Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

[Maarten Deen]

On 2012-05-29 08:41, Thomas Davie wrote:

"It's So Funny" has not copied your data here, he has simply modified
it (in this case, changing highway=residential to
highway=unclassified).  When the redaction bot is unleashed, if you
have still not accepted the CTs (do you have a particular reason not
to?), this data will be deleted.  There is no problem here.


It's So Funny changed a way that was created by CeesW on 2012-01-09:


The previous way was deleted by CeesW in the same changeset.


So the person to confront would be CeesW, not It's So Funny. Offending 
changeset seems to be 



Regards,
Maarten


On 29 May 2012, at 06:06, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert 
Gremmen wrote:




http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.984706&lon=4.351842&zoom=18&layers=M

Look at Caracasstraat !
(among others in the region).

Gert

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com]
Verzonden: maandag 28 mei 2012 21:53
Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
CC: talk@openstreetmap.org; osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - 
Gert

Gremmen  wrote:
[ ... ]
However,  it was not meant that the data were simply to be copied, 
deleted

and re-pasted into  the map using a fake account.


True.  Copy / pasting is not the same as remapping from permitted 
sources.


Could you provide a link or ID to one of the nodes, ways or 
relations

that concern you?

___
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] OSM : It's a shame !!!

[Floris Looijesteijn]

I've sent CeesW a message asking him to join the discussion here.

Most of his other edits seem legit, but the comment on this changeset
is somewhat remarkable: "... data reconciliation ODbl".

Let's hope he explains himself.

Greets,
Floris Looijesteijn

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Maarten Deen  wrote:
> On 2012-05-29 08:41, Thomas Davie wrote:
>>
>> "It's So Funny" has not copied your data here, he has simply modified
>> it (in this case, changing highway=residential to
>> highway=unclassified).  When the redaction bot is unleashed, if you
>> have still not accepted the CTs (do you have a particular reason not
>> to?), this data will be deleted.  There is no problem here.
>
>
> It's So Funny changed a way that was created by CeesW on 2012-01-09:
> 
>
> The previous way was deleted by CeesW in the same changeset.
> 
>
> So the person to confront would be CeesW, not It's So Funny. Offending
> changeset seems to be
> 
>
> Regards,
> Maarten
>
>
>> On 29 May 2012, at 06:06, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.984706&lon=4.351842&zoom=18&layers=M
>>>
>>> Look at Caracasstraat !
>>> (among others in the region).
>>>
>>> Gert
>>>
>>> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
>>> Van: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com]
>>> Verzonden: maandag 28 mei 2012 21:53
>>> Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
>>> CC: talk@openstreetmap.org; osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
>>> Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
>>> Gremmen  wrote:
>>> [ ... ]

 However,  it was not meant that the data were simply to be copied,
 deleted
 and re-pasted into  the map using a fake account.
>>>
>>>
>>> True.  Copy / pasting is not the same as remapping from permitted
>>> sources.
>>>
>>> Could you provide a link or ID to one of the nodes, ways or relations
>>> that concern you?
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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

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

[OSM-talk] TomTom is thumping us

[Maarten Deen]

Ok, they don't name us, but I think "a leading open source map" does 
refer to us.




Oh wauw. We're not perfect. Let's close up the shop. Thanks to SteveC 
for all the effort, but it wasn't enough.


Well, probably one of the very positive effects from OSM is the fact 
that when we start mapping something, the closed-source mappers follow 
suit. The fact that Google needs to add gimmicks like kajak routing 
across the pacific to beat us says enough.

It's a win-win situation.

Regards,
Maarten


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

[Maarten Deen]

On 2012-05-29 09:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

On 5/29/2012 3:00 AM, Maarten Deen wrote:

On 2012-05-29 08:41, Thomas Davie wrote:
"It's So Funny" has not copied your data here, he has simply 
modified

it (in this case, changing highway=residential to
highway=unclassified). When the redaction bot is unleashed, if you
have still not accepted the CTs (do you have a particular reason 
not

to?), this data will be deleted. There is no problem here.


It's So Funny changed a way that was created by CeesW on 2012-01-09:


The previous way was deleted by CeesW in the same changeset.


So the person to confront would be CeesW, not It's So Funny. 
Offending

changeset seems to be



I don't see anything wrong with CeesW's change either:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history

AND has accepted the CT. The only thing cetest did was change
unclassified to residential. This was kept by CeesW, but the whole
area is a residential landuse, so I see no problem with that tag.


The official stance from AND is that the data in the OSM database on 
march 1 2010 can be used under ODbL, but previously not-entered data 
from the original dataset is also not allowed to enter OSM under ODbL.
That clarification came on april 5th (discussed on talk-nl): 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-nl/2012-April/013870.html


This is months after the changes made by CeesW. So his actions 
(deleting and recreating) were extremly premature, in hindsight 
unnecessary and can be called strange at any point in time.
You'd almost think it was an error on his part, but deleting and 
recreating the same ways in the one changeset does not support that view 
very much.


Regards,
Maarten




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

Re: [OSM-talk] TomTom is thumping us

[Nick Whitelegg]

Whatever. I've certainly seen "footpaths classified as roads" in commercial 
online maps for instance.

This is a very one sided argument and assumes that commercial online maps are 
accurate. It also completely neglects the fact that you can use OSM data 
without a fee andf without someone telling you what you can and cannot do with 
it. I'd imagine they're running scared at the move away from the restrictive, 
closed-source model for electronic data.

Nick

-Maarten Deen  wrote: -
To: 
From: Maarten Deen 
Date: 29/05/2012 08:45AM
Subject: [OSM-talk] TomTom is thumping us

Ok, they don't name us, but I think "a leading open source map" does 
refer to us.



Oh wauw. We're not perfect. Let's close up the shop. Thanks to SteveC 
for all the effort, but it wasn't enough.

Well, probably one of the very positive effects from OSM is the fact 
that when we start mapping something, the closed-source mappers follow 
suit. The fact that Google needs to add gimmicks like kajak routing 
across the pacific to beat us says enough.
It's a win-win situation.

Regards,
Maarten


___
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] TomTom is thumping us

[John Sturdy]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Maarten Deen  wrote:
> Ok, they don't name us, but I think "a leading open source map" does refer
> to us.
>
> 
>
> Oh wauw. We're not perfect. Let's close up the shop. Thanks to SteveC for
> all the effort, but it wasn't enough.
>
> Well, probably one of the very positive effects from OSM is the fact that
> when we start mapping something, the closed-source mappers follow suit. The
> fact that Google needs to add gimmicks like kajak routing across the pacific
> to beat us says enough.
> It's a win-win situation.

It looks like we're getting to the point where the closed-source
mappers are starting to see us as serious competition.

If the best they can do is that "In one particular instance"
(presumably chosen to make their point as well as possible) we've got
"a third less residential road coverage and 16% less basic map
attributes" we're well on the way (especially the second part of
that).

Also, having said that the community is a drawback for Open Source,
they then claim their community as an advantage!  I doubt that their
specialists really go out and check each correction that's sent in; I
expect we do more (implicit) checking, as vandalism is reported and
undone.

I wonder whether their comment on "pedestrians and in city or town
centres" can be taken as conceding that we're doing better than them
in those areas?

The nearest they make to an accurate point is "classification of
footpaths as roads" --- I don't think I've seen any of those, but I
have found quite a few "unclassified roads" that look more like
"tracks" on Bing (and have adjusted them accordingly where confident
of it).

__John

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

Re: [OSM-talk] TomTom is thumping us

[Richard Fairhurst]

Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> Whatever. I've certainly seen "footpaths classified as roads" in
> commercial 
> online maps for instance.

It's basically a misreading of how OSM data works. Essentially they're
saying that the fact we use the "highway=track" tag means "OMG OSM
MISCLASSIFIES FOREST TRACKS AS HIGHWAYS". *facepalm*

I've written a bit more about it at
http://www.systemeD.net/blog/index.php?post=23

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/TomTom-is-thumping-us-tp5710461p5710467.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] TomTom is thumping us

[Thomas Davie]

Certainly Apple mark footpaths as roads in the data that they have used from 
us, but that's a rendering issue, not a data issue.

Tom Davie

On 29 May 2012, at 09:14, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

> 
> Whatever. I've certainly seen "footpaths classified as roads" in commercial 
> online maps for instance.
> 
> This is a very one sided argument and assumes that commercial online maps are 
> accurate. It also completely neglects the fact that you can use OSM data 
> without a fee andf without someone telling you what you can and cannot do 
> with it. I'd imagine they're running scared at the move away from the 
> restrictive, closed-source model for electronic data.
> 
> Nick
> 
> -Maarten Deen  wrote: -
> To: 
> From: Maarten Deen 
> Date: 29/05/2012 08:45AM
> Subject: [OSM-talk] TomTom is thumping us
> 
> Ok, they don't name us, but I think "a leading open source map" does 
> refer to us.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wauw. We're not perfect. Let's close up the shop. Thanks to SteveC 
> for all the effort, but it wasn't enough.
> 
> Well, probably one of the very positive effects from OSM is the fact 
> that when we start mapping something, the closed-source mappers follow 
> suit. The fact that Google needs to add gimmicks like kajak routing 
> across the pacific to beat us says enough.
> It's a win-win situation.
> 
> Regards,
> Maarten
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] TomTom is thumping us

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/5/29 John Sturdy :
> footpaths as roads" --- I don't think I've seen any of those, but I
> have found quite a few "unclassified roads" that look more like
> "tracks" on Bing (and have adjusted them accordingly where confident
> of it).


+1 to the rest, but I don't think we should change classification of
roads from unclassified to track based on aerial imagery. There are
unpaved unclassified roads also in Europe (I guess in all countries
you might find them at least in very remote areas).

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] TomTom is thumping us

[Thomas Davie]

To be honest, if a road has no classification, and is made of mud and gravel, 
it's a track... If it's an "official" road in some way, then clearly it is 
classified ;)

Thanks

Tom Davie

On 29 May 2012, at 09:32, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> 2012/5/29 John Sturdy :
>> footpaths as roads" --- I don't think I've seen any of those, but I
>> have found quite a few "unclassified roads" that look more like
>> "tracks" on Bing (and have adjusted them accordingly where confident
>> of it).
> 
> 
> +1 to the rest, but I don't think we should change classification of
> roads from unclassified to track based on aerial imagery. There are
> unpaved unclassified roads also in Europe (I guess in all countries
> you might find them at least in very remote areas).
> 
> cheers,
> Martin
> 
> ___
> 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] OSM : It's a shame !!!

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

Apparently this ownership is more complex then 
at first sight.

A way is defined by its nodes and its tags.
Maarten only took a look at the tags.

cetest did not only add a residential tag, but
created  the nodes (Version 1) that defines this 
particular way with GPS acquired data,
later assisted by satellite data, even before 
Bing became available.

way data:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history

Nodes data (just one)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/44729547/history

The whole area is full of this type of copyright breaches,
and I did not investigate anywhere else.

Next topic of action: 
Analyzing the bicycle routes that I personally biked
(GPS available, though not uploaded) 
through large parts of the south west in Holland, will
show if the new author actually drove the route,
copied the data that I created, 
or just took the GPX files from the fietsersbond.



Regards
Gert


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Maarten Deen [mailto:md...@xs4all.nl] 
Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:11 AM
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

On 2012-05-29 09:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On 5/29/2012 3:00 AM, Maarten Deen wrote:
>> On 2012-05-29 08:41, Thomas Davie wrote:
>>> "It's So Funny" has not copied your data here, he has simply 
>>> modified it (in this case, changing highway=residential to 
>>> highway=unclassified). When the redaction bot is unleashed, if you 
>>> have still not accepted the CTs (do you have a particular reason not

>>> to?), this data will be deleted. There is no problem here.
>>
>> It's So Funny changed a way that was created by CeesW on 2012-01-09:
>> 
>>
>> The previous way was deleted by CeesW in the same changeset.
>> 
>>
>> So the person to confront would be CeesW, not It's So Funny. 
>> Offending
>> changeset seems to be
>> 
>
> I don't see anything wrong with CeesW's change either:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history
>
> AND has accepted the CT. The only thing cetest did was change 
> unclassified to residential. This was kept by CeesW, but the whole 
> area is a residential landuse, so I see no problem with that tag.

The official stance from AND is that the data in the OSM database on
march 1 2010 can be used under ODbL, but previously not-entered data
from the original dataset is also not allowed to enter OSM under ODbL.
That clarification came on april 5th (discussed on talk-nl): 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-nl/2012-April/013870.html

This is months after the changes made by CeesW. So his actions (deleting
and recreating) were extremly premature, in hindsight unnecessary and
can be called strange at any point in time.
You'd almost think it was an error on his part, but deleting and
recreating the same ways in the one changeset does not support that view
very much.

Regards,
Maarten




___
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] TomTom is thumping us

[John Sturdy]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Thomas Davie  wrote:
> To be honest, if a road has no classification, and is made of mud and gravel, 
> it's a track...

The ones I reclassified typically had two wheel-tracks of soil-colour
and grass between them, I think.  If it's asphalt-coloured, even if
there is grass growing down the middle, I still call it a road.

__John

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

[Thomas Davie]

If I remember correctly (someone correct me if I don't), a lawyer has agreed 
that it's okay to keep node positions and ways where a user would reasonably 
have created the same way from an ODbL compatible data source.  So for example, 
in this case, the user could reasonably create the exact same way by tracing 
bing, and hence is fine in terms of copyright breach.  The less destructive way 
to do this would be to simply mark the way as odbl=clean rather than deleting 
the original and creating a new one with the same node positions though.

Thanks

Tom Davie

On 29 May 2012, at 09:43, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:

> Apparently this ownership is more complex then 
> at first sight.
> 
> A way is defined by its nodes and its tags.
> Maarten only took a look at the tags.
> 
> cetest did not only add a residential tag, but
> created  the nodes (Version 1) that defines this 
> particular way with GPS acquired data,
> later assisted by satellite data, even before 
> Bing became available.
> 
> way data:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history
> 
> Nodes data (just one)
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/44729547/history
> 
> The whole area is full of this type of copyright breaches,
> and I did not investigate anywhere else.
> 
> Next topic of action: 
> Analyzing the bicycle routes that I personally biked
> (GPS available, though not uploaded) 
> through large parts of the south west in Holland, will
> show if the new author actually drove the route,
> copied the data that I created, 
> or just took the GPX files from the fietsersbond.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> Gert
> 
> 
> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: Maarten Deen [mailto:md...@xs4all.nl] 
> Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:11 AM
> Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
> 
> On 2012-05-29 09:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> On 5/29/2012 3:00 AM, Maarten Deen wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-29 08:41, Thomas Davie wrote:
 "It's So Funny" has not copied your data here, he has simply 
 modified it (in this case, changing highway=residential to 
 highway=unclassified). When the redaction bot is unleashed, if you 
 have still not accepted the CTs (do you have a particular reason not
> 
 to?), this data will be deleted. There is no problem here.
>>> 
>>> It's So Funny changed a way that was created by CeesW on 2012-01-09:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The previous way was deleted by CeesW in the same changeset.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So the person to confront would be CeesW, not It's So Funny. 
>>> Offending
>>> changeset seems to be
>>> 
>> 
>> I don't see anything wrong with CeesW's change either:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history
>> 
>> AND has accepted the CT. The only thing cetest did was change 
>> unclassified to residential. This was kept by CeesW, but the whole 
>> area is a residential landuse, so I see no problem with that tag.
> 
> The official stance from AND is that the data in the OSM database on
> march 1 2010 can be used under ODbL, but previously not-entered data
> from the original dataset is also not allowed to enter OSM under ODbL.
> That clarification came on april 5th (discussed on talk-nl): 
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-nl/2012-April/013870.html
> 
> This is months after the changes made by CeesW. So his actions (deleting
> and recreating) were extremly premature, in hindsight unnecessary and
> can be called strange at any point in time.
> You'd almost think it was an error on his part, but deleting and
> recreating the same ways in the one changeset does not support that view
> very much.
> 
> Regards,
> Maarten
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] OSM : It's a shame !!!

[Maarten Deen]

On 2012-05-29 10:43, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen 
wrote:

Apparently this ownership is more complex then
at first sight.

A way is defined by its nodes and its tags.
Maarten only took a look at the tags.

cetest did not only add a residential tag, but
created  the nodes (Version 1) that defines this
particular way with GPS acquired data,
later assisted by satellite data, even before
Bing became available.

way data:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history

Nodes data (just one)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/44729547/history


Interesting. If you say you created them from GPS data, why do they 
have source=AND and an AND_nodes tag? That would be indicative of the 
AND import. But you did not import the AND data in that region by hand?


The fact that the nodes were created on 2007-09-30 and the way was 
created on 2007-09-20 does indicate some editing.


Regards,
Maarten


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Maarten Deen [mailto:md...@xs4all.nl]
Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:11 AM
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

On 2012-05-29 09:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

On 5/29/2012 3:00 AM, Maarten Deen wrote:

On 2012-05-29 08:41, Thomas Davie wrote:

"It's So Funny" has not copied your data here, he has simply
modified it (in this case, changing highway=residential to
highway=unclassified). When the redaction bot is unleashed, if you
have still not accepted the CTs (do you have a particular reason 
not



to?), this data will be deleted. There is no problem here.


It's So Funny changed a way that was created by CeesW on 
2012-01-09:



The previous way was deleted by CeesW in the same changeset.


So the person to confront would be CeesW, not It's So Funny.
Offending
changeset seems to be



I don't see anything wrong with CeesW's change either:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history

AND has accepted the CT. The only thing cetest did was change
unclassified to residential. This was kept by CeesW, but the whole
area is a residential landuse, so I see no problem with that tag.


The official stance from AND is that the data in the OSM database on
march 1 2010 can be used under ODbL, but previously not-entered data
from the original dataset is also not allowed to enter OSM under 
ODbL.

That clarification came on april 5th (discussed on talk-nl):

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-nl/2012-April/013870.html

This is months after the changes made by CeesW. So his actions 
(deleting

and recreating) were extremly premature, in hindsight unnecessary and
can be called strange at any point in time.
You'd almost think it was an error on his part, but deleting and
recreating the same ways in the one changeset does not support that 
view

very much.

Regards,
Maarten




___
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] OSM : It's a shame !!!

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

At the time it was judged to be important to
keep reference to the original and data.
I remember copying lots of old AND tags
onto my created roads.

I think what should be leading here is
the version number, as recorded by the server.

Whatever excuse there may be, including reference to
anonymous lawyers, it's simply
a shame using cut and paste to change ownership
of nodes and ways.
It  was me that basically change the majority of 
this area into a nice, well aligned and usable
map from the mess (in terms of layout) we got from AND.

It is up to the new author to use GPS or Bing and
create a new way, using new nodes.
That is the intend of OSM, it has always been that
and it's not because some users are bad/lazy losers that
cheating can be justified.


Regards,

 Gert 

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Maarten Deen [mailto:md...@xs4all.nl] 
Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:04 AM
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

On 2012-05-29 10:43, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
wrote:
> Apparently this ownership is more complex then at first sight.
>
> A way is defined by its nodes and its tags.
> Maarten only took a look at the tags.
>
> cetest did not only add a residential tag, but created  the nodes 
> (Version 1) that defines this particular way with GPS acquired data, 
> later assisted by satellite data, even before Bing became available.
>
> way data:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history
>
> Nodes data (just one)
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/44729547/history

Interesting. If you say you created them from GPS data, why do they have
source=AND and an AND_nodes tag? That would be indicative of the AND
import. But you did not import the AND data in that region by hand?

The fact that the nodes were created on 2007-09-30 and the way was
created on 2007-09-20 does indicate some editing.

Regards,
Maarten

> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: Maarten Deen [mailto:md...@xs4all.nl]
> Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:11 AM
> Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
>
> On 2012-05-29 09:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> On 5/29/2012 3:00 AM, Maarten Deen wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-29 08:41, Thomas Davie wrote:
 "It's So Funny" has not copied your data here, he has simply 
 modified it (in this case, changing highway=residential to 
 highway=unclassified). When the redaction bot is unleashed, if you 
 have still not accepted the CTs (do you have a particular reason 
 not
>
 to?), this data will be deleted. There is no problem here.
>>>
>>> It's So Funny changed a way that was created by CeesW on
>>> 2012-01-09:
>>> 
>>>
>>> The previous way was deleted by CeesW in the same changeset.
>>> 
>>>
>>> So the person to confront would be CeesW, not It's So Funny.
>>> Offending
>>> changeset seems to be
>>> 
>>
>> I don't see anything wrong with CeesW's change either:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history
>>
>> AND has accepted the CT. The only thing cetest did was change 
>> unclassified to residential. This was kept by CeesW, but the whole 
>> area is a residential landuse, so I see no problem with that tag.
>
> The official stance from AND is that the data in the OSM database on 
> march 1 2010 can be used under ODbL, but previously not-entered data 
> from the original dataset is also not allowed to enter OSM under ODbL.
> That clarification came on april 5th (discussed on talk-nl):
> 
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-nl/2012-April/013870.htm
> l
>
> This is months after the changes made by CeesW. So his actions 
> (deleting and recreating) were extremly premature, in hindsight 
> unnecessary and can be called strange at any point in time.
> You'd almost think it was an error on his part, but deleting and 
> recreating the same ways in the one changeset does not support that 
> view very much.
>
> Regards,
> Maarten
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] TomTom is thumping us

[Dave F.]

On 29/05/2012 08:44, Maarten Deen wrote:
Ok, they don't name us, but I think "a leading open source map" does 
refer to us.






Sounds like they're scared to me. With them looking over their shoulders 
at OSM, it means their taking their eye off the ball. The best thing for 
OSM mappers is to keep on mapping.


   "we harness the local knowledge of our 60 million satnav customers,"

How are the village pond & footpath that's goes past it being mapped 
when their customers are travelling at 70mph on the nearby motorway?


Dave F.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

[Thomas Davie]

On 29 May 2012, at 10:15, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:

> At the time it was judged to be important to
> keep reference to the original and data.
> I remember copying lots of old AND tags
> onto my created roads.
> 
> I think what should be leading here is
> the version number, as recorded by the server.
> 
> Whatever excuse there may be, including reference to
> anonymous lawyers, it's simply
> a shame using cut and paste to change ownership
> of nodes and ways.
> It  was me that basically change the majority of 
> this area into a nice, well aligned and usable
> map from the mess (in terms of layout) we got from AND.
> 
> It is up to the new author to use GPS or Bing and
> create a new way, using new nodes.
> That is the intend of OSM, it has always been that
> and it's not because some users are bad/lazy losers that
> cheating can be justified.

I'm sorry that you feel it's "cheating" to take the path of least resistance to 
valid, ODbL licensed data, personally, I would rather this guy had taken a path 
of even less resistance – simply tagged the way "odbl=clean".

Thanks

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

[Floris Looijesteijn]

That's some great imagery if he can read the name signs on that street...

Greets,
Floris Looijesteijn

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Thomas Davie  wrote:
> If I remember correctly (someone correct me if I don't), a lawyer has agreed 
> that it's okay to keep node positions and ways where a user would reasonably 
> have created the same way from an ODbL compatible data source.  So for 
> example, in this case, the user could reasonably create the exact same way by 
> tracing bing, and hence is fine in terms of copyright breach.  The less 
> destructive way to do this would be to simply mark the way as odbl=clean 
> rather than deleting the original and creating a new one with the same node 
> positions though.
>
> Thanks
>
> Tom Davie
>
> On 29 May 2012, at 09:43, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
>
>> Apparently this ownership is more complex then
>> at first sight.
>>
>> A way is defined by its nodes and its tags.
>> Maarten only took a look at the tags.
>>
>> cetest did not only add a residential tag, but
>> created  the nodes (Version 1) that defines this
>> particular way with GPS acquired data,
>> later assisted by satellite data, even before
>> Bing became available.
>>
>> way data:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history
>>
>> Nodes data (just one)
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/44729547/history
>>
>> The whole area is full of this type of copyright breaches,
>> and I did not investigate anywhere else.
>>
>> Next topic of action:
>> Analyzing the bicycle routes that I personally biked
>> (GPS available, though not uploaded)
>> through large parts of the south west in Holland, will
>> show if the new author actually drove the route,
>> copied the data that I created,
>> or just took the GPX files from the fietsersbond.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Gert
>>
>>
>> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
>> Van: Maarten Deen [mailto:md...@xs4all.nl]
>> Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:11 AM
>> Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
>> Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
>>
>> On 2012-05-29 09:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>>> On 5/29/2012 3:00 AM, Maarten Deen wrote:
 On 2012-05-29 08:41, Thomas Davie wrote:
> "It's So Funny" has not copied your data here, he has simply
> modified it (in this case, changing highway=residential to
> highway=unclassified). When the redaction bot is unleashed, if you
> have still not accepted the CTs (do you have a particular reason not
>>
> to?), this data will be deleted. There is no problem here.

 It's So Funny changed a way that was created by CeesW on 2012-01-09:
 

 The previous way was deleted by CeesW in the same changeset.
 

 So the person to confront would be CeesW, not It's So Funny.
 Offending
 changeset seems to be
 
>>>
>>> I don't see anything wrong with CeesW's change either:
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history
>>>
>>> AND has accepted the CT. The only thing cetest did was change
>>> unclassified to residential. This was kept by CeesW, but the whole
>>> area is a residential landuse, so I see no problem with that tag.
>>
>> The official stance from AND is that the data in the OSM database on
>> march 1 2010 can be used under ODbL, but previously not-entered data
>> from the original dataset is also not allowed to enter OSM under ODbL.
>> That clarification came on april 5th (discussed on talk-nl):
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-nl/2012-April/013870.html
>>
>> This is months after the changes made by CeesW. So his actions (deleting
>> and recreating) were extremly premature, in hindsight unnecessary and
>> can be called strange at any point in time.
>> You'd almost think it was an error on his part, but deleting and
>> recreating the same ways in the one changeset does not support that view
>> very much.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Maarten
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

[Thomas Davie]

On 29 May 2012, at 10:27, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:

> That's some great imagery if he can read the name signs on that street...

The fact that all the tags were ODbL safe had already been established – they 
were created by another user who had accepted.

Thanks

Tom Davie


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

[Thomas Davie]

On 29 May 2012, at 10:36, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:

> Off list ! No need to annoy the list with 
> comments with suggestion on how to cheat even more.

No, I'd rather keep it on list, as I'd really like people to know the quickest 
and best methods for keeping as much data as possible; keeping as much history 
as possible and keeping making progress with a great open map.  I honestly 
don't care if one user considers the methods involved to be "cheating" because 
they're easier than another method.

> BTW I and FOSM and a few  more would be happy in the end, because if
> all were like you ( I'll take a look at your edits later)
> OSM would soon stop to exist as the first lawyer
> would declare OdBL non applicable.

Feel free to enjoy looking through massive piles of buildings and coastline 
rearrangement.  Is your assertion here that FOSM would enjoy watching the 
destruction of a large, free, open database of map data?  That doesn't exactly 
caste FOSM in the best light does it?

> I am stupid to advise OSM for free on how to
> keep their data really OdBL clean.

No one asserted that you were stupid, you've made some pretty intelligent 
comments.  Please don't spoil that by putting FOSM in a bad light and making 
rash ones now.

Thanks

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

Re: [OSM-talk] TomTom is thumping us

[Grant Slater]

On 29 May 2012 08:44, Maarten Deen  wrote:
> Ok, they don't name us, but I think "a leading open source map" does refer
> to us.
>
> 
>

RichardF has a comprehensive slap down of their FUD:
http://www.systemed.net/blog/index.php?post=23

Also hit Slashdot earlier today:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/05/29/019213/tomtom-flames-openstreetmap

/ Grant

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

[OSM-talk] (dis)Honesty and Copyright

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

 

 

I am really astonished about the way some users on this list

react to a claim to respect  (my and CC-by-SA) copyright .

 

The whole business of changeing license IS about copyright.

If there is only a single grain of non-respect to copyright in your
heads

(those that are addressed, do know who I mean),

why bother supporting a license change then that is about

respect on copyright   Everything up and running up in your heads?

 

If TomTom or Nokia (just to mention a few major players) 

will find proof of the slightest infraction (well ok, a bit more then
that)

of copyrights,  in OSM's database

they will publish that at a future moment  that suits them best

 

 

 

Regards,

Gert Gremmen, 

 

 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 29 May 2012 11:28, Thomas Davie  wrote:
> On 29 May 2012, at 10:27, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
>
>> That's some great imagery if he can read the name signs on that street...
>
> The fact that all the tags were ODbL safe had already been established – they 
> were created by another user who had accepted.

Acceptance of the Contributor Terms does *not* imply ODbL safety.

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

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

I did not give you permission to share
a private conversation on the list.

That is also about copyrights, Davie.


Gert


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Thomas Davie [mailto:tom.da...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:43 AM
Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
CC: talk Talk
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!


On 29 May 2012, at 10:36, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
wrote:

> Off list ! No need to annoy the list with comments with suggestion on 
> how to cheat even more.

No, I'd rather keep it on list, as I'd really like people to know the
quickest and best methods for keeping as much data as possible; keeping
as much history as possible and keeping making progress with a great
open map.  I honestly don't care if one user considers the methods
involved to be "cheating" because they're easier than another method.

> BTW I and FOSM and a few  more would be happy in the end, because if 
> all were like you ( I'll take a look at your edits later) OSM would 
> soon stop to exist as the first lawyer would declare OdBL non 
> applicable.

Feel free to enjoy looking through massive piles of buildings and
coastline rearrangement.  Is your assertion here that FOSM would enjoy
watching the destruction of a large, free, open database of map data?
That doesn't exactly caste FOSM in the best light does it?

> I am stupid to advise OSM for free on how to keep their data really 
> OdBL clean.

No one asserted that you were stupid, you've made some pretty
intelligent comments.  Please don't spoil that by putting FOSM in a bad
light and making rash ones now.

Thanks

Tom Davie

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

Re: [OSM-talk] (dis)Honesty and Copyright

[Thomas Davie]

On 29 May 2012, at 10:50, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:

>  
> I am really astonished about the way some users on this list
> react to a claim to respect  (my and CC-by-SA) copyright .

Do you have an example of such a reply that astonishes you?

Thanks

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

[Thomas Davie]

On 29 May 2012, at 10:53, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:

> I did not give you permission to share
> a private conversation on the list.
> 
> That is also about copyrights, Davie.

Sure, but having a copyright there would involve having made an original work 
in a skilled way, you yourself said you were stupid... :P

In the mean time, we're getting rather off topic, shall we stop acting like 
children on a public mailing list, and instead behave like reasonable adults?

Thanks

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 29 May 2012 11:01, Thomas Davie  wrote:
> If I remember correctly (someone correct me if I don't), a lawyer has agreed 
> that it's okay to keep node positions and ways where a user would reasonably 
> have created the same way from an ODbL compatible data source.

I don't know if a lawyer has said that, but I think it's unlikely to
apply to tracing from imagery, first because the node positions are so
unlikely to match if recreated from imagery, and secondly because
Potlatch, I think, now has a whole mode designed to get rid of
original node positions and add new ones quickly.  (It's still a huge
simplification with many open questions -- what about the
directionality of ways where the direction is not significant, i.e. no
oneway=yes tag -- this information could constitute a protected
database on its own but all the "remapping" methods retain such
information.)

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-talk] (dis)Honesty and Copyright

[Floris Looijesteijn]

Gert,

Although I would have chosen a different tone of voice you are
absolutely right to raise this issue.

Let's just try to keep the discussion civilized.

Greetings,
Floris Looijesteijn

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:50 AM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen  wrote:

> ** **
>
> I am really astonished about the way some users on this list
>
> react to a claim to respect  (my and CC-by-SA) copyright .
>
> ** **
>
> The whole business of changeing license IS about copyright.
>
> If there is only a single grain of non-respect to copyright in your heads*
> ***
>
> (those that are addressed, do know who I mean),
>
> why bother supporting a license change then that is about
>
> respect on copyright   Everything up and running up in your heads?
>
> ** **
>
> If TomTom or Nokia (just to mention a few major players) 
>
> will find proof of the slightest infraction (well ok, a bit more then that)
> 
>
> of copyrights,  in OSM’s database
>
> they will publish that at a future moment  that suits them best….
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,
>
> Gert Gremmen, 
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ___
> 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] OSM : It's a shame !!!

[Emilie Laffray]

Hello,

First of all, let me just say it is indeed impolite to share private
conversation but I would love to see that tested in a court.
That said, the whole point of people in FOSM waiting for OSM to fail is
kind of annoying. I understand why the fork happened (doesn't mean that I
agree with it); I understand why some people are reacting the way they do
but I have to admit it is getting ridiculous.
FOSM is a fork. It is a conscious statement that you wanted to break away.
I am glad that you guys had that *freedom* in the first place (despite all
the FUD that the new contributor terms won't allow forking) and I wish you
the best of luck in this project as I wish the best of luck to other
mapping projects like Common map for example. Now, you decided to leave the
project so just leave it. I am not going to go to FOSM and ask for my data
to be deleted playing on my moral right for example (even though sometimes
I am seriously tempted to ask for my data to be removed out of exasperation
due to the behaviour of some members of FOSM).
If you strongly believe that ODbL won't stand the legal scrutiny, mount a
legal challenge to it. Just do it. That said, you have to realize that ODbL
is currently the licence that is being used more and more in France for
OpenData and actually across the world having being reviewed by several
legal departments. You may not agree with the way it was drafted but it
seriously look like it has some legs.
If you point out elements that have been copied, we will be happy to make
sure that people is not copying from your data. Anyway up to a point, the
data will be replaced and the very use of copyright on fact is tenuous at
best. I think from that point of view, despite all the mistakes the
foundation made during the process (we are after all volunteers), the
foundation has shown lot of willingness to sort many issues; it just that
at some points we can only agree to disagree hence why there was a fork.
You are just trolling. You are not even constructive towards FOSM. From the
way I look at it, FOSM is only a half hearted fork where there are only a
few people actually contributing, the rest of them is just sulking that OSM
didn't go their way. Maybe it is time to be more constructive towards the
choice that you made. From that point of view, I really appreciate the work
of some people in FOSM who are actually being constructive.

In short, feel free to complain when your data is *REALLY* used wrongly.
Else, put up or shut up regarding the ODbL. If you really believe that it
is not going to work, mount a proper legal challenge.

Emilie Laffray

On 29 May 2012 10:53, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen <
g.grem...@cetest.nl> wrote:

> I did not give you permission to share
> a private conversation on the list.
>
> That is also about copyrights, Davie.
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] (dis)Honesty and Copyright

[Peteris Krisjanis]

O , 2012-05-29 11:50 +0200, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
rakstīja:
> 
>  
> 
> I am really astonished about the way some users on this list
> 
> react to a claim to respect  (my and CC-by-SA) copyright .
> 

Hi Gert!

First, keep tone civil and you won't get nasty replies as before :)
And maybe recognize that OSM as in this list isn't organization, it's
community, where people's thoughts differ on subjects now and then.

What matters here that leadership agrees that deniers copyrights must be
respected and their data removed when map will be published under ODbL

> 
> The whole business of changeing license IS about copyright.
> 
> If there is only a single grain of non-respect to copyright in your
> heads
> 
> (those that are addressed, do know who I mean),
> 
> why bother supporting a license change then that is about
> 
> respect on copyright   Everything up and running up in your heads?

I would disagree here. We have group of people who work on copyright
violations and so far it has been very effective. Existence of such
infrastructure means that project is serious about respecting copyrights
(and more serious than some big corporations).

Some people responded harshly because of your tone. Yeah, data is still
there, but license change hasn't actually happened yet.

> If TomTom or Nokia (just to mention a few major players) 
> 
> will find proof of the slightest infraction (well ok, a bit more then
> that)
> 
> of copyrights,  in OSM’s database
> 
> they will publish that at a future moment  that suits them best….

Then they would have to prove it (and inform OSM about it). That would
be rather hard and knowing legalities of implicating someone's guilt,
their lawyers would definitely suggest to avoid that without smoking
gun.

Respectfully,
Peteris Krisjanis,
OSM Latvia


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

[Robert Scott]

On Tuesday 29 May 2012, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
> I did not give you permission to share
> a private conversation on the list.
> 
> That is also about copyrights, Davie.

Public interest defence trumps this.

Next!


robert.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] TomTom is thumping us

[Steve Bennett]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Maarten Deen  wrote:
> Ok, they don't name us, but I think "a leading open source map" does refer
> to us.
>
> 

I think the most interesting part of this is actually direct criticism
from our commercial competitors. You know the Gandhi thing: First they
ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Sounds like we're well and truly at stage 2.

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] TomTom is thumping us

[kenneth gonsalves]

On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 20:37 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
> >
> 
> 
> I think the most interesting part of this is actually direct criticism
> from our commercial competitors. You know the Gandhi thing: First they
> ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
> Sounds like we're well and truly at stage 2. 

looks more like stage 3 to me
-- 
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

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

Emilie,

 

I defend 2 legal interests:

 

Mine : I invested  time work and money, that I co-licensed under
CC-by-SA  to the previous OSM

OSM:  by keeping the OSM database clean of tainted data

 

 

If you call that trolling ..

Sometimes I think that people are called trolls because they defend

statements other do not agree with.

 

Sorry Emilie, it's a pity if that creates some loss of data,

but you should take it like a man, and accept the consequences

of the route OSM took. Put the liability on those who are

responsible for that !

 

Gert

 

 

 

Van: Emilie Laffray [mailto:emilie.laff...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:19 PM
Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
CC: Thomas Davie; talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

 

Hello,

 

First of all, let me just say it is indeed impolite to share private
conversation but I would love to see that tested in a court.

That said, the whole point of people in FOSM waiting for OSM to fail is
kind of annoying. I understand why the fork happened (doesn't mean that
I agree with it); I understand why some people are reacting the way they
do but I have to admit it is getting ridiculous.

FOSM is a fork. It is a conscious statement that you wanted to break
away. I am glad that you guys had that *freedom* in the first place
(despite all the FUD that the new contributor terms won't allow forking)
and I wish you the best of luck in this project as I wish the best of
luck to other mapping projects like Common map for example. Now, you
decided to leave the project so just leave it. I am not going to go to
FOSM and ask for my data to be deleted playing on my moral right for
example (even though sometimes I am seriously tempted to ask for my data
to be removed out of exasperation due to the behaviour of some members
of FOSM).

If you strongly believe that ODbL won't stand the legal scrutiny, mount
a legal challenge to it. Just do it. That said, you have to realize that
ODbL is currently the licence that is being used more and more in France
for OpenData and actually across the world having being reviewed by
several legal departments. You may not agree with the way it was drafted
but it seriously look like it has some legs.

If you point out elements that have been copied, we will be happy to
make sure that people is not copying from your data. Anyway up to a
point, the data will be replaced and the very use of copyright on fact
is tenuous at best. I think from that point of view, despite all the
mistakes the foundation made during the process (we are after all
volunteers), the foundation has shown lot of willingness to sort many
issues; it just that at some points we can only agree to disagree hence
why there was a fork.

You are just trolling. You are not even constructive towards FOSM. From
the way I look at it, FOSM is only a half hearted fork where there are
only a few people actually contributing, the rest of them is just
sulking that OSM didn't go their way. Maybe it is time to be more
constructive towards the choice that you made. From that point of view,
I really appreciate the work of some people in FOSM who are actually
being constructive.

 

In short, feel free to complain when your data is *REALLY* used wrongly.
Else, put up or shut up regarding the ODbL. If you really believe that
it is not going to work, mount a proper legal challenge.

 

Emilie Laffray

On 29 May 2012 10:53, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
 wrote:

I did not give you permission to share
a private conversation on the list.

That is also about copyrights, Davie.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

[Emilie Laffray]

Hello,

Fine.
So you are saying that the email you sent to Thomas was out of kindness not
out of petty goals? Also you are not answering my points in the first
place. I find you pretty disingenuous at time and while I do respect the
other projects out there, you are not helping them in any way. As I said, I
am fast reaching a point where I am actually reviewing my legal choice to
get the data I contributed to REMOVED from FOSM as a statement and even
considering some lawyer to actually get it done. The only reason why I have
not done so, so far, is not to appear like a complete jerk.
I am actually considering this more and more as it would be the perfect way
to test whether CC-By-SA is indeed capable of protecting facts in the first
place. I can assure you that the likelihood of that is going to be very
slim based in a court in France. This is however something not constructive
in the first place.
More seriously, as I have said, I have no trouble with data being removed
as it is part of the life of such a project and to make sure that we are
clean in terms of "potential" copyrights (I am not convinced that facts can
retain copyrights in the first place on facts, especially after talking to
so many legal people over the past 3 years). I think your point has been
made numerous time and I am pretty convinced it will be honoured.
That said, I will be more than happy to discuss that discussion offline if
you so desire, but I have no intention to continue replying bitterly to all
posts afterwards.

Emilie Laffray

On 29 May 2012 11:48, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen <
g.grem...@cetest.nl> wrote:

> Emilie,
>
> ** **
>
> I defend 2 legal interests:
>
> ** **
>
> Mine : I invested  time work and money, that I co-licensed under CC-by-SA
>  to the previous OSM
>
> OSM:  by keeping the OSM database clean of tainted data
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> If you call that trolling ……
>
> Sometimes I think that people are called trolls because they defend
>
> statements other do not agree with.
>
> ** **
>
> Sorry Emilie, it’s a pity if that creates some loss of data,
>
> but you should take it like a man, and accept the consequences
>
> of the route OSM took. Put the liability on those who are
>
> responsible for that !
>
> ** **
>
> Gert
>
> ** **
>
> **
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Edit review: intermittent waters

[Worst Fixer]

Hello.

I ask you to review my planned edit.

There are lot of ways to tag intermittent water feature found in database.
Most popular is intermittent=yes. All others come from different old
imports. Date ist 2009-2010 year. I countiered ~350 000 features tagged in
different such ways. Most is done by 10 users.

I ask users iandees and SK53 join discussion, as most of such tags were
imported by them. Others welcome too.

I propose unification of tagging in all this imports.

Following tags converted to intermittent=yes:

frequency=intermittent
occurrence=intermittent
stream=intermittent
water=intermittent
type=intermittent

Following tags converted to intermittent=no:

frequency=perennial
stream=perennial

stream=ephemeral converted to intermittent=ephemeral.

Just removed stream=fixme.

Converted "fdate" field from NHD imports in iso8601 date, moved to
check_date tag.

Removed all id-like tags.

If no valid objections will be raised, I upload this change on 2012-06-12.

Here is overview:
Short, to get the idea:
http://worstfixer.000a.biz/04-intermittent/overview-short.html
Long, for exact analysis:
http://worstfixer.000a.biz/04-intermittent/overview-full.html.gz

I currently looking for place to upload exact .osm.gz for a preview.
Suggestions welcome.

-- 
WorstFixer, twitter: http://twitter.com/WorstFixer
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Moderated Re: OSM : It's a shame !!!

[Mikel Maron]

All

This thread has gotten way out of line. Please refrain from posting anything 
more on this thread, or related threads (ie (dis)Honesty and Copyright).

I suggest taking a moment and reviewing the Etiquette page on the wiki.

Thanks
Mikel & Moderators___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Edit review: intermittent waters

[Thomas Davie]

On 29 May 2012, at 12:51, Worst Fixer wrote:

> Hello.
> 
> I ask you to review my planned edit.
> 
> There are lot of ways to tag intermittent water feature found in database. 
> Most popular is intermittent=yes. All others come from different old imports. 
> Date ist 2009-2010 year. I countiered ~350 000 features tagged in different 
> such ways. Most is done by 10 users. 
> 
> I ask users iandees and SK53 join discussion, as most of such tags were 
> imported by them. Others welcome too.
> 
> I propose unification of tagging in all this imports.
> 
> Following tags converted to intermittent=yes:
> 
> frequency=intermittent
> occurrence=intermittent
> stream=intermittent
> water=intermittent
> type=intermittent
> 
> Following tags converted to intermittent=no:
> 
> frequency=perennial
> stream=perennial
> 
> stream=ephemeral converted to intermittent=ephemeral.
> 
> Just removed stream=fixme.
> 
> Converted "fdate" field from NHD imports in iso8601 date, moved to check_date 
> tag.
> 
> Removed all id-like tags.
> 
> If no valid objections will be raised, I upload this change on 2012-06-12.
> 
> Here is overview:
> Short, to get the idea: 
> http://worstfixer.000a.biz/04-intermittent/overview-short.html
> Long, for exact analysis: 
> http://worstfixer.000a.biz/04-intermittent/overview-full.html.gz
> 
> I currently looking for place to upload exact .osm.gz for a preview. 
> Suggestions welcome.

Hi WorstFixer, I think this one might need a little more thought – what happens 
to something previously tagged water=intermittent... it becomes 
intermittent=yes... intermittent what?  I doubt there's a nice way of 
predicting what water= should become to make it correctly tagged.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] TomTom is thumping us

[Paul Johnson]

On May 29, 2012 1:16 AM, "Nick Whitelegg" 
wrote:

> This is a very one sided argument and assumes that commercial online maps
are accurate. It also completely neglects the fact that you can use OSM
data without a fee andf without someone telling you what you can and cannot
do with it. I'd imagine they're running scared at the move away from the
restrictive, closed-source model for electronic data.

It also ignores the fact that TomTom wanted to totally own crowd sourced
mapping, but they lost largely because Garmin doesn't lock us out on their
devices.  This reeks of sour grapes, big time.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

[Emilie Laffray]

Hello,

I will retract the troll bit as you seem actually to be "enthusiastic" but
you seriously have to work on the perception that you give to people in the
first place. Goodwill is something difficult enough to accrue in the first
place.
However, I will not retract the fact that I consider that you are a bit
disingenuous in your behaviour.

Emilie Laffray

On 29 May 2012 11:48, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen <
g.grem...@cetest.nl> wrote:

> Emilie,
>
> ** **
>
> I defend 2 legal interests:
>
> ** **
>
> Mine : I invested  time work and money, that I co-licensed under CC-by-SA
>  to the previous OSM
>
> OSM:  by keeping the OSM database clean of tainted data
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> If you call that trolling ……
>
> Sometimes I think that people are called trolls because they defend
>
> statements other do not agree with.
>
> ** **
>
> Sorry Emilie, it’s a pity if that creates some loss of data,
>
> but you should take it like a man, and accept the consequences
>
> of the route OSM took. Put the liability on those who are
>
> responsible for that !
>
> ** **
>
> Gert
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *Van:* Emilie Laffray [mailto:emilie.laff...@gmail.com]
> *Verzonden:* Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:19 PM
> *Aan:* ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
> *CC:* Thomas Davie; talk@openstreetmap.org
>
> *Onderwerp:* Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
>
> ** **
>
> Hello,
>
> ** **
>
> First of all, let me just say it is indeed impolite to share private
> conversation but I would love to see that tested in a court.
>
> That said, the whole point of people in FOSM waiting for OSM to fail is
> kind of annoying. I understand why the fork happened (doesn't mean that I
> agree with it); I understand why some people are reacting the way they do
> but I have to admit it is getting ridiculous.
>
> FOSM is a fork. It is a conscious statement that you wanted to break away.
> I am glad that you guys had that *freedom* in the first place (despite all
> the FUD that the new contributor terms won't allow forking) and I wish you
> the best of luck in this project as I wish the best of luck to other
> mapping projects like Common map for example. Now, you decided to leave the
> project so just leave it. I am not going to go to FOSM and ask for my data
> to be deleted playing on my moral right for example (even though sometimes
> I am seriously tempted to ask for my data to be removed out of exasperation
> due to the behaviour of some members of FOSM).
>
> If you strongly believe that ODbL won't stand the legal scrutiny, mount a
> legal challenge to it. Just do it. That said, you have to realize that ODbL
> is currently the licence that is being used more and more in France for
> OpenData and actually across the world having being reviewed by several
> legal departments. You may not agree with the way it was drafted but it
> seriously look like it has some legs.
>
> If you point out elements that have been copied, we will be happy to make
> sure that people is not copying from your data. Anyway up to a point, the
> data will be replaced and the very use of copyright on fact is tenuous at
> best. I think from that point of view, despite all the mistakes the
> foundation made during the process (we are after all volunteers), the
> foundation has shown lot of willingness to sort many issues; it just that
> at some points we can only agree to disagree hence why there was a fork.**
> **
>
> You are just trolling. You are not even constructive towards FOSM. From
> the way I look at it, FOSM is only a half hearted fork where there are only
> a few people actually contributing, the rest of them is just sulking that
> OSM didn't go their way. Maybe it is time to be more constructive towards
> the choice that you made. From that point of view, I really appreciate the
> work of some people in FOSM who are actually being constructive.
>
> ** **
>
> In short, feel free to complain when your data is *REALLY* used wrongly.
> Else, put up or shut up regarding the ODbL. If you really believe that it
> is not going to work, mount a proper legal challenge.
>
> ** **
>
> Emilie Laffray
>
> On 29 May 2012 10:53, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen <
> g.grem...@cetest.nl> wrote:
>
> I did not give you permission to share
> a private conversation on the list.
>
> That is also about copyrights, Davie.
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] An indoor airport

[SomeoneElse]

The fence around an airport here** (Bishkek in Kyrgyzstan):

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.83491&lon=74.5764&zoom=16&layers=M

Seems to have been tagged "building = yes, building:levels = 2".  I'm 
sure it gets chilly there in the winter, but this seems unlikely.


Perhaps someone local to the area might want to take a look at it?

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

[80n]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Emilie Laffray
 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> First of all, let me just say it is indeed impolite to share private
> conversation but I would love to see that tested in a court.
> That said, the whole point of people in FOSM waiting for OSM to fail is kind
> of annoying.

I think someone has given you the wrong impression about FOSM.  It's a
free-standing fork of OSM that differs only in that it continues to
use CC-BY-SA.  We consider this to be a better license for
contributors and we feel that contributors are the most valuable part
of the equation.  Sadly, OSM does not appear to value or care for
contributors interests as much as I once hoped it would.

Nobody expects OSM to fail.  I was the first to point out to Steve
Coast, in 2006, that OSM was already an unstoppable train.  Not even
the stress caused by the license change could prevent it's success.

> I understand why the fork happened (doesn't mean that I agree
> with it); I understand why some people are reacting the way they do but I
> have to admit it is getting ridiculous.
> FOSM is a fork.

In many ways OSM is the fork.  It is the project that is unsatisified
with the status-quo.  Although it has not yet managed to publish
anything under ODbL and I wouldn't bet money on it achieving that
objective any time soon.

>It is a conscious statement that you wanted to break away. I
> am glad that you guys had that *freedom* in the first place (despite all the
> FUD that the new contributor terms won't allow forking) and I wish you the
> best of luck in this project as I wish the best of luck to other mapping
> projects like Common map for example. Now, you decided to leave the project
> so just leave it.

We all have the same goals.  Free and open mapping data.  Your
language suggests you are trying to push people away.  While there is
indeed a license fork, there has never been a need for a fork of the
community.  You will recognise many fosm contributors as being major
characters in the OSM community.

>I am not going to go to FOSM and ask for my data to be
> deleted playing on my moral right for example (even though sometimes I am
> seriously tempted to ask for my data to be removed out of exasperation due
> to the behaviour of some members of FOSM).

Please explain more about the behaviour of fosm members?  We don't
have members as such, but I get what you mean.  As far as I can see
fosm contributors are a very happy and contented bunch.  Especially
when compared to some of the rhetoric on this list.

> If you strongly believe that ODbL won't stand the legal scrutiny, mount a
> legal challenge to it. Just do it. That said, you have to realize that ODbL
> is currently the licence that is being used more and more in France for
> OpenData and actually across the world having being reviewed by several
> legal departments. You may not agree with the way it was drafted but it
> seriously look like it has some legs.

> If you point out elements that have been copied, we will be happy to make
> sure that people is not copying from your data. Anyway up to a point, the
> data will be replaced and the very use of copyright on fact is tenuous at
> best. I think from that point of view, despite all the mistakes the
> foundation made during the process (we are after all volunteers), the
> foundation has shown lot of willingness to sort many issues; it just that at
> some points we can only agree to disagree hence why there was a fork.
> You are just trolling.

>You are not even constructive towards FOSM. From the
> way I look at it, FOSM is only a half hearted fork where there are only a
> few people actually contributing, the rest of them is just sulking that OSM
> didn't go their way.

There's nothing half-hearted about fosm.  Many of the people involved
in it have been working with OSM since the very early days and are
unlikely to go away.  Some of OSMs most prolific contributors now
contribute exclusively to fosm.

> Maybe it is time to be more constructive towards the
> choice that you made. From that point of view, I really appreciate the work
> of some people in FOSM who are actually being constructive.
>
> In short, feel free to complain when your data is *REALLY* used wrongly.
> Else, put up or shut up regarding the ODbL. If you really believe that it is
> not going to work, mount a proper legal challenge.

No doubt, if the license change and redaction is not handled properly
then it will end up in the courts.  We will all lose if that happens.
The laywers will be the only ones that win from that outcome.

>
> Emilie Laffray
>
>
> On 29 May 2012 10:53, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
>  wrote:
>>
>> I did not give you permission to share
>> a private conversation on the list.
>>
>> That is also about copyrights, Davie.
>>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

___
t

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

[Mikel Maron]

Hello,

Please, do not respond further to this thread. Any further comments will 
receive individual moderation.

-Mikel
 
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron


>
> From: Emilie Laffray 
>To: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen"  
>Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org 
>Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:43 AM
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
> 
>
>Hello,
>
>
>I will retract the troll bit as you seem actually to be "enthusiastic" but you 
>seriously have to work on the perception that you give to people in the first 
>place. Goodwill is something difficult enough to accrue in the first place.
>However, I will not retract the fact that I consider that you are a bit 
>disingenuous in your behaviour. 
>
>
>Emilie Laffray
>
>
>On 29 May 2012 11:48, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen 
> wrote:
>
>Emilie,
>> 
>>I defend 2 legal interests:
>> 
>>Mine : I invested  time work and money, that I co-licensed under CC-by-SA  to 
>>the previous OSM
>>OSM:  by keeping the OSM database clean of tainted data
>> 
>> 
>>If you call that trolling ……
>>Sometimes I think that people are called trolls because they defend
>>statements other do not agree with.
>> 
>>Sorry Emilie, it’s a pity if that creates some loss of data,
>>but you should take it like a man, and accept the consequences
>>of the route OSM took. Put the liability on those who are
>>responsible for that !
>> 
>>Gert
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>Van:Emilie Laffray [mailto:emilie.laff...@gmail.com] 
>>Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:19 PM
>>Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
>>CC: Thomas Davie; talk@openstreetmap.org
>>
>>Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
>> 
>>Hello,
>> 
>>First of all, let me just say it is indeed impolite to share private 
>>conversation but I would love to see that tested in a court.
>>That said, the whole point of people in FOSM waiting for OSM to fail is kind 
>>of annoying. I understand why the fork happened (doesn't mean that I agree 
>>with it); I understand why some people are reacting the way they do but I 
>>have to admit it is getting ridiculous.
>>FOSM is a fork. It is a conscious statement that you wanted to break away. I 
>>am glad that you guys had that *freedom* in the first place (despite all the 
>>FUD that the new contributor terms won't allow forking) and I wish you the 
>>best of luck in this project as I wish the best of luck to other mapping 
>>projects like Common map for example. Now, you decided to leave the project 
>>so just leave it. I am not going to go to FOSM and ask for my data to be 
>>deleted playing on my moral right for example (even though sometimes I am 
>>seriously tempted to ask for my data to be removed out of exasperation due to 
>>the behaviour of some members of FOSM).
>>If you strongly believe that ODbL won't stand the legal scrutiny, mount a 
>>legal challenge to it. Just do it. That said, you have to realize that ODbL 
>>is currently the licence that is being used more and more in France for 
>>OpenData and actually across the world having being reviewed by several legal 
>>departments. You may not agree with the way it was drafted but it seriously 
>>look like it has some legs.
>>If you point out elements that have been copied, we will be happy to make 
>>sure that people is not copying from your data. Anyway up to a point, the 
>>data will be replaced and the very use of copyright on fact is tenuous at 
>>best. I think from that point of view, despite all the mistakes the 
>>foundation made during the process (we are after all volunteers), the 
>>foundation has shown lot of willingness to sort many issues; it just that at 
>>some points we can only agree to disagree hence why there was a fork.
>>You are just trolling. You are not even constructive towards FOSM. From the 
>>way I look at it, FOSM is only a half hearted fork where there are only a few 
>>people actually contributing, the rest of them is just sulking that OSM 
>>didn't go their way. Maybe it is time to be more constructive towards the 
>>choice that you made. From that point of view, I really appreciate the work 
>>of some people in FOSM who are actually being constructive.
>> 
>>In short, feel free to complain when your data is *REALLY* used wrongly. 
>>Else, put up or shut up regarding the ODbL. If you really believe that it is 
>>not going to work, mount a proper legal challenge.
>> 
>>Emilie Laffray
>>On 29 May 2012 10:53, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen 
>> wrote:
>>I did not give you permission to share
>>a private conversation on the list.
>>
>>That is also about copyrights, Davie.
>
>___
>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] Edit review: intermittent waters

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 05/29/12 13:51, Worst Fixer wrote:

There are lot of ways to tag intermittent water feature found in
database. Most popular is intermittent=yes. All others come from
different old imports. Date ist 2009-2010 year. I countiered ~350 000
features tagged in different such ways. Most is done by 10 users.


1. Is there any benefit? Does anybody use that tag at all, or is it just 
you feverishly looking for things you could fix?


2. I don't think you should continue to make mass edits under the 
username "WorstFixer" because that implies that before you "fixed" 
things they were among the "worst" which has the potential to offend people.



I currently looking for place to upload exact .osm.gz for a preview.


You could get an account on the dev server and put things there.

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

[OSM-talk] moderation on "OSM : It's a shame !!!"

[Mikel Maron]

All

In case you didn't see it the first time, this and related threads are 
moderated. Do not respond further to these threads, or you will be individually 
moderated.

Thanks
Mikel & Moderators
 
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Edit review: intermittent waters

[Ed Loach]

> 2. I don't think you should continue to make mass edits under the
> username "WorstFixer" because that implies that before you
> "fixed"
> things they were among the "worst" which has the potential to
> offend people.

I've not been following what has and hasn't been done, or is
proposed, but the username "WorstFixer" looked to me like someone
had changed their name after having had it pointed out that after
their "fixes" things were worse than before, and that anyone else
could have fixed things in a better way.

So yes, not a good username choice.

Ed


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Edit review: intermittent waters

[Phil Endecott]

Worst Fixer wrote:

I ask you to review my planned edit.

There are lot of ways to tag intermittent water feature found in database.
Most popular is intermittent=yes. All others come from different old
imports. Date ist 2009-2010 year. I countiered ~350 000 features tagged in
different such ways. Most is done by 10 users.



Following tags converted to intermittent=yes:

frequency=intermittent
occurrence=intermittent
stream=intermittent
water=intermittent
type=intermittent

Following tags converted to intermittent=no:

frequency=perennial
stream=perennial


While that doesn't sound unreasonable...


Short, to get the idea:
http://worstfixer.000a.biz/04-intermittent/overview-short.html


..this page actually lists many more tags that you propose to change.  
You're going to remove 9413 ele tags; why?  No doubt at some point 
someone decided that "lake:shore_length:miles=2" was a useful thing to 
record, and you want to remove it.  Why?


I have a suggestion: break your proposed edits into smaller chunks.  
For example, in this case, propose an edit that *only* makes the 
'intermittent' change that I've quoted above.  Then propose separate 
edits that make each of the other changes.



Regards,  Phil.





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

Re: [OSM-talk] Edit review: intermittent waters

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/5/29 Phil Endecott :
>  You're going to remove 9413 ele tags; why?  No doubt at some point someone
> decided that "lake:shore_length:miles=2" was a useful thing to record, and
> you want to remove it.  Why?


because there is no such thing as a "shore length", it depends on the
resolution. Aside from this there is also no tradition in OSM to
record units in the key. So this particular key really doesn't seem to
make any sense (the length of the shore in OSM-precision is already in
the data geometry). See also here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox


> I have a suggestion: break your proposed edits into smaller chunks.
> For example, in this case, propose an edit that *only* makes the 
> 'intermittent'
> change that I've quoted above.  Then propose separate edits that make each
> of the other changes.


+1

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] An indoor airport

[Toby Murray]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 7:52 AM, SomeoneElse
 wrote:
> The fence around an airport here (Bishkek in Kyrgyzstan):
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.83491&lon=74.5764&zoom=16&layers=M
>
> Seems to have been tagged "building = yes, building:levels = 2".  I'm sure
> it gets chilly there in the winter, but this seems unlikely.
>
> Perhaps someone local to the area might want to take a look at it?

I pointed out this error before the edit was made but apparently
community feedback was not respected before the automated edit was
run...

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2012-May/063021.html

Toby

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Edit review: intermittent waters

[Phil Endecott]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

2012/5/29 Phil Endecott :

No doubt at some point someone
decided that "lake:shore_length:miles=2" was a useful thing to record, and
you want to remove it. Â Why?



because there is no such thing as a "shore length", it depends on the
resolution. Aside from this there is also no tradition in OSM to
record units in the key. So this particular key really doesn't seem to
make any sense (the length of the shore in OSM-precision is already in
the data geometry). See also here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox


This is of course true, and "Worst Fixer"'s table at 
http://worstfixer.000a.biz/04-intermittent/overview-short.html would 
benefit from a column giving a whole series of justifications like this 
for each of the proposed changes.



Regards,  Phil.





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

Re: [OSM-talk] TomTom is thumping us

[Toby Murray]

Hmm I seem to recall a stnav company accepting speed limit information
from users and then having the problem that people set the roads in
front of their houses to a speed limit of "0" so that the satnav
routing would avoid it... wasn't that TomTom?

Toby

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

[Simon Poole]

The node referenced created by cetest will not survive redaction (and I
assume the rest of data to be similar), and neither do the edits on the
way indicate anything other than normal editing  (see
http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=7539781). I am slightly at a
loss to see what exactly Gert is complaining about.

Simon


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

Re: [OSM-talk] TomTom is thumping us

[Steve Bennett]

We'd be vulnerable to exactly the same kind of attack, right? Do we
have any mechanisms to detect or prevent it?

Steve

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Toby Murray  wrote:
> Hmm I seem to recall a stnav company accepting speed limit information
> from users and then having the problem that people set the roads in
> front of their houses to a speed limit of "0" so that the satnav
> routing would avoid it... wasn't that TomTom?
>
> Toby
>
> ___
> 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] TomTom is thumping us

[SomeoneElse]

Steve Bennett wrote:

We'd be vulnerable to exactly the same kind of attack, right? Do we
have any mechanisms to detect or prevent it?


Well (at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious) we can actually see 
data that says "maxspeed=0" rather than just wondering why we never 
actually get routed from A to C via B.


I guess it varies from place to place, but well-mapped areas tend to be 
effectively "gardened" so that odd or out of place edits get spotted at 
some point.  It might not be immediately, but I bet it'd get spotted.  
People use various methods (e.g. OWL) - I use a combination of ITO's 
tools and something that checks for stuff I've previously edited 
whenever I create a new Garmin map.


Cheers,
Andy


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 05/29/2012 12:48 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
> Sorry Emilie, it’s a pity if that creates some loss of data,
> but you should take it like a man

I'm afraid she won't.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Waste map and OSM?

[Jaak Laineste]

2012/5/28 valent.turko...@gmail.com :
> You have probably seen this Waste map project that uses OpenStreetMap
> as background for mapping waste all over the globe:
> http://www.letsdoitworld.org/waste_map
>
> Does anybody know what technology did they use to overlay images and
> circles with waste?
>
> Is their technology open and recyclable (pun intended) for similar
> projects that need an overlay on top off OSM data?

Citing the developer Ahti (btw, he one of most famous developers in
Estonia, as he is one of the original developers of Skype):
It is open source so the answer is yes.
https://github.com/ahtih/ldiw_waste_map and
https://github.com/ahtih/Geoclustering For overlay, we use OpenLayers.


-- 
Jaak

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

Re: [OSM-talk] TomTom is thumping us

[Chris Hill]

On 29/05/12 15:29, Steve Bennett wrote:

We'd be vulnerable to exactly the same kind of attack, right? Do we
have any mechanisms to detect or prevent it?

A community!


Steve

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Toby Murray  wrote:

Hmm I seem to recall a stnav company accepting speed limit information
from users and then having the problem that people set the roads in
front of their houses to a speed limit of "0" so that the satnav
routing would avoid it... wasn't that TomTom?

Toby
--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Edit review: intermittent waters

[Worst Fixer]

Hello.

I used "reply to" instead of "reply to all" in my mail agent. We had a
small thread with Thomas. Here is major result we achived.

Thomas expressed opinion that not 100% of water=intermittent have
other tags, so we have no way count them as water.

In my sub-extract of water=intermittent:

127310 become intermittent=yes;
124417 have already "natural" tag;
749 get natural=wetland because "NHD:FType=Inundation Area";
2123 have "waterway" tag;
21 has "landuse tag".

127310-124417-749-2123-21=0. Check sum passed.

This tag came from imports only, that is why it kann be cleaned up perfectly.


-- 
WorstFixer, twitter: http://twitter.com/WorstFixer

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Edit review: intermittent waters

[Thomas Davie]

Actually, the conclusion, while it involved that, also involved that there are 
potential other uses (e.g. on river=intermittent; stream=intermittent etc) that 
need to be checked too, and that this seems like an arbitrary renaming of tags 
that doesn't gain anything, but may destroy data.

Thanks

Tom Davie

On 29 May 2012, at 20:08, Worst Fixer wrote:

> Hello.
> 
> I used "reply to" instead of "reply to all" in my mail agent. We had a
> small thread with Thomas. Here is major result we achived.
> 
> Thomas expressed opinion that not 100% of water=intermittent have
> other tags, so we have no way count them as water.
> 
> In my sub-extract of water=intermittent:
> 
> 127310 become intermittent=yes;
> 124417 have already "natural" tag;
> 749 get natural=wetland because "NHD:FType=Inundation Area";
> 2123 have "waterway" tag;
> 21 has "landuse tag".
> 
> 127310-124417-749-2123-21=0. Check sum passed.
> 
> This tag came from imports only, that is why it kann be cleaned up perfectly.
> 
> 
> -- 
> WorstFixer, twitter: http://twitter.com/WorstFixer


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Edit review: intermittent waters

[Russ Nelson]

Worst Fixer writes:
 > Just removed stream=fixme.

Why?

 > Removed all id-like tags.

Why?

 > If no valid objections will be raised, I upload this change on 2012-06-12.

Don't.

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Edit review: intermittent waters

[Russ Nelson]

Frederik Ramm writes:
 > 2. I don't think you should continue to make mass edits under the 
 > username "WorstFixer" because that implies that before you "fixed" 
 > things they were among the "worst" which has the potential to offend people.

I always thought it meant that he was the worst person to be doing
this fixing, or doing the worst job at fixing things.

The problem with his worst fixing, is that unless he starts {bugging /
bothering / teaching / correcting / annoying / discouraging} mappers
who are making these edits he disagrees with, they're going to keep
making these edits.

I'd prefer to see a consensus among editors that "we don't do that
anymore", with the "old way" not being in the OSM wiki anywhere,
backed up with an analysis of the timing of these edits as not
recently made, *BEFORE* any of these mass edits are made.

Because if people are still editing like this, then I don't see the
problem that WorstFixer is fixing as actually being fixed. Users of
the map will still have to deal with both the format that WorstFixer
doesn't like AND the format he does like. Less of the former and more
of the latter, but still some of both.

Persuade people to map just one way, THEN once they're doing that, go
back and get rid of the old way.

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] An indoor airport

[Russ Nelson]

Toby Murray writes:
 > I pointed out this error before the edit was made but apparently
 > community feedback was not respected before the automated edit was
 > run...
 > 
 > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2012-May/063021.html

Okay, Worst Fixer, you said that you wouldn't make the edit if there
was substantial objection. Toby objected. You made the edit anyway.
Please explain why you said one thing and did the opposite.

I *appreciate* what you are trying to do. I disagree on the exact
details of the timing and sequencing. ... But I *do* disagree.

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] An indoor airport

[Toby Murray]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Russ Nelson  wrote:
> Toby Murray writes:
>  > I pointed out this error before the edit was made but apparently
>  > community feedback was not respected before the automated edit was
>  > run...
>  >
>  > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2012-May/063021.html
>
> Okay, Worst Fixer, you said that you wouldn't make the edit if there
> was substantial objection. Toby objected. You made the edit anyway.
> Please explain why you said one thing and did the opposite.
>
> I *appreciate* what you are trying to do. I disagree on the exact
> details of the timing and sequencing. ... But I *do* disagree.

I wasn't even objecting to the edit in general. Just pointing out a
minor but clear error in the proposed edit that needed manual review
instead of a blind mechanical edit. These are exactly the types of
things that proposed mechanical edits should be reviewed for by the
community. Edge cases, false assumptions by the editor, local quirks,
etc.

Toby

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago

[Mike N]

On 5/29/2012 1:09 AM, Alan Mintz wrote:

  I used to agree with you, but in terms of minimum labor, updates are
best performed by retaining the original upload data, then doing a
conflation between the original data and a later update.   That will
highlight only changes from the original source, and only those
differences will need to be manually merged into OSM.


Except you won't see possible errors introduced after the first import
by OSM editors. I think it's useful to see the diff between the current
state of both databases.


  In an ideal OSM world, those errors would be caught by the 
'Gardeners' in the area who tend their regions by watching OWL or an 
equivalent edit monitor.   The best time to catch errors is while they 
can serve as a learning experience for a new contributor who can 
remember what he intended to do, as well as easier to revert if necessary.


  Doing a diff between the updated database and the OSM database calls 
out many changes that shouldn't need to be reviewed: a fence terminating 
at a building, gardens, plazas, sidewalks and stairways that connect to 
buildings.  It's just a trade off in the effort needed to perform the 
import synchronization task.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

[Mike Dupont]

HI there,
I thought FOSM was off topic, where are all the moderators to stop this thread?

I never wanted to leave osm, osm made me leave. I never wanted to fork
osm, osm forked itself to some new license.

lets keep the facts straight, people just wanted to continue with the
same system as before, osm is the one that changed.

mike

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Emilie Laffray
 wrote:
> That said, the whole point of people in FOSM waiting for OSM to fail is kind
> of annoying. I understand why the fork happened (doesn't mean that I agree
> with it); I understand why some people are reacting the way they do but I
> have to admit it is getting ridiculous.
> FOSM is a fork. It is a conscious statement that you wanted to break away. I
> am glad that you guys had that *freedom* in the first place (despite all the
> FUD that the new contributor terms won't allow forking) and I wish you the
> best of luck in this project as I wish the best of luck to other mapping
> projects like Common map for example.



-- 
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Edit review: intermittent waters

[Paul Norman]

Could you post the code used to generate the changesets? That would be the 
easiest way for some of us to review your proposed changes. It wouldn’t remove 
the need to explain it to non-programmers, but it would be much easier for some 
of us if we could look at the code.

 

That being said, a few concerns jump out at me

 

-  You provide no information on why you are removing the keys that you 
are

-  A couple of other people have expressed concern over the message 
sent by having a mechanical edit from the WorstFixer username. I share them. It 
is not enough to dismiss this as an objection that is not “valid”

-  A significant number of these ways appear to be from US NHD data. 
You should also consult specifically with the US community and develop a 
consensus there that the edit is worth doing, in addition to the global 
community. 

-  The mapping from NHD FCode to OSM tags used for some of these 
imports may of not been ideal. I have been working on a better one but have not 
finished. I believe it would be best to exclude the US from this edit and later 
on (post-rebuild likely) propose an edit which includes changing tagging on 
untouched objects.

 

From: Worst Fixer [mailto:worstfi...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 4:51 AM
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [OSM-talk] Edit review: intermittent waters

 

Hello.

 

I ask you to review my planned edit.

 

There are lot of ways to tag intermittent water feature found in database. Most 
popular is intermittent=yes. All others come from different old imports. Date 
ist 2009-2010 year. I countiered ~350 000 features tagged in different such 
ways. Most is done by 10 users. 

 

I ask users iandees and SK53 join discussion, as most of such tags were 
imported by them. Others welcome too.

 

I propose unification of tagging in all this imports.

 

Following tags converted to intermittent=yes:

 

frequency=intermittent

occurrence=intermittent

stream=intermittent

water=intermittent

type=intermittent

 

Following tags converted to intermittent=no:

 

frequency=perennial

stream=perennial

stream=ephemeral converted to intermittent=ephemeral.

 

Just removed stream=fixme.

 

Converted "fdate" field from NHD imports in iso8601 date, moved to check_date 
tag.

 

Removed all id-like tags.

 

If no valid objections will be raised, I upload this change on 2012-06-12.

 

Here is overview:

Short, to get the idea: 
http://worstfixer.000a.biz/04-intermittent/overview-short.html

Long, for exact analysis: 
http://worstfixer.000a.biz/04-intermittent/overview-full.html.gz

 

I currently looking for place to upload exact .osm.gz for a preview. 
Suggestions welcome.

 

-- 
WorstFixer, twitter: http://twitter.com/WorstFixer

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Edit review: intermittent waters

[Peter Wendorff]

Am 30.05.2012 02:40, schrieb Russ Nelson:

Frederik Ramm writes:
  >  2. I don't think you should continue to make mass edits under the
  >  username "WorstFixer" because that implies that before you "fixed"
  >  things they were among the "worst" which has the potential to offend 
people.

I always thought it meant that he was the worst person to be doing
this fixing, or doing the worst job at fixing things.

The problem with his worst fixing, is that unless he starts {bugging /
bothering / teaching / correcting / annoying / discouraging} mappers
who are making these edits he disagrees with, they're going to keep
making these edits.

I'd prefer to see a consensus among editors that "we don't do that
anymore", with the "old way" not being in the OSM wiki anywhere,

-1
It should be in the wiki anywhere, but absolutely clearly marked as 
"this is how NOT to do it", together with a reference to the new or 
better scheme.
Often "trivial" ways to tag something are the fields where problems are 
visible later with some practice.
When tagging something I never mapped before I often search for the 
keywords which come in mind, and often these are the "trivial" keys 
being obsolete by a new tagging scheme.
If there's nothing (as you suggest) and I search for alternatives, 
everything is fine.
If there's nothing and I give up, tagging my own idea, it's more or less 
the old variant again.


Therefore I would not delete the old variants, but clearly mark them, so 
that everyone can find it

1) to read about past tagging practice and
2) as a link anchor to the new tagging style.

regards
Peter

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