Re: [OSM-talk] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, wrote: > 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? Certainly that information is of use to someone, but I don't think OSM should try and be all things to all people. For starters, we simply don't have the manpower. In the Australian context, it looks like we might be able to do better than Google Maps, but having more information than Melway/Brisway/... will be a real challenge. Adding on the difficulty of the kinds of things you're talking about (plus everyone else's pet interests, like accessibility, micromapping, ...) is essentially impossible without a massive influx of contributors. 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
Hi, On 02/02/11 11:24, Steve Bennett wrote: Certainly that information is of use to someone, but I don't think OSM should try and be all things to all people. For starters, we simply don't have the manpower. In the Australian context, it looks like we might be able to do better than Google Maps, but having more information than Melway/Brisway/... will be a real challenge. Adding on the difficulty of the kinds of things you're talking about (plus everyone else's pet interests, like accessibility, micromapping, ...) is essentially impossible without a massive influx of contributors. These things need not be, and have never been, global in OSM. If one local community happens to have the manpower locally then it's great if they manage to record all that detail, and we should be very careful not to make decisions that keep them from doing so because we figured that we'd never be able to collect that data for the whole country or the whole world. Bye Frederik ___ 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
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > These things need not be, and have never been, global in OSM. If one local > community happens to have the manpower locally then it's great if they > manage to record all that detail, and we should be very careful not to make > decisions that keep them from doing so because we figured that we'd never be > able to collect that data for the whole country or the whole world. That is true - good point. I guess issues arise when we have to choose between a tagging scheme that allows maximum power (although that power will rarely be realised) and one that is most useful to most people. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] help from people with first-hand knowledge
dear list, is there a website similar to this: http://toolserver.org/~flacus/OSM/checkcrossing/spain/C03-spain-20110128.htm where people with first-hand knowledge can provide names for streets and buildings without using an editor? for example, with a textbox and a submit button which updates some table or sends an email to a list or user who actually uses an editor. regards juan lucas ___ 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
I believe that if one is tagging an area to imply that there is contamination, one should cite an authoritative source. Having your property tagged as potentially contaminated could lead to difficulties in selling or refinancing the property. Even if a property was contaminated, it could be remediated to the point where no contamination exists on the site anymore. If the tags are not maintained, they will likely be inaccurate. In the US, when a person/corporation has a major financial or ownership transaction related to a property, there is often a review of the current and historical activities that have taken place on and in the vicinity of the property. (A Phase I Environmental Assessment). The result of this is a list of potential environmental risks or hazards. I would suggest keeping information about contamination out of OSM and leave it up to the end user to mash OSM data with up-to-date data from the local environmental authority. If one has knowledge about current (and maybe past) land use activities, they could tag that. This in turn could be a good source for people who are doing environmental assessments. Think about the weight of tagging a property as contaminated. Incorrectly tag a property as a pub and you might get some frustrated people parked in front of the house on a Saturday night. Incorrectly tag a property as contaminated and you may delay an important transaction or force a person to spend money to prove that their property isn't contaminated. David. On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> These things need not be, and have never been, global in OSM. If one local >> community happens to have the manpower locally then it's great if they >> manage to record all that detail, and we should be very careful not to make >> decisions that keep them from doing so because we figured that we'd never be >> able to collect that data for the whole country or the whole world. > > That is true - good point. I guess issues arise when we have to choose > between a tagging scheme that allows maximum power (although that > power will rarely be realised) and one that is most useful to most > people. > > Steve > > ___ > 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] Creative Commons: Use CC for databases
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: > 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) It's not in itself a reason to not agree to the CT, but it does fairly well eliminate most of the reasons *to* agree to the CT. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] help from people with first-hand knowledge
Hi there Juan, well you can simply use www.walking-papers.org to add informations by pen&paper. Another way would be to use www.osmbugs.org to add markers with hints online. There are a few other services that offer direct tagging for dedicated feature sets (www.wheelmap.org, www.karbukoo.com,...) You might have a look here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM_based_Services regards Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 02/02/11 13:21, Rob Myers wrote: On 02/01/2011 06:17 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Peter says that I would consider the proposed resulting work to be 'two or more distinct, separate and independent works selected and arranged into a collective whole with the ccbysa content being used in an entirely unmodified form'. If it's a whole then by definition it's not a collection (a "mere aggregation"). By referring to a collective whole, it seems to me that the license is asserting that such a thing can exist. I think Peter is right - as long as the CC-BY content is unmodified, it can be assembled with other things to form a collective work. The CC-BY licenses do not say that they still have to be separate and independent after assembly, just before. Layers combined destructively (such as in print) are modified, and so are an adaptation. Firstly, the topmost layer is clearly unmodified by this kind of combination. If a CC-BY tile is below the top layer, then yes, you could argue that it is either modified, or no longer being used whole, by parts of it being hidden. But if we're talking about using OSM data, which is made up of points, as long as they're unmodified before "assembly" - ie rendering - then I still think it's a collective work and only has to be attributed, not restricted to the same license. ODbL is much clearer about this, but has this same effect - produced works have to be attributed but it doesn't attempt to force a license on them, only on the database they came from. Jonathan (not-a-lawyer, but a user-of-lawyers) -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote: > I think Peter is right - as long as > the CC-BY[-SA] content is unmodified, it can be assembled with other things to > form a collective work. The CC-BY[-SA] licenses do not say that they still > have > to be separate and independent after assembly, just before. Maybe that's a loophole in the license. But if so, it's a pretty big one. What is meant by "content is unmodified"? Obviously the printed base map is going to be modified from the original database. So under your interpretation, the part about the content being unmodified either prohibits everything, or allows everything. Or is there some other interpretation for "content is unmodified" that you can think of? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 02/02/11 15:59, Jonathan Harley wrote: By referring to a collective whole, it seems to me that the license is asserting that such a thing can exist. I think Peter is right - as long Oh I see, I didn't realise that's the wording of the licence. That's an unfortunate turn of phrase then. :-) I'll suggest it's changed for CC 4.0. 2.0 UK states: ""Collective Work" means the Work in its entirety in unmodified form along with a number of other separate and independent works" http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/uk/legalcode Flattened layers are not separate or independent. 2.0 unported gives some good examples of what is meant by a "collective work": ""Collective Work" means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or encyclopedia" http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode The examples are of discrete, spatially separated aggregations of separate entities. Flattened layers are unambiguously derivative works. as the CC-BY content is unmodified, it can be assembled with other things to form a collective work. The CC-BY licenses do not say that they still have to be separate and independent after assembly, just before. It says precisely that they must be unmodified, separate and independent after collection. Otherwise they are derivative works. Layers combined destructively (such as in print) are modified, and so are an adaptation. Firstly, the topmost layer is clearly unmodified by this kind of combination. The derived work that exists as a result of combining it with the underlying tiles makes it an adaptation as per UK BY-SA 2.0 1.c If a CC-BY tile is below the top layer, then yes, you could argue that it is either modified, or no longer being used whole, by parts of it being hidden. But if we're talking about using OSM data, I do argue that, and it is the case. But I also argue that it is being combined with other material to create a derivative work, rather than placed alongside it to make a collective work. In either case it is an adaptation and therefore a Derivative Work. which is made up of points, as long as they're unmodified before "assembly" - ie rendering - then I still think it's a collective work But the rendering of those points, as a derivative of them, is under BY-SA. and only has to be attributed, not restricted to the same license. If it was a collective work then yes. ODbL is much clearer about this, but has this same effect - produced works have to be attributed but it doesn't attempt to force a license on them, only on the database they came from. ODbL is explicitly a database copyleft. It does "force" a licence on the producers of produced works, and the attribution is "forced" on the produced works as a way of advertising this. (IANAL, TINLA). - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] help from people with first-hand knowledge
thanks, osmbugs.org is exactly what I was looking for. regards --- On Wed, 2/2/11, Matthias Meißer wrote: > From: Matthias Meißer > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] help from people with first-hand knowledge > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > Date: Wednesday, February 2, 2011, 4:47 PM > Hi there Juan, > > well you can simply use www.walking-papers.org to add > informations by pen&paper. Another way would be to use > www.osmbugs.org to add markers with hints online. There are > a few other services that offer direct tagging for dedicated > feature sets (www.wheelmap.org, www.karbukoo.com,...) > > You might have a look here: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM_based_Services > > regards > Matthias > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 02/02/11 16:15, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote: I think Peter is right - as long as the CC-BY[-SA] content is unmodified, it can be assembled with other things to form a collective work. The CC-BY[-SA] licenses do not say that they still have to be separate and independent after assembly, just before. Maybe that's a loophole in the license. But if so, it's a pretty big one. What is meant by "content is unmodified"? Obviously the printed base map is going to be modified from the original database. So under your interpretation, the part about the content being unmodified either prohibits everything, or allows everything. Or is there some other interpretation for "content is unmodified" that you can think of? I have assumed it refers to the geodata, which is unmodified unless you start changing the latitudes and longitudes of points. That's the only reading I can think of that makes any sense of the phrase "unmodified form" in the context of map data (in fact, of any kind of data). Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database, in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work based on a database, ever. Is that what you mean by prohibits everything or allows everything? It seems clear to me that the CC licenses are attempting to allow stuff but impose conditions, not to prohibit everything. Jonathan. -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
I have been following the discussion but have been in meetings today so haven't been able to contribute. I agree we can discuss at lenght what 'separable' and 'unmodified' mean as abstract concepts but, as usual with legal contracts, the words will be interpreted in a particular context. It is probably worth looking at some more real examples therefore, in addition to my legal forest boundary example. The strict view expressed above by Frederick and others would mean that it would be impossible to use osm mapping as a bacground for this crime data as in the chart, 'Violent crime in the USA' unless the overlaid data was also on an open licence or the crime data was to the side of the map. http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2009/02/17/typical-crime-map-victimization/ And this one showing the location of the 'Trafford Law Centre' unless the photo was also on a free license or moved so as not to obscure the map. http://www.traffordlawcentre.org.uk/contact_us/contact.htm How about this map of the Isle of White overlaid with illustrations? http://www.steve.shalfleet.net/ Indeed anything overlaid on the map, or any other ccbysa image or photograph would need to be on an open license if the strict interpretation was used. In my view any corrections or additions to the map of features represented on that map view belong in the DB, anything else can be used to create a collection. Regards, Peter On 2 February 2011 16:35, Jonathan Harley wrote: > On 02/02/11 16:15, Anthony wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Jonathan Harley >> wrote: >> >>> I think Peter is right - as long as >>> the CC-BY[-SA] content is unmodified, it can be assembled with other >>> things to >>> form a collective work. The CC-BY[-SA] licenses do not say that they >>> still have >>> to be separate and independent after assembly, just before. >>> >> Maybe that's a loophole in the license. But if so, it's a pretty big one. >> >> What is meant by "content is unmodified"? Obviously the printed base >> map is going to be modified from the original database. So under your >> interpretation, the part about the content being unmodified either >> prohibits everything, or allows everything. Or is there some other >> interpretation for "content is unmodified" that you can think of? >> >> > I have assumed it refers to the geodata, which is unmodified unless you > start changing the latitudes and longitudes of points. That's the only > reading I can think of that makes any sense of the phrase "unmodified form" > in the context of map data (in fact, of any kind of data). > > Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the sense of > having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database, in which case there > could be no such thing as a collective work based on a database, ever. Is > that what you mean by prohibits everything or allows everything? It seems > clear to me that the CC licenses are attempting to allow stuff but impose > conditions, not to prohibit everything. > > Jonathan. > > > -- > Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd > > Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com > Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ > > > ___ > 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] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
Jonathan Harley wrote: > Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the > sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database, > in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work > based on a database, ever. For print, yes, that's about the size of it. It illustrates that CC have a mountain to climb in making CC 4.0 relevant to databases, and I (genuinely) wish them luck. Electronically, you could perhaps layer one database (represented as pushpins, say) on top of another (represented as other pushpins, or a polyline, or even a map), in a separable way (e.g. layers can be switched off), and call it a collective work. OSM users have traditionally permitted this, but I believe Rob generally refers to it as a "consensual hallucination". :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CC-BY-SA-Non-separatable-combination-of-OSM-other-tp5982104p5985604.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] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
Hi, On 02/02/11 18:00, Peter Miller wrote: The strict view expressed above by Frederick and others would mean that it would be impossible to use osm mapping as a bacground for this crime data as in the chart, 'Violent crime in the USA' unless the overlaid data was also on an open licence or the crime data was to the side of the map. http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2009/02/17/typical-crime-map-victimization/ Yes. (In fact I presume the overlaid data is PD in this case so no problem.) And this one showing the location of the 'Trafford Law Centre' unless the photo was also on a free license or moved so as not to obscure the map. http://www.traffordlawcentre.org.uk/contact_us/contact.htm This is a funny example because you could conceivably cut out a corner from the map, then place the image where it is now... it is just about conceivable to make a copy of this map without copying the image so maybe this could work as a collection. How about this map of the Isle of White overlaid with illustrations? http://www.steve.shalfleet.net/ Certainly the whole map needs to by CC-BY-SA. We did have some pages with examples about this on our wiki, years ago. I remember the example was a tourist guide with maps and photos, and there were several cases where maps and photos (and text) were sometimes superimposed, sometimes side-by-side, and the whole thing was commented as to what is derived and what is collected. I cannot find it now, however. I think that in those examples, there was the concept of interaction and co-dependency - the question of "does the overlaid stuff work without the map". So if you carefully place your photo or illustration at a certain point in the map, and your photo or illustration would lose its meaning without the map, then it is clearly a derived work; but if your photo just sits there and could just as well sit there without the map, then it could be called a collection. This is not an interpretation I necessarily share and I'm not sure about the exact wording but it has something going for it. Indeed anything overlaid on the map, or any other ccbysa image or photograph would need to be on an open license if the strict interpretation was used. I don't think this interpretation is particularly strict. There have indeed been several people requesting that my OSM book be fully CC-BY-SA'ed because it contains OSM illustrations on some pages - *That* I call a strict reading (and one I clearly don't share). Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Peter Miller wrote: > The strict view expressed above by Frederick and others would mean that it > would be impossible to use osm mapping as a bacground for this crime data as > in the chart, 'Violent crime in the USA' unless the overlaid data was also > on an open licence or the crime data was to the side of the map. > http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2009/02/17/typical-crime-map-victimization/ Yes, that is the intent of the license (specifically, the "overlaid data" must be CC-BY-SA, not just "on an open license"). This is my intent when I license my works under the license. > And this one showing the location of the 'Trafford Law Centre' unless the > photo was also on a free license or moved so as not to obscure the map. > http://www.traffordlawcentre.org.uk/contact_us/contact.htm I would say that this is fine. > How about this map of the Isle of White overlaid with illustrations? > http://www.steve.shalfleet.net/ Whole thing must be CC-BY-SA. > Indeed anything overlaid on the map, or any other ccbysa image or photograph > would need to be on an open license if the strict interpretation was used. Yes, that certainly could be argued, and if you want to be safe, you should release it all under CC-BY-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] help from people with first-hand knowledge
Juan Lucas Domínguez Rubio wrote: >is there a website similar to this: > >http://toolserver.org/~flacus/OSM/checkcrossing/spain/C03-spain-20110128.htm > >where people with first-hand knowledge can provide names for streets >and buildings without using an editor? There is the Amenity Editor at http://ae.osmsurround.org/ae/index But: * you can only edit Nodes * the interface is in german (and not as plain-simple as you want it) anyway, maybe it is of interest malenki ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] help from people with first-hand knowledge
One of last year's Google Summer of Code projects was a simple web based editor targeted at new users - see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google_Summer_of_Code/2010/AcceptedProjects/SimpleMapEditor . It still needs some development, but it would be a good start for something that has very limited functionality, like just being able to change the name of things. I have a feeling Potlatch2 is supposed to be customisable, so you may be able to achieve something with that, but I have never looked into it. Graham. On 2 February 2011 19:04, malenki wrote: > Juan Lucas Domínguez Rubio wrote: > > >is there a website similar to this: > > > > > http://toolserver.org/~flacus/OSM/checkcrossing/spain/C03-spain-20110128.htm > > > >where people with first-hand knowledge can provide names for streets > >and buildings without using an editor? > > There is the Amenity Editor at http://ae.osmsurround.org/ae/index > But: * you can only edit Nodes > * the interface is in german (and not as plain-simple as you want > it) > anyway, maybe it is of interest > malenki > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ 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
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, wrote: > > 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? > > Certainly that information is of use to someone, but I don't think OSM > should try and be all things to all people. For starters, we simply > don't have the manpower. In the Australian context, it looks like we > might be able to do better than Google Maps, but having more > information than Melway/Brisway/... will be a real challenge. Adding > on the difficulty of the kinds of things you're talking about (plus > everyone else's pet interests, like accessibility, micromapping, ...) > is essentially impossible without a massive influx of contributors. > > Steve What I meant was, by tagging the larger area as "industrial" and _not_ micro-mapping it as "grass", you have a tag (industrial) that implies a certain amount of industrial activity, which in turn implies that it might not be as safe as your average grassy area. So, I was arguing in favour of tagging the larger block of land as industrial. 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
