Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 03:16 +0100, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> >
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=13.03175&lon=77.56565&zoom=17&layers=M
> >
> > before the conference I did a rough sketch from satellite imagery.
> On
> > arrival at the spot I found that the ground reality was totally at
> > variance with the satellite imagery - and I got lost!
> 
> Seems the imagery got outdated.

it did not 'get' outdated - imagery for most of India is 2-3 years old.
> 
> If someone had perfectly mapped that area a few years ago and it got 
> completely outdated in the meantime - you would get into the exact
> same 
> problem. Taking your opinion further would mean we shouldn't map 
> anything at all because the map data might get outdated.

how do you come to that conclusion? if you are local, you will map the
changes - if you are using a satellite, you only *see* the changes once
in 2-3 years

> 
> What your example really tells us is that you shouldn't "repair" 
> existing OSM data from (probably outdated) imagery without local
> knowledge.

repair or map
> 
> > what I object to is mapping a place one has no intention of visiting
> 
> Fine, seems you don't like the wiki principle ...

never heard of the wiki principle - if this implies that since everyone
has edit writes, anyone can write rubbish - then I don't like it.

-- 
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Alan Mintz]

At 2010-12-08 14:46, davespod wrote:

I have cancelled a trip to survey some lonely country lanes after someone else
remotely traced them. Had I gone, the map would have gained POIs instead of
just a line. But it scarcely seemed worth the trip for what might have been
a couple of postboxes and pub, without having the satisfaction of mapping
the roads, too, especially when there is so much else left to map. But maybe
I'm being silly.


To each, his own, I suppose. It wouldn't stop (and hasn't stopped) me, but 
I live in a place (California) that has most of its roads already present, 
though badly mis-aligned in places. So, I guess I take my trips to add 
value in terms of those POIs, road characteristics (lanes, speed limits, 
condition), turn-restrictions, etc.  Not to mention, it's been fun going 
out there and seeing places I've never been.


--
Alan Mintz 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Alan Mintz]

At 2010-12-08 04:53, Joseph Reeves wrote:

OpenStreetMap is still a wiki though? So if I find a future travel
destination missing from OSM, but covered by Bing, where's the harm in
tracing it? In many parts of the world there is no such thing as
"local mappers" and even if I did trace a load of crap into the
database, anyone else can come along  and, providing they've got a
better data source than I, fix it.


Exactly. Creating something where there was nothing leaves the map better 
off. In some cases, you might be creating some features that are no longer 
there, but I'd expect these to be a minority.


Where people should be careful, IMO, is in moving existing features based 
on satellite imagery when you do not know the accuracy of the imagery. Even 
GPS traces, when made in low-accuracy environments, may not be accurate 
enough to prove the "ground truth", as you will see if you look carefully 
at your GPS receiver's estimated accuracy while driving around with it 
inside a car, in mountainous or tall building areas, etc. It takes real 
work and research to establish reference points that can be used to 
correctly georeference an image.




We should all map place we know nothing about. Period. If nothing else
it may provide a vital spark in developing local interests and
efforts. It's a wiki, it doesn't need to be perfect first time.


I, too, believe it is useful to have _something_ present in an area in 
order to ignite local interest. If someone on an island goes to OSM and 
sees nothing, they might likely just move on. If, however, they see the 
land mass and the main road with some other features that may not be 
correct, they are more likely to get interested in fixing them.


--
Alan Mintz 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Ulf Lamping]

Am 09.12.2010 02:49, schrieb Kenneth Gonsalves:

On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 08:59 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:

(Personally, I would be arguing against it. "Don't do X because the
result would be less accurate than if you did Y" is an unhelpful kind
of perfectionism. The line makes the point that accuracy is important.
Well, coverage is also important. And you could argue that it's much
more efficient to map from aerial imagery first, then correct errors
with a local visit.)




I have absolutely no objection to map from aerial imagery first, then
correct errors with a local visit - as along as you are intending to
make that visit in the very near future. For example, we were to hold a
conference here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=13.03175&lon=77.56565&zoom=17&layers=M

before the conference I did a rough sketch from satellite imagery. On
arrival at the spot I found that the ground reality was totally at
variance with the satellite imagery - and I got lost!


Seems the imagery got outdated.

If someone had perfectly mapped that area a few years ago and it got 
completely outdated in the meantime - you would get into the exact same 
problem. Taking your opinion further would mean we shouldn't map 
anything at all because the map data might get outdated.


What your example really tells us is that you shouldn't "repair" 
existing OSM data from (probably outdated) imagery without local knowledge.



what I object to is mapping a place one has no intention of visiting


Fine, seems you don't like the wiki principle ...

Regards, ULFL

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 08:59 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
> (Personally, I would be arguing against it. "Don't do X because the
> result would be less accurate than if you did Y" is an unhelpful kind
> of perfectionism. The line makes the point that accuracy is important.
> Well, coverage is also important. And you could argue that it's much
> more efficient to map from aerial imagery first, then correct errors
> with a local visit.)
> 
> 

I have absolutely no objection to map from aerial imagery first, then
correct errors with a local visit - as along as you are intending to
make that visit in the very near future. For example, we were to hold a
conference here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=13.03175&lon=77.56565&zoom=17&layers=M

before the conference I did a rough sketch from satellite imagery. On
arrival at the spot I found that the ground reality was totally at
variance with the satellite imagery - and I got lost!

what I object to is mapping a place one has no intention of visiting
-- 
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 12:53 +, Joseph Reeves wrote:
> "local mappers" and even if I did trace a load of crap into the
> database, anyone else can come along  and, providing they've got a
> better data source than I, fix it. 

please keep off India
-- 
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Ulf Lamping]

Am 08.12.2010 23:46, schrieb davespod:

By the way, I don't think the intention is to suggest that it is not ok to
trace an area and then visit it to correct errors and add detail. It is when
you are not going to do that, it is frowned upon. I can understand why. I
have cancelled a trip to survey some lonely country lanes after someone else
remotely traced them. Had I gone, the map would have gained POIs instead of
just a line. But it scarcely seemed worth the trip for what might have been
a couple of postboxes and pub, without having the satisfaction of mapping
the roads, too, especially when there is so much else left to map. But maybe
I'm being silly.


What the whole discussion here seems to be missing: You can't read 
street names from bing (or Yahoo) imagery.


My story: I've drawn roughly 2/3 of all streets from a german city with 
~10 habitants from imagery in about a day and very slowly started to 
add street names by surveying. A few weeks later, someone else had added 
all the missing street names. In the meantime I know that person and he 
told me, that he was able to add the street names easily but didn't had 
a GPS to survey the roads, so he wasn't able to start mapping before (he 
wasn't aware of the imagery possibility).



It's probably not the best idea for a newbie to use imagery to start 
with OSM mapping work, but generally telling people not to draw from 
imagery in remote areas reduces our possibility to effectively improve 
the map.


Regards, ULFL

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Richard Fairhurst]

Joseph Reeves wrote:
> An example from my recent past: We display OSM imagery on our 
> website to show people where our offices are. We have one office 
> that was in a town poorly covered by OSM. When the OS Open 
> imagery became available I traced chunks of the town into OSM

Why not just display the OS OpenData imagery on your website and cut out the
middleman? ;)

There can certainly be a case for strategic 'remote mapping' work. Way back
when, the aim was to get placenames into OSM (from NPE, mostly). Soon
afterwards, we had a push to get all the UK's A and B roads mapped; a fair
amount of that involved NPE tracing. More recently, sometimes there are
small strategic gaps in OSM coverage that can be trivially fixed to make the
map much more useful (for a long time there was a half-mile gap in the
mapping of the C2C, Britain's most popular long-distance cycle route). 

And so on. These resulted in significant improvements in OSM coverage with
little or no impact on local mappers, who still had plenty to do. At the
other end of the scale, an occasional five-minute trace of a couple of
footpaths might not be significant - but who could really object to it?

But _intensive_ tracing can and does kill people's motivation. Doesn't
matter whether you think the people are misguided or pompous, it happens.
I've seen it in Worcester, in the East Midlands, in Northern Ireland.

The result is that, rather than having the best map available, we merely
have (especially in the case of OS OpenData) a carbon copy of a map you
could download from somewhere else - and pissed-off mappers who no longer
want to make it any better.

Of course there are compromises. I think in your example I'd have asked the
local mapper "oh, sorry, I wouldn't want to make your volunteer work less
enjoyable - but it would be great for us if we had a map we could use by
this time next month. Would that be ok?".

But if you have an itchy mouse finger and it's cold outside, why not choose
one of the a million and one other ways to make the map better - without
endangering the enthusiasm which is OSM's greatest asset? TIGER fixup is the
most important. Find an untouched US city and align the geometry - so much
more beneficial to the future of OSM than tracing Budleigh Salterton from OS
StreetView. You can trace woodlands, lakes, rivers, building outlines and
other things less suited to local survey. And there's also all the big
non-mapping problems that hold OSM back and sorely need volunteers to tackle
them (abysmal docs etc.)...

There's so much to do. It's got to be more efficient for tracers to tackle
the bits that _aren't_ being catered for by local mappers.

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Bing-maps-is-misplaced-tp5811671p5817457.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] Bing maps is misplaced

[john]

In my case, I have done a mixture of image-tracing (from the Yahoo aerial 
imagery), and POI marking (from first-hand knowledge, and frequently from 
ccordinates measures using my phone's GPS).  All of my image-tracing has been 
in areas that I had first-hand knowledge of.  Since most of the roadways in 
this area are already marked from the TIGER import, and these imported roads 
mostly align with the Yahoo imagery, the majority of the image-tracing involves 
fixing the occasional road that was marked a few meters off from its actual 
location, while the adjoining roads are correct.  I have added a few minor 
roads that were built too recently to be in the TIGER data, plus mapping the 
zoo and a couple of small cemeteries.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
>From  :mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk
Date  :Wed Dec 08 18:15:39 America/Chicago 2010


On 08/12/2010 21:59, Steve Bennett wrote:
> So the question arises: does the community support this view?
Unlike the Life of Brian, here everyone does seem to be an individual - 
I suspect that you'll get as many answers as there are mappers.

Speaking entirely personally, I do mostly only map places that I've been 
and don't tend to trace e.g. a road or track unless I've seen one end of 
it.  When I started adding stuff to OSM the map was entirely blank where 
I lived and I wasn't aware that anyone traced stuff at all.  I 
eventually encountered a road that seemed a bit wrong - it was 
consistently a few metres SW of my GPS traces.  Initially I assumed that 
I must be hitting some sort of "urban canyon" effect and tried again, 
but got the same results.  Eventually I figured that it had been traced 
from an old NPE (out of copyright) map.  There was actually nothing 
wrong with the tracing; the error was on the old map.

So was the original mapper wrong to have traced that road from NPE?  
Personally I'd say no; a road in not quite the right place (on an 
otherwise empty map) is better than no road at all.  Problems can 
obviously happen if what's being traced from isn't as good as it could 
be (the issue that Kenneth raised earlier on in the thread), and in the 
UK that may be an issue with some of the Bing imagery as it looks (a) 
quite detailed but (b) quite old.

Where there are a reasonable number of local mappers, tracing can be 
less beneficial because it can get people to think that an area is 
"complete" when it's not been ground surveyed.  When creating Garmin 
maps locally for my own use I try and incorporate certain "source="s 
(e.g. "NPE", "Yahoo") and users (if a known non-on-the-ground mapper) in 
the name.  I live not far from Staffordshire in the UK and parts of that 
are somewhat iffy - they look complete, but what's on the map doesn't 
match reality.  However, there are also places where a GPS simply won't 
get a good fix because of the terrain and short of a theodolite or 
something capable of dead reckoning, tracing is the only way to get an 
accurate road / path layout to lay POIs on.

If you're in a country with relatively few mappers, then tracing makes 
some sense, it gets coverage now where there otherwise would be none, 
but it doesn't take away the requirement for someone (eventually) to 
visit and add detail that you can only get by actually being there.  I 
don't think that there can ever be a planet-wide consensus about tracing 
where you haven't visited; but individual communities should be able to 
come to some sort of agreement for smaller areas.

Cheers,
Andy


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

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[SomeoneElse]

On 08/12/2010 21:59, Steve Bennett wrote:

So the question arises: does the community support this view?
Unlike the Life of Brian, here everyone does seem to be an individual - 
I suspect that you'll get as many answers as there are mappers.


Speaking entirely personally, I do mostly only map places that I've been 
and don't tend to trace e.g. a road or track unless I've seen one end of 
it.  When I started adding stuff to OSM the map was entirely blank where 
I lived and I wasn't aware that anyone traced stuff at all.  I 
eventually encountered a road that seemed a bit wrong - it was 
consistently a few metres SW of my GPS traces.  Initially I assumed that 
I must be hitting some sort of "urban canyon" effect and tried again, 
but got the same results.  Eventually I figured that it had been traced 
from an old NPE (out of copyright) map.  There was actually nothing 
wrong with the tracing; the error was on the old map.


So was the original mapper wrong to have traced that road from NPE?  
Personally I'd say no; a road in not quite the right place (on an 
otherwise empty map) is better than no road at all.  Problems can 
obviously happen if what's being traced from isn't as good as it could 
be (the issue that Kenneth raised earlier on in the thread), and in the 
UK that may be an issue with some of the Bing imagery as it looks (a) 
quite detailed but (b) quite old.


Where there are a reasonable number of local mappers, tracing can be 
less beneficial because it can get people to think that an area is 
"complete" when it's not been ground surveyed.  When creating Garmin 
maps locally for my own use I try and incorporate certain "source="s 
(e.g. "NPE", "Yahoo") and users (if a known non-on-the-ground mapper) in 
the name.  I live not far from Staffordshire in the UK and parts of that 
are somewhat iffy - they look complete, but what's on the map doesn't 
match reality.  However, there are also places where a GPS simply won't 
get a good fix because of the terrain and short of a theodolite or 
something capable of dead reckoning, tracing is the only way to get an 
accurate road / path layout to lay POIs on.


If you're in a country with relatively few mappers, then tracing makes 
some sense, it gets coverage now where there otherwise would be none, 
but it doesn't take away the requirement for someone (eventually) to 
visit and add detail that you can only get by actually being there.  I 
don't think that there can ever be a planet-wide consensus about tracing 
where you haven't visited; but individual communities should be able to 
come to some sort of agreement for smaller areas.


Cheers,
Andy


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Joseph Reeves]

> By the way, I don't think the intention is to suggest that it is not ok to
> trace an area and then visit it to correct errors and add detail. It is when
> you are not going to do that, it is frowned upon. I can understand why. I
> have cancelled a trip to survey some lonely country lanes after someone else
> remotely traced them. Had I gone, the map would have gained POIs instead of
> just a line. But it scarcely seemed worth the trip for what might have been
> a couple of postboxes and pub, without having the satisfaction of mapping
> the roads, too, especially when there is so much else left to map. But maybe
> I'm being silly.

Sorry, but I find this to be a really negative attitude; there's loads
of people that want to draw a line on the map for the first time, but
less who want to tidy existing streets, or "just" add POIs. What would
be wrong, for example, with collecting the first GPS trace of a road?
Arguably this is much more important than the first tracing of the
same road from Bing.

An example from my recent past: We display OSM imagery on our website
to show people where our offices are. We have one office that was in a
town poorly covered by OSM. When the OS Open imagery became available
I traced chunks of the town into OSM to improve the map and our
website. It may not have been perfect, but it was better than nothing.
I then received a miserable email asking me to stop because a local
mapper "was planning" to get on his bike and map the town, but now
wasn't going to because he'd "only be fixing my mistakes". Whilst I'm
sorry I took away the thrill this user feels in being the first to
draw on a map, I don't really care what he "was planning" to do; I
wanted the map updating as soon as possible and there existed a way of
doing it from home. Likewise, his pompous attitude about fixing my
mistakes didn't endear me to him; what's wrong with fixing mistakes if
they've been entered by someone doing the best they could? What's
wrong with getting some GPS traces to enhance / support what's already
there? What's wrong with sourcing data from multiple locations?

Tracing imagery may not be perfect, but it should be a start, not a
reason to avoid going out.

Cheers, Joseph




On 8 December 2010 22:46, davespod  wrote:
>
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:33 AM, davespod 
>> wrote:
>> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners_Guide_1.1
>> >
>> > See item 3.*
>>
>> Very interesting. That line was added by "Ben" in January 2009, and
>> that sentence hasn't been touched since.
>
> Bah! You're right! I'm sure I read this in one of the very first wiki pages
> I read, but obviously not this one. I have certainly been aware of the
> principle since the outset, and I got all my early information from the wiki
> (I did not read the mailing lists for several months, and good thing too - I
> would probably have been scared off!).
>
> By the way, I don't think the intention is to suggest that it is not ok to
> trace an area and then visit it to correct errors and add detail. It is when
> you are not going to do that, it is frowned upon. I can understand why. I
> have cancelled a trip to survey some lonely country lanes after someone else
> remotely traced them. Had I gone, the map would have gained POIs instead of
> just a line. But it scarcely seemed worth the trip for what might have been
> a couple of postboxes and pub, without having the satisfaction of mapping
> the roads, too, especially when there is so much else left to map. But maybe
> I'm being silly.
>
> Good luck with trying to reach a consensus. It's a while since I saw one of
> those on these lists :)
>
> Cheers
>
> David
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Bing-maps-is-misplaced-tp5811671p5817117.html
> Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> 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] Bing maps is misplaced

[davespod]

Richard Mann wrote:

> I wouldn't recommend remote tracing, but if you do it with due care,
> or maybe to supplement stuff you have surveyed (or maybe even just
> seen out of the window when passing),

I completely agree that supplementing stuff you have surveyed or even
tracing something you have passed is absolutely fine, and I have done both.
I have traced woods where I recall walking as a child but where could not
possibly say I know where the exact boundaries are from a ground survey. I
think common sense needs to apply. 

> then it probably doesn't
> irritate genuine local mappers much more than whizzing about with a
> GPS on a bike and thinking you know everything.

I will try not to take that personally. Particularly, as the area I was
referring to was a local one by my rural standards. I also agree that
dedicated local mappers who travel along a road or footpath regularly would
be the most desirable in terms of map quality, but the odds of getting one
of those in every hamlet in Shropshire are pretty small. There has to be a
balance.

David

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Bing-maps-is-misplaced-tp5811671p5817301.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] Bing maps is misplaced

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Ulf Lamping wrote:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners_Guide_1.1
See item 3.*



So the question arises: does the community support this view?



No.


I've changed the wording, trying to still say that tracing is *better* 
if you have local knowledge, but local knowledge is not *required*.


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] Bing maps is misplaced

[Richard Mann]

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:46 PM, davespod  wrote:
> I have cancelled a trip to survey some lonely country lanes after someone else
> remotely traced them.

A flying trip is only partway up the scale of desirability. What you
want is someone who really knows the area. They're most likely to get
involved if they spot an error and realise that they can fix it. You
don't want to litter the map with errors, but a few honest mistakes
are probably even helpful.

I wouldn't recommend remote tracing, but if you do it with due care,
or maybe to supplement stuff you have surveyed (or maybe even just
seen out of the window when passing), then it probably doesn't
irritate genuine local mappers much more than whizzing about with a
GPS on a bike and thinking you know everything.

Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[davespod]

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:33 AM, davespod 
> wrote:
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners_Guide_1.1
> >
> > See item 3.*
> 
> Very interesting. That line was added by "Ben" in January 2009, and
> that sentence hasn't been touched since.

Bah! You're right! I'm sure I read this in one of the very first wiki pages
I read, but obviously not this one. I have certainly been aware of the
principle since the outset, and I got all my early information from the wiki
(I did not read the mailing lists for several months, and good thing too - I
would probably have been scared off!).

By the way, I don't think the intention is to suggest that it is not ok to
trace an area and then visit it to correct errors and add detail. It is when
you are not going to do that, it is frowned upon. I can understand why. I
have cancelled a trip to survey some lonely country lanes after someone else
remotely traced them. Had I gone, the map would have gained POIs instead of
just a line. But it scarcely seemed worth the trip for what might have been
a couple of postboxes and pub, without having the satisfaction of mapping
the roads, too, especially when there is so much else left to map. But maybe
I'm being silly.

Good luck with trying to reach a consensus. It's a while since I saw one of
those on these lists :)

Cheers

David
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Bing-maps-is-misplaced-tp5811671p5817117.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] Bing maps is misplaced

[Ulf Lamping]

Am 08.12.2010 22:59, schrieb Steve Bennett:

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:33 AM, davespod  wrote:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners_Guide_1.1

See item 3.*


Very interesting. That line was added by "Ben" in January 2009, and
that sentence hasn't been touched since.

So the question arises: does the community support this view?


No.

Regards, ULFL

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

Re: [OSM-talk] How Can OSMF convince me to accept the New CT and ODBL

[Frederik Ramm]

Gert,


Article 3 is to me the problem:


The legal-talk list would be a good place to discuss the wording of the 
Contributor Terms.


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Mike Dupont]

I have seen a similar error in google sat for the area of brod, in
kosovo. Bing is not even worth looking at for kosovo

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Jaak Laineste  wrote:
>  It is good news that Bing aerials are available. The bad news is that
> Bing has made exactly the same mistake as Google, who has managed to
> misplace aerials in some areas in the beginning of September 2009.
> They are shifted about 20-25 meters, which makes them quite unusable
> for tracing.anything more than big roads.
>
> Maybe they use same flawed source for aerials?
>
> Affected area is Estonia, for example, and also some surrounding
> regions. It is easily seen even in Google and Bing own map services -
> when you switch to hybrid view. I put my quick analysis with examples
> to 
> http://www.maakaart.ee/index.php/summary-in-english/google-and-bing-maps-errors
>
>
> --
> Jaak Laineste
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania
flossk.org flossal.org

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Steve Bennett]

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:33 AM, davespod  wrote:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners_Guide_1.1
>
> See item 3.*

Very interesting. That line was added by "Ben" in January 2009, and
that sentence hasn't been touched since.

So the question arises: does the community support this view? And if
it does, then we should add it to some policy pages, which we would
expect everyone to follow.

(Personally, I would be arguing against it. "Don't do X because the
result would be less accurate than if you did Y" is an unhelpful kind
of perfectionism. The line makes the point that accuracy is important.
Well, coverage is also important. And you could argue that it's much
more efficient to map from aerial imagery first, then correct errors
with a local visit.)

> This was almost the first wiki page I read when I joined OSM in 2008. It was
> there then, and it's there now. I haven't always followed it, for instance
> in Haiti, but I have always assumed that if it is in the Beginners Guide it
> is as close to "policy" as OSM will ever get.*

I'm not sure I've ever even seen that page before. And no, there's a
big difference between advice for beginners, and actual policy.

> * I'm not saying it is "policy", as I still don't know what that means in
> OSM!

I don't think the term is yet used. I'm borrowing from Wikipedia,
which went through this whole process of formalising community
expectations into policy more than 5 years ago.

Steve

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

[OSM-legal-talk] How Can OSMF convince me to accept the New CT and ODBL

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

 

Article 3 is  the problem to me:

 

The Wiki says:

 

3. OSMF agrees to use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database
and only under the terms of one of the following licenses: ODbL 1.0 for
the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database;
CC-BY-SA 2.0; or another free and open license. Which other free and
open license is chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by
at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors.

 

 

1.   OSMF has failed up to now  to adequately define 'Open and
Free' :  That is a problem !!

OSMF had better comply this term to a definition maintained by a third
party such as Creative Commons and refer to that definitions.

This way OSMF binds itself to the open community.

 

2.   Article 3 makes you transfer the ownership (not exclusive) of
your entered data to OSMF :  That is a Problem !!

OSMF is gathering this way the (non exclusive)ownership of OSM as a
whole. 

OSMF is not a community but a foundation/association (company by
guarantee in british legal terms)

 

The transfer of ownership is against it own principles

 

Wiki Citation:

It is important to understand that the OpenStreetMap Foundation is not
the same thing as the OpenStreetMap project. The Foundation does not own
the OpenStreetMap data, is not the copyright holder and has no desire to
own the data. Anyone can set up a few servers and host the OSM data
using the same or different software. In this respect the Foundation is
an organisation that performs fundraising in order to provides servers
to host the project. Its role is to support the project, not to control
it.

 

Try to match article 3 with this wiki citation...

 

This needs to be cleared up.

 

 

Gert Gremmen

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

[OSM-talk] How Can OSMF convince me to accept the New CT and ODBL

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

Article 3 is to me the problem:

 

The Wiki says:

 

3. OSMF agrees to use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database
and only under the terms of one of the following licenses: ODbL 1.0 for
the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database;
CC-BY-SA 2.0; or another free and open license. Which other free and
open license is chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by
at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors.

 

 

1.   OSMF has failed up to now  to adequately define 'Open and
Free' :  That is a problem !!

OSMF had better comply this term to a definition maintained by a third
party such as Creative Commons and refer to that definitions.

This way OSMF binds itself to the open community.

 

2.   Article 3 makes you transfer the ownership (not exclusive) of
your entered data to OSMF :  That is a Problem !!

OSMF is gathering this way the (non exclusive)ownership of OSM as a
whole. 

OSMF is not a community but a foundation/association (company by
guarantee in british legal terms)

 

The transfer of ownership is against it own principles

 

Wiki Citation:

It is important to understand that the OpenStreetMap Foundation is not
the same thing as the OpenStreetMap project. The Foundation does not own
the OpenStreetMap data, is not the copyright holder and has no desire to
own the data. Anyone can set up a few servers and host the OSM data
using the same or different software. In this respect the Foundation is
an organisation that performs fundraising in order to provides servers
to host the project. Its role is to support the project, not to control
it.

 

Try to match article 3 with this wiki citation...

 

This needs to be cleared up.

 

 

Gert Gremmen

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[davespod]

Steve Bennett wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves 
> wrote:
> > you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about.

> If there's consensus for this view, get it documented on the wiki, and
> call it policy.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners_Guide_1.1

See item 3.*

This was almost the first wiki page I read when I joined OSM in 2008. It was
there then, and it's there now. I haven't always followed it, for instance
in Haiti, but I have always assumed that if it is in the Beginners Guide it
is as close to "policy" as OSM will ever get.*

And I've just noticed, Bing is not mentioned, so I suppose I'll be a good
citizen and add it now.

David

* I'm not saying it is "policy", as I still don't know what that means in
OSM!
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Bing-maps-is-misplaced-tp5811671p5816870.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

[OSM-talk] Open Threatened Species Map

[Mike Dupont]

You can help!
Maps wanted for Wikipedia, Commons but data available for OSM.
see :
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:IUCN_red_list

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (also known as the IUCN Red
List or Red Data List), founded in 1948, is the world's most
comprehensive inventory of the global conservation status of plant and
animal species. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources (IUCN) is the world's main authority on the
conservation status of species.

Starting in June of 2010, the IUCN red list has authorized the
production of distribution maps from their spatial data. There are
currently ~25,000 species on the Red List with spatial data.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/spatial-data

The data is available both in ESRI File Geodatabase format and the
ESRI Shapefile format and is held in geographical coordinates. Please
note that the files are large, and download times could be quite
lengthy.

While this data is made freely available to the public, please note
that unfortunately we cannot provide technical support for use of the
data in analyses or general GIS support.

-- 
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania
flossk.org flossal.org

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Glittermap

[Gregory]

I always forget the name of this wiki page, I think it is badly named as
they are not services but a list of map styles/viewers. But it is the
appropriate page you seek.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM_based_Services#Art

Ivan
Sanchez created a glitter map, which I shall add to the list
http://ivan.sanchezortega.es/glittermap/

Of course there are the various Cloudmade styles which include 'Midnight
Commander', some pink styles, and possibly a candy style.

-- 
Gregory
o...@livingwithdragons.com
http://www.livingwithdragons.com
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Jacek Konieczny]

On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 10:01:45PM +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
> > You should not map from the Bing imagery area you know nothing more
> > about.
> 
> Why do people such make bold, absolutist statements like this with no
> policy to back them up? 

Absolutist? 'Should not' is not 'must not'. And have you read whole mail?
I have even described the case of how the imagery is useful even when
traced on an 'empty' part of OSM data.

If I write 'we should try to make OSM data as accurate as possible' is
that still some absolutist bold statement that limits your freedom?
Practice of not mapping unknown area is about accuracy. A lot of people
invest their time and money to get to the places they map, just to make
the data accurate. Without even visiting a place you don't know if the
gray rectangle is a building or something else.

Greets,
Jacek

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Maarten Deen]

Matt Williams wrote:

On 8 December 2010 13:18, Steve Bennett  wrote:

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves  wrote:

you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about.


If there's consensus for this view, get it documented on the wiki, and
call it policy.


I have been under the impression that this _has_ been the policy for
years. Certainly as long as I've been a member of the project people
have been saying things just like this.


I have never heard of this before and have never seen it documented anywhere or 
seen discussed before. The only mention of "do not trace from aerial maps" is 
when it is off Google's maps because we cannot legaly use them.
Never before have I seen a mention of "do not trace from aerial maps where you 
do not have local knowledge".


If you can point to previous discussions about this, that would be very helpful. 
Until that, I support Steve's view completely.


Regards,
Maarten

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Joseph Reeves]

OpenStreetMap is still a wiki though? So if I find a future travel
destination missing from OSM, but covered by Bing, where's the harm in
tracing it? In many parts of the world there is no such thing as
"local mappers" and even if I did trace a load of crap into the
database, anyone else can come along  and, providing they've got a
better data source than I, fix it.

We should all map place we know nothing about. Period. If nothing else
it may provide a vital spark in developing local interests and
efforts. It's a wiki, it doesn't need to be perfect first time.

Joseph




On 8 December 2010 11:49, Kenneth Gonsalves  wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 22:37 +1100, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:35:31 +0530
>> Kenneth Gonsalves  wrote:
>>
>> > you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more
>> about.
>> > Period.
>>
>> So how about Haiti? Colombia?
>
> exceptional circumstances sometimes need to break rules. But in normal
> course of events, it is not polite to irritate local mappers. Say in
> most of India, satellite imagery can be upto 3 years old - and in the
> past three years there has been a huge construction boom
> --
> regards
> Kenneth Gonsalves
>
>
> ___
> 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] Bing maps is misplaced

[Steve Bennett]

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> I mean, am I the only one that thinks inventing commandments and
> yelling them at each other is pointless?

I should apologise here for picking on two innocent individuals. I was
trying to offer a criticism of the culture of the mailing lists and
the project as a whole, and a suggestion to look at moving to a more
scalable model, where policies get agreed, then written down.

(So, sorry.)

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Matt Williams]

On 8 December 2010 13:18, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves  wrote:
>> you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about.
>
> If there's consensus for this view, get it documented on the wiki, and
> call it policy.

I have been under the impression that this _has_ been the policy for
years. Certainly as long as I've been a member of the project people
have been saying things just like this.

-- 
Matt Williams
http://milliams.com

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

[Richard Fairhurst]

Simon Poole wrote:
> That however does require the importer/mapper to raise the 
> issue to a level where that support exists. As the LWG has 
> pointed out, that hasn't worked in the past, and there is IMHO 
> no reason to believe that it will magically start working in the 
> future.

Oh, sure, nothing "magically starts working". It requires willingness and
commitment to make it work, just like everything else in OSM. I'm willing to
put effort into licence compatibility (and have made suggestions to LWG,
which they've taken up, to ensure CT compatibility with attribution-required
licences). Are you?

Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5815086.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Steve Bennett]

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Grant Slater
 wrote:
> Partially a rhetorical question... What would the project do if
> someone uploaded data to OSM and then said they had not agreed to
> contributing the data under CC-BY-SA?

In case you're misinterpreting my request: I want future edits to be
subject to the same terms that I was editing under before ticking the
CT flag. I'm not disputing that edits over the last few months are
subject to the new CTs, though I'd be a lot happier if we acknowledged
that I made a mistake, and pretended it never happened.

(To answer your question: it would depend a lot on the circumstances.
In some cases, you just remove their data and carry on. In others, you
leave their data in, and carry on. I don't think the attitude of "well
you licensed it open, so it's ours now forever more!" -- which I have
occasionally elsewhere -- is helpful or respectful. I would also
reiterate that constantly reminding users of what licence they are
contributing under reduces the chance of this happening, and weakens
their claim if it does.)

> Out of interest here is the history of project's contributing terms...
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/History
>
> PS: Your email to LWG was received, but we have not yet had a chance
> to discuss and respond. We meet again next Tuesday.

Thanks, I wasn't expecting an instant response. It's a weird situation.

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Steve Bennett]

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves  wrote:
> you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about.

If there's consensus for this view, get it documented on the wiki, and
call it policy.

Otherwise, it's just yet another round of pointless "You must do
this." on the mailing lists.

I mean, am I the only one that thinks inventing commandments and
yelling them at each other is pointless?

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Grant Slater]

On 8 December 2010 10:58, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
>> This is simply because we are at the voluntary phase of agreeing with
>> the CT right now. If you wholeheartedly agree with the CT, then you
>> can indicate your preference right now.
>>
>> When we are at the mandatory phase, then and only then will the
>> agreement have a decline button.
>
> With respect, the logic here seems a bit twisted. And, speaking as the
> first victim of accidental accession, it doesn't feel very "voluntary"
> if I can't unset my CT flag. It feels more like a trap which I
> inadvertently stumbled into.
>

Steve,

Partially a rhetorical question... What would the project do if
someone uploaded data to OSM and then said they had not agreed to
contributing the data under CC-BY-SA?

Out of interest here is the history of project's contributing terms...
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/History

PS: Your email to LWG was received, but we have not yet had a chance
to discuss and respond. We meet again next Tuesday.

Regards
 Grant

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 22:37 +1100, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:35:31 +0530
> Kenneth Gonsalves  wrote:
> 
> > you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more
> about.
> > Period.
> 
> So how about Haiti? Colombia? 

exceptional circumstances sometimes need to break rules. But in normal
course of events, it is not polite to irritate local mappers. Say in
most of India, satellite imagery can be upto 3 years old - and in the
past three years there has been a huge construction boom
-- 
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:35:31 +0530
Kenneth Gonsalves  wrote:

> you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about.
> Period.

So how about Haiti? Colombia?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 12:10 +0100, Raphaël Pinson wrote:
> > you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more
> about.
> > Period.
> >
> 
> 
> So, just to make that clear: when aerial imagery of, say, Pakistan, is
> made
> available to help mapping, I should not trace anything unless I've
> actually
> visited the region to be mapped? 

yes - I am from India and have enough trouble with enthusiastic people
mapping aquaducts as highways (for example)
-- 
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Matthias Julius]

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 21:45:14 +1100, Andrew Harvey

wrote:
> 
> I've decided to just ignore the CTs for now, and continue to operate
> under CC BY-SA. Others are doing this to, and you could too, assuming
> you haven't agreed to the CTs and you don't actually plan to sit
> around after the complete license transition. I'm yet to hear from
> anyone in my local community who is vocal against this practice so I'm
> not inclined to stop.

Exactly.  If you are not forced to upload under the new CTs (e.g. your
account was created before they were mandatory for new users and you have
not voluntary agreed to them) there is no harm in continuing to upload your
data (unless you have a problem with CC-BY-SA, of course).  As has been
stated numerous times there will be a last CC-BY-SA planet file with all
data before the data is relicensed.  Your data won't be lost if you don't
agree to the new CTs.

Matthias

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Dermot McNally]

On 8 December 2010 11:05, Kenneth Gonsalves  wrote:

> you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about.
> Period.

People should be nicer to their parents. Period

Dermot

-- 
--
Igaühel on siin oma laul
ja ma oma ei leiagi üles

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Raphaël Pinson]

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:

> On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 22:01 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
> > > You should not map from the Bing imagery area you know nothing more
> > > about.
> >
> > Why do people such make bold, absolutist statements like this with no
> > policy to back them up? There is no policy that says anything of the
> > sort. The above sentence is one author's opinion. It would be a very
> > good thing for the OSM project if we moved on from the primitive state
> > of simply contradicting each other all the time, and worked together
> > to build policies that had consensus support.
>
> you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about.
> Period.
>


So, just to make that clear: when aerial imagery of, say, Pakistan, is made
available to help mapping, I should not trace anything unless I've actually
visited the region to be mapped?


Regards,

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 22:01 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
> > You should not map from the Bing imagery area you know nothing more
> > about.
> 
> Why do people such make bold, absolutist statements like this with no
> policy to back them up? There is no policy that says anything of the
> sort. The above sentence is one author's opinion. It would be a very
> good thing for the OSM project if we moved on from the primitive state
> of simply contradicting each other all the time, and worked together
> to build policies that had consensus support. 

you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about.
Period.
-- 
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Steve Bennett]

> You should not map from the Bing imagery area you know nothing more
> about.

Why do people such make bold, absolutist statements like this with no
policy to back them up? There is no policy that says anything of the
sort. The above sentence is one author's opinion. It would be a very
good thing for the OSM project if we moved on from the primitive state
of simply contradicting each other all the time, and worked together
to build policies that had consensus support.

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Steve Bennett]

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
> This is simply because we are at the voluntary phase of agreeing with
> the CT right now. If you wholeheartedly agree with the CT, then you
> can indicate your preference right now.
>
> When we are at the mandatory phase, then and only then will the
> agreement have a decline button.

With respect, the logic here seems a bit twisted. And, speaking as the
first victim of accidental accession, it doesn't feel very "voluntary"
if I can't unset my CT flag. It feels more like a trap which I
inadvertently stumbled into.

And I must point out for the millionth time: the view that the CTs
only represent some possible change in the future is simply wrong.
There are terms in there that are very different from the previous
terms, and affect how data is licensed *right now*.

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Andrew Harvey]

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:14 AM, David Murn  wrote:
> Failing that, maybe its time that more people started doing what Im
> doing.  Im quite an active mapper, as its something I enjoy doing with
> my time.  What Ive been doing for the past couple of months, is only
> making minor edits live, but for larger edits Im still doing my mapping
> but storing my edits in a collection of .osm files.
> Once all the licence issues are resolved and we know whether projects
> will be forked or our data removed, then Ill start dumping all my edits
> back in.  Ive also tried working on parts of New Zealand, but have come
> up against a brick wall as there is an import partially in progress
> (almost all roads, and lots of other POI bits).. but will not be
> completed until the licence is resolved, so basically an entire
> countries mapping is on-hold.  Once the issues are resolved, I have no
> doubt there are lots of mappers in my position who have lots of new data
> to upload.

I don't think that's such a great idea, because someone else may end
up making that change for you (then there was wasted effort on your
part), or more likely you will face conflicts when uploading because
the data has changed so much since then.

I've decided to just ignore the CTs for now, and continue to operate
under CC BY-SA. Others are doing this to, and you could too, assuming
you haven't agreed to the CTs and you don't actually plan to sit
around after the complete license transition. I'm yet to hear from
anyone in my local community who is vocal against this practice so I'm
not inclined to stop.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[Jacek Konieczny]

On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 11:32:39AM +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:51 AM, Jo  wrote:
> > Jaak, do you know that you can change the offset in most editors? Potlatch2
> > and JOSM. I suppose in Merkaartor too, but I don't know for sure.
> 
> But how do you know which direction to offset and by how much? Is the
> Bing imagery really offset so uniformly, over large areas?

You should not map from the Bing imagery area you know nothing more
about. Usually there is already something mapped in the interesting
area, there should be some GPS traces over important roads. That should
be enough to align the imagery. 

And even when the imagery is only what you have and there is no other
data in that are, the shift won't matter much. Someone with GPS or
even better equipment will come there and move everything to the right
place. This way the incomplete data will be completed. And that is why
'source' tags and right changeset comments are important – they give
some information about what accuracy we may expect.

The real problem appears when someone traces the misaligned imagery over 
existing correct OSM data.

As far as the uniformity of the offset is concerned, it seems it is not
very uniform even on small areas. I try to align it to the closes known
data.

Please remember, that the imagery is only some aid, not exact geodetic
data.

Greets,
Jacek

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Elizabeth Dodd  wrote:
>
> The usual sort of click-through 'agreement' has two buttons, one for
> positive, and one for negative. Whether a click-through agreement with
> two buttons for positive and none for negative can be enforced anywhere
> is not known.

This is simply because we are at the voluntary phase of agreeing with
the CT right now. If you wholeheartedly agree with the CT, then you
can indicate your preference right now.

When we are at the mandatory phase, then and only then will the
agreement have a decline button.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced

[4x4falcon]

On 08/12/10 08:32, Steve Bennett wrote:

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:51 AM, Jo  wrote:

Jaak, do you know that you can change the offset in most editors? Potlatch2
and JOSM. I suppose in Merkaartor too, but I don't know for sure.


But how do you know which direction to offset and by how much? Is the
Bing imagery really offset so uniformly, over large areas?

Btw:

They are shifted about 20-25 meters, which makes them quite unusable

for tracing.anything more than big roads.



But if you have some gps traces in the area and/or some surveyed roads 
then it's possible to line up the imagery with the known surveyed items.


Area I'm working in at the moment generally appears to be 5-10 metres 
out.  From numerous gps traces and known positions.



Same as was done with Yahoo and some of the early nearmap imagery.

Cheers
Ross

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 00:34:59 +
Simon Ward  wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:55:26AM -0500, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> > Assuming this question was asked in good faith, then I can tell you
> > for sure that agreement to a license via a click is indeed valid.
> 
> Firstly, it’s not clear that click through agreements are valid in the
> UK.  They might be in the US, but US != everywhere.
> 
> Secondly, I think the question was more “what evidence do you have to
> say I agreed to this” than “I’ve clicked this, but I don’t think it’s
> valid”.
> 
> Simon

The usual sort of click-through 'agreement' has two buttons, one for
positive, and one for negative. Whether a click-through agreement with
two buttons for positive and none for negative can be enforced anywhere
is not known.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:58:07 +1000
John Smith  wrote:

> On 8 December 2010 12:44, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > John Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> Frederik seems to consistently misrepresent the license in this
> >> sort of dishonest fashion,
> >
> > Well at least I'm not misrepresenting my identity. I also think
> > that all
> 
> So in other words it's ok to lie to everyone about the license and the
> implication, but it's the worst kind of sin to have a pen name, it's a
> really good thing that you have your priorities the right way round...
> 
> ___
>

Not really off topic now
Did Mrs Coast's parents actually name her Hurricane or is it a pen-name
too? It's not possible to be sure with names in English these days.

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