Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

[Gert Gremmen]

This is a boring discussion, and only triggered by what should be out of 
OSM : National Claims.


Borders are almost invisible on the ground either, at least in civilized 
countries.


And if we just decided to leave out all country borders.in a 
utopic effort to re-unite the world ? 


Wouldn't that be inline with the Free Map thought?

Gert

On 23-11-2018 16:34, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:

Frederik,

I suspect the "default" is what the community took the main issue 
with.  DWG essentially declaring that there must be a single truth for 
non-overlapping country borders is what seems to have caused all 
this.  Simply saying that every country can define their own would 
have averted this whole thing.


On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 2:24 AM Frederik Ramm > wrote:


Hi,

On 23.11.2018 01:42, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> One idea (perhaps this should go into a separete thread):

There already is a separate thread over on the tagging list
started just
a couple of weeks ago. I suggest that would be a good place to
continue
the discussion.

Being able to map different claims is certainly interesting, in so far
as they are verifiable (which surprisingly often is not the case). But
all that's already been mentioned over at
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-October/040333.html

I fear that this is only "kicking the can down the road" though
because
we'd likely have - just as we have with names - one "default" set of
boundaries where we say "that's the one you get if you don't ask
for any
particular one", and the fight would then be on which one that is
going
to be. And judging from how this decision is blown out of proportion
("OMG OSM SUPPORTS TERRORISTS!") I am sure that people would display
exactly the same outrage when discussing which one of a large set of
mapped claims gets the "default" flag.

>  I especially appreciate 4.2 -- the fact that this decision is
very bad for the data users --

I think you have misread Victor's 4.2 which essentially says that data
users currently have to make up their own boundaries anyway and that
therefore this decision does not *help* them. He does not say that
it is
good or bad, just that it does not improve an already-bad situation.

As for whether

> DWG has gone too far into the political landscape - something I
hope it did not intend to do.

let me quote from the DWG statement - again:

"The Data Working Group takes no stance on if Russia's control is
legal
or not, as that is not within our scope."

The DWG has simply applied a policy that has existed in OSM since
before
Crimea's annexation. That policy was written by LWG and approved
by the
OSMF board in 2013 and has been applied many, many times since and it
has generally worked well for OSM. It certainly can be discussed and
improved but that needs to be on a general level, and not tacking
on an
"Ukraine exemption" to the rule.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org

 ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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


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


--
Independent Expert on CE marking
Harmonised Standards (HAS-) Consultant @ European Commission for RED and EMC
EMC Consultant
Electrical Safety Consultant

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

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

There are 2 solutions for this Steve dilemma:

 

1.  not ask for these little, tiny things and create a real free
map...

2.  hire an expensive lawyer and pursue the criminals

Common wake up, this 2014, and if you have gold (the map) in your hands,
don't expect to be treated like a volunteer. 

And if you do not have the money to defend yourselves, then just
surrender.

I won't even criticize this ridiculous naming and shaming proposition,
it's for children only.



Gert

 

 

 

Van: Steve Coast [mailto:st...@asklater.com] 
Verzonden: Monday, April 28, 2014 8:43 PM
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

 

http://stevecoast.com/2014/04/28/attribution-is-it-time-to-name-and-sham
e/

 

--

OpenStreetMap http://osm.org/  is the global, open and free map
dataset that anyone can use. It is created by a huge community of
volunteers who pour their time and energy in to the project. It's also
fun, beautiful and cool.

So it's sad that people don't want to respect the license. It asks two
very simple things:

1.  Please say you're using OSM. This is very simple
http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright .
2.  If you change the map, please give the changes back. This is
called share-alike.

Compared to paying a lot of money for incredibly license-restricted
data, you'd think people would be ok with these requirements.

Sadly, this isn't the case.

There are those who are now willfully disregarding our tiny little
requirements. It's being framed as some gigantic and unreasonable
proposition, asking to say where the data came from or giving data back
when you fix things. As if it's completely bananas to ask such a thing.
As if Linux or Wikipedia should be disaster ghost towns while asking for
exactly the same thing of their users.

This is just baloney. The real comparison should be; if you don't like
the license you're free to use expensive and complicatedly-license data.
That's your option. Those guys are just a phone call away, and will be
happy to sell you data. You'd probably find that they have very strong
attribution requirements, just like OSM does.

It is the ultimate disrespect to the volunteers who built the data to
not even attribute their contributions. It's even worse that there are
some who're trying to also own OSM for themselves by taking away the
share-alike requirement.

Is the license perfect? I'm afraid not. Specifically we need more
clarification around the technical implementation and use of geocodes,
especially in relation to other datasets. It's hard today to technically
comply with some of those edge cases.

But that's not what we're talking about. We're speaking here about the
simple ask, that if you use OSM you please say clearly on the map that
it is OSM. You're getting a great dataset, for free, under an open
license, that millions of people are contributing to. We're not asking
for $100,000 license fees, we're just asking that you say who we are.

It's the ultimate human need; I was here. I did this.

How could you deny people that?

Apparently, easily and willfully. People within the OSM community have
been frustrated and trying to fix it for some time. If we were a
proprietary map supplier we'd revoke a license or jump to legal options.

We are much nicer than that. I propose a four stage plan, organized on
OSM's legal mailing list
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk  and tracked on
the wiki:

1.  A polite email, linking to our requirements
2.  A week later: Another polite email, warning of what's to come.
3.  A week later: Another polite email, same as above
4.  A week later: Very public naming and shaming on OSMs various
social media channels and blogs

Most people who miss our requirements are making a simple error. This is
a process that gives three opportunities and an entire month to correct
the mistake. This is not a brand new idea or process. The FSF and others
have named  shamed (and have even went further
http://news.slashdot.org/story/08/12/11/1745254/fsf-files-suit-against-
cisco-for-gpl-violations ) for GPL violations in the past.

In a narrow way, this all a good thing. It shows the growth and maturity
of the project, that there are those out there that want to own it or
take all the advantages without even saying where the data came from.
But in the end, we have to defend ourselves for what little, tiny things
we ask.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements

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

Some quotes from this thread :

 

Clifford, to make this very short: this is NOT acceptable. See the last
board minutes.
And I'm very tired of people trying to weasel around the absolute
minimal requirements we pose on reuse of OSM data.

 

No comment on this one ... who cares if you are tired ?



The thing is that for us, for OpenStreetMap, the attribution is our
main remuneration. We give our data away for free but in return, we
expect to get at least a little bit of exposure, a little help in
building our brand to borrow some marketing speak.

 

So, what exactly means free for you : no money only ? 

This is how OSM started: Not free as in beer, but... ... finish yourself
(probably forgotten by most)

OSM is not asking for a little bit of exposure, but for a substantial
deviation of  free.

 

One year that i did not look into this mail list, and the first topic

I read today is about how difficult it is for some people

to give away something and get nothing in return.

 

Regards,  Gert Gremmen, BSc

 

 

 

 

Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] 
Verzonden: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 1:01 PM
Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements

 

I don't actually get a map (tested with three different mobile
browsers), now I don't think we want to take our requirements so far
that we want OSM attribution on everything :-)

Am 14.01.2014 12:38, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:




  



   Am 14/gen/2014 um 10:54 schrieb Simon Poole

  si...@poole.ch mailto:si...@poole.ch :



  



   a IMHO good



   example of what we want

  http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/contact/spaces/



  



  



   no mention of ODbL and the attribution three screens after

  the map (on mobile, maybe this looks different on a desktop)?



  



   cheers,



   Martin



   ___



   legal-talk mailing list



   legal-talk@openstreetmap.org



   https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Paweł's q: what can be done?

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

Giving the world a point of Access to OSM, like the OSMF, BoD,
and whatever steering committee, group or other entity,
give outsiders the idea that OSMF owns OSM, which is not true,
By obeying such request without objections 
we give others the idea that we are defenseless.
Instead OSMF should have replied that  it's not OSMF that owns
 OSM, (send a copy of the OSMF statutes with it),
and that they should address their complaints elsewhere.

If you own (or think that you own) a multi million
worth asset such as usable map of the world, and
think you can manage that without the financial means
to defend it, one must have a simplified and naïve vision
of the outside world.
I am sure this is the first small incident, and it will
be followed by a number of other hyena's that smell money.

OSMF, if it wants to continue to function as a self-instated
owner of OSM, will have to get the funds to defend itself.

Gert Gremmen


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Michael Buege [mailto:mich...@buegehome.de] 
Verzonden: zondag 3 februari 2013 11:55
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Paweł's q: what can be done?

Am 03.02.2013 09:57, schrieb Robin Paulson:
 On 2013-02-03 07:41, Jeff Meyer wrote:
 was: geocoding trademark thread

 I think Paweł has hit on a key question: does the OSMF have plans to
 operate and lead OSM in a more efficient, organized manner or not?

 what makes you think anyone wants to be lead, i certainly don't? or
 wants to be organised from above? we're all fully functional human
 beings, perfectly capable of organising ourselves, and doing a damn good
 job so far - look at where OSM and most other digital commons projects
 have got through self-organising.

 i disagree with any idea of a board, i think it's utterly wrong, it
 reduces a community of thousands to the views a handful of people can
 put across.


Thank you, Robin.
Reading this is the sugar in my Sunday morning coffee and gives me back 
a lot of hope still to be a part of a free and open project.


___
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] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

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

If there were no BoD, but OSM were still a true crowd driven

organization, there would not have been a place to address this
notice

 

Put up a tree and you are sure to catch wind !

 

Geert

 

Van: Jeff Meyer [mailto:j...@gwhat.org] 
Verzonden: vrijdag 1 februari 2013 19:07
Aan: Manfred A. Reiter
CC: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

 

Team - 

 

The OSMF BoD is doing the job for which its members were elected. Thank
goodness.

 

There's a trademark. We've been served notice (I believe). The board has
made a decision. The chairman of the board (probably a (tm) term...) has
communicated this decision.

 

Fine, disagree, but please disagree with a plan for how to fund your
alternate plan, describing in detail the source of new funds or what
other OSMF activities should be de-funded to support this plan.

 

Yes, it sounds silly to trademark geocode, yes, it's a US-only thing,
but these issues are solved in courts, with real money for real lawyers,
not well-reasoned arguments on email threads supported by personal moral
and ethical constructs and not law.

 

Personally, I'm glad the OSMF BoD is taking care of this so I don't have
to. As Mr. W said, I'd rather be mapping...

 

- Jeff

 

 

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Manfred A. Reiter ma.rei...@gmail.com
wrote:

On 01/02/13 17:49, Richard Weait wrote:

 @andres / @cartinus, such a trade mark has been issued by
USPTO

 http://weait.com/content/trade-mark

 Anyone who cares to pick up this fight with their money, is
likely to be
 able to do so very simply.

Oh, come on:

Get up, stand up... and I shot the sheriff come to my mind.

I always hear money. Is that really all that counts.

Let us fight and win and not behave like the octopuses want us
to.

 

+1

 

This would be much better publicity than we can get by
connecting our social
community with main stream social media.

 

+1 

 

 

 

 


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





 

-- 
Jeff Meyer
Global World History Atlas
www.gwhat.org
j...@gwhat.org
206-676-2347

  http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer  osm: Historical OSM
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historical_OSM  / my OSM user page
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer 

 t: @GWHAThistory https://twitter.com/GWHAThistory 

 f: GWHAThistory https://www.facebook.com/GWHAThistory 

 

 

~WRD000.jpg___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

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

Martin wrote: 

 The terms and conditions apply to who uses the Google service,

Do they actually ? If their terms would state that you owe Google
one dollar for each picture, would that hold in court ?
In what way the current terms are different from asking money
Any pay site makes you pay before access, just because of the
ambiguity of contracting  IP-numbers.

For a contract to be valid the 2 parties need to agree, that means
that at least a click I agree is needed, backed up by a traceable
link to an individual. 


For the rest I agree with your interpretation of getting content out of
the pictures 
is not the same as copying.


Gert 



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: Monday, November 05, 2012 11:20 AM
Aan: Robin Paulson
CC: OSM Talk
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

2012/11/5 Robin Paulson ro...@bumblepuppy.org:
 let's say there are 100,000 people involved in OSM. each copies one 
 name from google (so, not in her/his eyes a mass download). the OSM 
 database then contains 100,000 pieces of data which are sourced from 
 google. this then does constitute a mass access of data, and is 
 definitely outside their terms and conditions.


I am not sure it is. The terms and conditions apply to who uses the
Google service, which in your example are the single mappers. If each of
these uses the service to get one name I doubt that this is a breach of
the ToS. It would be different if the OSMF encouraged or coordinated the
single mappers, I agree.

IMHO if you choose from a huge pile of non-artistic photographs some
single objects depicted and then write about them, you are copying
nothing, for sure you are not copying the photograph. write about it
would be applicable also to someone making a drawing of stuff he
selected and where he put descriptive tags on contained elements he
selects. You are not copying Google's photographs, you are not tracing
their photographs, you are not copying from them IMHO.


 and by the way, whoever it was using the phrase memory aid does not 
 change what is happening. it is copying data whatever linguistic 
 gymnastics you go through to try and justify it, and is thus not ok. 
 as someone else said, you want the data, go collect it.


It is not copying data, because it is the mapper who creates the
_data_ by his own interpretation and selection of things that are -
besides an infinite amount of other things - contained in a gigantic
series of photographs. If you read ten books about something and then
write about your own thoughts and conclusions from your reading, using
your own words, are you copying the books? Is it possible to forbid
this? I doubt it.

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] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance

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

Just guess who controls the servers and domain name ?


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Pieren [mailto:pier...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: dinsdag 18 september 2012 19:56
Aan: OSM
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines  OSMF/DWG governance

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
 On 18 September 2012 18:13, Christian Rogel

 The initial message on the 22 March 2012 and follow-ups pointed to the
 guidelines ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines )
 which include that imports should be done from a dedicated account.

Okay, he was contacted. I think another one was previously blocked
after an upload. And this threat was discussed on our list. But nobody
accepted this requirement of the guidelines (a separate account) since
we don't see any reason justifying it in this case (crowdsourced
import, sourced, limited, merged, reversible, etc...). It's a question
of principle, we cannot accept that all contributors uploading
bulidings have this hammer on the head. Because today, it is done
after 1 million uploaded objects, tomorrow it will be for a big town
and later for 3 small villages and finally all imports will be blocked
if it's not a separate account.

 DWG != OSMF.

The DWG is authorized to block accounts by the OSMF.

 OSM is not unique, wikipedia too require a dedicated account for bots.

The uploads we are talking are normally done with JOSM after the
integration with the existing data and validation. If it is performed
with a script, then it's a bad import done by one of the black
sheeps mentionned earlier. We also agree to block such bad imports.

Pieren

___
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] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance

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

Messages were sent on September 14th and 13th about the need to use a
dedicated account. A previous note was sent in March reminding them in
the
context of a note about a broken upload of 50k nodes.

And he didn't listen to Big Big Brother who warned him twice...
Is this a crowd sourced OPEN project, or a group of
sheep contributing  to the instructions/commands of OSMF ?


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] 
Verzonden: dinsdag 18 september 2012 20:25
Aan: 'Christian Quest'; 'Frederik Ramm'
CC: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines  OSMF/DWG governance

 From: Christian Quest [mailto:cqu...@openstreetmap.fr]
 Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:11 AM
 To: Frederik Ramm
 Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines  OSMF/DWG governance
 
 2012/9/18 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
 
  Just to clarify this one point: The user had been contacted by DWG
  beforehand because he had imported several millions of objects under
  his account, and asked to continue his work in accordance with the
  import guidelines, using a separate import account. He ignored that
  request and was only blocked *after* that.
 
 
 No, this user has originally been contacted because he deleted a large
 amount of buildings in one town and was suspected of vandalism. It has
 been confirmed very quickly that it was not vadalism, but an simple
 update of data in the town.

I'm not sure if you're aware of the previous communications with the
user,
but you seem to be misinformed about the nature them.

Messages were sent on September 14th and 13th about the need to use a
dedicated account. A previous note was sent in March reminding them in
the
context of a note about a broken upload of 50k nodes.



___
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] Rohde Schwarz using OSM

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

 

Reputed manufacturer of RF equipment Rohde  Schwarz

has applied OSM maps in firmware in their portable

RS DDF007 Direction Finder for tracking down

(illegal) sources of interference.

 

Their brochure states that OSM currently is license-free,

which apparently is a commercial translation of free-license.

The brochure clearly mentions OSM and its possibilities and

the OSM  url.

 

Geo licenses seem really difficult to understand ;))

 

As far as my information goes the device will cost you 

more than 50.000 USD.

 

I do not have any information about attribution,

but the brochure screen image shows none.

 

http://www2.rohde-schwarz.com/en/products/radiomonitoring/direction_find
er/DDF007-|-Brochures_and_Data_Sheets-|-19-|-8692.html

 

image001.gif___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Policy in mapping military installations

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

Then we should let it alone and bow for the
international common denominator of forbidden
subjects and stop mapping

fugitive camps
military installations
war monuments
coffee shops 
governmental buildings

or whatever any country will put on the list
of forbidden to map ???

Isn't there a need for a official OSMF view
on these matters ?

On the topic of the Israeli airport:

Is hiding the airport not an invitation 
to attack a civil airport instead?
Or a bus stop? Or a shopping mall?
And is that why military airports must be hidden?
Or should we hide all potential terrorist attack targets?

Where does this end ?


And to Pieren:

create huge difficulties for the local community

is that to OSM as a open  community acceptable as a reason to unmap 
subjects ?


Gert



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Pieren [mailto:pier...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: Friday, August 24, 2012 9:39 AM
Aan: OSM
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Policy in mapping military installations

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Michael Krämer ohr...@gmail.com wrote:
 I think local law might apply even if you're somewhere else.

Ergh, that's an interresting new concept. My friends tell me the same when they 
smoke joints : it's legal in Netherland ;-)

 I'm not a lawyer
I confirm.

Btw, I remember the same issue raised in Russia few months ago. I don't know 
what is the consensus there. The main issue with putting something locally 
forbiden in OSM is that you create huge difficulties for the local community: 
they cannot use anymore global services provided remotely like map tiles or 
planet extracts. Basically, you will enforce them to do everything locally 
(filtered) when they don't have necessarily the resources for that.

Pieren

___
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] Policy in mapping military installations

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

What is OSM's policy in mapping military installations...

 

cetest

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Policy in mapping military installations

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

I found a completely erased military base in Israel,
that is uncensored on Bing and Google, and two instances in OSM
of it have subsequently been removed, the first one drawn by
me (for 2 years) more recently a fresh version from user
mathbau (162033031)  erased by wikipod. (162033973)
There might have been consensus between the 2, but
I don't think that it's 2 users who should decide on
what is there to map and what not, once it has been
licensed to OSMF.

For those that want to see what's going on:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.6671lon=35.18933zoom=15layers=M

http://maps.google.nl/maps?ll=32.665896,35.177879spn=0.028794,0.055747;
t=kz=15


In josm it's easy to vies  BING imagery behind it. Don't know about
potchlatch.

I suppose it makes  no sense creating a mapping war, so
I inquired about any policy in these.

Anyway, I was trying to recover the version I made
in the past to insert into fosm, but it seems
that it's not easy to find erased works ;((

The change

Gert (cetest)

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com] 
Verzonden: donderdag 23 augustus 2012 20:22
Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
CC: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Policy in mapping military installations

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl
wrote:
 What is OSM's policy in mapping military installations...

I'm not aware of an OSMF policy on mapping military installations.

I'm not aware of mapping guidelines that are specific to military
installations.

General mapping guidelines based on verifiability, permanence and
significance probably apply as they would anywhere else.

Why do you ask?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible

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

+1 

It's the contributor terms that made me refuse to accept.

Not ODBL. I can see the both the advantages and drawbacks

of ODBL but these are not a major problem.

 

For me the CT has been a problem.

 

I principally refuse to sign a contract where I can be held legally
responsible

for data I contribute for free; where the other party engages itself to
nothing at all,

not even to take care of the data I contribute.

 

Only on a legally  immature  medium as internet, where a contract can be
signed with a click using a nickname

(or that is what we are made to believe) such large number of sheep will
accept such a contract.

 

If the community were obliged so sign up with a written signature, OSM
would

have no contributors anymore.

 

 

Regards,
Gert 

 

 

 

 

Van: Mike Dupont [mailto:jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com] 
Verzonden: Saturday, July 28, 2012 2:45 PM
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want
to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible

 

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
wrote:

all
the problems we had with the license change

 

Lets be clear here, I think the problems is not because of the license
change, but the contributor terms , ( the click through license and the
mass collection of all IP rights by the OSF). As far as I know the new
license is not even in place, the data is being deleted from users who
did not agree to give up all rights to the OSMF and allow for the
license to be changed at any time. 

 

so lets keep the terms clear here,

 

thanks,

mike



 

-- 
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org

Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion
http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com
Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3

 

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

[OSM-talk] shameless copying: still going on !!

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

 

Now the map cleaning phase has been completed (according to the message
of the day in JOSM)

 

Per today 8/9/2012 I still find most of my contributions that were
contributed under

the CC-BY-SA license in the new map, mostly simply cutted  pasted

 

This time I focused on my contributions in Israel.

 

Literally all of the unique features I added to the Israel map

have been copied by a so-called Mr_Israel, including

the home of my family, as the only building in a circle of a few
kilometers around

their home. It's impossible that Mr_Israel choose this home by hazard

and made the effort of re-survey himself.

 

Same for the red walk I actually walked and surveyed myself with a GPS,

it still in an unmodified version in the map, just the author changed.

 

Same for the numerous fish farms I drew, and apparently are the only one

in Israel according to Mr_Israel called Fish_farming in English.

The rest of the hundreds of fish farms in only marked is only water.

 

Same for the entire kibbutz Geva , all details I draw are still there, 

including voluntary mistakes in introduced. No changes but the name of
the author.

Mr_israel even for the sake of making less efforts copied the Places
name Geva

and left the original source.

 

On none of the modified data a new source such as BING or GPS survey

is mentioned, so I keep it on shameless copying !

 

 

 

 

If this is how the OSM community respects copyrights, then I have

to fear for the rest of the map. 

 

 

 

I declare the new map  still to be  CC-BY-SA and not ODBL

 

 

 

Gert Gremmen

cetest

 

image001.gif___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] TomTom is thumping us

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

TomTom is right, OSM is still a immature product.
That may change, but it isn't yet.  But for a few Garmins
serious routing on OSM is a hazardous enterprise.
Even in the Netherlands, one of the countries with
a high completion rate, road classification is NOT
consistent, so are the deafault traffic rules that go with it.
A router may find a route, but that is it. No comfort,
no lanes, no direction signs, no traffic lights, and no
obstruction warnings.
Many roads (albethem small ones) are still marked pedestrian,
and inhibit a car router to reach destination.
Cycle roads are tagged inconsistently or plain faulty, and there
are many ,many real errors. At the time, before OSMF 
told me to stop correcting the map for something as trivial
as a license, I found errors on every 20 roads on average.
Not all fatal, but enough to make me turn to Google
Navigon or TomTom to get me at my destination.
Those who state the contrary are too forgiving with their baby.
And yes as Greg says, you may correct the errors, but when you're done
correcting the error, you do not need OSM anymore to get there !!!


Regards,

Gert 


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Greg Troxel [mailto:g...@ir.bbn.com] 
Verzonden: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 5:00 PM
Aan: John Sturdy
CC: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] TomTom is thumping us


John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com writes:

 On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com
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.

I think the real issue between road and track is whether it's a public
way or private way (both roads) vs just someplace where one can
physically drive a vehicle.   In Massachusetts, both private and public
ways are discernable by parcel boundaries, and tracks (both agricultural
and within conservation) are not.

Exactly what the condition is a separate issue, although typically a
road will be at least a decent dirt road.

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

[OSM-talk] It was a shame

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

Just a little drop note that both of the editors that

actually performed some ODbL  cutpaste actions

to OSM in the Netherlands have contacted me

to ensure me that they did not intend to falsify

the taunted data, and 

that both of them insist on using independent data sources

such as BING and (in Holland ) BAG-data

and that the actual fact it happened

was merely caused by insufficient information 

(GG: by OSMF or LWG) about how to treat tainted data.

 

 

They also witnessed hat they had no angry feelings against me

and expressed their regrets about me not participating anymore.

(GG : not signing the CT)

 

As one may conclude:  protection against copyright breaches will

not come without sufficient vigilance of their respective owners.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Gert Gremmen

 

 

 

 

___
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:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/144917597/history

 The previous way was deleted by CeesW in the same changeset.
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/7539781/history

 So the person to confront would be CeesW, not It's So Funny. 
 Offending
 changeset seems to be
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10345339

 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:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/144917597/history

 The previous way was deleted by CeesW in the same changeset.
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/7539781/history

 So the person to confront would be CeesW, not It's So Funny.
 Offending
 changeset seems to be
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10345339

 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

[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, 

 

 

image001.gif___
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] 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
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] OSM : It's a shame !!!

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

After having been banned from OSM for not signing the CT, my
contributions, that have been well received by the community in the past
have been removed by the april 1st license shift.

 

The Foundation has called anyone in the community to reduce lost by
remapping the concerned areas.

 

However,  it was not meant that the data were simply to be copied,
deleted and re-pasted into  the map using a fake account.

 

This seems to be the case however, where my contributions were
shamelessly copied and pasted back into the map.

 

Of course I kept a dump from before april 1st where my name is linked to
a number of roads in a specific area showing I denied the CT.

And if I download the same area in OSM of today I find that this area
has NOT been changed for a fraction of an inch.

The old and new area projected on different layers in JOSM fit exactly
on each other, even at the highest magnification available (15 cm = 1
inch on screen)

 

The user involved is called  It's so funny   and I believe that fake
account with obfuscated characters was not chosen for nothing, because
it cannot be retrieved in OSM, at least not using JOSM Show info , and
osm.org does not provide a contact info (otherwise I would have
contacted this user first).

 

However, it means that the current copy of the OSM database is not ODBL
compliant anymore because parts of it remain clearly CC-by-SA , and
these areas are plain copies of the work I carried out.

 

This is sooo low. OSM, how low can you get !

Providing all the tools to check for ODBL compatibility and

accepting copy and paste just like that by any stupid looser
contributor.

 

Why is there no tool for checking on copy paste copyright
infringement...

Because no-one meant to check on that ?

 

user: cetest

 

Gert Gremmen

 

 

 

g.grem...@cetest.nl

www.cetest.nl

 

Kiotoweg 363

3047 BG Rotterdam

T 31(0)104152426

F 31(0)104154953

 Before printing, think about the environment. 

 

___
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]

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.984706lon=4.351842zoom=18layers=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 g.grem...@cetest.nl 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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM downtime as protest against SOPA?

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

If you have been thinking about ODBL and its
function in OSM, the ultimate conclusion is that
you need to support SOPA. 

OSM want to have its contents protected (to a minimum, I admit)
by a license (CC-BY-SA or OBL), principally based on the legal system of 
defense of intellectual property. SOPA is the just the right thing
to do if you want to apply intellectual property rights to
the internet !

OSM:

Defending IP when it suits us, and reject if it attacks us ?

When do we finally understand that the whole
legal system around intellectual property and copyrights
is principally against free data and free speech, and that includes 
CC-BY-SA and it includes all other licenses but PD ??


Gert 
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Matthias Meißer [mailto:dig...@arcor.de] 
Verzonden: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 8:53 AM
Aan: Kate Chapman
CC: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM downtime as protest against SOPA?

I agree with Kate, that we shouldn't stop any HOT action by the demonstration. 
Greying out the U.S. with a here was once a land known as 'land of the free' 
would be a real cool thing, as its a kind of protest thats just possible for 
OSM. But I absolutly understand, that it's quiet hard to change that within the 
remaining time :/

bye
Matthias



Am 17.01.2012 00:09, schrieb Kate Chapman:
 As HOT is working on the ground in Haiti and Indonesia this week and
 additionally helping with a flood response in the Philippines I would
 suggest we don't do that.  On Wednesday there are workshops going on
 in the St Marc area of Haiti introducing people in that area to OSM
 for the first time.

 It is true there has been downtime during previous HOT missions and we
 have ways of getting around it I don't think it helps us move forward
 with people using/updating OpenStreetMap.

 Maybe a banner or something instead?

 As a U.S. voter I'm sorry about the whole SOPA mess.

 Best,

 -Kate



 2012/1/17 Matthias Meißerdig...@arcor.de:
 Hi,

 first of all, sorry for bringing political discussions to the community, as
 I always understand OSM as a political neutral space (we do creating maps,
 nothing else).
 But some of you might noticed that _Wikipedia will make a downtime_ at
 Wednesday as a form of protest against the Stop Piracy Act (SOPA)
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOPA

 As this law endangers the creation and exchange of free material, too
 ('shutdown OSM/jamendo/.../ as it seems that they copied my property!'), I
 would like to ask, if we might support the wikipedia action?

 I have no idea, if this could be technicaly done by the Admins, or what kind
 of protest (complete shutdown, serving demo tiles, locking database, ... a
 banner) would be accepted by the most of us. I just like to notify you, and
 maybe start a discussion.

 thanks
 Matthias
 (user:!i!)

 ___
 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] Looking Forward

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

Frederick showed us some of the  problems of OSM itself (well done !),
pragmatic problems needing to be solved for OSM to survive, but once
solved do not change fundamentally change anything to OSM.
That is ok if OSM is perfect for the next 100 years or so, but
that will not be the case I believe.


Currently the ultimate goal anyone seems to pursue is data completion.
But, once every road and POI has been mapped, were done.
There is no structured vision yet upon what to do with that data.

We did not even develop a structured view on how we will be updating that
immense dataset.

What can and will the world do with OSM ?

Of course there is the dogma of allowing new and surprising
applications that would be possible with open and free data.
Such new applications have yet to be developed; most applications
made up to now are of a trivial level (where is my friend drinking), 
direct but inferior copies of commercial applications (route planners), 
or directed to the community itself (editors). No surprise app
that I heard of.  
That is not surprise, we are currently just trying to get even with
the BIG boys, copying their achievements with only one
difference: our data is free.

In order to become a real innovative map, we need to provide
innovative data (or means to extract it) ,not just free data. 

Some ideas to create real innovative value:

A/ History
One of the first things that get into my mind is history.
Being able to show how the world was yesterday is something
no map maker ever made available on a simple and real time basis.
Of course OSM has not much of a history yet, but that will hopefully
change, and work need to be done
It will allow anyone to provide data on how this world progresses
be it agricultural, nature areas, road density or café's per square mile,
these data change, and it would be good if we had the tools to use that history.

B/ Third world 
A second important thing will be to provide information to the third world,
countries where a simple paper map is simply not available, or outdated
or lists only those things that are politically correct. OSM, as
a user generated map, is able to make itself free from that limitations
and should innovate the way poor countries use maps.
HOT is one step into that direction, but by its nature triggered
by disasters is always lagging the need for data. Can OSM
provide means to those countries to get a grip on their own geo-data
and how ?

C/ Political
Maps are a view of the world seen from (most of the time) the western
hegemony on the world. Names of cities areas and countries and frontiers 
are different and their spelling or geographic properties depend on
who you ask. By complying to our western view, we make a political choice;
a choice that will stand in the way of acceptance of our data.
Should we map Tibet as a country or as a part of China ? same for Taiwan.
Should we respect al kind of undefined local properties in Africa, and
what exact borders will their countries have. Examples in abundance if you
open your eyes for it.
I believe that we should allow our data users to extract the data complying
to their view of the world, within the view as defined by our mappers of
course. No need to seek for hidden border disputes of course.
That means that Tibet will be include as a part of China if rendered
within a China view , or as a independent country if rendered by
the dalai lama. It is not to us to comply with 1 (one) view of the world.

D/ Details
Apart from mapping conventions, and tagging styles (fixed of free),
how far should OSM go into detailing the world. Map resolution is currently 
defined by the resolution of GPS and partly because of mapping conventions, but
with new GPS systems developing with sub-meter accuracy, should we allow
or mappers to map sub-meter details ?? It is possible now (in JOSM),
but do we desire so ? Will there be a need for even smaller points of interest,
and could that lead to mapping innovation ?


My 4 cents...


Gert




-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frede...@remote.org] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 24 december 2011 14:03
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: [OSM-talk] Looking Forward

Fellow OSMers, 

   I'd like to use the calm end-of-year season to say a few things I
consider important, hoping that I might get a few people to spend a
thought or two on them.

I've been accused in the past of not having a vision for OSM and I
don't claim to. But it would be great if those who have a vision would
also have answers to the issues I want to talk about.

Our admins have recently published a list of top ten tasks,
technical things they'd like to see implemented sooner rather than
later. Looking at that list makes you think: If *those* are the biggest
problems then the project must be working quite well! But fact
nobody claims that they are the biggest problems: they are just the
lowest hanging fruits. 

The OSMF is very much concerned about making sure that user experience
is 

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

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

I think it's relevant that node changes as suggested
should involve stand alone nodes only (such as POI).

Once they are part of a structure of say a building or a road, water
or any area, the nodes should be considered a composition  rather
then 4 nodes.
While the underlying structure is a geographic fact, the choice
of place nodes and the number to represent the structure is
a creative work.

I think this seems an obvious conclusion, but should be made clear.



In addition the LWG should also pay some attention to relations.


Regards,

Gert 


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com] 
Verzonden: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 2:44 AM
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org
wrote:
 On 12/20/2011 10:11 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
 Of particular interest are:
 - can node positions be cleaned by moving to a new position?

 While you are at it, I would love to hear about a specific subset of
the
 cases encompassed by this question : the cases where the edit is
 correlated with a change of source. I asked this question a week ago
in
 the Are objects still tainted when they are edited from a better
source
 ? thread here and it has not been answered yet.

And we're listening.  Tell us and be specific.  Some of us have been
remapping for a while.  Give examples.

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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build

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

Just as a warning: replacing non-compliant nodes does
not mean just placing another node adjacent to it.
That's copying (or tracing).

This O-trick suggestion invites our members to fraude.

Using this O-trick violates the copyright of the previous
owner, just as copying from google would violate their terms of service.
When replacing (NOT copying) old CC data, you need to
provide proof that the new geo data was obtained by 
NOT copying it from the old CC-BY-CA data, especially in this
license case. This can be done for example by 
adding a source link to a GPS track or a clear
link to BING imagery. Just make sure you DO
trace from BING then, as referring to non-existant
BING data may worsen the copyright status of this data.

Note that the fact of copying a set of nodes this way
would be easy to prove, as any arbitrary choice 
of a set of nodes describing 
a way will never resemble the original set, where
randomly offsetting each node of the original will
strongly resemble the original way.



Gert Gremmen
-

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)
 Before printing, think about the environment. 



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Mike Dupont [mailto:jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com] 
Verzonden: woensdag 16 november 2011 20:14
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 Simon Poole wrote:
 That said, I believe P2 now has a tool that will completly replace
 a node with a new one at the same coordinates which is a bit of
 a fix for your specific issue.

 Just for clarification - what it actually does is remove the node (in a way)
 and create a new one at your _mouse_ position. You are choosing where to
 create the node. Neither the position nor the tags are inherited from the
 old node.

 (If you've not tried it: select old node, press O.)

HI,
does this mean that you can use this technique to lift data off any
map, or just the old osm one?
I am confused, for me it would be copying the position from somewhere.

mike

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Just shut up

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

Thank you Chris for your constructive comment

to my stupid contribution to this list.

 

I must apologize to you and the list because I should 

have realized more early that I am too much of a fool

to be allowed to contribute. I am deeply sorry.

 

Gert Gremmen

. 

 

 

Van: Chris Hill [mailto:o...@raggedred.net] 
Verzonden: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 9:56 PM
Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
Onderwerp: Just shut up

 

Gert,
Every time you send one of your stupid rants to OSM you just make a fool
of yourself. Unlike you, we know what we are doing and, unlike you, we
are motivated by making a good, useful map using free and legal data. We
have left behind the stupidity that was the licence argument, whereas
you are still determined to be stupid. If there was any sense in your
rants people would have listened, instead they just laugh.

You didn't convince anyone and you can't admit that the majority does
not agree with you (~350 decliners). Do yourself a favour, stop making a
fool of yourself and just shut up. 

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build

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

You are right Richard. 
This O-trick actually is just a shortcut for delete and (re)place.

Just the thread in which it is presented is a bit suspicious.

The reason why anyone would want to remove a node and replace one at the same
(or approximate) location escapes  my logic.
It disturbs history, and makes no contribution to the database at all.

Unless the license issue of course

And thank you for the compliment Richard (about the 0%) , I 
always appreciate comments from those who know better.

Gert Gremmen
-

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)
 Before printing, think about the environment. 


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net] 
Verzonden: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 9:22 PM
Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build

Gert Gremmen wrote:
 Using this O-trick violates the copyright of the previous
 owner, just as copying from google would violate their 
 terms of service.

As they have been for at least three years now, Gert, your opinions about
Potlatch are 100% venting and 0% actual knowledge
(http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-December/032278.html,
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-January/032977.html,
etc.)

If you actually _used_ the software - which you've never shown any sign of
doing and which I don't expect you to do any time soon - you would see that
this is simply removing a finger movement from delete selected node, insert
node at mouse position. The action is exactly the same, yet I don't hear
you clamouring for the insert node function to be removed.

It is a simple convenience for the mapper. As you would know if you actually
used it, the node placement is entirely at the discretion of the mapper;
Potlatch does not automatically place a node at the previous position or
indeed anywhere. Just as with any other OSM editing, the mapper will usually
be working from a background layer, such as Bing or a GPS track, and their
placement will usually be based on this. And again, if you actually used the
software, you would also find that Potlatch makes it very easy to add the
source tag to a node or way during your edit, again with one single
keypress.

But why let the facts get in the way of a good rant, hey?

Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OSM-Database-Re-Build-tp6997302p7001734.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] #Occupy camps in OSM?

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

executive resume
One of the reasons OSM could distinguish from other maps, 
is being able to respond quickly to temporarily events.
/executive resume

Currently OSM is boaring the same as Google, having the same data,
but less, and less accurate on a majority of places and
sometimes more on some other places. 
Good work done of the community (us) but uninteresting, for the masses.

Currently innovations based on OSM do not extend
beyond YAR (Yet Another Routeplanner) or YAFF (Yet
Another Friend Finder): that’s yesterdays innovation.

Currently only HOT adds real value to OSM.

I agree with Frederick (this time) that temporarily
data should not find a place in a permanent database.

To be able to stand out from the geo data masses, we should steer
away from copying the other mapmakerswe won't win anyway,
as we lack money, and scare away those who think instead
of click.

One direction Google and others do not have taken yet is
the possibility to include temporarily data.

OSM should find a  solution to be able to respond to
short time geographic events such as floodings, occupy camps
volcanic events, war, territorial disputes (Israel), earthquake
events (refugee camps), burning man etc etc, but also
for real short time events such as extreme weather areas's (blocked mountain 
roads, 
affected areas by hurricanes) and even cultural events 
(would be nice to include Woodstock as destination in YAR, taking
traffic jams and temporary parking areas into account).

I am also thinking about building sites, future geodata (to be realized 
constructions, roads or even complete city blocks.)


it's not that I need to community to enter that data
now, just try to enable our database for it, so 
we are ready to accept it.





Gert Gremmen
-

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)
 Before printing, think about the environment. 





-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frede...@remote.org] 
Verzonden: dinsdag 8 november 2011 0:59
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] #Occupy camps in OSM?

Hi,

On 11/08/2011 12:15 AM, Alan McConchie wrote:
 I figure we could use many of the same features that Burning Man
 uses, primarily tourism:camp_site, plus keys like start_date and
 end_date (if applicable).

I don't think that it is valid to use Burning Man as a precedent for 
mapping temporary structures generally. Burning Man is essentially a fun 
thing in the desert where, even when you map very creatively, nobody cares.

You are suggesting to tag, for example, a camp site in the middle of 
London where there clearly isn't one, and I expect that similar creative 
tag uses would follow (e.g. people would perhaps find it nice to tag a 
communal tent where people have beers in the evening as amenity=pub etc.)

This would clearly be a violation of the on-the-ground rule.

I think it is perfectly acceptable to map such camps when they are 
halfway stable (I wouldn't use end_date and instead simply delete the 
stuff when it's over - since you cannot know in advance when it will end).

However it is not acceptable to map a camp site or a pub or anything 
else where there is none just for the sake of having it show up on the 
default www.openstreetmap.org rendering.

Invent your own tags, and produce your own rendering.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation

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

I believe that mediation in this particular problem is impossible.
Ranking based on population numbers will never be recognized by
both parties, as religious inspired politics will never respect a status
quo nor a history. 
Once the Jerusalem problem is solved the dispute will continue
on other cities / religions / places in the area.

I think that OSM should develop an official policy towards disputed
- areas,
- regions,
- cities 
- languages

and some effort need to be made to suit the rendering based
upon the viewers preferences.

As long as there are disputes on a geographic properties
of a specific area, OSM should allow for a number of versions
doing justice to each recognized political or religious view.

So in case of Jerusalem we should be able to present
a Israel map with Hebrew names as primary to the Israelis.

And at the same time present a different map (possibly with
other borders) to the Palestinians.

More general, we should be able to present a map in each local
language, taking care on all these regional problems

(take for example Lille and Rijssel, the same town in Flemish and
in French)

Our planet is full of disputes, differences like that and we should abandon
the idea of one map fits all.

As a start we may stop render names when the last change is more recent then 
say 4 weeks. This will effectively stop rendering based
disputes.

Later we may switch to localized maps but I believe that is a big effort
as the text layer should be presented separately from the map.

Even later we should be able to define regions where more than one
version of the map exists, any editing user making a selection on
what version he will be editing on.

So Mohammed will edit the Palestina version of Jerusalem, and
Moshe may edit a Jewesh version of Jerusalem, including different
names, borders (later) and (even later) landuse.

It would make OSM an even better map, able to represent the views
of all people of this world.

And it would help creating routeplanners for israel 
for example where some areas are nogo for israeli, but not
for tourists or palestinines (and the other way around of course).

And we Europeans do not have to learn Hebrew  before being 
able to use the Israel map.




Gert Gremmen
-

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)
 Before printing, think about the environment. 

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Andy Robinson [mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: Friday, October 07, 2011 5:40 PM
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
CC: d...@osmfoundation.org
Onderwerp: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation

In addition to the talk list and the DWG this email is being sent to those
who have edited the name tag on node 29090735.

Those reading the mailing list and forum will know that there is an on-going
dispute between Israeli and Palestinian folks as well as unhappiness with
the OSMF DWG. All relates to the name=tag  for Jerusalem, the default name
tag shown by the project mapnik rendering.

The facts are clear that a tit for tat dispute of the name tag went on
during 2009 and 2010. Also fact is that some discussions were held between
mappers in the region to try and reach an agreed position. It was
unfortunate that the DWG removed the name tag from the node around the same
time, before the views of those discussing the point could communicate back.
Regardless of this it is clear that there is no full 100% agreement between
the local groups or even within each side. There have been discussions about
two nodes, each holding information separately in Hebrew and Arabic, and
there have also been suggestions of returning to a single node with Arabic,
Hebrew (and English) names on it considering the international interest in
the city. Both might work but nether offers a sustainable solution long
term, mainly because as new mappers come and go the view of different
individuals will change, and so it will be also for those viewing the map.

I was asked to help mediate in the dispute. Something that I have found
almost impossible as there is no basis on which to force mediation in the
first place. I have however looked at the matter and offer the following for
consideration and I would hope implementation. It must be recognised that no
solution will be perfect.

1. All cities of the world have a varying demographic. Few have only one
language or faith. Jerusalem has a population of over 700,000 and by all
accounts the religious split of its people (ignoring minority groups) is in
the order of 2/3 Jewish, 1/3 Arabic. Therefore a significant number of
people will be served by having the name of Jerusalem visible in Hebrew and
also in Arabic. English might be useful addition for the international
interest in the city but that can be argued for all major cities around the
world and therefore I don't see reason to include it in this solution. As
with all other languages the language specific name tags are always
available anyway.

2. There appear

Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation

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

Simon wrote:

OSM is about mapping facts,

If OSM were about facts then we should refrain from mapping
these areas (at least certain details)
as some of the map-aspects are *NOT* facts.
The mere fact that a map is presented 
with writing Jerusalem on it 
implies making a political religious choice
in favor of one of the parties.

 I am very very opposed to providing every-
body with their comfy virtual world view.

Go tell that on the street in Nablus, that their view
on the world is virtual !!!

..


Otherwise as an intermediary solution , as I suggested below , we should  
not render any items that have been changed back and forth
a few times in a short period. Starting with names.

Most of these conflicts are rendering triggered, so that
will probably calm the edit wars.



But I want you and all OSM member to seriously
think about what a map is, once we add features that are beyond
physical properties of the world.

Countries, names and landuse are not strictly factual data,
at least not in some parts of the world, so then, Simon,
we should remove them too.
Creating a common view of the world, where Jerusalem
is called Jerusalem exclusively ,creates
conflicts with the open structure of the map, and the
privilege that *anyone*  including Al Qaida , Joe average,
the Palestinians and Israelis can edit OSM to their view on the world.
A common view needs protections, and that is definitely NOT OSM.

FACT:
OSM will never be able to create a *factual* map that is
acceptable to all the world.

That it works for now, is merely because there was a certain consensus
about what a majority of the world looks like. Since OSM is
slowly getting mature, we have to deal with these problems too.


My suggestion of creating different maps, would do justice
to all these differences, and while not creating the simple view
of the world that many people want, may point, demonstrate
and support the fact how
we are all different in our view on this globe.



Regards,

Ing.  Gert Gremmen, BSc



g.grem...@cetest.nl
www.cetest.nl

Kiotoweg 363
3047 BG Rotterdam
T 31(0)104152426
F 31(0)104154953

 Before printing, think about the environment. 



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] 
Verzonden: Saturday, October 08, 2011 1:39 PM
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation

While I would (naturally) support developing better multiple-language 
support
for maps rendered from our data, I am very very opposed to providing every-
body with their comfy virtual world view.

OSM is about mapping facts, and the fact is that disputed areas are 
-disputed-.
Finding a clear scheme for tagging such situations would be far more the 
point
than supporting make-believe worlds.


Simon


Am 08.10.2011 12:38, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:
 I believe that mediation in this particular problem is impossible.
 Ranking based on population numbers will never be recognized by
 both parties, as religious inspired politics will never respect a status
 quo nor a history.
 Once the Jerusalem problem is solved the dispute will continue
 on other cities / religions / places in the area.

 I think that OSM should develop an official policy towards disputed
 - areas,
 - regions,
 - cities
 - languages

 and some effort need to be made to suit the rendering based
 upon the viewers preferences.

 As long as there are disputes on a geographic properties
 of a specific area, OSM should allow for a number of versions
 doing justice to each recognized political or religious view.

 So in case of Jerusalem we should be able to present
 a Israel map with Hebrew names as primary to the Israelis.

 And at the same time present a different map (possibly with
 other borders) to the Palestinians.

 More general, we should be able to present a map in each local
 language, taking care on all these regional problems

 (take for example Lille and Rijssel, the same town in Flemish and
 in French)

 Our planet is full of disputes, differences like that and we should abandon
 the idea of one map fits all.

 As a start we may stop render names when the last change is more recent then
 say 4 weeks. This will effectively stop rendering based
 disputes.

 Later we may switch to localized maps but I believe that is a big effort
 as the text layer should be presented separately from the map.

 Even later we should be able to define regions where more than one
 version of the map exists, any editing user making a selection on
 what version he will be editing on.

 So Mohammed will edit the Palestina version of Jerusalem, and
 Moshe may edit a Jewesh version of Jerusalem, including different
 names, borders (later) and (even later) landuse.

 It would make OSM an even better map, able to represent the views
 of all people of this world.

 And it would help creating routeplanners for israel
 for example where some areas are nogo for israeli, but not
 for tourists

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenMaps App Blocked By OpenStreetMap

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

I am a user of your product, and I think you made a nice
product. I also think that now your product is mature (25+),
it's time for you to supply your own tiles to your users.
Not only would that allow a better service to us, but also
makes it possible for us to download all zoom levels
and to create a better map, as you may render more
then one view on the world. (cycles, walking, skiing hills etc)

OSM provides free map data but:
Free data is one, but free tile access is something else.

The download feature of openmaps is a paid extension to
openmaps. 
With the money it earns it may be easy to setup 
your own servers...

A bit of negotiations with the community might even 
lead to mutual load sharing, a win-win for all of us.



(Also Openmaps is not an editor, but merely a map viewer.
For us to use it as an editor an additional fee
needs to be paid.  I think that is strange.)




Gert Gremmen
-

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)
 Before printing, think about the environment. 



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Zsombor Szabó [mailto:zsom...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: Saturday, October 08, 2011 2:40 PM
Aan: OSM Talk
Onderwerp: [OSM-talk] OpenMaps App Blocked By OpenStreetMap

Dear OSMers,

we, the developers of OpenMaps, wrote a blog post about OpenMaps
getting blocked by OpenStreetMap Mapnik tile servers:
http://blog.izeize.com/2011/10/openmaps-app-blocked-by-openstreetmap.html

For convenience I pasted the whole text of the blog post below:

Earlier this week it came to my attention that OpenMaps' access was
blocked to the OpenStreetMap Mapnik tile servers.

We suspect that the reason why it was blocked is a tool named the
Download tool. The Download tool enables users to download an area of
a map from a given map tile server, even custom ones. Users were using
this tool to download map tiles from the OpenStreetMap Mapnik tile
servers and with this behavior they were violating the tile usage
policy of OpenStreetMap.

We are very sorry for causing such a problem for the OpenStreetMap
project. To our defense, the tile usage policy wasn't available when
we first introduced the Download tool in OpenMaps.

Today we submitted an updated version (v4.5.4) of OpenMaps to the App
Store and are waiting for approval from Apple. The following
modifications were made to the app:
- Download tool is still present with a clear discouraging message
that it should not be used in abusive behavior.
- Maximum of 2 download threads.
- Download disabled for 17, 18 and 19 zoom levels.
- User agent of non-bulk downloading of map tiles was changed to
Op3nMaps(Not.Bulk.Download)/x CFNetwork/x Darwin/x while the user
agent for bulk downloading remains unmodified (OpenMaps/x CFNetwork/x
Darwin/x).

This way browsing and bulk downloading users can clearly be identified
on the server side and throttled or banned if necessary.

This is our short term solution for the problem, but the long term
solution is clearly a vector based renderer. I previously alluded that
it is coming on my twitter profile.

About OpenMaps:
OpenMaps is a powerful iOS app based on maps and web services around
OpenStreetMap. To date it was downloaded more than 250.000 times and
as of 2011.09.07 it is the 7th most popular OSM editor.


Best regards,
Zsombor Szabo
IZE, Ltd.
http://izeize.com

___
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] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

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

What a childish approach of both sides...

This is something the community should be ashamed of !

 

Gert Gremmen

-

 

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)

P Before printing, think about the environment. 

 

 

Van: dimka israeli [mailto:dimka.isr...@hotmail.co.il] 
Verzonden: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 1:00 AM
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

 

Hello to all, 

I would like to inform the OSM community about an ongoing dispute 
regarding the node Jerusalem 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/29090735
http://www.google.com/url?sa=Dq=http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/no
de/29090735usg=AFQjCNFtSGU9ubMlv8E0-RxmMN7shkmxkA . 

In my opinion, the handling of this dispute by OSM officials has up
until now been entirely 
inappropriate, damaging for the Israeli OSM community and  perhaps even
politically motivated.

Since all official OSM representatives remain deaf to our arguments and
pleas, effectively holding our entire community hostage with threats of
ban, I saw no other choice but to send this letter.

Allow me to describe very briefly the essense of the dispute, sticking
to facts only. More details can be found at this forum 
thread: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=13178
http://www.google.com/url?sa=Dq=http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtop
ic.php%3Fid%3D13178usg=AFQjCNE5OjcDPw5zs_J8tbqERAvNCO4G2g .

The Jerusalem node had its name: tag changing several times by people
who were not members of OSM Israel, for unknown (to us) reasons, and
always changed back by us in order to keep up with our tagging
standards. Those standards specify that all places inside Israel should
be tagged with Hebrew as default, unless specific agreement otherwise.
This convention was never disputed.  Last switch to Hebrew name of the
Jerusalem node occured in December 2010, and no changes were made since
then.
In addition to Jerusalem node, there exists a separate place=suburb
node tagged Al-Quds in Arabic which represents mostly Arab-populated
east neighborhoods of Jerusalem. This tagging was never in dispute.


Three months ago, several people who never before made edits to OSM,
claimed that they cannot identify themselves with the map (and as a
result, are not ready to contribute to it), because the name of the city
of Jerusalem did not appear on the main OSM site in Arabic language with
the same prominence as the Hebrew one. This claim was expressed not to
the members of the Israeli community, but to Mikel Maron who happened to
be in Jerusalem. He  set to organize a meeting between the two parties.

Mikel sent an email to the OSM Data Working Group where he apparently
elaborated the situation, claiming that there has been an edit war
over the node (a highly controversial claim per se). This was done prior
to the meeting, without giving the two sides any chance to talk.

On the morning of the meeting day and prior to the meeting itself, the
DWG removed the name: tag from the node, without making any direct
contact with us.

Anxious to have it back, we proposed during the meeting to have two
separate nodes, tagged respectively in Hebrew and Arabic. However, the
other side would agree on nothing less than equal rendering (they are
explicitly interested in rendering only) of the two names, which implied
that the Arabic node would be tagged as capital (analogous to Hebrew
Jerusalem). However, it was pointed out that this would certainly create
problems with mapnik on low zoom levels (where the two nodes would
overlap and only one of them would show). Such a situation was not
acceptable to the other side, and so we concluded the meeting by letting
Mikel contact the mapnik team and come back with an answer.

After coming back home, we actually started to have a discussion in our
forum (see link above). Many of us couldn't participate in the meeting
(only two of Israeli mappers were present there), and so expressed their
opinion in the matter for the first time. Furthermore, we found out that
the other side of the dispute is an organization with a clear political
agenda related to Arab-Israeli conflict in general and Jerusalem in
particular. Eventually we backed up from the agreement and requested
further discussions with the other side. Mikel has stepped down as a
mediator, admitting that he was too involved in this.

We have asked the DWG to appoint a new mediator and to restore the
situation to what it was prior to their intervention, until the dispute
is settled. The new mediator was appointed, but the DWG categorically
refused to revert their deletion and pressed us to come up with a
solution  which the other side would agree on. Although we expressed our
willingness to discuss the situation with the other side in any online
forum, they never answered us (they actually made no edits in OSM since
then). Also, the new mediator is yet to show any sign of activity,
despite our repeated requests

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Effect of Remapping on Contributor TermsAcceptance (Numbers!)

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

Simon,

 

Please respect the mailing list charter. You may

contest my irony, but refrain from qualifications as silly

If you don't agree, you may say so in normal words.

 

We know all that extrapolations are not reality, but

your numbers do suggest conclusions like mine.

 

Again, without Irony this time

 

(Limited to nodes only for sake of comprehension: )

 

 

Simple calculus suggests that  208'518 / 32'505'411 is only 0.64% of the 
NO-voted

data, and simple calculus suggests that it takes 155 quarters to fix that in 
this pace.

 

If the CT-unknown-voters may in the end all be convinced to CT-yes-voters

that will solve only 25'315'574/32'505'411 = 43% of the

whole non-compliant data set (again, nodes only).

 

 

Interesting is data also to notice that 288 single CT-NO-voters have contributed

approximately 128%  amount of node data as the 60K  CT-unknown-voters all 
together.

(other data approximately equal).

 

I am really curious to what kind of math you have resource to in order

to qualify this pace as quite noticeable and how your math

 resolve all of this in roughly 2 years without effort.

 

And has anyone come up with a campaign yet to fix all this ?

How Simon , do you intend to increase the re-mapping from

0.64% to for example 10%  ( 20-fold) , and it will still take

the community 2 ½ year then.

 

And for contacting 60K mappers, will the community

just ignore their opinion and declare them CT-compliant

by default ? Or will their data be deleted after 2 ½ years ?

 

Hey OSMF, we need steering here !

 

 

 

Gert

 

Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 24 september 2011 16:52
Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Effect of Remapping on Contributor 
TermsAcceptance (Numbers!)

 


The numbers -only- show the effect of remapping, currently the far larger 
effect is acceptance of the CTs by mappers who haven't done that up to now. 
Around 0.1 to 0.2 % per month (depending on the object category). In other 
words, using just as silly extrapolations as you do, we would have 100% of 
everything anyway in roughly two years if we simply just let things carry on as 
they are now (which is not the intention).

Simon

Am 24.09.2011 16:29, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen: 

irony ON

It seems as if the community is not that motivated

to re-map  all those evil CC-BY-SA data  that 

sneeked into into the future OdBL fork.

 

In this pace we need more then 7 years to fix it.

 

Common CT-OSM members, start mapping all

that misleading non-CT data ! Someone

may use it in a routeplanner and drive

by accident  into a CC-BY-SA road, and

who knows what happens then.

 

irony OFF

Gert 

 

 

Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] 
Verzonden: Saturday, September 24, 2011 8:56 AM
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: [OSM-legal-talk] Affect of Remapping on Contributor TermsAcceptance 
(Numbers!)

 


[Apologies in advance for the HTML formatting]

As you may have noticed, the sysadmins were kind enough to generate a new full 
history dump over the last couple of days. Besides generating new numbers for 
odbl.poole.ch (which will take some time for the full set), I was mainly 
interested in seeing how large the effect of (intentional or not) remapping has 
been over the last three months.  

As can be seen from the following numbers, while the effect is not particularly 
large (nobody has really called for aggressive remapping yet) it is quite 
noticeable.

SImon




No

Unknown

Total Diff


2011-06-19 

2011-09-19 

Diff 

2011-06-19 

2011-09-19 

Diff 


Nodes

32'505'411

32'296'893

-208'518

25'315'574

23'618'704

-1'696'870

-1'905'388

-3.30 %

Highways

777'070

764'439

-12'631

1'703'211

1'668'481

-34'730

-47'361

-1.91 %

Other Ways

1'245'547

1'233'705

-11'842

702'679

659'473

-43'206

-55'048

-2.83 %

Routes

4'208

4'047

-161

3'112

3'078

-34

-195

-2.66 %

Other Relations

45'957

45'635

-322

10'007

9'724

-284

-606

-1.08 %

Mappers

288

287

-1

59'905

59'339

-566

-567

-0.94 %



Note: both set of numbers (from the 19th of June and the 19th of September) use 
the same licensing state data from the 22nd of September. The Mappers row 
reflect the change in the number of mappers that created objects that are still 
visible in the database. 






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

Re: [OSM-talk] Barriers of Entry

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

Ian said:

Training and skills acquisition before undertaking complex tasks is a
fairly commonplace activity in our society.  

 

No but the difference between Stalinism and OSM is that we do not
*oblige*

people to follow a training process.

 

History is indeed full of these mistakes, these mistakes are the
reasons we have schools, universities, drivers licences, and many other
forms of training and qualification.

 

Then you are probable also in favor of a obligatory school in politics
before being allowed

to vote for your parliament?

 

I am not sure you are aware of the principles of open data 

and of crowd collected data, or at least do not speak accordingly.

 

The power of OSM is the number thing. Many users

equal out the uneven data from beginners and vandals.

 

But if you want to start an OSM college, I will not be the one

to stop you !

 

 

 

Gert Gremmen

-

 

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)

P Before printing, think about the environment. 

 

 

Van: Ian Sergeant [mailto:iserg...@hih.com.au] 
Verzonden: Thursday, September 15, 2011 8:07 AM
Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
CC: Talk@OSM
Onderwerp: RE: [OSM-talk] Barriers of Entry

 


Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote on 15/09/2011 03:51:11 PM:

 I definitely do NOT want a *diploma* system
 with less or more approved users.. N

 We don't want OSM to change into Brave New World,
 1984 or distinct between users on other characteristics
 History is full of such mistakes.

Training and skills acquisition before undertaking complex tasks is a
fairly commonplace activity in our society.  It really doesn't equate to
a Brave New World.   History is indeed full of these mistakes, these
mistakes are the reasons we have schools, universities, drivers
licences, and many other forms of training and qualification. 

Not every task can be made simple, and our society is often structured
such that people expect everything they are actually allowed to do to be
harmless.  If you lower the barrier to entry, and make something appear
simple that isn't, you aren't doing anyone any favours.  I'm sure we can
ask someone to demonstate their ability to do a complex task before
undertaking it, without too much danger of taking a step closer to the
OSM equivalent of a Stalinist regime :-) 

Ian.

image001.gif___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Barriers of Entry

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

You lost me here, definitely ... ;((

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com] 
Verzonden: donderdag 15 september 2011 20:55
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Barriers of Entry

I'm glad that you both agree so closely.

Paraphrasing Frederik, Not all barriers are bad.

Paraphrasing Serge, Not all barriers are good.

[removed many analogies]

I'd like to see needless barriers to understanding and using
OpenStreetMap reduced or removed.  I think that we have done that
pretty well as a community.  in past we've removed barriers such as,
the servers are too slow, I want an editor on my smartphone, etc.

I think that we could do better with our road signs though.  Here.
Let me torture an analogy for you.

Imagine that we are driving and using road signs for guidance.  I
wouldn't be happy to be stopped for speeding because an informational
sign (food, fuel next exit) was posted directly in front of a
reduced speed limit sign.  Right now, most of our signs are on the
wiki.  Many of them would be more effective if we duplicated them and
put them in other places as well.

In OSM we have regulatory signs, like speed limit 60km/h.  Ours say,
Don't abuse the tile server, Map what is verifiable and Don't tag
for the renderer.  You won't always get a ticket if you tag for a
renderer but you could; I'm looking at you blackadder :)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/594171

We also have informational signs, like food and fuel next exit.  But
in OpenStreetMap they read, List of common tags: see Map
Features[1], or List of OSM editing software[2], visitor
information center[3]

Some of our signs could be better organized.  We might even need some
Big Green Signs, like the gantry freeway signs, that say, iPhone
Developers, exit 2km, and No Importers in this lane.  This is what
I see as a substantial part of any new OSM site design; getting the
right information signs in the right order.

And we'll continue to remove barriers as we find them.  But this dead
end street right here is only a barrier if we refuse to go back three
blocks and make the right turn that we were supposed to make.  The
dead end belongs here; we just missed an informational sign.

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editors
[3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Video_tutorials

___
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] Barriers of Entry

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

+1 Serge

I do not think that the experts (read : experienced) OSM such
as Frederik, SteveC and many others  including myself have the skills to 
actually fine tune
OSM to new users. We know too much details, are too involved
and probably too worried about misuse, data soup (yes me too)
and too caring about our data.
(That mechanism is also debit to the License problems and
the troubles around it: other topic)

Regarding the quality of data, I suggest strongly that
a number of different software editors get developed, each targeted to 
a specific data source (or user classifying himself as so).

A bar/café/restaurant POI editor - yes as simple as that-
allowing people that recently visited a restaurant, are a restaurant owner
 or just live in front of it to enter it accordingly to the map.
Approximate place, name and type of food is something
that almost anyone can do, no entry barrier required.

These new users probably are not interested in all OSM tagging subtleties, but
there first successful entrance of a POI will trigger more to come
, and possibly the interest in OSM and ultimately the fine
art of cartography (other editors.)

Furthermore I believe that some heuristic software (server side?) should monitor
edits for probability. An entire block of streets shifting for more
then 100 meters is such an unlikely wanted edit. So is a road crossing
another road of the same type (without node!). Such software would capture
a lot of edit mistakes.
Ultimately it should be such intelligent software that a
user actually needs a lot of OSM skills to be able to
actually create data soup.

I am not sure yet on what to do with such edits when
detected yet, but what the heck, we are thousands to find a solution


Gert


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Serge Wroclawski [mailto:emac...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: woensdag 14 september 2011 20:08
Aan: Frederik Ramm
CC: Talk Openstreetmap
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Barriers of Entry

I respectfully disagree with most of your email, comments inline:

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Hi,

 There are barriers of
 entry in the form of entrance exams at places like universities, with the
 aim of assessing the likelihood of someone succeeding in their studies.

I have a bit of contention with this but I'll accept the fact that
there is a correlation between entrance exams and academic success,
but I will rebut this premise later in the mail.

 And
 of course there are job interviews, where employers sometimes raise the
 barrier of entry so high that only one in 1000 can pass.

This is a simple premise that can be rebutted in this context. The
issue of an employer is that of limited resources.

When the resources are large and free, the problems become different.

 Barriers of entry are not always a bad thing; they might keep you and from
 entering a tunnel for which your vehicle is too wide, or they might make it
 less likely for you to spend years at university with little chance to earn
 a degree.

The argument that a university should have entrance exams to keep
people out in order to prevent them from failing out has firstly, a
misunderstanding of the education system, and a misunderstanding of
education in general.

For discussions of universities, I can only speak about the US. In the
US, institutions do have cutoffs for entrance, and will drop the
students they don't feel would make the cut, but they do not then
automatically take the top N highest percent. What they do instead is
to look for a wide diversity in the students, with the intent that a
university provides oppotunity to a great number of students, and the
understanding that diversity builds
strength.

Maybe this is different in Europe, but in the US, this is how things are.

Now I want to address testing in general, and why testing itself is
flawed, especially in how it relates to OSM (since this is where the
mail ultimately leads.

The purpose of education is to educate, and to build citizens, not
merely blast knowledge out and see who catches it. This is why we are
seeing programs which test different teaching methods, which show that
through different ways of approaching the material, we see different
results. Studies are showing that by using some teaching methods,
those students who did poorly previously now excel.

Knowing this to be true, educators can reform the curriculum to be
effective to different groups.  How this relates to OSM later on in
the mail.

 In OpenStreetMap, people sometimes point to our barriers of entry and
 blindly claim that they must be bad for us. The main page not welcoming
 enough, the editor too difficult, the path to signup too cumbersome, and on
 and on.

Some barriers to entry are not barriers to entry, but just barriers.
Using your analogy of a school, if we have a school where all students
walk to school, perhaps we should not place this school on the top of
a mountain.

Similarly if the front page is unfriendly, we 

Re: [OSM-talk] Barriers of Entry

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

I definitely do NOT want a *diploma* system
with less or more approved users.. N

We don't want OSM to change into Brave New World,
1984 or distinct between users on other characteristics
History is full of such mistakes.
If a novice wants to start with JOSM , so be it, but we want
him to be attracted to something he understands right now
and prefer that before understanding the power of a real
editor.



We just need a large set of tools (editors)
that automatically attract the right user level.

And add to that a set of heuristic control measures 
in software that refuse / flag / conditionally approve 
edits made by stupidity / mouse errors / vandalism  / ignorance.



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Jaakko Helleranta.com [mailto:jaa...@helleranta.com] 
Verzonden: donderdag 15 september 2011 4:34
Aan: Ian Sergeant; ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
CC: Talk@OSM
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Barriers of Entry

I very much like Ian's idea. Coincidentally I talked about this with
some people at SotM.

It seems to me that a number of people have started editing osm after a
significant delay because they've felt the barriers badly (both
regarding tools and technical creation of the map as well as fear of
breaking the data). I remember these fears / issues being one cause for
my delayed start to contributing to osm.

Now, what if we had a more or less obviously optional (opt-out)
graduated access scheme?

What if we simply required the promise of users to say that I know how
to edit this  that feature, Sure I understand what tertiary roads are
over unclassified/residential -- and I promise not to tag all roads I
edit with tertiary!, I'll definitely look into empty nodes history
before deleting them to make sure that no one has deleted the tags by
accident, or Of course I won't mess up the coastline. Etc.

What if we simply trusted that people can recognize when they are able
to do certain types of more difficult edits?

There could also be an I'd love it if someone more experienced (or
self-confident) could double check that my edits are ok before they get
submitted to the live database! option.

Since there were multiple people at SotM who think they would have
started editing sooner than they ended up doing I'm wondering how many
people there r out there that have signed up but have never made an edit
that could already have made edits if we would have such options in
place? I'm also pretty confident that such options, even when set to be
voluntary, could reduce some common quality problems. 

Cheers from Haiti (which I think would benefit from some of the above
mentioned options),
jaakkoh

Sent from my BlackBerry(r) device from Digicel
--
Mobile: +509-37-26 91 54, Skype/GoogleTalk: jhelleranta

-Original Message-
From: Ian Sergeant iserg...@hih.com.au
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:02:08 
To: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmeng.grem...@cetest.nl
Cc: Talk Openstreetmaptalk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Barriers of Entry

___
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-legal-talk] SPOT image usable for OSM?

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

Yes you can as OSM is explicitly mentioned in the EULA for OSM.
Of course you must think about what SPOT service the EULA stands for.

However, you may not use the OSM editor Potlatch, as integrated
on the OSM website.  

Listed are JOSM  / Viking and Merkaartor only.

I do not know why, but it is not on the list
of allowed software to use. Maybe because they want us to make
quality derived works of their data, and want to prevent the
data soup some starting users success to build ?

Regards,

Gert Gremmen, BSc





-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Hendrik Oesterlin [mailto:hendrikmail2...@yahoo.de] 
Verzonden: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:11 AM
Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: [OSM-legal-talk] SPOT image usable for OSM?

I am searching for imagery usable for OSM and was considering SPOT
IMAGE as some license text is found here:

http://www.youmapps.org/licenses/EULA-OSM-en.html
or in French
http://www.youmapps.org/licenses/EULA-OSM-fr.html
read paragraph 2.1 c

Will it be OK to trace over SPOT imagery as long as
source=(c) Cnes / Spot Image is set?

Regards
Hendrik Oesterlin
New Caledonia
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Hendrik75


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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] user rankings

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

I think this user ranking principle / ranking discussion is very
unhealthy.
OSM is not a game with points for every node we shoot !
Common, become an adult and map to give to the world
and have a good time yourself. And if you go outside
with your GPS you have a free workout too.


Gert




-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Stephan Knauss [mailto:o...@stephans-server.de] 
Verzonden: Thursday, September 08, 2011 10:32 AM
Aan: Simon Poole
CC: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] user rankings

Simon Poole writes: 

 We naturally already have fairly extensive user rankings, see odbl.de.
This is a ranking which counts who was the last one touching an object.
As 
Maurizio already pointed out this is not too meaningful as it says
nothing 
about the quality of edits. 

If I want to have a higher rank I simply select some big polygon and
move 
it a few centimeters. Or write a script that inserts a new node in the 
middle of existing nodes of a way. You push up your rank without
creating 
more value. 

So taking into account other metrics to calculate the merit sounds 
reasonable. Actually going outside to add street names is with the
current 
metric less valuable than armchair mapping roads from bing.
Merit has to take into account the time effort donated to OSM in some
way. 

Stephan

___
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-legal-talk] ODbL for publications comparing OSM with areference dataset

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

Hi Angelika,

 

Please note that OSM is currently distributed under the CC-BY-SA

license. There are plans to create a ODBL version of this database as a

derived work,  but the required modifications to the database have not

yet started and the community has not yet agreed on a date for this to

happen. Until the ODBL version is available I suggest that you do

not apply OSM data but on an experimental basis, as the availability

of the data under ODBL is not yet assured.

 

I suggest that you put some pression on the new OSMF board -being newly

elected this week- to publish a schedule for the switch-over so as to
allow

you -and others- to build a serious business model with OSM.

Until then I suggest you to refrain.

 

Note that I am just a member of the community, and in no

way speaking for the whole of it.

 

Gert Gremmen

-

 

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)

P Before printing, think about the environment. 

 

 

Van: Angelika Voss [mailto:angelika.v...@iais.fraunhofer.de] 
Verzonden: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:13 AM
Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL for publications comparing OSM with
areference dataset

 

Hello again,

for one more use case I would like to get your oppinion regarding the
ODbL. Your answers are relevant for our research, and could be relevant
for  Muki Haklay and others who compare OSM with other reference
datasets to analyse the quality, like completeness of objects and
thematic attributes, locational precision, correctness of thematic
attributes. 

Use case Publication on the quality of OpenStreetMap relative to a
reference set

A publication assesses the quality of the OSM road network by matching
the OSM objects with those of another road network, the reference set,
and then compares the matching objects. The document contains a thematic
OSM map, where the style (colour, breadth, ...) of the OSM roads
visualizes a compared quality.  The publication could also contain
charts and other maps where the quality is displayed on grid cells. 

Is it correct that only the thematic map with OSM road objects is a
produced work? So only the small table containing the identifiers of the
visible OSM road objects and their quality is a derivative database? And
is this table insubstantial  so that it need not be provided under ODbL?

In particular, underlying our publication is a much bigger table that
contains a matching between the identifiers of the two road networks, as
well as their attributes, which are to be compared, e.g. road category,
name, speed limit, oneway, pedestrian? Is it true that this table need
not provided together with the publication?

Once more, thank you for your comments,

angi voss 

-- 
Dr. Angi Voss
Fraunhofer IAIS
Knowledge Discovery
Schloss Birlinghoven
D-53754 Sankt Augustin
 
phone:02241 / 142726
Fax:  02241 / 42726
http://www.iais.fraunhofer.de
image001.gif___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-talk-nl] actuele spoorkaart

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

 

Weet iemand wie deze kaart heeft gemaakt ?

Of iemand die iets vergelijkbaars kan maken (in opdracht ?

 

Gert Gremmen

-

 

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)

P Before printing, think about the environment. 

 

 

image001.gifimage002.gif___
Talk-nl mailing list
Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] actuele spoorkaart

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

Deze bedoelde ik inderdaad.
Een relatie van mij wil iets dergelijks
(maar dan anders natuurlijk), en ben op zoek naar
iemand die dat kan.
Het gaat om real time, en historie, en
bij klikken op de trein , een arbitraire 
dataset displayen.


Regards,

Ing.  Gert Gremmen, BSc



g.grem...@cetest.nl
www.cetest.nl

Kiotoweg 363
3047 BG Rotterdam
T 31(0)104152426
F 31(0)104154953

 Before printing, think about the environment. 



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Floris Looijesteijn [mailto:o...@floris.nu] 
Verzonden: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 1:09 PM
Aan: OpenStreetMap NL discussion list
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] actuele spoorkaart

En deze, een andere vorm van actueel :)

http://kubus.mailspool.nl/spoorkaart/

Groet,
Floris

2011/8/30  dbuss...@goudappel.nl:
 Bedoel je dit?
 http://www.öpnvkarte.de
 Werkt ondanks de Duitse domain internationaal.

 Met vriendelijke groet,

 Dirk Bussche
 Senior Adviseur Geografische Toepassingen

 T +31 (0)570 666 830  ?  E dbuss...@goudappel.nl
 (aanwezig op kantoor: maandag, dinsdag en woensdag)

 Goudappel Coffeng  ?  Snipperlingsdijk 4  ?  7417 BJ Deventer  ?
 Postbus 161  ?  7400 AD Deventer  ?  The Netherlands  ?
 www.goudappel.nl
 Goudappel Coffeng BV is gevestigd in Deventer, Den Haag, Eindhoven,
 Leeuwarden en Amsterdam
 __




 From:   ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
 g.grem...@cetest.nl
 To:     OpenStreetMap NL discussion list talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
 Date:   30-08-2011 12:16
 Subject:        [OSM-talk-nl] actuele spoorkaart




 Weet iemand wie deze kaart heeft gemaakt ?
 Of iemand die iets vergelijkbaars kan maken (in opdracht ?

 Gert Gremmen
 -

 Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)
 P Before printing, think about the environment.

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




 
 Disclaimer

 De informatie opgenomen in dit bericht kan vertrouwelijk zijn en is 
 uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Indien u dit bericht onterecht 
 ontvangt, wordt u verzocht de inhoud niet te gebruiken en de afzender direct 
 te informeren door het bericht te retourneren. De afzender sluit iedere 
 aansprakelijkheid uit die voortvloeit uit elektronische verzending.
 ___
 Talk-nl mailing list
 Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

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

Even if that might be legally correct it’s not morally correct, as we actually 
CAN

trace that to persons. Hiding behind a formal legal description will

save you from persecution only. Nevertheless naming Skobbler is doing harm to 
people.

No-one should have mentioned the name Skobbler in the first place.

 

I consider this a serious lack of respect and Henks’s first mail is proof of 
naming and shaming.

 

 

Gert 

 

 

Van: Barnett, Phillip [mailto:phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk] 
Verzonden: Friday, August 26, 2011 11:23 AM
Aan: 80n
CC: talk@openstreetmap.org; Ed Avis
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler 
employees

 

 

 

 

PHILLIP BARNETT
SERVER MANAGER

200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
LONDON
WC1X 8XZ
UNITED KINGDOM
T +44 (0)20 7430 4474
F 
E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk
WWW.ITN.CO.UK
P  Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?

 



From: 80n [80n...@gmail.com]
Sent: 26 August 2011 07:25
To: Barnett, Phillip
Cc: Jim Brown; talk@openstreetmap.org; Ed Avis
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler 
employees

 

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Barnett, Phillip phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk 
wrote:


The OSMF had an obligation, under the UK data protection laws, to preserve the 
confidentiality of personal information.  It would have been a breach of 
confidence to make it public at the time. 

 

 

Not so. 

 

UK Data Protection laws exist to safeguard 'personal' data. Saying that ' there 
has been a large number of applications for OSMF membership by people who 
appear to be employees of Apple ' for instance, is perfectly in order - you are 
not releasing any 'personal data' UNLESS you also released, say, email 
addresses and names of the people, which can personally identify them, perhaps 
to back up your assertion.


Saying 'a large number of applications from CloudMade' would have been 
effectively the same as naming the members.  You'd only need to look 
herehttp://web.archive.org/web/20090524055747/http://cloudmade.com/team 
http://web.archive.org/web/20090524055747/http:/cloudmade.com/team  to have 
a pretty good idea of who was a member.  

Well, this is a sideshow to the main debate, but you are still not revealing 
personal data, merely a fact about some or all members of a group. You are 
clear to do this under the UK Data Protection Act. I can say 'Most of the 
voting population of the UK live in this country and you can cross-refer to 
the UK electoral register, for names and addresses, but that doesn't mean I've 
released the personal details of 40 million people!

 

In this instance, Cloudmade were releasing personal data. But since they're not 
under UK law,  the fact that they released their own employees names and faces 
and email addresses is presumably between them, their employees, and the US 
government. 

 


HTH 

Phillip

Please Note:

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically 
stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely 
for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you 
have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk 

Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our 
clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our 
systems.

Thank You.

image001.jpg___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD

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

Simon said:

 

Distributing data just 
because somebody on the web said it was PD has a high likelihood of
being
considered negligent.



 

 

Then distributing data because someone on the web has stated that

 is was CT/ODBL compliant is even negligent.

 

If you do not provide a set of tools or rules that a user can

handle to tests for license compatibility, you cannot even

keep him responsible for what he clicked ages ago, probably without

profound reading, let alone understanding.

 

And as in the OSM case of uploading distributed elements of data

that are often geographically unrelated by place space or source

(and often of a mixed character) stating any license compatibility will

be a risky business for an individual mapper.

 

And since OSM has a defined license contract with its  mappers, it

is much easier for a third party too to hold OSMF liable for any
breaches now

instead of the individual that made a mistake.

 

And then I do not even consider that a clicked box in combination

with a username and email as an ID does not invariably

lead to one person to be kept responsible.

 

Hope I made my point clear. not easy to explain.

 

Gert

 

Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] 
Verzonden: woensdag 24 augustus 2011 17:57
Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions
as PD

 


But probably the buck would stop with the OSMF. Distributing data just 
because somebody on the web said it was PD has a high likelihood of
being
considered negligent.

Simon

Am 24.08.2011 17:45, schrieb yar...@gmail.com: 

If you lie about your ability to PD data, you are liable for the
effects.

Whatever you do or don't sign.

- Rob.
-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl
mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl  wrote: 

Signing (clicking) the CT explicitly transfers the 
liability of the suitability to the contributor,
where declaring PD does not. 
The Board wants us to sign a contract with them.
It's not about data but about compliance.  
 
 
 
Regards,
 
Gert Gremmen, 
 
 
 
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net] 
Verzonden: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:53 PM
Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as
PD
 
There's a curious statement in the LWG minutes for 2nd August
(https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1252tt382df).
 
 Folks who have declined the new contributor terms but said their
 contributions are public
domain.
 
 There has been a suggestion that such contributions should be
 maintained in the current OSM database even after a switch to
 ODbL.
 
 A very small number of contributors have declined the new
 contributor terms and asserted that the their contributions are in
 the public domain.  This does not mean that the collective data in
 the OSM database is public domain. Their 'PD' position contradicts
 the explicit decline. Therefore the LWG takes the position that
 their contributions cannot be published under ODbL without
 acceptance of the contribut[or terms].
 
(I think the two contributors affected by this are Tim Sheerman-Chase
and
Florian Lohoff, but there may be others.)
 
I'm a little puzzled by this. Asserting that one's contributions are in
the public domain is saying, in the words of the disclaimer used on
Wikipedia and on
the OSM wiki, I grant anyone the right to use my
contributions for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such
conditions are required by law.
 
Therefore I don't see any reason why the data cannot be included in OSM.
The contributor has given a grant of all rights - not just copyright,
but
any database right or indeed other right that might exist. There is no
difference between (say) TimSC's PD data and the TIGER PD data, but
we're
not requiring the US Census Bureau to sign the terms.[1]
 
The minute says Their 'PD' position contradicts the explicit decline,
which seems to me to be true legally but not politically. There are
people who do not wish to enter into a formal agreement with OSMF, and
though I think they're mistaken, they doubtless have their own reasons.
 
What am I missing? What exactly is meant by the collective data in the
OSM database?
 
cheers
Richard
 
[1] I am diplomatically ignoring the fact that there is no proof that US
Federal data is public domain _outside_ the States ;)
 
 
 
 







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







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






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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD

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

That's right :  +1

Now we agree. !!

 

And when it comes to using BING, some 

unclear things need to be cleared up, regardless

the license that will be used, for our users to be

able to use it without risk.

If not, Big Brother Microsoft might one

day own OSM, as OSM  will be 99% based

on BING and without anything but a BLOG

(from who ?) as proof.

irony

And our founder Steve (fake or real) will

have to show his loyalty to whom ?

/irony

Gert

 

Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] 
Verzonden: woensdag 24 augustus 2011 19:40
Aan: legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions
as PD

 


Well one solution is very simple: just contribute stuff that you mapped
yourself, 
and hey presto, 99.9% of all problems vanish (including any issues with
agreeing to
the CTs).

Simon

Am 24.08.2011 19:34, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen: 

Simon said:

 

Distributing data just 
because somebody on the web said it was PD has a high likelihood of
being
considered negligent.




 

 

Then distributing data because someone on the web has stated that

 is was CT/ODBL compliant is even negligent.

 

If you do not provide a set of tools or rules that a user can

handle to tests for license compatibility, you cannot even

keep him responsible for what he clicked ages ago, probably without

profound reading, let alone understanding.

 

And as in the OSM case of uploading distributed elements of data

that are often geographically unrelated by place space or source

(and often of a mixed character) stating any license compatibility will

be a risky business for an individual mapper.

 

And since OSM has a defined license contract with its  mappers, it

is much easier for a third party too to hold OSMF liable for any
breaches now

instead of the individual that made a mistake.

 

And then I do not even consider that a clicked box in combination

with a username and email as an ID does not invariably

lead to one person to be kept responsible.

 

Hope I made my point clear. not easy to explain.

 

Gert

 

Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] 
Verzonden: woensdag 24 augustus 2011 17:57
Aan: legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions
as PD

 


But probably the buck would stop with the OSMF. Distributing data just 
because somebody on the web said it was PD has a high likelihood of
being
considered negligent.

Simon

Am 24.08.2011 17:45, schrieb yar...@gmail.com: 

If you lie about your ability to PD data, you are liable for the
effects.

Whatever you do or don't sign.

- Rob.
-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl
mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl  wrote: 

Signing (clicking) the CT explicitly transfers the 
liability of the suitability to the contributor,
where declaring PD does not. 
The Board wants us to sign a contract with them.
It's not about data but about compliance.  
 
 
 
Regards,
 
Gert Gremmen, 
 
 
 
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net] 
Verzonden: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:53 PM
Aan: legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as
PD
 
There's a curious statement in the LWG minutes for 2nd August
(https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1252tt382df).
 
 Folks who have declined the new contributor terms but said their
 contributions are public
domain.
 
 There has been a suggestion that such contributions should be
 maintained in the current OSM database even after a switch to
 ODbL.
 
 A very small number of contributors have declined the new
 contributor terms and asserted that the their contributions are in
 the public domain.  This does not mean that the collective data in
 the OSM database is public domain. Their 'PD' position contradicts
 the explicit decline. Therefore the LWG takes the position that
 their contributions cannot be published under ODbL without
 acceptance of the contribut[or terms].
 
(I think the two contributors affected by this are Tim Sheerman-Chase
and
Florian Lohoff, but there may be others.)
 
I'm a little puzzled by this. Asserting that one's contributions are in
the public domain is saying, in the words of the disclaimer used on
Wikipedia and on
the OSM wiki, I grant anyone the right to use my
contributions for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such
conditions are required by law.
 
Therefore I don't see any reason why the data cannot be included in OSM.
The contributor has given a grant of all rights - not just copyright,
but
any database right or indeed other right that might exist. There is no
difference between (say) TimSC's PD data and the TIGER PD data, but
we're
not requiring the US Census Bureau to sign the terms.[1]
 
The minute says Their 'PD' position contradicts the explicit decline,
which seems to me to be true

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

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

The discussion is not about comparing to google or Wikimapia CT.
It's not because one is bad the other should be bad alike.
is about not trusting (and thus assuring by a CT) your OSM contributors,
and about not trusting the users (by using a unnecessary restrictive
license
compared to PD) that they will use the data.
It's about a new way of thinking that I believe should go with open
data.

It's the necessity of a license that has never been discussed about.
The need for a license has always been granted, and the discussion
only is about what license.

The most thorough argument has been argument has about 
attribution that might me forgotten ( my god, how many times
does (y)our ego need to be attributed to be satisfied)
and some control freaks shouting I do not want google to steal our
data
which is complete nonsense. They already steal our data, and apologise
only when discovered. Like we steal their data in a very unsystematic
and fragmented way  (user by user , street by street , poi by poi.). 

Yes Henk, examples do not have a direct relation, they are examples only
no need to ask what the relation is, if you do not understand it, just
ignore, others do.

CC-BY-SA is well known, respected (due to the earlier), and their newest
version
includes support for data(bases) (that what I was told). OdBL is new,
unknown
and there is no reason OSM should be the first to explore a uncertain
path.
Using a wellknown and respected system enhances it's validity and
reduces the amount
of specialists that are needed to interpret it's meaning.
(But I still prefer a full CC0 or PD license situation)

The  chances of a CC-BY-SA being challenged in court are indeed much
less, I believe.

I do not know the story about the 10 virgins. May be it's like
OdBL, new and unknown ? 

The OSMF is preparing actions ?   What actions ? That is an empty phrase
(peptalk).


Regards,


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Henk Hoff [mailto:o...@toffehoff.nl] 
Verzonden: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:51 AM
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

Op 10-08-11 12:33, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen schreef:
 To all

 It's all a matter of trust.

 A) Trusting contributors and
 b) trusting the users of OSM data.

 The current policy of OSM is to trust nobody,
 and therefore OSM(F) is seeking legal certainty,
 by creating licenses and contributor terms.
Have you actually *read* the CT?
Trust nobody? The OSMF asks of its contributors that they only 
contribute stuf which they are allowed to. The OSMF promises that the 
collective will always be published with a free and open license.

Just for fun: try reading the Terms of Service of Google, to which you 
agree every time you use one of its services.
 It will probably take a long time for those
 seeking this way that it is a way without issue.

 First because legal certainty does not exist in
 a society where justice is dominated by (financial) power.
 ( see Dominique Strauss Kahn case for a recent example )
What has this to do with OSM?
 Second because the legal certainty created by
 the CT is uncertain because it is badly written, and one needs not be
 a specialist to understand that; and the use of OdBl is so
unprecedented
 that we are completely unclear if it will hold in ANY case but the
 simplest.
Do you claim that CC-BY-SA does not need a specialist to understand it?
 Third because we don't not have the financial means to maintain
 the license in even the smallest case.
Like mentioned before, we're not maintaining the license. ODbL is 
maintained by Open Data Commons, whereas the CC is maintained by 
Creative Commons. Not the OSMF.
 OSMF will probably go bankrupt on the first case against an
 fraudulent user of the data.
Are you suggesting that with sticking with CC-BY-SA we don't have such a

problem? (if we have it at all)


 You ever read the story of the emperor's new clothes ? (=read CT)
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes

I know the story. However, another story comes to mind with me. Ever 
read the parable of the ten virgins? It's about being prepared for 
what's coming.
The OSMF is taking actions needed to keep the project running for years 
to come.

 Gert


Henk

Oh, wait a minute...   In a previous message you made it perfectly clear

you don't trust me Why am I even replying 

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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

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

Thanks Simon for your constructive reply.
(contrary to those that call any confliction opinion a troll)

But the EC directive does not oblige us to license
data, it says HOW-TO in case of IF.

If we choose for no-license or just PD
(give it to the world) no directive will stop us doing that.

That is why I said: the necessity of a license has
never been subject of discussion (but for some incidental
threads).


I believe that our data will be most beneficiary to the
people of this world if our license terms are minimized
(so PD).

And at the input side (CT) we need to build trust that
the number of non-PD contributions will be neglectable.
Some may call that naïve, but the principle of open data was naïve too, once.

I strongly believe that there are tools for that
(explaining, correcting and explaining) that actually work,
contradictory to obliging innocent people to sign
an intimidating CT of which the consequences to them are unknown
(the current CT) and have not yet been tested in court an
for which we lack the financial means to really enforce them.

And No, not because wikiwhatever or Google or any other
organization does the same we need to mimic that.

And for those who say : why did you sign up for CC-BY-SA then ?

CC-BY-SA is the current situation, to be honest, 5 years ago
I did not know what CC-BY-SA meant, and we certainly did not sign
a corresponding CT at the time.

I am unbound by a CT and free and intend to stay that.

And I will never sign an agreement that legally binds me and 
puts me in a legal risky situation for things that I *give* to
OSM.
I may consider a CT for data that I provide if I was paid for it,
but I'll never put my life at risk for nothing.



Regards,

Gert Gremmen



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] 
Verzonden: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:57 AM
Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back



Am 11.08.2011 09:38, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:
 ...
 It's the necessity of a license that has never been discussed about.
 The need for a license has always been granted, and the discussion
 only is about what license.

A license is necessary because we legally need to allow our users to use 
our data,
the license could be CC0, but still a license.

Any amount of waffling will not make IPR laws go away, we simply need to 
deal
with them.



 CC-BY-SA is well known, respected (due to the earlier), and their newest
 version
 includes support for data(bases) (that what I was told). OdBL is new,
 unknown
 and there is no reason OSM should be the first to explore a uncertain
 path.
 Using a wellknown and respected system enhances it's validity and
 reduces the amount
 of specialists that are needed to interpret it's meaning.
 (But I still prefer a full CC0 or PD license situation)


They may produce a version of CC-by-SA that will include provisions for 
databases. AFAIK
we are years away from that materializing (nobody has ruled out changing 
the license in
the future to CC-by-SA X.X, that's the reason that the CTs implement a 
mechanism for doing
exactly that).

And again, no amount of waffling will make the EU database directive go 
away, we need
contributor terms and a license that take the existing IPR law situation 
in to account,
not make believe stuff.

Simon




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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

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

So by citing my e-mail without a license, you
made an infraction to my copyright,as you are actually
republishing copyrighted work 

May be we should consider your email (and this one too), as a derived
work ?

And I can sue you because, contrary to maps in dbase format
that represent the real world (facts: ok there is no consensus about
that yet)
my words are copyrighted by default.

There must be a limit to what can be considered a breach of intellectual
property !

I must admit that at least your attributed my words !

Gert

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] 
Verzonden: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:42 PM
Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back



Am 11.08.2011 12:00, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen:
 Thanks Simon for your constructive reply.
 (contrary to those that call any confliction opinion a troll)

 But the EC directive does not oblige us to license
 data, it says HOW-TO in case of IF.

 If we choose for no-license or just PD
 (give it to the world) no directive will stop us doing that.

 That is why I said: the necessity of a license has
 never been subject of discussion (but for some incidental
 threads).

The default condition is that your rights to your work of art, database 
(even
in the case of the sui generis database rights) etc. are protected. If 
you want
to allow somebody to use your work, you have to grant them the rights to
do
so, this is called a license. Even in the extreme case of essentially 
allowing
everything to be done by anybody, you still have to state this. In the
many
countries that do not have an PD equivalent, this again boils down to a
license.



 I believe that our data will be most beneficiary to the
 people of this world if our license terms are minimized
 (so PD).
So do I, but that is a completely different discussion. The compromise
between the PD and the viral share-a-like license fractions is the ODbL,
trying to undo that will -not- result in a PD OSM database.

Simon


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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

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

Simon, Robert,

That (see below) cannot be completely true then, as if it were, we could
copy
from Google as we like, as long as we do attribute.

I see no difference in re-publishing text, as in our email lists
and the database, properly citing Google as source.

You will probably say then that Google's license prohibits that use
-even when attributing- and then I come back to my (much earlier) 
statement that licenses are there to restrict free use of data, not to
allow.

At the time the whole community jumped on my back ! (is that correct ?)
stating that license are to allow proper use, not to prevent use.

Anyway, if default IP right allows for citing when attributing, why
do our users need to agree to a ODBL license ?

Is there anything more that we like them to comply with ?


 There must be a limit to what can be considered a breach of
intellectual
 property !

True, and that's what CTs and a license are for!
That is not enough for an answer !



Gert



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Robert Kaiser [mailto:ka...@kairo.at] 
Verzonden: Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:28 PM
Aan: legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen schrieb:
 So by citing my e-mail without a license, you
 made an infraction to my copyright,as you are actually
 republishing copyrighted work

No, only if it wasn't properly cited, as (AFAIK) most IP laws require 
you to point out who is the author unless the author states otherwise. 
There is no infringement if you state who owns the copyright over what 
you republish - the actual reason for creating copyright in the first 
place was to make sure proper attribution is given.

 May be we should consider your email (and this one too), as a derived
 work ?

That it would be, AFAIK, yes.

 There must be a limit to what can be considered a breach of
intellectual
 property !

True, and that's what CTs and a license are for!

BTW, if you would want to change OSM to be PD, you probably would need 
to wipe the map clean and restart from scratch, as most contributors 
want an attribution to the project at least - and that's what's not 
guaranteed with current CC-BY-SA due to not applying for databases 
appropriately in some jurisdictions.

Robert Kaiser


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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

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

It's OSM that obliges users to contribute CC-BY-SA
and it's OSM that obliges users to contribute ODBL.

But many of us want to contribute PD and do not want
to comply with any CT at all. PD data does not need a
complicated and binding CT as the current one.

And the current situation is not possible to contribute PD data
at all.

So the situation would have been much improved if there
were a sign up as PD user with a very simple PD-CT.

Gert



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frede...@remote.org] 
Verzonden: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:15 AM
Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

Hi,

On 08/10/11 08:38, Stephan Knauss wrote:
 You're wrong with this. At least in the country I'm most active the
 transition to ODbL ready data is making huge progress. And it's not
 someone else's benefit, but a benefit for the whole community.

I, too, am positively surprised by the speed and diligence with which 
mappers all over the place are working towards getting ready for the big

switch. Most had held back initially to give people a chance to 
reconsider, but now things are really moving, and with a very positive 
attitude at that - it's not grumble grumble grumble why do we have to 
do this but we're doing our part to put OSM on a solid legal footing, 
cleaning up behind those whom we couldn't persuade.

For this, it is obviously very important *not* to allow any further 
CC-BY-SA contributions as those would give people a sense of fighting 
against windmills.

Everyone is working to bring the amount of non-relicensable 
contributions down to zero; adding more non-relicensable contributions 
would not only pull the rope in the other direction, it would also ruin 
the spirits of everyone working to fix things.

Bye
Frederik


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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

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

To all

It's all a matter of trust.

A) Trusting contributors and 
b) trusting the users of OSM data. 

The current policy of OSM is to trust nobody,
and therefore OSM(F) is seeking legal certainty, 
by creating licenses and contributor terms.

It will probably take a long time for those
seeking this way that it is a way without issue.

First because legal certainty does not exist in
a society where justice is dominated by (financial) power.
( see Dominique Strauss Kahn case for a recent example )
Second because the legal certainty created by
the CT is uncertain because it is badly written, and one needs not be
a specialist to understand that; and the use of OdBl is so unprecedented
that we are completely unclear if it will hold in ANY case but the
simplest.
Third because we don't not have the financial means to maintain
the license in even the smallest case.
OSMF will probably go bankrupt on the first case against an 
fraudulent user of the data.

You ever read the story of the emperor's new clothes ? (=read CT)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes


That is what comes to mind if we look at OSM legal position.
And that is how the whole world is looking at us (if
they actually do matter to look)

I a world where legal certainty dominates trust, justice
is far away, and that is what's happening now.


Gert


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] 
Verzonden: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:43 AM
Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

Am 10.08.2011 11:29, schrieb Nic Roets:
 On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:50 AM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
 Gremmeng.grem...@cetest.nl  wrote:
 PD data does not need a
 complicated and binding CT as the current one.
 True. But PD is forward compatible with the CTs. For example, we did
 not need to ask the upstream authors of TIGER to accept the CTs.
That is naturally the case because we have a well known source and 
formal reasons
to be very sure that the data is actually really PD in the case of the 
TIGER data.

In the case of an individual mappers contribution we have a very 
different situation
where essentially we would need the same level of agreement as the 
current CTs.

Simon



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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing

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

What is worrying me is that the LWG (=OSMF=COMMUNITY)
requires any contributor (us) to sign up using a CT,
where  BING can get away with a simple blog page.

I *can* understand that, because it's not OSM that is addressed
in this blog, but the individuals (us) making contributions.

The permission to use BING imagery is given to us in a vague
blog entry on the page below.
http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-
maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx

We had better print this page and keep it's URL firmly !


In order to safeguard the OSM community, I want to suggest
that the LWG pays as much attention to BING complying with our CT
as to the us (=community)
and demand a firm license addressing each OSM user, signed up
to OSM to ensure it's legal position for the time he is using BING !

As I see it now, this blog is of no legal value, and any user
might be sued for license violation. Not to speak about the
consequences once BING imagery based data needs to be removed.


The fact that Steve Coast actually pays his home with BINGS
salary, does not create much of an insurance to us.

Giant companies as Google and Microsoft are known to change
their opinions fast as soon as their interest changes and no-one
is there to protect us when things go wrong. 

GEODATA is a big business and I would not be surprised
if MS one day decides that OSM is theirs, due to more
then a substantial part is based on BING imagery, without
sufficient legal foundation. 
I trust MS to have the legal force to make sure it takes
less than a week to accomplish that.


Gert

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
 The official Bing blog:

http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-
maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx
 published by Brian Hendricks - Bing Maps Product Manager

Oh, yes. That's right. I don't think it's perfect, but better than
nothing. I think it could have been handled better at Microsoft's end
though, i.e. directly posting the Terms PDF.

 But even if it is and can be proved to be authentic, unless Microsoft
 also state that OSM has permission to license traced data it out to
 others as CC-BY-SA, simply saying yes you can trace and upload to OSM
 isn't enough in my opinion. As this would be a license specific to
 OSM, and wouldn't allow others who use OSM data to use the bing data.


 The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing
 license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.)
 The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the
 condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM.

I can see that the assumption of tracing aerial photography to create
a vector representation of the data is creating an entirely new work
is potentially problematic. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that
you would want the copyright holder to state that they disclaim any
copyright on such traced data just to be sure. Just take a look at
this case as an example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster#Origin_and_c
opyright_issues

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Paden Scheveningse Bosjes

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

Is het niet simpeler die paar paadjes even recht te maken ?
Kwartiertje werk voor iemand in JOSM 

Gert

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Maarten Deen [mailto:md...@xs4all.nl] 
Verzonden: maandag 11 juli 2011 18:52
Aan: OpenStreetMap NL discussion list
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Paden Scheveningse Bosjes

On 11-7-2011 15:44, Frank Fesevur wrote:
 Ik heb inmiddels een antwoord. Hij had diverse POI's toegevoegd, maar
 de wijzingen van de paden was niet de bedoeling. Ik heb ook de xml van
 zijn changeset bekeken (download-link onderaan changeset pagina)  en
 er staan inderdaad best veel POIs in. Het zou waarschijnlijk fijn zijn
 om die te behouden.

 Ik neem aan dat ik met de revert changeset plugin in JOSM de boel
 ongedaan kan maken, maar hoe krijg ik dan die POIs weer terug? Is dat
 handwerk (dan vrees ik dat ook die info zal verdwijnen) of is er wat
 slimmers te bedenken.

Als je de POI's kopieert naar een nieuw OSM bestand, krijgen ze dan een 
nieuw (negatief) id? Want dan is het simpel.
Anders zul je bij uploaden waarschijnlijk voor elk item een conflict 
krijgen, en dan kan het een beetje langdradig worden.

Maarten

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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

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

So there won't be a problem if on day X the version of John Smith will 
be removed from the database and on day X+2 I would enter one of the 
versions I've shown, right?


Right, under the assumption both cannot be copyrighted,
not even under OdBL, being *fact*.

If they *are* copyrighted, no you cannot replace one by the other.



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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

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

On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 02:18:46 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst wrote:
 Maarten Deen wrote:
 Turn restrictions, maximum speeds, oneway streets, even the value
 of the highway tag is not a geographical fact.

 Sure they are.

 If I walk about 20 yards from my front door, there's a no entry 
 sign at a
 certain lat/long. If I walk a bit further along, facing the other 
 way,
 there's a one way sign at another lat/long. From those two 
 geographical
 facts[1], I can deduce that a particular road is oneway. Therefore I 
 tagged
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/1058809 with oneway=yes.

 Same goes for turn restrictions, maximum speeds, and certainly over 
 here,
 highway tags. The one major exception in the OSM database is 
 administrative
 boundaries.

IMHO that's stretching the geographic bit very far. Sure, the fact 
that there is a sign is a geographic fact, but the fact that that 
signifies something for the road or object that's there is just 
convention.
And highway value is certainly not geographic. There is nothing about 
the location or presence of a road that makes it motorway or 
tertiary. That is only because it is designated as such. That 
designation can change anytime, but by doing so you don't change the 
geography of the place.

--
[GG] But these are facts, this copyright discussion is not about 
geographic facts only, and no list of facts can be copyrighted,
just the method of organization of facts can be copyrighted.

The discussion is also about if the inevitable limitation/deviation from
reality
(be it geographic or nomenclatural or other facts), that a geodatabase 
such as OSM  represents, can be characterized as creative work.

My opinion is that as we are not intentionally deviating from reality
with the intent of being creative, it cannot be a creative work and so
not
be copyrighted. This has been supported by a number of courts in
4-5 countries among Austria (and I think Netherlands, not sure)

Some of us think that any human activity on data results in 
creative work that can be copyrighted.

Note that this is just about the database, not about the resulting
tiles or printed maps.


Regards
Gert

Regards,
Maarten


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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

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

+1

 

Frederik has not shown much respect for any argument

nor to anyone that disagrees with the future commercialisation

of OSM. (with that I means making OSM optimally fit for commercial use;

disregarding the open principles that OSM started with: 

leaving out the Share Alike principle)

 

I think this discussion about copyright  is really valuable, seen from
the perspective of

copyright laws around the world, and the ongoing legal differentiation

between databases filled with facts and those filled with creative
works, 

where the latter are supposed copyrightable and the earlier are not.

Legal discusiions are going on everywhere in the world, and are
supported by

legal cases in several places around the world confirming the
distinciton between factual databases

(of which the content is not copyrightable) and creative databases
(copyrightble).

 

John thinks different about this then I, though we both support
continuing

the CC-BY-SA forks, that I believe will change into PD one day due to
the above

legal interpretations. FOSM will not have deleted the data the OSM will
at that time.

 

Frederik, I believe it is way below your professional level to respond
like this.

Anyone is free to spend its time discusiing this issues, and ignoring it
will

not make them diasappear.  If international copyrigth laws will change
as i

expect, OSM be better prepared, and not be surprised.

 

Simon, stop scratching frederiks back. no need to apologise.

 

 

 

Gert

cetest @ fosm.org

 

Van: 80n [mailto:80n...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: Thursday, July 07, 2011 9:36 AM
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

 

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
wrote:

Simon,
Andreas,
all,

  when discussing these things with the person who goes by the pseudonym
of John Smith, keep in mind that he is spending a lot of time
building/supporting an OpenStreetMap fork.

The forkers, as I like to call them, are driven by all kinds of
motivations, the most benign probably being a sincere worry about data
loss - they believe that the license change is going to hurt OSM so much
that they must do all they can do retain a live copy of the old OSM,
or even dissuade OSMF from changing altogether.


Frederik,
I'm sure you've been paying attention an know full well that the reason
fosm.org exists is because we have grave concerns about the new license.
The only thing we are forking is the license, we are not forking the
tagging scheme or the community or even the objectives of OSM.

Data loss is your problem not ours.  I see people doing thought
experiments about how they can get around the wishes of contributors who
have, in good faith, provided their content under the CC license.  Those
people who have not agreed to the CT have not consented for their
content to be used in any other way.  You should respect that.

A main objective of OSM was to create maps that were free enough to be
used by everyone.  Anything that steps across the line will taint OSM
with the impurity that we strived for so long to avoid.  

There will forever be doubt about the provenance of OSM data.  

80n

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

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

+1



Gert

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: donderdag 7 juli 2011 19:55
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

On 7 July 2011 21:49, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net
wrote:
 But that doesn't mean that their content won't show up in a future
ODBL
 map. I've noticed that John Smith doesn't want to answer my question,
but
 perhaps you would: How far away do I have to move a node or a way so
that
 you don't consider it yours (assuming that I would trace it from a
legal
 imagery source or based on GPS tracks)? 50cm, 1m, 2m? More, less?

How many words do I have to change in a short poem until the poem is
no longer considered the original, but my own?

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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

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

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 9:17 PM
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

On 6 July 2011 02:49, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
 I doubt if any effort in re-creating a map database of the real world
 can be classified as creative work,
 as the mapper inevitably tries to copy reality to the best of his
 effort, and any deviation is just imperfection
 and corrected once the right information is available.

We aren't for the most part trying to make raster images of aerial
imagery, so there is a lot of creativity that goes into making
interpretations of the real world.

[GG] Involuntary creativity then !

 I never met a OSM mapper saying he is using his creativity to create
 an original view of the world. Its not just a lack in precision and
 perfection that
 makes a work creative, the creator must also have the intention to add
 something
 of himself.

In terms of copyright this doesn't matter, just like if you write a
few lines of whatever, you automatically receive copyright on your
work.

[GG] I was not talking about copyright. Copyright laws are of no use
in the digital era,
their application is too large and too wide, and information can be
copied without loss.
The application of copyright law is expensive and full of pitfalls.
See what happens with movies and mp3 on P2P networks.
These are outdated legal texts, and have to be redefined.

 In creating tiles the map I agree. Not in creating a database.

In terms of copyright, it doesn't matter how a map is stored or how it
is displayed, it's the act of making it that matters and because there
is human involvement that's all that matters.

[GG] Is that true ???  

I would reformulate that as follows:

In terms of copyright, it doesn't matter how a map is stored or how it
is displayed, it's the act of human coordinated creativity that
matters.

Not the mere fact that there are humans involved makes it copyrighted.


I think you agree with me that software is copyrighted due to the
algorithms implemented,  a proof of effort and creativity.
It's not the output of the software that is copyrighted by the writer
of the software, but the source code. The output can be copyrighted,
if created by copyrighted input.

OSM is the same. We have a set of algorithms and 200K+ human CPUs that
as
execute the algorithm defined by the community. Nothing creative there
but the algorithms. Its not the output that is copyrightable.
The input is the real world, be it by sometimes using media (bing) 
that are copyrighted as a picture, not the information it is providing.
Just like art photography , you cannot copyright Marilyn Monroe on a 
picture, but it's the composition, exposure time, color balance, moment
the picture was taken etc. BUT NOT THE PROPERTIES OF THE SUBJECT.

You may conclude she is blond and has big tits without infringement
of copyright. 

That is what we do with BING images.

Gert

 


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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

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

You need to consider and to apply due diligence.
A deleted road/way/node is deleted, and by fiddling
around with its properties, nodes or ways, you won't
change its legal status.

If you need to preserve a name of street (as an example)
that you observed yourself withing the license CT conditions
you need to link the name to other map objects that comply with
the license and ct.

So: I once noted a road from node xxx to yyy (both compliant nodes)
and its name was observed name; I have not the slightest idea how it
routed, but I know the name (and other properties), because .
(CT and LICENCE compatible proof inserted).

From these written observations, you may apply
this name again to a new captured road that replaces the deleted road.



Regards,

 Gert Gremmen, 





-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Andreas Perstinger [mailto:andreas.perstin...@gmx.net] 
Verzonden: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 3:05 PM
Aan: legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

John Smith deltafoxtrot256@... writes:
 On 5 July 2011 05:42, Jaakko Helleranta.com jaakko@... wrote:
  But nevertheless _I_ would say that copyright/IPR-wise there's 0%
left of
  anything protectable if (1) someone's e.g. traced a road from
imagery, but
  has only marked it with, say, highway=road (meaning he states that
he has no
  clue of what kind of road/path/track/river?/ditch/wall/other it is)
and then
 
 I agree with this only if you could give the same source of data to 10
 different people and get the same result each time, for most roads
 there is some creativity that goes into selecting where to place
 nodes, which is recognised by most countries since making makes is
 deemed a creative enterprise.

What do you consider as same result? How far away do I have to place a
node?
If I put one additional node into the way or remove one, is that enough?

Bye, Andreas


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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

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

What's wrong with asking everyone AGAIN ?
If something is wrong, then it cannot be difficult to correct.
If a youg organization as OSM is not flexible, who the hell on earth IS ?
Or even better, let the community choose what CT/LICENSE is best.
Email is free, and a voting webtool is available (almost)!!!
Tims webpage lets us choose from a number of license alternatives.
(http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/ )
Add some slighty better elaborated  explanations, and anyone will be able to
understand the consequences of his/her vote.
Much better then to be let the choice  of accept the current CT
or your contributions will be deleted.
As a bonus it may even restore the  community
and you OSMF , LWG and Sysadmins may get the ODBL as well.

Gert



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frede...@remote.org] 
Verzonden: woensdag 29 juni 2011 20:00
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

Hi,

Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
 I once made a constructive proposal for one potential way to fix the problem, 
 which was met both with well-grounded criticism and with personal attacks. 

Care to point out the latter?

If I were to say that I'm beginning to think you must have a very skewed 
definition of personal attack, would that count as a personal attack ;)?

 Hardly anyone of the people who criticised my suggestion have made any 
 efforts 
 to seriously work towards alternative solutions to the problem,

I raised the concern that any change in contributor terms would be next 
to unworkable because one would have to ask everyone AGAIN to agree to 
the new terms. As long as this question is unresolved, working towards 
any change in the CTs would probably be considered moot by many.

So before we discuss if better CTs are possible and how they would look 
like, we should determine what flexibility we have, if any.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09 E008°23'33

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] wandelroute

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

Ik denk dat je beter af bent met josm dan potlatch...

voor het editen van relaties

 

Gert

 

Van: TheoV [mailto:urbanci...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: woensdag 29 juni 2011 17:56
Aan: OpenStreetMap NL discussion list
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] wandelroute

 

Ok, ik heb het teruggezet naar =tertiary;

maar dan zie ik geen mogelijkheid in Potlatch om bij tabblad walking een
route te kiezen.

een mogelijkheid die wel wordt gegeven bij =track.

dus gelijktijdig een highway en een wandelpad: kan dat? hoe doe ik dat
in Potlatch?

via het tabblad cycle zie je dat de LF21 en een regionale route wel aan
diezelfde asfaltweg gerelateerd zijn.

 

Theo

 

Op 29 juni 2011 15:04 schreef Floris Looijesteijn o...@floris.nu het
volgende:

Hoi Theo,

Jij hebt van de weg een highway=track gemaakt, terwijl het gewoon een
highway=tertiary moet blijven.
Je hebt de route ingevoerd als relatie, volgens mij is dat voldoende.

Hier is de history van de weg:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/6588201/history

Draai je het zelf terug?

Groet,
Floris

2011/6/29 TheoV urbanci...@gmail.com:

 hoi,
 Ik loop een wandelroute LAW (nu de Havezatenroute);
 Heb pas de Zuiderzeeroute (LAW8) gelopen en wil de route in OSM
opnemen.
 Even geprobeeerd bij de IJsselmeerdijk in Warder NH;
 Probleem is dat de asfaltweg daarna als een stippellijn gepresenteerd
wordt.
 Wat doe ik niet goed?

 TheoV

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



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

 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Multiple versions of same node in changeset

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

fun?
Maybe each node had its own license ?
/fun?

gert

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Nathan Edgars II [mailto:nerou...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 25 juni 2011 20:18
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Multiple versions of same node in changeset


Shaun McDonald wrote:
 
 In this case it looks as though the user has been moving the bus stop
and
 then hitting the save button multiple times. (Potlatch2 will not
 automatically save and requires the user to choose when to save).
 

I suspect he was seeing if and how it renders. Naughty :)

--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Multiple-versions-of-same-node-in-change
set-tp6515184p6515418.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
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] Flash cookies

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

I do not have the (dutch) law at hand, do you?, but I believed this
was for tracking cookies and third party cookies only.
I suppose that the full implementation of this
directive/law requires browser interaction and ultimately
intervention by MS/Google/Mozilla and others.


Firefox has a number of privacy options for standard cookies
and a number of plug-ins about cookies and notable a simple one for
flash cookies. It deletes flash cookies on exit of the browser. 
While this might not be in line with the law exactly, it fulfils
the function for most user, unless you let your browser open all the time. 

So probably the cooky used by potlact are not so much a concern,
as long as it's function is notified (site? / Help? / popup?)
to the user.

I suggest that Openstreet add a tab regarding privacy of it's users
where these types of things are mentioned. 

Gert Gremmen
-

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)
 Before printing, think about the environment. 



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Martijn van Oosterhout [mailto:klep...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: Thursday, June 23, 2011 8:32 AM
Aan: Steve Bennett
CC: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Flash cookies

On 23 June 2011 03:55, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Markus Lindholm
 markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote:
 But there's no need to store them on the client, as all users have to
 log in the preferences can be stored server-side. Atleast I throw away
 all cookies when I close the browser.

 So out of curiosity, the proposed law says it's ok to store user
 preferences server side, but not in the browser? That doesn't make any
 sense at all, from a privacy perspective.

Not exactly. What the proposal says is that you need to tell people
you're using a cookie and why you're using it and presumably let them
know they can opt out. At which point you can probably tell them that
they'll just get the default settings every time. You only need to ask
them once. (though how you're going to track that without a cookie I
have no idea).

When you store data about a person on the server you're also supposed
to tell the user you're doing that and allow them to view/delete it.

This new proposal is the kind of law you get when you let people who
know little about technology decide things. They somehow got the idea
that only advertisers use cookies, and they use them to track
people

Mvg,
-- 
Martijn van Oosterhout klep...@gmail.com http://svana.org/kleptog/

___
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] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.

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

But I do feel slightly uncomfortable that my edits, which I've now agreed 
should be licensed under ODbL, can currently be used by fosm to build a 
CC-by-SA competitor project which aims to divide our community.


The community has always been clear that the continuation of OSM
with with a new ODBL is a legal way of forking the project.
Just as legal as continuing OSM with CC-BY-SA. After all
planet dumps have been made available for that, as well as diffs. That
is also a majority decision. 

The rotten thing here is that the ODBL fork has hijacked the domain name and
servers, because of  mainly because a majority let them do it.

So I feel it very unfair to call the continuation of OSM under CC-BY_SA, 
in additon of being obliged to seek new resources (servers ,domain name and 
community)
are called a competitor with the aim of dividing the community.

That is an odd way of saying the the majority is always right, and if wrong
they are right anyway !  And history has shown us and shows us every day
again where that opinon can lead to.




Regards,

Ing.  Gert Gremmen, BSc



g.grem...@cetest.nl
www.cetest.nl

Kiotoweg 363
3047 BG Rotterdam
T 31(0)104152426
F 31(0)104154953

 Before printing, think about the environment. 



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Graham Stewart (GrahamS) [mailto:gra...@dalmuti.net] 
Verzonden: Thursday, June 23, 2011 2:20 PM
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's 
disadvantaged, pls.


Frederik Ramm wrote:
 
 Legal subtleties are best discussed on legal-talk. If you care to make 
 your suggestion there, I'd be willing to point out why it doesn't work ;)
 

Fair enough Frederik, if it's a legal subtlety then I probably don't want to
know! :)

But I do feel slightly uncomfortable that my edits, which I've now agreed
should be licensed under ODbL, can currently be used by fosm to build a
CC-by-SA competitor project which aims to divide our community.

80n is correct when he said:

80n wrote:
 
 From here on in, OSM loses ground against fosm.org.  The mass deletions in
 OSM (if they ever happen) will put OSM further behind.
 

But only because fosm can currently stay in sync with OSM and still claim
CC-by-SA on updates that are made under the new CTs by contributors that
agree with the move to ODbL.

--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6508098.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
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] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.

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

@Eugene

Please do not extend the discussion with incompatible examples.
My example fits exactly the description of what is called
forking:
Try 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29  
http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToFork

@Graham,
My reaction was just against the accusation of dividing the community
and create a competitor. Forking is a fundamental right in Open Stuff,
and therefore not te be criticized in the way you do.

The fact is  that FOSM.ORG look more like OSM  then OSM , as the latter
excluded communitymembers that won't accept a majority choice.
OSM voluntarily and willfully took the risk that some of us
might start a fork. 
One of the founding piles under Open Software and Open Data.
OSM has the right to change their license, especially when based
on a majority acceptance (not to be called a vote) but the *changing
party* is the
fork, not the continuing half. End the fork took the assets  boooh

Gert


On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
 The rotten thing here is that the ODBL fork has hijacked the domain
name and
 servers, because of  mainly because a majority let them do it.

 So I feel it very unfair to call the continuation of OSM under
CC-BY_SA,
 in additon of being obliged to seek new resources (servers ,domain
name and community)
 are called a competitor with the aim of dividing the community.

Uh huh. So I suppose if there were a successful plebiscite in a
country wanting to change their form of government from presidential
to parliamentary (or vice versa) then that's a rotten thing unless the
winning side leaves the territory to the losing side and create a new
country with a new name?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

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

You do realize that there are thousands of people reading this list, from
all around the world? Please contact LWG in private or at least move to
legal-talk@, where all trolls go. Thank you.

Legal-talk = troll  ??  : this guy/gall *is* funny !!

Gert Gremmen
-

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)
 Before printing, think about the environment. 


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Ilya Zverev [mailto:zve...@textual.ru] 
Verzonden: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 1:26 PM
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual



[GG] 
IZ

___
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] Flash cookies

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

I discovered that openstreetmap.org  stores

(flash) cookies on our computers.

 

Since recently  was decided that in NL 

cookies are subject to explicit permission of

the users, I'd think that Openstreetmap provides

information on what information and settings are

actually used by OSM.

 

If you want to check the settings for your computer

regarding flash cookies, look here:

 

http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/sett
ings_manager09.html

 

And that is the information released by Macromedia/Adobe only.

 

 

Gert Gremmen

-

 

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)

P Before printing, think about the environment. 

 

image001.gif___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

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

trolling ON
Stop harassing the poor guys of the LWG.
They are just volonteers carrying out orders of the OSMF.
And after all:  99.99 % of our community
was not addressed. 
And  those who were addressed ...i tiny minority... who cares...
they won't bother us no more 
trolling off

Gert

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: TimSC [mailto:mappingli...@sheerman-chase.org.uk] 
Verzonden: maandag 20 juni 2011 18:47
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

On 20/06/11 16:33, Steve Coast wrote:
 I think the LWG is more than well aware that they are imperfect human 
 beings volunteering in a horrible environment to make things better.
So, can you point to where LWG itself has explicitly asked for help? Or 
recognised it's difficulties with communication in writing? Perhaps we 
need a request for help page on the wiki? It would be good to have them 
ask for specific types of help because people with those skills can step

forward.


 I'd take a long look at how you have sucked up the LWGs time, Tim, 
 before you make these kinds of statements.
Steve, can you stop changing the subject on to me? It's ad hominem and a

violation of etiquette. And it is off topic and doesn't assume good 
faith. Do you understand what I am asking, as you keep doing it even 
when I ask you to stop?

Everything I have done, I have done in good faith. I shouldn't have to 
defend myself on every thread. (And Steve, if you want to talk about 
this seriously, try constructively responding to my email to the LWG on 
15th June first. Continued discussion on this probably should be off the

mailing list.)

On 20/06/11 16:39, Chris Hill wrote:
 Maybe part of the reason that these volunteers are working too hard is

 because some people demand individual attention. Imagine if everyone 
 made their own demands of the LWG ...

Are you seriously saying that a handful of people directly talking to 
the LWG is a significant factor in LWG having communication 
difficulties? Or is this just another ad hominem? Is there a 
constructive solution to this? or are you telling me to shut up?

It seems to me the same issues come up again and again, but never 
concluded, so it is not necessarily the fault of the person asking the 
question (or even of the LWG). I suggest that people directly trying to 
communicate with the LWG is a symptom and not a cause of the 
communication problem.

Of course the LWG has a tough job, because legal issues are very hard to

resolve and I have never denied that. But the solution is not to blame 
me or LWG but to actually try to solve the problems. So stop pointing 
fingers, please.

Perhaps if we can reduce the barriers to people helping OSM it would 
help. We obviously do this in mapping with friendlier tools. But I am 
told we talk people that can do sys admin tasks and get involved with 
the LWG (and probably many other things I don't know about). This might 
be due to the selection of pretty obscure prerequisites to get involved:

ruby on rails in development (I have never met a RoR developer in 
person, at least knowingly), and being familiar with the background of 
ODbL (which most normal legal professionals can't understand, unless 
they are specialists). I suggest as many tasks as possible be moved into

domains were people actually have the skills to help out. (This might be

a lame idea but at least I am trying to be constructive.)

Regards,

TimSC


___
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-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

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

+1 anyway

I just wanted to make clear that our current data
is submitted under CC-BY-SA (at least our community members declares so)
but there is absolutely no prove that the data submitted
can be CC-BY-SA.

I just want to say that copyright is not just something you
can declare or deny in ordinary mapmaking, let alone
once is becomes a database and/or mixed with times.

The discussions on this list become theoretically beyond a level
an ordinary lawyer can understand, let-alone us.

Gert

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: zondag 19 juni 2011 6:59
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com
regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 19 June 2011 03:40, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
 What if Betty changes country and decides to reside in France -before-
 publicating
 her tiles on a server located in the Bahama's   and claiming CC0
 ;)

It's silly because some people injected a silly argument into it, but
it would seem that ODBL opens up some pretty big loop holes that
CC-by-SA doesn't, and we've been told time after time about how much
better it is, CC-by-SA is working just fine, but ODBL won't.

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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

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

Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into
ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa.

If you are legally sure and prove that they were cc-by-sa in the first
place. ;))
This copyright stuff for soft - ware (not software) is a can of worms
that will
kill the project in the end.
This discussion is turning completely silly.
What if Betty changes country and decides to reside in France -before-
publicating
her tiles on a server located in the Bahama's   and claiming CC0
;)

Gert


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 18 juni 2011 12:36
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com
regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 18 June 2011 20:26, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
 Is this similar?:

 Andy, in Australia, contributes CC-By or CC-By-SA data to CC-By-SA
 OpenStreetMap.  Perhaps the data is Australian boundaries or
 something.
 Betty, in UK, creates CC-By-SA tiles that include that boundary data.
 Chuck, in USA, creates vectors from those tiles and later contributes
 them to OSM under CC-By-SA and CT/ODbL.

 All fair here?  How would it change if Betty were in USA as well?

Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into
ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa.

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

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

[OSM-talk] Question for the community

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

If I declare that all my contributions from 19-06-2011 on will

be published as PD, will that prevent the community from

blocking my  account ?

 

 

Gert Gremmen

-

 

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)

P Before printing, think about the environment. 

 

image001.gif___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] ODbL fase 4 aanstaande zondag

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

Andre schreef:

Google als fork van OSM - jazeker willen we dat! Maar dan wel Google als fork 
van OSM _onder een vrije licentie_. Geen Google die alle data van OSM pakt, 
er een (c) Google opplakt, en vervolgens de data gaat zitten verbeteren. Dan 
is OSM _niet_ beter, want OSM moet het met OSM doen, en Google met Google + 
OSM.

Stel dat ze dat waar kunnen maken op langere termijn (Google + OSM  OSM)
Dat zou toch prima zijn  ?  Nog een betere wereldkaart voor de google consumer 
en  
OSM verliest niks in dit scenario. Vanwaar die eindeloze afgunst, en
aan de andere kant wel de diensten van Google gebruiken (docs, cloud, android, 
search) ?
Voor Haiti en ook andere projecten kregen we gratis 15 cm luchtfoto's van 
Google.
Dacht je dat ze daar bij google zitten te wachten op onze  gammele data ?
Ja hier en daar is het best OK, maar over de hele linie is OSM maar heel matig.
Zelfs in NL. Ik vond vorige week nog wegen in Voorne-Putten die helemaal niet 
bestaan.
Kijk ook eens naar de indeling tertair/secondair/primair in brabant of zeeland.
Er zit totaal geen structuur of logica in.
OSMN is nog steeds een Hobbyproject op Hobbyniveau, en dat is de werkelijke 
reden
dat bedrijven en instellingen terughoudend zijn, niet die licentie.
Je ziet dat zelfs de overheid alleen met OSM in zee wil (zie fietsplanners van 
goudappel)
als er een stevige commerciële buffer tussen zit.
OSMF zou zich bezig moeten houden met instrumenten om de datakwaliteit te 
verbeteren
en niet met haar ego.


Gert





Gert Gremmen
-

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)
 Before printing, think about the environment. 



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Andre Engels [mailto:andreeng...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: Saturday, June 18, 2011 10:35 AM
Aan: OpenStreetMap NL discussion list
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] ODbL fase 4 aanstaande zondag

2011/6/18 ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl:

 De domste paragraaf is nog wel:

 We would like to avoid someone like Google loading the whole of OSM into
 their Map Maker system, where Google then lay claim to any further
 improvements made by users. It is ok for them to load OSM, but improvements
 must then be shared back. In such a case, Google would be required to
 distribute the rendered tiles under CC BY-SA, but they would be free to
 continue to use and improve the data without releasing it.

 This is a case which the community does not want to happen, yet it may be
 possible under CC BY-SA.



 Dit is juist wél wat we willen.  Google als een FORK van OSM.

 Eeuwige roem zou ons deel zijn, en OSM blijft beter want wij hebben

 de users en niet google.

Google als fork van OSM - jazeker willen we dat! Maar dan wel Google
als fork van OSM _onder een vrije licentie_. Geen Google die alle data
van OSM pakt, er een (c) Google opplakt, en vervolgens de data gaat
zitten verbeteren. Dan is OSM _niet_ beter, want OSM moet het met OSM
doen, en Google met Google + OSM.

 En  Henk, dat geeft nog geen argument waarom commerciële

 gebruikers problemen hebben met onze huidige situatie.



 Ik verwachtte argumenten van de deelnemers aan die business conferentie in
 de trant

 van “wij willen geen SA”of “als we iets toevoegen

 dan mag iedereen dat inpikken” of andere

 met OPEN DATA incompatible argumenten.

Stel, ik neem een kaart van OSM, en ik plaats daarop daar waar mijn
bedrijf is mijn logo om mensen erheen te leiden. Onder CC-BY-SA heb ik
daarmee meteen mijn logo vrijgegeven, en dat zou ik wel eens niet
willen. Onder ODB heb ik daarmee alleen de locatie vrijgegeven waar ik
mijn logo heb neergezet, en daar heb ik vast minder problemen mee.

 Een iedereen die de data kaapt, kaapt alleen

 een (oude) kopie, en niet de community.

 En het was toch juist de bedoeling om de

 OSM data zoveel mogelijk (her)gebruikt te krijgen ?

 En wij blijven toch de source ?



 Wat kan een kaper doen dat wij niet willen aanmoedigen ?

De data nemen, er eigen data aan toevoegen, en vervolgens het
resultaat publiceren _zonder de nieuwe data ook open data te maken_.

Wat ik echt een probleem vind aan je argumenten, is dat je de
verandering van twee kanten lijkt aan te vallen. Waar de ODBL
beperkingen oplegt, zeg je OSM data zou vrij bruikbaar moeten zijn,
als mensen beperkt worden in hun gebruik is dat slecht. Waar de ODBL
geen beperkingen oplegt en CC-BY-SA wel zeg je Commerciële gebruikers
moeten zich maar aanpassen, en als ze dat niet willen, hebben ze
pech. Wat is het nu, wil je open data in de zin van publiek domein,
waar iedereen mee kan doen waar hij zin in heeft, of wil je open data
in de zin van een licentie, waar ook na hergebruik, wijziging of
aanvulling de data nog vrij is. Beide zijn bona fide opties, maar je
zult wel moeten kiezen.

Ik ben ook een voorstander van PD. Maar ik denk dat de switch van
CC-BY-SA naar ODBL een vooruitgang is, niet een achteruitgang. Een
vooruitgang, omdat we de gewone gebruiker van OSM nu in staat stellen
de

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

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

The CT/License Vote was IMHO not meant to be a serious democratic
process. Instead a majority was searched for a OSMF decision:
cynism on
like non anonymous voting for a single party in some countries
where your lose your job if voting against -fill in your favorite dictator-
cynism off
As long as the majority is massive, the result needs not to
be validated, although theoretically this voting system
is very subject to manipulation as it is.
Note that I do not accuse ANYONE of manipulation at all.
But  the voting process as carried out -while probably well 
representing a majority in favor of CT/ODBL- deserves
understatement on
no beauty price for democratic quality 
understatement off

Gert

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: M∡rtin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: vrijdag 17 juni 2011 17:47
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

2011/6/17 Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com:
 On Friday, 17 June 2011, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer o...@amen-online.de wrote:

 I read your other mail on that topic. I don't personally have any
 objection to addressing weaknesses in the definition of active
 contributor.


If we take the voting issues seriously we should also have a voting
system that is open (i.e. transparent, open source, registers
transactions, ...), breaks usernames down to natural persons (would
probably require external verification services or maybe a system like
CaCert where mappers can certify/authenticate each other by personal
contact and passport verification).

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] ODbL fase 4 aanstaande zondag

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

 In plaats van hakken in het zand zoek ik liever met anderen naar een 
 constructieve omgang.

Maar het zijn altijd dezelfden die een constructieve omgang zoeken, namelijk
de mensen met een bepaalde passie voor het vak/de hobby met een redelijke 
instelling of, 
-zoals ik het liever zeg- door de knieën gaan.
En het zijn ook steeds dezelfden die misbruik maken van die constructieve 
houding en
daarnaast tevens rekenen van de gegarandeerde 80% van de mensen die gewoon 
klikken op wat er gevraagd wordt
om een democratische meerderheid  te verwerven.
En van name mensen met een politieke achtergrond (en daar ben/was ik er zelf 
ook een van) 
verwacht ik oppositie tegen deze pseudo-democratie.

Op zich had ik niet zoveel problemen met ODBL sec, maar met name met de CT.

En in de situatie waarin ik doneer (uren, werk informatie etc) , en de OSMF 
dmv de 
CT zich opstelt als nemer, voel ik behoorlijk in de kuif gepikt.

Dus zet ik zo nu en dan de hakken in het zand, tot hier en niet verder.

En omdat ik OSM niet nodig heb, kan ik mij dat eenvoudig permitteren.

Overigens ben ik niet van plan om mijn data via de PD omweg alsnog
te doneren. Misschien in de toekomst, als er een echte PD fork is
met enig bestaansrecht. Die fork zal ik niet oprichten, daarvoor
mis ik de software capaciteiten en de tijd mij die eigen te maken.

Tot die tijd zal OSM(F) de consequenties moeten nemen van de genomen stappen.

Regards,

Ing.  Gert Gremmen, BSc


 Before printing, think about the environment. 



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: dbuss...@goudappel.nl [mailto:dbuss...@goudappel.nl] 
Verzonden: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:53 PM
Aan: OpenStreetMap NL discussion list
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] ODbL fase 4 aanstaande zondag

Hoi Gert,

sommige van je bezwaren deel ik.
Dat was ook de reden dat ik zo lang heb gewacht de machtiging aan OSMF een 
willekeurige licentie (in de praktijk de ODBL) te gebruiken te accepteren, als 
statement in het proces.
Echter, in de praktijk veranderd bijna niets, daarom heb ik het nu ook wel 
geaccepteerd.
In plaats van hakken in het zand zoek ik liever met anderen naar een 
constructieve omgang.

Is het technisch mogelijk om via de API een planet-file te construeren met
a) van alle objecten de laatste versie geedit door iemand die public domain 
heeft aangevinkt, of
b) een synthetische versie te construeren alleen met edits van pd-gebruikers

Hiervan zouden wij dan wekelijks shapes kunnen maken en ter download aanbieden 
die 100% public domain zijn, zonder dat osm schade neemt. Met name creeer je zo 
geen branch, alles blijft wel in osm. Hoe meer mensen dan public domain 
kiezen in hun gebruikersaccount hoe beter de kwaliteit van dit uittreksel wordt.

Groeten,

   Dirk

 -we deze maar ook een andere licentie niet kunnen handhaven -er nooit 
 problemen zijn geweest met cc-by-sa -ik eigenlijk wil dat OSM PD 
 wordt, of liever helemaal niks -ik niet acceptabel vindt dat 0.1 % van 
 OSM  (OSMF) de community in gijzeling neemt -er nooit een moment 
 geweest is dat OSM open stond voor iets anders dan
ODBL
 -de licentie onnodig autoritair, formeel en juridisch geformuleerd is 
 -ik een hekel heb om juridisch te worden gebonden voor dingen die 
 IKkado
geef 
 (stel je kan schilderen en geeft een schilderij aan iemand kado, zou 
 jij accepteren dat die iemand daar een  onherroepelijke licentie bij 
 wil afsluiten en anders het schilderij weggooit ?) -er nu grote 
 verwarring en twijfel heerst in de community -dit project waarvan het 
 nut twijfelachtig is de community schade heeft aangericht -vanaf het 
 begin duidelijk was dat het er moest komen en alle middelen heeft 
 ingezet om de publieke mening te beinvloeden -de licentie niets 
 bijdraagt aan de kwaliteit van OSM
 
 
 
 
 Gert
 
 
 
 
 P Before printing, think about the environment. 
 
 
 
 -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
 Van: Floris Looijesteijn [mailto:o...@floris.nu]
 Verzonden: Thursday, June 16, 2011 2:35 PM
 Aan: OpenStreetMap NL discussion list
 Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] ODbL fase 4 aanstaande zondag
 
 Dag Gert,
 
 Dat is natuurlijk je goed recht maar kun je dan ook aangeven waarom 
 precies niet?
 Ik weet dat er verschillende redenen spelen bij de nee-stemmers, dus 
 ik
ben
 benieuwd naar de jouwe.
 
 Ik hoop dat we nog kunnen voorkomen dat we jou en jouw werk kwijtraken.
 
 Groet,
 Floris
 
 2011/6/16 ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl:
  nee, ik kan niet akkoord gaan met de CT/ODBL.
  Als dit het afscheid van OSM moet betekenen, dan zij het zo.
  Ik meld mij wel weer aan bij een goede fork zoals Commonmaps, maar 
  misschien zijn er ook anderen.
 
  Gert Gremmen
  -
 
  Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)
  P Before printing, think about the environment.
 
 
 
  -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
  Van: Frank Steggink [mailto:stegg...@steggink.org]
  Verzonden: Thursday, June 16, 2011 12:58 PM
  Aan: talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
  Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] ODbL fase 4 aanstaande zondag

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

Dank je Henk.

 

Er is een fundamenteel verschil van appreciatie met

de gang van zaken tussen ons.

Jij ziet de zaken vanuit het perspectief van het resultaat (voor OSM).

Ik zie het vanuit de gang van zaken voor de community.

Het huidige OSMF is dusdanig pragmatisch dat het werkelijk 

elk principe overboord zou gooien  als daarmee een bepaald

resultaat zou kunnen worden bereikt. Wat dat ook zou kunnen

zijn. 

Vergelijk het in NL met de samenwerking van VVD /CDA met

Geert Wilders. Het resultaat is niet eens zou erg, maar de wijze waarop

tart elk gevoel voor rechtvaardigheid en respect.

Terug naar OSM en de manier waarop CT/ODBL ons zijn opgedrongen.

Kijk nu eens naar elke publicatie over de nieuwe licentie. Werkelijk

overal wordt alleen maar gepoogd aan te geven hoe noodzakelijk dat is

zonder enig argument behalve:

 

Bedrijven en instellingen die graag OSM data willen gebruiken, maar 

daarvan afzien vanwege de CC-licentie. Dit omdat de definitie 

van afgeleid werk voor hun niet werkt.

 

Wat betekent dat precies: niet werkt; een eufemisme voor hebben we liever 
niet ?

Dan passen ze hun business model toch aan, of gaan naar de concurrent !

 

Op odbl.de vindt je dat zelfs terug in de gebruikte kleuren, en de suggestie

rechtsboven over hoe de nee stemmers te beïnvloeden met email.

Er staat nog net niet dat je je ze moet  bedreigen. En argumenten

vindt je daar al helemaal niet.  Zelfs niet het ultieme het werkt niet.

 

Het is uiterst tendentieus, te beginnen enkele maanden na de

de eerste maal in Hilversum toen jij ons over de nieuwe licentie 

informeerde. Je was nog niet eens in het OSMF. 

Ik gaf je het voordeel van de twijfel die dag omdat

JIJ het was die ons bijpraatte (vanwege Assen).

Het merkwaardigste van de nieuwe licentie is dat het niet meer

gaat over open data maar over  dat onder CC-BY-SA misschien sommige 

commerciële partijen  (zie jou inzet) zouden afhaken.

Sinds wanneer laat de Open Data community zich beïnvloeden door

de commercie ?  Integendeel, als een commerciële partij laat weten

een probleem te hebben met onze ideeen, dan is dat een teken dat we op de juiste

koers zitten. Wij wilden toch wat anders dan Nokia en Microsoft ?

Wij wilden toch innoveren en nieuwe kansen creëren voor 

partijen die op een andere basis met data omgaan ?

 

Als OSM haar koers laat afhangen van of marktpartijen commercieel

gewin zien in het gebruik van onze data, zijn we het onderscheid kwijt

en dan zal blijken  dat Google CC het gewoon beter kunnen.

OSM is nog maar heel klein, in NL en Duitsland misschien best aardig,

maar in Frankrijk bijvoorbeeld is OSM belachelijk leeg. Geen partij

voor Google CC.

 

 

Wat er nu gaat gebeuren -als dit proces  is afgesloten- is nog ongewis,

maar ik voorspel weinig goeds voor OSM.

IHA als pragmatisme de toon gaat voeren.. 

 

En dan ben ik nog niet eens begonnen over BING en de redenen van MS

om haar luchtfoto's aan ons ter beschikking te stellen

 

Wij zullen het nooit eens worden Henk, maar dat geeft ook niet.

 

En oh ja, vergeet niet dat het het  OSMF is die zal besluiten om mijn 

edits te verwijderen, niet ik.

 

Gert

 

Van: Henk Hoff [mailto:toffeh...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: vrijdag 17 juni 2011 19:08
Aan: OpenStreetMap NL discussion list
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] ODbL fase 4 aanstaande zondag

 

Gert,

 

Ik vind het erg jammer dat je niet akkoord gaat met de Contributor Terms van 
Openstreetmap. Temeer ik nu je argumentatie lees. Ik neem toch even de vrijheid 
om hierop te reageren. Zie inline.

 

2011/6/16 ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl

Ik vindt een nieuwe licentie onnodig omdat

-we deze maar ook een andere licentie niet kunnen handhaven

 

Verklaar. Dit snap ik niet. Zeer waarschijnlijk ligt jouw bezwaar ook bij de 
huidige CC-BY-SA licentie

 

-er nooit problemen zijn geweest met cc-by-sa

 

Helaas. Ik kom net weer van een business-conferentie af. Er diverse 
bedrijven/instellingen die graag OSM data willen gebruiken, maar daarvan afzien 
vanwege de CC-licentie. Dit omdat de definitie van afgeleid werk voor hun 
niet werkt. De ODbL concentreert zich op de data en daarmee kan men veelal wel 
mee uit de voeten.

 

-ik eigenlijk wil dat OSM PD wordt, of liever helemaal niks

 

Dat je persoonlijke mening. Maar als dat een reden is, waarom ben je uberhaupt 
bij OSM gekomen, gezien de huidige CC-BY-SA licentie?

 

-ik niet acceptabel vindt dat 0.1 % van OSM  (OSMF) de community in 
gijzeling neemt

 

Verklaar. Er zijn verschillende polls en stemmingen geweest. Zowel onder de 
OSMF leden als ook onder de brede community. In alle gevallen was daar een 
duidelijke meerderheid voor de ingeslagen weg. Wanneer we nu naar de acceptatie 
van de CT kijken, kan ik constateren dat ruim 98% heeft ingestemd. Iets meer 
dan 1% heeft geweigerd (waaronder dus jij). Hoezo gijzeling?

 

-er nooit een moment geweest is dat OSM open stond voor iets

Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of licensechange process

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

This whole licensing process went way above the competence of
the LWG, both in legal, management as in technical sense.
As usual, these things will be worked out when the circumstances
demand it. Just like in the old-fashioned do-ocratic way.

Gert Gremmen
-

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)
 Before printing, think about the environment. 



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com] 
Verzonden: Thursday, June 16, 2011 7:31 AM
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of licensechange 
process

Heiko Jacobs writes:
  Am 15.06.2011 06:59, schrieb Russ Nelson:
   Michael Collinson writes:
   As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this
   Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This 
   will
   mean that anyone who has explicitly declined the new contributor terms
   will no longer be able to edit, (unless they  decide to accept).
  
   What about the people who have declared their edits to be in the
   public domain?
  
  Setting PD flag without accepting OBL/DBCL/CT isn't possible in the moment
  (or did I miss a loop hole, where you can set all flags independantly??)
  
  Or did you mean users declaring their edits INSIDE THE WIKI als PD like
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Users_whose_contributions_are_in_the_public_domain
  but not declaring it using the official PD flag, because they don't
  want to accept ODBL/CT...?

Yes, inside the Wiki.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Users who disagree to ODbL but want PD / CC0

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

No, it would be simpler for OSM.

Regards,

Gert 




-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Dermot McNally [mailto:derm...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: Thursday, June 16, 2011 4:59 PM
Aan: Floris Looijesteijn
CC: OpenStreetMap Talk
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Users who disagree to ODbL but want PD / CC0

On 16 June 2011 15:34, Floris Looijesteijn o...@floris.nu wrote:

 Could we then export change 2 to a PD database first and
 import that into ODbL OSM?

Wouldn't it be much simpler for those users to simply accept CT? PD is
a superset of CT and ODbL after all...

Dermot

-- 
--
Igaühel on siin oma laul
ja ma oma ei leiagi üles

___
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] Join the OSMF !

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

In general i know Henk as a reasonable man,

and I know he is in politics in the Netherlands

so she should knew better then referencing to this 

would-be-dictator Pierens Doodle Poll.



Read it and you will understand why is some democratic countries
revolutions

started. This Is what I call blackmail democracy.

(the Poll does not even mention the CT) The Poll starts as follows:

 

 

You are not a member of the OSMF but in February 2010, you will be asked
to accept the new Odbl or your account will be closed and all you
contributions deleted from the database (or hidden which is the same).

 

If one does not read carefully, one might even conclude that as

a result of this poll your account may be closed.

 

Serge Wroclawski wrote about this poll:

 

...separately by the community by a different community member who had
concerned over the first poll.

 

I wonder what the concerns might have been

 

 

This is a very good example of how democracy should not work.

Kadhaffi would do no better.

 

 

And it makes me fully understand why TimC writes:

 

The community polls were post-hoc rationalizing, window dressing,
unofficial and poorly worded. In legitimate democratic votes, the vote
occurs BEFORE the decision to implement a plan takes place. It is
tacitly acknowledged in that the mechanism in the CTs is different from
what previously had happened. But really the past doesn't matter as much
as what we do next

 

Gert Gremmen

-

 

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)

P Before printing, think about the environment. 

 

 

Van: Henk Hoff [mailto:toffeh...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: Monday, June 13, 2011 11:55 PM
Aan: Nathan Edgars II
CC: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !

 

 

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:


Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote:

 Next, about a year later, a vote amongst OSMF membership was
 taken.This isn't the board, but the entire membership. Since it was a
 decision that was to effect the direction of the OSMF, this makes
 sense to me..


This was before my time, but from what I understand it was not a vote on
whether to switch to ODbL, but whether to start the process of creating
a
license and deciding whether we should switch.

 

 

Before everybody understands things differently.

 

The OSMF-membership vote *was* about moving to the ODbL and the (older
version of) CT.

Outcome: 98% of voters in favor of the proposed change, 2% against.

 

During the time of the OSMF-membership vote, there was also a vote
initiated by the community, which can be seen here:

http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w 

Outcome: 75% would accept the new license, 11% undecided, 14% not (at
that time)

 

There has been similar polls by the community during that time with
similar results.

 

Both (the vote and the poll) show a large majority in favor of the
proposed change. Again: ODbL combined with CT.

 

This was done *before* all the new sign-ups were asked to sign the CT.
Based on this outcome of the membership-vote the process to change the
license was continued. The polls in the community were no reason to
change this decision.

 

Cheers,

Henk

image001.gif___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !

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

Good arguments and reasoning Dermot,  (no irony)

Now see how these match with the history of the CT approval process, and 
you might even change opinion!


And to Russ, calling others a troll will transform you into one once!
This discussion is of high quality, high level argument based and both
sides are to be respected from their perspective.

There is no consensus to be expected, but if OSM will
not prevail the end you all will (maybe) understand why !

After all, the overwhelming majority that clicked without 
even reading or considering reading the CT will abandon OSM
as quick as a click, for another toy of preference.

And those who actually read and object against the CT (besides a possible 
majority
that is in favor for equally qualified reasons) should be considered
with more respect, as both groups form the core of this project.

To get back to the start of this thread, becoming a
member of the OSMF will reinforce the basis of this project.
Regardless of the fact that our legal basis  will result in CT/ODBL or PD.

So again, I want to call everyone reading this to spent a few beers
in our favorite hobby (if so!) and assure the future of OSM.
Regards,

Gert Gremmen





-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Dermot McNally [mailto:derm...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 2:13 PM
Aan: Russ Nelson
CC: Nathan Edgars II; talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !

On 14 June 2011 05:18, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:

 Nathan was being gracious. You ARE trolling. Stop it.

I like to assume good faith on the lists. I have never for a moment
doubted the sincerity of your position on the licence change, and I
demand the same courtesy from you. It's acceptable for people to draw
different conclusions from the same data. In a democracy, a majority
decides which way a decision should fall.

 Very likely many non-Muslims voted against the ban. They were NOT
 treated differently after the vote. Stop arguing that accepting the
 license means anything more than accepting the license, Dermot. It
 doesn't. In particular, I accepted the license because I know that if
 I do not, then my (rather significant) contributions would be deleted,
 and I would be banned from further contributions. I can and have
 accepted the license without approving of it.

That too is a reason to accept. Most countries and organisations avoid
the kind of micro-democracy that would have avoided the situation we
have today in OSM where some people (a minority) complain that they
are being asked to vote (or pronounce, decide, choose if you
don't want to call it a vote) on the wrong question and that they
would prefer to have been asked a different question. Such a
micro-democracy would never have managed to agree on a question to
ask, and while this might be a useful outcome for those who favour the
status quo, that seems to me a lot like one group asserting its will
over another not by constituting a majority, but by constituting a
loud enough minority (UN Security Council springs to mind here).

So instead of a micro-democracy, we have ended up with a central group
of people producing the proposal on which ultimately all mappers
needed to take a decision. As will be clear, I tend to agree with the
thrust of their reasoning and I find that the people involved are
honest and have the good of the project at heart. But is it not still
unfair that specifically that group got to come up with the proposal?
Not at all. And again, I'd like to come back to how democratic
governments tend to work.

If you look at the role of the OSMF in advancing the licence change
initiative, one option is to consider that they were acting in the
manner of a government. This might grate if you take the view that you
never voted for them. But ultimately, it isn't just governments that
get to propose laws. Minority groups in parliaments, right down to
single independent members, also get to do so. And in the case of the
Bavarian smoking ban, a law change even came from an ad-hoc group of
citizens. So the right to propose legislation (or, in this case, a
licence change) is not some mysterious one. There is no reason any
grouping within the project cannot form to promote a different change
- in fact, any group that wishes to do so will find it much easier to
do so once the initial change to CT is made because of the 66%
majority.

But, I (continuously) hear you point out, the OSMF is uniquely
well-placed to force through its will because it controls the
servers.. This is, of course, true. I can counter with the usual
retort that it is everyone's option to fork and that this is the
defense against an evil Foundation. You can counter that OSMF will
still prevail as it enjoys recognition as the one true fork. And we
all go away frowning.

Thing is, even an evil foundation would have to consider the
sustainability of a post-CT data set. On the one hand, OSMF has the
advantage that it could, using the servers and domains it controls

[OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !

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

 

To all active members of OSM !

 

I found that only 250 or so OSM contributors out of 250.000

are actually members of OSMF.

 

That is about 0.1 %.

Nevertheless it's that 0.1 % that actually decides what will

happen with OSM in the close future.

The current OSMF members are all very valued contributors with

a substantial track record  and the best intentions to OSM's future, 

but they may be taking the wrong steps (IMHO).

 

So as to make sure that  your interests in OSM

are truly represented by OSMF, I want to call everyone

reading this message to once in their life spent a couple

of beers (not the free ones) to become a member of OSMF.

and make sure OSM remains Free !!

 

To those that think that the current steps in license change may

harm OSM, I want to say that joining OSMF is the only way left to 

influence this in your wanted direction.

There are about 400  voters against the CT/ODBL, so

if all motivated no-voters become member, that certainly makes a fist.

 

To those who are in favor of the license change and really want to make
sure 

that ODBL will be implemented ASAP, become member of OSMF,

or otherwise the NO-voters may take over.

 

Whatever the license result of your membership will be, the money spent

is wisely spent as it will contribute to a better future for OSM,

but then supported by a higher percentage of the community.

 

Gert Gremmen

-

 

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)

P Before printing, think about the environment. 

 

 

image001.gifimage002.gif___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Private negotiations.

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

The problems with the CC-BY-SA license are fully hypothetical,
as there have been no real life problems.
There have been some hesitations at commercial users of OSM data
 with the Share Alike part, but OSM is not bound to enforce the SA part
of the current license either, so we could just allow them to
use data without SA. I do not feel any particular sympathy 
for the commercial users of our data to the extent that
we need to jeopardize OSM just for their interests.


My sympathy is with those who do not have
access to data, such as in emergency situations. OSM was best in Haiti.

No real problem has occurred with CC-BY-SA, and no
initiative has done more harm to OSM in history than then the insisted
proposal to change the license (-that-does-not-fit-:CC-BY-SA)
to (-the-license-that-cannot-be-enforced-:ODBL)
by (-the-people-that-do-not-own-OSM-).

OSMF is playing a legal game with the interest of the community.


Since months a lot of active mappers have stopped contributing
just because of uncertainty about their data.

Some of us try to minimize the number of refused CT (about 400)
but I have the strong feeling that those are mainly found in the old
core
of the first 1000 of OSM mappers, the founders that were interested in
real free data.  The 102000 new signups that agreed with the CT
probably just signed (but I cannot prove that) because they were not
given a choice, nor knew
about the history of OSM, and signed a CT just as they sign one upon
installing a new piece of shareware / i-don't-care-ware.

I almost fully support the reasoning of TIM, just do not
understand why he tried this in private. He must have his reasons.

Over all, the procedures of the introduction of ODBL and CT have a
strong smell of -this-must-happen-regardless-what-and-who,
without anyone mad really clear why this is absolutely necessary.


Gert

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Rob Myers [mailto:r...@robmyers.org] 
Verzonden: donderdag 9 juni 2011 19:30
Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Private negotiations.

On 09/06/11 18:18, Nakor Osm wrote:

 This is wrong: remove the CTs and leave the database licensed as it is
 today and no data needs to be removed.

The license today has problems. Both the license and the way that the 
license is chosen need to change.

- Rob.

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Kassen

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

Ho,

Eigenlijk is het ook een stad.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=engeocode=q=Wateringen,+
Netherlandsaq=0sll=71.187754,97.646484sspn=19.766308,85.605469ie=UTF
8hq=hnear=Wateringen,+Westland,+South+Holland,+Netherlandst=hll=52.0
20894,4.256769spn=0.008953,0.0209z=16layer=ccbll=52.020894,4.256769
panoid=GhSprlOI94NUt8n72i8Ubwcbp=12,137.55,,0,0

Maar ik begrijp je punt.
Ik had zoiets een paar jaar geleden ook al voorgesteld
maar niemand pakte het op

Gert


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Martijn van Exel [mailto:m...@rtijn.org] 
Verzonden: woensdag 8 juni 2011 17:07
Aan: OpenStreetMap list
Onderwerp: [OSM-talk-nl] Kassen

Ha,

Wat ziet het Westland er eigenlijk raar uit op OSM[0]. Al die kassen
zijn gerenderd als normale gebouwen en daardoor ziet het eruit als een
stad. Ik vind dat niet mooi want niet conform de werkelijkheid.
Ze zijn bij de import niet als building=greenhouse[1] getagd, maar dat
zou alsnog kunnen[2]. Als we dan en mapnik-style aanmaken voor
building=greenhouse[3] (wat voor kleur / tint?) en die doorgevoerd
krijgen dan zou het er een stuk fraaier uitzien, niet?

[0] http://osm.org/go/0En@qhA
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building
[2] http://www.objectvision.nl/producten/3dshapes
[3]
https://github.com/openstreetmap/mapnik-stylesheets/blob/master/inc/laye
r-buildings.xml.inc
-- 
martijn van exel
schaaltreinen.nl

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

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

[OSM-talk-nl] Fietsroutes Voorne Putten

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

Aan alle knooppuntenfietsers in Voorne Putten

 

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Nederlandse_Fietsroutes#Z
uid-Holland

 

Op deze wikipagina heb ik aangegeven wat er per vandaag nog te routen
is.

 

Doe ons allen een plezier en zet je naam achter een stukje als dat hebt

gedaan, of gaat doen. Voorkomt dubbel werk.

 

 

 

Gert Gremmen

-

 

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)

P Before printing, think about the environment. 

 

image001.gif___
Talk-nl mailing list
Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

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

Am i missing something ?
Dermot is answering messages that are not on this list.

Gert Gremmen
-

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)
 Before printing, think about the environment. 



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Dermot McNally [mailto:derm...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 3:53 PM
Aan: Anthony
CC: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

On 7 June 2011 15:20, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 Of 8,402,321 people eligible to vote, 8,357,560, or 99.5%, cast
 ballots--8,348,700 of which favored Hussein, the government said.
 There were 5,808 spoiled ballots.

Luckily our licence vote is more transparent. Details on who said yes
and no are available, so any irregularities will easily be found.
Happy hunting!

Dermot

-- 
--
Igaühel on siin oma laul
ja ma oma ei leiagi üles

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] BAG

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

Wat in de hele OSM strategy ontbreekt is een update strategie.
Deze BAG data heeft inderdaad de potentie om de hele community
te overspoelen met update werk . Aan de andere kant wordt de BAG data
ook bijgewerkt door de overheid.  Als we een geautomatiseerd systeem hadden om 
updates
in OSM te laden, dan zou deze hoeveelheid niet zo erg zijn.
(overigens : is het echt zoveel meer dan de 3d importen?)

Op kleine schaal zie je dat met bijvoorbeeld de fietsroutes.
Als er iets veranderd is het maar de vraag of dat door iemand
van ons wordt opgemerkt. 
Daar zouden we ons de komende jaren op moeten richten:
Hoe houden we de data up-to-date ?

Gert Gremmen
-

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)
 Before printing, think about the environment. 



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Vincent Zweije [mailto:vinc...@zweije.nl] 
Verzonden: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 1:34 PM
Aan: talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] BAG

On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 01:26:29PM +0200, Christ van Willegen wrote:

||  2011/6/1 Vincent Zweije vinc...@zweije.nl:

||   Nadat er imports zijn gemaakt, is er plotseling nog veel meer werk 
|| dat   je als mapper eenvoudig kunt doen, omdat het kader er 
|| plotseling een   stuk completer uitziet.
||  
||  Met Vincent eens, 'een paar huisnummertjes en een camera' is een 
|| stuk  makkelijker dan alle straten, huizen etc. mappen...

Aan de andere kant moeten natuurlijk ook die shapes zelf worden bijgehouden, 
maar ook daar merk ik dat ik zonder veel weerstand de shapes die niet kloppen 
aanpas, makkelijker dan dat ik ze nieuw aangemaakt zou hebben.
-- 
Vincent Zweije vinc...@zweije.nl   | If you're flamed in a group you
http://www.xs4all.nl/~zweije/  | don't read, does anybody get burnt?
[Xhost should be taken out and shot] |-- Paul Tomblin on a.s.r.
___
Talk-nl mailing list
Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl

[OSM-talk-nl] BAG = BAGGER ?

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

De locatie in Rotterdam waar mijn bedrijfspand staat
aan de Kiotoweg heet al sinds het pand is gebouwd Kiotoweg.
Oh ja, ik ben eigenaar van het pand en de straat heet echt Kiotoweg in het 
kadaster.

Dus niet: de Kiotoweg heet gewoon nog Montevideostraat in BAG
Verder staan er nog 2 straten in waarvan de post altijd onbezorgd blijft...

Nu heb ik lang gedacht dat dat een easter egg was van de kaartleveranciers,
en dat ergens in de catacomben van de BV Nederland de juist naam wel bekend zou 
zijn,
en dat BAG toch wel de juiste data zou hebben


Kijk maar eens op de site van Geodan , héé jammer, geen permalink

One can dream , indeed !

Gert Gremmen
-

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)
 Before printing, think about the environment. 



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Vincent Zweije [mailto:vinc...@zweije.nl] 
Verzonden: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 2:56 PM
Aan: OpenStreetMap NL discussion list
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] BAG

On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 02:04:01PM +0200, Martijn van Exel wrote:

||  2011/6/1 Floris Looijesteijn o...@floris.nu:
||   Er zit aan elke gebouw een id, die nemen we gewoon mee.
||   Net als de AND id's, die we achteraf nooit gebruikt hebben.

||  Dat is de makkelijke kant van het verhaal. De uitdagingen liggen  
|| ietsje onder de oppervlakte (maar niet ver):
||  * Wat doen we met alle panden plus hun attributen die al in OSM  
|| zitten? Dit [1] wil je toch niet al te veel met de hand gaan doen.
||  * Wat gebeurt er met de menselijke updates tussen twee import-updates in?
||  * Als een pand volgens de import niet meer bestaat en volgens de  
|| community nog wel, wie heeft er dan gelijk?

De ultieme oplossing is, net als in (distributed) version control systems, het 
(automatisch) mergen van wijzigingen.

Daarvoor moet je de wijzigingen die door mappers met de hand zijn aangebracht 
als precies dat: wijzigingen, representeren. Vervolgens moet je hetzelfde doen 
met de nieuwe BAG data: representeren als wijzigingen.

Daarna kun je alle wijzigingen die niet conflicteren automatisch doorvoeren.

De wijzigingen die wel conflicteren moeten met de hand worden uitgezocht. 
Daarin ligt het grootste probleem. Je kunt dit minimaliseren door slimme 
representaties van wijzigingen uit te vinden, die weinig conflicten opleveren.

Uiteindelijk zal er altijd handwerk overblijven; daar kom je niet onderuit.

Helemaal mooi zou het zijn als de conflicten ook in OSM kunnen worden 
opgeslagen, zodat mappers ze op hun gemakje kunnen oplossen.

One can dream...

Ciao. Vincent.
-- 
Vincent Zweije vinc...@zweije.nl   | If you're flamed in a group you
http://www.xs4all.nl/~zweije/  | don't read, does anybody get burnt?
[Xhost should be taken out and shot] |-- Paul Tomblin on a.s.r.
___
Talk-nl mailing list
Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] BAG

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

Martijn, je wilt niet weten hoeveel verschillen er zijn
tussen de 3D gebouwen en de BING foto's.
En dan heb ik het alleen maar over de toegevoegde/gewijzigde gebouwen
waarvan je gevoeglijk kunt aannemen dat de BING nieuwer is.


Gert Gremmen
-

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)
 Before printing, think about the environment. 



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Martijn van Exel [mailto:m...@rtijn.org] 
Verzonden: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 2:49 PM
Aan: OpenStreetMap NL discussion list
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] BAG

Gert et al,

2011/6/1 ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl:
 Wat in de hele OSM strategy ontbreekt is een update strategie.
 Deze BAG data heeft inderdaad de potentie om de hele community
 te overspoelen met update werk . Aan de andere kant wordt de BAG data
 ook bijgewerkt door de overheid.  Als we een geautomatiseerd systeem hadden 
 om updates
 in OSM te laden, dan zou deze hoeveelheid niet zo erg zijn.
 (overigens : is het echt zoveel meer dan de 3d importen?)

 Op kleine schaal zie je dat met bijvoorbeeld de fietsroutes.
 Als er iets veranderd is het maar de vraag of dat door iemand
 van ons wordt opgemerkt.
 Daar zouden we ons de komende jaren op moeten richten:
 Hoe houden we de data up-to-date ?

Dit was ook mijn zorg. Niet alleen voor de updates op zich, wat al een
hoop werk is (ze komen maandelijks uit) maar ook hoe om te gaan met
'echte' edits door de community op gebouwen, zie mijn eerdere mail.
Dit speelde met AND niet omdat het een eenmalige update was, en voor
3DShapes misschien in mindere mate omdat veel van het grondgebruik
sowieso niet snel door de community in kaart zou worden gebracht:
moeilijk en lage prioriteit, maar het ziet er nu wel fraai uit. Maar
ook deze data veroudert op den duur.

We moeten wat mij betreft ook onder ogen zien dat de BAG misschien
niet per se in de OSM-database zou hoeven te worden geimporteerd. Het
kan ook als afzonderlijke laag worden weergegeven. Importeren moet
niet dogmatisch worden. Het is niet van: er is vrije data, *dus* het
moet in OSM.

-- 
Martijn van Exel
http://about.me/mvexel

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] BAG = BAGGER ?

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

Jullie hebben gelijk, maar het woordgrapje was te verleidelijk.

Gert Gremmen
-

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)
 Before printing, think about the environment. 



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Cartinus [mailto:carti...@xs4all.nl] 
Verzonden: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 3:55 PM
Aan: talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] BAG = BAGGER ?

BAG = Basis Administratie Gebouwen

Zoals de naam al zegt, dan zijn dus gebouwen, geen straten.

De stratenachtergrond in de BAG viewer komt niet uit de BAG, maar uit een 
andere bron. (Ik gok het NWB, Daarvan is de kwaliteit inderdaad lager dan die 
van OSM.) Als je de moeite neemt om op de gebouwen te klikken, dan zul je 
zien dat de gebouwen gewoon aan de Kiotoweg staan volgens de BAG.


On Wednesday 01 June 2011 15:14:14 ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert 
Gremmen wrote:
 De locatie in Rotterdam waar mijn bedrijfspand staat
 aan de Kiotoweg heet al sinds het pand is gebouwd Kiotoweg.
 Oh ja, ik ben eigenaar van het pand en de straat heet echt Kiotoweg in het
 kadaster.

 Dus niet: de Kiotoweg heet gewoon nog Montevideostraat in BAG
 Verder staan er nog 2 straten in waarvan de post altijd onbezorgd blijft...

 Nu heb ik lang gedacht dat dat een easter egg was van de kaartleveranciers,
 en dat ergens in de catacomben van de BV Nederland de juist naam wel bekend
 zou zijn, en dat BAG toch wel de juiste data zou hebben


 Kijk maar eens op de site van Geodan , héé jammer, geen permalink

 One can dream , indeed !

 Gert Gremmen



-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] BAG

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

Die driehoeken bij mij in de buurt  ( 300 meter) zijn echte bugs, en geen 
nieuwe gebouwen.
Misschien verbouwingen ??

Gert Gremmen
-

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)
 Before printing, think about the environment. 



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Jeroen Muris [mailto:jer...@tweejee.net] 
Verzonden: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 4:22 PM
Aan: OpenStreetMap NL discussion list
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] BAG

Op 1-6-2011 16:11, Martijn van Exel schreef:
 2011/6/1dbuss...@goudappel.nl:
 [...]
 Dit is trouwens een goede oefening voor het NWB straks als die vrij wordt
 gegeven (ik geef het niet op!). Ook daar willen wij niet zomaar alle goede
 osm-wegen met slechte NWB-wegen overschrijven, maar er zijn echt wel ook
 nieuwbouwwijken die in OSM ontbreken en in het NWB wel inzitten.

 Wie organiseert een chat of skype conferentie hierover, eventueel als
 voorbereiding voor een fysieke ontmoeting?

 Groeten,

Dirk
 Ik denk dat we genoeg stof hebben voor een mooie discussie. Floris
 heeft het voortouw.
 Het lijkt me niet verkeerd als iemand daar dan ter introductie de BAG
 een beetje kan uitleggen, met ook aandacht voor de kwaliteits-issues
 die her en der al opduiken (een gebouw ter grootte van de hele
 woonplaats in Deventer, rare driehoeken in Rotterdam, drie Sneeks, dat
 zijn de dingen die ik zo hoor als ik mijn oren te luisteren leg hier).

 Martijn
Zonder er in detail naar gekeken te hebben kan ik de driehoeken en de 
verschillende Sneeks misschien verklaren:

In de BAG moet een gebouw worden opgevoerd binnen vier dagen naar 
verlening van de bouwvergunning. Hier mag eerst een 'voorlopige 
geometrie' voor gebruikt worden. Sommige gemeenten proberen met de 
voorlopige geometrie de toekomstige werkelijkheid te benaderen, anderen 
(zoals dus kennelijk Rotterdam) kiezen er voor duidelijk te laten 
blijken dat de geometrie voorlopig is.

De BAG wordt door iedere gemeente afzonderlijk bijgehouden (en via XML 
berichten met een 'landelijke voorziening' uitgewisseld). Nu kan het 
voorkomen dat een woonplaats aan, op, of over de grens van een gemeente 
ligt; dan zal elke gemeenten die objecten (panden, nummeraanduidingen, 
...) in die woonplaats heeft de woonplaats in haar administratie 
opnemen. Afhankelijk van hoe de BAG dan bevraagd wordt kan één 
woonplaats dan meermalen voorkomen.

J-.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Recent spike in the CT acceptance graph

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

How do we match 121,000 with 17,800  ???


Steve wrote :

Over 121,000 contributors have already accepted the new terms and we hope you 
will too.

The Minutes state:

Of voluntary acceptances, we have 17,280 with still about 200 a day coming in. 
There are 284 declines and the rate has slowed right down to 3 or 4 per day.  
Each day 2250 who have accepted the new terms do editting,  and about 50 who 
have declined, i.e more than average. We think decliners are trying to game the 
system, particular with regard to deleting then recreating relations.



Gert Gremmen
-

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)
 Before printing, think about the environment. 




Van: Grant Slater [mailto:openstreet...@firefishy.com] 
Verzonden: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 1:55 AM
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Recent spike in the CT acceptance graph

On 31 May 2011 00:44, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
 There seems to be a huge jump in the rate of CT acceptances (and
 declines, if you look close enough). About 3000 acceptances in a span
 of 36 hours:
 http://ni.kwsn.net/~toby/OSM/license_count.html

 Did somebody do a mass email or something?


Yes, this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODBL/2011_May_Letter_Translations

/ Grant

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] waterweg rond weiland taggen?

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

Leg eens uit wat het voordeel is van een polygoon /multipolygoon
voor slootjes ?

Is het dat de grens van weiland/sloot in een way gemaakt kan worden ?

Hoe doe je dat dan als er niet overal een slootje ligt ?




Gert Gremmen
-

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)
 Before printing, think about the environment. 


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Lennard [mailto:l...@xs4all.nl] 
Verzonden: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 9:40 AM
Aan: talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] waterweg rond weiland taggen?

On 31-5-2011 9:10, Rick van der Zwet wrote:

 Al de weilanden zijn nu nog gemaakt van ``way''. Om de ``way'' te
 converteren naar ``multipolygon'' om zo de sloten structuur duidelijk
 te maken zoals bij Lexmond doe ik nu a) eerst de ``way'' te knippen in
 4 stukken, b) een ``multipolygon'' maken, c) alles omtaggen.

Je kunt ook een multipolygon maken met alleen die ene way als lid. Met 
de multipolygon plugin is dat een toetscombinatie. Als je daarna die way 
opknipt in stukjes, blijven de opgeknipte delen ook lid van de relatie.

Het enige dat dan nog wat extra werk is, is het overbrengen van de tags 
van de voormalige closed way naar de multipolygon relatie. Als je dat 
doet, kun je dat het beste doen tussen de 2 stappen die ik hierboven 
zette. Met CTRL-C + CTRL-SHIFT-V zou je de tags kunnen overbrengen.


-- 
Lennard

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Serviceweg?

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

Tot nu toe tag ik opritjes naar huizen, maar ook
de grote (manoeuvreer) vlakken die voor een bedrijf aan de weg aansluiten
als een stukje  unclassified, maar dat is lang niet altijd bevredigend.

Gaan we voor opritten naar service   ? Iedereen akkoord ?
Hoe doen we dan het pleintje voor de boerderij / bedrijf dat vaak wel 50-100 
meter breed is ?




Gert Gremmen
-

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)
 Before printing, think about the environment. 



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Andre Engels [mailto:andreeng...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 7:39 AM
Aan: OpenStreetMap NL discussion list
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Serviceweg?

2011/5/30 Frank Heinen f.heinen...@gmail.com:
 Ik map nu vaak langere opritten (30m+) als service weg maar moeten deze dan
 ook de straatnaam krijgen? Die oprit is toch geen onderdeel van de weg?
 Of moet dat juist wel?

Naar mijn mening niet, voor mij is het juist een
onderscheidingscriterium tussen een serviceweg en een 'normale' weg
dat de laatste altijd een straatnaam heeft, en de eerste vaak niet.


-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

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

[OSM-talk-nl] Video en fietsen

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

 

Bij het recentelijk fietsen in voorne putten heb ik gebruik gemaakt

van een eenvoudige solid date videorecorder

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/2-5-Car-Vehicle-Camera-Mini-DVR-Recorder-HD-720P-IR-
Cam-/110688593621?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0hash=item19c58de6d5

 

Met een beeldhoek van 120 graden neemt die heel aardig op wat er
allemaal op de weg

te zien is.  Op een 8GB SD card neemt deze tot 200 minuten in VGA
kwaliteit op.

De interne batterij houdt het maar 45 minuten vol helaas, maar er is een
externe voedingsaansluiting.

Zit er een card in dan begint het ding automatisch met opnemen van 5
minuten

blokjes (elk 200 MB) als je de externe voeding aansluit, hetgeen wel
makkelijk is, in de zon zijn

die kleine beeldschermpjes heel lastig in te stellen.

Het is wel een chinees product wat usability betreft. De
gebruiksaanwijzing is op het niveau bijsluiter,

zo slecht. Beeld is prima voor de prijs.

 

Ik moet zeggen dat je je met de resultaten aardig wat extra tag werk op
de hals kunt halen.

 

Dingen als opritten, eenrichtingsverkeer (ook van zijwegen) soort
fietspad, winkelketens

kerkjes, bushaltes , snelheidbeperkingen (60 km), bosjes, sloten naast
de weg , oppervlakte

van het wegdek , electriciteitshuisjes, bossen en parken 

zijn goed te zien en prima te taggen , in combinatie met BING en JOSM

 

Een perfecte correlatie tussen GPS track en video is dan niet nodig,
maar kan wel gedaan worden omdat de video default

een tijdstamp in beeld heeft.

 

 

(We hebben nog wel een plugin nodig die een tijd aan een plaats kan
koppelen)

 

Ik vond gister zomaar  2 borden van doodlopende weg  op een zijweg
die een collega OSM-er 

vrolijk door een weiland heen had laten lopen. ( kennelijk een slootje
gemist in BING).

 

 

Kortom, voor weinig geld een leuk hebbedingetje.

 

 

Gert Gremmen

-

 

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)

P Before printing, think about the environment. 

 

 

image001.gifimage004.gif___
Talk-nl mailing list
Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Fietskaart updates

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

Hallo Jeroen Muris, maar ook anderen.

Even een berichtje over Voorne Putten.
Ik zag dat jij daar laatstelijk (15mei) nog mee aan het werk bent
geweest.
Ik ben daar tevens gestart met het vastleggen van knoopuntennetwerk per
afgelopen weekend ten zuiden van zwartewaal.
Misschien is het nuttig te overleggen dat we geen dingen dubbel doen.
Heb je een lijstje met al gereden stukken, of plan je daar wat
te gaan doen komende weken ? Geef even een seintje dan plan ik mee.

Gert Gremmen

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Jeroen Muris [mailto:jer...@tweejee.net] 
Verzonden: maandag 16 mei 2011 12:17
Aan: OpenStreetMap NL discussion list
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Fietskaart updates

Dank je wel! (Bonus: openfietskaart.nl kende ik nog niet, maar vind ik
erg mooi.)

J-.

Op 16 mei 2011 om 11:42 heeft Foppe Benedictus
foppe.benedic...@knkv.net het volgende geschreven:

 
 Op 13-05-11 19:29, Jeroen Muris schreef:
 Hallo allemaal,
 
 Naar aanleiding van de conversatie over de (rendering) van de
fietskaart, vraag ik mij af hoe vaak deze gegevens/tiles ververst
worden. Al weer enige tijd terug heb ik een aantal fietsroutes ten
oosten van Gouda aan het Fietsknooppuntennetwerk Reeuwijk toegevoegd -
zoals bijvoorbeeld [1], maar tot op heden zie ik die niet terug [2].
 
 Klopt dit, of heb ik iets verkeerd gedaan waardoor die routes nooit
zichtbaar zullen worden?
 Je hebt niets fout gedaan, kijk maar op [1]. De wereldwijde kaart
wordt iets (understatement) trager ge-update dan openfietskaart.
 [1]
http://openfietskaart.nl/?zoom=14lat=52.03657lon=4.75483layers=0B000F
FFTFTT
 
 [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8022304
 [2]
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.0332lon=4.7692zoom=13layers=C
 
 Dank, en groet,
 
 J-.
 
 
 ___
 Talk-nl mailing list
 Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
 
 
 ___
 Talk-nl mailing list
 Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Uiterlijk van de kaart

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

Van: Floris Looijesteijn [mailto:o...@floris.nu] 
Verzonden: Monday, May 16, 2011 9:26 PM
Aan: OpenStreetMap NL discussion list
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Uiterlijk van de kaart

 toch zijn er genoeg bedrijfjes gestart die met onze data nu diensten
leveren.
 alleen op die manier kunnen ze garanties bieden voor hun klanten.
en kennelijk valt daar geld mee te verdienen...

[GG] 
En dat is waar het (helaas) kennelijk om draait voor (te)veel OSM-ers

Gert

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Uiterlijk van de kaart

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

Wat een onzin; zonder een voorbeeld representatie (de kaart)
zou er niemand naar OSM hebben omgekeken.

Data onderscheidt zich alleen maar van ruis 
doordat het zich gestructureerd laat weergeven.
Als je dus wilt laten zien dat OSM iets meer is dan ruis
dan heb je iemand als robert nodig om te laten zien
dat die data gestructureerd is.
Inderdaad zijn er dan verscheidene invalshoeken,

- mooie kaarten (voor aan de muur zeg maar)
- kaarten die de structuur en fouten in de data zichtbaar maken
- voorbeelden van applicaties (yours enzo)
- kaarten met overlays voor specifieke doelgroepen om te laten zien(die
data hebben we ook)

En die doelgroep definitie is an sich wel correct, maar is wat arrogant
naar
de vele OSM-ers (nuttige idoten ?: Cartinus) toe die zelf niets met de
data kunnen, 
maar wel heel blij zijn dat Osm.org hun ingevoerde data zichtbaar maakt.
Zonder openfietskaart was IK allang gestopt met ingeven van fietspaden !

Gert

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Cartinus [mailto:carti...@xs4all.nl] 
Verzonden: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 12:11 AM
Aan: talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Uiterlijk van de kaart

On Monday 16 May 2011 21:17:29 Robert Elsenaar wrote:
 En toch is het jammer dat er ook binnen OSM net als binnen de gehele
IT zo
 weinig mensen zijn die de techniek en de functionaliteit omhelzen.

We kijken heel erg naar de functionaliteit binnen OSM. Het probleem voor
jou 
is alleen dat jij niet begrepen hebt wie de doelgroep is. De doelgroep
voor 
OSM is niet de eindgebruikers, de doelgroep zijn ontwikkelaars (in de
ruimste 
zin van het woord).

Dus mijn ouders hebben inderdaad niet veel aan OSM zelf en dat is
helemaal 
geen probleem. Want OSM is geen eingebruikersproduct, het is een 
halffabrikaat.

Voor Ligfietser (als ontwikkelaar) daarentegen is OSM blijkbaar heel
bruikbaar 
anders waren zijn fietskaarten voor de Garmins er niet geweest.


Als je niet tevreden bent over de bruikbaarheid van je Fordje, dan ga je
ook 
niet bij Varta klagen dat ze betere auto's moeten maken. Varta maakt
accu's 
geen auto's.


-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Uiterlijk van de kaart

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

Ja maar geld verdienende osm-ers zijn maar een kleine fractie
van OSM, zij het met een hele grote mond.
Zij doen (naar verhouding) ook wel veel aan bijdragen, maar de grote bulk
aan werk wordt door hobbyisten gedaan. 

Met het open gedeelte van  OSM  en de gift
aan informatie naar de derde wereld en disaster gebieden
toe zie ik als net zo belangrijk, en maatschappelijk gezien
veel nuttiger dan een of ander stomme social applicatie
van het type where are my friends getting drunk.

En daar hoor ik dan weer nooit iets over.




-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Martijn van Exel [mailto:m...@rtijn.org] 
Verzonden: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:29 PM
Aan: OpenStreetMap NL discussion list
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Uiterlijk van de kaart

2011/5/17 ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl:

 Van: Floris Looijesteijn [mailto:o...@floris.nu]
 Verzonden: Monday, May 16, 2011 9:26 PM
 Aan: OpenStreetMap NL discussion list
 Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Uiterlijk van de kaart

  toch zijn er genoeg bedrijfjes gestart die met onze data nu diensten
 leveren.
  alleen op die manier kunnen ze garanties bieden voor hun klanten.
en kennelijk valt daar geld mee te verdienen...

 [GG]
 En dat is waar het (helaas) kennelijk om draait voor (te)veel OSM-ers


Niks mis met geld verdienen, Gert. Als je hobby je werk is, kunnen er
mooie dingen ontstaan. Zie metaspatial, 52north, geofabrik,
cyclestreets, cloudmade, omniscale, dogodigi and ik weet niet hoeveel
anderen. Daar zitten allemaal mensen die geld verdienen met open
source software en / of OSM, en en passant hun steentje bijdragen om
OSM of de tools eromheen te verbeteren.

-- 
Martijn van Exel
http://about.me/mvexel

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New Logo in the Wiki

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

+1

Regards,

 Gert Gremmen



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Elizabeth Dodd [mailto:ed...@billiau.net] 
Verzonden: Sunday, May 01, 2011 4:51 AM
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] New Logo in the Wiki

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 19:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com wrote:

 David, this is complete nonsense. Please stop.
 -Mikel

You get constructive criticism and and so you promptly disregard it.
You actually prove the point.

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

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