Re: [Talk-hr] CC licenca (Talk-hr Digest, Broj 93, Izdanje 8)

[Darko Sokolić]

Nažalost nije tako.

Dakle izvorni podaci 
(http://data.gov.hr/dataset/registar-geografskih-imena) vele da su 
licencirani pod Creative Commons Attribution, 



Ja sam se ponadao da je bilo kakvog razvoja i približavanja OSMF i CC, 
ali kad sam provjerio (što je eto malo potrajalo) ispalo je da se CC 
pdoaci ne mogu samo preuzeti.


OSM podaci su pod licencom ODBl, ne CC (što se vidi na 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Creative_Commons).


U praksi ima i podataka pod CC licencom:
  https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors

No za CC podatke je potrebno tražiti izričitu dozvolu i dodatno 
"/explicit waiver of the prohibition on applying Technological Effective 
Measures/".
Tako barem vrlo konkretno piše ovdje: 
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ .


Darko


On 14.03.2018 13:00, talk-hr-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:

Subject:
Re: [Talk-hr] Talk-hr Digest, Broj 93, Izdanje 7
From:
Dražen Tutić 
Date:
13.03.2018 13:07

To:
"talk-hr@openstreetmap.org" 


Podaci su objavljeni pod Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) dakle (uz 
pretpostavku da su svi dionici svjesni da su podaci objavljeni pod tom licencom 
i što ona znači) po meni nema prepreke za upotrebu na OSM uz tagiranje 
izvornika podataka.


Barem ja tako objašnjavam studentima i koristim u nastavi i objavljujem u 
radovima.


Na isti način sam postupio s podacima DZS-a o broju stanovnika po naseljima 
koji su na portalu objavljeni pod istom tom licencom.


Lijepi pozdrav,

Dražen


-

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:50:58 +0100
From: hbogner
To:talk-hr@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-hr] DGU registar geografskih imena na data.gov.hr
 portalu
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

http://data.gov.hr/dataset/registar-geografskih-imena

može li etko potvrditi da licenca odgovara i da to sad smijemo koristiti
za OSM?





___
Talk-hr mailing list
Talk-hr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-hr

Re: [Talk-hr] learnosm prijevod gotov

[Darko Sokolić]

Na stranici http://learnosm.org/hr/ definitivno piše održavana od 
rastuće, dakle to je malo ž kako i treba biti.

No zaista izgleda krupno, kao da je Ž.

Problem je u fontovima definiranim u stilu stranice. Naime, zadano je da 
pretraživač treba redom pokušati redom ove fontove: 'Source Sans 
Pro','OpenSansRegular','Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Verdana,Arial,sans-serif;.


Pretraživač koristi prvi font koji može naći na popisu. A u praksi 
nemaju svi fontovi sve znakove, pa se dešava da neka slova budu napisana 
jednim fontom, a neka slova drugim, zamjenskim, i stoga izgledaju 
drugačije. I zaista se kod mene većima čine i č, ć, đ, ž (nisam dalje 
tražio), nije ž jedino.


E sad, Source Sans Pro bi trebao imati sve potrebne znakove, sva 
hrvatska slova, koliko sam uspio pročitati, ali izgleda da nema.


Darko


___
Talk-hr mailing list
Talk-hr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-hr

[OSM-legal-talk] Infringements - examples, analysis and request for removal

[Darko Sokolić]

Dear colleagues,

I contributed to OpenStreetMap under CC-BY-SA 2.0 license. It was great 
pleasure, and I enjoyed it very much.

I did not accept new Contributor Terms and new license.
Also, I did not authorise anyone, in any way, to relicense or sublicense 
my contributions.


I expect that my contributions will be deleted as part of moving to new 
licence.
To my surprise, I see that most of my original contributions are already 
deleted and replaced with no noticeable difference.
Looking at the details I saw that just the user attribute has changed 
(often Janjko and SilverSpace), timestamp is diferent, coordinates are 
slightly offset, ID is of course different, and there is no history data.
Replacement data is therefore in CC-BY-SA terminology Derivative Work 
based on my original Work.


This clearly infringes CC-BY-SA in at least two ways:
* by erasing history and replacing author name this violates attribution 
requirement,
* by submitting such Dertivative Work under new Contributor Terms 
attempt is made to license Derivative work under ODbl and DbCL.


This infringing data must be removed.
Alternatively, while OSM is still served to public as CC-BY-SA, this 
infringing data might be reverted to original data.


Though I like revering data better, I cannot do it. Revertion scripts, 
in my understaning, run on same API for submitting new/edited data. So, 
if to run and of these, I need an active account, an account that 
accepted new Contributor Terms. By doing so, all data (re)created 
through revert scripts will be licensed under ODbl/DbCL. So, I cannot do 
it this way.


I could do removal of infringing data, but this might appear like 
massive vandalism.


Can OSMF revert infiringing changesets, or remove infringing data? This 
is maybe the best way, and also it will probably use server resurces in 
most efficient way. I also believe that OSMF has already tools to find 
similarities in present and historic (deleted) data.


I am not aware of such tools, so I did some analysis myself, developing 
needed tools. Scope of analysis is limited to contributions of three 
users (myself, and two mentioned above, that I noticed by looking at 
live map tiles).


I this analysis I've covered 7329 nodes.
I was looking for situations where any of these nodes is deleted by 
another user, and then new node is created on similar location in the 
same changeset. Then I grouped results by positional error, that is 
distance between new and old node.


This is what I found (grouped by author of replacement nodes):
for positional error of up to cca 11 m in latitude and 7,8 m in 
longitude (that is 4 decimal digits in LAT/LON in OSM database):

 SilverSpace |  4565 nodes (62% of all analysed nodes)
 Janjko  |  1363 nodes (19%)
for positional error of up to cca 1,1 m in latitude to 0,78 m in longitude:
 SilverSpace |  2909 (40%)
 Janjko  |   758 (10%)

For first group we might argue that cca 10 meters is large distance and 
that any usual remapping would fit in (but visual comparison of rendered 
data reveals similarities).
In the second group, where positional error is up to cca 1 m - it is 
very hard to defend this as not infringement.


I started to analyse not only maximum deviations, but averages, and 
standard deviations, and also I looked into minimal positional errors. 
And the I found that significant number of replacement nodes are placed 
on the _very_same_position_ of original node (again - in the same 
changeset):

 SilverSpace |  2235 (30%!)
 Janjko  |   260 (3,5%)
We are talking here about precision of lat/lon in 7 decimal places. This 
is precision of about 11 mm in latitude and 7,8 mm in longitude. In 34% 
of sampled data. This is not a coincidence. This is intentional 
infringement.


If anybody else suspects that his/here data is infringed in similar 
fashion, I am willing to share my tools and experience that I've gained 
during this analysis.
I also indend to refine tools to cover more similaritites. So far I 
dealt only with nodes, their position, and with changesets in which 
nodes were created and deleted.


DarkoS

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

Re: [Talk-hr] Openseamap editing error (Talk-hr Digest, Broj 27, Izdanje 1)

[Darko Sokolić]

On 14.11.2011 13:00, talk-hr-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
last edit of that way was a year and 3 months ago and 'DarkoS' last 
edit was in May 2011, it


http://map.openseamap.org/map/?zoom=14lat=44.12701lon=14.89252


What was the error here? Is it corrected now?
When I look at rendered image as of today, I can tell two errors. One is that 
waterline on the map differs a lot from watermark I saw (therefore two beaches 
appear detached from waterline). I undestood that some renderes significantly 
delay changes to waterline -but after all these months, I expect waterline 
rendered. I checked some other waterline segments that I've edited in the past 
(in OSM) and they oppear OK to me.
Second error is that forest (woods) next to Sakarun beach is drawn only as a 
hint, just to show that it exists at all.
I cannot spot any ways in error (either I cannot remember these ways precisely, 
or Rernard already corrected those errors).

Darko




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

[Talk-hr] Import of marine lights (GoranT) - POPIS SVJETIONIKA

[Darko Sokolić]

Postoji službena publikacija koja se zove „Popis svjetionika“. Izdaje ju 
Hidrografski institut, mislim.
Za provjeru i usporedbu je vjerojatno ok, za prepisivanje vjerojatno 
treba ishoditi dozvolu.
Sadržajno se radi o jednoj ogromnoj tablici, na prvi pogled laiku ne 
izgleda zanimljivo.


Bitna odlika svjetionika su osobine svjetla i za to postoje ustaljene 
kratice -zapravo mislim da su službeno propisane.
U hrvatskoj su kratice i oznake zasnovane na hrvatskim riječima, ali na 
drugim jezicima je drugačije. Pretpostavljam da ti importirani podaci 
nose engleske oznake.
Vjerojatno ima smisla da se te oznake pišu kao imena i nazivi, dakle za 
svaki unijeti jezik po jedan tag.



Darko


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