Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.

[Nic Roets]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Julio Costa Zambelli
 wrote:
> On 23 June 2011 16:52, Nic Roets  wrote:
>>
>> It's much closer to what's been
>> happening in the Arab States this year:
>
> There are at least two big difference between revolutions in the Maghreb and
> Arab Countries, and the License discussion inside OSM.
> In this mailing lists it doesn't matter if a position is backed by one or
> ten thousand people, one persons email message weight the same as fifty
> thousand people shouting at Tahrir Square, even if that message has more in
> common with one crazy guy screaming about conspiracy theories outside ground
> zero.

Basically all you are saying is that mailing lists are a bad way to
measure support. And I agree 100%.

Can you can prove that the average contributor thinks that the average
contributor thinks that the benefits* of the ODbL exceeds the cost of
implementing it** ? Then I will personally start telling people that
they are in the minority and should go away.

*: Looking at whitehouse.gov, the software on my phone etc, I can't
see a single thing that will change (either positive or negative).

**: To implement it, we will have to delete some data. We are
bothering people by sending them email and if they do not respond, we
use facebook etc.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.

[Thomas Davie]

On 24 Jun 2011, at 06:32, Mike Dupont wrote:

> but being locked out of osm is also not pretty.  

No one is locked out of OSM.  You are free to contribute under the CTs, as you 
always have been.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.

[Michael Collinson]

On 23/06/2011 17:35, John Smith wrote:

On 24 June 2011 01:27, Robert Scott  wrote:
   

>  So - what, you're saying we should be doing the whole 
list-ten-thousand-names-in-the-corner thing? I don't understand - what's your 
point?
 

My point is, why should other sites be forced into attribution even
OSM-F isn't willing to give it's own contributors, nor make it easy
for people to find it without it being pointed out.

   
"4. At Your or the copyright owner’s option, OSMF agrees to attribute 
You or the copyright owner. A mechanism will be provided, currently a 
web page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution.";


Hope that helps. I am personally not going to put my name there, I have 
always felt that my contributions are more important then my name.


Mike

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.

[Ed Loach]

Nic wrote:

> Basically all you are saying is that mailing lists are a bad way
to
> measure support. And I agree 100%.
> 
> Can you prove that the average contributor thinks that the
> benefits* of the ODbL exceeds the cost of
> implementing it** ? Then I will personally start telling people
that
> they are in the minority and should go away.
> 
> *: Looking at whitehouse.gov, the software on my phone etc, I
can't
> see a single thing that will change (either positive or negative).
> 
> **: To implement it, we will have to delete some data. We are
> bothering people by sending them email and if they do not respond,
> we use facebook etc.

I doubt there are any average contributors on this list. I won't be
staying much longer since my return the other day because there has
been very little worth reading (perhaps even including this message
I'm sending), and too much that wasn't that I regret wasting my time
reading.

But I had a look at fosm.org yesterday and they (whoever "they" are
- is there a fosmf?) seem to be making the same mistake that osm.org
did with the original CTs; should they ever need to relicense (say
move from cc-by-sa 2.0 to 3.0) the data, then as far as I can tell
they will need to contact all the contributors or themselves risk
data loss. It would perhaps be better to have their CTs now such
that it is clear that only active contributors will be contacted if
such a change is required and what majority will be required for a
change to happen. Perhaps this should be discussed on
talk-le...@fosm.org when they get as far as setting up email lists.
I'm also curious who counts as the contributor for all the stuff
imported from OSM; presumably it counts as a single contributor's
imports.

Anyway, as this process has taken about 5 years so far I am glad it
is reaching the end at last, and a small loss of data which with the
rapid growth in the number of contributors should take little time
to replace. Almost all of us here joined the project after it was
clear that an attribution sharealike licence applied to our
contributions, and now there is such a licence that covers the data,
and CTs that make any future move from say ODBL 1 to ODBL2 less
painful, that can only be a good thing.

Oh, and another added benefit is that once we reach phase 5 I can
probably come back on various OSM related email lists without all
threads degenerating into license debates. 

Ed


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

Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.

[John Smith]

On 24 June 2011 18:06, Michael Collinson  wrote:
> "4. At Your or the copyright owner’s option, OSMF agrees to attribute You or
> the copyright owner. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution.";
>
> Hope that helps. I am personally not going to put my name there, I have
> always felt that my contributions are more important then my name.

Is that page even linked to from the map itself?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.

[John Smith]

On 24 June 2011 18:10, Ed Loach  wrote:
> But I had a look at fosm.org yesterday and they (whoever "they" are
> - is there a fosmf?) seem to be making the same mistake that osm.org
> did with the original CTs; should they ever need to relicense (say
> move from cc-by-sa 2.0 to 3.0) the data, then as far as I can tell

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode

Section 4 part b

"You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this
License, a later version of this License with the same License
Elements as this License"

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.

[80n]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Ed Loach  wrote:

>
> But I had a look at fosm.org yesterday and they (whoever "they" are
> - is there a fosmf?)


There is no fosmf, and I rather hope there never will be.


> seem to be making the same mistake that osm.org
> did with the original CTs; should they ever need to relicense (say
> move from cc-by-sa 2.0 to 3.0) the data, then as far as I can tell
> they will need to contact all the contributors or themselves risk
> data loss.


CC-BY-SA 2.0 already has an upgrade clause and there's no intention of ever
changing the license.  If it was every necessary it would be done the right
way, by forking the project.  And anyone is free to do that at any time...


> It would perhaps be better to have their CTs now such
> that it is clear that only active contributors will be contacted if
> such a change is required and what majority will be required for a
> change to happen. Perhaps this should be discussed on
> talk-le...@fosm.org when they get as far as setting up email lists.
>

Since fosm.org is not about forking the community, only the license, I very
much doubt that we'll need one of those.  And I very much doubt that we'll
have anything to talk about that isn't also directly applicable to OSM
(tagging, mapping parties, imagery etc).


> I'm also curious who counts as the contributor for all the stuff
> imported from OSM; presumably it counts as a single contributor's
> imports.
>

No, the contributor is the person who owns the copyright.  That's you for
your contributions.


>
> Anyway, as this process has taken about 5 years so far I am glad it
> is reaching the end at last, and a small loss of data which with the
> rapid growth in the number of contributors should take little time
> to replace.


If only...


> Almost all of us here joined the project after it was
> clear that an attribution sharealike licence applied to our
> contributions, and now there is such a licence that covers the data,
> and CTs that make any future move from say ODBL 1 to ODBL2 less
> painful, that can only be a good thing.
>
> Oh, and another added benefit is that once we reach phase 5 I can
> probably come back on various OSM related email lists without all
> threads degenerating into license debates.
>
> That would be something positive.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.

[Michael Collinson]

On 24/06/2011 10:21, John Smith wrote:

On 24 June 2011 18:06, Michael Collinson  wrote:
   

"4. At Your or the copyright owner’s option, OSMF agrees to attribute You or
the copyright owner. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution.";

Hope that helps. I am personally not going to put my name there, I have
always felt that my contributions are more important then my name.
 

Is that page even linked to from the map itself?

   
We have almost completed work so that the page link goes out with each 
and every extraction of geodata ever made (planet dump, API, ...) which 
is the important thing. Good point though, and I have requested 
appropriate changes to the "Copyright and License" page.


Mike

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.

[John Smith]

On 24 June 2011 19:31, Michael Collinson  wrote:
> We have almost completed work so that the page link goes out with each and
> every extraction of geodata ever made (planet dump, API, ...) which is the
> important thing. Good point though, and I have requested appropriate changes
> to the "Copyright and License" page.

But that still falls short of what OSM-F is telling everyone else, but
failing to do itself on it's own map, it doesn't make it immediately
obvious where attribution can be found to end users.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.

[80n]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:35 AM, John Smith wrote:

> n 24 June 2011 19:31, Michael Collinson  wrote:
> > We have almost completed work so that the page link goes out with each
> and
> > every extraction of geodata ever made (planet dump, API, ...) which is
> the
> > important thing. Good point though, and I have requested appropriate
> changes
> > to the "Copyright and License" page.
>

fosm.org has a link, indirectly, to that page and all the appropriate
copyright notices in it's API.  Can anyone see any problems with how we are
doing that?

Incidentally I think the wording on that wiki page could do with some
polishing "It is impossible to adequately acknowledge the many individuals
..."

Of course it's not impossible, impractical might be closer to the truth, but
I'm not even sure that conveys the right sentiment.

80n
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cycleway or highway=path

[colliar]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256



Am 23.06.2011 00:27, schrieb Simon Poole:
> Am 23.06.2011 00:04, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
>> SimonPoole wrote:
>>> In some countries (ie Germany, Switzerland) bicycle=designated has the
>>> implication that the way has to be used by bicycles (in Germany it's
>>> "slightly" more complicated), I assume that's not the case in the states.
>>>
>> Depends on the state (and sometimes the city):
>> http://bicycledriving.org/law/guide-to-improving-laws#sidepath
>> I can't see any way to tag a mandatory sidepath correctly with access tags,
>> since one is presumably allowed to use the roadway to make a turn that can't
>> be made from the sidepath (so bicycle=destination is incorrect).
> 
> In general in German speaking Europe, the requirement to use what ever is
> signposted as a mandatory cycleway goes only as far as it is actually going in
> your direction. So you are always allowed to use a junction or similar to 
> leave
> the cycleway and go wherever necessary if the cycleway can't get you there. It
> is difficult to compare the European situation to the states, since road 
> layout
> and use tends to be very very different, and mandatory sidepath usage is more
> similar to having to ride on the side of the road than mandatory cycleway 
> usage
> (which are very often completely separate ways).
> 
> Just a further remark: instead of "designated", "official" is in use in 
> Germany
> to indicate mandatory use cycleways that are really really mandatory (as I 
> said,
> Germany is "slightly" more complicated).

+1

I stopped using foot/cycleway and only use path/track with access tags.

In Germany, I found several occasions where the administration was not sure
about it and from on direction a motor_vehicle=no  and from the other
foot/bicycle=official is signed.

cu colliar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEAREIAAYFAk4Eb+UACgkQalWTFLzqsCvQBwCfVIj5jG58fBeAjoN6UUHCVZXz
0skAniUiIliayUI7/fSQM3DeRU8wBThs
=nAPH
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.

[colliar]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

+100

Cheers colliar

Am 23.06.2011 01:35, schrieb john whelan:
> I absolutely agree.
> 
> Cheerio John
> 
> On 22 June 2011 19:29, David Murn  > wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 13:49 -0700, Steve Coast wrote:
> 
> > Personally I hope as soon as possible. I suspect it will be nice to
> > give you 'no' guys some time to reconsider, as some already have.
> 
> Such a pity you dont extend the same feelings to those 'yes guys' who
> wish to change their acceptance.  Except that changing from no to yes is
> generally upto the mapper, those who wish to change the other way are
> trying to protect themselves and the OSM project from liability.  Surely
> with the whole purpose of the licence change being to purge any
> non-compatible data, these requests should be taken seriously, not in
> the way they generally have been, with refusal.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org 
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEAREIAAYFAk4Ecq8ACgkQalWTFLzqsCvXzQCglx0nD8cE25pfCU0MXpVJsPw+
9o8AoJlkEXFntRUcxZg5reC1DMhJAWhj
=FvCk
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.

[Henk Hoff]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:25 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> n 24 June 2011 19:31, Michael Collinson  wrote:
>> > We have almost completed work so that the page link goes out with each
>> and
>> > every extraction of geodata ever made (planet dump, API, ...) which is
>> the
>> > important thing. Good point though, and I have requested appropriate
>> changes
>> > to the "Copyright and License" page.
>>
>
> fosm.org has a link, indirectly, to that page and all the appropriate
> copyright notices in it's API.  Can anyone see any problems with how we are
> doing that?
>
>
I can see problems with fosm.org having the Attribution-link deeplinken to
the Attribution page on the openstreetmap wiki. Just to name two:
1) It suggests that fosm and osm are one and the same. which they are not.
2) fosm will not / cannot attribute those who only work on fosm.

Personally I don't care much about the second issue. That's with fosm and
it's contributors. If their contributors don't want to be attributed, that's
up to them.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Thank you sysadmins!

[Iván Sánchez Ortega]

On Viernes 24 Junio 2011 03:45:39 Richard Weait escribió:
> Thank you so much, sysadmins, for all that you do to keep OSM running
> every day.  And that you especially for making the server move today
> look so smooth.

Which reminds me that I didn't buy them a beer (and I had the opportunity). I 
failed on showing my respect to the sysadmin team and their work. Shame on me.

-- 
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega  

Un ordenador no es un televisor ni un microondas, es una herramienta compleja.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.

[80n]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Henk Hoff  wrote:

>
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:25 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> n 24 June 2011 19:31, Michael Collinson  wrote:
>>> > We have almost completed work so that the page link goes out with each
>>> and
>>> > every extraction of geodata ever made (planet dump, API, ...) which is
>>> the
>>> > important thing. Good point though, and I have requested appropriate
>>> changes
>>> > to the "Copyright and License" page.
>>>
>>
>> fosm.org has a link, indirectly, to that page and all the appropriate
>> copyright notices in it's API.  Can anyone see any problems with how we are
>> doing that?
>>
>>
>
Thanks, Henk this is useful feedback.


> I can see problems with fosm.org having the Attribution-link deeplinken to
> the Attribution page on the openstreetmap wiki. Just to name two:
> 1) It suggests that fosm and osm are one and the same. which they are not.
>

I'd hate to imply that ;)  I'll see if I can put some content on an
intermediate page that clarifies.


> 2) fosm will not / cannot attribute those who only work on fosm.
>

All content outputs from fosm.org attribute fosm, osm and contributors.
Most of the website's html pages do not contain or publish maps or map
content, only the api and diff files contain any content and those are
attributed like this:



The one exception is currently Potlatch which is embedded and obviously
displays map content.  I guess ideally Potlatch itself should read the data
source headers and display the copyright and attribution notices that are
appropriate.  Perhaps that would make sense once all OSM data sources
provide such information.



> Personally I don't care much about the second issue. That's with fosm and
> it's contributors. If their contributors don't want to be attributed, that's
> up to them.
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.

[Richard Fairhurst]

80n wrote:
> The one exception is currently Potlatch which is embedded and 
> obviously displays map content.

Because Potlatch is embedded, you are encouraged to put any copyright
notices you wish in the embedding page. :)

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6513157.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 compatibility clarification

[Jonas Häggqvist]

Is the CT/ODbL compatible with CC-BY-SA?

Say if an organization releases some data under CC-BY-SA, could we use it 
(in the CT/ODbL future)?


For extra credit, explain why/why not.

--
Jonas Häggqvist
rasher(at)rasher(dot)dk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] the map on osm.org - airstrips showing only at zoom 10

[Lennard]

On 24-6-2011 4:25, Robin Paulson wrote:

mappers in NZ have recently imported a lot of grass airstrips into
OSM. it appears the airstrips only render at zoom 10 on the mapnik
render of the map at osm.org, which looks like this:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.243&lon=175.014&zoom=10&layers=M

is there any particular reason for this, osm.org map maintainer?


No, not at all, except that it can be considered a bug. There hadn't 
been many airstrips tagged before this import happened, and only now is 
it plainly obvious the zooms are buggy for them.


I've actually had this reported to me somehow, some time ago, but forgot 
about it. There was no trac ticket created either. Would be helpful if 
you could do that.


--
Lennard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Kothic JS - a full-featured JavaScript map rendering engine using HTML5 Canvas

[Komяpa]

> It's much faster now, but yes, it was 5-8 minutes. Now it takes about
> 16 seconds.

Is it still ~16 seconds, or is faster now? (There was a heavy load on
a server when
the whole thing was released, now applied some tweaks so it hopefully
will be accessible.)

-- 
Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski
OSM BY Team
xmpp:m...@komzpa.net mailto:m...@komzpa.net

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

Re: [OSM-talk] the map on osm.org - airstrips showing only at zoom 10

[John Smith]

On 25 June 2011 06:02, Lennard  wrote:
> On 24-6-2011 4:25, Robin Paulson wrote:
>>
>> mappers in NZ have recently imported a lot of grass airstrips into
>> OSM. it appears the airstrips only render at zoom 10 on the mapnik
>> render of the map at osm.org, which looks like this:
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.243&lon=175.014&zoom=10&layers=M
>>
>> is there any particular reason for this, osm.org map maintainer?
>
> No, not at all, except that it can be considered a bug. There hadn't been
> many airstrips tagged before this import happened, and only now is it
> plainly obvious the zooms are buggy for them.

Wasn't there some discussion about that before, how important airports
such as LAX should show sooner than regional airports which should
show up sooner than grass airstrips.

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