Re: [OSM-talk] membership email id is bouncing

[Matt Amos]

On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves  wrote:
> hi,
>
> was trying to reply to Mike Collinson's mail, but the id membership@ is
> bouncing:

i think the reply-to is supposed to be members...@osmfoundation.org :-)

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Foundation#Board_Members_2008

> ? members...@openstreetmap.org
> ? ? SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT
> TO::
> ? ? host a.mx.openstreetmap.org [89.16.177.88]: 550 Unrouteable address
> --
> regards
> Kenneth Gonsalves
> Associate
> NRC-FOSS
> http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] membership email id is bouncing

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

hi,

was trying to reply to Mike Collinson's mail, but the id membership@ is 
bouncing:

? members...@openstreetmap.org
? ? SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT 
TO::
? ? host a.mx.openstreetmap.org [89.16.177.88]: 550 Unrouteable address
-- 
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] It's all too fast...

[Gervase Markham]

On 05/03/09 10:56, Dair Grant wrote:
> 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, hopefully, not issues of the same magnitude.

> But having that in front of us, in a final form, gives us a choice: is this
> suitable for what we want, or not?

Say we declared it 1.0 today. At the moment, IMO it's not suitable. So 
we'd carry on the discussion and eventually have a 1.1. How is this any 
better than waiting to get 1.0 more right?

> 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.

That's a false dichotomy - those aren't the choices.

Gerv


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are Produced Works anti-share alike?

[80n]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 80n wrote:
> > Are ODbL Produced Works really anti-share alike or is there some subtlety
> > that I have missed?
>
> You could also say that share-alike licenses are
> "anti-database-protection" or that CC-BY-SA is "anti-CC-BY-SA-NC". Given
> that "anti..." is very often used to express that something was
> explicitly made to act or work against something, we should perhaps drop
> the usage of "anti" here and, more neutrally, just ask for compatibility.
>

anti is indeed a loaded term, but this is an important problem that requires
serious discussion.



>
> I see the same problem you are seeing and I had added a section about
> this problem in
>
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Suggested_Changes#The_.22licensing_Produced_Works.22_problem
>
> yesterday. (I'm a bit miffed that neither you nor any of the respondents
> seem to follow relevant stuff on the Wiki. Or well, maybe you all did
> and just found my contribution not worthy of note. Sigh.)


Sorry I only found your annotation at co-ment after I had posted here.


> In that
> section, I make two concrete suggestions how to remedy this; one being
> the explicit exception of a list of share-alike licenses from the
> reverse engineering clause, the other being a clarification of the ODbL
> reverse engineering clause to *only* work for those cases where the
> whole thing happens in an orchestrated fashion (i.e. someone sets up a
> tile server with the sole purpose of then paying hundreds of people to
> trace data off of it).
>
> Both solutions are not 100% satisfactory but please keep in mind that we
> currently have a situation where *one* of a number of share-alike
> licenses has been selected and we are compatible to *none* of the
> others, so this can hardly be said to be any better.


Good point.  But one is better than none isn't it?


> I think that
> compatibility of ODbL Produced Works with share-alike licenses is an
> absolute "must" and I'm prepared to make some concessions regarding the
> protection of our data to achieve this.
>

Could we use community norms instead of the reverse engineering clause?



>
> 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
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are Produced Works anti-share alike?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

80n wrote:
> Are ODbL Produced Works really anti-share alike or is there some subtlety
> that I have missed?

You could also say that share-alike licenses are 
"anti-database-protection" or that CC-BY-SA is "anti-CC-BY-SA-NC". Given 
that "anti..." is very often used to express that something was 
explicitly made to act or work against something, we should perhaps drop 
the usage of "anti" here and, more neutrally, just ask for compatibility.

I see the same problem you are seeing and I had added a section about 
this problem in

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Suggested_Changes#The_.22licensing_Produced_Works.22_problem

yesterday. (I'm a bit miffed that neither you nor any of the respondents 
seem to follow relevant stuff on the Wiki. Or well, maybe you all did 
and just found my contribution not worthy of note. Sigh.) In that 
section, I make two concrete suggestions how to remedy this; one being 
the explicit exception of a list of share-alike licenses from the 
reverse engineering clause, the other being a clarification of the ODbL 
reverse engineering clause to *only* work for those cases where the 
whole thing happens in an orchestrated fashion (i.e. someone sets up a 
tile server with the sole purpose of then paying hundreds of people to 
trace data off of it).

Both solutions are not 100% satisfactory but please keep in mind that we 
currently have a situation where *one* of a number of share-alike 
licenses has been selected and we are compatible to *none* of the 
others, so this can hardly be said to be any better. I think that 
compatibility of ODbL Produced Works with share-alike licenses is an 
absolute "must" and I'm prepared to make some concessions regarding the 
protection of our data to achieve this.

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] Front page design and SEO

[Douglas Furlong]

I just wanted to comment on this point regarding the width of screens.

I was using google maps recently where you can remove the side panel and
have the entire width available to the map. It looks really daft and I would
rather try and maintain a square aspect to the map so that you can see equal
distances in all directions.

Doug

On 3 Mar 2009, 4:35 AM, "D Tucny"  wrote:

2009/3/3 Ian Dees 

> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:51 PM, SteveC  wrote: >> >>
>> I asked the CM desi...

I must say, I like that one too... but... So many sites and applications
these days seem to be going with all the options at the top/bottom and a
full width content section, while at the same time most 4:3 screens are
being replaced with 16:10 screens... Though at least most sites allow the
content to be scrolled moving their menu bars out of view, this however,
proboably isn't something that would be preferable with the OSM page... The
end result being that with a layout like that on a widescreen display,
you'll have browser title bar, menu bar, link bar, tab bar, random other
tool bars, osm tab bar, small, but, wide, sliver of map, osm key bar,
browser status bar and finally task bar...
Obviously if you have a big screen with a decent vertical resolution, the
sliver of map is somewhat larger and more useful, but, on smaller screens at
least, and I'm thinking of screens with a resolution like 1280x800 here that
are pretty common in laptops these days, that sliver isn't going to be that
big... As such... I think the fp6/7 images would be probably better
generally, and especially for smaller widescreen displays...

That said, I guess there's no reason, beyond maintainability, why both
layouts couldn't be made available, even if only selectable by logged in
users... though a default that's good for everyone would still be needed
:)...

I think all the samples shown are an improvement on the existing layout in
term of usability and from an aesthetics point of view, making things
clearer and prettier at the same time :)

d

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Checking OSM Foundation membership (was License to kill)

[Mike Collinson]

I've replied to both members personally but in case anyone else thinks they are 
in the same position do email me at my mailing list address or 
members...@osmfoundation.org.  

I still have a couple of members for whom I have no email address for and 
cannot contact.

For anyone who registered using PayPal, do check the email account you used for 
it, that is the only electronic point of contact I have for you.  If you would 
like to use another email address, let me know.

As of today the Foundation has 112 paid up members.  As of January 23, we 
currently have 104 paid-up members. Unpaid-up members can still bring 
themselves up to date if they wish.  I will be sending out second or third 
reminders this weekend.  I have about 12 members to whom I have not yet sent a 
first reminder to whom I apologise, I have just recovered from a long illness.

Membership is 15 UK pounds and lasts for one year from the time of first 
payment.  Renewals or new membership can be made at 
http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/join

As Etienne, our treasurer, has replied separately, we are uncertain as to our 
obligations about making available/not making available a membership list.  
However, there is demand for a member's mailing list and I expect to be able to 
implement that as a matter of urgency.


Mike Collinson  
OSMF membership secretary
members...@osmfoundation.org
http://foundation.openstreetmap.org


At 11:28 AM 6/03/2009, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
>On Friday 06 March 2009 15:54:32 graham wrote:
>> > How do I find out if I'm a member in good standing?
>>
>> Just saw the relevant page:
>> http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/membership/
>>
>> which sounds as though if you don't pay annually, even if not reminded,
>> you're probably dropped. Haven't seen an actual rule to say so though.
>>
>> That page was last updated in 2007 when there were 60 members eligible
>> to vote. Anyone know how many there are now?
>
>interesting - i registered as a member a couple of months back - my money was 
>received silently. And only silence since then.
>-- 
>regards
>Kenneth Gonsalves
>Associate
>NRC-FOSS
>http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Quality Asurance for a rainy day...

[Oli Sennhauser]

Hi all,

Gary68 wrote some nice scripts for OSM quality assurance.

I run some of these scripts on a regular basis for a few countries and 
collected the results in a table.

If it is a rainy and wet day and you do not want to go out, you can 
although map and fix the problems around you.

You can find the collection here: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quality_Assurance#Actual_run_of_quality_check_scripts_from_above

Regards,
Oli

-- 

Transpool - Mitfahrgelegenheiten für die Schweiz (http://www.transpool.org/)
TopoDB - Sammlung aller Kletterrouten der Schweiz mit Topos 
(http://www.topodb.ch/).

Oli Sennhauser
Rebenweg 6
CH - 8610 Uster / Switzerland

Phone (+41) 44 940 24 82
Mobile (+41) 79 830 09 33
e-Mail oli.sennhau...@bluewin.ch
Website http://www.shinguz.ch/
Skype: oli_sennhauser
Jabber: shin...@swissjabber.ch


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Some concerns on the Factual Information License from Fedora-legal-list

[Niccolo Rigacci]

Hello,

someone asked for comments about OSM new licenses on 
Fedora-legal-list.

The question was: "would the new license permit to include 
Openstreetmap contents (e.g. maps) in the Fedora Project?"

There is a replay which express some concerns:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-March/msg9.html

-- 
Niccolo Rigacci
Firenze - Italy

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License to kill

[Peter Miller]

On 5 Mar 2009, at 16:27, Grant Slater wrote:

> 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.

I have been through all the use cases tightening them up now. Pretty  
much ready for some advice.



Regards,


Peter

>
>
> Regards
> Grant
>


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Russ Nelson wrote:
> Well, Ulf has explicitly said that he doesn't trust the process to keep 
> the data free, and wants to be able to sue people whom he believes are 
> infringing the copyright.
> 
> But as far as contributing without a clear agreement, just look at 
> Wikimapia.

Contributing without a *clear* agreement is certainly bad for all 
involved. You rightfully quite CDDB as a bad example of this.

Contributing with a clear agreement - be that PD, ODbL, CC-BY-SA or 
RichardStallmanOwnsYourCat - does not have that problem because people 
know what they get and what they don't get.

80n suggested that without a clear promise that everything would remain 
free forever, people would not contribute, or would contribute 
significantly less. I said that I am not of this opinion, and quoted 
Google Map Maker as an example - they know perfectly well that they have 
no rights over their content and still they contribute. I am sure that 
OpenStreetMap under an ODbL license where people know that others are 
allowed to make proprietary Produced Works will be just as interesting a 
project and grow just as fast as it does today.

Bye
Frederik



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Conflating Tracks?

[Robert (Jamie) Munro]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Nic Roets wrote:
> 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.

It would be fantastic if this could be run as a service somewhere, so I
could upload my tracks, then get some sort of report, with a way to
dismiss problems, fix them, or add them to Open Street Bugs.

Robert (Jamie) Munro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEUEARECAAYFAkmxK1kACgkQz+aYVHdncI2BOACfYisxdPWkyfMztzoobrNW2qFt
dm8Al0SR+70Ks4GPCzASinkvx4UceNU=
=SfE3
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License to kill

[Peter Miller]

On 6 Mar 2009, at 12:58, 80n wrote:

>
>
> It would be good to have a review of the Articles of Association so  
> any changes could get ratified at the AGM in August.  Otherwise it  
> won't happen until next year.  However I think all available  
> bandwidth is being consumed by the license at the moment so it will  
> probably have to wait until that gets settled (unless the license  
> implies that rights will get assigned to OSMF in which case the  
> Articles of Association suddenly go right to the top of the agenda).

I had a 90 minute meeting with our lawyer today going through her  
findings in relation to the license.

Some of the time was spend getting more up to speed on the license  
concepts but there are a number of issues that the foundation will  
need to address and it did seen to be clear that the Foundation would  
be the legal entity that collected the contributions, assembled the DB  
and was the initial licensee for the resulting DB on a ODbL license  
and as such I think the Foundation will be in a key position and yes I  
think the articles should be tightened.

I would also say that there is a big pool of talent out in this  
community that could help get it together before the conference.


I need a bit more time to go through the document she produced before  
making it public because at the moment it would just confuse. I will  
try to get the document out early next week and get some of the issues  
onto the wiki over the weekend.



Regards,


Peter


>
>
> 80n


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License to kill

[80n]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Peter Miller wrote:

>
> On 6 Mar 2009, at 11:07, 80n wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 9:54 AM, graham  wrote:
>
>> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> How do I find out if I'm a member in good standing? Is it possible to
>> check the register of members? I paid for membership - once, quite a
>> long time ago - and have never received any subsequent request for
>> "subscription and other sum (if any) which shall be due and payable to
>> the Association in respect of my membership" - so I guess I've probably
>> been dropped from the list. Is that the way it works? No reminders, and
>> silently dropped?  Or do you stay a member as long as you haven't been
>> asked for another subscription, terminating at death? That would seem to
>> be the implication of the 'general' section in the articles of
>> association.
>>
>> Graham
> If you were a member, but for whatever reason, are not fully paid up, then
> we give reasonable latitude to pay the fee and be re-instated.  You would
> not lose your right to vote.
>
> It's not our intention that members should be penalised because we or you
> missed an email or a cheque got lost in the post or something.
>
>
> Sounds like this should all get tighened up before the next elections or we
> might get into 'hanging chad' legal disputes!
>
> I do strongly support the setting up of a members mailing list
>
> I also strongly support the idea that regular contributor (ie have
> contributed in three consecutive months) automatically become members and
> are then dropped if they fail to contribute for over a year, something like
> that anyway. It would suddenly mean that we had 1,000's of contributors and
> it would be much harder to dominate the foundation.
>
> I know this has been discussed before and deferred, however that is not a
> reason not to review it before the next elections. Particularly as the whole
> membership thing seems to be pretty flakey at present.
>
> With all this, lets remember where we have come from and how well we are
> doing. There is no blame in regard to where we are, but that is not a reason
> not to get to a more professional place rapidly.
>
> There's definitely room for improvement.  As usual it gets driven by
priorities and pressing needs.

It would be good to have a review of the Articles of Association so any
changes could get ratified at the AGM in August.  Otherwise it won't happen
until next year.  However I think all available bandwidth is being consumed
by the license at the moment so it will probably have to wait until that
gets settled (unless the license implies that rights will get assigned to
OSMF in which case the Articles of Association suddenly go right to the top
of the agenda).

80n
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License to kill

[Peter Miller]

On 6 Mar 2009, at 11:07, 80n wrote:


On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 9:54 AM, graham  wrote:
Frederik Ramm wrote:

> 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.

How do I find out if I'm a member in good standing? Is it possible to
check the register of members? I paid for membership - once, quite a
long time ago - and have never received any subsequent request for
"subscription and other sum (if any) which shall be due and payable to
the Association in respect of my membership" - so I guess I've  
probably
been dropped from the list. Is that the way it works? No reminders,  
and

silently dropped?  Or do you stay a member as long as you haven't been
asked for another subscription, terminating at death? That would  
seem to
be the implication of the 'general' section in the articles of  
association.


Graham
If you were a member, but for whatever reason, are not fully paid  
up, then we give reasonable latitude to pay the fee and be re- 
instated.  You would not lose your right to vote.


It's not our intention that members should be penalised because we  
or you missed an email or a cheque got lost in the post or something.


Sounds like this should all get tighened up before the next elections  
or we might get into 'hanging chad' legal disputes!


I do strongly support the setting up of a members mailing list

I also strongly support the idea that regular contributor (ie have  
contributed in three consecutive months) automatically become members  
and are then dropped if they fail to contribute for over a year,  
something like that anyway. It would suddenly mean that we had 1,000's  
of contributors and it would be much harder to dominate the foundation.


I know this has been discussed before and deferred, however that is  
not a reason not to review it before the next elections. Particularly  
as the whole membership thing seems to be pretty flakey at present.


With all this, lets remember where we have come from and how well we  
are doing. There is no blame in regard to where we are, but that is  
not a reason not to get to a more professional place rapidly.



Regards,


Peter





80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill

[80n]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 9:54 AM, graham  wrote:

> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> How do I find out if I'm a member in good standing? Is it possible to
> check the register of members? I paid for membership - once, quite a
> long time ago - and have never received any subsequent request for
> "subscription and other sum (if any) which shall be due and payable to
> the Association in respect of my membership" - so I guess I've probably
> been dropped from the list. Is that the way it works? No reminders, and
> silently dropped?  Or do you stay a member as long as you haven't been
> asked for another subscription, terminating at death? That would seem to
> be the implication of the 'general' section in the articles of association.
>
> Graham
If you were a member, but for whatever reason, are not fully paid up, then
we give reasonable latitude to pay the fee and be re-instated.  You would
not lose your right to vote.

It's not our intention that members should be penalised because we or you
missed an email or a cheque got lost in the post or something.

80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill

[80n]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Tom Hughes  wrote:

> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> > I recently asked bo...@osmf for a list of members and received the
> > answer that providing such a list might clash with members' privacy; but
> > they said they thought that creating a members-only mailing list would
> > be a good idea (I expect this to be done any day now). So I guess that,
> > once the list is set up, if you find you receive mails from that list
> > then you are a member ;-)
>
> I was going to say that they were absolutely right not to give it to you
> as it would certainly never have occurred to me that anybody could ask
> for list and I wouldn't have expected it to be given out, but...
>
> The fact is that we don't really know whether we have an obligation to
publish the list of members or not.  When I incorporated the Foundation I
didn't know the answer so I put some words on the site to say that by
default we'll protect your privacy but we might have a legal obligation to
disclose.  As of now we still don't know the actual answer because nobody
has been motivated enough to find out.

We've only ever had one request for the list, from Frederik, and he said
he'd be happy with a mailing list for all members instead, so we still
haven't bothered to find out the answer.  It probably rests on the
definition of what a member is.

80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill

[80n]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

>
> 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.
>

Perhaps it's better to look at it the other way round.  How much value does
one map *gain* by being more up to date than another map?

For some uses, like the street map at Charlbury railway station perhaps not
a lot.

For other uses, like how to route around the congestion charging zone in
central London, there's a lot of value gained by being current.





>
> 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-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-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill

[Tom Hughes]

Frederik Ramm wrote:

> I recently asked bo...@osmf for a list of members and received the 
> answer that providing such a list might clash with members' privacy; but 
> they said they thought that creating a members-only mailing list would 
> be a good idea (I expect this to be done any day now). So I guess that, 
> once the list is set up, if you find you receive mails from that list 
> then you are a member ;-)

I was going to say that they were absolutely right not to give it to you 
as it would certainly never have occurred to me that anybody could ask 
for list and I wouldn't have expected it to be given out, but...

> The proper contact at OSMF would be the membership secretary. I don't 
> know anything about their policies regarding renewals. However, I 
> *think* that it was planned to have some kind of grace period, i.e. if 
> your membership has lapsed because you didn't renew, you might have the 
> chance to just pay now and it counts as having renewed after your 
> previous membership expired. But don't take my word for any of this, I 
> do not have any more access to board meeting minutes than anyone else.

As far as I know you should get an email when your renewal is due. I 
certainly did last year.

> I thought that the membership fee was a yearly amount but maybe I was 
> wrong. There are many things in the Articles of Association and the 
> underlying Companies Act that on first reading seem to run contrary to 
> how business in OSMF is conducted, and I put this down to myself not 
> knowing which bits are important and which bits are subject to 
> interpretation. For example I would have thought that the Companies Act 
> says that the register of members must be available on request (even to 
> non-members so could as well be put on the web site), but who am I to 
> know the intricate details of the UK system - there are probably myriad 
> "case law" issues that say otherwise and only a lawyer will know what 
> counts.

...coming back to the point from the first paragraph, you are probably 
quite right here. Because the foundation is a limited company, and 
members of the foundation are the members of that company, the Companies 
Act probably does require them to give the list to anybody that asks.

Certainly for a company limited by share capital the list of 
shareholders has to be provided (which causes some problems in fact) and 
the list of members is the equivalent for a company limited by guarantee 
so it quite probably does have to be divulged on request, even to 
non-members.

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://www.compton.nu/

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

graham wrote:
> How do I find out if I'm a member in good standing? Is it possible to 
> check the register of members? 

I recently asked bo...@osmf for a list of members and received the 
answer that providing such a list might clash with members' privacy; but 
they said they thought that creating a members-only mailing list would 
be a good idea (I expect this to be done any day now). So I guess that, 
once the list is set up, if you find you receive mails from that list 
then you are a member ;-)

> I paid for membership - once, quite a 
> long time ago - and have never received any subsequent request for 
> "subscription and other sum (if any) which shall be due and payable to 
> the Association in respect of my membership" - so I guess I've probably 
> been dropped from the list.

The proper contact at OSMF would be the membership secretary. I don't 
know anything about their policies regarding renewals. However, I 
*think* that it was planned to have some kind of grace period, i.e. if 
your membership has lapsed because you didn't renew, you might have the 
chance to just pay now and it counts as having renewed after your 
previous membership expired. But don't take my word for any of this, I 
do not have any more access to board meeting minutes than anyone else.

> Is that the way it works? No reminders, and 
> silently dropped?  Or do you stay a member as long as you haven't been 
> asked for another subscription, terminating at death? That would seem to 
> be the implication of the 'general' section in the articles of association.

I thought that the membership fee was a yearly amount but maybe I was 
wrong. There are many things in the Articles of Association and the 
underlying Companies Act that on first reading seem to run contrary to 
how business in OSMF is conducted, and I put this down to myself not 
knowing which bits are important and which bits are subject to 
interpretation. For example I would have thought that the Companies Act 
says that the register of members must be available on request (even to 
non-members so could as well be put on the web site), but who am I to 
know the intricate details of the UK system - there are probably myriad 
"case law" issues that say otherwise and only a lawyer will know what 
counts.

Bye
Frederik



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License to kill

[Dave Stubbs]

2009/3/6 graham :
> graham wrote:
>
>>
>> How do I find out if I'm a member in good standing?
>
> Just saw the relevant page:
> http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/membership/
>
> which sounds as though if you don't pay annually, even if not reminded,
> you're probably dropped. Haven't seen an actual rule to say so though.
>
> That page was last updated in 2007 when there were 60 members eligible
> to vote. Anyone know how many there are now?
>

I think someone said 200... but anyway.

You should have been contacted if your membership was about to expire.
If you think it might have been missed I'd suggest dropping an e-mail
to members...@osmfoundation.org would be the best way to find out.

Dave

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License to kill

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

On Friday 06 March 2009 15:54:32 graham wrote:
> > How do I find out if I'm a member in good standing?
>
> Just saw the relevant page:
> http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/membership/
>
> which sounds as though if you don't pay annually, even if not reminded,
> you're probably dropped. Haven't seen an actual rule to say so though.
>
> That page was last updated in 2007 when there were 60 members eligible
> to vote. Anyone know how many there are now?

interesting - i registered as a member a couple of months back - my money was 
received silently. And only silence since then.
-- 
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-legal-talk] License to kill

[graham]

graham wrote:

> 
> How do I find out if I'm a member in good standing? 

Just saw the relevant page:
http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/membership/

which sounds as though if you don't pay annually, even if not reminded, 
you're probably dropped. Haven't seen an actual rule to say so though.

That page was last updated in 2007 when there were 60 members eligible 
to vote. Anyone know how many there are now?

Graham



Is it possible to
> check the register of members? I paid for membership - once, quite a 
> long time ago - and have never received any subsequent request for 
> "subscription and other sum (if any) which shall be due and payable to 
> the Association in respect of my membership" - so I guess I've probably 
> been dropped from the list. Is that the way it works? No reminders, and 
> silently dropped?  Or do you stay a member as long as you haven't been 
> asked for another subscription, terminating at death? That would seem to 
> be the implication of the 'general' section in the articles of association.
> 
> Either way, it does seem like a lost opportunity for some revenue, at 
> the least.
> 
> 
> Graham
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> 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 I said, that's the easy bit. We already have "the whole world in 
British colours" and I'm sure we will get "the whole world in German 
colours" (which actually I hear some cartographers refer to as the 
"Michelin style" so it may not be German after all) before we see 
anything fancy like I described.

However, I still think it would be fascinating to produce ONE map (where 
you can zoom and pan across the world and don't have to stop at borders) 
and still allow national or even, sometimes, regional groups to define 
what they want on "their" part of the map. The practical use for the 
tourist ("explain the world to me in terms I am familiar with") will be 
limited, but it will be a fantastic tool for those culturally 
interested. For example, a country in which nature reserves play an 
important role will naturally want to have them displayed at early zoom 
levels, and in other countries these might appear as a dotted line on 
z15. Same for all other kinds of things. The Iceland map will show 
filling stations at zoom level 8 ;-) and so on.

If you don't share the vision then stick to your "one size fits all" 
mapping. I'm not saying we should remove that map, but I am sure that if 
we manage to create an infrastructure supporting something like that, 
then the rewards will be great. (It doesn't even have to be done by OSM 
on OSM servers, anyone can do it.)

I am also very keen on the "grassroots" aspect of this. I want people to 
be able to define their part of the map without having to go via central 
command (where their request might well be met with "we understand that 
you would like to have this but it has an undesirable side effect on the 
other side of the earth").

Of course, even today every country can have their own slippy map and 
their own tiles and it's happening everywhere already (freemap.sk comes 
to mind but there are many others). The missing link is (only) a clever 
OpenLayers extension that would mix'n'match tiles from various national 
servers.

Bye
Frederik


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License to kill

[graham]

Frederik Ramm wrote:

> 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.

How do I find out if I'm a member in good standing? Is it possible to 
check the register of members? I paid for membership - once, quite a 
long time ago - and have never received any subsequent request for 
"subscription and other sum (if any) which shall be due and payable to 
the Association in respect of my membership" - so I guess I've probably 
been dropped from the list. Is that the way it works? No reminders, and 
silently dropped?  Or do you stay a member as long as you haven't been 
asked for another subscription, terminating at death? That would seem to 
be the implication of the 'general' section in the articles of association.

Either way, it does seem like a lost opportunity for some revenue, at 
the least.


Graham


___
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]

Thanks Jukka,

You resolved my question.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:

> John3478 John3478  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
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] SQL to query street name within a define bbox

[Tom Hughes]

John3478 John3478 wrote:

> 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?

Before we can answer that we need to know what format you have the 
planet data in... Do you just mean the you have the XML data? or have 
you loaded it into a relational database - presumably you have if you 
want to use SQL, but what schema are you using?

I'm guessing it is either the MySQL schema used by the API or the 
postgis format used for mapnik rendering?

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] SQL to query street name within a define bbox

[80n]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 5:21 AM, John3478 John3478 wrote:

> 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?
>

XAPI uses a schemaless database so there's no 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]
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 2:56 AM, John3478 John3478 wrote:
>>
>>> 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]
>>
>> 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
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO

[Guenther Meyer]

Am Donnerstag 05 März 2009 schrieb Robert (Jamie) Munro:
> 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.
>
same for me (preferring german style).





signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk