Re: [OSM-talk] http://sautter.com/map/ display problem

[Dave F.]

On 26/08/2011 17:33, Dave F. wrote:

http://sautter.com/map/



Just had a reply from Frank the owner of the site. He's aware of the 
problem & will try to fix it in the next few weeks.


Cheers
Dave F.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Extract a polygon into a polygon filter file format

[Vincent Pottier]

Le 26/08/2011 17:07, Frederik Ramm a écrit :

Hi,

Phil! Gold wrote:

Why is this so logical?  The exact same data can be derived from the
intersection of the sets of elements in the two countries' 
(single-level)
border relations. 


Put yourself in the position of having to create or maintain them.

Creation:

Cascading relations: You create ONE relation that contains all the 
ways making up the border between A and B (finding them is a 
cumbersome manual process). Then you create two relations for the two 
countries, each time adding only 4 or 5 sub-relations.


Single-relation approach: You create TWO relations that each contain 
all the ways making up the border between A and B (plus a lot more).


Maintenance:

Cascading: You split a way on the border between A and B. The newly 
created way is added to one relatively small relation and that's it.


Single-relation: The newly created way has to be added to two very 
large relations which you will have to first download and later upload 
as a whole.


Single-relation also has the higher risk of edit conflicts.


It seems to me that because both shcmes can satisfy the
use case, the preferable approace would be the simpler one, which I 
see as

being the single-relation approach.


Simpler for reading, but, as explained above, more 
difficult/problematic for maintenance.


Bye
Frederik


And if computers are made to ease human work...
So let us give work to computers...

Cascaded relations are already use for borders, hikking routes.
And there is no problem for mapnik that don't care of integrity of 
borders and that don't render routes.


I will also use it for riverbanks of big rivers
*relation type=multipolygon natural=water with members
** role=outer, relation type=multipolygon, riverbank:left_hand with 
members ways waterway=riverbank and waterway=confluence

** role=outer, relation type=multipolygon, riverbank:right_hand ..."..."
** role=inner, relation type=multipolygon, riverbank:isles

that would be better than the actual trunked riverbanks, and riverbanks 
in the middle of the river !

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1705916
The riverbank is strictly a riverbank and can be render with dashed 
line, with dark blue... or according to a subtag, and the rendering of 
the surface is made as water and computed according to the polygon.


With good tools (like JOSM) where members are ordered the maintenance is 
easy : it is easy to know where the succession of ways has been broken.

But would mapnik recognize this scheme ?
--
FrViPofm

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF elections

[Michael Kugelmann]

Am 26.08.2011 10:59, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
I would like to see a rule that says: 

[...]
in my first thoughts this sounds as a good idea in my point of view.


Best regards,
Michael.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] http://sautter.com/map/ display problem

[ikonor]

I noticed that too and looked into it just recently. To me this seems to 
be an issue with the new OpenLayers Bing Tiles Layer. Overlays were 
working with 2.11 RC1 and are broken since RC2.


The zoomOffset of the Bing layer is 1 (which is wrong, imho), of the 
overlay 0 and thus tile requests are calculated with the wrong zoom level.


I'm going to report that to OpenLayers.

Cheers,
ikonor

Am 26.08.2011 18:33, schrieb Dave F.:

http://sautter.com/map/

I can't speak German so I not sure if it's a known problem, but I can't
get OSM to display as an overlay when I select Bing aerial as the
background. It just loads pink tiles. It's been like that for a while.

Are others getting this fault?

Cheers
Dave F.

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




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

Re: [OSM-talk] http://sautter.com/map/ display problem

[Brad Neuhauser]

If you zoom out all the way, it looks like there's a projection issue with
the Bing base layer and any of the overlays.  Brad

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Dave F.  wrote:

> http://sautter.com/map/
>
> I can't speak German so I not sure if it's a known problem, but I can't get
> OSM to display as an overlay when I select Bing aerial as the background. It
> just loads pink tiles. It's been like that for a while.
>
> Are others getting this fault?
>
> Cheers
> Dave F.
>
> __**_
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] http://sautter.com/map/ display problem

[Dave F.]

http://sautter.com/map/

I can't speak German so I not sure if it's a known problem, but I can't 
get OSM to display as an overlay when I select Bing aerial as the 
background. It just loads pink tiles. It's been like that for a while.


Are others getting this fault?

Cheers
Dave F.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF elections

[Mike Dupont]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
> > 2011/8/26 Anthony :
> >> As for the obligations of board members, while they are generally not
> >> allowed to act in a way which harms the organization of which they are
> >> a board member, and are not allowed to *use, for personal purposes,
> >> confidential information* which they obtained via their status as a
> >> board member
> >
> > happy to see that we agree to this. This was actually about board
> > members paying membership fees to others as "private individuals", not
> > about them drinking a beer in the pub or driving to SOTM.
>
> I assume you mean paying membership fees *for* others.
>
> I see that as quite analogous to driving others to SOTM.  Maybe paying
> for someone else's bus ticket to get to SOTM would be more analogous?
>

I am able to pay for my membership, but I normally dont spend money on
membership because I spend so much time on things. I am willing to serve on
the board if we find a way to pay for my membership, and if we are in that
mood, we can also ask for membership for my kosovo team, if someone wants to
donate some money.

Anyway, maybe what we need is some push for a "communal" seat that has one
vote and represents all of the people who are contributors. that would be my
suggestion.

mike


-- 
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Extract a polygon into a polygon filter file format

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Phil! Gold wrote:

Why is this so logical?  The exact same data can be derived from the
intersection of the sets of elements in the two countries' (single-level)
border relations.  


Put yourself in the position of having to create or maintain them.

Creation:

Cascading relations: You create ONE relation that contains all the ways 
making up the border between A and B (finding them is a cumbersome 
manual process). Then you create two relations for the two countries, 
each time adding only 4 or 5 sub-relations.


Single-relation approach: You create TWO relations that each contain all 
the ways making up the border between A and B (plus a lot more).


Maintenance:

Cascading: You split a way on the border between A and B. The newly 
created way is added to one relatively small relation and that's it.


Single-relation: The newly created way has to be added to two very large 
relations which you will have to first download and later upload as a 
whole.


Single-relation also has the higher risk of edit conflicts.


It seems to me that because both shcmes can satisfy the
use case, the preferable approace would be the simpler one, which I see as
being the single-relation approach.


Simpler for reading, but, as explained above, more difficult/problematic 
for maintenance.


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] Extract a polygon into a polygon filter file format

[Phil! Gold]

* Frederik Ramm  [2011-08-26 15:33 +0200]:
> I think it is only logical to group all ways making up the border
> with country A in one relation, and those making up the border with
> country B in another, and so on.

Why is this so logical?  The exact same data can be derived from the
intersection of the sets of elements in the two countries' (single-level)
border relations.  It seems to me that because both shcmes can satisfy the
use case, the preferable approace would be the simpler one, which I see as
being the single-relation approach.

-- 
...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A27F2  print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248  9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
--- --
  Serious error.
 All shortcuts have disappeared,
  Screen. Mind. Both are blank.
 --- --

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF elections

[Anthony]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> 2011/8/26 Anthony :
>> As for the obligations of board members, while they are generally not
>> allowed to act in a way which harms the organization of which they are
>> a board member, and are not allowed to *use, for personal purposes,
>> confidential information* which they obtained via their status as a
>> board member
>
> happy to see that we agree to this. This was actually about board
> members paying membership fees to others as "private individuals", not
> about them drinking a beer in the pub or driving to SOTM.

I assume you mean paying membership fees *for* others.

I see that as quite analogous to driving others to SOTM.  Maybe paying
for someone else's bus ticket to get to SOTM would be more analogous?

>> Furthermore, *even if they were* obligated to act in the best
>> interests of the board in everything they do, that *still* would not
>> imply that they aren't allowed to sponsor the membership applications
>> of selected individuals, i.e. give them money with which to apply for
>> membership.
>
> I think this really depends on the case. If a board member paid as a
> private individual membership fees for lots people, and those people
> voted then in his sense in OSMF votings this would clearly be a breach
> (at least of good faith).

How so?

It suggests that there *may* have been an act of vote-buying, but it's
not *clear* that there was one.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF elections

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2011/8/26 Anthony :
> As for the obligations of board members, while they are generally not
> allowed to act in a way which harms the organization of which they are
> a board member, and are not allowed to *use, for personal purposes,
> confidential information* which they obtained via their status as a
> board member


happy to see that we agree to this. This was actually about board
members paying membership fees to others as "private individuals", not
about them drinking a beer in the pub or driving to SOTM.


> Furthermore, *even if they were* obligated to act in the best
> interests of the board in everything they do, that *still* would not
> imply that they aren't allowed to sponsor the membership applications
> of selected individuals, i.e. give them money with which to apply for
> membership.


I think this really depends on the case. If a board member paid as a
private individual membership fees for lots people, and those people
voted then in his sense in OSMF votings this would clearly be a breach
(at least of good faith).

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Extract a polygon into a polygon filter file format

[Kirill Bestoujev]

Ok, convinced.

Kirill

On 26.08.2011 17:57, Pieren wrote:

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Kirill Bestoujev  wrote:

And Regarding the complexity - Russian border is 5 (or even more) times
longer than French, but still we do not split it into pieces...


It's not a problem of distance or amount of nodes but a problem of
amount of 'ways members' . In France, the national boundary is the sum
of all (small) municipalities boundaries. Themselves are often split
because our neighboring countries have the bad habit to use different
limits for their municipalities ;-)
Boundary relation for Russia is currently about 600 ways members where
the boundary for France is about 2600 ways (excluding overseas
territories).

Pieren



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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF elections

[Anthony]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> 2011/8/26 Anthony :
>>> absurd.
>> Really, I'm not sure how you can even make that claim, unless you
>> haven't thought about what it means.  When a board member eats dinner,
>> should the board member consider whether eating a cheeseburger or
>> salad is in the best interests of OSMF, given their relative prices
>> and health effects?  After all, that decision *will* affect OSMF, both
>> in terms of how much money the board member is able to donate (*), and
>> in terms of the life expectancy of the board member.
>
> absurd. you name it.

So you agree with me?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF elections

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2011/8/26 Anthony :
>> absurd.
> Really, I'm not sure how you can even make that claim, unless you
> haven't thought about what it means.  When a board member eats dinner,
> should the board member consider whether eating a cheeseburger or
> salad is in the best interests of OSMF, given their relative prices
> and health effects?  After all, that decision *will* affect OSMF, both
> in terms of how much money the board member is able to donate (*), and
> in terms of the life expectancy of the board member.


absurd. you name it.

Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF elections

[Anthony]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Anthony  wrote:
> As for the obligations of board members, while they are generally not
> allowed to act in a way which harms the organization of which they are
> a board member, and are not allowed to *use, for personal purposes,
> confidential information* which they obtained via their status as a
> board member, they are under absolutely no obligation to act in the
> best interests of the [strikethrough]board[/strikethrough] [organization] in 
> everything they do!  That would be
> absurd.

Really, I'm not sure how you can even make that claim, unless you
haven't thought about what it means.  When a board member eats dinner,
should the board member consider whether eating a cheeseburger or
salad is in the best interests of OSMF, given their relative prices
and health effects?  After all, that decision *will* affect OSMF, both
in terms of how much money the board member is able to donate (*), and
in terms of the life expectancy of the board member.

(*) Presumably, if they are obligated to always act in the best
interests of the OSMF, then they should be donating every spare penny
which isn't needed for sustaining their life.

Yes, this is absurd.  But saying that board members must always act in
the best interest of the organization on which they serve, is absurd.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF elections

[Anthony]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> 2011/8/26 Anthony :
>>> yes, this clarifies the gift, but still I think that board members
>>> indeed do have to act within the best interest of OSMF and OSM as a
>>> whole (whatever this is, asuming good faith).
>> All the time?
>
> of course, as long as they are a board member and maybe in some
> concerns also for the time after.

I'm not sure why you say "of course".  I would have thought the answer
was "of course not".

What is your basis for this?

>>> IMHO if you are a board
>>> member you can't act as a private individual when it comes to stuff
>>> concerning the OSMF.
>> "concerning the OSMF" is awfully broad, as is "act as a private
>> individual".  Are you really suggesting that a board member is acting
>> other than as a private individual when s/he does something which
>> affects the OSMF?
>
>
> how can you state the opposite?

I haven't stated the opposite.

>> Is a board member acting as an agent of the OSMF
>> every time s/he edits OSM,
>
> not sure if this matters, as OSMF declared not to deal with
> mapping/tagging besides copyright infringement

It matters because if it is not true, then it disputes your humble
opinion which you gave earlier.

>> or throws a mapping party
>>, or lets someone
>> borrow his computer in order to edit, or drives someone to SOTM?
>
> I'd say yes, but doesn't matter either

It certainly matters.  For one thing, OSMF is liable for the actions
of people who are acting as their agents.  For instance, if, while
acting as an agent of the OSMF while driving someone to SOTM, that
board member got into a car accident, the injured parties could sue
OSMF.

That said

>> Or
>> is there something else this board member is acting as, other than as
>> a private individual or as an agent of the OSMF?
>
> what do you suggest?

I'm not suggesting anything with regard to that question.

As for the obligations of board members, while they are generally not
allowed to act in a way which harms the organization of which they are
a board member, and are not allowed to *use, for personal purposes,
confidential information* which they obtained via their status as a
board member, they are under absolutely no obligation to act in the
best interests of the board in everything they do!  That would be
absurd.

Furthermore, *even if they were* obligated to act in the best
interests of the board in everything they do, that *still* would not
imply that they aren't allowed to sponsor the membership applications
of selected individuals, i.e. give them money with which to apply for
membership.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Extract a polygon into a polygon filter file format

[Pieren]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Kirill Bestoujev  wrote:
>
> And Regarding the complexity - Russian border is 5 (or even more) times
> longer than French, but still we do not split it into pieces...
>

It's not a problem of distance or amount of nodes but a problem of
amount of 'ways members' . In France, the national boundary is the sum
of all (small) municipalities boundaries. Themselves are often split
because our neighboring countries have the bad habit to use different
limits for their municipalities ;-)
Boundary relation for Russia is currently about 600 ways members where
the boundary for France is about 2600 ways (excluding overseas
territories).

Pieren

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF elections

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2011/8/26 Anthony :
>> yes, this clarifies the gift, but still I think that board members
>> indeed do have to act within the best interest of OSMF and OSM as a
>> whole (whatever this is, asuming good faith).
> All the time?


of course, as long as they are a board member and maybe in some
concerns also for the time after.


>> IMHO if you are a board
>> member you can't act as a private individual when it comes to stuff
>> concerning the OSMF.
> "concerning the OSMF" is awfully broad, as is "act as a private
> individual".  Are you really suggesting that a board member is acting
> other than as a private individual when s/he does something which
> affects the OSMF?


how can you state the opposite? Of course they keep beeing individuals
(and btw. are working unpaid in their spare time so maybe some kind of
"private" could also be interpreted, I am not a native speaker), but
they are at the same time representatives of the OSMF.


> Is a board member acting as an agent of the OSMF
> every time s/he edits OSM,


not sure if this matters, as OSMF declared not to deal with
mapping/tagging besides copyright infringement


> or throws a mapping party
>, or lets someone
> borrow his computer in order to edit, or drives someone to SOTM?


I'd say yes, but doesn't matter either


> Or
> is there something else this board member is acting as, other than as
> a private individual or as an agent of the OSMF?


what do you suggest?

Cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Extract a polygon into a polygon filter file format

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 08/26/11 15:16, Kirill Bestoujev wrote:

could you please explain why do you need to keep France border in the
way it is now? What is the purpose?

I see no benefits of such a structure, could you show them to me?


I think the benefits are obvious.

An average country will have a number of neighbours. There will be the 
border with country A, the border with country B, the border with 
country C, and maybe the coast of ocean D. All of them are probably too 
long to be represented as a single way, so they will be made up of 
several ways.


I think it is only logical to group all ways making up the border with 
country A in one relation, and those making up the border with country B 
in another, and so on. These relations can then easily be used to form 
the borders of A and B as well.


You are right in saying that presently not many tools support this kind 
of cascading relations but I really think that the tools need to adapt 
in the long run. We already have cascading relations in long-distance 
hiking trails and they will certainly become more widely used in the future.


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Extract a polygon into a polygon filter file format

[Kirill Bestoujev]

Piren,

good to hear you have a tool for that. I'll try to get it and adopt it 
to my needs (but I already see a problem - I have no python installed on 
the server where I need to use this tool.)


And Regarding the complexity - Russian border is 5 (or even more) times 
longer than French, but still we do not split it into pieces...


K.

On 26.08.2011 17:14, Pieren wrote:

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Kirill Bestoujev  wrote:

I think it is better to try to persuade
mappers from those countries to create the border in way everyone does.

No. If we created this super-relation in France, it is because the
original single relation became simply too big for normal editions.
The country boundary is very long and complex (following natural
features).
If you want an approximate polygon, you can download the one published
by geofabrik for instance. If you want a very precise polygon
following exactly the border, we have a python script which is doing
what you want with super-relations. Please contact the french mailing
list or the french "dev-fr" ML for that.

Pieren



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Extract a polygon into a polygon filter file format

[Kirill Bestoujev]

Vincent,

could you please explain why do you need to keep France border in the 
way it is now? What is the purpose?


I see no benefits of such a structure, could you show them to me?

K.


On 26.08.2011 16:40, Vincent Pottier wrote:

Le 26/08/2011 14:23, Kirill Bestoujev a écrit :

Hi,

I have the same problem, there are two countries with 
relation-relation borders - France and Guadelupa, I think it is 
better to try to persuade mappers from those countries to create the 
border in way everyone does.

Or not...


Kirill
...And convince programers to improve the tools in the way of managing 
complexity that is "de facto" comming.

--
FrViPofm


___
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] Extract a polygon into a polygon filter file format

[Pieren]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Kirill Bestoujev  wrote:
> I think it is better to try to persuade
> mappers from those countries to create the border in way everyone does.

No. If we created this super-relation in France, it is because the
original single relation became simply too big for normal editions.
The country boundary is very long and complex (following natural
features).
If you want an approximate polygon, you can download the one published
by geofabrik for instance. If you want a very precise polygon
following exactly the border, we have a python script which is doing
what you want with super-relations. Please contact the french mailing
list or the french "dev-fr" ML for that.

Pieren

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF elections

[Anthony]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> 2011/8/26 Anthony :
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>>  wrote:
>>> 2011/8/26 Anthony :
 But board members don't have to act within the best
 interest of OSMF as a whole every time they give a gift to anyone!
>>> Anthony, can you expand on this, or was it a typo?
>> I can't find a typo.  By "give a gift" I meant give a gift from one's
>> personal resources.  (I didn't mean that they can spend *OSMF* money
>> for personal reasons!)  Does that clarify things?
>
> yes, this clarifies the gift, but still I think that board members
> indeed do have to act within the best interest of OSMF and OSM as a
> whole (whatever this is, asuming good faith).

All the time?

> IMHO if you are a board
> member you can't act as a private individual when it comes to stuff
> concerning the OSMF.

Do you have a basis for that opinion?

"concerning the OSMF" is awfully broad, as is "act as a private
individual".  Are you really suggesting that a board member is acting
other than as a private individual when s/he does something which
affects the OSMF?  Is a board member acting as an agent of the OSMF
every time s/he edits OSM, or throws a mapping party, or lets someone
borrow his computer in order to edit, or drives someone to SOTM?  Or
is there something else this board member is acting as, other than as
a private individual or as an agent of the OSMF?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF elections

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2011/8/26 Anthony :
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
>> 2011/8/26 Anthony :
>>> But board members don't have to act within the best
>>> interest of OSMF as a whole every time they give a gift to anyone!
>> Anthony, can you expand on this, or was it a typo?
> I can't find a typo.  By "give a gift" I meant give a gift from one's
> personal resources.  (I didn't mean that they can spend *OSMF* money
> for personal reasons!)  Does that clarify things?


yes, this clarifies the gift, but still I think that board members
indeed do have to act within the best interest of OSMF and OSM as a
whole (whatever this is, asuming good faith). IMHO if you are a board
member you can't act as a private individual when it comes to stuff
concerning the OSMF.

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF elections

[Anthony]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> 2011/8/26 Anthony :
>> But board members don't have to act within the best
>> interest of OSMF as a whole every time they give a gift to anyone!
>
> Anthony, can you expand on this, or was it a typo?

I can't find a typo.  By "give a gift" I meant give a gift from one's
personal resources.  (I didn't mean that they can spend *OSMF* money
for personal reasons!)  Does that clarify things?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Tom Hughes]

On 26/08/11 13:48, 80n wrote:


[1] As I recall only members can request a membership list and they have
to provide a reasonable justification for their list.  Failure to supply
the list can be challenged in the courts.


Nope. The only difference is that you can't charge members for it but 
you can charge non-members. Details here:


  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/116

Actually strictly speaking you can charge anybody that wants a copy but 
you have to allow members to inspect it for free.


Requests can only be rejected if the company applies to the court for 
permission to do so:


  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/117

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Anthony]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 8:32 AM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regardless of whether the data protection act was relevant, we acted on the
> side of caution.

I wouldn't characterize withholding relevant public information from
the public as acting on the side of caution.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[80n]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Tom Hughes  wrote:

> On 26/08/11 10:47, 80n wrote:
>
>  The data point that we would have been revealing is that these people
>> were members of OSMF.  Membership of an organisation is personal
>> information and we did not want to leak that information in any form
>> whatsoever.
>>
>
> Of course the Companies Act actually requires the Foundation to provide a
> full list of members to anybody that asks anyway...
>
> Indeed.  And if somebody [1] had asked then there is an obligation to
provide that person with the list of members.  But that's not the same as
broadcasting the information in public to everyone.

You, as a member of OSMF, can request a list of members but that probably
wouldn't disclose email addresses and you might not be able to infer if
anyone on the list was a Skobbler employee.  Announcing that a large number
of Skobbler employees is exceeding the obligations that the board has.  That
announcement should not have been made.

80n

[1] As I recall only members can request a membership list and they have to
provide a reasonable justification for their list.  Failure to supply the
list can be challenged in the courts.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Extract a polygon into a polygon filter file format

[Vincent Pottier]

Le 26/08/2011 14:23, Kirill Bestoujev a écrit :

Hi,

I have the same problem, there are two countries with 
relation-relation borders - France and Guadelupa, I think it is better 
to try to persuade mappers from those countries to create the border 
in way everyone does.

Or not...


Kirill
...And convince programers to improve the tools in the way of managing 
complexity that is "de facto" comming.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[80n]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Barnett, Phillip <
phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk> wrote:

> From the legislation guidance notes
> "An individual is 'identified' if you have distinguished that individual
> from other members of a group. In most cases an individual's name together
> with some other information will be sufficient to identify them."
>
> http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/determining_what_is_personal_data/whatispersonaldata2.htm
>
>
>  So if you had said that a large number of applications had been made from
> Apple employees, then since we have no way of knowing whether every single
> Apple employee, up to and including the janitor, had made an application to
> join, we are not be able to reverse-engineer the membership status of any
> individual employee, and so this is not 'personal' information but aggregate
> group information.
>
>
Regardless of whether the data protection act was relevant, we acted on the
side of caution.

CloudMade is not Apple.  If we had disclosed that a large number of
CloudMade employees had just signed up then because it was such a small
company it would have been pretty easy to deduce who might or might not be a
member.

In any case since there was no wrong doing there was nothing to disclose
anyway.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF elections

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2011/8/26 Anthony :
> But board members don't have to act within the best
> interest of OSMF as a whole every time they give a gift to anyone!


Anthony, can you expand on this, or was it a typo?

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Extract a polygon into a polygon filter file format

[Kirill Bestoujev]

Hi,

I have the same problem, there are two countries with relation-relation 
borders - France and Guadelupa, I think it is better to try to persuade 
mappers from those countries to create the border in way everyone does.


Kirill

On 26.08.2011 15:58, Aurélien FILEZ wrote:

Hi list,

I found tools to make a file in polygon filter file format from an OSM 
relation, like rel2poly or osm2poly.


The problem is when a relation is built using others relations, these 
tools does not seems to support that.


France borders is an example of this king of relation : 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1362232


Is there is a way to have the polygon file of this relation ?

Thank you all,
Kin


___
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] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Anthony]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 7:08 AM, David Earl  wrote:
> Interestingly, when we converted an organisation recently to an official
> Charity under UK law, the Charity Commission wanted us to make it a
> requirement that the full membership list (names and home addresses) was
> available on demand to any member who requests it. That is the default
> position of their model constitution for charities. This seemed to us very
> odd indeed, quite contrary to Data Protection principles.

Seems to me most of you are misinterpreting the Data Protection Act.
Where do you get the idea that it would stop you from revealing the
membership of a charity?  The laws of most jurisdictions provide the
exact opposite - that the names and addresses of non-profit
organization members is public knowledge.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Barnett, Phillip]

David,
See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/31 which specifically 
points to charities having exemption for various reasons - mostly to do with 
transparency of operation.
Phillip


PHILLIP BARNETT
SERVER MANAGER

200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
LONDON
WC1X 8XZ
UNITED KINGDOM
T +44 (0)20 7430 4474
F
E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk
WWW.ITN.CO.UK
Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?


From: David Earl [da...@frankieandshadow.com]
Sent: 26 August 2011 12:08
To: Barnett, Phillip
Cc: 80n; talk@openstreetmap.org; Ed Avis
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler 
employees

On 26/08/2011 11:33, Barnett, Phillip wrote:
>  From the legislation guidance notes
> "An individual is 'identified' if you have distinguished that individual
> from other members of a group. In most cases an individual's name
> together with some other information will be sufficient to identify them."
> http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/determining_what_is_personal_data/whatispersonaldata2.htm
>
> So if you had said that a large number of applications had been made
> from Apple employees, then since we have no way of knowing whether every
> single Apple employee, up to and including the janitor, had made an
> application to join, we are not be able to reverse-engineer the
> membership status of any individual employee, and so this is not
> 'personal' information but aggregate group information.
>
> And therefore the Data Protection Act doesn't come into it.

Interestingly, when we converted an organisation recently to an official
Charity under UK law, the Charity Commission wanted us to make it a
requirement that the full membership list (names and home addresses) was
available on demand to any member who requests it. That is the default
position of their model constitution for charities. This seemed to us
very odd indeed, quite contrary to Data Protection principles. The CC
didn't actually insist on that as a requirement of our constitution, but
we queried the point with them and they basically said "the organisation
is the membership and if you can't show to someone that the membership
exists, then the organisation doesn't exist" (I paraphrase).

See Part 2, sec 8.4
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/library/guidance/gd3text.pdf

David

Please Note:

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically 
stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely 
for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you 
have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk 

Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our 
clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our 
systems.

Thank You.


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

[OSM-talk] Extract a polygon into a polygon filter file format

[Aurélien FILEZ]

Hi list,

I found tools to make a file in polygon filter file format from an OSM
relation, like rel2poly or osm2poly.

The problem is when a relation is built using others relations, these tools
does not seems to support that.

France borders is an example of this king of relation :
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1362232

Is there is a way to have the polygon file of this relation ?

Thank you all,
Kin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF elections

[Anthony]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 08/26/11 07:07, Mike Dupont wrote:
>>
>> If you want to sponsor me a membership than I am willing to speak.
>
> I don't think it would be received well if either an existing board member
> or the OSMF as a whole were to sponsor membership for selected people ;)

So what?  Who cares if it's not "received well"?  There's absolutely
nothing wrong with someone sponsoring membership for someone else, be
that someone another member, a board member, a corporation, a
non-profit, or whatever.  Why would there be?

OSMF as a whole sponsoring membership might be a problem if it wasn't
agreed upon by OSMF as a whole (directly or indirectly), and/or
especially if it was done for reasons other than the best interest of
OSMF as a whole.  But board members don't have to act within the best
interest of OSMF as a whole every time they give a gift to anyone!

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[David Earl]

On 26/08/2011 11:33, Barnett, Phillip wrote:

 From the legislation guidance notes
"An individual is 'identified' if you have distinguished that individual
from other members of a group. In most cases an individual's name
together with some other information will be sufficient to identify them."
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/determining_what_is_personal_data/whatispersonaldata2.htm

So if you had said that a large number of applications had been made
from Apple employees, then since we have no way of knowing whether every
single Apple employee, up to and including the janitor, had made an
application to join, we are not be able to reverse-engineer the
membership status of any individual employee, and so this is not
'personal' information but aggregate group information.

And therefore the Data Protection Act doesn't come into it.


Interestingly, when we converted an organisation recently to an official 
Charity under UK law, the Charity Commission wanted us to make it a 
requirement that the full membership list (names and home addresses) was 
available on demand to any member who requests it. That is the default 
position of their model constitution for charities. This seemed to us 
very odd indeed, quite contrary to Data Protection principles. The CC 
didn't actually insist on that as a requirement of our constitution, but 
we queried the point with them and they basically said "the organisation 
is the membership and if you can't show to someone that the membership 
exists, then the organisation doesn't exist" (I paraphrase).


See Part 2, sec 8.4 
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/library/guidance/gd3text.pdf


David


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Barnett, Phillip]

[http://images.itn.co.uk/images/ITN_Master_blue.gif]

PHILLIP BARNETT
SERVER MANAGER

200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
LONDON
WC1X 8XZ
UNITED KINGDOM
T +44 (0)20 7430 4474
F
E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk
WWW.ITN.CO.UK
P  Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?




From: 80n [80n...@gmail.com]
Sent: 26 August 2011 10:47
To: Barnett, Phillip
Cc: Jim Brown; talk@openstreetmap.org; Ed Avis
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler 
employees


On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Barnett, Phillip 
mailto:phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk>> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Barnett, Phillip 
mailto:phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk>> wrote:

Well, this is a sideshow to the main debate, but you are still not revealing 
personal data, merely a fact about some or all members of a group. You are 
clear to do this under the UK Data Protection Act. I can say '"Most of the 
voting population of the UK live in this country" and you can cross-refer to 
the UK electoral register, for names and addresses, but that doesn't mean I've 
released the personal details of 40 million people!

In this instance, Cloudmade were releasing personal data. But since they're not 
under UK law,  the fact that they released their own employees names and faces 
and email addresses is presumably between them, their employees, and the US 
government.

>The data point that we would have been revealing is that these people were 
>members of OSMF.  >Membership of an organisation is personal information and 
>we did not want to leak that information in >any form whatsoever.

From the legislation guidance notes
"An individual is 'identified' if you have distinguished that individual from 
other members of a group. In most cases an individual's name together with some 
other information will be sufficient to identify them."
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/determining_what_is_personal_data/whatispersonaldata2.htm


So if you had said that a large number of applications had been made from Apple 
employees, then since we have no way of knowing whether every single Apple 
employee, up to and including the janitor, had made an application to join, we 
are not be able to reverse-engineer the membership status of any individual 
employee, and so this is not 'personal' information but aggregate group 
information.

And therefore the Data Protection Act doesn't come into it.
Phillip






Please Note:

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically 
stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely 
for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you 
have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk 

Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our 
clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our 
systems.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2011/8/26 80n <80n...@gmail.com>:
>... that these
> people signed up because they were passionate about OSM when the evidence
> suggests it was a co-ordinated act probably for the purpose of block
> voting.
>
> Jim, there is nothing wrong with doing such a thing


IMHO there is something wrong with "for the purpose of block voting.".
"Block voting" suggests that they didn't (wouldn't have had) vote(d)
based on individual judgement but rather on order. This is not
desirable.

Please note that I am not saying that cloudmade actually did perform
this block vote, but I say that if they had done it, it would seem
wrong to me.

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Tom Hughes]

On 26/08/11 10:47, 80n wrote:


The data point that we would have been revealing is that these people
were members of OSMF.  Membership of an organisation is personal
information and we did not want to leak that information in any form
whatsoever.


Of course the Companies Act actually requires the Foundation to provide 
a full list of members to anybody that asks anyway...


Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[80n]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Barnett, Phillip <
phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk> wrote:

>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Barnett, Phillip <
> phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk> wrote:
>
>  Well, this is a sideshow to the main debate, but you are still not
> revealing personal data, merely a fact about some or all members of a group.
> You are clear to do this under the UK Data Protection Act. I can say '"Most
> of the voting population of the UK live in this country" and you can
> cross-refer to the UK electoral register, for names and addresses, but that
> doesn't mean I've released the personal details of 40 million people!
>
>  In this instance, Cloudmade were releasing personal data. But since
> they're not under UK law,  the fact that they released their own employees
> names and faces and email addresses is presumably between them, their
> employees, and the US government.
>
> The data point that we would have been revealing is that these people were
members of OSMF.  Membership of an organisation is personal information and
we did not want to leak that information in any form whatsoever.

Like you say, it's a sideshow.  We didn't reveal the facts at the time and I
believe that was the correct thing to do.  There's nothing irregular about a
co-ordinated signup from one company.  We verified that the people joining
were real individuals, not sockpuppets, and that was that.

What I am surprised about is that Jim Brown continues to insist that these
people signed up because they were passionate about OSM when the evidence
suggests it was a co-ordinated act probably for the purpose of block
voting.

Jim, there is nothing wrong with doing such a thing, and I'm puzzled why you
make some other excuse.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

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

Even if that might be legally correct it’s not morally correct, as we actually 
CAN

trace that to persons. Hiding behind a formal legal description will

save you from persecution only. Nevertheless naming Skobbler is doing harm to 
people.

No-one should have mentioned the name Skobbler in the first place.

 

I consider this a serious lack of respect and Henks’s first mail is proof of 
naming and shaming.

 

 

Gert 

 

 

Van: Barnett, Phillip [mailto:phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk] 
Verzonden: Friday, August 26, 2011 11:23 AM
Aan: 80n
CC: talk@openstreetmap.org; Ed Avis
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler 
employees

 

 

 

 

PHILLIP BARNETT
SERVER MANAGER

200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
LONDON
WC1X 8XZ
UNITED KINGDOM
T +44 (0)20 7430 4474
F 
E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk
WWW.ITN.CO.UK
P  Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?

 



From: 80n [80n...@gmail.com]
Sent: 26 August 2011 07:25
To: Barnett, Phillip
Cc: Jim Brown; talk@openstreetmap.org; Ed Avis
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler 
employees

 

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Barnett, Phillip  
wrote:


>The OSMF had an obligation, under the UK data protection laws, to preserve the 
>confidentiality of >personal information.  It would have been a breach of 
>confidence to make it public at the time. 

 

 

Not so. 

 

UK Data Protection laws exist to safeguard 'personal' data. Saying that ' there 
has been a large number of applications for OSMF membership by people who 
appear to be employees of Apple ' for instance, is perfectly in order - you are 
not releasing any 'personal data' UNLESS you also released, say, email 
addresses and names of the people, which can personally identify them, perhaps 
to back up your assertion.


>Saying 'a large number of applications from CloudMade' would have been 
>effectively the same as >naming the members.  You'd only need to look 
>here>http://web.archive.org/web/20090524055747/http://cloudmade.com/team 
>  to have 
>a pretty good idea >of who was a member.  

Well, this is a sideshow to the main debate, but you are still not revealing 
personal data, merely a fact about some or all members of a group. You are 
clear to do this under the UK Data Protection Act. I can say '"Most of the 
voting population of the UK live in this country" and you can cross-refer to 
the UK electoral register, for names and addresses, but that doesn't mean I've 
released the personal details of 40 million people!

 

In this instance, Cloudmade were releasing personal data. But since they're not 
under UK law,  the fact that they released their own employees names and faces 
and email addresses is presumably between them, their employees, and the US 
government. 

 


HTH 

Phillip

Please Note:

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically 
stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely 
for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you 
have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk 

Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our 
clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our 
systems.

Thank You.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Barnett, Phillip]

[http://images.itn.co.uk/images/ITN_Master_blue.gif]

PHILLIP BARNETT
SERVER MANAGER

200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
LONDON
WC1X 8XZ
UNITED KINGDOM
T +44 (0)20 7430 4474
F
E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk
WWW.ITN.CO.UK
P  Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?




From: 80n [80n...@gmail.com]
Sent: 26 August 2011 07:25
To: Barnett, Phillip
Cc: Jim Brown; talk@openstreetmap.org; Ed Avis
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler 
employees



On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Barnett, Phillip 
mailto:phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk>> wrote:

>The OSMF had an obligation, under the UK data protection laws, to preserve the 
>confidentiality of >personal information.  It would have been a breach of 
>confidence to make it public at the time.


Not so.

UK Data Protection laws exist to safeguard 'personal' data. Saying that ' there 
has been a large number of applications for OSMF membership by people who 
appear to be employees of Apple ' for instance, is perfectly in order - you are 
not releasing any 'personal data' UNLESS you also released, say, email 
addresses and names of the people, which can personally identify them, perhaps 
to back up your assertion.

>Saying 'a large number of applications from CloudMade' would have been 
>effectively the same as >naming the members.  You'd only need to look 
>here>http://web.archive.org/web/20090524055747/http://cloudmade.com/team to 
>have a pretty good idea >of who was a member.

Well, this is a sideshow to the main debate, but you are still not revealing 
personal data, merely a fact about some or all members of a group. You are 
clear to do this under the UK Data Protection Act. I can say '"Most of the 
voting population of the UK live in this country" and you can cross-refer to 
the UK electoral register, for names and addresses, but that doesn't mean I've 
released the personal details of 40 million people!

In this instance, Cloudmade were releasing personal data. But since they're not 
under UK law,  the fact that they released their own employees names and faces 
and email addresses is presumably between them, their employees, and the US 
government.


HTH
Phillip
Please Note:

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically 
stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely 
for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you 
have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk 

Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our 
clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our 
systems.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF elections

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 08/26/11 07:07, Mike Dupont wrote:

If you want to sponsor me a membership than I am willing to speak.


I don't think it would be received well if either an existing board 
member or the OSMF as a whole were to sponsor membership for selected 
people ;)


Contribution-based membership is something that we could look into. It 
would still require a membership application on your part because, as 
far as I understand, as an OSMF member you have certain liabilities if 
OSMF should ever go bankrupt (I believe you will have to pay up to £5 
from your own money or something). This means we cannot automatically 
make people into members. (Also I believe that we cannot legally have 
members of whom we don't know the full name and address of residence but 
that's for the AoA team to work out.)


I would like to see a rule that says: The yearly membership fee is X. If 
you would like to be a member of OSMF but cannot afford to pay X, and if 
you find Y existing OSMF members who say that your contribution has been 
valuable (with Y somewhere in the area of 3), then you can join free of 
charge.


Note that this would require you to say "I cannot afford X". Saying "I 
have already put enough work in this and while I could easily spend X I 
don't see why I should" wouldn't cut it.


Bye
Frederik

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