Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Am 17.03.2014 00:59, schrieb Lester Caine: > But in places where we are mapping fine detail that Google has no idea > about we are ... In my area of the UK Google has large blank areas > where OSM has all the footpaths and roadways that are needed simply to > navigate to many local businesses. Only OSM mapping takes you to the > correct location ... > In places even OS does not have the correct current details so the > 'commercial users' have no real chance of being up to date. > Since the current licence now fills in holes that previously existed > that data is 'safe' from being simply harvested for commercial use? > And routing programs that use the OSM data have an advantage. OSM has so many places where there is almost nothing mapped. Large cities, fine, but in smaller cities there is practically nothing which you cannot see from the aerial photos. Because, as it would seem, OSM mappers do the mapping all from their desk. They do not seem to go out and look on the street ;) . And in other countries, OSM is practically useless. Take a look outside of Europe. If I, as a company, would use some map provider, I would definitely go for "at least everywhere a minimum level of coverage" instead of only a few places with excellent coverage. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Hi, 2014-03-16 10:38 GMT+01:00 Florian Lohoff : > For technical reasons Google cant use OUR data and THEIR community. Can't follow this argument: Data fusion is technically feasible beyond "filling the holes". Even if argued in favour of CC-BY before, the current status quo of the Share-alike makes me comfortable just because of this point: not getting "exploited" by big companies >only<. As said before, I'm concerned about small and medium companies (SME) and about governement being possibly constrained by ODbL. I'd like to renew following statements of Steve and Simon: 2014-03-14 16:09 GMT+01:00 Steve Coast : > Alex makes a bunch of these statements like that, I’ll pick three that jump > out: > 1) "the assumption that share-alike encourages contribution is a myth” > 2) "The reality is that OpenStreetMap is only used extensively in >situations where the share-alike license does not apply, for instance, map > rendering." > 3) "OpenStreetMap's current licensing is stunting our growth" > > And respond: > 1) Data would be useful either way Agreed - except some license related caveats. > 2) I’d say that’s because OSM doesn’t contain a lot of address or navigation > data >(which, as it happens, is where the money is), not because of the license. > 3) My personal belief is it might stunt CloudMade or MapBox, but not Telenav > or MapQuest, >and, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats doesn’t show a lot of > evidence of being stunted. This last observation makes me wonder: SME should have a disadvantage because of the license: Perhaps a legal service of OSMF would help? To renew Simon's following question: 2014-03-14 10:58 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole : > One thing I would like to hear about in this context of this discussion, > are examples of concrete use cases that are not happening because of > share alike and that are in general things that the community would like > to support Here's the "OpenEcoMap use case": In urban and regional planning OSM can complement governement data with POIs not maintained by them (OpenEcoMap). Here OSM is being combined with legally different (non-PD) governement data. Now, it should be possible to combine OSM and governement data for doing spatial analysis and maps without 'affecting' governement data. OSM vector data is not being put in the same "database". It's either being overlayed/intersected/compared within analysis with governement data - and it's being shown in a separate layer on the map. --Stefan 2014-03-16 20:53 GMT+01:00 NopMap : > Lets jump into this discussion late but with an exceptionally short > statement: > > A few years ago, I checked the box "All my contributions to OSM data are in > the public domain". > > Because I think that is they way it should be so everyone can play. > > Simple. > > bye, Nop > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-Isn-t-All-That-Open-Let-s-Change-That-and-Drop-Share-Alike-tp5799574p5799970.html > Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Lets jump into this discussion late but with an exceptionally short statement: A few years ago, I checked the box "All my contributions to OSM data are in the public domain". Because I think that is they way it should be so everyone can play. Simple. bye, Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-Isn-t-All-That-Open-Let-s-Change-That-and-Drop-Share-Alike-tp5799574p5799970.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announcement of the release of a new set of POI icons
re: license: "The original SJJB icons as well as the icons newly designed are provided under the CC-0 license and therefore can be used for any commercial or non commercial mapping application. (...) Some of the icons I found in the OSM wiki have another license. Please respect that." http://osm-icons.org/wiki/Icons#License_of_the_icons -J -- jaa...@helleranta.com * Skype: jhelleranta * Mobile: +505-8845-3391 (Nicaragua) * Voice(mail) / SMS / What's app: +1-202-730-9778 * http://about.me/jaakkoh On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 2:23 PM, wn reader wrote: > Hello, > > what license are the icons? also cc-0 as SJJB? > > Marc > > Markus Semm schrieb: > > Hi all, >> >> a set of more than 1000 POI icons for OSM maps and OSM editors has been >> released today. >> >> The main purpose of this icon set is >> a) covering all OSM POI tags with at least 1000 occurrences according to >> TAGINFO >> b) provision of the most common key-value combinations for each icon >> c) assignment of each icon to one or multiple map feature groups >> >> This icon set can be used for the following purposes: >> a) integration into existing or future OSM editors >> b) to display POIs on any OSM map >> >> My hope is receiving some feedback from the community in order to further >> improve this icon set including the related metadata. >> >> The icon set can be downloaded here: http://osm-icons.org >> >> Thank you very much in advance for your feedback! >> Cheers Markus >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announcement of the release of a new set of POI icons
Hello, what license are the icons? also cc-0 as SJJB? Marc Markus Semm schrieb: Hi all, a set of more than 1000 POI icons for OSM maps and OSM editors has been released today. The main purpose of this icon set is a) covering all OSM POI tags with at least 1000 occurrences according to TAGINFO b) provision of the most common key-value combinations for each icon c) assignment of each icon to one or multiple map feature groups This icon set can be used for the following purposes: a) integration into existing or future OSM editors b) to display POIs on any OSM map My hope is receiving some feedback from the community in order to further improve this icon set including the related metadata. The icon set can be downloaded here: http://osm-icons.org Thank you very much in advance for your feedback! Cheers Markus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announcement of the release of a new set of POI icons
One word: huge ! Yves On 16 mars 2014 17:49:39 UTC+01:00, Markus Semm wrote: >Hi all, > >a set of more than 1000 POI icons for OSM maps and OSM editors has been >released today. > >The main purpose of this icon set is >a) covering all OSM POI tags with at least 1000 occurrences according >to TAGINFO >b) provision of the most common key-value combinations for each icon >c) assignment of each icon to one or multiple map feature groups > >This icon set can be used for the following purposes: >a) integration into existing or future OSM editors >b) to display POIs on any OSM map > >My hope is receiving some feedback from the community in order to >further improve this icon set including the related metadata. > >The icon set can be downloaded here: http://osm-icons.org > >Thank you very much in advance for your feedback! >Cheers Markus > >___ >talk mailing list >talk@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Announcement of the release of a new set of POI icons
Hi all, a set of more than 1000 POI icons for OSM maps and OSM editors has been released today. The main purpose of this icon set is a) covering all OSM POI tags with at least 1000 occurrences according to TAGINFO b) provision of the most common key-value combinations for each icon c) assignment of each icon to one or multiple map feature groups This icon set can be used for the following purposes: a) integration into existing or future OSM editors b) to display POIs on any OSM map My hope is receiving some feedback from the community in order to further improve this icon set including the related metadata. The icon set can be downloaded here: http://osm-icons.org Thank you very much in advance for your feedback! Cheers Markus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Not everywhere our map is superior to Google's. But in places where we are mapping fine detail that Google has no idea about we are ... In my area of the UK Google has large blank areas where OSM has all the footpaths and roadways that are needed simply to navigate to many local businesses. Only OSM mapping takes you to the correct location ... In places even OS does not have the correct current details so the 'commercial users' have no real chance of being up to date. Since the current licence now fills in holes that previously existed that data is 'safe' from being simply harvested for commercial use? And routing programs that use the OSM data have an advantage. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
You'll be surprised. On 16 mars 2014 14:39:12 UTC+01:00, Johan C wrote: >We have much better map data? Based on what? OSM will for example in >the >next x years not be able to accomodate OSM friendly commercial >companies >like Telenav on addresses, lane assistance and POI's. > >Op zondag 16 maart 2014 heeft Florian Lohoff het volgende >geschreven: > >> >> >> >> >> We have much better Map Data - so why does BMW offer Google? >> >> Flo >> -- >> Florian Lohoff >f...@zz.de >> > > > > >___ >talk mailing list >talk@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
We have much better map data? Based on what? OSM will for example in the next x years not be able to accomodate OSM friendly commercial companies like Telenav on addresses, lane assistance and POI's. Op zondag 16 maart 2014 heeft Florian Lohoff het volgende geschreven: > > > > > We have much better Map Data - so why does BMW offer Google? > > Flo > -- > Florian Lohoff > f...@zz.de > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
* Florian Lohoff [2014-03-16 10:38 +0100]: > On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:03:41AM -0400, Phil! Gold wrote: > > I suspect that Map Maker would attract more people that might > > otherwise have ended up contributing to OSM, which would hurt > > community growth and benefit Google at the expense of all the other > > OSM data consumers. > > But this is technically impossible. Either you take OSM and the flow of > changes of contributers for a certain area, or you take some snapshot > and let your community edit it by cutting off the OSM stream. Google appears to do both, probably because they've gotten really good at data conflation. They already pull data from multiple datasets, including proprietary data like Telenav's, public domain data from governments and such, and restricted use data from local governments, and then they integrate GMM contributions on top of that amalgamation. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- A funny symbol that I can't read has just been input. Continue, and I'll forget that it ever happened. -- TeX error message --- -- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
2014-03-16 10:38 GMT+01:00 Florian Lohoff : > We have much better Map Data - so why does BMW offer Google? My guess is that they are looking also beyond the German border when choosing their data provider ;-). Not everywhere our map is superior to Google's. And secondly, they might have errors like we do or even more, but noone was ever fired for choosing Google maps, while you have to be more couragious to choose an open project where everyone can edit anytime. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maximum recommended length of ways tagged with layer
2014-03-16 12:08 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. : > Working out every crossing that may happen to be bellow the > long bridge and how it relates to the underground railway network down > there is impractical. > I think you are exxagerating the problem, usually this is not very complicated. Underground infrastructure will hard collide with any bridge, as it should usually get tunnel and negative layer tags while the bridges will have positive layer tags. If two bridges happen to intersect on the same layer the more advanced editors will warn you about this. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maximum recommended length of ways tagged with layer
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 05:12:08PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 15.03.2014 14:44, Richard Z. wrote: > > I think it would be good to agree on something... > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:layer#Maximum_recommended_segment_length_of_ways_tagged_with_layer > > I think that choosing some fixed number would be un-OSM. Your idea that > length limits should apply to certain layers but not others strikes me > as odd. odd - and reflecting current usage patterns as far as I can judge from analysing current data. Even odd rules can be quite useful. Thinking more about it, perhaps location=* would be a good alternative for tagging very long bridges and tunnels? Thinking of bridges spanning whole valleys with towns bellow them and similar. Working out every crossing that may happen to be bellow the long bridge and how it relates to the underground railway network down there is impractical. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maximum recommended length of ways tagged with layer
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 06:12:10PM +, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > On 15/03/2014, Fernando Trebien wrote: > > I now agree that the "layer" tag should be used as locally as > > possible, so I think Richard had good intentions when proposing this. > > At the same time, I think you, Frederik, has a good point that > > arriving at a threshold for that number is quite hard. What exactly do > > we want to avoid? Really, really long ways with a layer tag. So why > > not set this threshold higher? Say 10 km? > > Validator rules are a good thing, but I think that "length of a way > that has layer=*" to detect misuse of the layer tag is beside the > point. Whatever threshold you use, there'll false-positives and > false-negatives. How about something along the lines of "negative > layer but no tunnel tag (or positive/bridge) and no/too many crossing > ways" ? I am now thinking about "unless absolutely necessary the size of objects tagged with a layer tag should not exceed a size which would be typically downloaded for editing in this area." but the wiki page already says << * Tag shortest possible/practical sections of ways. Long viaducts and tunnels can be tagged with a suitable single value for their entire length for simplicity although it may sometimes be better to adjust the layer along its length to accommodate more complicated crossings. * Use the smallest suitable layer value. Only use layer=2 for a bridge that passes over a feature that is already at level 1; similarly only use layer=-2 for a tunnel that passes below another tunnel. For convenience some higher values are often locally used/reserved for very long bridges or underground networks where it is assumed that they are above/bellow most other crossings/objects in the area. >> - which should be good enough if people don't interpret the text in some unforseen way. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Hi, On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:03:41AM -0400, Phil! Gold wrote: > If, however, you want to foster a community around a larger scale project, > I think share-alike is a better path to take. If OSM switched to public > domain licensing today, there would almost certainly be more people using > and benefiting from today's OSM data. Google in particular would probably > make OSM data part of its data; they already merge numerous public domain > datasets into their proprietary dataset. That would make Google the > better choice for a lot of people than plain OSM data, and you can even > edit Google's data through their Map Maker program. From there, I suspect > that Map Maker would attract more people that might otherwise have ended > up contributing to OSM, which would hurt community growth and benefit > Google at the expense of all the other OSM data consumers. But this is technically impossible. Either you take OSM and the flow of changes of contributers for a certain area, or you take some snapshot and let your community edit it by cutting off the OSM stream. Google might take OSM data - so what - but either they cut themselves off the OSM change stream by advertising their MapMaper or stop offering MapMaker and use our changes. For technical reasons Google cant use OUR data and THEIR community. > In my opinion, the single biggest thing that makes OSM valuable is the > > community of people contributing to it, and the license on the data needs > to reinforce that community, not allow proprietary data uses to splinter > it. OSM as a Dataset is just half of the story without the community and steady growing changes and fixes. So its impossible for ANYONE to get the full OSM benefit without the community. IMO a share alike does not get new contributions but hinders adoption. I want good and current maps everywhere - Be it Google, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, VW or Bing. I dont want to deal with politics or economics. OSMs benefit is the community, currentness and grade of detail. This cant be achieved by our commercial counterparts. So we have already won "the battle" on all grounds. Its just a matter of time. IMO we lost concerning our License. We have much better Map Data - so why does BMW offer Google? IMO because it doesnt require BMW to think about it. They can mix in their data and preprocessing and noone will be questioning BMW about an ODbL and where the Database is. They can put in their RTTI data in the DB and dont even need to tell people how it works. OSM will never be available at that level of simplicity with the current Share Alike. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
