Re: [OSM-talk] What phone survey results

[John Smith]

On 7 January 2011 15:01, David Murn  wrote:
> >From 2nd paragraph (about Android): "That gave the software 43.6 percent
> of the US smartphone market"

I'm guessing such a high figure because all 4 major carriers in the US
are flogging Android devices where as the iPhone is limited to AT&T*.
AT&T seems to be the most complained about of the 4, both customer
service and billing being the top complaints.

* Although there is lots and lots of speculation about Verizon selling
iPhones in the near future.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phone survey results

[David Murn]

On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 14:53 +1000, John Smith wrote:
> On 7 January 2011 09:30, David Murn  wrote:
> > I think also one bit missing is the location of the survey answerer.  I
> > read a stat that nearly 50% of phones in Australia now, are android.  I
> 
> Not sure if that is accurate or not, there is a lot of BBs and iPhones
> that have a large share of their own, but that would most likely be
> smart phone sales, however the smart phone sales only makes up a small
> percentage of total sales usually, somewhere between 10 and 20%

Sorry, my mistake, the figure I quoted was actually for the US market.

http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_16493024

>From 2nd paragraph (about Android): "That gave the software 43.6 percent
of the US smartphone market"

However, it continues on to say that Android is only on 25.1% of the
global smartphone market.

David


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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phone survey results

[John Smith]

On 7 January 2011 09:30, David Murn  wrote:
> I think also one bit missing is the location of the survey answerer.  I
> read a stat that nearly 50% of phones in Australia now, are android.  I

Not sure if that is accurate or not, there is a lot of BBs and iPhones
that have a large share of their own, but that would most likely be
smart phone sales, however the smart phone sales only makes up a small
percentage of total sales usually, somewhere between 10 and 20%

> I guess we can pick this survey apart til the cows come home though.

And without knowing what it's for it's mostly useless guessing.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phone survey results

[David Murn]

On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 22:05 +0100, Michael Kugelmann wrote:
> On 05.01.2011 23:45, SteveC wrote:
> > Results from my crude little survey;
> 
> For my point of view this is somehow the same as the distribution of 
> phones sold. Except: the very low number of BB-Devices.

I think also one bit missing is the location of the survey answerer.  I
read a stat that nearly 50% of phones in Australia now, are android.  I
imagine even different results from the US and europe, with developed
nations having a higher representation of more advanced technology,
while other less developed countries, will still be using old-style
phones.

I guess we can pick this survey apart til the cows come home though.

David


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of construction sites by Mapnik

[Milo van der Linden]

IAAC[1]

common use in cartography is to hatch objects that do not have a clear or
definite status.

[1] I Am A Cartographer

2011/1/6 Floris Looijesteijn 

> And allotments...
>
> Greets,
> Floris
>
> Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > The same thing goes for landuse=brownfield (and also greenfield, I
> think).
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I think the rendering of construction sites (landuse=construction /
> >> brownfield) could be a little more subdued in color. As it is they
> >> stand out too much, I believe.
> >> See here for example: http://osm.org/go/0E5qt253--
> >> A lighter tone of brown maybe? IANAC[1]
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >> [1] I Am Not A Cartographer
> >>
> >> Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org
> >> laziness – impatience – hubris
> >> http://schaaltreinen.nl | http://martijnvanexel.nl |
> http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
> >> twitter / skype: mvexel
> >> flickr: rhodes
> >>
> >> ___
> >> talk mailing list
> >> talk@openstreetmap.org
> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://vaes9.codedgraphic.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
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] We are Here -->

[Attila Asztalos]

http://www.meniulzilei.info/targu-mures/restaurante/detalii-firma/excalibur

I'm not sure how up-to-date (as in still maintained or not) this site 
is, but it does seem to have a map location (with marker) for each 
listed restaurant (scroll down the page), and it's even attributed 
properly. Sorry for the lack of an english version, I hope you get the 
idea anyway...


Cheers,
   - Max


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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phone survey results

[Michael Kugelmann]

On 05.01.2011 23:45, SteveC wrote:

Results from my crude little survey;


For my point of view this is somehow the same as the distribution of 
phones sold. Except: the very low number of BB-Devices.



Best regards,
Michael.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] We are Here -->

[Colin Marquardt]

2011/1/6 Dave F. :
> Does anyone have any good examples of static/slippy OSM maps that are used
> by companies on their websites?

Not exactly what you asked for, but http://www.castamap.de/ is a
free/paid service for making this easy (I hope it switches to English
if your browser is not configured for German, and that they provide
the service outside of Europe).

Cheers
  Colin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phones do OSMers have?

[Philip Stubbs]

2011/1/6 Raphaël Pinson :
>
> And on top of that, the survey is hosted on a Google Document survey...
>

I noticed that too, and smiled. :-)

-- 
Philip Stubbs

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

Re: [OSM-talk] We are Here -->

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

My company does !

http://www.cetest.nl/map.htm

Gert Gremmen

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] Namens Dave F.
Verzonden: donderdag 6 januari 2011 17:44
Aan: OSM Talk
Onderwerp: [OSM-talk] We are Here -->

Hi

Does anyone have any good examples of static/slippy OSM maps that are
used by companies on their websites?

I've recently met a couple of bosses of small businesses who were
redesigning their websites & I tried to promote OSM over a more famous
alternative.

I pointed them in the direction of the wiki examples, but I think a
couple of real world setups would help convince them. Ones with marker
overlays or 'we are here' arrows would be even better.


Cheers
Dave F.

___
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] We are Here -->

[Matthias Meißer]

Some German examples
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:OSM_Internet_Links

includes Nike, the white house, BBC, and some other famous companies.

regards
Matthias

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)

[John Smith]

Which clause 3 contradicts

On 1/7/11, Mike Collinson  wrote:
> At 03:32 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote:
>>On 7 January 2011 00:45, Mike Collinson  wrote:
>>> Clause 4 of the new CTs may cover us completely, [it was designed for
>>> governmental organisations] and I have updated
>>
>>IMHO, section 4 is useless unless there is some kind of clause stating
>>what will happen if the license changes in future.
>
> Clause 4 is part of the Contributor Terms. That is the point. It survives
> any license changes in the future.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

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

Re: [OSM-talk] We are Here -->

[Dodi]

> Hi
> 
> Does anyone have any good examples of static/slippy OSM maps that are
> used by companies on their websites?
> 
> I've recently met a couple of bosses of small businesses who were
> redesigning their websites & I tried to promote OSM over a more famous
> alternative.
> 
> I pointed them in the direction of the wiki examples, but I think a
> couple of real world setups would help convince them. Ones with marker
> overlays or 'we are here' arrows would be even better.

Some Slovak examples: 
http://www.iz.sk/sk/kontakt
http://amaryspa.com/?sekcia=5-kontakt
http://www.ozrenova.eu/pristup-hrad-dobra-voda


Many other are listed here 
http://wiki.freemap.sk/EmbeddedFreemapRef


All of them are using this small wizard
http://embedded.freemap.sk/wizard.php 
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=sk&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&e
otf=1&sl=sk&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fembedded.freemap.sk%2Fwizard.php

with our osm basd embedded map
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=sk&sl=sk&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.
freemap.sk%2FEmbeddedFreemap

Dodi



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

[Richard Fairhurst]

Mike Collinson wrote:
> given that at least one contributor has been pointlessly editing my 
> personal contributions apparently so that they are no longer "ODbL-ready", 
> sickly sadly all too possible.

That's vandalism, of course. Could you share their user ID?

cheers
Richard

(Rather coincidentally, this was published today:
http://mimiandeunice.com/2011/01/06/ownership/ )


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5896284.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-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

[Mike Collinson]

At 10:11 PM 5/01/2011, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>Mike,
>
>>I have provisionally added Francis' suggested wording but would like
>>to run it by other License Working Group members. It may help NearMap
>>and similar situations.
>
>The major change in all this, compared to the earlier versions, is the concept 
>that you may now contribute data that is not re-licensable, right? I.e. while 
>we require that you agree to the CT, you can still add data that is, say, 
>"some form of share-alike only" which would then have to be removed later. Is 
>that correct?

I'd slightly reword it to: The concept is that you may now contribute data that 
may not necessarily be re-licensable under a future license.

The main motive behind it is that it simply recognises reality ... that is what 
folks who see data imports/derivations as important are doing already. 
*Personally*, I have come around to the opinion that any data import that is 
not effectively PD or has just a first-level attribution is somewhat evil in 
that it restricts future OSM generations, we've no idea what the year 2061 OSM 
license debate will be about.  But counter to that another contributor to this 
thread, Andrzej?, has pointed out, it is hypocritical to attach strings to our 
own license and not expect others to do the same.

Now, the questions, starting with Question 2.

Yes, it is feasible, and given that at least one contributor has been 
pointlessly editing my personal contributions apparently so that they are no 
longer "ODbL-ready", sickly sadly all too possible.  Leaving out the proposed 
insertion "and to the extent that you are able to do so" from clause 2 would 
kill it off.  

And ...

>Question 1:
>
>How would we, later, during some form of relicensing, know which is which? Is 
>there some way, or even requirement, for the contributing user to tell us 
>which license any derived material that he's contributing comes under?

The bull-shit answer is that we'll develop the technology as we go along.  The 
honest answer is, real difficult. The bureaucrat in me thinks we are lax on 
knowing what derived material is in our database.  Even when it is on 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue it has been a tiring 
struggle to get the basics on what license terms apply where.  It would be 
great to have an "approved list" and then community discussion on any new 
source ... but a) it is a boring subject for most, and b) it kills the 
spontaneous and individuallistic nature of our project. Ideas welcome.

and then to the suggestion:


>Question 2:
>
>Say we have a die-hard "my contributions are mine alone" person who wants to 
>be asked for his ok in any future license change, thereby circumventing the 
>usual "if 2/3 of active mappers agree then your data remains in the new 
>database" rule.
>
>Could someone, of that disposition, let's call him A, not simply do the 
>following: Make a contract with person B that says "Dear B, you may use my 
>data but only under ODBL 1.0 and nothing else"; then instruct B to upload the 
>stuff to OSM. Now the data is in OSM, but in the event of any later license 
>change, B (and therefore A) would have to be consulted.
>
>Crucially, this restriction would also apply should A ever lose interest, or 
>die, or be otherwise unreachable. This would effectively kill the whole reason 
>why we have the license change rule in the first place.
>
>Suggestion:
>
>If my above thoughts are correct, and if this cannot be remedied - i.e. if we 
>have to accept that there will always be "fully CT compatible" data and other, 
>"not relicensable without agreement from rights holder" data - then may I 
>suggest that we devise a way to flag such data in the database, and to somehow 
>make the restricted-use data "inert" so that we don't (again, over the years) 
>create a situation where many contributors erect their work on a foundation 
>that may be taken away from them at any time?
>
>I.e., when you upload something then you should explicitly say: "What I'm 
>uploading here is to the best of my knowledge free of rights of others", or 
>you would say "What I'm uploading here is compatible with OSM now but subject 
>to third-party IP rights". In the latter case, others could either not edit 
>your data at all (except of course deleting it), or they would at least see 
>some kind of indication in their editor that basically tells them this data is 
>not as free as we'd like it to be, and if they possess enough raw material to 
>replace the data with something fully CT compatible, they should do so.

I am very eager to stop navel-gazing and get a coherent license and license 
change process in page so that we can start doing innovative things like this 
which will be of interest to the Open IP world generally. Given the highly 
granular we work with and contribute data, it will not be easy? Going slightly 
at a tangent, I would start with GPS traces as test case. It would be great to 
have the opportunity to choose individual

Re: [OSM-talk] We are Here -->

[Maurizio Napolitano]

mmm ... look here :)
It's not the same concept but ...  i think you can be happy :)

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

[OSM-talk] We are Here -->

[Dave F.]

Hi

Does anyone have any good examples of static/slippy OSM maps that are 
used by companies on their websites?


I've recently met a couple of bosses of small businesses who were 
redesigning their websites & I tried to promote OSM over a more famous 
alternative.


I pointed them in the direction of the wiki examples, but I think a 
couple of real world setups would help convince them. Ones with marker 
overlays or 'we are here' arrows would be even better.



Cheers
Dave F.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)

[Peter Miller]

On 6 January 2011 14:45, Mike Collinson  wrote:

>  Thanks Tom, this is excellent news and what the License Working Group was
> hoping would happen.
>
> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/open-government-licence.htm
>  http://www.jordanhatcher.com/2010/uk-open-government-licence-now-out/
>
> The new attribution clause (and the main requirement) is far more practical
> in application than the previous one:
>
> "acknowledge the source of the Information by including any attribution
> statement specified by the Information Provider(s) and, where possible,
> provide a link to this licence; "
>
> There is no longer any requirement to potentially force downstream users of
> OSM geodata to do the same.
>
> Clause 4 of the new CTs may cover us completely, [it was designed for
> governmental organisations] and I have updated
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution. However,  the LWG has also
> been working for planet dumps and [X]API responses to include an XML element
> pointing to the same Attribution link to better discharge our distribution
> responsibilities.
>
> Any other comments and reviews welcome.  Peter, do you feel good to go?
>

Which Peter? This Peter ;) If you mean me then yes, I am very happy with it
because the LWG says it is happy. It is certainly good news I can will now
sign up to the new T&Cs. In addition ITO will encourage more people within
the UK to make more use of the OS open data now. Out current OS Locator
comparison service shows that we now have 33 out of a total of some 410
districts within GB where the match between OSM and OS Locator is over 95%,
and in addition we have 129 where the match is at over 80%. In total OSM has
added some 140,000 road names which match with OS Locator since 1 April 2010
and at this rate all of them will be in some time this year - possibly
faster with this recent clarification! Check out the product here:
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/

Thanks to everyone who has been pressing for this all these years!



Regards,



Peter


> Mike
>
> At 10:29 AM 6/01/2011, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
> On 04/01/11 15:49, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> > As it happens OS is planning to move to the Open Government Licence, and
> > this has an explicit compatibility clause with any ODC attribution
> licence.
> > (It also has sane guidance on attribution, e.g. "If it is not practical
> to
> > cite all sources and attributions in your product prominently, it is good
> > practice to maintain a record or list of sources and attributions in
> another
> > file. This should be easily accessible or retrievable.")
>
> This switch has just been announced:
>
> http://blog.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/2011/01/changes-to-the-os-opendata-licence/
>
> Tom
>
> --
> Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
> http://compton.nu/
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
>  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)

[John Smith]

On 7 January 2011 00:45, Mike Collinson  wrote:
> Clause 4 of the new CTs may cover us completely, [it was designed for
> governmental organisations] and I have updated

IMHO, section 4 is useless unless there is some kind of clause stating
what will happen if the license changes in future.

And the CYA statement in section 1 is far too vague to be of any use either.

You either need to do things like OS and Nearmap via a seperate
agreement/policy which covers future relicensing, or the CTs need to
be altered to state that attribution will be a license requirement for
any future license changes, or the CTs need to state any incompatible
data will be removed, rather than 'may' be removed.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of construction sites by Mapnik

[Floris Looijesteijn]

And allotments...

Greets,
Floris

Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> +1
>
> The same thing goes for landuse=brownfield (and also greenfield, I think).
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I think the rendering of construction sites (landuse=construction /
>> brownfield) could be a little more subdued in color. As it is they
>> stand out too much, I believe.
>> See here for example: http://osm.org/go/0E5qt253--
>> A lighter tone of brown maybe? IANAC[1]
>> What do you think?
>>
>> [1] I Am Not A Cartographer
>>
>> Martijn van Exel +++...@rtijn.org
>> laziness – impatience – hubris
>> http://schaaltreinen.nl | http://martijnvanexel.nl | http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
>> twitter / skype: mvexel
>> flickr: rhodes
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://vaes9.codedgraphic.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] Rendering of construction sites by Mapnik

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

+1

The same thing goes for landuse=brownfield (and also greenfield, I think).


On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I think the rendering of construction sites (landuse=construction /
> brownfield) could be a little more subdued in color. As it is they
> stand out too much, I believe.
> See here for example: http://osm.org/go/0E5qt253--
> A lighter tone of brown maybe? IANAC[1]
> What do you think?
>
> [1] I Am Not A Cartographer
>
> Martijn van Exel +++...@rtijn.org
> laziness – impatience – hubris
> http://schaaltreinen.nl | http://martijnvanexel.nl | http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
> twitter / skype: mvexel
> flickr: rhodes
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com

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

[OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence (was: CTs and the 1 April deadline)

[Mike Collinson]

Thanks Tom, this is excellent news and what the License Working Group was 
hoping would happen.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/open-government-licence.htm
http://www.jordanhatcher.com/2010/uk-open-government-licence-now-out/

The new attribution clause (and the main requirement) is far more practical in 
application than the previous one:  

"acknowledge the source of the Information by including any attribution 
statement specified by the Information Provider(s) and, where possible, provide 
a link to this licence; "

There is no longer any requirement to potentially force downstream users of OSM 
geodata to do the same.

Clause 4 of the new CTs may cover us completely, [it was designed for 
governmental organisations] and I have updated 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution. However,  the LWG has also been 
working for planet dumps and [X]API responses to include an XML element 
pointing to the same Attribution link to better discharge our distribution 
responsibilities. 

Any other comments and reviews welcome.  Peter, do you feel good to go?

Mike

At 10:29 AM 6/01/2011, Tom Hughes wrote:
>On 04/01/11 15:49, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
>> As it happens OS is planning to move to the Open Government Licence, and
>> this has an explicit compatibility clause with any ODC attribution licence.
>> (It also has sane guidance on attribution, e.g. "If it is not practical to
>> cite all sources and attributions in your product prominently, it is good
>> practice to maintain a record or list of sources and attributions in another
>> file. This should be easily accessible or retrievable.")
>
>This switch has just been announced:
>
>http://blog.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/2011/01/changes-to-the-os-opendata-licence/
>
>Tom
>
>-- 
>Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
>http://compton.nu/
>
>___
>legal-talk mailing list
>legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] What phone survey results

[Iván Sánchez Ortega]

On Thursday 06 January 2011 08:40:02 Lester Caine wrote:
> One thing that it does not show is what OS is being used. 'nokia' covers
> several options, and I'm finding my N900 is actually quite a nice linux
> computer ...

And you can pry my 6201 off my cold, dead hands!

-- 
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega  

Now listening to: Majestic 12 - Bar Lounge Classics: Mediterranean Edition 
(2007) - [16] Superstar (3:36) (96.277802%)


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

[John Smith]

On 6 January 2011 22:47, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 01/06/11 11:29, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>>>
>>> hopefully OS will switch to the new Open Government License soon,
>>> which is explicitly compatible with ODbL.
>>
>> They switched today. :)
>
> How can they do that without discussing it for four years in advance?

The joys of employees, rather than volunteers using their own resources.

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

[OSM-talk] Rendering of construction sites by Mapnik

[Martijn van Exel]

Hi all,

I think the rendering of construction sites (landuse=construction /
brownfield) could be a little more subdued in color. As it is they
stand out too much, I believe.
See here for example: http://osm.org/go/0E5qt253--
A lighter tone of brown maybe? IANAC[1]
What do you think?

[1] I Am Not A Cartographer

Martijn van Exel +++...@rtijn.org
laziness – impatience – hubris
http://schaaltreinen.nl | http://martijnvanexel.nl | http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
twitter / skype: mvexel
flickr: rhodes

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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phones do OSMers have?

[Raphaël Pinson]

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Grant Slater
 wrote:
> On 6 January 2011 10:54, Dave F.  wrote:
>> On 05/01/2011 07:39, Lester Caine wrote:
>>>
>>> Dave F. wrote:
>
> There's a lot of people on this list...

 Err... So?
>>>
>>> We would prefer less of the bad language. THAT is grounds for a simple
>>> ban!
>>>
>> Yes you're correct, I regret the language I used, but stand by what I said.
>>
>
> Your unbridled hostility towards SteveC is what I find annoying. He is
> a good guy, even if he works for Microsoft. ;-)
>
> On your comment of it being marketing spam; I fail to see how it even
> remotely qualifies. It is far from being a formal survey (only being 1
> question) and it just gauges OSM. I am sure Microsoft has real market
> research people on its payroll.

And on top of that, the survey is hosted on a Google Document survey...


Raphaël

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 01/06/11 11:29, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

hopefully OS will switch to the new Open Government License soon,
which is explicitly compatible with ODbL.


They switched today. :)


How can they do that without discussing it for four years in advance?

Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phone survey results

[John Smith]

On 6 January 2011 22:34, Dave F.  wrote:
> Why do people who are afraid of criticism (in fact, it was just a question
> to start with) always post ridiculous non sequiturs such as the above?
>
> *I* don't want to know who's using what 'phone; I wanted to know why *you*
> wanted to know.

I kind of wanted to know this as well, since knowing why someone wants
to know something can dramatically influence the outcome, for example
contributors might not be a good lot to ask if you are making some
kind of phone app for end users. I expected a similar outcome so I
never bothered to ask.

> Your failure to give a conclusive reason suggests an ulterior motive.

I've lost count.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phone survey results

[Dave F.]

On 05/01/2011 22:45, SteveC wrote:

In response to the critique of the validity, feel free to go do a better job.


Why do people who are afraid of criticism (in fact, it was just a 
question to start with) always post ridiculous non sequiturs such as the 
above?


*I* don't want to know who's using what 'phone; I wanted to know why 
*you* wanted to know.


Was that too hard to comprehend?

Your failure to give a conclusive reason suggests an ulterior motive.

Dave F.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phones do OSMers have?

[Grant Slater]

On 6 January 2011 10:54, Dave F.  wrote:
> On 05/01/2011 07:39, Lester Caine wrote:
>>
>> Dave F. wrote:

 There's a lot of people on this list...
>>>
>>> Err... So?
>>
>> We would prefer less of the bad language. THAT is grounds for a simple
>> ban!
>>
> Yes you're correct, I regret the language I used, but stand by what I said.
>

Your unbridled hostility towards SteveC is what I find annoying. He is
a good guy, even if he works for Microsoft. ;-)

On your comment of it being marketing spam; I fail to see how it even
remotely qualifies. It is far from being a formal survey (only being 1
question) and it just gauges OSM. I am sure Microsoft has real market
research people on its payroll.

PS: Just got an Nexus S (Android), very happy so far.

Regards
 Grant

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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phones do OSMers have?

[Dave F.]

On 05/01/2011 07:39, Lester Caine wrote:

Dave F. wrote:

There's a lot of people on this list...


Err... So?
We would prefer less of the bad language. THAT is grounds for a simple 
ban!



Yes you're correct, I regret the language I used, but stand by what I said.

Dave F.

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