Re: [OSM-talk] FourSquare and OSM
On 07.03.2012 05:23, Steve Bennett wrote: 3) I'm questioning deleting large amounts of data from our map on the self-imposed deadline of April 1 Would it be even more clever for map tile providers like mapquest so simply stop updates for a week (or probably serve static tiles as of march 31) until the ODbL data reached a level the tile users are happy with? It is the decision of tile providers how fast they update... Stephan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] FourSquare and OSM
2012/3/7 Steve Bennett > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > If this actually happens, it will be by far the stupidest thing OSM > > has ever done. But maybe I'm misunderstanding the meaning of that > > phrase about "database rebuilding"? > > Since I'm getting some off-list snark about this, let me make clear: > > 1) I'm not arguing against the licence change > 2) I am participating in remapping > 3) I'm questioning deleting large amounts of data from our map on the > self-imposed deadline of April 1 > > I agree with you. The license change is ok but: the big sites (Foursquare) must have the possibility to use the CC-BY-SA database also after the 1st April, till we have remapped almost all lacking data. I don't know if it's possible, but new contributions can be "backported" to the old database? > Steve > > Regards, Stefano > ___ > 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] FourSquare and OSM
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > If this actually happens, it will be by far the stupidest thing OSM > has ever done. But maybe I'm misunderstanding the meaning of that > phrase about "database rebuilding"? Since I'm getting some off-list snark about this, let me make clear: 1) I'm not arguing against the licence change 2) I am participating in remapping 3) I'm questioning deleting large amounts of data from our map on the self-imposed deadline of April 1 Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] FourSquare and OSM
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Joseph Reeves wrote: > Presumably the good folks behind the license change will say that any > short-term damage to OSM caused by removing data is outweighed by the > benefits of a new license; the ODbL even, possibly, makes data > exchange with these 3rd parties more secure in the long term. Ouch. So after years of laboring in the background, we finally make a splash on the world scene, getting picked up by some pretty prominent sites. Weeks later, we start removing large slabs of data, because of an arcane licensing debate that no one outside OSM gives a toss about. If this actually happens, it will be by far the stupidest thing OSM has ever done. But maybe I'm misunderstanding the meaning of that phrase about "database rebuilding"? > That's the optimistic way of putting it. You could be a pessimist and > say that OSM data is already hugely inconsistent and full of holes, > missing roads and imaginary data. I can't speak for other countries, but in my city (Melbourne, population 4 million, second biggest in Australia), parts of the largest freeway, right near the centre of town, are currently on the chopping board. That's a lot worse than any other everyday missing roads, holes etc. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] FourSquare and OSM
>Or will the intermediary service provided by MapBox etc somehow protect them? MapQuest is updated minutely? So changes to the database are going to be felt by FourSquare, Nestoria, et al pretty immediately. This is pretty off topic, of course... Presumably the good folks behind the license change will say that any short-term damage to OSM caused by removing data is outweighed by the benefits of a new license; the ODbL even, possibly, makes data exchange with these 3rd parties more secure in the long term. That's the optimistic way of putting it. You could be a pessimist and say that OSM data is already hugely inconsistent and full of holes, missing roads and imaginary data. I guess it just depends on how you judge the contents of your glass (or mailing list). Cheers, Joseph On 6 March 2012 22:15, Steve Bennett wrote: > So at the risk of pointing out the obvious: aren't we about to start > purging data from "decliners"? Last I heard, we're "begin[ning] the > process of database re-building and hope to complete by 2012-04-01". > Are we about to start inflicting maps with big holes, missing roads > etc on these big sites that have finally made the decision to start > trusting OSM with their core business? > > Or will the intermediary service provided by MapBox etc somehow protect them? > > Discuss. > > Steve > > On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Frans Thamura wrote: >> hi all >> >> we have great news that foursquare using OSM now >> >> anyone working with Fq? which API that osm using ? >> >> the ruby one? >> >> 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 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] FourSquare and OSM
So at the risk of pointing out the obvious: aren't we about to start purging data from "decliners"? Last I heard, we're "begin[ning] the process of database re-building and hope to complete by 2012-04-01". Are we about to start inflicting maps with big holes, missing roads etc on these big sites that have finally made the decision to start trusting OSM with their core business? Or will the intermediary service provided by MapBox etc somehow protect them? Discuss. Steve On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Frans Thamura wrote: > hi all > > we have great news that foursquare using OSM now > > anyone working with Fq? which API that osm using ? > > the ruby one? > > 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] Victoria seems to be missing.
Removing a limited set of objects was proposed by rweait in http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2012-March/004589.html. What was actually removed went beyond what was discussed. I proposed rolling them back in http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2012-March/004599.html but no one replied. What do you think the best route is? I had been working on pulling out the CanVec/Geobase imports and restoring the data to a consistent state by adding back in major highways and coastlines, but the removals stopped that. From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 4:43 PM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] Victoria seems to be missing. Looked at http://www.mapdust.com/detail/1978573 and noticed there doesn't seem to be any ways, but the nodes that belonged to the missing ways are still there. History only indicates Acrosscanadatrails as being the only person who has touched those nodes. Quite confused as to what happened here. Could anybody provide some insight into what happened to the missing ways? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Victoria seems to be missing.
On Mar 6, 2012 10:11 AM, "Andrew Allison" wrote: > > On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 16:43 -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Looked at http://www.mapdust.com/detail/1978573 and noticed there > > doesn't seem to be any ways, but the nodes that belonged to the > > missing ways are still there. History only indicates > > Acrosscanadatrails as being the only person who has touched those > > nodes. Quite confused as to what happened here. Could anybody > > provide some insight into what happened to the missing ways? > > Canada has started / selectively purged some non-compliant data. > Probably caused what you are seeing. Oh, man, next month is gonna suck. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Post-Changeover Attribution
The LWG want to get a community-agreed wording prepared for how we want folks to attribute us after license change-over. There is a wiki page courtesy of Richard Fairhurst that makes a good edit point. Please take a look: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ/ODbL 3a. I would like to use OpenStreetMap maps. How should I credit you? Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] Mapnik slower than usual?
Is it just me, or are there more timeout magnifying glasses than usual? Is this due to the Osmarender server going down? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
Hi, On 03/06/2012 02:36 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Personally, I don't think that *verifying* their data against OSM data (in the sense of flagging potential problems, as long as they don't copy our data outright) would be a valid use of our data that would not create a "derived database". (The database that contains the results of the analysis might be derived and have to released.) Oops. Tripped over my own negative here. I wanted to say: As long as they just compare stuff and verify, I think it's ok and they won't be affected by viral ODbL-ness. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
On 06/03/2012 15:34, Ed Avis wrote: Is there a way to provide what UMP want by making a Produced Work (which could be public domain or CC) rather than a Derived Database? UMP only collect "road routes". With the caveat that I probably still do not understand *exactly* the intended use, (if anyone knowledgeable wants to jump in, please do), I think the issue breaks into two parts. The first issue is to augment their Garmin map. So, yes, it is very likely they could use our data as an independent Produced Work layer. The second issue is that they are very reasonably asking reciprocity - if OSM can continue to use UMP road data, so UMP should be able to use OSM road data. And that is the difficult one. I was hoping to work with defining what "use" actually meant. It is possible that UMP would never actually want to copy in an OSM road or any details about it into the UMP project database. They just want to be able to compare the road networks, see if there is anything missing or potentially anomalous and go out and independently map it. Frederik puts it well: "Personally, I don't think that *verifying* their data against OSM data (in the sense of flagging potential problems, as long as they don't copy our data outright) would be a valid use of our data that would not create a "derived database". (The database that contains the results of the analysis might be derived and have to released.) " However, if I were in UMP, I would want to be cautious and seek clarification from OSMF. Which is what I am seeking to give. Doing it specifically for another free and open project with known goals seems safe, doing it for anyone- as Ed, Frederick and Richard are reasonably suggesting - seems dangerous without very carefully defining what "verifying" could mean, and more importantly, what it does not mean. If we do not find a resolution, it will be a great shame for both projects. Stumped, Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Map Co-ordinates for towns, etc in UK
On 3/6/2012 8:53 AM, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) wrote: On 3/3/2012 9:04 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Sometimes it's to the center (usually the courthouse or city hall?) and sometimes to the city limits. The only zero point I know of (that's not intended for only one road) is the Zero Milestone in DC, and its use never caught on. There's also Mile 0 for US 1 in Key West. That's for one route. Most routes with mileposts have a mile 0, but it's where the route begins, not necessarily some sort of town center. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Map Co-ordinates for towns, etc in UK
On 3/3/2012 8:24 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: We don't have "zero-point" markers in the USA, either, at least not from my experience. However, the highway departments seem to be referring to some point in or near the center of the cities, judging from the distances shown. Sometimes it's to the center (usually the courthouse or city hall?) and sometimes to the city limits. The only zero point I know of (that's not intended for only one road) is the Zero Milestone in DC, and its use never caught on. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Victoria seems to be missing.
Looked at http://www.mapdust.com/detail/1978573 and noticed there doesn't seem to be any ways, but the nodes that belonged to the missing ways are still there. History only indicates Acrosscanadatrails as being the only person who has touched those nodes. Quite confused as to what happened here. Could anybody provide some insight into what happened to the missing ways? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
