Re: [OSM-talk] Ahora Colombia necesita maperos
Quick translation since this is an english list: Mappers from Haiti, CLIL, Pakistan ? Today we need your help in Colombia, the country goes through the strongest rain season in the last 10 years, which has caused more than 300 dead, left millions homeless and over 500 millions of dollars in material losses, including millions of hectares of arable land. You can help alleviate this crisis by mapping so that the humanitarian help is more effective , OSM Colombia is working closely with OCHA which relies on our map it to perform its missions. While waiting for imagery to be released from the Disastercharter activation [0], you can help us map critical areas of the country that have yahoo images, priority focus is now in the area south of Bogota Soacha [1] by density of population has been extremely concerned and where OCHA's efforts will focus on tomorrow. Please mail after reading this help us for a few minutes marking streets, rivers, parks and buildings. ouÉɯnH wrote: > Mapeaste por Haiti, Clile, Pakistan? > > Ahora en Colombia necesitamos de tu ayuda, el pais atraviesa por la > temporada de lluvias mas fuerte de los últimos 10 años, lo cual ha > provocado mas de 300 muertos, millones de damnificados y mas de 500 > millones de dolares en perdidas materiales incluyendo millones de > hectáreas cultivables. > > Puedes ayudarnos a mitigar esta crisis mapeando, para que las labores > humanitarias sean mas efectiva, OSM Colombia está trabajando muy cerca > de OCHA y ello confian en nuestros mapas para realizar sus misiones. > > Mientras esperamos que sean liberadas imágenes provenientes de la > activación de la Disastercharter [0] , puedes ayudarnos a mapear > sectores críticos del pais que cuentan con imagenes de yahoo, ahora es > prioritario enfocarnos en la zona de Soacha al sur de Bogota [1] que > por su densidad de población ha resultado sumamente afectada y es > donde los esfuerzos de OCHA se centrarán el día de mañana. > > Por favor despues de leer este mail ayúdanos durante unos minutos, > marcando calles, rios, parques y edificios. > > salu2 > > fredy rivera (humano) > OSM Colombia > > [0] > http://www.disasterscharter.org/web/charter/activation_details?p_r_p_1415474252_assetId=ACT-343 > > [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=4.57315&lon=-74.21482&zoom=16 > bit.ly/hZmhAj > -- > Por favor, no me envíe documentos con extensiones .doc, .docx, .xls, > .xlsx, > .ppt, .pptx, .mdb, mdbx > OpenOffice es libre: se puede copiar, modificar y redistribuir libremente. > Gratis y totalmente legal. > http://GaleNUx.com es el sistema de información para la salud > --///-- > Teléfono USA: (347) 688-4473 (Google voice) > skype: llamarafredyrivera > > ___ > 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] Announce search box with result suggestions
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 6:20 AM, Toby Murray wrote: > I find this annoying as well. I believe it happens because (at least here > in the US) cities are mapped twice. Once using a node in the center of the > city and once using the administrative boundary multipolygon relation. I'm > guessing the nodes exist because some tools don't know how to deal with > relations. Or am I way off base here? > > Toby > > > I'm sure it's not a discussion for the dev-list but shortly, the place node(s) and the administrative boundary are two different things. You can have more than one place node inside a boundary polygon. In my country, we use the role admin_centre in the boundary relation to indicate which place node is the administrative centre. What you mention is more a rendering issue. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Localisation and better search in Taginfo
An Italian translation is now online. Many thanks to Stefano Tampieri! 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] walking-paper is down?
Looks fine to me: http://walking-papers.org/ - Chris - 2010/11/25 ouɐɯnH > hello > we are using walking-paper to map the flood crisis in Colombia, we > have generated some wp but never displayed so that they can print. > > Anyone know anything? > > is urgent for us > > tnk > > humano > > -- > Por favor, no me envíe documentos con extensiones .doc, .docx, .xls, .xlsx, > .ppt, .pptx, .mdb, mdbx > OpenOffice es libre: se puede copiar, modificar y redistribuir libremente. > Gratis y totalmente legal. > http://GaleNUx.com es el sistema de información para la salud > > --///-- > Teléfono USA: (347) 688-4473 (Google voice) > skype: llamarafredyrivera > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Spam in OSM forum?
Hi, I suppose that this last forum posting in this thread is pure spam, with all those smileys with links to various web places. http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=10078 -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] walking-paper is down?
Hi, The site is on, but I can't get a print either. With two trials, waiting for more than 40 and 20 minutes. Not trying more, to avoid causing a DDOS. Best regards, Jean-Guilhem Le 25/11/2010 11:08, Chris Browet a écrit : Looks fine to me: http://walking-papers.org/ - Chris - 2010/11/25 ouɐɯnH mailto:fredyriv...@gmail.com>> hello we are using walking-paper to map the flood crisis in Colombia, we have generated some wp but never displayed so that they can print. Anyone know anything? is urgent for us tnk humano -- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
[follow-ups to legal-talk please] David Murn wrote: > I have no interest in the legal detail of the licence, only > interested in talking about the ramifications of the licence > on our map data, no matter how many times people try > to derail this important issue to a legal mailing list. It is nothing to do with "derailing". The tagging@ list is there for discussions of how tagging impacts on our map data. No-one is saying that tagging isn't important: it's just a big subject that some people have chosen not to be interested in. The legal-talk@ list is there for discussions of how legal matters impact on our map data. No-one is saying that legal matters aren't important: they're just a big subject that some people have chosen not to be interested in. Please have some respect for your fellow mappers, and let _them_ choose what they're interested in by subscribing to the right list; don't try and tell them what they should be interested in by posting everything to talk@ regardless. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Suggestion-for-an-Unconference-tp5768507p5773851.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] walking-paper is down?
Thanks guys - I think something about how Amazon handles upload policies might have changed so they've ben throwing errors I had not seen before. I thought I fixed this for scans a few days ago, but I guess it's true for prints as well. Fixing now... -mike. On Nov 25, 2010, at 2:58 AM, Jean-Guilhem Cailton wrote: > Hi, > > The site is on, but I can't get a print either. With two trials, waiting for > more than 40 and 20 minutes. Not trying more, to avoid causing a DDOS. > > Best regards, > > Jean-Guilhem > > > Le 25/11/2010 11:08, Chris Browet a écrit : >> Looks fine to me: >> http://walking-papers.org/ >> >> - Chris - >> >> 2010/11/25 ouɐɯnH >> hello >> we are using walking-paper to map the flood crisis in Colombia, we >> have generated some wp but never displayed so that they can print. >> >> Anyone know anything? >> >> is urgent for us >> >> tnk >> >> humano >> >> -- >> > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk michal migurski- m...@stamen.com 415.558.1610 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:13:27 -0800 (PST) Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > [follow-ups to legal-talk please] > > David Murn wrote: > > I have no interest in the legal detail of the licence, only > > interested in talking about the ramifications of the licence > > on our map data, no matter how many times people try > > to derail this important issue to a legal mailing list. > > It is nothing to do with "derailing". > > The tagging@ list is there for discussions of how tagging impacts on > our map data. No-one is saying that tagging isn't important: it's > just a big subject that some people have chosen not to be interested > in. > > The legal-talk@ list is there for discussions of how legal matters > impact on our map data. No-one is saying that legal matters aren't > important: they're just a big subject that some people have chosen > not to be interested in. > > Please have some respect for your fellow mappers, and let _them_ > choose what they're interested in by subscribing to the right list; > don't try and tell them what they should be interested in by posting > everything to talk@ regardless. > > cheers > Richard > > You forgot to say that "talk" is for matters that mappers wish to discuss with the whole community. Perhaps you could respect this and stop hiding stuff which is important on legal-talk where there are fewer subscribers than on talk. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
Just a comment from one of the 130 who has voted yes on the recommendation of one of the people I thought was fairly sensible here and I now regret taking his advice. I now strongly suspect I should have spent six months wading through through the legal talk side of things rather than mapping because a whole slew of issues seem to be coming up here. I would like the ability to go back and change my vote. I don't like being told this is not the place for discussion of license issues or concerns. In light of the recent involvement of Microsoft and other large players I think there are perception problems that need to be addressed. For example I'm very concerned that there is no plan to deal with the transition to the new licensing model. Perhaps OSM should take note of the Open Data mob and be a little more open about what is happening rather than trying to censure discussion on issues and concerns which apparently have not been addressed by the decision makers. They seem to have taken decisions but won't accept any responsibility to address issues and concerns. I'm not asking to stay with the old licenses necessarily but I would like to see some sort of plan and if we can find a way to address the issues and concerns. Cheerio John On 24 November 2010 22:28, David Murn wrote: > On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 00:11 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > 2. The license train has left the station. We've been at this for ages > > and there is no viable alternative. We will certainly not throw away > > years of deliberations just because a handful of US corporations asked > > us to (and imagine the outcry among mappers if we were to do that). > > I think you mean 'The license slow-coach has left the station'.. If > theres 'no alternative' then what is going to happen at the next stages > of the license changeover, where apparently the community will be asked > what to do next? I wonder if its a case of 'previous submissions need > not submit again', when it comes to asking the community our views. By > the way, from a quick glance at the voting process and timeline, it > appears the train might have left the station, but no-one was onboard. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan > You'll note that re-licensing only started to occur 12 weeks ago and the > voting process had 130 people vote yes (Ive never seen a way to vote no, > other than navigating away from the page with a single 'accept' button), > hardly a case of left-the-station. I wonder how many people would > change their vote, knowing the interests that large companies are > getting in OSM, and how many people would be starting to worry about any > 'future licence change' clause in CTs, when the projects founder works > for the company known for taking over and screwing over other groups > with legal avenues and licences. > > Fortunately from the wiki, the comment: > > Note: Licensing Working Group (LWG) is currently primarily focusing on > > clarification improvements to the Contributor Terms and resolving > > license issues with data donors. > > leads me to believe that despite what you and others are saying about > everything being set in stone and not being able to be changed, is > wrong, and the LWG *ARE* seeking to improve and fix the CTs and licence > issues. At least it appears one working group is trying to hold the > forks together while other individials try and drive the wedge in. > > > 3. In case you want to go into any kind of detail about the license, > > legal-talk ist that way --->. > > I have no interest in the legal detail of the licence, only interested > in talking about the ramifications of the licence on our map data, no > matter how many times people try to derail this important issue to a > legal mailing list. > > David > > > ___ > 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] License Use Case
Hi, Does the ODbL license allow to add dummy data into a derivative database in order to mask the personal data contained in this derivative database ? Otherwise, is there any solution to protect the privacy while complying with the ODbL license ? Thank you for your help. Xavier ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Use Case
On 11/25/2010 09:04 PM, Xavier Loiseau wrote: Does the ODbL license allow to add dummy data into a derivative database in order to mask the personal data contained in this derivative database ? I don't see why it wouldn't. Otherwise, is there any solution to protect the privacy while complying with the ODbL license ? Not disclosing personal information in the first place? ;-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] CT, section 3
Hi, a few days ago Richard Weait asked for suggestions patches from people who critized CT v. 1.0. I therefore decided to join this mailing list and post a suggestion myself. I am perfectly fine with the ODbL but am unhappy with the CT, because I am not allowed to opt-out of license changes that I object to. My suggestion is the following change to section 3: 3. OSMF agrees to use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the terms of one or more of the following licences: ODbL, version 1.0 or later, for the database and DbCL, version 1.0 or later, for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA, version 2.0 or later; or such other licence as may be approved by the process defined in section 3.1 and section 3.2. 3.1. A free and open license can be chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors. An "active contributor" is defined as: a contributor natural person (whether using a single or multiple accounts) who that has edited the Project in any 3 calendar months from the last 12 months (i.e. there is a demonstrated interest over time); and has maintained a valid email address in their registration profile and responds within 3 weeks. 3.2. OSMF agrees to inform You of all newly approved licenses if You maintain a valid email address in their registration profile. OSMF agrees not to relicense Your Content to the newly approved licence if You object to the license approval within 6 weeks. Apart from the opt-out clause, I also added "or later" to make it easier to do license changes that are already possible anyway. (Both CC-BY-SA and ODbL contain clauses that allow upgrading to a later version.) I will offer a thought experiment to explain why I believe the option to object is important. Consider the extremely unlikely event that the OSFM suddenly turns evil and wants to sell the OpenStreetMap database content to a proprietary competitor. It could then lock out nearly all contributors from the system, and make sure that only a few people can continue contributing. Those few people could then very easily vote with a 2/3 majority to relicence the database to the Public Domain license, which is free and open. It could also decide not to publicly release this PD version but to only sell it to the competitor. I know that this thought experiment is absurd. I generally trust the OSFM to do the right thing. But I would be far more comfortable with being able to opt-out of any license change that I consider problematic. Thanks for the hard work that the LWG and all other CT revision contributors are doing! The process of updating the CT and of responding to criticism within the community is far more important to me than the actual result of this update. Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT, section 3
Hi, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote: 3.2. OSMF agrees to inform You of all newly approved licenses if You maintain a valid email address in their registration profile. OSMF agrees not to relicense Your Content to the newly approved licence if You object to the license approval within 6 weeks. I think the weak point here is the focus of ownership in individual contributions. I rather liked it how the new CT/ODbL made it irrelevant whether something was "yours" or "mine". We're seeing right now a situation where if you have a new trace along a road that already existed in OSM, it may nonetheless make sense to delete the existing road and replace it with a new object, just in case the contributor(s) who did the old road do not agree to the license change. This goes against the grain of a community project. Your suggested change - small as it is - would mean that in the future, it would *still* always be relevant who exactly contributed to a single object, so that if a license change happened and that person opted out, the data in question could be removed. It would always be "safer" to remove something and re-create it instead of building on the works of your fellow mappers, because that would not be reliable. I think the real and tangible negative effect of that would outweigh the theoretical and remote positive effect in case of a hostile relicensing attempt as you describe. I will offer a thought experiment to explain why I believe the option to object is important. Consider the extremely unlikely event that the OSFM suddenly turns evil and wants to sell the OpenStreetMap database content to a proprietary competitor. It could then lock out nearly all contributors from the system, and make sure that only a few people can continue contributing. My feeling is that an OSM database without contributors to keep it up and running would be worth very little. At the time of your hypothetical lock-out, the project would fork, and value would be created elsewhere. Those few people could then very easily vote with a 2/3 majority to relicence the database to the Public Domain license, which is free and open. It could also decide not to publicly release this PD version but to only sell it to the competitor. Maybe we should work on *that* bit then. Not give the individual an opt-out right, but instead force OSMF to publish. Something like: "As a condition of this agreement, OSMF agrees not only to license the database under the licenses given, but also to make the database publicly available" or so. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
Gert Gremmen" wrote: > But there is no restriction to do with any work that is not protected by >license or PD. In that sense any license is a restriction. Not true, any copyrightable work that is not licensed or PD is assumed to be "all rights reserved", and nobody may copy it or derive works based on it, except through legislated "fair use" rights. The effect of any license is to reduce that restriction, to grant some additional rights. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:13:27 -0800 (PST) > Richard Fairhurst wrote: > >> >> [follow-ups to legal-talk please] >> >> David Murn wrote: >> > I have no interest in the legal detail of the licence, only >> > interested in talking about the ramifications of the licence >> > on our map data, no matter how many times people try >> > to derail this important issue to a legal mailing list. >> >> It is nothing to do with "derailing". >> >> The tagging@ list is there for discussions of how tagging impacts on >> our map data. No-one is saying that tagging isn't important: it's >> just a big subject that some people have chosen not to be interested >> in. >> >> The legal-talk@ list is there for discussions of how legal matters >> impact on our map data. No-one is saying that legal matters aren't >> important: they're just a big subject that some people have chosen >> not to be interested in. >> >> Please have some respect for your fellow mappers, and let _them_ >> choose what they're interested in by subscribing to the right list; >> don't try and tell them what they should be interested in by posting >> everything to talk@ regardless. >> >> cheers >> Richard >> >> > > You forgot to say that "talk" is for matters that mappers wish to > discuss with the whole community. > Perhaps you could respect this and stop hiding stuff which is important > on legal-talk where there are fewer subscribers than on talk. > Does anyone know the recipe for Nando's peri-peri sauce? I was walking past Nando's earlier and it smelled awesome. But it's like £10 or something so I was wondering if it's possible to make the sauce at home and grill a normal chicken? Thanks! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference (from osm-talk)
John, On 25 November 2010 20:15, john whelan wrote: > Just a comment from one of the 130 who has voted yes on the recommendation > of one of the people I thought was fairly sensible here and I now regret > taking his advice. I now strongly suspect I should have spent six months > wading through through the legal talk side of things rather than mapping > because a whole slew of issues seem to be coming up here. > ~4800 existing users have agreed to the Contributor Terms, this excludes the new OSM signups. Or are you discussing the foundation members vote? > I would like the ability to go back and change my vote. > > I don't like being told this is not the place for discussion of license > issues or concerns. In light of the recent involvement of Microsoft and > other large players I think there are perception problems that need to be > addressed. > Microsoft/Bing has spoken to the Licensing Working Group on 2 occasions. I flagged these up in the minutes. MapQuest has not spoken to the Licensing Grouping Group. > For example I'm very concerned that there is no plan to deal with the > transition to the new licensing model. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan If you would like expansion on the items ask. > Perhaps OSM should take note of the Open Data mob and be a little more open > about what is happening rather than trying to censure discussion on issues > and concerns which apparently have not been addressed by the decision > makers. They seem to have taken decisions but won't accept any > responsibility to address issues and concerns. I'm not asking to stay with > the old licenses necessarily but I would like to see some sort of plan and > if we can find a way to address the issues and concerns. > Censure discussion? Please expand. Moving licensing discussion to a dedicated public list is not censure in my view. There have been many round of question, answers and many revisions. The LWG spends at around 25% of their time just keeping minutes. I'm a member of the LWG, we are all volenteers with the exception of occasional member Steve Coast. Full minutes: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference (from osm-talk)
On 25 November 2010 23:17, john whelan wrote: > Thanks for the link. It seems essentially to say no imports since we > reserve the right to change the license at any time in the future so you > can't make agreements with third parties and judging by the visuals we've > seen so far most of the map will need to be remapped by hand even core bits > of the UK. > Most of the UK has been mapped "by hand". Mappers being on the ground and knowing the local area is OSM's strength. Existing imports are being renegotiated and the licensing plan calls for support from the Licensing Working Group in this regard. Slowly more of the existing imports are turning green: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue Draft template letters are available: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Bulk_Import_Support_Page I am on the opinion that imports should be on OUR terms (OSM). Sure some imports will not be carried across, but we will know where the gaps are. I like a challenge. / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > You forgot to say that "talk" is for matters that mappers wish to > discuss with the whole community. > Perhaps you could respect this and stop hiding stuff which is > important on legal-talk where there are fewer subscribers than on > talk. I don't say much here, but I do agree with Richard (and others). I haven't decided 100% about the license, and for that reason I follow the legal-talk list. Reading the talk list here always goes like this: Interesting topic and question raised, someone finds a reason to mention the license change, most of the thread from there is bitching about the license change. What I do, is read a few replies, discover the license bitching and then select "Ignore thread" because I don't always want to read about the license, there are other issues too. Unfortunately I mostly miss the real and good answers to discussions, because I end of ignoring 90% of the threads. Sometimes when I do want to catch up on the license, I read talk-legal - and this might only be a few times a week. If I am the only one who acts like this, then feel free to ignore me. But if this is somewhat common behaviour, then the talk list is in big trouble. - Johnny ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
