[OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[NopMap]

Hi!

First of all: I am in favour of the licence change itself, I have agreed a
long time ago and I was actually looking forward to phase 4 bringing forward
some decisions.

Nevertheless, the enabling of phase 4 (which likely may have happened
yesterday or so) strikes me as another pitiful example of how not to do such
things.

Considering that lack of information has been the chief reason for
disagreement with the proceedings for some two years now, one might have
naively assumed that someone in the OSMF might have listend or learned and
that important steps might have been accompanied by some sort of official
announcement.

Instead, is guesswork and rumours all over again. The most definite insider
information to have was "yes, on IRC was someone with a test account who
claims he can't edit anymore".

I don't know how you feel, but for me it is very hard to remain supportive
of the matter in the face of such consequent incompetence handling it.

bye
Nop


--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6494841.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] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

NopMap wrote:

Instead, is guesswork and rumours all over again. The most definite insider
information to have was "yes, on IRC was someone with a test account who
claims he can't edit anymore".


Well there was an announcement on 14th June on this list and others by 
Mike Collinson saying that "we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 
19th June or as soon after as is technically practical".


For anyone who had already agreed, this date passed unnoticed. What 
exactly did you miss - would you have liked another email that said "ok, 
we've really implemented it now"?


Given that the clear intent to switch to phase 4 on Sunday was widely 
published, was that not enough?


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] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[NopMap]

Hi!


Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 
> Well there was an announcement on 14th June on this list and others by 
> Mike Collinson saying that "we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 
> 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical".
> 
> For anyone who had already agreed, this date passed unnoticed. What 
> exactly did you miss - would you have liked another email that said "ok, 
> we've really implemented it now"?
> 

Yes, exactly. As you properly quoted "or as soon..." makes this statement
rather vague.


Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 
> Given that the clear intent to switch to phase 4 on Sunday was widely 
> published, was that not enough?
> 

A clear no to this. "We intend to ... or maybe later" contains no statement
about whether anything has happened.

I believe you noted the guesses and questions on the matter in the German
forum yesterday, the question on this list...

For something this important and controversial, an announcement on talk
would have been in order, containing some information like "will move on" or
"have moved to".

What's more, there's also no hint on how to (not) proceed with re-mapping
data, as you suggested yourself, which will probably make things worse real
soon now.


bye
 Nop


--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6494993.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-legal-talk] License for OSM tiles

[TimSC]

Hi all,

With the CTs/ODbL upon us, I was wondering about the tiles on the 
default layer on the OSM web page. The license change is based on the 
premise that CC-BY-SA is not appropriate for data*. The LWG are pushing 
to drop the CC-BY-SA license for data extracted from OSM and go with a 
single license**. My question is are we keeping the CC-BY-SA license for 
OSM tiles, which is a "produced work" under ODbL? or would be better to 
change?


My opinion is we should stay with a standard license for tiles that 
makes interoperability with other data easy. Therefore we should stay 
within the creative commons family of licenses as being very mainstream. 
We might want to move to a more liberal license though - from CC-BY-SA 
to CC-BY or CC0. I am involved with two projects in Kent, UK that 
require tracing the location of new features over a map - and at the 
moment I don't recommend SA licensed tiles for that. This forces me into 
OS's arms with their BY type OpenData. I would prefer to use a crowd 
sourced map that is not SA for tiles. (Unless I can trace over OSM tiles 
without violating the current tile license, which I don't think is 
possible.)


Any thoughts?

TimSC

PS I could try to argue that "OSM is a data project" so the tiles should 
be licensed as liberally as possible, but even _I_ don't buy that argument!



* this is disputed but ignored for now
** I strongly oppose this, but moving on


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[Matthias Julius]

NopMap  schrieb:

>
>Hi!
>
>
>Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> 
>> Well there was an announcement on 14th June on this list and others
>by 
>> Mike Collinson saying that "we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 
>> 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical".
>> 
>> For anyone who had already agreed, this date passed unnoticed. What 
>> exactly did you miss - would you have liked another email that said
>"ok, 
>> we've really implemented it now"?
>> 
>
>Yes, exactly. As you properly quoted "or as soon..." makes this
>statement
>rather vague.

I have read that to mean "We will switch to phase 4 unless there are technical 
problems."

>
>Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> 
>> Given that the clear intent to switch to phase 4 on Sunday was widely
>
>> published, was that not enough?
>> 
>
>A clear no to this. "We intend to ... or maybe later" contains no
>statement
>about whether anything has happened.
>
>I believe you noted the guesses and questions on the matter in the
>German
>forum yesterday, the question on this list...

How difficult is it to guess what happened if you have read the above 
announcement and on the following day you can not upload anymore and 
coincidentally you have declined the CTs?

Or is anyone saying "I know they intended ro switch to pase 4, but, when I 
could not upload I did not realize they really did."?

If someone did not read the original announcement he probably would not read 
the next one neither.

Matthias


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Walking Papers is back and I'm sorry it was down.

[Richard Weait]

On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Michal Migurski  wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I fixed Walking Papers today. It was not processing new prints and scans for 
> almost two weeks.
>
> It's been hit with a double-whammy of garbage input and not enough of my time 
> to fix it.

Thank you, Mike.  Good to know that Walking Papers is back.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[Michael Collinson]

On 20/06/2011 09:09, NopMap wrote:

Hi!

First of all: I am in favour of the licence change itself, I have agreed a
long time ago and I was actually looking forward to phase 4 bringing forward
some decisions.

Nevertheless, the enabling of phase 4 (which likely may have happened
yesterday or so) strikes me as another pitiful example of how not to do such
things.

Considering that lack of information has been the chief reason for
disagreement with the proceedings for some two years now, one might have
naively assumed that someone in the OSMF might have listend or learned and
that important steps might have been accompanied by some sort of official
announcement.

Instead, is guesswork and rumours all over again. The most definite insider
information to have was "yes, on IRC was someone with a test account who
claims he can't edit anymore".

I don't know how you feel, but for me it is very hard to remain supportive
of the matter in the face of such consequent incompetence handling it.

bye
 Nop
   

Hi Nop,

As others have pointed out, an announcement with date was released on 
blog, talk, legal-talk ... with full details and link to the 
implementation plan [1]. Please also remember that all technical work is 
kindly done by volunteers who have other issues and real lives too, so I 
think "or as soon after as is technically practical" is not unreasonable?


Mike

[1] 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[Mitja Kleider]

On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 01:40 -0700, NopMap wrote:
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > 
> > Well there was an announcement on 14th June on this list and others by 
> > Mike Collinson saying that "we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 
> > 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical".
> > 
> > For anyone who had already agreed, this date passed unnoticed. What 
> > exactly did you miss - would you have liked another email that said "ok, 
> > we've really implemented it now"?
> > 
> 
> Yes, exactly. As you properly quoted "or as soon..." makes this statement
> rather vague.
> 
> 
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > 
> > Given that the clear intent to switch to phase 4 on Sunday was widely 
> > published, was that not enough?
> > 
> 
> A clear no to this. "We intend to ... or maybe later" contains no statement
> about whether anything has happened.

This commit (tagged "live") is a clear statement:
http://git.openstreetmap.org/rails.git/commit/0a81411e68102cd8a755744bd4a1e2f6eafad549

I can see your point, but:
More communication means a lot of additional work and is not something I would 
expect from those who handle the other parts.


> What's more, there's also no hint on how to (not) proceed with re-mapping
> data, as you suggested yourself, which will probably make things worse real
> soon now.

Quoting
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-June/058727.html

Michael Collinson wrote:
> I would emphasise there is currently no need to remove data from the 
> live database since the license is still CC-BY-SA. I believe there is no 
> urgency to do so until acceptances have been maximised, local issues 
> that have a near term solution have been addressed and there is a sense 
> of community consensus that it is time.

I think "remove" is part of "re-map" and I agree we should wait "until 
acceptances have been maximised". Especially as it is not clear yet how to 
handle objects with mixed CC-only/CC+CT history.
That is kind of vague, but I would not want to be nailed down to any old 
guesstimated numbers later. Waiting until we feel that "it is time" is fine 
with me.


Mitja


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Mapcss] Web browser mapping test

[Sebastian Spaeth]

On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 15:57:42 +0300, Komяpa  wrote:
> and point it to URL http://kothic.org/js/

Hey, just wanted to say that it looks awsome!

Great work there!
Sebastian


pgpXZFSjB963I.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[NopMap]

Mitja Kleider wrote:
> 
> This commit (tagged "live") is a clear statement:
> http://git.openstreetmap.org/rails.git/commit/0a81411e68102cd8a755744bd4a1e2f6eafad549
> 
> I can see your point, but:
> More communication means a lot of additional work and is not something I
> would expect from those who handle the other parts.
> 

How many people in total do you think have the knowledge where to look for
this commit? And it still does not tell you whether it is live on the server
or not.

A simple post "it is live now" is considerd "a lot of additional work"?

Sorry, but I have the impression we are living in completely different
worlds...


Mitja Kleider wrote:
> 
> That is kind of vague, but I would not want to be nailed down to any old
> guesstimated numbers later. Waiting until we feel that "it is time" is
> fine with me.
> 

Yes, extremely vague. I believe that many people will not wait very long
until they feel it is time and will take action - everyone at their personal
pace.

Well, if it is to be this way...

bye
  Nop


--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6495364.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] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: "NopMap" 

To: 
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 8:09 AM
Subject: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual





Hi!

First of all: I am in favour of the licence change itself, I have agreed a
long time ago and I was actually looking forward to phase 4 bringing 
forward

some decisions.

Nevertheless, the enabling of phase 4 (which likely may have happened
yesterday or so) strikes me as another pitiful example of how not to do 
such

things.

Considering that lack of information has been the chief reason for
disagreement with the proceedings for some two years now, one might have
naively assumed that someone in the OSMF might have listend or learned and
that important steps might have been accompanied by some sort of official
announcement.

Instead, is guesswork and rumours all over again. The most definite 
insider

information to have was "yes, on IRC was someone with a test account who
claims he can't edit anymore".

I don't know how you feel, but for me it is very hard to remain supportive
of the matter in the face of such consequent incompetence handling it.



My personal opinion is that it would have been very hard for anyone who is 
interested in this to have missed what was going to happen at Stage 4, and 
when Stage 4 was going to occur.  But that is on the basis that I subscribe 
to a number of the mailing lists.


However I recognise that it would be wrong to assume that all contributors 
are subscribed to any of the mailing lists, or read the wiki .


I would have thought that it was not a demanding job, though I'll admit I do 
not have the capacity to do it, for all the mainstream editing software to 
have a MOTD feature, and for official announcements which were deemed 
important enough to be posted to the mailing lists to be also flagged up as 
a MOTD.


I also realise that I'm assuming that everyone can read English, since the 
feature becomes less simple to code and implement when you start to consider 
that ideally the MOTD should be delivered in the users language of choice.


Now I can see some people arguing that they would not wish to be distracted 
by such messages, so if necessary you could build in the option not to 
display MOTD's if the user had ticked a check box., but if they ticked this 
they could hardly complain at a later stage that they had not been informed 
of critical announcements.


Apologies if this feature exists in all of the mainstream editing software.

Regards

David



bye
   Nop


--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6494841.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] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[Richard Fairhurst]

NopMap wrote:
> Well, if it is to be this way...

...then maybe it would be a good opportunity for you to help!

Why not volunteer to help LWG in its communications with the German
community? It seems a shame to lament that things are "as usual" and not do
anything about it.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6495430.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] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[Richard Fairhurst]

David Groom wrote:
> Apologies if this feature exists in all of the mainstream editing
> software.

JOSM has a MOTD feature. Potlatch doesn't (and won't) because it's always
used when embedded within a website which can choose to display whatever
message it likes: indeed, osm.org does sometimes display such "flashes". I
note that, at the moment, osm.org is prompting you on login to "Find out
more about OpenStreetMap's upcoming license change".

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6495443.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] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[Russ Nelson]

Frederik Ramm writes:
 > Given that the clear intent to switch to phase 4 on Sunday was widely 
 > published, was that not enough?

I got an email about it ... on my import accounts that haven't
accepted the CT. It was reasonably well-announced to those for whom it
mattered.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[ThomasB]

I fully understand Nop. Almost everyone only guessed that it might happen but
no one was sure about it. To volunteer with communications with the German
community would require to get some fact rather than vague statements.
Even people that have read all communications and LWG minutes were not sure
about it. Next phase is much more important so I would appreciate a clear
statement with a specific date well in advance.


Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> 
> NopMap wrote:
>> Well, if it is to be this way...
> 
> ...then maybe it would be a good opportunity for you to help!
> 
> Why not volunteer to help LWG in its communications with the German
> community? It seems a shame to lament that things are "as usual" and not
> do anything about it.
> 
> cheers
> Richard
> 


--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6495479.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] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[Florian Lohoff]

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 09:29:53AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> NopMap wrote:
> >Instead, is guesswork and rumours all over again. The most definite insider
> >information to have was "yes, on IRC was someone with a test account who
> >claims he can't edit anymore".
> 
> Well there was an announcement on 14th June on this list and others
> by Mike Collinson saying that "we intend to move to phase 4 this
> Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical".
> 
> For anyone who had already agreed, this date passed unnoticed. What
> exactly did you miss - would you have liked another email that said
> "ok, we've really implemented it now"?
> 
> Given that the clear intent to switch to phase 4 on Sunday was
> widely published, was that not enough?

And a "very prominent" popup on www.openstreetmap.org saying
that the phase 4 has begun - An entry in http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
or something. 

I myself was not surprised that i was not able to upload my survey
gathered on the weekend - i just had a small glance at the date to
get known the first post-openstreetmap day 

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[NopMap]

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> 
> Why not volunteer to help LWG in its communications with the German
> community? It seems a shame to lament that things are "as usual" and not
> do anything about it.
> 

How should that work - without concrete information posted anywhere?

bye
Nop


--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6495548.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-legal-talk] License for OSM tiles

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 06/20/11 11:52, TimSC wrote:

My question is are we keeping the CC-BY-SA license for
OSM tiles, which is a "produced work" under ODbL? or would be better to
change?


It is my understanding that it is planned to retain CC-BY-SA for now.

There's really nothing to be said against changing to a CC-BY license or 
so in the future (read: a good while after the license change has gone 
through). On the other hand, given that it is relatively easy to set up 
your own tile server, maybe we don't want to make ours *too* attractive 
to everyone because our resources (bandwidth, computing) are limited!


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 06/20/11 12:28, Mitja Kleider wrote:

Quoting
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-June/058727.html

Michael Collinson wrote:

I would emphasise there is currently no need to remove data from the
live database since the license is still CC-BY-SA. I believe there is no
urgency to do so until acceptances have been maximised, local issues
that have a near term solution have been addressed and there is a sense
of community consensus that it is time.


I think "remove" is part of "re-map" and I agree we should wait "until acceptances 
have been maximised".


This message has, by the way, also been translated and put onto the 
German forum by Kai,


http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=12700

and onto the German mailinglist by myself:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2011-June/086828.html

Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[Richard Fairhurst]

NopMap wrote:
> How should that work - without concrete information posted anywhere?

Ok. How do you fancy volunteering to be the person who posts the concrete
information, then?

You seem to be under the impression that magic communication fairies will
crop up and make everything ok. It doesn't work like that. Everyone here is
a volunteer. If you're not happy with the effort that other volunteers are
making, you should volunteer yourself.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6495858.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] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[David Murn]

On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 06:55 -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> Ok. How do you fancy volunteering to be the person who posts the concrete
> information, then?
> 
> You seem to be under the impression that magic communication fairies will
> crop up and make everything ok. It doesn't work like that. Everyone here is
> a volunteer. If you're not happy with the effort that other volunteers are
> making, you should volunteer yourself.

Maybe you dont understand the role of office-bearers of a 'non-profit'
foundation.  Sure, they are volunteers, but if they dont have the time
to do the job they volunteered for properly, then it only hurts the
community they claim to serve.

We're not asking the volunteers to write a novel for each statement they
make during a meeting, we're asking them to document clearly and
concisely what they decide and what they actually do at meetings instead
of documenting major decisions or action items with a 3 or 4 word
summary note in the minutes.

Maybe if the role of communication by volunteers is such a major burden,
an individual could even take on a paid role with the foundation to be a
community liason officer so that we the community know what the
foundation is upto and how/why they make the decisions they do.

David


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[NopMap]

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> 
> NopMap wrote:
>> How should that work - without concrete information posted anywhere?
> 
> Ok. How do you fancy volunteering to be the person who posts the concrete
> information, then?
> 
> You seem to be under the impression that magic communication fairies will
> crop up and make everything ok. It doesn't work like that. Everyone here
> is a volunteer. If you're not happy with the effort that other volunteers
> are making, you should volunteer yourself.
> 

Yeah, sure, I'll just burn some incense, look deep into my crystal ball and
guess what everybody has been doing. No problem. :-)

bye
  Nop


--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6496031.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] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[Richard Fairhurst]

David Murn wrote:
> Maybe you dont understand the role of office-bearers of a 
> 'non-profit' foundation.  Sure, they are volunteers, but if they 
> dont have the time to do the job they volunteered for properly, 
> then it only hurts the community they claim to serve.

Indeed. And if they don't, you get to vote them out at the next election.

That, of course, requires someone to stand. So how about it?

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6496063.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] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[Richard Fairhurst]

NopMap wrote:
> Yeah, sure, I'll just burn some incense, look deep into my 
> crystal ball and guess what everybody has been doing. 

Why do you need to do that? Why don't you e-mail LWG and say: "I think
you've been having difficulties with your communications. I'd like to
volunteer to be your communications officer. I'll sit in on your weekly
meetings, draw up a comms plan, and be responsible for carrying it through"?

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6496069.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] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[TimSC]

On 20/06/11 15:53, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

NopMap wrote:
   

Yeah, sure, I'll just burn some incense, look deep into my
crystal ball and guess what everybody has been doing.
 

Why do you need to do that? Why don't you e-mail LWG and say: "I think
you've been having difficulties with your communications. I'd like to
volunteer to be your communications officer. I'll sit in on your weekly
meetings, draw up a comms plan, and be responsible for carrying it through"?

cheers
Richard
   
It would be nice if the committee would be aware of this long standing 
problems and as for help from the community too. We have considerable 
human resources in the community and if people are over worked, perhaps 
they should delegate more?


Also, it can be that someone tried to do something they think 
constructive, they risk the ire of someone else who believes it should 
be done differently. Credo experto - believe me, i've tried.


TimSC


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[Steve Coast]

I think the LWG is more than well aware that they are imperfect human 
beings volunteering in a horrible environment to make things better. 
They're well aware that people have little time to help on a 
week-to-week basis for multiple years. Which is what they've been doing.


There are indeed many resources in the community but they don't 
magically come together. You have to turn up at a workshop, to a meeting 
or a phone call. Everyone here is more than capable of that. You'd be 
welcomed and we would love your help in making things better.


That's not to say every critique has to be met with a demand you come 
volunteer to fix it, but that is the easiest and quickest way generally 
to do so.


I'd take a long look at how you have sucked up the LWGs time, Tim, 
before you make these kinds of statements.


Steve


On 6/20/2011 8:03 AM, TimSC wrote:

On 20/06/11 15:53, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

NopMap wrote:

Yeah, sure, I'll just burn some incense, look deep into my
crystal ball and guess what everybody has been doing.

Why do you need to do that? Why don't you e-mail LWG and say: "I think
you've been having difficulties with your communications. I'd like to
volunteer to be your communications officer. I'll sit in on your weekly
meetings, draw up a comms plan, and be responsible for carrying it 
through"?


cheers
Richard
It would be nice if the committee would be aware of this long standing 
problems and as for help from the community too. We have considerable 
human resources in the community and if people are over worked, 
perhaps they should delegate more?


Also, it can be that someone tried to do something they think 
constructive, they risk the ire of someone else who believes it should 
be done differently. Credo experto - believe me, i've tried.


TimSC


___
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] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[Chris Hill]

On 20/06/11 16:03, TimSC wrote:

On 20/06/11 15:53, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

NopMap wrote:

Yeah, sure, I'll just burn some incense, look deep into my
crystal ball and guess what everybody has been doing.

Why do you need to do that? Why don't you e-mail LWG and say: "I think
you've been having difficulties with your communications. I'd like to
volunteer to be your communications officer. I'll sit in on your weekly
meetings, draw up a comms plan, and be responsible for carrying it 
through"?


cheers
Richard
It would be nice if the committee would be aware of this long standing 
problems and as for help from the community too. We have considerable 
human resources in the community and if people are over worked, 
perhaps they should delegate more?
Maybe part of the reason that these volunteers are working too hard is 
because some people demand individual attention. Imagine if everyone 
made their own demands of the LWG ...


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License for OSM tiles

[Grant Slater]

On 20 June 2011 10:52, TimSC  wrote:
>
> Any thoughts?
>

Thread starts here: "Best license for future tiles?" -
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-November/005045.html
There are some interesting thoughts bits between the noise.

/ Grant

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !

[Steve Coast]

On 6/18/2011 12:54 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:

Erik Johansson writes:
  >  The Troll word is used so often around in this community that it's
  >  hard to speak about courtesy.

That's because SteveC uses it on people who don't agree with him.


Can you point to an example where I call someone a troll who was not 
characterized by the wikipedia definition? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)



  It's
a form of brow-beating. Other people follow his lead.

Trolling is posting positions just to get a response, not to seek a
resolution. In fact, trolls actively avoid resolution, because they
would then have to find another topic to troll about.

Perhaps, better than accusing people of trolling (which is arguably
itself a method of trolling), is to ask people what problem they are
trying to solve with their writing. So, Dermot, why do you keep
claiming that people who accept the CT have "voted" for it?

For my part, the problem I'm trying to solve is that I don't want
anybody to think that just because I signed onto the relicensing
process, that I am in favor of it. I would be happier if suddenly
there was an earthquake, and the entire relicensing process
disappeared into the ground, never to be seen again. And that is
because I disagree with the problem statement of the
relicensing.

Ain't nobody going to benefit from taking a dead copy of the OSM data
away from us. Data is the corpse of action.  To misquote from "War
Games": The only way to win the game is to play it.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[Gehling Marc]

Am 20.06.2011 um 14:49 schrieb Frederik Ramm:

> Hi,
> 
> On 06/20/11 12:28, Mitja Kleider wrote:
>> Quoting
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-June/058727.html
>> 
>> Michael Collinson wrote:
>>> I would emphasise there is currently no need to remove data from the
>>> live database since the license is still CC-BY-SA. I believe there is no
>>> urgency to do so until acceptances have been maximised, local issues
>>> that have a near term solution have been addressed and there is a sense
>>> of community consensus that it is time.
>> 
>> I think "remove" is part of "re-map" and I agree we should wait "until 
>> acceptances have been maximised".
> 
> This message has, by the way, also been translated and put onto the German 
> forum by Kai,
> 
> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=12700
> 
> and onto the German mailinglist by myself:
> 
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2011-June/086828.html
> 

For the German community, we have also published in the blog [1] in April a 
longer article explaining the background, the course and consequences. And in 
the German weekly note [2], we report every week about all the changes and 
related events of the license change.

[1] http://blog.openstreetmap.de/2011/04/der-lizenzwechsel-bei-openstreetmap/
[2] http://blog.openstreetmap.de/category/wn/


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !

[john whelan]

Just a comment using the term Troll appears as if it is intended to provoke
an emotional response.

Surely we should be able to stick to issues and resolve them rather than
descend into emotions?

Cheerio John

On 20 June 2011 11:56, Steve Coast  wrote:

>
>
> On 6/18/2011 12:54 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
>
>> Erik Johansson writes:
>>  >  The Troll word is used so often around in this community that it's
>>  >  hard to speak about courtesy.
>>
>> That's because SteveC uses it on people who don't agree with him.
>>
>
> Can you point to an example where I call someone a troll who was not
> characterized by the wikipedia definition? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**
> Troll_(Internet) 
>
>
>>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[TimSC]

On 20/06/11 16:33, Steve Coast wrote:
I think the LWG is more than well aware that they are imperfect human 
beings volunteering in a horrible environment to make things better.
So, can you point to where LWG itself has explicitly asked for help? Or 
recognised it's difficulties with communication in writing? Perhaps we 
need a request for help page on the wiki? It would be good to have them 
ask for specific types of help because people with those skills can step 
forward.




I'd take a long look at how you have sucked up the LWGs time, Tim, 
before you make these kinds of statements.
Steve, can you stop changing the subject on to me? It's ad hominem and a 
violation of etiquette. And it is off topic and doesn't assume good 
faith. Do you understand what I am asking, as you keep doing it even 
when I ask you to stop?


Everything I have done, I have done in good faith. I shouldn't have to 
defend myself on every thread. (And Steve, if you want to talk about 
this seriously, try constructively responding to my email to the LWG on 
15th June first. Continued discussion on this probably should be off the 
mailing list.)


On 20/06/11 16:39, Chris Hill wrote:
Maybe part of the reason that these volunteers are working too hard is 
because some people demand individual attention. Imagine if everyone 
made their own demands of the LWG ...


Are you seriously saying that a handful of people directly talking to 
the LWG is a significant factor in LWG having communication 
difficulties? Or is this just another ad hominem? Is there a 
constructive solution to this? or are you telling me to shut up?


It seems to me the same issues come up again and again, but never 
concluded, so it is not necessarily the fault of the person asking the 
question (or even of the LWG). I suggest that people directly trying to 
communicate with the LWG is a symptom and not a cause of the 
communication problem.


Of course the LWG has a tough job, because legal issues are very hard to 
resolve and I have never denied that. But the solution is not to blame 
me or LWG but to actually try to solve the problems. So stop pointing 
fingers, please.


Perhaps if we can reduce the barriers to people helping OSM it would 
help. We obviously do this in mapping with friendlier tools. But I am 
told we talk people that can do sys admin tasks and get involved with 
the LWG (and probably many other things I don't know about). This might 
be due to the selection of pretty obscure prerequisites to get involved: 
ruby on rails in development (I have never met a RoR developer in 
person, at least knowingly), and being familiar with the background of 
ODbL (which most normal legal professionals can't understand, unless 
they are specialists). I suggest as many tasks as possible be moved into 
domains were people actually have the skills to help out. (This might be 
a lame idea but at least I am trying to be constructive.)


Regards,

TimSC


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[Chris Hill]

On 20/06/11 17:47, TimSC wrote:


On 20/06/11 16:39, Chris Hill wrote:
Maybe part of the reason that these volunteers are working too hard 
is because some people demand individual attention. Imagine if 
everyone made their own demands of the LWG ...


Are you seriously saying that a handful of people directly talking to 
the LWG is a significant factor in LWG having communication 
difficulties? Or is this just another ad hominem? Is there a 
constructive solution to this? or are you telling me to shut up?

I don't know the Latin for shut up.


It seems to me the same issues come up again and again, but never 
concluded, so it is not necessarily the fault of the person asking the 
question (or even of the LWG). I suggest that people directly trying 
to communicate with the LWG is a symptom and not a cause of the 
communication problem.


And exactly how did making a long list of personal demands at the 
eleventh hour help with that process? There is a world of difference 
asking questions on a public mailing list and sending a personalised 
list of demands to the LWG that was long enough to be used as a cure for 
insomnia.


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[Jason Cunningham]

I think using the word "pitiful" goes a bit far, but it got the intended
response.

As someone who spends little time reading through the mailing list I would
expected this important step to be very well publicised, and that does not
appear to be the case.
After reading a few of these emails, and not having heard of this Phase 4
before, I went to the Wiki Main Page nothing there.

Main reason for replying was some of the emails implied it would be more
helpful to actually find ways to advertise the change rather than go around
in circles arguing about it not been advertised.
I've added it to the News Section on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Main_Page but obviously someone who
understands what is going on should improve what I've done and add an
appropriate link (hopefully very quickly).

Cheers,

Jason

On 20 June 2011 14:55, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

> NopMap wrote:
> > How should that work - without concrete information posted anywhere?
>
> Ok. How do you fancy volunteering to be the person who posts the concrete
> information, then?
>
> You seem to be under the impression that magic communication fairies will
> crop up and make everything ok. It doesn't work like that. Everyone here is
> a volunteer. If you're not happy with the effort that other volunteers are
> making, you should volunteer yourself.
>
> cheers
> Richard
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6495858.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] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[TimSC]

On 20/06/11 18:11, Chris Hill wrote:


It seems to me the same issues come up again and again, but never 
concluded, so it is not necessarily the fault of the person asking 
the question (or even of the LWG). I suggest that people directly 
trying to communicate with the LWG is a symptom and not a cause of 
the communication problem.




And exactly how did making a long list of personal demands at the 
eleventh hour help with that process?


Ok, just sanity check here - I looked at subject line as to what we are 
talking about - which is communication difficulties and LWG and related 
issues. Part of the problem in OSM mailing lists is that discussions 
keep going off topic and this is even directly after I raised it as a 
problem. Given that is a significant problem, the question is how do we 
address it?


I suggest list moderation (which is community lead, not by a dictator) 
and a high standard of behavior set by the community leaders. (Yes, 
admittedly moderation takes volunteers but we need to agree on a plan 
before implementing it.) Can anyone think of a better plan?


Regards,

TimSC

PS I plan to disregard, as much as I can, all non-constructive input. I 
will probably only be partly successful though.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[Dair Grant]

TimSC wrote:

> I suggest as many tasks as possible be moved into domains were people actually
> have the skills to help out.

Then I suggest you do it, rather than just suggest it.

If you believe we "need a request for help page on the wiki" then there's
nothing stopping you from:

 - Suggesting this page
 - Creating this page
 - Identifying people you think might require help
 - Collect their requests and add them to the page
 - Identify people you think could implement these tasks
 - Convince those people they should implement these tasks
 - Monitor implementation progress and update the page

So far you seem to be at step 0.


-dair
___
d...@refnum.com  http://www.refnum.com/



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !

[Nathan Edgars II]

Steve Coast wrote:
> 
> On 6/18/2011 12:54 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
>> Erik Johansson writes:
>>   >  The Troll word is used so often around in this community that it's
>>   >  hard to speak about courtesy.
>>
>> That's because SteveC uses it on people who don't agree with him.
> 
> Can you point to an example where I call someone a troll who was not 
> characterized by the wikipedia definition? 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
> 

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2010-October/004601.html
I can say for sure that my aim was to get the bicycle=avoid tags removed,
and I would presume that Paul's aim was to keep them. Hence neither of us
was posting "with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional
response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion".

--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Join-the-OSMF-tp6461437p6496731.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] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[TimSC]

On 20/06/11 18:35, Dair Grant wrote:

TimSC wrote:

   

I suggest as many tasks as possible be moved into domains were people actually
have the skills to help out.
 

Then I suggest you do it, rather than just suggest it.
   
Doing things without discussing it might result in bad things happening. 
Discussion first, then do.


TimSC


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

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

Stop harassing the poor guys of the LWG.
They are just volonteers carrying out orders of the OSMF.
And after all:  99.99 % of our community
was not addressed. 
And  those who were addressed ...i tiny minority... who cares...
they won't bother us no more 


Gert

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: TimSC [mailto:mappingli...@sheerman-chase.org.uk] 
Verzonden: maandag 20 juni 2011 18:47
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

On 20/06/11 16:33, Steve Coast wrote:
> I think the LWG is more than well aware that they are imperfect human 
> beings volunteering in a horrible environment to make things better.
So, can you point to where LWG itself has explicitly asked for help? Or 
recognised it's difficulties with communication in writing? Perhaps we 
need a request for help page on the wiki? It would be good to have them 
ask for specific types of help because people with those skills can step

forward.

>
> I'd take a long look at how you have sucked up the LWGs time, Tim, 
> before you make these kinds of statements.
Steve, can you stop changing the subject on to me? It's ad hominem and a

violation of etiquette. And it is off topic and doesn't assume good 
faith. Do you understand what I am asking, as you keep doing it even 
when I ask you to stop?

Everything I have done, I have done in good faith. I shouldn't have to 
defend myself on every thread. (And Steve, if you want to talk about 
this seriously, try constructively responding to my email to the LWG on 
15th June first. Continued discussion on this probably should be off the

mailing list.)

On 20/06/11 16:39, Chris Hill wrote:
> Maybe part of the reason that these volunteers are working too hard is

> because some people demand individual attention. Imagine if everyone 
> made their own demands of the LWG ...
>
Are you seriously saying that a handful of people directly talking to 
the LWG is a significant factor in LWG having communication 
difficulties? Or is this just another ad hominem? Is there a 
constructive solution to this? or are you telling me to shut up?

It seems to me the same issues come up again and again, but never 
concluded, so it is not necessarily the fault of the person asking the 
question (or even of the LWG). I suggest that people directly trying to 
communicate with the LWG is a symptom and not a cause of the 
communication problem.

Of course the LWG has a tough job, because legal issues are very hard to

resolve and I have never denied that. But the solution is not to blame 
me or LWG but to actually try to solve the problems. So stop pointing 
fingers, please.

Perhaps if we can reduce the barriers to people helping OSM it would 
help. We obviously do this in mapping with friendlier tools. But I am 
told we talk people that can do sys admin tasks and get involved with 
the LWG (and probably many other things I don't know about). This might 
be due to the selection of pretty obscure prerequisites to get involved:

ruby on rails in development (I have never met a RoR developer in 
person, at least knowingly), and being familiar with the background of 
ODbL (which most normal legal professionals can't understand, unless 
they are specialists). I suggest as many tasks as possible be moved into

domains were people actually have the skills to help out. (This might be

a lame idea but at least I am trying to be constructive.)

Regards,

TimSC


___
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] Potlatch 2 video tutorials subtitles

[davespod]

groppo otto wrote:

> I have made subtitles in English and Italian for David Ellams video
> tutorials [1] [2] with Universal Subtitles.

That's great! So far we have English, Italian and Dutch. I hope speakers of
a few other tongues rise to the challenge.

Cheers

David

--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Potlatch-2-video-tutorials-subtitles-tp6493329p6497124.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] Japan KSJ2 Import

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

   is someone on this list involved in OSM in Japan? I'll go to talk-jp 
with the issue if not, but maybe the right people are reading this here 
also.


I noticed that a lot of data has been imported from a "KSJ2" data set, 
and this data has many tags that I consider unnecessary.


The whole import seems to comprise about 3.5 million nodes, 680k ways, 
and 9000 relations.


3.3 million nodes are tagged with something like





which means that the node coordinates are stored three times - once in 
the node itself and twice in the tags.


About 3.3 million objects are tagged with something like





v="http://nlftp.mlit.go.jp/ksj/jpgis/datalist/KsjTmplt-N02-v1_1.html"/>


which is a lot of text where in my opinion a simple source tag on the 
changeset would have been sufficient. (The overwhelming majority of 
source_ref tags, 2.9 million, point to "KsjTmplt-N03.html", but another 
17 are in use; the distribution for note:ja is similar, with two 
messages being used 1.8 and 1.0 million times respectively, and a 
handful of others in use.)


3.1 million nodes used by ways are tagged with something like




which strikes me as a bit unnecessary as well; if really required, then 
that could go on the way using the nodes and not on every single node!


In addition to that, we have 1.1 million objects tagged with

v="National-Land-Numerical-Information_MLIT_Japan"/>


- also something that we usually but on changesets, and that seems to 
duplicate information already in the source and note tags.


There are also about 360k occurrences, on nodes used by ways, of the 
tags KSJ2:INT, KSJ2:INT_label, KSJ2:LIN, KSJ2:OPC, KSJ2:RAC; I have no 
idea what these are for but do they have to go on the nodes really?


I would like to see this (in my opinion) superfluous information 
removed. We would get rid of about 30 million tags. The size of the 
Japan dataset (in XML form) would shrink by 13% from 13.1 to 11.5 GB, 
the .osm.pbf would shrink by 14% from 585 to 501 MB. About 1 GB of 
database storage would be saved on the central OSM database server.


Needless to say, any software that processes the Japan dataset would 
also run faster and consume less resources.


Can anybody comment on this? Are any of the tags that I mentioned above 
actually used by anyone for anything?


In addition, there are 22 multipolygons from the same import, with more 
than 1000 members each (the top three being #1337942 with 10865 members, 
#1060553 with 5637, and #1069424 with 4518). While it is not wrong for a 
multipolygon to have so many members, this makes the affected areas very 
difficult to render and edit, and has the potential to bring 
unsuspecting relation processing software to a halt. Most of these 
multipolygons cannot even be downloaded via the API becuase it takes so 
long. I would like these multipolygons (all natural=wood I believe) 
split up into smaller entities.


It would be great if someone involved with the Japan community could 
deal with these issues; but I would also be willing to do it myself if 
that's ok with the community in Japan.


Finally, I am unsure if the KSJ2 import is even complete; if it is not, 
and still ongoing, then the numbers reported above might not even be the 
last word. In that case I would like to ask whoever is masterminding the 
import to maybe modify their scripts to include less superfluous tags. 
(Objects in question seem to be uploaded by a variety of users so I 
cannot detect from the object history alone who runs the import.)


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] Japan KSJ2 Import

[Brad Neuhauser]

FYI, the import wiki page is
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/Japan_KSJ2_Import and
there's separate sub-pages for each type of data.  It looks like User:Tatata
wrote one script being used?

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
>   is someone on this list involved in OSM in Japan? I'll go to talk-jp with
> the issue if not, but maybe the right people are reading this here also.
>
> I noticed that a lot of data has been imported from a "KSJ2" data set, and
> this data has many tags that I consider unnecessary.
>
> The whole import seems to comprise about 3.5 million nodes, 680k ways, and
> 9000 relations.
>
> 3.3 million nodes are tagged with something like
>
>
>
>
>
> which means that the node coordinates are stored three times - once in the
> node itself and twice in the tags.
>
> About 3.3 million objects are tagged with something like
>
>
>
>
>http://nlftp.mlit.go.jp/**
> ksj/jpgis/datalist/KsjTmplt-**N02-v1_1.html
> "/>
>
> which is a lot of text where in my opinion a simple source tag on the
> changeset would have been sufficient. (The overwhelming majority of
> source_ref tags, 2.9 million, point to "KsjTmplt-N03.html", but another 17
> are in use; the distribution for note:ja is similar, with two messages being
> used 1.8 and 1.0 million times respectively, and a handful of others in
> use.)
>
> 3.1 million nodes used by ways are tagged with something like
>
>
>
>
> which strikes me as a bit unnecessary as well; if really required, then
> that could go on the way using the nodes and not on every single node!
>
> In addition to that, we have 1.1 million objects tagged with
>
>
>
> - also something that we usually but on changesets, and that seems to
> duplicate information already in the source and note tags.
>
> There are also about 360k occurrences, on nodes used by ways, of the tags
> KSJ2:INT, KSJ2:INT_label, KSJ2:LIN, KSJ2:OPC, KSJ2:RAC; I have no idea what
> these are for but do they have to go on the nodes really?
>
> I would like to see this (in my opinion) superfluous information removed.
> We would get rid of about 30 million tags. The size of the Japan dataset (in
> XML form) would shrink by 13% from 13.1 to 11.5 GB, the .osm.pbf would
> shrink by 14% from 585 to 501 MB. About 1 GB of database storage would be
> saved on the central OSM database server.
>
> Needless to say, any software that processes the Japan dataset would also
> run faster and consume less resources.
>
> Can anybody comment on this? Are any of the tags that I mentioned above
> actually used by anyone for anything?
>
> In addition, there are 22 multipolygons from the same import, with more
> than 1000 members each (the top three being #1337942 with 10865 members,
> #1060553 with 5637, and #1069424 with 4518). While it is not wrong for a
> multipolygon to have so many members, this makes the affected areas very
> difficult to render and edit, and has the potential to bring unsuspecting
> relation processing software to a halt. Most of these multipolygons cannot
> even be downloaded via the API becuase it takes so long. I would like these
> multipolygons (all natural=wood I believe) split up into smaller entities.
>
> It would be great if someone involved with the Japan community could deal
> with these issues; but I would also be willing to do it myself if that's ok
> with the community in Japan.
>
> Finally, I am unsure if the KSJ2 import is even complete; if it is not, and
> still ongoing, then the numbers reported above might not even be the last
> word. In that case I would like to ask whoever is masterminding the import
> to maybe modify their scripts to include less superfluous tags. (Objects in
> question seem to be uploaded by a variety of users so I cannot detect from
> the object history alone who runs the import.)
>
> 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
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Japan KSJ2 Import

[Shu Higashi]

Hi Frederik,

I'm a member of OpenStreetMap Japan community.

I'll ask the necessity of those tags to the community members.
Please give us some time.

It would be helpful for us
if there are something like norm or guidance for source tag.
Because we do not have clear conclusion on
how to use source tags when original source data was modified.

Shu Higashi

2011/6/21, Frederik Ramm :
> Hi,
>
> is someone on this list involved in OSM in Japan? I'll go to talk-jp
> with the issue if not, but maybe the right people are reading this here
> also.
>
> I noticed that a lot of data has been imported from a "KSJ2" data set,
> and this data has many tags that I consider unnecessary.
>
> The whole import seems to comprise about 3.5 million nodes, 680k ways,
> and 9000 relations.
>
> 3.3 million nodes are tagged with something like
>
>  
>  
>  
>
> which means that the node coordinates are stored three times - once in
> the node itself and twice in the tags.
>
> About 3.3 million objects are tagged with something like
>
>  
>  
>  
>   v="http://nlftp.mlit.go.jp/ksj/jpgis/datalist/KsjTmplt-N02-v1_1.html"/>
>
> which is a lot of text where in my opinion a simple source tag on the
> changeset would have been sufficient. (The overwhelming majority of
> source_ref tags, 2.9 million, point to "KsjTmplt-N03.html", but another
> 17 are in use; the distribution for note:ja is similar, with two
> messages being used 1.8 and 1.0 million times respectively, and a
> handful of others in use.)
>
> 3.1 million nodes used by ways are tagged with something like
>
>  
>  
>
> which strikes me as a bit unnecessary as well; if really required, then
> that could go on the way using the nodes and not on every single node!
>
> In addition to that, we have 1.1 million objects tagged with
>
>   v="National-Land-Numerical-Information_MLIT_Japan"/>
>
> - also something that we usually but on changesets, and that seems to
> duplicate information already in the source and note tags.
>
> There are also about 360k occurrences, on nodes used by ways, of the
> tags KSJ2:INT, KSJ2:INT_label, KSJ2:LIN, KSJ2:OPC, KSJ2:RAC; I have no
> idea what these are for but do they have to go on the nodes really?
>
> I would like to see this (in my opinion) superfluous information
> removed. We would get rid of about 30 million tags. The size of the
> Japan dataset (in XML form) would shrink by 13% from 13.1 to 11.5 GB,
> the .osm.pbf would shrink by 14% from 585 to 501 MB. About 1 GB of
> database storage would be saved on the central OSM database server.
>
> Needless to say, any software that processes the Japan dataset would
> also run faster and consume less resources.
>
> Can anybody comment on this? Are any of the tags that I mentioned above
> actually used by anyone for anything?
>
> In addition, there are 22 multipolygons from the same import, with more
> than 1000 members each (the top three being #1337942 with 10865 members,
> #1060553 with 5637, and #1069424 with 4518). While it is not wrong for a
> multipolygon to have so many members, this makes the affected areas very
> difficult to render and edit, and has the potential to bring
> unsuspecting relation processing software to a halt. Most of these
> multipolygons cannot even be downloaded via the API becuase it takes so
> long. I would like these multipolygons (all natural=wood I believe)
> split up into smaller entities.
>
> It would be great if someone involved with the Japan community could
> deal with these issues; but I would also be willing to do it myself if
> that's ok with the community in Japan.
>
> Finally, I am unsure if the KSJ2 import is even complete; if it is not,
> and still ongoing, then the numbers reported above might not even be the
> last word. In that case I would like to ask whoever is masterminding the
> import to maybe modify their scripts to include less superfluous tags.
> (Objects in question seem to be uploaded by a variety of users so I
> cannot detect from the object history alone who runs the import.)
>
> 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
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[SteveC]

Tim

Chris is trying to gently point out to you, as I was, that you're the one who's 
sucked up the most LWG time lately and thus making your suggestions on how they 
sound their time is a bit odd.

Ignoring the point isn't helping.

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Jun 20, 2011, at 10:25, TimSC  wrote:

> On 20/06/11 18:11, Chris Hill wrote:
>> 
>>> It seems to me the same issues come up again and again, but never 
>>> concluded, so it is not necessarily the fault of the person asking the 
>>> question (or even of the LWG). I suggest that people directly trying to 
>>> communicate with the LWG is a symptom and not a cause of the communication 
>>> problem.
>>> 
>> 
>> And exactly how did making a long list of personal demands at the eleventh 
>> hour help with that process?
> 
> Ok, just sanity check here - I looked at subject line as to what we are 
> talking about - which is communication difficulties and LWG and related 
> issues. Part of the problem in OSM mailing lists is that discussions keep 
> going off topic and this is even directly after I raised it as a problem. 
> Given that is a significant problem, the question is how do we address it?
> 
> I suggest list moderation (which is community lead, not by a dictator) and a 
> high standard of behavior set by the community leaders. (Yes, admittedly 
> moderation takes volunteers but we need to agree on a plan before 
> implementing it.) Can anyone think of a better plan?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> TimSC
> 
> PS I plan to disregard, as much as I can, all non-constructive input. I will 
> probably only be partly successful though.
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Join the OSMF !

[SteveC]

I only said +1 for a start, and that was in a thread where you managed to annoy 
Richard Weait. That's quite a feat.

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Jun 20, 2011, at 10:43, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:

> 
> Steve Coast wrote:
>> 
>> On 6/18/2011 12:54 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
>>> Erik Johansson writes:
 The Troll word is used so often around in this community that it's
 hard to speak about courtesy.
>>> 
>>> That's because SteveC uses it on people who don't agree with him.
>> 
>> Can you point to an example where I call someone a troll who was not 
>> characterized by the wikipedia definition? 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
>> 
> 
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2010-October/004601.html
> I can say for sure that my aim was to get the bicycle=avoid tags removed,
> and I would presume that Paul's aim was to keep them. Hence neither of us
> was posting "with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional
> response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion".
> 
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Join-the-OSMF-tp6461437p6496731.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] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[SteveC]

Tim

An ad hominem attack would be something where you complained about what the LWG 
spent it's time on and I replied with a comment about your mother. Instead, I 
replied pointing out that you are in fact the one using most of their time 
recently. That would be called a rebuttal or perhaps a riposte, but it's not an 
ad hominem attack.

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Jun 20, 2011, at 9:47, TimSC  wrote:

> On 20/06/11 16:33, Steve Coast wrote:
>> I think the LWG is more than well aware that they are imperfect human beings 
>> volunteering in a horrible environment to make things better.
> So, can you point to where LWG itself has explicitly asked for help? Or 
> recognised it's difficulties with communication in writing? Perhaps we need a 
> request for help page on the wiki? It would be good to have them ask for 
> specific types of help because people with those skills can step forward.
> 
>> 
>> I'd take a long look at how you have sucked up the LWGs time, Tim, before 
>> you make these kinds of statements.
> Steve, can you stop changing the subject on to me? It's ad hominem and a 
> violation of etiquette. And it is off topic and doesn't assume good faith. Do 
> you understand what I am asking, as you keep doing it even when I ask you to 
> stop?
> 
> Everything I have done, I have done in good faith. I shouldn't have to defend 
> myself on every thread. (And Steve, if you want to talk about this seriously, 
> try constructively responding to my email to the LWG on 15th June first. 
> Continued discussion on this probably should be off the mailing list.)
> 
> On 20/06/11 16:39, Chris Hill wrote:
>> Maybe part of the reason that these volunteers are working too hard is 
>> because some people demand individual attention. Imagine if everyone made 
>> their own demands of the LWG ...
>> 
> Are you seriously saying that a handful of people directly talking to the LWG 
> is a significant factor in LWG having communication difficulties? Or is this 
> just another ad hominem? Is there a constructive solution to this? or are you 
> telling me to shut up?
> 
> It seems to me the same issues come up again and again, but never concluded, 
> so it is not necessarily the fault of the person asking the question (or even 
> of the LWG). I suggest that people directly trying to communicate with the 
> LWG is a symptom and not a cause of the communication problem.
> 
> Of course the LWG has a tough job, because legal issues are very hard to 
> resolve and I have never denied that. But the solution is not to blame me or 
> LWG but to actually try to solve the problems. So stop pointing fingers, 
> please.
> 
> Perhaps if we can reduce the barriers to people helping OSM it would help. We 
> obviously do this in mapping with friendlier tools. But I am told we talk 
> people that can do sys admin tasks and get involved with the LWG (and 
> probably many other things I don't know about). This might be due to the 
> selection of pretty obscure prerequisites to get involved: ruby on rails in 
> development (I have never met a RoR developer in person, at least knowingly), 
> and being familiar with the background of ODbL (which most normal legal 
> professionals can't understand, unless they are specialists). I suggest as 
> many tasks as possible be moved into domains were people actually have the 
> skills to help out. (This might be a lame idea but at least I am trying to be 
> constructive.)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> TimSC
> 
> 

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