Re: [OSM-talk] Creative Commons: Use CC for databases
On 11-02-01 03:31 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: Anthony wrote: I'd urge everyone, especially those who have not yet decided whether or not to agree to the Contributor Terms, to read this post by Mike Linksvayer of Creative Commons. You forgot the link: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/26283 Most relevantly he asks us to: "use CC licenses for data and databases now, participate in the 4.0 process, and upgrade when the 4.0 suite is released, or at least do not foreclose the possibility of doing so." Is the upgrade to 4.0 automatic, or do the data owners need to upgrade to 4.0 ? By reading the license text, I understand that the upgrade is automatic, but since I'm no expert, I would appreciate some confirmation. From http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode : ou may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of [...] iii) a Creative Commons jurisdiction license (either this or a later license version) that contains the same License Elements as this License To make this clear, he does not address OSM directly, the blog post is directed at the general public. It is a very interesting statement, though. It is not, as you imply, a reason for not agreeing to the Contributor Terms (these would still allow us to go for CC 4.0 licenses), but I hope that the Foundation keeps this development on the radar. Tobias Knerr ___ 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] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way
> > For some purposes the 'landuse=industrial' information will be more > important, for other 'surface=grass'. These are different kinds of > information. Risk assessment and hazards are also relevant. The grassy area next to a steel mill might not be plain old grass, who knows what has been stored there and what kind of hazards, from chemicals to rusty nails are left behind? nick *** WARNING: This email (including any attachments) may contain legally privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected by copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was intended to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No one is allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, print or copy this email without appropriate authority. If this email was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake, please telephone or email me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of this email and delete it and any copies of it from your computer system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this email is not waived or destroyed by that mistake. It is your responsibility to ensure that this email does not contain and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with your computer system). Opinions contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Department of Transport and Main Roads, Maritime Safety Queensland or endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure. *** ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-talk-fr] quelqu'un cherche l'auteur et/ou les sources de rawedit
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Jocelyn Jaubert wrote: > I have put the sources on http://rawedit.openstreetmap.fr/src/ > > This should contains everything necessary, even the apache2 and pgsql > configuration. > > Please note that I'm not subscribed on this mailing list, so keep me on > Cc: if you want any modifications done on rawedit. Thanks very much! Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SOTM Denver travel discounts?
El día Tuesday 01 February 2011 20:23:14, Coast, Hurricane dijo: > Your travel can originate from anywhere, with the destination being Denver. Do you mean I cannot fly to the east coast, then rent a geobus and do a road trip? Oh, bummer. -- Iván Sánchez Ortega Un ordenador no es una televisión ni un microondas: es una herramienta compleja. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Creative Commons: Use CC for databases
On 1 February 2011 20:39, Grant Slater wrote: > > Source: https://docs.google.com/a/firefishy.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_101d2sqnzfg > If that link doesn't work repeated here: http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/2/2e/20110118_LWG_Meeting_Minutes.pdf Regards Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Creative Commons: Use CC for databases
On 1 February 2011 20:31, Tobias Knerr wrote: > It is a very interesting statement, though. It is not, as you imply, a > reason for not agreeing to the Contributor Terms (these would still > allow us to go for CC 4.0 licenses), but I hope that the Foundation > keeps this development on the radar. > The Licensing Working Group has been speaking to Creative Commons. The minutes from last week: 4. Creative Commons Mike Linksvayer, Vice President, and General Counsel Diane Peters of Creative Commons joined us to discuss where they at with BY-SA and data. We were greaty encouraged that they will be looking at this very seriously during a CC suite 4.0 version review process, which will take about two years once started. Mike L particularly emphasised the importance of inter-operability. The meeting was very cordial and both groups look forward to mutual co-operation. Mike said that OpenStreetMap is very happy to share our experience as a pioneer in trying to implement an Open IP license for data and databases that incorporated attribution and share-alike and looked forward to participating in the CC 4.0 input process. He also asked if Creative Commons could consider whether it could make any public comments on the issue of compatibility with current CC-BY licenses on data and the ODbL. Ended 20:00. Steve, Diane and Mike L left the call." Source: https://docs.google.com/a/firefishy.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_101d2sqnzfg Regards Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Creative Commons: Use CC for databases
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:18:11 -0600 Toby Murray wrote: > A link would be helpful. Don't see anything like this on his blog. > http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/26283 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Creative Commons: Use CC for databases
Anthony wrote: > I'd urge everyone, especially those who have not yet decided whether > or not to agree to the Contributor Terms, to read this post by Mike > Linksvayer of Creative Commons. You forgot the link: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/26283 > Most relevantly he asks us to: > > "use CC licenses for data and databases now, participate in the 4.0 > process, and upgrade when the 4.0 suite is released, or at least do > not foreclose the possibility of doing so." To make this clear, he does not address OSM directly, the blog post is directed at the general public. It is a very interesting statement, though. It is not, as you imply, a reason for not agreeing to the Contributor Terms (these would still allow us to go for CC 4.0 licenses), but I hope that the Foundation keeps this development on the radar. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Creative Commons: Use CC for databases
I believe this is the blog post: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/26283 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Creative Commons: Use CC for databases
A link would be helpful. Don't see anything like this on his blog. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] SOTM Denver travel discounts?
Hi Nick, You are right about the travel discounts! I am waiting on a few more details before this offer is 'live' but here is what it looks like. We will have a Meeting ID # that you will use either online or by calling United. This will get a traveller 10%-20% off regular published fares with United Airlines (and I believe the Star Alliance group). Travel will be available Sept 1st- Sept 30th, so giving OSMers plenty of time to travel around! We should be able to have the call in code ready by the end of the week. For online, they have warned me there is about a 14 day waiting period, but then you can book online. Your travel can originate from anywhere, with the destination being Denver. We need a minimum of 20 passengers to take advantage of this offer, so be sure to bring all your best mapping buddies :) More information coming soon! Best, Hurricane Hi, Am 99% certain of coming to Denver this September for SOTM. I'd like to book flights as soon as possible before the fares start creeping up nearer the time, however ISTR a mention of travel discounts when the venue was first announced. Is this still going ahead? I'm planning on coming over for 2 weeks, to combine SOTM with a holiday (7th-21st or 8th-22nd); will any discounts be valid in that case? Would be coming from London. Thanks, Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Creative Commons: Use CC for databases
I'd urge everyone, especially those who have not yet decided whether or not to agree to the Contributor Terms, to read this post by Mike Linksvayer of Creative Commons. Most relevantly he asks us to: "use CC licenses for data and databases now, participate in the 4.0 process, and upgrade when the 4.0 suite is released, or at least do not foreclose the possibility of doing so." ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] PotM: Now with more graph-y goodness
I've been looking at different ways to show how people are participating in Project of the Week / Month for a while but without really finding a great solution. For mapping in specific areas, a before / after rendering is nice, but there is no "instant gratification" from that. And we prefer projects that allow mappers to participate and map close to home, where their local knowledge is a tremendous benefit. I added graphs recently for some projects, so that you can see, nominally, the number of objects in the OSM database. Sadly, when looking at frequently used tags, a week of contributions might not make much of an impression on a simple graph of the total. Based on feedback from project participants, I've added a bit more to the graphs. First is a "Recent" line, which shows the number of objects added to the database recently. Recently means nominally, in the previous hour. It isn't perfect, and it isn't gratification that is as "instant" as we might like it, but my server can keep up with providing these numbers. And from day to day, or even morning to evening, it is easier to see the scale of user contributions of a specific type of object. For example, recent project place_of_worship now shows a "recent" line and text below that suggests the users add ~1.7 pow points per hour, and 3.3 pow polygons per hour. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Project_of_the_week/2010/Dec_22#Results The current Project of the Month, buildings, has an additional feature on the graph, suggested by PotW participants. The "PotM" line indicates the start and end of the Project of the Month period on the graph. This should allow us to see the effect of a PotM, by clearly indicating when the project was active, and showing contribution rates before, during and after. At some point after a project, a static graph can be left on the project page for a permanent record. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Project_of_the_week#Results So. What do you think? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way
Hi, On 02/01/11 03:37, Steve Bennett wrote: Furthermore, you might be reduced to categorising individual elements of the factory. Would the administrative wing really be landuse=industrial? Surely it should be landuse=commercial. etc etc. Before long you'll be tagging the restrooms as landuse=wastewater_facility or something. I don't think there's any single answer that can give the right information to every consumer. Sometimes OSM has to make actual choices between different uses of the data. Well the goal certainly is being totally consumer agnostic - "We map what's on the ground, and you decide how you want to use that." It is true that we sometimes do make choices that make things easier for a common use and may cause problems for a less common use (for example: we usually map streets as lines even though, on the ground, they are areas). But this is not a final decision, but rather a compromise for the time being - with tools and software as they are, mapping all roads as areas would be too difficult for most people at this time. This does not mean it will remain so forever; indeed I am pretty sure that sooner or later we *will* have the actual surface area for all roads in our database. In my eyes, the goal is always to come as close to reality as possible, but this is tempered by the current state of tool quality, database and data model performance, community aptitude etc.; so what you see in OSM right now is the current compromise between what is feasible and what is desired. This compromise is not a decision or a choice that has been made; it is floating. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM content policy (was Re: New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way)
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:57 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > yes, and in the German Wikipedia there are for some time strict > policies which lead to a lot of trouble, resulting in a situation > where many contributers were frustrated by the bureaucracy and decided > not to contribute any more. OTOH, the German Wikipedia is the second biggest, and apparently the source of many new features (notably, flagged revisions and OSM integration...) > IMHO the strength of OSM is it's freedom > and flexibility. I wouldn't like to loose this in favor of more > bureaucracy and policies. Well, since I haven't proposed any concrete policies, I can't speak to whether such freedom and flexibility would be compromised. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM content policy (was Re: New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way)
2011/2/1 Steve Bennett : > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:13 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> who is "OSM" and how can they make "actual choices between different >> uses of the data"? > > Good questions. My rough guess would be "the people who contribute > data to the OSM database" +1 > and "by having debates, developing policies, > and encouraging people to respect the policies". -1 > Wikipedia went through this. yes, and in the German Wikipedia there are for some time strict policies which lead to a lot of trouble, resulting in a situation where many contributers were frustrated by the bureaucracy and decided not to contribute any more. IMHO the strength of OSM is it's freedom and flexibility. I wouldn't like to loose this in favor of more bureaucracy and policies. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OSM content policy (was Re: New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way)
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:13 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > who is "OSM" and how can they make "actual choices between different > uses of the data"? Good questions. My rough guess would be "the people who contribute data to the OSM database" and "by having debates, developing policies, and encouraging people to respect the policies". Wikipedia went through this. It started out being more or less a free-for-all, then worked out over time that accepting *everything* was not in the broader interest. So now there are limits to notability, pornographic images are out, fan universes are restricted etc. They chose between different kinds of uses and decided that serving the needs of education institutions was more important than, say, serving the needs of Wheel of Time fans. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way
2011/2/1 Steve Bennett : > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:48 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> probably no. Landuse is describing the actual usage of the land. If >> there is only grass, it cannot be considered industrial, regardless of >> who owns the land. > > Problem with that ruling is you would end up with tiny little > odd-shaped pockets of "industry" separated by space. depends on the region. I try to tag industrial areas as continuous space as well. In your example above the question would be what is the context. If this site is surrounded by industry, and it is officially declared "industrial area" it would probably best be tagged as industrial. On the other hand there is industrial areas in less urbanized situations, where inside there is farmland / a farmyard, e.g. (map not complete ;-) ): http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.41563&lon=12.91651&zoom=16&layers=M > Whereas I think a > large, unbroken region like this: http://osm.org/go/uGt0Ttv7- is > actually a lot more informative. less information can hardly be more informative IMHO. > Furthermore, you might be reduced to categorising individual elements > of the factory. Would the administrative wing really be > landuse=industrial? Surely it should be landuse=commercial. etc etc. I would tag the administrative wing as well industrial. This kind of detail you are requesting now would be mapping at the building level (and attached to the building IMHO, not to the land) > I don't think there's any single answer that can give the right > information to every consumer. Sometimes OSM has to make actual > choices between different uses of the data. who is "OSM" and how can they make "actual choices between different uses of the data"? cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way
2011/2/1 : > What about a grassy field that is being used for industrial storage? For > example, one small company here in Nashville has stacks of steel beams, > several wheeled cranes, and the like stored on a grass-covered vacant lot > next to their office and parking lot. From the way the grass is grown up > around the wheels, some of the equipment hasn't been moved in years. according to our current scheme this would clearly be industrial, as storage is incorporated. I agree that industrial comprises a lot of different situations, so IMHO some subtagging could help. I could imagine subtags to refine the industry classification for - storage - administration - production - smaller kinds of "industry" (in Germany we call them "Gewerbegebiet", (don't know the English term) and they are not considered "Industrie" at all, but in OSM they would fall into industry, usually they are smaller firms and they don't necessarily do mass production, due to their size and operating range they have less infrastructure requirements (big industries usually have their own railway-connection and are situated besides a freeway/airport)) and maybe more. There should/could IMHO also be subtags to describe the sector, e.g. automotive, energy, textiles, ... cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Anyone know who wrote rawedit?
Hi, On 02/01/11 03:24, Steve Bennett wrote: So, as discussed on another thread, I'm trying to use rawedit.openstreetmap.fr to undelete a relation, but am getting XML parser errors. Anyone know who I can contact, or where to get the source from? Either Etienne Chové has written it, or he knows who has. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
