[OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - source example and question about who can input what
I not long ago received a photocopy of a hand-drawn map of the roadway network within a company's manufacturing site, complete with street names (no, I'm not a spy :-) - it's all legal and above board). The streets were most all present in the TIGER data import, but lacked names. However, I chose not to take the names from the tantalizing piece of paper and affix them to the streets in OSM. I am pretty sure that the business would not have minded, and would likely have said "yes" if I'd put the question to them about inputting the information. That hand-drawn map, though, was a product of an employee of the business, and the work of the employees as part of their job is owned by the business; therefore, there is an implicit copyright held by the business on the information in that hand-drawn map. This raises a related interesting situation. Let's say that the business is indeed interested in putting their street names onto OSM so that they can use the OSM map for internal purposes and they want to dot the i's and cross the t's properly. Your typical employee with this information could not input it on her own, though, because the individual employee does not have the power to suspend the copyright on the information and release it under CCSA. Rather, such release would need to go through internal legal channels and be approved by someone who does have the authority to sign away the copyright; such authority may be vested jointly in the head legal counsel and the President of the business. Thus, what began with a hand-drawn map with street names ends up at the top of the business food chain and slides back down the chain with a legal rider as long as your arm disavowing the company of any harm which may arise from the use of this information should it turn out to be incorrect or out of date. Looking at accessible street signs suddenly seems much easier in light of this. Be careful with that, though. If there are street signs on the manufacturing site, could the employee walk the site, collect the information manually, then input it into OSM? Probably not (if they want to keep working there), because that would be using their privileged access to the site to collect business intelligence and subsequently release it. In principle, this is no different from peering over a colleague's shoulder then emailing a competitor with the information so collected. --ceyockey ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Anthony wrote: > >> There is plenty of public domain high resolution imagery in the United >> States (see http://seamless.usgs.gov/wms_services.php?layerid=15). >> > > Ah. Well, the US is its own special case because of TIGER. I believe the > question was "why are there so many Australians acting like impatient > dickheads on this list" - or words to that effect. > Just clarifying that you Australians aren't the first ones to act like impatient dickheads. We Americans already have you covered on that one :). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Now, a comment from Anthony: > >> The motivation should be simple. Open up the stylesheet, and you get to >> be in the main map. Don't open up the stylesheet, and you don't get to be >> in the main map. No demands, no guilt, just a simple choice. >> > > Andy explained pretty convincingly that "being in the main map" is a big > financial burden, not some feather in his cap. I think you're barking up the > wrong tree here. > How so? If it's such a big financial burden, and isn't providing any benefit to whoever is incurring the financial burden, then that's even more the reason to take it off the main map. Probably where a lot of people, myself included, are coming from, is that we > *like* OpenCycleMap, we just want to be able to contribute to it, as well. > So start your own project. Andy has every right to do what he wants with his, and he's "explained pretty convincingly" that he doesn't want others coming in and screwing up his work. As I said before, I don't have a problem with that. I completely respect that decision. In fact, I might very well do the same thing if I found myself in the same position. But if that's Andy's decision, then keeping OCM in the main map is just keeping around an unnecessary crutch. It's time to put away the crutch. If OCM isn't going to be open, then it shouldn't be in the main map. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycleways wiki doc enhanced
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Claus Hindsgaul wrote: > Just rewind a bit; in the start of this thread, I cited a guideline > developed on talk-dk to aid the choice between separate and tagged > cycle-tracks/lanes on a street with the aim of getting the best map > description in the end. In the following discussions, I have tried to > outline why this guideline did not end up saying: "always micromap > everything". > Yes, many of these discussions seem to devolve quickly into battles between the "map everything in minute detail" and "exercise a bit of discretion" camps. Then the two camps look at each other, realise that it doesn't matter what the other camp thinks, and goes back to doing whatever they want. It's one problem with mapping in general - if I'm the only one mapping my town, I can pretty much do whatever I want, because no one else is ever going to bother to look, or comment, or change it. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Anthony wrote: > There is plenty of public domain high resolution imagery in the United > States (see http://seamless.usgs.gov/wms_services.php?layerid=15). > Ah. Well, the US is its own special case because of TIGER. I believe the question was "why are there so many Australians acting like impatient dickheads on this list" - or words to that effect. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Cartinus wrote: > >> From this and several earlier discussions I get the impression that the >> group >> of Australians currently so active on the mailing list isn't lazy but they >> are certainly impatient. >> > > Yes, perhaps :) Probably the big difference between here and elsewhere is > the availability of high-quality, recent imagery that we have explicit > permission to trace from. > There is plenty of public domain high resolution imagery in the United States (see http://seamless.usgs.gov/wms_services.php?layerid=15). It's just not available in Potlatch, because Potlatch doesn't support WMS. You can definitely use it in Merkaartor, and I believe it's possible to use it in JOSM as well. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycleways wiki doc enhanced
2010/1/4 Martin Koppenhoefer > what does this conclusion imply? Does it mean if you encounter a separately > mapped cycleway and there is not (yet?) enough "significant" different tags > for the cycleway and the street nearby (say name, ref, maxspeed, width, > surface, lanes are the same, the same turning restrictions apply, ...), you > will delete the way in favour of a simple cycleway=track? IMHO you will > nearly always find differences in detail, and we might be discussing about > which differences meet your significance criteria, but I'd prefer not to... > Just rewind a bit; in the start of this thread, I cited a guideline developed on talk-dk to aid the choice between separate and tagged cycle-tracks/lanes on a street with the aim of getting the best map description in the end. In the following discussions, I have tried to outline why this guideline did not end up saying: "always micromap everything". As for all other mapping, some judgement still needs to be left to the actual mapper, such as what is "significant". My conclusion simply implies that I do believe the community would benefit from such a guideline. Such a guideline can not tell people when to delete/convert/alter existing data - just describe a "best practice" on how to map for the best end result. I would certainly think twice and carefully before I converted an existing separate cycleway to cycleway=track/lane, just as I trust that you would always think twice and carefully before you fragmented a properly tagged cycleway=track/lane into separate ways. I'm not saying that it is impossible to enter all the details using just one > way (as long as they stay strictly parallel or in case you don't care for > positional / form detail), but there's a long way to go (currently there are > no solutions or Well, I already admitted that it is not possible to represent all of the properties of the real world in the OSM description. Neither with extreme micromapping, macro/metamapping or combinations. But I have tried to show that micromapping streets into fragments also leads to loss of information, and why I think that in some cases this loss is more severe than with metamapping. Our map will always be "wrong" in some respects. Live with it, but be aware of it. Only then will you be able to evaluate implementations properly. -- -- Civilingeniør ph.d. Claus Hindsgaul Edvard Thomsens Vej 19, 5. th DK-2300 KBH S ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
I'd like to thank Andy for his very useful input into this discussion. Although I don't think I've posted in this thread, I did have some of the misconceptions he referred to. It would probably be worth documenting some of this stuff - a simple "why is it called OpenCycleMap", for instance. And perhaps it *is* worth changing the name, if it's confusing, and everybody jumps to the wrong conclusion. (As with many things I discover in OSM, there is a Wikipedia parallel - lots of projects related to Wikipedia end up being Wikixxx, even though they're not wikis. And that's just as confusing.) Now, a comment from Anthony: > The motivation should be simple. Open up the stylesheet, and you get to be > in the main map. Don't open up the stylesheet, and you don't get to be in > the main map. No demands, no guilt, just a simple choice. > Andy explained pretty convincingly that "being in the main map" is a big financial burden, not some feather in his cap. I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. Probably where a lot of people, myself included, are coming from, is that we *like* OpenCycleMap, we just want to be able to contribute to it, as well. There are things I'd change...like getting rid of the topo overlay (useful in some contexts, but frequently just gets in the way), tweaking some colours (the pale green fading to white when zoomed way out is a bit sickly), and maybe reducing some of the non-bike-related detail. It would be nice if you could download it all and start tweaking for your own personal purposes. If you, Andy, are concerned that people might rip off your project, or misrepresent your work or something, well, there are ways of dealing with that. You could even license it as "free for private use and study, must not be republished" or something - "open but not free". It seems you've chosen to instead permit individuals to have access to parts of the source on a case-by-case basis, which is obviously your call, but creates a bit of mystery, which seems to inevitability lead to angst and ill-will. Just wanted to share my thanks for OCM in general (it's what got me into OSM, after all!) and perhaps explain what the community might be feeling. Even if we express it badly :) Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Cartinus wrote: > From this and several earlier discussions I get the impression that the > group > of Australians currently so active on the mailing list isn't lazy but they > are certainly impatient. > > Yes, perhaps :) Probably the big difference between here and elsewhere is the availability of high-quality, recent imagery that we have explicit permission to trace from. It changes the game significantly. It feels a bit like we're the first kids in town to have a shiny new motorcar, and the locals are saying "what's wrong with walking, it has so many other benefits too!" Well, we like our shiny new motorcars, and we want to do as much as we can with them, as quickly as possible. The OSM coverage of Melbourne, for example, is particularly good and thanks to Nearmap could be "completed" within a few months. So yes, impatient because the end (or at least, one "end") is in sight. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycleways wiki doc enhanced
2010/1/3 Claus Hindsgaul > -- Now back to the thread topic, bicycles :-) -- > My conlusion: in the existing OSM environment, metatagging (one way with > tags for bicycle tracks, sidewalks etc.) of streets should be preferred for > fragmentation into separate micromapped entities, unless the fragmentation > is necessary to describe significant information. My first post in this > thread lists the talk-dk concensus of such exceptions for bicycle tracks. > what does this conclusion imply? Does it mean if you encounter a separately mapped cycleway and there is not (yet?) enough "significant" different tags for the cycleway and the street nearby (say name, ref, maxspeed, width, surface, lanes are the same, the same turning restrictions apply, ...), you will delete the way in favour of a simple cycleway=track? IMHO you will nearly always find differences in detail, and we might be discussing about which differences meet your significance criteria, but I'd prefer not to... Btw: what do you consider the centre of the road when you incorporate the cycleway? Is it shifted? I'm not saying that it is impossible to enter all the details using just one way (as long as they stay strictly parallel or in case you don't care for positional / form detail), but there's a long way to go (currently there are no solutions or definitions how to do it) and the editors would have to support and display it in order to keep it handable, and in the end it could be easier to combine two mapped ways for routing into 1 instead of creating 2 (or more) ways out of one (having to use lots of additional tags for their single descriptions and being dependant on the direction of the way) while still loosing the positional accuracy. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
On Monday 04 January 2010 00:02:29 John Smith wrote: > 2010/1/4 Cartinus : > > The Australian outback is vast, but there is hardly anything mappable by > > survey out there. When it comes to urban and suburban mapping (where most > > streetnames and cycleways are), Australia isn't any different from any > > other developed country. > > There is people all over Australia, even if some places are very > sparsly populated, it isn't just a big empty area. Please look up the meaning of the word "hardly" in a dictionary. I give you one hint: It's not the same as nothing. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Cartinus wrote: > > ... I get the impression that the group > of Australians currently so active on the mailing list isn't lazy but they > are certainly impatient. Perhaps :) But my point is, if there may be legal ways to do this more efficiently we should investigate them, not dismiss them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Anthony wrote: > Does "Nearmap" own the copyright on the images? > Aha, it seems they do. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 6:38 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2010/1/4 Anthony : > > Do they have Internet access there? If so, then they can map it > > themselves. If not, then there's not much point in us mapping it for > them > > anyway. > > I didn't think we were mapping just for locals, what about tourists? > They can contribute GPS traces too! > > Well, what about copyrighted aerial photographs? If you're going to be > > completely paranoid about things, why are we allowing tracing in the > first > > place? > > Because we have permission to use them, in the case of nearmap they > added OSM into their terms and conditions explicitly allowing us to > use their imagery to derive map data. > Does "Nearmap" own the copyright on the images? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
2010/1/4 Anthony : > Do they have Internet access there? If so, then they can map it > themselves. If not, then there's not much point in us mapping it for them > anyway. I didn't think we were mapping just for locals, what about tourists? As for internet access, there is 3G coverage of 96% of the population, but that's not 96% of the land mass, there is also bi-directional sat access, so yes internet access is available everywhere. > Well, what about copyrighted aerial photographs? If you're going to be > completely paranoid about things, why are we allowing tracing in the first > place? Because we have permission to use them, in the case of nearmap they added OSM into their terms and conditions explicitly allowing us to use their imagery to derive map data. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 6:02 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2010/1/4 Cartinus : > > The Australian outback is vast, but there is hardly anything mappable by > > survey out there. When it comes to urban and suburban mapping (where most > > streetnames and cycleways are), Australia isn't any different from any > other > > developed country. > > There is people all over Australia, even if some places are very > sparsly populated, it isn't just a big empty area. > Do they have Internet access there? If so, then they can map it themselves. If not, then there's not much point in us mapping it for them anyway. Anyway, yes, the wiki says "You should not use copyrighted maps in any way while editing OpenStreetMap (unless it is compatible with our license)". Well, what about copyrighted aerial photographs? If you're going to be completely paranoid about things, why are we allowing tracing in the first place? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] openstreetmap left side checkboxes?
Am 03.01.2010 10:16, schrieb Felipe Carrillo: > Hi: Probably a naive question but I am a newbie to this mapping > projects. I just need to download some data from openstreetmap but I > need to select the features that I need. I have seen checkboxes to > the left of the map to be able to select the desired features but for > some reason I can't find them. The default www.openstreetmap.org > doesn't show those checkboxes to the left of the map. I would really > appreciate it if someone could point out how can I get to it. Thanks > Maybe http://www.openstreetbrowser.org/ ist what you mean. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Dave F. wrote > Tobias Knerr wrote: >> In order to truly show what's possible, we would need to completely >> redesign that front page into a "featured products" catalogue [...] > It doesn't have to be completely redesigned, just a link saying: > > "And here's some other great ways in which OSM can be used..." > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM_based_Services I'd prefer a somewhat nicer presentation than a raw table (and a more selective approach, the full list can always be accessible using a "more ..." link or something like that), but the wiki page would be a good first step. IIRC there already were some suggestions and designs a few months ago, either on this list or talk-de, but I'm currently unable to find them. > Excuse my ignorance - OSM Clock? http://www.opengeodata.org/2009/11/25/openstreetmap-clocks/ Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
2010/1/4 Cartinus : > The Australian outback is vast, but there is hardly anything mappable by > survey out there. When it comes to urban and suburban mapping (where most > streetnames and cycleways are), Australia isn't any different from any other > developed country. There is people all over Australia, even if some places are very sparsly populated, it isn't just a big empty area. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
On Sunday 03 January 2010 22:20:01 Roy Wallace wrote: > This is not fairly worded. In Australia (and other sparsely populated > areas), it is not just "for the sake of some lazy copying" - this > issue is critical to whether there is any hope of eventually getting > reasonable coverage of street names throughout the country. It's a > big, sparse country. Luckily if it is sparsely populated there are fewer streets as well. >From this and several earlier discussions I get the impression that the group of Australians currently so active on the mailing list isn't lazy but they are certainly impatient. The map in Germany isn't more complete because there are more Germans in a small area, but because the Germans "discovered" OSM earlier in the existence of the project and put a lot of effort in community building. The Australian outback is vast, but there is hardly anything mappable by survey out there. When it comes to urban and suburban mapping (where most streetnames and cycleways are), Australia isn't any different from any other developed country. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
2010/1/4 Steve Bennett : > long way to take photo of a couple of streets. Physically visiting streets > is seriously time consuming. The ratio must be something like 10:1 or worse. And the only option for most of Australia, just be thankful for the hi-res imagery that is available. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
2010/1/4 Roy Wallace : > This is not fairly worded. In Australia (and other sparsely populated > areas), it is not just "for the sake of some lazy copying" - this > issue is critical to whether there is any hope of eventually getting > reasonable coverage of street names throughout the country. It's a > big, sparse country. Most of which has no aerial coverage anyway, so physically going there is the only option for 95% (give or take) of the land mass. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Richard Fairhurst > wrote: > > > > There is no point endangering the > > genuinely collected data for the sake of some lazy copying. > > This is not fairly worded. In Australia (and other sparsely populated > areas), it is not just "for the sake of some lazy copying" - this > issue is critical to whether there is any hope of eventually getting > reasonable coverage of street names throughout the country. It's a > big, sparse country. > > Yeah. I'm not willing to concede that staying at home and mapping a few hundred streets using electronic source is somehow "lazier" than driving a long way to take photo of a couple of streets. Physically visiting streets is seriously time consuming. The ratio must be something like 10:1 or worse. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > There is no point endangering the > genuinely collected data for the sake of some lazy copying. This is not fairly worded. In Australia (and other sparsely populated areas), it is not just "for the sake of some lazy copying" - this issue is critical to whether there is any hope of eventually getting reasonable coverage of street names throughout the country. It's a big, sparse country. That said, I am following the wiki, as Dan referred to, which says "You should not use copyrighted maps in any way while editing OpenStreetMap (unless it is compatible with our license)". ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defective GPS trace
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > Steve Bennett wrote: > >> I'm even tempted to draw a massive straight line between several >> towns to indicate roads that I know exist but that I haven't >> surveyed. Would this offend a lot of people here? > > That would be using a map as an item in a to-do list. IMHO that's ok provided you comprehensively use source:*=* and FIXME=* ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycleways wiki doc enhanced
2010/1/3 Lester Caine > In large areas of the world, the macro level of mapping is now 'complete', > and > people are adding fine detail like 'post boxes', parking bays, drive ways > and > the like. That is really great, but these "large areas" still cover a small proportion of earth. Most of the work is still pending, and in the best covered areas, it is great to add such information and refine with tags such as maxspeed etc. Who are these "some people" that firmly believes that such details "should not be present at all"? If any, I expect them to be very few. I welcome your increasingly relaxed retoric, indicating that you acknowledge that utopia is neither total micromapping with fragmentation into separate entities everywhere - nor exclusively macromapping (or, as I might call it, metamapping), where several part of e.g. roads are collected as tags in collective entities. > If a cycleway exists as a separate area of 'highway' then it > should be mapped as such. Adding tags to a near by road with additional > tags for > things such as gaps between two physically divided areas will always be > wrong, > Not understood... How can it "always be wrong" to tag a bicycle track as tags in a road located just one curb or 1 meter of grass away, and aligned with the road? If we create a rule that it is wrong, of course yes. But this method incorporates information to the construction that you would not have with separate entities. Most prominently that you can move (yes on your bike) across the curb/grass to and across the road and that they are elements of the same street. In this view, I could with the same right say that it is "always wrong" to implement it as separate entities... I think the he essense is, that our map will always - with your words - be somewhat "wrong", as we will never be able to describe every property of the real world. but at a macro zoom level there should be some shorthand way of combining a > number of ways into a single 'route' element. THAT is the level of > agreement > that needs to be reached! The lowers levels should always map the 'bridge', > footways, vehicle ways, and any other structures such as verges, banks, > slopes > and the differences between their levels, while the macro view gives a > 'way' > with a bridge tag. Surely that is the current target? > (Are we talking about the existing OSM environment, a future version or another project??) Yes, your described scheme might be very useful to minimize the shortcomings of micromapping. The problem is, that it does not currently exist at all in OSM. Until it does, the result of fragmenting a street into many different entities (car way, cycle ways, sidewalks etc) will be: potential for increased precision in physical traffic traces at the cost of loss and intoxication of routing information. -- Now back to the thread topic, bicycles :-) -- My conlusion: in the existing OSM environment, metatagging (one way with tags for bicycle tracks, sidewalks etc.) of streets should be preferred for fragmentation into separate micromapped entities, unless the fragmentation is necessary to describe significant information. My first post in this thread lists the talk-dk concensus of such exceptions for bicycle tracks. In another environment (other project, maybe future OSM), the conclusion may be very different. A potential future "everything is an area" approach will not be able to take over any separate parallel bicycle ways without a new very detailed survey anyway. -- -- Civilingeniør ph.d. Claus Hindsgaul Edvard Thomsens Vej 19, 5. th DK-2300 KBH S ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > explain what would be the advantages from my side? > > I think you probably have release more than enough open stuff to know > about the motivations of doing so ;-) But I agree that once people start > to *demand* you release something, that motivation tends to shrivel. > The motivation should be simple. Open up the stylesheet, and you get to be in the main map. Don't open up the stylesheet, and you don't get to be in the main map. No demands, no guilt, just a simple choice. But I'm not sure how likely that is to happen. Who controls what options get into the main map? As for the name of the OCM project, I agree it's misleading, but I don't think OSM deserves trademark protection over the highly generic term Open*Map, so it's really none of our business. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Hi, Andy Allan wrote: > And most of all, I don't want someone > to make something that looks just like opencyclemap but with one or > two changes and call it their own But isn't that what is bound to happen? (At least if a fraction of the unhappiness about OCM translates in coding traction...) > When people making other projects have asked how the > transparency works, or how to do contours, or whatnot, I've explained > how, and given them code if it helps them. So it's not like I'm > figuring all this out and not giving back to the community - but I do > it in a way that I'm happy with. That's about how I deal with my own proprietary things as well. > And it's pretty easy to make another style > that's better than OCM, or that takes a different approach, rather > than simply deciding to copy my ideas. Well Richard F. tends to express things differently - at least he makes it sound as if creating a map (quote) "as cartographically impressive, as technologically capable, and as downright _useful_ as OpenCycleMap" is quite a feat. Small wonder that people think you must be hiding great secrets from them when you have such a wonderful product, and start talking about reverse engineering the stuff ;-) I have the lurking impression that some who call for OCM "openness" indeed are not so much after your methods and styles, but rather they want to have a say in how things get rendered (maybe force you to adhere to some Wiki vote!). That is, of course, out of the question and something we don't have on any OSM map - but somehow people seem to be able to work with it; I've never seen much scorn poured on the makers of the main Mapnik map even though they wouldn't accept any random patch either. (It would be interesting to set up a mechanism that allows a group of people to modify a Mapnik stylesheet, automatically, by votes, but not for the purpose of creating a good map.) > explain what would be the advantages from my side? I think you probably have release more than enough open stuff to know about the motivations of doing so ;-) But I agree that once people start to *demand* you release something, that motivation tends to shrivel. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New Year's wish...
Niklas Cholmkvist wrote: > Dave: Is ITO Mapper or osmmapper free libre software or open source > software, just like the software in the history tab is? (ie. can I > see/distribute the source code commercially/noncommercially?) Not 100% sure. Do you mean the data or the software that extracts/compiles it? ITO are using the data generated by OSM. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycleways wiki doc enhanced
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Lester Caine wrote: > It is however a very good example of where people have taken the trouble to > ACTUALLY map reality and their efforts have been destroyed! I agree with your point, but that's a bit of hyperbole there. The data is still there, it's just marked with visible="false". If you want to get it back, you can just change visible to "true". On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Lester Caine wrote: > I think the current discussion on 'cycleways' just highlights the different > views people hold. If a cycleway exists as a separate area of 'highway' > then it > should be mapped as such. Adding tags to a near by road with additional > tags for > things such as gaps between two physically divided areas will always be > wrong, > but at a macro zoom level there should be some shorthand way of combining a > number of ways into a single 'route' element. THAT is the level of > agreement > that needs to be reached! The lowers levels should always map the 'bridge', > footways, vehicle ways, and any other structures such as verges, banks, > slopes > and the differences between their levels, while the macro view gives a > 'way' > with a bridge tag. Surely that is the current target? > Very well said. Personally I find the micro-mapping much more enjoyable than the macro-mapping. But I certainly think the two camps should be able to get along. On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Claus Hindsgaul wrote: > If an agreed OSM project goal exists, where uncompromised and non-reflected > micro-mapping [the consequence of your phrase "everything needs to be mapped > fully"] is described as the ultimate goal, please help me with a pointer. > Then this discussion is over, and I must accept loosing some of my faith in > the overall usefulness of the project. > What if we agree that different members of the OSM project have different goals, and try to build things in a way that facilitates harmonic editing of all of us? That's not meant to be just a one-liner that we can say "okay" to and then forget about. We should work on actually coming up with solutions to situations where the goals of different participants seem to conflict. I think Lester outlines some of those solutions above, but if there are problems with them I think we all want to hear them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycleways wiki doc enhanced
Claus Hindsgaul wrote: > > > 2010/1/3 Lester Caine mailto:les...@lsces.co.uk>> > > It is however a very good example of where people have taken the > trouble to > ACTUALLY map reality and their efforts have been destroyed! At the > end of the > day everything needs to be mapped fully, and there is no case for > REMOVING > tracks that are mapped, and every case for providing a means to > properly replace > 'shorthand' with fully mapped detail. > > I agree to the goal of getting everything on the map. But you can not > conclude that in some cases the best and most operative description is > not reached by replacing one representation by a better one, e.g. in > some cases removing shadow bicycle paths or sidewalks and incorporate > them in the road tags. The agreement has to be fully documented, but some 'removals'are being pushed as the only way of doing something at the expense of allowing the micromapping case. > If an agreed OSM project goal exists, where uncompromised and > non-reflected micro-mapping [the consequence of your phrase "everything > needs to be mapped fully"] is described as the ultimate goal, please > help me with a pointer. Then this discussion is over, and I must accept > loosing some of my faith in the overall usefulness of the project. > Otherwise I think we are obliged to continuously put some thought into > how we really end up with the best and most operative map description. In large areas of the world, the macro level of mapping is now 'complete', and people are adding fine detail like 'post boxes', parking bays, drive ways and the like. This SHOULD not impinge on the macro view, and so should be able to be hidden as required. The current problem is that SOME people are firmly of the belief that this micro level of detail should not be present at all. Personally I see this as the eventual target for the whole world, BUT the macro view should still work to an acceptable level. I think the current discussion on 'cycleways' just highlights the different views people hold. If a cycleway exists as a separate area of 'highway' then it should be mapped as such. Adding tags to a near by road with additional tags for things such as gaps between two physically divided areas will always be wrong, but at a macro zoom level there should be some shorthand way of combining a number of ways into a single 'route' element. THAT is the level of agreement that needs to be reached! The lowers levels should always map the 'bridge', footways, vehicle ways, and any other structures such as verges, banks, slopes and the differences between their levels, while the macro view gives a 'way' with a bridge tag. Surely that is the current target? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Andy Allan wrote: > >> Right, while I've got the soapbox out, (and while I'm not feeling as >> ill as I was over the last few days), let me do a bit more explaining >> about OpenCycleMap and its "openness". I make the styles for >> OpenCycleMap. Just me. Dave helps out with the backend stuff that >> makes it all work, but I can point to the cartography and say "I did >> that". And I like the fact that the colours are all mine, and so on, >> and I get enjoyment from it. It's my little project and my little >> claim to fame. I'm happy to listen to people who have suggestions for >> changes, but I don't want to disappoint people if they work on a patch >> and I don't want to accept it. And most of all, I don't want someone >> to make something that looks just like opencyclemap but with one or >> two changes and call it their own, or anyone to think that project B >> is mine when it isn't. >> > > Right. You don't want to be open. That's fine, for what it is. You don't > have to always be open about everything. There are legitimate advantages to > being closed, some of which you have pointed out. But call it what it is. > By the way, I should point out that I'm reading a little bit into your explanation. I assume you're aware that there are free licenses which don't allow people to use your work and call it their own, or to claim that a project is yours when it isn't. For instance, there's CC-BY-SA. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Andy Allan wrote: > Right, while I've got the soapbox out, (and while I'm not feeling as > ill as I was over the last few days), let me do a bit more explaining > about OpenCycleMap and its "openness". I make the styles for > OpenCycleMap. Just me. Dave helps out with the backend stuff that > makes it all work, but I can point to the cartography and say "I did > that". And I like the fact that the colours are all mine, and so on, > and I get enjoyment from it. It's my little project and my little > claim to fame. I'm happy to listen to people who have suggestions for > changes, but I don't want to disappoint people if they work on a patch > and I don't want to accept it. And most of all, I don't want someone > to make something that looks just like opencyclemap but with one or > two changes and call it their own, or anyone to think that project B > is mine when it isn't. > Right. You don't want to be open. That's fine, for what it is. You don't have to always be open about everything. There are legitimate advantages to being closed, some of which you have pointed out. But call it what it is. > (As for the carefully-worded comment made in another thread that > implied I would change the license of OCM, that's simply FUD. It'll > stay CC-BY-SA even if OSM changes to ODbL.) > Huh? What do you mean by "the license of OCM"? You mean the license of the tiles? If you think the comment was carefully worded, maybe you were just misreading it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Tobias Knerr wrote: > In order to truly show what's possible, we would need to completely > redesign that front page into a "featured products" catalogue that could > list routing applications, Garmin converters, OSM clocks, renderers, > paper maps and so on. This would, of course, include "closed" applications. Sounds like a good idea. It doesn't have to be completely redesigned, just a link saying: "And here's some other great ways in which OSM can be used..." http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM_based_Services Excuse my ignorance - OSM Clock? Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycleways wiki doc enhanced
2010/1/3 Lester Caine > It is however a very good example of where people have taken the trouble to > ACTUALLY map reality and their efforts have been destroyed! At the end of > the > day everything needs to be mapped fully, and there is no case for REMOVING > tracks that are mapped, and every case for providing a means to properly > replace > 'shorthand' with fully mapped detail. > > I agree to the goal of getting everything on the map. But you can not conclude that in some cases the best and most operative description is not reached by replacing one representation by a better one, e.g. in some cases removing shadow bicycle paths or sidewalks and incorporate them in the road tags. If an agreed OSM project goal exists, where uncompromised and non-reflected micro-mapping [the consequence of your phrase "everything needs to be mapped fully"] is described as the ultimate goal, please help me with a pointer. Then this discussion is over, and I must accept loosing some of my faith in the overall usefulness of the project. Otherwise I think we are obliged to continuously put some thought into how we really end up with the best and most operative map description. Claus -- -- Civilingeniør ph.d. Claus Hindsgaul Edvard Thomsens Vej 19, 5. th DK-2300 KBH S ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM rewriting history : France is now part of Germany !
2010/1/3 Martin Koppenhoefer : > the question was: do you consider Mapnik-OSM a tile set intended for general > consumption? Seems that you do indeed... Considering how many phone apps etc use the tile set, because there is nothing else you can use to do custom mapping apps, what is the intended audience exactly? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM rewriting history : France is now part of Germany !
2010/1/3 John Smith > > If you want such custom rendered maps that's fine, but I don't think > it should happen on a tile set intended for general consumption... > the question was: do you consider Mapnik-OSM a tile set intended for general consumption? Seems that you do indeed... cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Andy Allan wrote: > As for the name, it was originally "The OpenStreetMap Cycle Map" and I > pondered long and hard on the use of the word "The" in the title since > that sounded a bit exclusive. Eventually I gave up worrying about it > since there actually only *was* one OpenStreetMap-based cycling map > and there's more important things in life to get on with. Then I > wanted to move it out of my personal domain and the host I'd just > signed up to gave me a free domain name with the package, so I tried > www.ocm.org (as in the _OpenStreetMap _Cycle _Map) but of course it > was taken so I setted for www.opencyclemap.org instead. It's a nice > title for what it always has been, a cycle map based on OpenStreetMap > data, and a daft play on the title of OpenStreetMap itself. And I > started a trend, since many other projects based on OpenStreetMap data > have since called themselves OpenWhateverMap too, and it's a shorthand > for showing that these projects are based on OpenStreetMap in a geeky > in-joke kind of way. Right, while I've got the soapbox out, (and while I'm not feeling as ill as I was over the last few days), let me do a bit more explaining about OpenCycleMap and its "openness". I make the styles for OpenCycleMap. Just me. Dave helps out with the backend stuff that makes it all work, but I can point to the cartography and say "I did that". And I like the fact that the colours are all mine, and so on, and I get enjoyment from it. It's my little project and my little claim to fame. I'm happy to listen to people who have suggestions for changes, but I don't want to disappoint people if they work on a patch and I don't want to accept it. And most of all, I don't want someone to make something that looks just like opencyclemap but with one or two changes and call it their own, or anyone to think that project B is mine when it isn't. Now people often come asking questions about how I made the cyclemap, and how I react depends on what they are doing. I've given people the stylesheets for the cyclemap before, so long as they aren't trying to make a rip-off. When people making other projects have asked how the transparency works, or how to do contours, or whatnot, I've explained how, and given them code if it helps them. So it's not like I'm figuring all this out and not giving back to the community - but I do it in a way that I'm happy with. And almost all of the cyclemap is in fact completely open-source - it's only really the choice of colours that isn't, and the void-filling code that isn't even mine to open-source. There was a topic recently about reverse-engineering the OpenCycleMap style. Please don't. We're standing on a great plain, 10,000km wide, of possibilities of using OpenStreetMap data. If I've cordoned off 5 square metres of that plain and I'm happy building sandcastles on my own then leave me in peace. If you have your own ideas about a cycling map based on OSM data, then I'd encourage you to make it; everything you need is available. And it's pretty easy to make another style that's better than OCM, or that takes a different approach, rather than simply deciding to copy my ideas. (As for the carefully-worded comment made in another thread that implied I would change the license of OCM, that's simply FUD. It'll stay CC-BY-SA even if OSM changes to ODbL.) I realise that for some people, this explanation will hold no water, and their "righteous fury" will still be burning. So what steps could you take to resolve the situation? You could ask for my reasons for keeping things under my hat (nobody did, but I've now told you anyway) and figure out if there is common ground - maybe some way of giving us both what we want. You could find out what is already open source - the osmosis tagtransform rules for OCM are PD, btw - not that anyone was asking. You could try to encourage or persuade me to change my mind - explain what would be the advantages from my side? Or you could cast scorn and hatred, righteous indignation and the like, spreading false rumours on the mailing lists and all that jazz, and make me feel like an outcast. I don't think that would be constructive, but who am I to say? Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
2010/1/3 Andy Allan : > On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Dave F. wrote: > >> It needs to be one way or the other. >> Personally I think it _should_ be promoting map renderings, but on it's >> main map page it should be one that is truly open in the sense of OSM. > > This "sense of OSM" seems to have been redefined recently, to no > longer mean community-based-mapping nor open-licensed-geo-data but > instead something involving the software licences of whatever tool is > used to process the data. Did I miss the memo? Every second person seems to have a different meaning for "Open"... This is why non-sense names are often better, after all are we still just mapping streets? :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?
Regarding adding a source to names of nodes/ways: For example for "Klious street": http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/36115806 . I use the same source for the nearby street "Perseus street": http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/27405804 . You can see the image hosting site I linked to (flickr). When I was surveying in the past I took pictures of the street signs, actually two street signs where roads meet. Then I might have walked a bit further, and I took a picture of one of those street signs plus a new street sign. Then I put a key=source and value= with the url being the link to the image I uploaded to my photo uploading website of my personal choice(flickr in this matter). At the site I added my image as CC-BY-SA to prevent incompatibility. Kind regards, Niklas -- Niklas Holmkvist ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Dave F. wrote: > It needs to be one way or the other. > Personally I think it _should_ be promoting map renderings, but on it's > main map page it should be one that is truly open in the sense of OSM. This "sense of OSM" seems to have been redefined recently, to no longer mean community-based-mapping nor open-licensed-geo-data but instead something involving the software licences of whatever tool is used to process the data. Did I miss the memo? Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Dave F. wrote: > I think it's high time this was done. IMO, OCM should be removed from > the main map options asked persuasively to rename themselves as they're > not really open, are they? I'll ask you for one favour - when you are talking about me, please call me "Andy" and not some facessless entity. Not only is it polite, but it also makes things seem less hostile. As for the name, it was originally "The OpenStreetMap Cycle Map" and I pondered long and hard on the use of the word "The" in the title since that sounded a bit exclusive. Eventually I gave up worrying about it since there actually only *was* one OpenStreetMap-based cycling map and there's more important things in life to get on with. Then I wanted to move it out of my personal domain and the host I'd just signed up to gave me a free domain name with the package, so I tried www.ocm.org (as in the _OpenStreetMap _Cycle _Map) but of course it was taken so I setted for www.opencyclemap.org instead. It's a nice title for what it always has been, a cycle map based on OpenStreetMap data, and a daft play on the title of OpenStreetMap itself. And I started a trend, since many other projects based on OpenStreetMap data have since called themselves OpenWhateverMap too, and it's a shorthand for showing that these projects are based on OpenStreetMap in a geeky in-joke kind of way. But in the recent "discussions" on these lists nobody has actually enquired as to the meaning behind the name - nobody has asked me anything about it. Instead, people have invented their own false meanings behind it (that it's claiming to be open-source when it isn't), and then used those false meanings to go as far as petition me to change the name of my project, purely because they think it means something that it doesn't and they don't like it!? Unbelievable. Please, discussions should be as factual as we can make them, not based on rumours and myths. And I'm here and willing to answer questions *when asked*. On the subject of whether it's on the front-page of osm.org or not, again I think people who don't know the reasons behind it have invented their own (well, certainly nobody asked me for the truth). I agreed that it could be added, and that I would find a way to cover the costs (considerably more now than when I agreed to it), because it was a great example of the possibilities of OpenStreetMap data. It's not there to promote opencyclemap.org, as others have suggested - if it was, then wouldn't that theory be more plausible if there was a link, or even the name of the layer was "opencyclemap"? Sheesh. It's there to show off Open*Street*Map, to inspire people as to the possibilities of single-purpose custom renderings, and to show that OSM can be used with height data (an unsurprisingly common question). If you were to *ask me* about the front page, I'd want to see other layers being added - öpvnkarte for starters - but there are still few people willing/able to make global layers and find the (financial) resources to make them available. Calling on removing the cycle map layer - not because it sucks, not because it brings the project into disrepute, not because it can't handle the load, but instead purely because you have a difference of opinion on how important it is to have access to the stylesheets - well, that's the biggest case of cutting your nose off to spite your face that I've seen in a long while. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycleways wiki doc enhanced
Steve Bennett wrote: > On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > 2010/1/2 Lester Caine mailto:les...@lsces.co.uk>> > > Provided that this does not result in REMOVING ways that are > mapped - or prevent > > adding the REAL fine detail of ways that do not actually > physically form part of > the 'accompanying' road. This sort of 'shorthand' should not > replace mapping the > real situation on the ground ESPECIALLY where the cycleway ( or > sidewalk/footpath ) is not physically part of the 'accompanying' > road. > > NOTHING should dictate that removing physical data is the > 'correct' way of mapping! > > > +1 > couldn't agree more. We had the case in Germany last year that > separately mapped cycleways were deleted and cycleway=track was > added to a nearby road, that actually was physically divided from > the cycleway (which btw. was also connected to another way, the main > road wasn't - a situation that applies quite often in similar cases). > > That's not an argument for or against mapping cycleways as tracks. > That's just bad mapping. No one would avocate attempting to map > something in a way which simply isn't expressive enough for what needs > to be captured. It is however a very good example of where people have taken the trouble to ACTUALLY map reality and their efforts have been destroyed! At the end of the day everything needs to be mapped fully, and there is no case for REMOVING tracks that are mapped, and every case for providing a means to properly replace 'shorthand' with fully mapped detail. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] openstreetmap left side checkboxes?
2010/1/3 Felipe Carrillo : > Probably a naive question but I am a newbie to this mapping projects. I just > need to download some data from openstreetmap but I need to select the > features that I need. I have seen checkboxes to the left of the map to be > able to select the desired features but for some reason I can't find them. > The default www.openstreetmap.org doesn't show those checkboxes to the left > of the map. You may be thinking about openstreetbrowser.org, but it doesn't have an option to export data (afaik). XAPI should be able to give you this kind of selective export. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/XAPI Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New Year's wish...
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > > I have a small New Year's wish to the developers of the OSM website. When > going to the "history" tab, it would be soo nice if you could optionally > remove all entries marked "(big)" from the listing. We could maybe implement it together. I don't know programming but we could learn. Source code is usually (always?) in clear plain text. If we trust our abilities in reading or "solving puzzles" why not give it a try? Dave: Is ITO Mapper or osmmapper free libre software or open source software, just like the software in the history tab is? (ie. can I see/distribute the source code commercially/noncommercially?) Kind regards, Niklas -- Niklas Holmkvist ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Hi, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Ok, then let's not use "open". Let's just say some things (where you can > look at how they're done as opposed to not being told) are "better" than > others. That was unnecessarily provocative, I admit. I think I will settle for the wording: "relevant material available under free and open license" And then wherever we list projects that use OSM data, just fill that out with a yes or no. I would like to make it more objective than "free and open license", but if you put something like "OSI license" there then you focus too much on software, whereas the "relevant material" could also be a work of art licensed under CC. Plus, the wording "free and open license" is also what the OSMF license working group suggests for the ODbL contributor agreement, so it cannot be completely bogus, can it? (BTW I have no strong opinion on what to show on the main page and what not; I think it is ok to show non-open stuff on the main page but it should be made clear that it is non-open. If Google were to create a cool OSM based map rendering would we list it *without* pointing out that it is proprietary?) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Dair Grant wrote: > showcasing useful and innovative things that have been done with > OSM data is more important than trying to split ourselves into "open" (terms > and conditions will apply) and not. If it is there to show what can be done with OSM data, it does a very poor job. The only thing it shows is an inferior Google Map clone: pre-rendered tiles that cannot even be configured or modified in any meaningful way. It doesn't help to demonstrate the the advantages of having access to raw map *data* at all. In order to truly show what's possible, we would need to completely redesign that front page into a "featured products" catalogue that could list routing applications, Garmin converters, OSM clocks, renderers, paper maps and so on. This would, of course, include "closed" applications. As it is, that page doesn't really serve the purpose of presenting OSM products. Instead, it presents OSM data *itself* - with features such as changeset list, data layer, XML export, etc.. And for that purpose, we don't need "closed" rendering styles. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Hi, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > So I don't want OSM to get into arguments about "opener than thou" - Ok, then let's not use "open". Let's just say some things (where you can look at how they're done as opposed to not being told) are "better" than others. Or is there anyone who disagrees - anyone who thinks it is "better" if we are not told how something works? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] openstreetmap left side checkboxes?
Hi: Probably a naive question but I am a newbie to this mapping projects. I just need to download some data from openstreetmap but I need to select the features that I need. I have seen checkboxes to the left of the map to be able to select the desired features but for some reason I can't find them. The default www.openstreetmap.org doesn't show those checkboxes to the left of the map. I would really appreciate it if someone could point out how can I get to it. Thanks Felipe D. Carrillo Supervisory Fishery Biologist Department of the Interior US Fish & Wildlife Service California, USA ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: It is our main page and a closed project on the main page of OSM IMHO > doesn't suit well. > IMHO, a "closed" project on the main page is a good thing. What is the purpose of the OSM web site? It is partly to provide a way for end-users to view a map (although we provide a much simpler experience than other sites), but it is also to show people what can be done with OSM data. Those two goals have overlapped at times, but IMO the latter is more important: showcasing useful and innovative things that have been done with OSM data is more important than trying to split ourselves into "open" (terms and conditions will apply) and not. -dair ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM rewriting history : France is now part of Germany !
John Smith wrote: > Cartography is an art form, and you will never be able to do this sort > of thing perfectly by extrapolation from the boundary. Unless you are working with one specific rendering style on a known zoom level and with fixed font size, you won't be able to perfectly do this by manually positioning a label, either. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defective GPS trace
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > That would be using a map as an item in a to-do list. It would look ugly > to me and I doubt that many people would support that use. Better keep > the todo list separate - in another layer if you want it represented > geographically. > Yes and no. A straight line works almost as well for routing as a correctly surveyed road, and much better than a non-existent way. So rather than a "to do list", it's more like a first draft. You might say that in order of priority, we would like the following information about every road: 1) Start and end point 2) Major junctions 3) Name 4) Minor junctions 5) Exact route. 6) Surface 7) Width, lanes, speed limit... The order is debatable though. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cycleways wiki doc enhanced
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/1/2 Lester Caine > >> Provided that this does not result in REMOVING ways that are mapped - or >> prevent >> >> adding the REAL fine detail of ways that do not actually physically form >> part of >> the 'accompanying' road. This sort of 'shorthand' should not replace >> mapping the >> real situation on the ground ESPECIALLY where the cycleway ( or >> sidewalk/footpath ) is not physically part of the 'accompanying' road. >> >> NOTHING should dictate that removing physical data is the 'correct' way of >> mapping! >> > > +1 > couldn't agree more. We had the case in Germany last year that separately > mapped cycleways were deleted and cycleway=track was added to a nearby road, > that actually was physically divided from the cycleway (which btw. was also > connected to another way, the main road wasn't - a situation that applies > quite often in similar cases). > That's not an argument for or against mapping cycleways as tracks. That's just bad mapping. No one would avocate attempting to map something in a way which simply isn't expressive enough for what needs to be captured. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
