) 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] What if ODBl 1.0 is superseeded by ODBl 2.0
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 03:33:45AM -0800, Donald Allwright wrote: I would be very keen to take a leaf out of the GPL world here, and license the data under ODBL 1.0 or later. The GPL gives the licensor the choice (section 14. Revised Versions of this License.[1]): “If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License “or any later version” applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.” As you can see, the default is to fall back to allowing any version of the GPL to apply. Many people choose to use the suggested copying permission statement, which includes “either version N of the License, or (at your option) any later version”[2], but some choose to only allow a specific version of the licence (the Linux kernel, for example). So, yes, the ODbL should take a leaf out of the GPL’s book, and allow the licensor to make the choice. OSM can then choose the option that suits it, which could well be “version N or later”. [1]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section14 -- 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
Tobias Knerr schrieb: 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. I'm writing OSS (and being involved in JOSM devel) for quite a while. Most of the time I was talking with other developers about licensing results that the GPL was the preferred way to go. Your milage may vary. As Frederik (and other people) prominently advocating PD on our lists doesn't mean that this is common sense throughout the developers or makers community. 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. Personally, I'm preferring the copyleft idea, as that's what I've seen to be the most benefit return for me - in the long run. The very unfortunate thing here is simply that there's no golden rule to choose as there's no GPL for data (as GPL is common in software development), so we have incompatible data licenses get in our way - which is very, very sad indeed. However, I've spend a lot of effort in OSM both with JOSM development and with mapping. If OSM we're PD or BSD licensed, I certainly wouldn't have even started to spend an hour of my time ... Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] SQL to query street name within a define bbox
Hi, Did any one know how to query street name within a define bbox? And second question, how to find lat, lon mid point of a street. Thank you in advance, john ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SQL to query street name within a define bbox
Thanks, actually, I have the planet data and I want to use sql query to query exactly the same way as the osmxapi that you have. Do you know what is that sql? On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 7:19 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: http://osmxapi.hypercube.telascience.org/api/0.5/way[name=Broadway][bbox=-74,40.6,-73.9,40.8]http://osmxapi.hypercube.telascience.org/api/0.5/way%5Bname=Broadway%5D%5Bbbox=-74,40.6,-73.9,40.8%5D On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 2:56 AM, John3478 John3478 john3...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, Did any one know how to query street name within a define bbox? This will get you all the ways named Broadway in Manhattan: http://osmxapi.hypercube.telascience.org/api/0.5/way[name=Broadway][bbox=-74,40.6,-73.9,40.8]http://osmxapi.hypercube.telascience.org/api/0.5/way%5Bname=Broadway%5D%5Bbbox=-74,40.6,-73.9,40.8%5D SQL? Nah. 80n And second question, how to find lat, lon mid point of a street. Thank you in advance, john ___ 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] SQL to query street name within a define bbox
John3478 John3478 john3478 at gmail.com writes: Hi,Did any one know how to query street name within a define bbox?And second question, how to find lat, lon mid point of a street.Thank you in advance,john Hi, Import data into PostGIS with osm2pgsql and continue there. For example the latter goes this way (my data is in now in other projection, epsg:2393, but centroid query can be modified to give result in epsg:4326 as well): postgis=# select astext(st_centroid(way)) from osm_line limit 2; astext -- POINT(3091471.21604526 6654258.08523552) POINT(3087407.56739872 6702046.09292488) (2 rows) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] 6PP: een kleine setback (fwd)
On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 11:04 +0100, Stefan de Konink wrote: Wat vinden we van dit onderstaande linkje? -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:57:35 +0100 From: Kees van den Broek k...@kvdb.net To: Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de Cc: Armijn Hemel arm...@uulug.nl, Freek freek_...@vanwal.nl Subject: Re: 6PP: een kleine setback On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 22:42 +0100, Stefan de Konink wrote: Jullie dit al gezien? http://ikregeer.nl/document/BLG15750 Dat wegenbestand gaat er dus echt nog niet komen voorlopig... De Staat is dus niet gerechtigd om het Postcodebestand of de Postcodetabel, dan wel de gegevens daaruit, te verwerken in een eigen product op een wijze die in de Databankenwet is voorbehouden aan de producent van een databank. Zoeken op postcodes in het NWB en het herhaaldelijk en systematisch uit het Postcode- bestand opvragen van postcodes zijn handelingen voorbehouden aan TNT Post. Ik vind de argumenten van Falkplan eigenlijk interessanter: Het wegenbestand van Falkplan-Andes is superieur aan het NWB en het toestaan van hergebruik van het NWB zal de vraag naar producten van Falkplan Andes doen afnemen omdat nieuwe toetreders hun goedkopere producten makkelijker kunnen afzetten aan afnemers die met mindere kwaliteit genoegen nemen. Hierdoor is de maatschappelijke schade groter dan die van Falkplan-Andes, een punt dat, naast de toetsing op doelmatigheid, bij de heroverweging in bezwaarfase aan de orde moet komen. Hebben jullie wel door hoeveel maatschappelijke schade jullie met OSM toebrengen? Even zonder dollen, het kopje: 3. Heroverweging naar aanleiding van bezwaargronden TNT Post en Cendris laat een ander beeld zien. Huisnummerreeksen worden blijkbaar uit het openbare NWB gesloopt. armijn -- - arm...@uulug.nl | http://www.uulug.nl/ | UULug: Utrecht Linux Users Group - ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] 6PP: een kleine setback (fwd)
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Armijn Hemel wrote: Ik vind de argumenten van Falkplan eigenlijk interessanter: Het wegenbestand van Falkplan-Andes is superieur aan het NWB en het toestaan van hergebruik van het NWB zal de vraag naar producten van Falkplan Andes doen afnemen omdat nieuwe toetreders hun goedkopere producten makkelijker kunnen afzetten aan afnemers die met mindere kwaliteit genoegen nemen. Hierdoor is de maatschappelijke schade groter dan die van Falkplan-Andes, een punt dat, naast de toetsing op doelmatigheid, bij de heroverweging in bezwaarfase aan de orde moet komen. Lees het stuk van PWC eens over kennis en WOB :) Hebben jullie wel door hoeveel maatschappelijke schade jullie met OSM toebrengen? Even zonder dollen, het kopje: 3. Heroverweging naar aanleiding van bezwaargronden TNT Post en Cendris laat een ander beeld zien. Huisnummerreeksen worden blijkbaar uit het openbare NWB gesloopt. Ziek, dat dan weer wel... nationaliseren die hap :) Stefan ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
