Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki - contact: Tag & Map Features
Of course they can, otherwise the wiki ceases to be a description of the tags used in the database and starts becoming the aspirations of a clique of wiki-fiddlers. So if i think Tag:amenity=place_of_worship should be leisure=* then I should just it like that and put leisure=place_of_worship on MapFeatures and the leisure template? Ofc you can document stuff somewhere (especially you own page) so it can be found and what your idea behind it is, but not like that. __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki - contact: Tag & Map Features
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 22:27:50 +0100 Andreas Goss wrote: > We just need some rules when it comes to the wiki. We can't have > anybody putting his tagging ideas there. Of course they can, otherwise the wiki ceases to be a description of the tags used in the database and starts becoming the aspirations of a clique of wiki-fiddlers. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki - contact: Tag & Map Features
This is the ad populum fallacy. Any attempt to improve a tagging scheme will always start out being numerically weaker regardless of the merit of the proposal. To further confuse things there are people like myself who will sometimes tag *both* schemes because although we see the need for change we understand that there is a lot invested in the existing scheme. But then they should make a proposal, discuss it and have a vote. Especially if a tag is that important for them. But somehow just trying to push it will get you nowhere. I mean it maybe works with tags that aren't used that often or when a new key was introduced like emergency=* which might fit better than amenity. I'm not saying that established convention is not important, just that raw numbers shouldn't be the be-all and end-all when it comes to tagging. But raw numbers are still a main factor. We just need some rules when it comes to the wiki. We can't have anybody putting his tagging ideas there. What about creating a single wiki page that describes both schemes and provides a brief description of the pros and cons of each one? Once this is done other wiki pages can link to it and mappers can decide for themselves which is the most appropriate. Well, it's kinda what contact does. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:contact Problem is also that the tags are often put on other pages as usefull/suggested combination and you don't want to have everything 2x there. __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki - contact: Tag & Map Features
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:59:00 +0100 Andreas Goss wrote: > Honestly the people supporting this contact: tag are annoying me more > and more. FWIW I don't usually map contact related tags except for "website" which I use without the prefix (out of habit rather than merit). > They try to push that tag everywhere even when the tag without the > prefix is used 10x more. This is the ad populum fallacy. Any attempt to improve a tagging scheme will always start out being numerically weaker regardless of the merit of the proposal. To further confuse things there are people like myself who will sometimes tag *both* schemes because although we see the need for change we understand that there is a lot invested in the existing scheme. I'm not saying that established convention is not important, just that raw numbers shouldn't be the be-all and end-all when it comes to tagging. > The try to make the Wiki page sound like they > are still present more often in the database. Put it on the > MapFeatures Page. On shop/craft Wiki pages they try to push it as > supplementary tags. Another guy does a mass edit for all social media > tags and puts the contact: prefix in front of it (still not sure all > facebook tags have been reverted). > > Is there any solution to this? It's really no fun when I come back to > edit a Wiki again and see that it happened again. Especially this > replacing and not even trying to give the user a choice. What about creating a single wiki page that describes both schemes and provides a brief description of the pros and cons of each one? Once this is done other wiki pages can link to it and mappers can decide for themselves which is the most appropriate. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Omaha World-Herald using OSM without attribution
2014-12-18 16:53 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann : > > The 'in the corner of the map' is just a suggestion but it is generally > understood that showing a note by default with any display containing a > significant amount of OSM data is necessary, at minimum '(c) > OpenStreetMap' with a link to the OSM copyright page. > /sarcasm on/ it does not actually matter, as it isn't enforced anyway /sarcasm off/ If you look at Apple maps, the attribution reads "data by TomTom and others" (one screen away from the map) and another screen further there is an infinite list [1], which states that data is also from OSM (2011/2012) (no copyright attribution there, but is probably cc-by-sa 2.0 looking at the date) and "Map data © 2014 OpenStreetMap contributors" with link to osm.org/copyright. I have recently tried to raise awareness, but saying that other threads have had more engagement is an understatement: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2014-November/008056.html cheers, Martin [1] gspe21.ls.apple.com/html/attribution.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Omaha World-Herald using OSM without attribution
On Thursday 18 December 2014, Clifford Snow wrote: > > I agree that continued reading would indicate that attribution should > appear on the main map. But the way its worded is troubling. "as > commonly seen..." I commonly see links as geocaching.com has > provided. The wiki wording is giving an out from giving credit on the > main page. I'd much rather see attribution on the map. Do you think > rewording the wiki to make it clear that it must be on the front page > would provide us better conformance? > > The geocaching.com site is pretty straight forward. They clearly use > our base map with Mapquest tiles with an overlay of their own nodes. > Others are less clear. OSM base maps with multiple overlays from > other sources. At what point does the attribution get so cluttered > that other forms to show credit are more practical? The license is pretty clear here, the relevant part is in 4.3 of the ODbL: You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License The 'in the corner of the map' is just a suggestion but it is generally understood that showing a note by default with any display containing a significant amount of OSM data is necessary, at minimum '(c) OpenStreetMap' with a link to the OSM copyright page. The argument that this might lead to clutterring the display in cases where many data sources are used has also frequently been discussed already. The main difference between OSM and other data providers is that for OSM the credits are the only form of gratification. Therefore it is not as frivolous as it might seem at the first glance to demand something that would be impractical to give to all sources. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Omaha World-Herald using OSM without attribution
2014-12-18 16:18 GMT+01:00 Clifford Snow : > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 2:09 AM, JB wrote: >> >> Sorry, but I read there (same page, paragraph 3a, seems you stopped >> reading too early) : >> *For a **browsable electronic map** (e.g. embedded in a web page or >> mobile phone application), the credit should appear in the corner of the >> map, as commonly seen with map APIs/libraries such as Google Maps. * >> So, no, it *should *be on the map. > > > I agree that continued reading would indicate that attribution should > appear on the main map. I wonder what the legal status of this sentence is. There is no word in the ODbL or the CT about these specific attribution requirements, and there are very prominent users of our map data that don't satisfy this specification. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Omaha World-Herald using OSM without attribution
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 2:09 AM, JB wrote: > > Sorry, but I read there (same page, paragraph 3a, seems you stopped > reading too early) : > *For a **browsable electronic map** (e.g. embedded in a web page or > mobile phone application), the credit should appear in the corner of the > map, as commonly seen with map APIs/libraries such as Google Maps. * > So, no, it *should *be on the map. I agree that continued reading would indicate that attribution should appear on the main map. But the way its worded is troubling. "as commonly seen..." I commonly see links as geocaching.com has provided. The wiki wording is giving an out from giving credit on the main page. I'd much rather see attribution on the map. Do you think rewording the wiki to make it clear that it must be on the front page would provide us better conformance? The geocaching.com site is pretty straight forward. They clearly use our base map with Mapquest tiles with an overlay of their own nodes. Others are less clear. OSM base maps with multiple overlays from other sources. At what point does the attribution get so cluttered that other forms to show credit are more practical? To me it is clear that geocache.com wants to credit OSM. Note only did they credit OSM (thanks to Toby), but gave links on how to contribute. There has been a call [1] for people to join the Working Groups. Maybe this would be a good project for someone to undertake. [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2014-December/071586.html Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Wiki - contact: Tag & Map Features
Thought I'd post this here too, because it's a bit more than just tagging. (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ Honestly the people supporting this contact: tag are annoying me more and more. They try to push that tag everywhere even when the tag without the prefix is used 10x more. The try to make the Wiki page sound like they are still present more often in the database. Put it on the MapFeatures Page. On shop/craft Wiki pages they try to push it as supplementary tags. Another guy does a mass edit for all social media tags and puts the contact: prefix in front of it (still not sure all facebook tags have been reverted). Is there any solution to this? It's really no fun when I come back to edit a Wiki again and see that it happened again. Especially this replacing and not even trying to give the user a choice. ═══ Talk:Map_Features ═══ http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Map_Features#Last_changes_by_Xxzme.3F Not only that. Why do you want to remove tags that are in widespread use in OSM? Xxzme (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Because this page should list only major OSM features in widespread use. It is not written anywhere. This is only your subjective opinion about how big "Map Features" should be. You are trying to enforce your opinion about how "wiki should look like". Instead of single view enforced by single user, users should compare multiple approaches and pick one for them. Do not remove valid information. Xxzme (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Picked out this Quote, there is a lot more to read. I completely agree with the view that MapFeatures really is just for major features or at least for tags where there is no disagreement. Something that's not clear should not be there. And especially a tag or whole template that's used far less than a equivalent tag should not be there. __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Omaha World-Herald using OSM without attribution
Am 18.12.2014 um 11:09 schrieb JB:> Le 18/12/2014 00:02, Clifford Snow a écrit : >> According to the wiki [1] they may be properly attributing OSM. >> Paragraph 3. They provided a link and they are treating us with the >> same prominence as other map suppliers. >> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ > So the fight began anyway. Sensitive subject. > Sorry, but I read there (same page, paragraph 3a, seems you stopped > reading too early) : > /For a //*browsable electronic map*//(e.g. embedded in a web page or > mobile phone application), the credit should appear in the corner of the > map, as commonly seen with map APIs/libraries such as Google Maps. // > /So, no, it /should /be on the map. +1 So far we are talking about the map data, but they use tiles from all kinds of OSM-Services. Thought these tiles are under some licences, too, but do not find any mentioned. Not on the online map nor on the about page. cu colliar 0xE8F56581.asc Description: application/pgp-keys signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Omaha World-Herald using OSM without attribution
Le 18/12/2014 00:02, Clifford Snow a écrit : According to the wiki [1] they may be properly attributing OSM. Paragraph 3. They provided a link and they are treating us with the same prominence as other map suppliers. [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ So the fight began anyway. Sensitive subject. Sorry, but I read there (same page, paragraph 3a, seems you stopped reading too early) : /For a //*browsable electronic map*//(e.g. embedded in a web page or mobile phone application), the credit should appear in the corner of the map, as commonly seen with map APIs/libraries such as Google Maps. // /So, no, it /should /be on the map. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
