[Talk-transit] Should railway station relations include bus stops?
Hi all, Last question of the night from me. I've been creating relations for railway stations (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_train_stations) and just noticed, when doing Marylebone ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/238413), that there's already a Naptan-created relation for the bus stop ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/199421). Should these two be merged? Or are bus stop areas and train stations conceptually distinct? Frankie P.S I note that the Naptan relation doesn't have a type=* tag. This should probably be type=site? -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Should railway station relations include bus stops?
NaPTAN provides relations for stations (or at least it should, I've yet to check), in most cases, this will contain the station node, and entrance nodes, and child relations eg, the stops outside of it. I've yet to import them, but I do have all the backreferences stored to do so. On 10/09/2009, Frankie Roberto fran...@frankieroberto.com wrote: Hi all, Last question of the night from me. I've been creating relations for railway stations (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_train_stations) and just noticed, when doing Marylebone ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/238413), that there's already a Naptan-created relation for the bus stop ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/199421). Should these two be merged? Or are bus stop areas and train stations conceptually distinct? Frankie P.S I note that the Naptan relation doesn't have a type=* tag. This should probably be type=site? -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [talk-ph] request for daily snapshot of OSM Philippine data
I downloaded the philippine snapshot and it seems the whole archipelago is not covered. The cloudmade extract uses this boundingbox http://downloads.cloudmade.com/asia/philippines/philippines.poly On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:36 PM, maning sambaleemmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote: Big thanks to Frederick and Geofabrik, we can get daily snapshot of OSM Philippines data (osm and shp format). http://download.geofabrik.de/osm/asia/ -- Forwarded message -- From: maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com Date: Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 6:02 PM Subject: request for daily snapshot of OSM Philippine data To: i...@geofabrik.de hi, Can I request for dialy snapshot of OSM data for the Philippines? The philippines is here: http://osm.org/go/4zhyJ- -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- -- 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
[OSM-talk-be] gebruik gegevens giswest databank ?
Hallo, Ik ben nog nieuw in dit project, dus ... hallo iedereen. Een vraagje: Ik heb deze week eens een babbeltje gehad met iemand van de gemeente bij ons om een lijst te krijgen van alle straten in de gemeente inclusief GPS-gegevens. Hij zie dat hij die eventueel wel kon verkrijgen, op basis van een databank die zij hebben, de gis databank. Dit is een project -als ik het goed heb- dat afkomstig is van de provincie. Nu, los van de vraag als ik de ga kunnen omzetten, weet er iemand als er problemen zijn met het gebruik van gegevens uit de gis-databank? (wie heeft de rechten op de informatie daarin, licentie-problemen? ) Dit om eventuele problemen later te vermijden. Cheerio! Kr. Bonne. -- jabber/gtalk: krist...@krbonne.net attachment: kristoff_bonne.vcf___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Openstreetmap Foundation: the Belgian Chapter
Hi all, 2009/9/1 eMerzh merz...@gmail.com: I think also that an asbl / vzw is a good thing for OSM in belgium. Some thoughts: * Please define the goals of the organisation _very_ well. * A dry run without the formal structure, but pretending to have them may prove _very_ interesting when it comes to feasibility. * A formal non-profit organisation where the core people can't blindly trust each other won't fly. This does not mean there has to have been lots of past physical contact. I haven't seen people like Ivo Van de Maagdenberg or Peter Leemans very often, but I trust them 100% in this kind of role. I am not (yet) convinced of the added value of a formal non-profit. Sincerely, Mark -- Mark Van den Borre Noormannenstraat 113 3000 Leuven, België +32 486 961726 ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Openstreetmap Foundation: the Belgian Chapter
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Mark Van den Borre wrote: 2009/9/1 eMerzh merz...@gmail.com: I think also that an asbl / vzw is a good thing for OSM in belgium. Some thoughts: * Please define the goals of the organisation _very_ well. The goals are currently somehow stable. It is not wise to make all the goals very explicit, since that would happer future unknown goals. We the association feels like adding them, the bylaws (statuten) need to be amended, which needs to be ratified by the 'algemene leden vergadering', plus even more important: it cost another wad of money to get it officially published in 'het staatsblad' (think of about EUR 100,-) to vague goals on the other hand will possibly result in the application for the association to be rejected. Currently I think we are ok with the current set of goals, but that's my opinion and rather limited in weight since I wrote up the goals myself :) Please ammend or expand on the current goals, but remember not to explict. And that means anybody on this list or others not on this list but still intersted. * A dry run without the formal structure, but pretending to have them may prove _very_ interesting when it comes to feasibility. can you explain what you mean with a dry-run? by running a mapping party now and then, mailing on this talk-list, hanging out in IRC channel #osm-be , might already make us a 'feitelijke vereniging'. I am not (yet) convinced of the added value of a formal non-profit. It will make it easier for us to reach out for funding, press contacts and legal stability when it comes to licensing stuff. An informal non-profit (feitelijke vereniging, hope you mean that) makes the members themselves liable for the things they try to reach (spending money, getting funds as examples of concrete two-risks). Thanks for you input, Ivom ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Monopoly City Streets
Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@... writes: OK, I think we have a potential case of GMaps + OSM data here... ... By the sound of that, it seems that they're joining up the GMaps data and the OSM data, and filtering out the street names in common. Do you think there might be something wrong in doing so? -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Monopoly City Streets
El Miércoles, 9 de Septiembre de 2009, Jukka Rahkonen escribió: By the sound of that, it seems that they're joining up the GMaps data and the OSM data, and filtering out the street names in common. Do you think there might be something wrong in doing so? I do. I think that their DB is a derivative work of the OSM data and that share-alike should apply. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es http://ivan.sanchezortega.es MSN:i_eat_s_p_a_m_for_breakf...@hotmail.com Jabber:ivansanc...@jabber.org ; ivansanc...@kdetalk.net IRC: ivansanchez @ OFTC freenode signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Monopoly City Streets
Look also at the positive site: This mechanism might be in place to prevent a sudden surge of fantasy streets (or even whole new cities) popping up all over OSM, vandalizing our data. Of course, this doesn't make all things all right. Their final OSM derivate is a subset of OSM (intersection of OSM and other google's sources), which makes it less attractive for importing into OSM, but it still has high value (double/triple checked data...). But before even coming to that stage they have an intermediate phase that could be even more interesting for us (missing roads, which they use to make the derivate). Stefan 2009/9/9 Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es: El Miércoles, 9 de Septiembre de 2009, Jukka Rahkonen escribió: By the sound of that, it seems that they're joining up the GMaps data and the OSM data, and filtering out the street names in common. Do you think there might be something wrong in doing so? I do. I think that their DB is a derivative work of the OSM data and that share-alike should apply. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es http://ivan.sanchezortega.es MSN:i_eat_s_p_a_m_for_breakf...@hotmail.com Jabber:ivansanc...@jabber.org ; ivansanc...@kdetalk.net IRC: ivansanchez @ OFTC freenode ___ 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] Monopoly City Streets
El Miércoles, 9 de Septiembre de 2009, Stefan Baebler escribió: Look also at the positive site: This mechanism might be in place to prevent a sudden surge of fantasy streets (or even whole new cities) popping up all over OSM, vandalizing our data. ... or to detect easter eggs in big G's data. And I want that list of (possible) easter eggs. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es http://ivan.sanchezortega.es MSN:i_eat_s_p_a_m_for_breakf...@hotmail.com Jabber:ivansanc...@jabber.org ; ivansanc...@kdetalk.net IRC: ivansanchez @ OFTC freenode signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Monopoly City Streets
2009/9/9 Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es: ... or to detect easter eggs in big G's data. And I want that list of (possible) easter eggs. Iván, there is no reason trying to catch all the easter eggs. When you find one, and report it, they move it somewhere else. -- -S ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Monopoly City Streets
El Miércoles, 9 de Septiembre de 2009, Stefan Baebler escribió: [...] Yes, and then we will unleash our team of high profile lawyers [...] You mean IF we can snatch them out of the pub. ;-) -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es Un ordenador no es un televisor ni un microondas, es una herramienta compleja. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Monopoly City Streets
2009/9/9 Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es: OK, so it seems that they're using GMaps as the background, and OSM as the actual street data provider. See: http://chippy2005.googlepages.com/MonopolyCityStreets_1252505633167.png http://chippy2005.googlepages.com/MapCompareGeofabrikTools_12525056572.png Still deserves some more investigation... This is consistent with what they say on their own blog (which is now down): Who else has helped us? The project was made possible by using the street data from OpenStreetMap, combined with Google Maps, API tastic! From that comment it looks like they're using OSM vector data on the backend to get street outlines and Google's map tiles on top of them. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Monopoly City Streets
I think that OSM is entitled to ask if the Creative Commons license has been complied with. The Monopoly City Streets game is produced by Tribal DDB which is part of Hasbro Inc., one of the biggest toy manufacturers in the world. They own, among others, Monopoly, Trivial Pursuit, Scrabble and work on toys with Disney. The City Streets game is part of their strategy to bring game profitability to the internet. Hasbro Inc. does not hesitate to pursue anyone who get too near to their intellectual property. It was Hasbro who went after Scrabulous last year. It has got to be very unlikely that Hasbro would share any insights into Google's maps' Easter Eggs. Both company's understand intellectual property very well; Hasbro well enough to tell us whether they are complying with the CC license. -- Peter Millar - Original Message - From: Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, 9 September, 2009 13:26:31 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Monopoly City Streets El Miércoles, 9 de Septiembre de 2009, Stefan Baebler escribió: Look also at the positive site: This mechanism might be in place to prevent a sudden surge of fantasy streets (or even whole new cities) popping up all over OSM, vandalizing our data. ... or to detect easter eggs in big G's data. And I want that list of (possible) easter eggs. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es http://ivan.sanchezortega.es MSN:i_eat_s_p_a_m_for_breakf...@hotmail.com Jabber:ivansanc...@jabber.org ; ivansanc...@kdetalk.net IRC: ivansanchez @ OFTC freenode ___ 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] Monopoly City Streets
On 9/9/09, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@... writes: By the sound of that, it seems that they're joining up the GMaps data and the OSM data, and filtering out the street names in common. I think that their DB is a derivative work of the OSM data and that share-alike should apply. Even if that is true, they are not distributing their database to anyone else. indeed. one of the myriad flaws (as i see it, anyway) of the CC license is that only the end-product needs to be shared-alike. if they're only distributing tiles derived from the OSM database, but not a merged database... well, the tiles are required to be CC BY-SA, but not their merged database*. cheers, matt *: as i understand it, anyway. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Monopoly City Streets
El Miércoles, 9 de Septiembre de 2009, Ed Avis escribió: Even if that is true, they are not distributing their database to anyone else. They are ... to the players, in the form of lists of streets owned by one player and whatnot. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es You prefer the company of the opposite sex, but are well liked by your own. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Monopoly City Streets
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Peter Millarpeter.mil...@yahoo.com wrote: I think that OSM is entitled to ask if the Creative Commons license has been complied with. The Monopoly City Streets game is produced by Tribal DDB which is part of Hasbro Inc., one of the biggest toy manufacturers in the world. They own, among others, Monopoly, Trivial Pursuit, Scrabble and work on toys with Disney. The City Streets game is part of their strategy to bring game profitability to the internet. Hasbro Inc. does not hesitate to pursue anyone who get too near to their intellectual property. It was Hasbro who went after Scrabulous last year. It has got to be very unlikely that Hasbro would share any insights into Google's maps' Easter Eggs. Both company's understand intellectual property very well; Hasbro well enough to tell us whether they are complying with the CC license. It's worthwhile to stop for a moment to consider why Monopoly City Streets opted for this Frankensteinian merger of Google Maps tiles with OpenStreetMap vector data (which doesn't always line up). Probably because: * Nobody other than OSM would give them vector data * Nobody other than Google provided tile hosting for this sort of project (and they didn't want to set up their own servers). I don't know what Google's policy is for a project like this. Are they getting the tiles for free or are they buying something like Google Maps API Premier[1] ? If it's the latter perhaps the startups that are trying to commercialize OSM [2][3] should contact Monopoly City Streets and offer them OSM-based tiles at a competitive prize. That would improve things for Monopoly City Streets by getting them off shaky legal ground and improving their game by making tiles match up with the actual data. The OSM project would get more positive exposure. Annd everyone on this list would have free time to play armchair lawyer on some other issue. 1. http://www.google.com/enterprise/earthmaps/maps_features.html 2. http://www.geofabrik.de/ 3. http://cloudmade.com/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] source=(survey, yahoo, gps...)
2009/9/9 Anthony o...@inbox.org: If the way lines up with the GPS trace, the GPS trace was used as the source of data. If it doesn't, it wasn't (or it has been changed). Am I missing some reason that's not correct? You're assuming only one type of source was used to generate a way, when multiple sources may have been used on the same way, so what do you assume if some of the way lines up with GPS trace and some doesn't? I agree that people should list their source, even if they uploaded a GPS trace, since not everyone uses the same software and can bring up the GPS traces very easily. But if the source is a GPS trace (or Yahoo, for that matter), it's not the end of the world if they don't, as a quick examination of those two possibilities will reveal the source. What if they edit the way in JOSM and only load the GPS trace locally, how are you know know they created a way based on GPS information? Anyway, my question above was where the best place is to tag things like GPS model. Why should that be tagged on the way itself, and not on the GPS trace? Obviously only works if the person uploads the GPS trace, but we're talking best practices at this point, right? We need to also cover our bases, ways and POIs should be tagged as to their origin simply because we're guessing otherwise. By the way, is there any interface where I can click on individual GPS traces and bring up information about them? I had one yesterday which was Only if they've been made public, if they're marked private you can't get any more details. It's a shame if everyone who looks at that has to go through all the same trouble as me just to confirm that yes, this GPS trace is for a road that no longer exists. Which is the point of tagging ways/POIs with source information. Can traces with obsolete (or just plain inaccurate) information be deleted? Should they be? This was the topic of another email thread a while back, I'm not sure of the outcome. I particularlly love the GPS trace that cuts across Lord Howe Island, no idea who's trace or even how I'd go about finding who's trace it was but it may have been from a plane, no idea. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Vandalism/user error?
On 09/09/2009 00:10, Richard Fairhurst wrote: David Earl wrote: Richard - why do we still need this mode now you can save in Potlatch and groups of changes fit much better with changesets anyway? Lots of people still prefer it. I've not seen any evidence of people mistakenly selecting it - I think the big lightning bolt is pretty clear! I had to revert changes for someone this week who specifically said to me that's what had happened - he didn't realize he was editing live data. People don't read stuff in front of them. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Vandalism/user error?
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, David Earl wrote: On 09/09/2009 00:10, Richard Fairhurst wrote: David Earl wrote: Richard - why do we still need this mode now you can save in Potlatch and groups of changes fit much better with changesets anyway? Lots of people still prefer it. I've not seen any evidence of people mistakenly selecting it - I think the big lightning bolt is pretty clear! I had to revert changes for someone this week who specifically said to me that's what had happened - he didn't realize he was editing live data. People don't read stuff in front of them. David Both modes have equal prominence on the front page. Perhaps adding one stage of difficulty to get to the live edit is justified. When I do use Potlatch I have to think whether I am 'meant' to be doing it live or delayed. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
We are diverting away from the original question. Is it OK to use Google Streetview data to check/confirm the data we have? Clearly its not OK to use the images to gather information for use in OSM due to derived data part of the copyright. Jack Stringer ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Vandalism/user error?
David Earl wrote: I had to revert changes for someone this week who specifically said to me that's what had happened - he didn't realize he was editing live data. People don't read stuff in front of them. Well, you can't completely idiot-proof these things, and it's a great shame to inconvenience everyone else just for the benefit of a few (expletive deleted)s who can't or won't read. Maybe an are you sure? could be displayed for the new user who edits live for the first time. If someone puts a trac ticket in then I'll do that as and when. That said, I'm not envisaging Potlatch 2 will have an edit live mode unless someone else codes it, simply because live editing is _much_ harder to code than edit-with-save and I'd rather spend the time on something else. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Wednesday 09 Sep 2009 3:21:02 pm Jack Stringer wrote: We are diverting away from the original question. Is it OK to use Google Streetview data to check/confirm the data we have? no - for all the reasons already mentioned. It is not ok to use it for anything whatsoever to do with OSM. -- 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] Google Street View copyright question
Anthony wrote: Eh, I'd take on Google pro se (or with the help of free EFF lawyers or the like) over the issue of the ToS, and based on US law I'm pretty sure I'd win. However, I'm aware that other users of OSM don't have the benefit US-jurisdictional copyright law with respect to factual data, so I won't do it, for their sake. As it stands, the OSM database is in the UK. Still, I can't get my head around what the rules exactly are. If I read a newspaper article which says that Main Street has been renamed to Independence Blvd, can I use that, or do I have to go out there myself and check? It makes no sense. There's a difference between using one fact from a newspaper article, and systematically extracting data from a database to reuse in another database. It's the same principle that allows Wikipedia to get away with getting co-ordinates for individual articles by taking them from a map, and us doing the same for every point of interest on the map. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Jonathan Bennettopenstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: There's a difference between using one fact from a newspaper article, and systematically extracting data from a database to reuse in another database. Is there a difference between 1) using one fact from a newspaper article to use in another database, and 2) using one fact from a database to use in another database? Can you clarify exactly what that difference is why one is legal while the other is not (if that is indeed what you're implying)? It's the same principle that allows Wikipedia to get away with getting co-ordinates for individual articles by taking them from a map, and us doing the same for every point of interest on the map. Can you clarify what you mean, please? What is legal, what is illegal, and why? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On 09/09/09 11:46, Roy Wallace wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Jonathan Bennettopenstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: There's a difference between using one fact from a newspaper article, and systematically extracting data from a database to reuse in another database. Is there a difference between 1) using one fact from a newspaper article to use in another database, and 2) using one fact from a database to use in another database? Can you clarify exactly what that difference is why one is legal while the other is not (if that is indeed what you're implying)? Because (in the EU) Database Right kicks in and prohibits substantial extraction. 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] Google Street View copyright question
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Kenneth Gonsalveslaw...@au-kbc.org wrote: no - for all the reasons already mentioned. It is not ok to use it for anything whatsoever to do with OSM. First, all I have seen here are just opinions. Second, copyright laws and definition of derivative work depends on the country you are. And StreetView is present in many countries now. There are some questions here : is the content of a photo copyrighted like the photo itself ? And reading a street sign on a image a copyright infringement ? For both, I would say 'no'. What is copyrighted is the photo itself, not its content. That's why you cannot draw on the top of a satellite picture. Your work is derivated from the picture, not from the earth. Did Google payed copyright owners before taking pictures of houses facades, streets, monuments, posters, human bodies, etc ? No. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Tom Hughest...@compton.nu wrote: Because (in the EU) Database Right kicks in and prohibits substantial extraction. Tom If someone starts to copy the photos themselves, yes you are right. But here, we speak about reading a street sign on a picture, not copying the picture. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On 09/09/09 11:55, Tom Hughes wrote: On 09/09/09 11:46, Roy Wallace wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Jonathan Bennettopenstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: There's a difference between using one fact from a newspaper article, and systematically extracting data from a database to reuse in another database. Is there a difference between 1) using one fact from a newspaper article to use in another database, and 2) using one fact from a database to use in another database? Can you clarify exactly what that difference is why one is legal while the other is not (if that is indeed what you're implying)? Because (in the EU) Database Right kicks in and prohibits substantial extraction. I just realised that I misread your question slightly... The correct answer is of course that on their own there is no difference between the two. The problem arises once you copy a few facts, then I copy a few, then Fred copies a few, then Jim, then... At some point we have, between us, copied a substantial extract at which point the database right kicks in. 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] Google Street View copyright question
On 09/09/09 12:07, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Tom Hughest...@compton.nu wrote: Because (in the EU) Database Right kicks in and prohibits substantial extraction. If someone starts to copy the photos themselves, yes you are right. But here, we speak about reading a street sign on a picture, not copying the picture. Which has exactly what to do with the question I answered, which concerned copying facts from databases? As it happens there is a problem with my answer which I'm about to correct, but it isn't anything to do with photos. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] wikipedia:fr edits
copied from rss feed for diary entries for attention of list Looks like there's been a lot of wikipedia:fr based edits from http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/paddiloo/edits -- is this now ok? [Don't have access to mailing list atm] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
Pieren wrote: First, all I have seen here are just opinions. [...] There are some questions here : is the content of a photo copyrighted like the photo itself ? May I humbly refer people to http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=100 which deals principally with aerial photography, not StreetView, but many of the principles are the same. I am not a lawyer... but I do know how to find the right book in the law library. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Google-Street-View-copyright-question-tp25354298p25362968.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] wikipedia:fr edits
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote: copied from rss feed for diary entries for attention of list Looks like there's been a lot of wikipedia:fr based edits from http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/paddiloo/edits -- is this now ok? [Don't have access to mailing list atm] This person creates place nodes based on coordinates from wikipedia:fr. But these coordinates are coming from the IGN, the french OS and their license for this dataset is not compatible with OSM license (commercial use not allowed without permission). I contact him/her to inform that what he/she is doing is not allowed. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] wikipedia:fr edits
2009/9/9 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote: copied from rss feed for diary entries for attention of list Looks like there's been a lot of wikipedia:fr based edits from http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/paddiloo/edits -- is this now ok? [Don't have access to mailing list atm] This person creates place nodes based on coordinates from wikipedia:fr. But these coordinates are coming from the IGN, the french OS and their license for this dataset is not compatible with OSM license (commercial use not allowed without permission). I contact him/her to inform that what he/she is doing is not allowed. Pieren In that case, the coordinates should surely not be in wikipedia either? -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Tom Hughest...@compton.nu wrote: On 09/09/09 11:55, Tom Hughes wrote: On 09/09/09 11:46, Roy Wallace wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Jonathan Bennettopenstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: There's a difference between using one fact from a newspaper article, and systematically extracting data from a database to reuse in another database. Is there a difference between 1) using one fact from a newspaper article to use in another database, and 2) using one fact from a database to use in another database? Can you clarify exactly what that difference is why one is legal while the other is not (if that is indeed what you're implying)? Because (in the EU) Database Right kicks in and prohibits substantial extraction. I just realised that I misread your question slightly... The correct answer is of course that on their own there is no difference between the two. The problem arises once you copy a few facts, then I copy a few, then Fred copies a few, then Jim, then... At some point we have, between us, copied a substantial extract at which point the database right kicks in. The example of a newspaper is a bad example. You cannot copy a text writen by somebody else. This is because it is his own creation. If you write yourself an article, It is allowed to mention some parts of an other article, small extracts are allowed as long as they are not substantial in which case you leave the right to mention a text. It is the same about a photo. You cannot copy a photo or a part of a photo because the photo itself is a creation from the guy how took the picture. But the street sign on the photo doesn't belong to the photograph, neither the photograph cannot say this street sign is my property now because I took a picture of it. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] wikipedia:fr edits
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Thomas Woodgrand.edgemas...@gmail.com wrote: In that case, the coordinates should surely not be in wikipedia either? Is commercial reuse allowed on wikipedia licence? I don't know and I'm not a wikipedia contributor. I just asked them where they found the coordinates and I saw that the licence was not OSM compatible. But wikipedia has also many POI's located with gmaps, so... Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
2009/9/9 Pieren pier...@gmail.com The example of a newspaper is a bad example. You cannot copy a text writen by somebody else. This is because it is his own creation. If you write yourself an article, It is allowed to mention some parts of an other article, small extracts are allowed as long as they are not substantial in which case you leave the right to mention a text. For newspaper, it is even more complicated at least in the US due to the hot news doctrine. This is a very old one, but some newspaper with the appearance of the Internet are mulling attacking some people. There was a very interesting article a few month I think in the NY Times (can't find the link) about it. To get more information, you can always read the following wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_News_Service_v._Associated_Press Emilie Laffray ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Address interpolation
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 01:18:33PM +0100, Brian Quinion wrote: On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Valent Turkovicvalent.turko...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I'm using address interpolation for the first time so I would like to ask if somebody can check if I did it ok or if there are some errors: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.544703lon=18.718653zoom=18layers=B000FTF They seem OK - and my processing code can interpret them (yeh!) but I'd suggest a couple of changes For http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/489432179 I'd suggest moving all the following tags addr:city = Osijek addr:country = 385 addr:postcode = 31000 addr:street = Starigradska to the way (rather than the individual nodes). And I'd suggest that addr:country = 385 is unlikely to be understood. No! Please don't do that. That makes it harder to use. Then there are two possible ways, where data can be. Please use only addr:interpolation on the way and everything else on the nodes. (Of course those tags *can* be on ways, but that has a different meaning: Thats for building outlines that get tagged with an address. Another reason for keeping those things separate.) In general creating a polygon / relation for anything above street level is probably more useful than adding it to individual nodes (or even ways) - so just draw a rough polygon for the city of Osijek and tag that instead. No. Creating polygons and relations willy nilly makes this harder to use. Again, it means there are several places where the software has to look for the data and several places where people have to look for the data. Especially relations are easy to break and easy to overlook, so they should be used rarely. The Karlsruhe schema in its most basic form where all this data is on the node might duplicate lots of data, but it is very robust. Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Seoul
2009/9/9 Andrew Errington a.erring...@lancaster.ac.uk I don't disagree. However, the convention has been established, and it's not entirely a bad thing. It means I can contribute to the map (in English) and I can read the map at the OSM site (because Mapnik renders the name=* tag, not a language-specific tag). Besides, it's only one SQL update statement to change all of the name=* tags to the content of any name:ko=* tag. If OSM's Mapnik renderer would render in a selectable language, then I would definitely discourage the English in parentheses. As it is, this way the map is useful to me in Korea, and to Koreans. You can already render in a specific language with Mapnik. The wikipedia people are currently experimenting with localized maps. It is just that the main map is using name by default. It was the reason for Stefan Korner push to translate all countries in the world in all different languages. Emilie Laffray ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
Obligatory IANAL disclaimer. Let's be honest, we would like to avoid it as much as possible not because copyright law is in fact in our side (*checking* facts with other, commercial sources IS NOT copying and IS NOT covered by copyright law, period). We want to avoid just because we *think* (suspect/are afraid of) that law is like Lego - good lawer will combine different aspects of situation and will get out rulling which say that such data is actually derative work. Actually, there is some other, more practical arguments why such checking isn't healthy thing to do. First of all, it's still just another source, not field check. Second, it is quite interesting what happens when you *check* that name of the street you wrote down is wrong. Can you write down name in Google Street View? I guess it is copying. Fact copying, but nevertheless. Fact copying en masse = substantial extraction. So it is still if you find name wrong, you theoretically can't copy name from GSV and still have to go outside and check it yourself. So it's a little self-defeating. just my really humble thoughts, Peter. 2009/9/9 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Tom Hughest...@compton.nu wrote: On 09/09/09 11:55, Tom Hughes wrote: On 09/09/09 11:46, Roy Wallace wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Jonathan Bennettopenstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: There's a difference between using one fact from a newspaper article, and systematically extracting data from a database to reuse in another database. Is there a difference between 1) using one fact from a newspaper article to use in another database, and 2) using one fact from a database to use in another database? Can you clarify exactly what that difference is why one is legal while the other is not (if that is indeed what you're implying)? Because (in the EU) Database Right kicks in and prohibits substantial extraction. I just realised that I misread your question slightly... The correct answer is of course that on their own there is no difference between the two. The problem arises once you copy a few facts, then I copy a few, then Fred copies a few, then Jim, then... At some point we have, between us, copied a substantial extract at which point the database right kicks in. The example of a newspaper is a bad example. You cannot copy a text writen by somebody else. This is because it is his own creation. If you write yourself an article, It is allowed to mention some parts of an other article, small extracts are allowed as long as they are not substantial in which case you leave the right to mention a text. It is the same about a photo. You cannot copy a photo or a part of a photo because the photo itself is a creation from the guy how took the picture. But the street sign on the photo doesn't belong to the photograph, neither the photograph cannot say this street sign is my property now because I took a picture of it. Pieren ___ 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] Address interpolation
I'd suggest moving all the following tags addr:city = Osijek addr:country = 385 addr:postcode = 31000 addr:street = Starigradska to the way (rather than the individual nodes). And I'd suggest that addr:country = 385 is unlikely to be understood. No! Please don't do that. That makes it harder to use. Then there are two possible ways, where data can be. Please use only addr:interpolation on the way and everything else on the nodes. (Of course those tags *can* be on ways, but that has a different meaning: Thats for building outlines that get tagged with an address. Another reason for keeping those things separate.) On the way - addr:interpolation *and* addr:street ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Seoul
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Andrew Errington a.erring...@lancaster.ac.uk wrote: Actually, the convention is that objects should be tagged with four names. The 'name=*' tag is Hangul followed by English in brackets. This is the most important, as it is the 'fallback' tag for rendering a name. The others are 'name:en=*' for the English name, 'name:ko=*' for the Korean name (in Hangul), and 'name:ko_rm=*' for the Romanised Korean name. How do we deal with all other languages than English that does not use Hangul characters? Do we need to tag all these place names with all language codes? - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Seoul
2009/9/9 Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com How do we deal with all other languages than English that does not use Hangul characters? Do we need to tag all these place names with all language codes? name=* should contain the native language value name:en=* should contain the English translation name:isocode should contain translation for that specific iso code the _rm name is added for translitterated value of the native language Emilie Laffray ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
2009/9/9 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: If someone starts to copy the photos themselves, yes you are right. But here, we speak about reading a street sign on a picture, not copying the picture. Legal arguments aside, there is very few street signs I've seen on google street view that I can read anyway, most of them seem to be blurred out, either intentionally, due to motion blur or jpeg like artifacts. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Address interpolation
No! Please don't do that. That makes it harder to use. Then there are two possible ways, where data can be. Please use only addr:interpolation on the way and everything else on the nodes. Which seems to be the opposite of what the section on the Karlsruhe interpolation wiki section says: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/House_numbers/K arlsruhe_Schema#Using_interpolation_to_mark_many_houses_along_a_way (shortened to http://is.gd/34St1 ) That example shows ONLY the house number on the nodes, and everything else on the way used for interpolation. I don't use anything else on the interpolation way however. I put house numbers on end nodes, interpolation on the way linking them, and add that way to an associatedStreet relation for everything else to be worked out. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/House_numbers/K arlsruhe_Schema#Using_Relations_to_associate_house_and_street_.28opt ional.29 (shortened to http://is.gd/34T0q ) Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Address interpolation
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/489432179 I'd suggest moving all the following tags addr:city = Osijek addr:country = 385 addr:postcode = 31000 addr:street = Starigradska No! Please don't do that. That makes it harder to use. Then there are two possible ways, where data can be. Please use only addr:interpolation on the way and everything else on the nodes. (Of course those tags *can* Have the above details on the nodes makes the data potentially inconsistent because given 2 nodes: node1: addr:street = Starigradska node2: addr:street = SomethingElse way: addr:interpolation = all There is no way to know what street address the interpolated points have. And enough other people are already doing this that assuming that you can ignore tags on the way just doesn't work. Your advise also contradicts the definition on wiki. Putting the tags on the way prevents inconsistency and duplication. In general creating a polygon / relation for anything above street level is probably more useful than adding it to individual nodes (or even ways) - so just draw a rough polygon for the city of Osijek and tag that instead. No. Creating polygons and relations willy nilly makes this harder to use. Again, it means there are several places where the software has to look for the data and several places where people have to look for the data. I disagree with your statement but you have also miss-interpreted what I said. I mean use a polygon / relation to create a polygon for the place (in this case Osijek). The street/house is then known to be within the town because it is inside the town polygon. -- Brian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
2009/9/9 Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com: Back in March, Ed Parsons pointed out [0] that since StreetView images are Google-owned, if someone asked nicely-enough we could get them to give us a license to explicitly map based on the streetview images (similar to the explicit license we have with Yahoo). I'm not sure if anybody took this further with Ed or with Google back around the time of that tweet, but I sent him a quick email earlier to see what the status was here, and what we would be allowed to use Street View images for, if anything. His response was basically that it's fine to check our existing facts using the imagery from Street View, but it's not allowed - due to their license - to do any mass data extraction from the images that would then be republished. From Ed: === This remains a grey area of ip law, if it is the case of checking from the photography itself facts such as the name of a building, that would be ok.. there are some key points in the Terms of Service which are useful.. ..you may not use Google Maps in a manner which gives you or any other person access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of numerical latitude and longitude co-ordinates. This is really saying you are not allowed to do mass tracing of features that are then made available to third parties. === I came across a situation the other day where I was adding the address details of a pub[1] to the map and noticed that the street name (Edis St, from their website) didn't match up with the name of the street in OSM[2] (Edith St). From what Ed's suggested, Street View could probably have been used to confirm the local name[3] (ignore the armed police [4] ;) - to see whether the pub had a typo on their site, or we had a typo in our database - without having to go out and re-survey. [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/265649578 [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/8400167 [3] http://tr.im/yfAo [4] http://tr.im/yfAU Cheers, Dan ps - I'm not a lawyer :) -- Dan Karran d...@karran.net www.dankarran.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/graveyard This page is old/unfinished and very ambiguous. Can somebody make clear how to tag cemeteries, and how to name them correctly? If I have polygon do I add name= to polygon or do I add a point in the middle of cemetery with amenity=cemetery and name=name ? Cheers! -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, msn: valent.turko...@hotmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Valent Turkovicvalent.turko...@gmail.com wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/graveyard This page is old/unfinished and very ambiguous. Can somebody make clear how to tag cemeteries, and how to name them correctly? If I have polygon do I add name= to polygon or do I add a point in the middle of cemetery with amenity=cemetery and name=name ? I have been using http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dcemetery landuse=cemetery and adding name to the polygon (and or religious affiliations) where appropriate. No need for a separate point as far as I can see. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Monopoly City Streets
OK, so it seems that they're using GMaps as the background, and OSM as the actual street data provider. See: http://chippy2005.googlepages.com/MonopolyCityStreets_1252505633167.png http://chippy2005.googlepages.com/MapCompareGeofabrikTools_12525056572.png Still deserves some more investigation... -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es Un ordenador no es un televisor ni un microondas, es una herramienta compleja. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
Noticed in the archives[1] that my mail was chopped off, so resending with some different characters around Ed's email: [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-September/041753.html 2009/9/9 Dan Karran d...@karran.net: 2009/9/9 Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com: Back in March, Ed Parsons pointed out [0] that since StreetView images are Google-owned, if someone asked nicely-enough we could get them to give us a license to explicitly map based on the streetview images (similar to the explicit license we have with Yahoo). I'm not sure if anybody took this further with Ed or with Google back around the time of that tweet, but I sent him a quick email earlier to see what the status was here, and what we would be allowed to use Street View images for, if anything. His response was basically that it's fine to check our existing facts using the imagery from Street View, but it's not allowed - due to their license - to do any mass data extraction from the images that would then be republished. This is what Ed said: -- This remains a grey area of ip law, if it is the case of checking from the photography itself facts such as the name of a building, that would be ok.. there are some key points in the Terms of Service which are useful.. ..you may not use Google Maps in a manner which gives you or any other person access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of numerical latitude and longitude co-ordinates. This is really saying you are not allowed to do mass tracing of features that are then made available to third parties. -- I came across a situation the other day where I was adding the address details of a pub[1] to the map and noticed that the street name (Edis St, from their website) didn't match up with the name of the street in OSM[2] (Edith St). From what Ed's suggested, Street View could probably have been used to confirm the local name[3] (ignore the armed police [4] ;) - to see whether the pub had a typo on their site, or we had a typo in our database - without having to go out and re-survey. [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/265649578 [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/8400167 [3] http://tr.im/yfAo [4] http://tr.im/yfAU Cheers, Dan ps - I'm not a lawyer :) -- Dan Karran d...@karran.net www.dankarran.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] wikipedia:fr edits
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote: copied from rss feed for diary entries for attention of list Looks like there's been a lot of wikipedia:fr based edits from http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/paddiloo/edits -- is this now ok? [Don't have access to mailing list atm] After analysis, it seems that a bot is making a massive import of copyrighted data from the IGN in France. I sent a mail to d...@osmfoundation.org so I hope that it will be blocked very soon... This person seems to be a french wikipedia contributor but never contacted anyone of the osm community. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Address interpolation
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 02:51:36PM +0100, Ed Loach wrote: No! Please don't do that. That makes it harder to use. Then there are two possible ways, where data can be. Please use only addr:interpolation on the way and everything else on the nodes. Which seems to be the opposite of what the section on the Karlsruhe interpolation wiki section says: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/House_numbers/K arlsruhe_Schema#Using_interpolation_to_mark_many_houses_along_a_way (shortened to http://is.gd/34St1 ) That example shows ONLY the house number on the nodes, and everything else on the way used for interpolation. Somebody must have changes this and I have just changed it back. Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] wikipedia:fr edits
Pieren pieren3 at gmail.com writes: Looks like there's been a lot of wikipedia:fr based edits from http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/paddiloo/edits -- is this now ok? After analysis, it seems that a bot is making a massive import of copyrighted data from the IGN in France. I sent a mail to data at osmfoundation.org so I hope that it will be blocked very soon... The licence used by Wikipedia is essentially the same as that used by OSM, so this person should also be blocked from adding the IGN copyrighted data to Wikipedia. (Or if someone else added it there, it should be removed.) That is, unless Wikipedia and the OSM project disagree about the legal status of the information and whether it can be distributed under CC-BY-SA, in which case you need to ask the legal-talk mailing list... -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Data Used in Upcoming Monopoly Game
Ian Dees ian.dees at gmail.com writes: Check this out: http://blog.monopolycitystreets.com/2009/09/almost-there.html Hmph, all the news reporting has been 'Google Maps' this and 'Google' that... I hadn't seen any article mentioning OSM. Then again, from this screenshot: http://ec.mashable.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/monopolycitystreetsshot.gif it does look like Google Maps, not OSM; compare with http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.5099lon=-0.15189zoom=17layers=B000FTF Perhaps they are using OSM for data, dividing up the world into streets that players can buy and sell, but rendering the Google Maps tiles underneath. That seems a bit lame. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
Perhaps the OSM database should be moved out of the EU to a location that doesn't suffer from a Database Rights law.Extracting from no-EU data source by people not in the EU would then be okay for sure. Extending the Database Rights law to extracting turn restrictions from Streetview is a stretch anyway: they turn restrictions aren't part of the original data. -Dave On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Tom Hughest...@compton.nu wrote: On 09/09/09 11:46, Roy Wallace wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Jonathan Bennettopenstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: There's a difference between using one fact from a newspaper article, and systematically extracting data from a database to reuse in another database. Is there a difference between 1) using one fact from a newspaper article to use in another database, and 2) using one fact from a database to use in another database? Can you clarify exactly what that difference is why one is legal while the other is not (if that is indeed what you're implying)? Because (in the EU) Database Right kicks in and prohibits substantial extraction. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ 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-legal-talk] Monopoly City Streets
Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@... writes: By the sound of that, it seems that they're joining up the GMaps data and the OSM data, and filtering out the street names in common. I think that their DB is a derivative work of the OSM data and that share-alike should apply. Even if that is true, they are not distributing their database to anyone else. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Data Used in Upcoming Monopoly Game
El Miércoles, 9 de Septiembre de 2009, Ed Avis escribió: Perhaps they are using OSM for data, dividing up the world into streets that players can buy and sell, but rendering the Google Maps tiles underneath. That seems a bit lame. They are. More info at legal@ and IRC. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es http://ivan.sanchezortega.es Proudly running Debian Linux with 2.6.30-1-amd64 kernel, KDE 3.5.10, and PHP 5.2.10-2.2 generating this signature. Uptime: 17:39:54 up 4 days, 49 min, 2 users, load average: 1.72, 1.53, 1.23 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 Data Used in Upcoming Monopoly Game
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Perhaps they are using OSM for data, dividing up the world into streets that players can buy and sell, but rendering the Google Maps tiles underneath. That seems a bit lame. I'm playing it right now, and this appears to be exactly the case. They are using the Google Maps API and so are showing Google's TeleAtlas tiles, but when you search for a road to buy, it uses OSM data to look for roads in the viewbox. When you pick the road to buy (the price seems to be related to the length of the OSM way with a similar name= tag), the OSM data is used to highlight the road. It's very slow right now, but it seems pretty fun. They do correctly attribute OSM data with CC-BY-SA, too. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Data Used in Upcoming Monopoly Game
2009/9/9 Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Perhaps they are using OSM for data, dividing up the world into streets that players can buy and sell, but rendering the Google Maps tiles underneath. That seems a bit lame. I'm playing it right now, and this appears to be exactly the case. They are using the Google Maps API and so are showing Google's TeleAtlas tiles, but when you search for a road to buy, it uses OSM data to look for roads in the viewbox. When you pick the road to buy (the price seems to be related to the length of the OSM way with a similar name= tag), the OSM data is used to highlight the road. It's very slow right now, but it seems pretty fun. They do correctly attribute OSM data with CC-BY-SA, too. Oh great so you can buy a street, that does not exist on the map Great! Oh and an unmapped street that is on Google but not on OSM whats the charge. (Or is it first go map...) Sounds like a good method for trouble. Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Data Used in Upcoming Monopoly Game
On 9 Sep 2009, at 17:00, Ian Dees wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Does the osmify bookmarklet http://blog.johnmckerrell.com/2007/12/31/new-version-of-osmify-bookmarklet/ work in the Monopoly game? No. It appears that they might be using a special instance of the Google Maps API so the classes might be different? I'm not entirely sure what the OSMify bookmarklet does... The game is built using Flash so the osmify bookmarklet won't work as it needs the javascript api instead. I hope the game is using a fixed snapshot of OSM data, so that players don't have an incentive to add bogus new streets they can then buy cheaply... It'll be impossible to tell until next week (new planet dump), really. I would imagine that they are just using one dump ... there's no positive reason to keep OSM up to date and lots of negative reasons to do so. They are using data from before 25 July 2009 due to the following way having a typo in the game. :-) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4438429/history Shaun smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
David Muir Sharnoff wrote: Perhaps the OSM database should be moved out of the EU to a location that doesn't suffer from a Database Rights law.Extracting from no-EU data source by people not in the EU would then be okay for sure. Great! Let us know when you've secured the funding for this move, and we'll start work on it. Extending the Database Rights law to extracting turn restrictions from Streetview is a stretch anyway: they turn restrictions aren't part of the original data. If the photos are geocoded -- which SV's are -- then you are deriving data from the whole product, both picture and location. This constitutes a database. While the law on this may be a grey area, it's not worth our while becoming the test case and jeopardising (geopardising?) the whole project for relatively little gain. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Data Used in Upcoming Monopoly Game
On 9 Sep 2009, at 17:16, Ian Dees wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote: The game is built using Flash so the osmify bookmarklet won't work as it needs the javascript api instead. The game is built entirely with JavaScript and HTML. Only the top and bottom status bars are done with Flash. The map and its data are in Google Maps API. I stand corrected. Shaun smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Address interpolation
that you can ignore tags on the way just doesn't work. Your advise Do you have numbers for that? There are, as of last Wednesday: 46899 uses with addr:street in this way I described 209340 uses with addr:street used to link a building outline to a street 2947067 uses with addr:street used to link a node to a street Because of the duplication the 46899 way uses actually relate to 83579 equivalent nodes (for comparison) and while this is definitely a far smaller number than the original usage - it is still large in OSM terms. also contradicts the definition on wiki. Somebody must have changed the Wiki. It used to be different. I have changed it back. I would argue that you have just removed the documentation for how people are using the tag. Putting the tags on the way prevents inconsistency and duplication. Duplication is good. It helps with finding errors. No, duplication is almost always bad (caching may be an exception). Inconsistent data is the enemy of all good database management because you can't tell what it means and if data changes it is easy to miss changing it in multiple places. But this may be a religious war there is no point in having, although I am, of course, right :) I mean use a polygon / relation to create a polygon for the place (in this case Osijek). The street/house is then known to be within the town because it is inside the town polygon. Ok, thats a different issue. If you already have, say, an area with landuse=residential for the town, you could also tag it with this data. But its totally undefined what this is supposed to mean. If people just put those tags anywhere its hard to make sure the right meaning is understood. Depending on whether a way is closed and on other tags this way has, different things could be meant. Say the motorway around London is tagged with addr:postcode, does this mean that everything inside it, has this postcode? Probably not. But what if it is also tagged with a boundary tag? The consensus use of the boundary=administrative relation seems to me to be clearly and (unusually!) consistent. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:boundary The meaning of a place polygon is also clearly described: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place -- Brian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Jonathan Bennettopenstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: If the photos are geocoded -- which SV's are -- then you are deriving data from the whole product, both picture and location. This constitutes a database. While the law on this may be a grey area, it's not worth our while becoming the test case and jeopardising (geopardising?) the whole project for relatively little gain. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) Yes, it's a database of photos, not a database of street signs on the photos (or a database of posters or a database of house numbers). And georeferences are only used to find the right photo. I could agree if you use the photo georefs to position OSM objects, but here you just read a street sign on the picture. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Address interpolation
Hi, Brian Quinion wrote: No, duplication is almost always bad (caching may be an exception). Inconsistent data is the enemy of all good database management *Inconsistent* data is surely not desirable, but *redundant* information may well have its place because it makes it easier to spot errors. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Vandalism/user error?
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, David Earl wrote: On 09/09/2009 00:10, Richard Fairhurst wrote: David Earl wrote: Richard - why do we still need this mode now you can save in Potlatch and groups of changes fit much better with changesets anyway? Lots of people still prefer it. I've not seen any evidence of people mistakenly selecting it - I think the big lightning bolt is pretty clear! I had to revert changes for someone this week who specifically said to me that's what had happened - he didn't realize he was editing live data. People don't read stuff in front of them. David Both modes have equal prominence on the front page. Perhaps adding one stage of difficulty to get to the live edit is justified. When I do use Potlatch I have to think whether I am 'meant' to be doing it live or delayed. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Why not go straight into Edit and Save and then have a button to go to Edit Live (one click to go there as now)? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - greenhouse_horticulture
This proposal for tagging land covered with greenhouses is now open for voting. Please visit the proposal and cast your vote at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/greenhouse_horticulture Polderrunner ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Address interpolation
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Brian Quinionopenstreet...@brian.quinion.co.uk wrote: Hi, On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Valent Turkovicvalent.turko...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I'm using address interpolation for the first time so I would like to ask if somebody can check if I did it ok or if there are some errors: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.544703lon=18.718653zoom=18layers=B000FTF They seem OK - and my processing code can interpret them (yeh!) but I'd suggest a couple of changes For http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/489432179 I'd suggest moving all the following tags addr:city = Osijek addr:country = 385 addr:postcode = 31000 addr:street = Starigradska to the way (rather than the individual nodes). And I'd suggest that addr:country = 385 is unlikely to be understood. In general creating a polygon / relation for anything above street level is probably more useful than adding it to individual nodes (or even ways) - so just draw a rough polygon for the city of Osijek and tag that instead. -- Brian Thank you Brian for your tips, I edited address with suggestions you made. Can I ask you just to check if I made it ok now, because I will start adding street numbers so I would like to be sure I'm doing ti correctly: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.544703lon=18.718653zoom=18layers=B000FTF Cheers! -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, msn: valent.turko...@hotmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
On 09/09/2009 21:43, Valent Turkovic wrote: Is grave_yard tag used? I don't see it in JOSM. Why is the wiki so confusing for this simple thing to map. I think the original distinction was that a graveyard is the burial ground around a church, while a cemetery is a separate pice of land set aside for burials, not necessarily associated with a church, or a denomination - in the UK, many of these are operated by local authorities not religious institutions, while the graveyard around a church is exclusive to the church. Having said that, I kind of agree with you, that the distinction is subtle and probably adds little. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On 09/09/2009 12:07, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Tom Hughest...@compton.nu wrote: Because (in the EU) Database Right kicks in and prohibits substantial extraction. Tom If someone starts to copy the photos themselves, yes you are right. But here, we speak about reading a street sign on a picture, not copying the picture. There's another aspect to this which I think rules out doing this: in order to be useful to us, the streetname has to be in a photo for which we know the location. That means it has been geolocated with respect to a map, which means the photo is itself a derived work. We are in effect using the copyrighted location, albeit indirectly, so whatever the situtation wrt the content of the photo, we are potentially infringing the copyright of the map used to geolocate it. This applies even to CCbySA photos gelocated on flickr etc, unless they were located using OSM in the first place, or by GPS. In StreetView they were presumably geolocated wrt a GPS, so that may, individually (but not collectively, for database reasons) just be a fact rather than a derivation. But as other people have said, it hardly matters as (a) we want to be not just clean, but squeaky clean, and (b) if someone with lots of money sues, it hardly matters what the true legal position is. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 10:06:07PM +0100, David Earl wrote: we are potentially infringing the copyright of the map used to geolocate it. This applies even to CCbySA photos gelocated on flickr etc, unless they were located using OSM in the first place, or by GPS. But there is no way to know this - right? I geolocate my photos using GPS, but use Flickr API functions to place geotag the photo so that it shows on the Flickr map. The location itself is thus not derived from their map, but there is no way to know that. Cheers, -- Sybren Stüvel http://stuvel.eu/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/sybrenstuvel signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] wikipedia:fr edits
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Ed Avise...@waniasset.com wrote: That is, unless Wikipedia and the OSM project disagree about the legal status of the information and whether it can be distributed under CC-BY-SA, in which case you need to ask the legal-talk mailing list... Wikipedia's policy on deriving coordinates from proprietary databases is essentially undefined. They just started doing it one day with by adding coordinate templates into articles and nobody thought about the copyright implications. Perhaps someone should make an effort to increase awareness of this issue amongst legally interested Wikipedians? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:39 PM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Legal arguments aside, there is very few street signs I've seen on google street view that I can read anyway, most of them seem to be blurred out, either intentionally, due to motion blur or jpeg like artifacts. Sure, but this discussion is easily extended to other features visible in the photos (e.g. stop signs :P). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Data Used in Upcoming Monopoly Game
It's certianly slow and buggy, I'm guessing that is down to demand. Overall I'd give it a grade C, could do better. But, this has got me thinking... (a very dangerous thing) If this can be done with OSM data, would it be possible to create a Transport Tycoon type game along similar lines? Create bus routes and run trains, boats, trucks along real streets? The only thing that I doubt would be reasonably possible would be new construction. To be honest, creating it is completely beyond me, just putting the idea out there for someone who has the knowledge and fancies a go. Jeni ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Data Used in Upcoming Monopoly Game
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Jennifer Campbell schreef: If this can be done with OSM data, would it be possible to create a Transport Tycoon type game along similar lines? Create bus routes and run trains, boats, trucks along real streets? The only thing that I doubt would be reasonably possible would be new construction. To be honest, creating it is completely beyond me, just putting the idea out there for someone who has the knowledge and fancies a go. A worldsim would be really interesting. Allowing 'modules' to be created by the players that could simulate something. This could speed up the development of tools for OSM. If people want to hookup for such thing, I wanna join :) Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEAREKAAYFAkqoLssACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn0r9gCfXOcI75daUyYW7HoqmEWYJju4 zkYAnRahe4+0SW6LtzHClX2ld/IxTMt4 =7f75 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Data Used in Upcoming Monopoly Game
El Jueves, 10 de Septiembre de 2009, Jennifer Campbell escribió: It's certianly slow and buggy, I'm guessing that is down to demand. Overall I'd give it a grade C, could do better. I guess that it's overly unbalanced, given the surplus of players (and money) into the system. Not to talk about the total FAIL of not split all the load during launch. And the race conditions. If this can be done with OSM data, would it be possible to create a Transport Tycoon type game along similar lines? Create bus routes and run trains, boats, trucks along real streets? The only thing that I doubt would be reasonably possible would be new construction. To be honest, creating it is completely beyond me, just putting the idea out there for someone who has the knowledge and fancies a go. Conversors from OSM to simutrans would be a very nice place to start :-D Besides, you could go crazy with a web-based OSM tycoon game. Mine stuff from landuse=quarries, get food from landuse=farms, get the stuff to a landuse=industrial zone and then distribute to residential streets. I dream about getting a full list of tradeable stuff and setting up a global chain of markets based on that. All kinds of stuff can be built on top of OSM. Which is the main reason why we like to do this. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es Un ordenador no es un televisor ni un microondas, es una herramienta compleja. 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] Vandalism/user error?
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 5:06 AM, wynnd...@lavabit.com wrote: Why not go straight into Edit and Save and then have a button to go to Edit Live (one click to go there as now)? +1 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Address interpolation
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:28 AM, andrzej zaborowskibalr...@gmail.com wrote: in this case I agree we should stick to the schema the way it was originally defined, good or bad, and I normally only use addr:street on the nodes. +1 Another argument for doing that is that the addr:interpolation way is a temporary placeholder +1 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
2009/9/10 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:39 PM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Legal arguments aside, there is very few street signs I've seen on google street view that I can read anyway, most of them seem to be blurred out, either intentionally, due to motion blur or jpeg like artifacts. Sure, but this discussion is easily extended to other features visible in the photos (e.g. stop signs :P). I meant signs with names not actions :P I had no problem reading a UK sign so I guess it's probably because street signs here are similar looking to number plates, although I'm surprised google wasn't able to guage the height off the ground etc. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
On 09/09/2009 22:00, David Earl wrote: On 09/09/2009 21:43, Valent Turkovic wrote: Is grave_yard tag used? I don't see it in JOSM. Why is the wiki so confusing for this simple thing to map. I think the original distinction was that a graveyard is the burial ground around a church, while a cemetery is a separate pice of land set aside for burials, not necessarily associated with a church, or a denomination - in the UK, many of these are operated by local authorities not religious institutions, while the graveyard around a church is exclusive to the church. Though around here, quite a few of the graveyards next to churches are operated by the council, and they are called placename Cemetery or similar. Having said that, I kind of agree with you, that the distinction is subtle and probably adds little. It seems like a fairly pointless and confusing distinction to me. Shouldn't the fact that they are next to / around a church be obvious from the church marked on the map? And the cemetery can be tagged with the operator / religion / denomination as appropriate. Also, I notice (according to Map Features on the wiki) amenity=grave_yard can apply to a node or an area, whereas landuse=cemetery is supposed to be just for areas. Though amenity=grave_yard on a node doesn't seem to rendered at all (on Mapnik or Osmarender), but landuse=cemetery on a node does render the name (but no symbol). On areas, both appear to be rendered identically. Craig ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
Craig Wallace schrieb: On 09/09/2009 22:00, David Earl wrote: On 09/09/2009 21:43, Valent Turkovic wrote: Is grave_yard tag used? I don't see it in JOSM. Why is the wiki so confusing for this simple thing to map. I think the original distinction was that a graveyard is the burial ground around a church, while a cemetery is a separate pice of land set aside for burials, not necessarily associated with a church, or a denomination - in the UK, many of these are operated by local authorities not religious institutions, while the graveyard around a church is exclusive to the church. Though around here, quite a few of the graveyards next to churches are operated by the council, and they are called placename Cemetery or similar. So what's the question now? Having said that, I kind of agree with you, that the distinction is subtle and probably adds little. It seems like a fairly pointless and confusing distinction to me. Shouldn't the fact that they are next to / around a church be obvious from the church marked on the map? And the cemetery can be tagged with the operator / religion / denomination as appropriate. Well, it's simply a bad thing to indicate stuff by something that's nearby. What's nearby? 1m/10m/100m/1000m? Is it indicated by a place_of_worship, a building=church or xy? Also, I notice (according to Map Features on the wiki) amenity=grave_yard can apply to a node or an area, whereas landuse=cemetery is supposed to be just for areas. Though amenity=grave_yard on a node doesn't seem to rendered at all (on Mapnik or Osmarender), but landuse=cemetery on a node does render the name (but no symbol). On areas, both appear to be rendered identically. Don't tag for the renderers ;-) Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] source=(survey, yahoo, gps...)
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:52 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/9/9 Anthony o...@inbox.org: If the way lines up with the GPS trace, the GPS trace was used as the source of data. If it doesn't, it wasn't (or it has been changed). Am I missing some reason that's not correct? You're assuming only one type of source was used to generate a way, when multiple sources may have been used on the same way, so what do you assume if some of the way lines up with GPS trace and some doesn't? Depends how much it matches up. And whether or not I care enough to investigate further. I'm not sure what the point of the question is, though. I agree that it's useful to tag ways, and/or give further explanation in your change message. There's not much of a perfect solution for these sorts of things, though. I agree that people should list their source, even if they uploaded a GPS trace, since not everyone uses the same software and can bring up the GPS traces very easily. But if the source is a GPS trace (or Yahoo, for that matter), it's not the end of the world if they don't, as a quick examination of those two possibilities will reveal the source. What if they edit the way in JOSM and only load the GPS trace locally, how are you know know they created a way based on GPS information? You didn't really give enough information to answer that question. Again, I agree people should list their source. They also should upload their GPS trace. Ideally they should do both. If they only did one, and not the other, I'd prefer they upload the GPS trace. But yeah, ideally, they should do both. It's a shame if everyone who looks at that has to go through all the same trouble as me just to confirm that yes, this GPS trace is for a road that no longer exists. Which is the point of tagging ways/POIs with source information. Tag what way? The way no longer exists, since the road no longer exists. It was most likely destroyed during the construction of the new highway which was what I was out there mapping (it's especially cool having OSM more up to date than Google and Yahoo in that area, and knowing that you're the one who updated it). And in fact, whoever uploaded that GPS trace never edited the way in the first place. The way was created from Tiger data. You don't expect people to tag ways that they *don't* edit, do you? Another possible solution would be if we could mark ways as obsolete or historical rather than deleting them. But I checked the wiki and apparently this was proposed and rejected. And I kind of see the argument against it. I don't know. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:39 PM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Legal arguments aside, there is very few street signs I've seen on google street view that I can read anyway, most of them seem to be blurred out, either intentionally, due to motion blur or jpeg like artifacts. Sure, but this discussion is easily extended to other features visible in the photos (e.g. stop signs :P). It'd be especially useful for checking for no left turn signs when the Yahoo aerial is inconclusive. But, umm, I wouldn't know, cause, umm, I've never done anything like that. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
On 10/09/2009 01:21, Ulf Lamping wrote: Craig Wallace schrieb: Though around here, quite a few of the graveyards next to churches are operated by the council, and they are called placename Cemetery or similar. So what's the question now? The question is what's the difference between a amenity=grave_yard and a landuse=cemetery, and is there any point in having 2 tags for what is essentially the same thing? Well, it's simply a bad thing to indicate stuff by something that's nearby. What's nearby? 1m/10m/100m/1000m? Is it indicated by a place_of_worship, a building=church or xy? But why does it matter whether there is a church there or not? A grave_yard (next to a church) is still much the same as a cemetery (not next to a church), its still just a place for burying dead people. Don't tag for the renderers ;-) I'm not, I was just reporting what is currently rendered. Though it would be nice to have a symbol for a node tagged as a graveyard/cemetery. Craig ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, there is some other, more practical arguments why such checking isn't healthy thing to do. First of all, it's still just another source, not field check. Second, it is quite interesting what happens when you *check* that name of the street you wrote down is wrong. Can you write down name in Google Street View? I guess it is copying. Fact copying, but nevertheless. Fact copying en masse = substantial extraction. So it is still if you find name wrong, you theoretically can't copy name from GSV and still have to go outside and check it yourself. So it's a little self-defeating. If the fact is binary (can turn left/can't turn left), then checking is equal to copying, right? It'd definitely help when turning a single Tiger way into a dual carriageway, to be able to use Google Street View rather than finding someone willing to drive me around while I take pictures of every intersection, or, I guess more realistically, just zooming in on the Yahoo aerial and guessing. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
Has anyone set a letter to Google's legal department asking for clarification or permission? -Dave On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Anthonyo...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, there is some other, more practical arguments why such checking isn't healthy thing to do. First of all, it's still just another source, not field check. Second, it is quite interesting what happens when you *check* that name of the street you wrote down is wrong. Can you write down name in Google Street View? I guess it is copying. Fact copying, but nevertheless. Fact copying en masse = substantial extraction. So it is still if you find name wrong, you theoretically can't copy name from GSV and still have to go outside and check it yourself. So it's a little self-defeating. If the fact is binary (can turn left/can't turn left), then checking is equal to copying, right? It'd definitely help when turning a single Tiger way into a dual carriageway, to be able to use Google Street View rather than finding someone willing to drive me around while I take pictures of every intersection, or, I guess more realistically, just zooming in on the Yahoo aerial and guessing. ___ 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] Google Street View copyright question
2009/9/10 Anthony o...@inbox.org: If the fact is binary (can turn left/can't turn left), then checking is equal to copying, right? It seems there is 2 things in play here, 1 deriving information aka copying, 2 and simply a fact that is being stated. It seems to me most copyright questions will tend to err on the side of caution but this is someone's opinion and not a legal opinion, I wish there was a way to get proper legal advice than conjecture and non-lawyer legal opinions which are next to useless from what I've come to know of courts and what geeks think the law is/should be. If you already know a fact and use street view to confirm it, I can't see how this can be copying since it's something you already know about some place, nothing has been derived. On the other hand if you are pulling unknown information this could be considered copying, but since it's also a fact not a collection of information this is where proper legal advice is needed, rather than geek opinions which have no basis in law. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
Craig Wallace schrieb: On 10/09/2009 01:21, Ulf Lamping wrote: Well, it's simply a bad thing to indicate stuff by something that's nearby. What's nearby? 1m/10m/100m/1000m? Is it indicated by a place_of_worship, a building=church or xy? But why does it matter whether there is a church there or not? A grave_yard (next to a church) is still much the same as a cemetery (not next to a church), its still just a place for burying dead people. I guess you get it the wrong way round. It doesn't matter if there's a church nearby or not. This is an *indication* if it's one thing or the other - but not more. How would you describe it? When I'm riding my motorcycle in the alps I see lot's of different stuff ... If there are 30 graves (often even 100 years old) directly near a church that's very certainly a grave_yard IMHO. If there are thousands of WWI graves I certainly would tag these as a landuse=cemetery ... you're mileage may vary ... Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
What landuse would you recommend for a cemetery? It's been said that all land should be covered by some landuse or other. Like putting in Landuse=retail but also listing the individual shops as amenities. So should we put both landuse=cemetery and an amenity=cemetery/graveyard node, or are you suggesting we deprecate landuse=cemetery and use some other landuse (residential? - retail = they're often a business?) Stephen 2009/9/10 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: By the way, I think a cemetery is better described as an amenity, not a landuse, as I think it is a useful and important facility moreso than an area of land used by people (from the wiki definitions of Key:amenity and Key:landuse). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
2009/9/10 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: Richard's contribution was interesting though, and obviously does have a basis in law (http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=100). Just because someone quotes legal cases doesn't mean it's legal advice, I think OSM is to the point that it needs to seek pro-bono legal advice on this and similar matters. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:21 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/9/10 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: Richard's contribution was interesting though, and obviously does have a basis in law (http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=100). Just because someone quotes legal cases doesn't mean it's legal advice, I think OSM is to the point that it needs to seek pro-bono legal advice on this and similar matters. I'm not sure what help a lawyer is going to be - they're not going to be able to guarantee you that much of anything is 100% (or 99.9%) safe in 100% (or 95%, weighted by user-base) of jurisdictions, especially not for free. As Richard says in the comments, In the UK, as ever, the law is less clear-cut than in the US. The only way I can see this being reconciled is by getting explicit permission. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
2009/9/10 Anthony o...@inbox.org: I'm not sure what help a lawyer is going to be - they're not going to be able to guarantee you that much of anything is 100% (or 99.9%) safe in 100% (or 95%, weighted by user-base) of jurisdictions, especially not for free. As Richard says in the comments, In the UK, as ever, the law is less clear-cut than in the US. The only way I can see this being reconciled is by getting explicit permission. Actually that's what a legal opinion is, you can use it in court, if it gets that far, to show you sort out information before doing something and a lawyer thought it would be ok based on his or her interpretation of the law. I think only practising lawyers are able to legally give legal opinions. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
2009/9/10 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: But being able to say but lawyer X said we could! in court will not make you immune to lawsuits. Nonetheless, legal advice from a lawyer would be great - John, any ideas on how to get this? It doesn't make you immune, but if you follow the legal advice it reduces the damages, in the case of OSM it would be very conservative opinions to try and prevent things from going to court, but still it would be the advice of a lawyer rather than the advice of what someone thinks the law might be. It would need to come from a lawyer in the UK or very very familiar with UK law, I don't know of any lawyers that would fit this criteria. In any case, I agree with Anthony - the only way to *guarantee* company X won't take you to court for doing Z - regardless of who might win in court - is if company X gives you written permission to do Z. The problem with that logic is they could still take you to court for the purposes of bankrupting you. Even if you are likely to win it will still take considerable legal resources to do so, and big companies use this as a tactic to kill off competition. As Dave asked, Has anyone sent a letter to Google's legal department asking for clarification or permission? Google, at least on face-value, seem to be open-minded when it comes to open-source stuff, Only so far as it is of benefit to them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/10 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: By the way, I think a cemetery is better described as an amenity, not a landuse, as I think it is a useful and important facility moreso than an area of land used by people (from the wiki definitions of Key:amenity and Key:landuse). What landuse would you recommend for a cemetery? It's been said that all land should be covered by some landuse or other. Like putting in Landuse=retail but also listing the individual shops as amenities. So should we put both landuse=cemetery and an amenity=cemetery/graveyard node, or are you suggesting we deprecate landuse=cemetery and use some other landuse (residential? - retail = they're often a business?) Ah, good question. Firstly, amenity=cemetery should be able to be a node (as a placeholder for future conversion to an area) OR an area. As for landuse=*, look at the Key:landuse wiki page. For amenity=school, for example, a similar question arises, and the solution seems to be to use the value of amenity=* to infer the landuse. This would work perfectly for an amenity=cemetery. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] OpenStreetMap Gebruikersdag tijdens Software Freedom Day bij Gendo, Amsterdam?
In your letter dated Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:40:58 +0200 you wrote: Philip, zou jij over de nieuwe mogelijkheden van yournaivagtion.org een presentatie willen verzorgen? Dat zou eventueel kunnen als Lambertus een redelijke set slides heeft (en die door mij wil laten gebruiken). Ik heb geen tijd om eigen slides te gaan maken. Ik zal 'm eens een mailtje sturen. ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [talk-au] bus_stop further details
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 08:43:18 +1000 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 9:43 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote: I've been doing that for a while (well, except waste_basket=*), so that's a +1 from me :) Any objections (from anyone) to adding these to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_stop ? Yep, hold your horses. There's been some excellent work by the transit list people I need to research a little more to see where it's at. It builds on this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/unified_stoparea but I think there is a tidier page somewhere. Just let me make David's Redcliffe party cake or he will kill me. Cheers ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] bus_stop further details
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 21:57:29 +1000 Hugh Barnes list@hughbris.com wrote: I need to research a little more to see where it's at. It builds on this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/unified_stoparea but I think there is a tidier page somewhere. Bah, I can't be digging through the murky OSM records at this time of night. Just let me make David's Redcliffe party cake or he will kill me. At least he didn't get the satisfaction. 'night. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] TomTom Anounces an Open Source GPS Technology
Slashdot has an interesting item; http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/09/09/2216255/TomTom-Anounces-an-Open-Source-GPS-Technology?art_pos=1 *According to OStatic, European company TomTom (which recently settled a patent agreementhttp://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/03/30/1853219/TomTom-Settles-With-Microsoftwith Microsoft) has announced a new open source format OpenLR http://www.tomtom.com/page/openLR for sharing routing data (relevant points, traffic information...) in digital maps of different vendors, to be used in GPS devices. The LR stands for Location Referencing. They aim is to push it as an open standard to build a cooperative information basehttp://ostatic.com/blog/tomtom-launches-open-source-navigation-project, presumably in a similar way than its current TomTom Map Share technology in which end users provide map corrections on the fly. The technology to support the format will be released as GPLv2. Does it make OpenLR a GPL GPS?* ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [Talk-br] Monopoly City Streets
Realmente foi a febre do dia. Eles falaram em mais de 1,7 milhões de visitantes... Pena que o OSM não foi muito citado na cobertura jornalística, mas só o pequeno link na tela já deve atrair bastante gente para o projeto... On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Junior, Claudomiro claudomiro.jun...@citi.com wrote: Acabei de receber essa aí tb... Muitíssimo curioso, tomara que dê pra jogar com ruas de qualquer país... From: talk-br-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-br-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Rodrigo de Avila Sent: terça-feira, 8 de setembro de 2009 17:25 To: OSM talk-br Subject: [Talk-br] Monopoly City Streets Estou curioso pra saber como esses caras usaram osm + Google Maps . . . http://blog.monopolycitystreets.com/2009/09/almost-there.html -- Rodrigo de Avila Analista de Desenvolvimento +55 51 9733.3488 • rodr...@avila.eti.br • www.avila.eti.br ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
