Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] [sharedmapau] Re: Mass revert now??
On 10 January 2012 20:38, Steve Bennett wrote: > That's the point. I'm not surprised, I'm not offended. I believe the > disgruntled have made their point, and I definitely supported them > while the debate was active. Now that it's over, and a done deal, I > think it would be much better for them to now (begrudingly, > reluctantly, ...) tick the damn box and move on. I wouldn't even be > surprised or particularly offended if they also chose to have nothing > further to do with this community. But to put in thousands of hours of > work to create free map data that can be used by anyone, and then to > finish up having contributed nothing strikes me as a spectacularly > selfish act of self-immolation. Perhaps you and others complaining loudly about people being selfish should blame those responsible, OSM-F, they chose to change licenses even though many pointed out how much would have to be tossed out, and even after all the tossing is finished I doubt the data set will be clean enough to change licenses. But for what end is all this work being tossed out? What is going to be really gained in the long run? It surely no longer is to have the most accurate map, all the remapping is usually from lower quality data sources, and time spent remapping could have been spent making the map better, that hardly seems like a very pragmatic approach to me. And no it's not selfish, you are welcome to continue using my data like you always have, YOU and people just like you that don't have a spine to stand up to OSM-F and say no this is not the best thing to be doing so we can have a great map are the ones being selfish and choosing to opt out of better maps. You can stop with all the bullish language about being selfish, YOU by going along with everything and agreeing to such a disruptive change for little or no benefit are purely to blame for the state of afairs and you have no one else to blame but yourself. You say you want a great map, I say bullshit, you had one and you can't get rid of it quick enough. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to start to remove non-CT compliant data..
On 3 September 2011 19:12, Simon Poole wrote: > This is really the wrong list for this discussion, but as I've pointed out > before > there are further "minor" points that would have to be considered, for > example > voting rights on future license changes. Obviously you could simply assume > that all PD contributors don't care, I'm just not quite sure that this is > really the > case. > > It is clearly the easier, pragmatic and sensible thing to do to simply > accept the CTs. Hardly, the easier, pragmatic and sensible thing to do is just use CC-by-SA then you don't need to try and get everyone to agree to horrible terms... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to start to remove non-CT compliant data..
On 3 September 2011 14:03, Russ Nelson wrote: > be difficult to prove. Since 1) the defense is strong, 2) the harm is > minimal, 3) cooperation is full, you should expect absolutely nobody > to sue the OSMF for infringement of works which are supposedly PD or > CT but not really. The position taken over PD seems contradictory to other opinions given over the CTs as well, specifically how minors and others aren't allowed to enter into contracts directly: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/Open_Issues#Legal_Capacity ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to start to remove non-CT compliant data..
On 31 August 2011 17:06, Simon Poole wrote: > - ignore trolling by JohnSmith Funny way to ignore someone, in any case here's at least one particular example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aharvey/diary/14416 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to start to remove non-CT compliant data..
On 31 August 2011 15:43, Russ Nelson wrote: > John Smith writes: > > On 31 August 2011 10:19, Ian Sergeant wrote: > > > > > > I think the strategy to remove all non-CT compliant data in one big bang > is > > > > What about the people that agreed to the CTs that had data compatible > > with the current license, cc-by-sa ? > > What about the people who didn't agree to the CT, but whose data is in > the public domain? Exactly, accepting or not accepting the CT might be a suitable indicator for the majority of mappers, but it won't tell you if the data is suitable for relicensing, lots of people have been told they can accept the CTs because they allow for accepting the current license. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to start to remove non-CT compliant data..
On 31 August 2011 10:19, Ian Sergeant wrote: > > I think the strategy to remove all non-CT compliant data in one big bang is What about the people that agreed to the CTs that had data compatible with the current license, cc-by-sa ? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees
On 25 August 2011 22:26, Ed Avis wrote: > Martin Koppenhoefer gmail.com> writes: > >>This was completely easy in the past, but is it realistic to keep OSMF >>"relatively unimportant" if it is rights holder for all the data? > > It might be better to spin off a separate organization which is the rights > holder, separate from the less contentious OSMF functions like providing > funding > to keep the servers running or organizing SoTM. Wouldn't spreading resources thinner only make it easier for someone with enough money and other resources to game the system? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees
On 25 August 2011 19:15, Ed Avis wrote: > Hasn't it happened in the past that large numbers of Cloudmade employees have > joined the OSMF? That didn't cause the organization to be somehow subverted, > and neither will people who work for Skobbler (or Microsoft, or whoever). In the past OSM-F was merely supporting OSM contributors, now that they've decided to "own" the database things are some what different, and OSM-F has set itself up as a target. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sister Projects / possible data source
On 8 August 2011 07:46, Richard Weait wrote: > As I remember it from previous discussions, wifi locations are > somewhat transient for OSM. Cell tower locations are likely from > government databases are they not? Google etc estimate location of towers by using data handsets expose. > Given that this would be a 'complete' dataset from another source, why > duplicate (and eventually synchronize) it with OSM, when it should be > possible to display them together in a mash up? If there is GPS data involved that might be more useful than the tower estimations etc. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] shortened names
On 29 July 2011 14:22, Stephen Hope wrote: > On 28 July 2011 21:52, Brian Quinion > wrote: >> >> Now that said I don't really care which tag is used for the 'full' >> name. I'd personally prefer the name tag was used for this because it >> has always been the policy of OSM that the name tag includes the full >> unabbreviated name. Really - this has been one of the few points of >> (until recent conversation) agreement. > > The argument here is what the full unabbreviated name is. You seem to > think it is Saint Albans. The town says it is St Albans. It's their > name, we shouldn't mess with it. The St in this case is *not* an > abbreviation, it's an alternate spelling. The name tag should have > the official name, not some expanded version because it's easier for > us. > > I would add "Saint Albans" as an alt_name. This is bound to end up in edit wars if people insist on telling locals that the name of their town is wrong. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] shortened names
On 27 July 2011 22:00, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > John Smith wrote: >> The period after St. is the correct way in English to abbreviate >> Saint, where as the abbreviation of street doesn't have a period. > > Not in British English, it isn't. > > "_Saint._ St or S. is better than St. for the abbreviation (see PERIOD IN > ABBR.); Pl. Sts or SS." > > That's from Fowler's Modern English Usage, which is as close as there is to > an authority in British English style. It seems 50/50, although even your reference basically says it's an acceptable practice, even if that publisher had a style preference that was different. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] shortened names
On 27 July 2011 21:48, David Earl wrote: > "Commonly abbreviated S. or St. ... Abbreviations: S. and St., pl. SS. and > Sts. Since the 18th c. ‘St.’ is the form usually employed; but since about > 1830 ‘S.’ has been favoured by ecclesiologists. In place-names, and in > family names derived from these, only ‘St.’ is used [clearly not true!]." The other practice is dropping punctuation marks from signs... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] shortened names
On 27 July 2011 21:21, Paul Jaggard wrote: >> From: John Smith >> The period after St. is the correct way in English to abbreviate >> Saint, where as the abbreviation of street doesn't have a period. > > Exactly the opposite according to my (Collins) dictionary: > > st abbrev. for short ton. > St abbrev. for Saint. > st. abbrev. for stanza, statute, (cricket) stumped by > St. abbrev. for statute, Strait, Street > Sta abbrev. for Saint (female). Isn't the first reference I was pointed to when this came up some time ago http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/St. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] shortened names
On 27 July 2011 20:50, David Earl wrote: > While St Albans isn't big enough to feature in the list in this document, it > does have "St. Helens" (sic). Why the period? The district council's website The period after St. is the correct way in English to abbreviate Saint, where as the abbreviation of street doesn't have a period. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] shortened names
On 27 July 2011 20:01, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > (I'm only talking about the UK, of course, and in fact this discussion would > be better on talk-gb.) The person that started this thread is in New Zealand... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Help Planet.osm.bz2 import error.
On 14 July 2011 10:11, John Smith wrote: > On 14 July 2011 00:49, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> No. That patch is for "osm2pgsql-64" (with its support for 64bit IDs). Saphy >> Mo is running a plain old (more than 12 months old) 32-bit-id osm2pgsql on a >> Windows system. > > You yourself said that the 32bit version can crash if a way ends up in > pending ways with nodes that have large ID numbers. > AFAIK there is nothing that prevents node IDs causing an out of memory error, other than the fact that OSM for now has small ID numbers, Anthony's patch just checks to see how much memory is available and prevents osm2pgsql from using a memory cache if the memory is going to be exceeded. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Help Planet.osm.bz2 import error.
On 14 July 2011 00:49, Frederik Ramm wrote: > No. That patch is for "osm2pgsql-64" (with its support for 64bit IDs). Saphy > Mo is running a plain old (more than 12 months old) 32-bit-id osm2pgsql on a > Windows system. You yourself said that the 32bit version can crash if a way ends up in pending ways with nodes that have large ID numbers. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Help Planet.osm.bz2 import error.
On 13 July 2011 23:15, Martijn van Exel wrote: > Can someone help this person out? You might be hitting a memory limit, even though it's running on a 64 bit system it seems to be compiled on a 32 bit system, Anthony posted a patch to prevent exactly this sort of problem... http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2011-June/023002.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au
On 12 July 2011 02:47, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > John Smith wrote: >> >> Unless you plan to enforce attribution as a minimum for produced >> works > > I'm not quite sure what I've done to deserve this Groundhog Day treatment > and be condemned to relive the same mailing list postings again and again. > > 4.3 "You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably > calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or > is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained > from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a > Collective Database, and that it is available under this License" So why are people still claiming tiles could be made available under PD/CC0 then? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au
On 12 July 2011 02:30, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > SimonPoole wrote: >> there is a fair chance that either the data could be relicensed >> under CC-by (which might be compatible with the ODbL) > > Absolutely. The Australian government data is CC-BY already (I'm not sure > where this idea it's CC-BY-SA comes from). Negotiating compatibility with > ODbL need not be difficult. Unless you plan to enforce attribution as a minimum for produced works, how would ODBL be compatible? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au
On 11 July 2011 22:58, Frederik Ramm wrote: > (Mind you, the new license doesn't seem to keep the Brits from drawing on > attribution-only sources released by *their* government but maybe the law is > stricter down under?) SteveC implied that the talks with OS were more fruitful than they were with NearMap, either that is allowed or it isn't and people should be told to stop if it's not. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] shortened names
On 8 July 2011 13:59, andrzej zaborowski wrote: > On 7 July 2011 19:50, John Smith wrote: >> On 7 July 2011 23:33, andrzej zaborowski wrote: >>>> In some cases, the official name is with the abbreviation, eg St. >>>> George Bank in Australia and there is a town named St. George. >>> >>> Still you say Saint George, not S.T. George. >> >> Well you can ring up the bank/local government and tell them they're >> doing things wrong :) > > They're not, they're using a shorthand in writing because it's.. shorter. :) And the signs they've had printed up etc? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 21:49, Andreas Perstinger 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-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] shortened names
On 7 July 2011 23:33, andrzej zaborowski wrote: >> In some cases, the official name is with the abbreviation, eg St. >> George Bank in Australia and there is a town named St. George. > > Still you say Saint George, not S.T. George. Well you can ring up the bank/local government and tell them they're doing things wrong :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] shortened names
On 7 July 2011 19:23, Pieren wrote: > On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Jochen Topf wrote: >> >> Yes, thats the consensus and has been for a long time. Some mappers always >> disagree, just ignore them. :-) >> > > +1 > > And in software, it is always easier to shorten a word than expanding an > abbreviation. 'st' is for 'Saint' or for 'Street' ? In some cases, the official name is with the abbreviation, eg St. George Bank in Australia and there is a town named St. George. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 6 July 2011 18:20, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: > [] I was not talking about copyright. Copyright laws are of no use > in the digital era, You were talking about databases, however databases can still store copyrightable content, in this case it's copyright that we're talking about, if copyright weren't an issue the database could just be relicensed, but there is copyright involved so it can't. > their application is too large and too wide, and information can be > copied without loss. So what, copyright still covers creative works. > 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. This is irrelevant, just because it's difficult to enforce, doesn't make it less enforcible. >> 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. > > [] 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." Copyright covers any work you do, no matter how trivial or how small, weather you intend to do something worth copyright or not. Photographers keep winning in court over companies that using their imagery without attribution and sometimes without paying for it. > 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. Didn't bison do something weird with licensing, where it was interacting with the output and including a chunk of itself the output was deemed to be copyrighted under the same license, in any case this is all pointless, we're not talking about survey's if you want a similar example use wikipedia, the content is copyrighted even though the it's stored in a database. > OSM is the same. We have a set of algorithms and 200K+ human CPUs that > as Not really, OSM doesn't produce anything, any more than MS can claim copyright on the output of word, the author of the document owns the copyright. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sister Projects
On 6 July 2011 22:03, Tobias Knerr wrote: > M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> Why on earth should we give references to proprietary data projects >> like mapmaker in our wiki? > > Including it in the list gives us a chance to link to > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google_map_maker > and explain why people should *not* choose GMM instead of OSM. And why would that be, because the new CTs are similar to google and people don't really have to share back, just like google isn't really sharing... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 6 July 2011 07:37, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Now if the mapper comes along and sees the river flagged for deletion, and > remembers that he traveled the river in a boat, and maybe even has the GPX > track, there's nothing to keep him from simply overriding the standard > assumption of "we will have to delete this river". We don't yet have a > mechanism for that; currently the mapper would have to delete and re-create > the river but personally I am in favour of a special, temporary license > override tag that people could add to an object, something like > "i_have_personally_investigated_the_history_of_this_object_and_i_can_vouch_for_it_being_odbl_clean=true". In both cases, either tagging something as clean or deleting and re-adding assumes good faith, we already know people copy data from incompatible sources, what's to stop someone simple cutting and pasting data or mass tagging ways as clean? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 5 July 2011 23:04, Andreas Perstinger wrote: > 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? The same as in an identical result, if they use the same sources then the only difference is their creative interpretation of the data sources into producing map data. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] the map on osm.org - airstrips showing only at zoom 10
On 26 June 2011 02:38, Alan Millar wrote: > As has been said a number of times, OSM is a "do-ocracy". At this point, > more discussions just aren't going to resolve it. A little discussion might allow us to harmonise tags, so 10 people don't go off and do their own thing and then need to make massive changes. > Just pick something, like "importance=[1-5]" or > "airport_class=[major|minor|regional|airstrip]" and tag them. Such values > can always be translated into another form later, and/or it just gains > traction and becomes the standard. No reason to wait further. I'm a fan of subtagging :) So I'd be more likely to do something like this: aeroway=aerodrome aerodrome=[major|minor|regional|airstrip] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] the map on osm.org - airstrips showing only at zoom 10
On 25 June 2011 20:47, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2011/6/25 John Smith : >> Wasn't there some discussion about that before, how important airports >> such as LAX should show sooner than regional airports which should >> show up sooner than grass airstrips. > > > Yes, the discussions and proposals are endless for this. Suggestions > are usually that you should deduct the importance by analyzing the map > dat (e.g. surface of the runway, length of the runway) and combine OSM > data with external sources (numbers of starts/landings a year, number > of passengers a year, freight volumes, ...). Seems pretty simple to me, importance is going to be partially subjective, even if 2 airports have similar number of flights, some will have 747s & 380s and some won't. highway=* classifications seems at least partially subjective as well. I see the need for at least 4 or 5 airport types, major international airports, minor international airports, regional airports, tiny airports and airstrips. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] the map on osm.org - airstrips showing only at zoom 10
On 25 June 2011 20:19, Lennard wrote: > On 25-6-2011 8:35, John Smith wrote: > >> Wasn't there some discussion about that before, how important airports >> such as LAX should show sooner than regional airports which should >> show up sooner than grass airstrips. > > Oh, more than once. Nothing (that I know of) came of that. > > http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/1835 Maybe the NZ import will finally get it sorted out then. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] the map on osm.org - airstrips showing only at zoom 10
On 25 June 2011 06:02, Lennard wrote: > On 24-6-2011 4:25, Robin Paulson wrote: >> >> mappers in NZ have recently imported a lot of grass airstrips into >> OSM. it appears the airstrips only render at zoom 10 on the mapnik >> render of the map at osm.org, which looks like this: >> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.243&lon=175.014&zoom=10&layers=M >> >> is there any particular reason for this, osm.org map maintainer? > > No, not at all, except that it can be considered a bug. There hadn't been > many airstrips tagged before this import happened, and only now is it > plainly obvious the zooms are buggy for them. Wasn't there some discussion about that before, how important airports such as LAX should show sooner than regional airports which should show up sooner than grass airstrips. ___ 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.
On 24 June 2011 19:31, Michael Collinson wrote: > We have almost completed work so that the page link goes out with each and > every extraction of geodata ever made (planet dump, API, ...) which is the > important thing. Good point though, and I have requested appropriate changes > to the "Copyright and License" page. But that still falls short of what OSM-F is telling everyone else, but failing to do itself on it's own map, it doesn't make it immediately obvious where attribution can be found to end users. ___ 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.
On 24 June 2011 18:10, Ed Loach wrote: > But I had a look at fosm.org yesterday and they (whoever "they" are > - is there a fosmf?) seem to be making the same mistake that osm.org > did with the original CTs; should they ever need to relicense (say > move from cc-by-sa 2.0 to 3.0) the data, then as far as I can tell http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode Section 4 part b "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License" ___ 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.
On 24 June 2011 18:06, Michael Collinson wrote: > "4. At Your or the copyright owner’s option, OSMF agrees to attribute You or > the copyright owner. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution."; > > Hope that helps. I am personally not going to put my name there, I have > always felt that my contributions are more important then my name. Is that page even linked to from the map itself? ___ 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.
On 24 June 2011 14:32, Julio Costa Zambelli wrote: > On 23 June 2011 23:58, John Smith wrote: >> >> So you quote one line and fail to point out what falsities I'm making. > > So that is what my message was all about? Thanks for clarifying it to me... > You claimed I was making false claims without actually mentioning one of them. ___ 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.
On 24 June 2011 08:49, Julio Costa Zambelli wrote: > On 23 June 2011 16:52, Nic Roets wrote: >> >> It's much closer to what's been >> happening in the Arab States this year: > > There are at least two big difference between revolutions in the Maghreb and > Arab Countries, and the License discussion inside OSM. > In this mailing lists it doesn't matter if a position is backed by one or > ten thousand people, one persons email message weight the same as fifty > thousand people shouting at Tahrir Square, even if that message has more in > common with one crazy guy screaming about conspiracy theories outside ground > zero. We are all going to receive it, the same for all of his/her following > messages, at least till we run tired and unsubscribe from the list. > And most importantly, there is zero intention of repression/censorship (I > guess some of you will try to argue about this, but you all know that if > some censorship had been applied when it could have been done, this > discussion wouldn't be happening), so that one person can "shout" as much as > he/she wants to, for as long as he/she wants to (probably till the License > change is completed, so be prepared for many more messages). > Now, taking it back to the mailing list and people responding, I think that > many of us let Steve, Frederik, Richard and others do the job of answering > John, 80n, etc. because we don't have the time and energy to do it. Luckily > there is always people willing to do the hard work of pushing things So you quote one line and fail to point out what falsities I'm making. ___ 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.
On 24 June 2011 07:39, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Well, it has been stated multiple times that it was a lawyer opinion that Francis Davey, who also claims to be a lawyer, gave an opposite opinion. > CC-BY-SA didn't apply to our data, and factual databases aren't protected by Which is a false premise, map data isn't factual data and copyright on maps doesn't care if they are stored in a database or in print form, making maps takes creative effort, take 10 different mappers and give them the same sources and you will end up with different end results. > CC-BY-SA be applicable to factual databases, but unfortunately also doesn't We're not dealing with a factual database, we're dealing with map data that just happens to be stored in DB form. ___ 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.
On 24 June 2011 04:43, Robert Kaiser wrote: > That said, I'm happy about FOSM, if I ever become a resident of the US and > that legal opinion on this matter still holds up, I might pull its data and > provide it under PD myself. Unlikely, maps were the first thing to be protected under copyright, and copyright law doesn't stipulate what form the maps have to be stored under, and maps are deemed a creative enterprise. If anything ODBL offers the easiest path way to PD data. ___ 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.
On 24 June 2011 04:14, David Murn wrote: > I pointed this out once and the response was that osm.org doesnt need > attribution because there is a logo in the top-left corner. > > I guess the same logic could be applied here, since the name > 'OpenStreetMap' is on the fosm.org page. As I pointed out before, OSM-F isn't the content creator, they merely facilitate, so the attribution should be for OSM Contributors, not OSM-F... ___ 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.
On 24 June 2011 02:36, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > 1. Signing your rights away is not necessarily a bad thing. (The FSF > asks you to do exactly that when contributing to GNU software > projects, for good reasons, though others may rightfully disagree.) > > 2. Anyway, the OSM CT does not require you to sign away your rights. > You just give OSMF a very broad license grant, just like what the > Apache Software Foundation asks of its contributors. Those points aside, the license is usually fixed, some people who volunteer their free time, only do so based on a specific license, or similar. Some people prefer GPL some prefer BSD, but the 2 usually don't mix well because they have different ideals or goals. > 3. Commercial projects are not necessarily bad things either. > Comparing OSMF to a commercial entity (but the comparison is not > correct, see #2 above) like it's a bad thing doesn't make sense. I didn't mean to imply there was anything wrong with them, however I don't usually like volunteering for large multinationals. ___ 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.
On 24 June 2011 02:00, Tobias Knerr wrote: > There are two plausible legal interpretations: > - the "original author" is "OpenStreetMap" > - the "original author" are a lot of individuals You left off companies that have donated data. > No matter which interpretation you choose, your website does not provide > the legally required attribution for either interpretation. Well, OSM-F may facilitate, but they didn't create the data, and I don't plan to bother listing 1,000s of individual authors either. > I'm not interested in talking about OSMF's legal choices with you. Oh so it's a case of do as I say, not as I do... ___ 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.
On 24 June 2011 01:49, Tobias Knerr wrote: > 2011-06-23 John Smith: >>> Which is derived from OpenStreetMap data. Therefore, the tiles are >>> ultimately derived from OpenStreetMap data, too. Quoting CC BY-SA 2.0: >> >> As you said yourself above it's not reasonable to expect a lengthy >> attribution, especially when dealing with small screens, such as those >> on mobile phones. > > Don't play dumb. Putting *all* attribution elsewhere is legal. Putting > only that part of the attribution elsewhere that you want to sweep under > the rug is not legal. OSM-F doesn't put *ALL* attribution elsewhere. ___ 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.
On 24 June 2011 01:41, Robert Scott wrote: > So because people have decided to start a voluntary project, they have to be > answerable to absolutely everybody... everywhere... ever? No matter how > unreasonable or logically warped they are (no names mentioned)? Everyone gets > a veto on everything. Right? Every open source project I can think of has a fixed set of principals by which the code will be licensed under, and the license defines the sort of people that will join and help out, those requiring you to sign your rights away are usually typical of commercial projects, not open source ones. It's rare for projects to switch licenses once they've become established, otherwise you risk a fork splitting what community there is up. ___ 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.
On 24 June 2011 01:27, Robert Scott wrote: > So - what, you're saying we should be doing the whole > list-ten-thousand-names-in-the-corner thing? I don't understand - what's your > point? My point is, why should other sites be forced into attribution even OSM-F isn't willing to give it's own contributors, nor make it easy for people to find it without it being pointed out. > That not all people who contributed that data agree to the odbl? No, but the > vast majority of active mappers did. But they _all_ submitted it to a site > under the understanding of a license that would attribute that work to > "OpenStreetMap". I didn't think that was even being called into question. Or > will you just call anything into question to keep the disruption going? You seem to be the one disrupting things, as far as I'm concerned I attributed to FOSM who in turn attributes their sources. > More importantly, if "f"osm is so much more legitimate and important than > OpenStreetMap, why are you still over here taking a dump on "our" list? You're the one making a big song and dance about things. ___ 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.
On 24 June 2011 01:02, Robert Scott wrote: > Nearly all of the data was generated by OpenStreetMap contributors under the > OpenStreetMap flag, so I think the attribution should be mostly to > OpenStreetMap. For starters you are confusing OSM contributors with OSM-F who operates the website and what not, as for flags how about pitching a couple for companies either giving away data or giving away aerial imagery that can be derived from. None of which, not even contributors, get a mention where most maps attribute the companies that supplied data etc. ___ 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.
On 23 June 2011 22:20, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) wrote: > 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. Erm how is this any better than companies sharing ODBL data and contributions either being exempt from sharing back or not being accepted because it isn't allowed by the CTs? Or how many people want OSM-F to run a PD project. ___ 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.
On 23 June 2011 21:53, Robert Scott wrote: > On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote: >> The data is rendered from FOSM data. > > Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data. I find this ironic, if not out right amusing, OSM-F tries to hide any kind of attribution, yet you expect others to more prominently attribute OSM-F, which only a very small percentage if that, of the content can be contributed from OSM-F members. So one rule for OSM-F, and another for everyone else, in other words either eat your own dog food, otherwise why should anyone else? ___ 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.
On 23 June 2011 21:53, Robert Scott wrote: > On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote: >> The data is rendered from FOSM data. > > Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data. I'm told there is at least 500 changesets not from OSM... ___ 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.
On 23 June 2011 21:47, Tobias Knerr wrote: > Maybe you just don't know enough maps - there are plenty that list > attribution elsewhere. This includes lots of maps for mobile devices > (because these happen to have limited screen space), but also maps that > use multiple sources (because in these cases, even a large screen would > get cluttered with legalese). Static maps (e.g. map images in Wikipedia) > also frequently use different attribution mechanisms. Thanks for the tip, I'm sure someone else is bound to put an obscure link on their website and you'll probably hound them about it as well. > Which is derived from OpenStreetMap data. Therefore, the tiles are > ultimately derived from OpenStreetMap data, too. Quoting CC BY-SA 2.0: As you said yourself above it's not reasonable to expect a lengthy attribution, especially when dealing with small screens, such as those on mobile phones. ___ 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.
On 23 June 2011 21:15, Tobias Knerr wrote: > No, it isn't. It has the attribution right there on the "Copyright & > License" link. Unlike every other map site out there where the main attribution is at the bottom right side of the map. > The "Demo archive.org Tile Hosting" map, on the other hand, fails to > attribute OpenStreetMap. It just mentions fosm.org, and thus violates > the license's requirement that the original creator's attribution needs > to be displayed as least as prominently as that of later additions. The data is rendered from FOSM data. ___ 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.
On 23 June 2011 21:00, Matt Williams wrote: > No it isn't. There's a 'Copyright & License' link in the sidebar on the left. Nice and obscure... ___ 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.
On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr wrote: > On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote: > >> did you see this? >> http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html >> > > That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution? I just noticed that osm.org is missing attribution. ___ 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.
On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr wrote: > On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote: > >> did you see this? >> http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html >> > > That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution? The attribution was put into the JS file, but I'm looking into why that doesn't display. ___ 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
On 18 June 2011 02:40, Rob Myers wrote: > On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:07 AM, John Smith > wrote: >> Then you have a whole other argument over what constitutes a produced >> work and so on. > > It's a novel concept, to be sure. but if you want to understand it > better you can always ask the licence's authors on odc-discuss. Why isn't there a concise reference on all this? Surely this sort of thing has been asked enough to warrant it, along with all the other common questions, chances are then they wouldn't keep getting asked multiple times. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@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
On 18 June 2011 02:26, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > I don't think you're going to get clear answers about these specific > cases. It will take a court decision to provide precedent rulings on > such things. Well the copyright side of things seems pretty simple, especially if people are using CC0/PD, and if there is no contract with the end user that also is pretty simple, as contract law also doesn't apply. The only thing left would be database rights, but as was pointed out, it seems CC is planning to waive DB rights in future CC licenses, but I haven't paid much attention to this because it doesn't apply to me, but I thought some of the current EU specific CC licenses waived DB rights. > And this is not a problem specific to ODbL. Even CC licenses have > unresolved problems, like a question I thought of regarding how a > person in country A will be able to use a work released under a CC > license that was ported to country B. Should the person in country A > follow provisions in CC-license-ported-to-B even if that doesn't apply > to his jurisdiction? Can he use the work in CC-license-ported-to-A? Or > can he revert to the unported CC license? You are assuming CC licenses are the only issue, what about tiles published under CC0/PD, none of the above would apply. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@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
On 18 June 2011 01:46, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > Let me try copyright-only examples. > > I can take up the full text of all of the works of William > Shakespeare, compile it into a book with annotations, and release the > book under CC-BY-SA. Now since the original text by Shakespeare is > already in the public domain, I can copy those parts from the book > without following the book's CC license. In this case, the CC license > has no way to restrict me from doing that. > > Here's another example. All English Wikipedia articles are licensed > CC-BY-SA. Most articles have images. Some images are *not* licensed > CC-BY-SA. In fact, many of such images are included in the article > under fair use reasoning. That doesn't give the reader the license to > use such images under CC-BY-SA simply because they were included in > CC-BY-SA-licensed articles. The problem here isn't cc-by-sa, it's bigger picture stuff, from what I understand/have been led to believe, the ODBL doesn't limit what license produced works can be published under, outside of the EU there is limited or no database rights, so if tiles are produced and published under PD/CC0/CC-by/CC-by-SA there is no limitation on deriving, selling etc etc those tiles, other than what those copyright licenses limit you to do, obviously deriving cc-by-sa tiles would need to be under a cc-by-sa license etc. I don't wish to complicate this issue, but I'm led to believe that a lot of database rights are yet to have precedents, I think this would be pointless conjecture at this time. Frederik and others were trying to claim there was some kind of implied limit on derivatives, even in non-EU countries, which comes back to my original question about minimum license, or websites needing to have a binding contract on the end user to limit or prevent turning information on tiles back into some kind of vector data set. Then you have a whole other argument over what constitutes a produced work and so on. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities
On 18 June 2011 01:18, Kate Chapman wrote: > Hi Frederik, > > Yes I agree that the arm chair mapping isn't the best method of > collection. Though in some areas it will be difficult to ever have > mappers on the ground without imagery. The cost of a GPS is > prohibitive in many places. For other features, such as rivers and coast lines, arm chair mapping is probably the best bang for the buck, since it's difficult if not impossible to do this on the ground, that's before the amount of labour is taken into account to get this data. ___ 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
On 18 June 2011 00:50, Simon Poole wrote: > > > Am 17.06.2011 16:39, schrieb andrzej zaborowski: > > ... >> >> 2. What happens if a person in country A with database rights >> publishes a tileset and licenses it under CC-By-SA to a person in >> country B without database rights? The second person is then as far >> as I can see not bound by database rights or a contract. Is that >> incorrect? >> > ... > > I'm sure that our legal experts will step in if this isn't correct :-). > > While in your example the person in country B can probably legally ignore > the terms of the ODBL (publisher in A however must include a notice pointing > to the ODBL and so on), it doesn't make a database generated from that > tileset "legal" in country A. Since at least most European countries (this > is very generalised) consider an Internet publication the same as a national > publication, any publisher of such a database would have to take precautions > to block access in the EU (and countries with similar database protection > regulations) or risk getting in to trouble. This could be hard, especially since OSM-F isn't complying with Chinese law, so why would others comply with EU law unless they were in the EU? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@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
On 18 June 2011 00:40, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I am not trying to apply patents to OSM. I am trying to use the example of > patents to prove to you that your reasoning "either something is CC-BY-SA or > it isn't" is, in this simplicity, invalid; that there may well exist > limitations external to the license that limit what you can or cannot do > with the CC-BY-SA licensed entity. Sorry if I didn't explain myself properly, I meant if you apply CC-by-SA you are allowed or limited by that license only, if there is further restrictions you would have to use something other than cc-by-sa (such as CC-by-ND) to enforce this, OR use a contract. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@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
On 18 June 2011 00:32, Rob Myers wrote: > On 06/17/11 16:06, John Smith wrote: >> So once again I'm met with silence and can only assume that produced >> works licensed under cc-by or cc-by-sa can be derived from, > > Do read the discussions I had with odc-discuss when someone asked about > this before: Which is mostly about database directive, which only applies to a limited region. > If you miraculously manage to create a Derived Database from the > Produced Work, you know the requirements due to the advertising on the > Produced Work (which BY-SA handles under the BY part of the licence). Without a contract it wouldn't be enforceable outside the EU, you would need at the very minimum a copyright license like cc-by-nd, especially on those that plan to distribute tiles as PD/CC0. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@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
On 18 June 2011 00:30, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 06/17/11 16:20, John Smith wrote: >> >> Patents don't apply here > > I am trying to make a general point about the scope of CC licenses, to which > the "patents" example is relevant. > > Do you or do you not agree, that if a picture describing a patent is made > available under CC-BY-SA (and NOT CC-BY-ND), one's ability to implement the > procedure described in the picture, and thereby create a derivative work of > the picture, would be limited? There is 4 types of IP law (5 in the EU with the 5th being DB directive), contract, patent, copyright, trademarks. You can't apply patents laws against copyright and vice versa, so no you are wrong on this matter, or it's a very very poor example. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@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
On 17 June 2011 18:38, Rob Myers wrote: > Data from an ODbL database may however be used to create a BY-SA > Produced Work. So this means produced works can be traced into a cc-by-sa data set then? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities
On 17 June 2011 13:19, David Murn wrote: > There are numerous programs that exist which show the density of mapping > in certain areas. Maybe it would be useful to find the more heavily > mapped areas that dont have coverage? That's making assumptions that larger towns are mapped already, however when I go looking there is plenty of towns very poorly mapped that have no aerial imagery available. Major and semi-major transport corridors would be good as well. > Personally, Id like to see the coverage extended along the east coast of > Australia, in many areas the coverage seems to cover huge regional areas > but then stops short of the townships. Id also like to throw in a vote eg Lightning Ridge http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-29.4282&lon=147.9793&zoom=14&layers=M ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Anyone know where this city is?
On 16 June 2011 20:37, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > > JohnSmitty wrote: >> >> http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/2501/sancturymap.png >> >> Seems to look like an OSM map to me, I don't have access to all >> credits, so no idea if it was credited or not.. > > I'm pretty sure that's Google Maps in Lower Manhattan (completely sure about > the location). It's a modified map, one such change is the bridge at the lower left side, it's been cut off ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Anyone know where this city is?
http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/2501/sancturymap.png Seems to look like an OSM map to me, I don't have access to all credits, so no idea if it was credited or not.. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Community important, license unimportant
On 16 June 2011 04:54, Russ Nelson wrote: > As usual, the majority is right, and the minority (both 20%'s!) are > wrong. The question that we need to worry about is not the legal terms > of the license, but instead: will changing the license hurt the > community more than leaving it alone. I'm not sure anybody but me is > worrying about that. There is one other thing to worry about as well, going ahead how much faith will people have in the OSM-F board. > So I highly encourage everybody EVERYBODY to shut up, pay less > attention to the licensing, and map. I wish it were that simple, for the longest time we were told to be careful of the sources of data we import from, now it seems it doesn't matter how murky the data is as long as people sign up to the new CTs. Many long term contributors have left, both because of the current process, how it's being handled and all the unanswered questions, they don't want to map if their work is going to be for nothing. In Brisbane, Qld there was a regular mapping party each month, that hadn't missed a month in about 13ish months but there hasn't been a mapping party in the last 6 months because of all this nonsense. I could keep going, but the community has already been gutted to a large extent. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
On 16 June 2011 01:47, Dave F. wrote: > It's only as the deadline draws near that those in favour of the change are > trying to put the blame on the mappers for there potentially being a > conflict. I find this irritating. No, this isn't a new thing, this has pretty much existed ever since people started to notice problems with the CTs and how much data would be incompatible. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Garmin to acquire Navigon
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheBoyGeniusReport/~3/8nAQktIAPQk/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Navigon to Sell OpenStreetMap POIs Packages for PNDs
On 14 June 2011 23:29, Jonas Krückel wrote: > Well, it would be nice and we could certainly ask for it, but with CC-BY-SA > only the end product falls under the license and not the processed data in > between. Once we move on to ODbL however, this will change and we will get > the much more interesting 'raw' data. So far everyone seemed to be asking if their use would be exempt under various DB clauses ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing Maps are amazing
On 13 June 2011 18:01, Ed Loach wrote: > If I recall correctly, the Mapnik “Openstreetmap Mode” requires Silverlight, > so the link below might show you a different view if you don’t have it > installed. Or perhaps I’m thinking of the Map App, if that is different? I'd forgotten about that and it never seemed to make sense to me just for showing tiles. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing Maps are amazing
On 13 June 2011 17:07, Nick Hocking wrote: > Jochen, > > I see attribution on my browser (bottom left corner). Rendering is, I think > standard mapnik, looks ok to me. > > Andrew E, did you try my link and zoom over to Korea. I think you'll find > all the OSM data there looking quite good. I only see attribution for Microsoft and MapData Sciences... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF ! + PD / CC0 projects
On 12 June 2011 19:29, Nic Roets wrote: > I'm much more worried about the effects of a fork. If we spend time > updating a number of forks, it will detract from time that we could > have spent mapping. I was in that frame of thinking 3-6 months ago, but unless something radical occurs in a very short amount of time the damage will be very difficult to over come, each day that passes more long term contributors grow fed up of how the current process has been handled and leave, possibly forever. > It's much better if we a democratic process and settle the license one > and for all. If joining the OSMF is a requirement to vote, then so be > it. It's only 25 bucks. Not only would you have to join, but get a more contributor orientated board elected. Currently it seems at present only companies are being listened to. At this point in time, I doubt the situation can be fixed, or even the effect mitigated since the trust in the current board is completely lacking. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Blue color in part of MAP by MAPNIK
Did anyone try to mark tiles as dirty, I've done this in the past and it seems to re-render properly, no idea why it occurs or why marking it as dirty fixes things, seems to be inconsistent so might be a mapnik bug. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] anonymous edits
On 27 May 2011 04:19, Martijn van Exel wrote: > Totally anonymous edits existed once in OSM, until 2007. See the first > link in my original message (mysteriously not referred to in the > message body..hm). They were abandoned for different reasons I > believe, the wiki page gives some explanation. I'm aware, but knowingly allowing it to continue was my point, especially since steps were taken in the past to stop accepting them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] anonymous edits
On 27 May 2011 03:51, Martijn van Exel wrote: > Hi all, > > Consider the following application scheme: > * a twitter user sends a geo-located tweet containing a specified > hashtag, say #addosm and key-value pairs like "amenity:pub;name:Red > Devil;smoking:yes" > * a twitter scraper picks up the tweet, archives it and posts a new > point using the twitter coordinate and the decoded k-v pairs, plus an > additional tag source:twitter[@twitteruser] or something like that. > This would be an easy way to add POIs on the go, and could be an > interface for mobile applications to post new POIs. This would not be > totally anonymous but it's close. What do you think, is this > acceptable? A similar level of anonymity is reached by WheelMap.org > that allows anonymous OSM edits through their web site via the OSM > account wheelmap_visitor[2]. Not knowing who made edits to the phone directory was one reason given for copyright not to cover phone books in Australia, so anonymous edits have the ability to weaken copyright in some jurisdictions. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] level_crossing, leveled
On 26 May 2011 18:53, Richard Mann wrote: > Unless you operate to peculiar safety standards, there'll probably be > a stop sign on the track some way either side of the former > crossing(probably set for the stopping distance of the heaviest train > operating at linespeed, and taking the gradient into account - which > could easily be a mile away). So there'll be quite a length of track > that's "disused". I'd probably tag the railway as abandoned, and > remove the level crossing, if it looks like a permanent situation. I hit this when I first started mapping, there is a lot of track about the place, and the crossings are still there, but tarred over, rather than ripped up. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] level_crossing, leveled
On 26 May 2011 05:10, Richard Weait wrote: > HI all, > > What should be done with a level_crossing, when trains may cross no longer? > > The junction was a level_crossing, but has been repaved and > re-sculpted. The rails are now covered by 0.3 - 0.4 m of asphalt > which appears to have been laid directly over the tracks. So the > railway hardware appears to still be there, but unusable. The rails > continue both directions from the level_crossing. > > To this point, I have left the level_crossing tag in place; it can > still serve as a waypoint, I suppose. > > Any thoughts or widely accepted customs regarding this? I usually tag them as level_crossings, but some kind of disused tag might be more suitable ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tag touristic street roads
On 2 May 2011 15:56, Gregor Horvath wrote: > Hello, > > I could not find a wiki page nor relevant data on how > to tag a touristic relevant road. > There is the scenic=yes tag, but maybe only a part of the touristic > road is scenic but the whole road (relation) may be of touristic > interest (for example a mountain pass road in the alps) > > Is there a common scheme? > I would think tourism=attraction on the relation would be correct > but I could not find such tags for example in the Austrian data. I've been using a relation for the route, and using: type=route network=T ref=number/name ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 22:10, Ian Dees wrote: > doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for > No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change > license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of > the desire with the community, information about it presented clearly and > thoughtfully, questions responded to in a timely manner, and a vote held by > the active mappers to confirm that yes, this change should be pursued. > Instead what happened is... none of that. I appreciate the hard work of > those that spent the time to draw up the new license and work with a small > fraction of the community to make decisions on it, but I think they put the > cart before the horse. > Anyway, I apologize for bringing this up again and degenerating talk@ into a > field of flames. I was hoping to get a straight answer this time. I'll go > unsubscribe from talk (like a lot of others :) ) and click the accept > button. Many of those that you deem as trolls are in the same position as you, no one can get straight answers to some fairly simple questions, and it seems things are being pushed ahead regardless so what are people supposed to do other than leave if they disagree, like you have chosen to do. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 19:49, Lester Caine wrote: > No I said 'free access to this sort of data'. But I don't see that having > the courtesy to recognise where data can from should be any sort of a > problem. 'Requiring it' just acknowledges that some people do not extend > that common courtesy. I find no restrictions on what I need to do with the > data. Just because attribution is not restriction for you, doesn't mean others feel the same way, OS (along with many other data producers) require it, yet the PD proponents don't want any such strings. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 19:04, Lester Caine wrote: > John Smith wrote: >> >> On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caine wrote: >>> >>> The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing >>> 'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even the UK >>> government >>> have now accepted that we should have free access to this sort of data, >>> so >>> my own 'need' for OSM has been somewhat diluted since I have an open >>> alternative. I was looking at mirroring my own copy of OSM, but the OS >>> data >>> gives me the facilities I need with less hassle. >> >> Doesn't OS require attribution if you use their data? > > Same as adding a link to OSM where that is the source ... So your original suggestion that the OS recognises your suggestion about things should be public domain is patently false. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caine wrote: > The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing > 'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even the UK government > have now accepted that we should have free access to this sort of data, so > my own 'need' for OSM has been somewhat diluted since I have an open > alternative. I was looking at mirroring my own copy of OSM, but the OS data > gives me the facilities I need with less hassle. Doesn't OS require attribution if you use their data? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 17:42, Dermot McNally wrote: > wouldn't have sought it at a much earlier stage than this. Normally > abject opposition should come after, not before, "neutral" appraisal > of the proposal, shouldn't it? There has been so many issues with the new license, the new contributor terms and the way the whole thing as been handled that it's hard to know where to start pulling at threads, pull the wrong one and the whole jumper will fall to bits... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 17:37, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > OpenOffice.org has had a major fork just recently. The LibreOffice fork > has chosen different licensing arrangements, including the contributors > retaining their own copyright. > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/ > and interestingly this assessment of how LibreOffice is going > http://webmink.com/2011/02/11/is-libreoffice-open-by-rule/ > We can also note how the new fork is handling their compound > licensing issue. What's more interesting is Oracle's move to wash their hands of direct control over OpenOffice... http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/15/oracle_letting_openoffice_go/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] question for folks working on routing engines
On 16 April 2011 13:43, John Smith wrote: > On 16 April 2011 13:25, Richard Welty wrote: >> what i'm after are parameters so that the routing engines present >> rational results to drivers who aren't me. so why don't we focus on >> the actual problem in front of us instead of posturing about our >> driving skills. > > Well you seemed to have skipped my next comment about describing what > sort of dirt road they are. > > As for describing conditions, you could describe sections of the road > as being corrugated or potholed etc... That sort of information is > useful even on tarred roads... > I actually wrote a comment to the talk-au list about having accurate map data, and not just for navigation. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2011-April/007874.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] question for folks working on routing engines
On 16 April 2011 13:25, Richard Welty wrote: > what i'm after are parameters so that the routing engines present > rational results to drivers who aren't me. so why don't we focus on > the actual problem in front of us instead of posturing about our > driving skills. Well you seemed to have skipped my next comment about describing what sort of dirt road they are. As for describing conditions, you could describe sections of the road as being corrugated or potholed etc... That sort of information is useful even on tarred roads... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] question for folks working on routing engines
On 16 April 2011 01:30, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I suggest you also add source:maxspeed=US:NY:rural or sth. similar to > the roads with no explicit maxspeed sign. Well he said 55mph is the default maximum for unsigned roads, wouldn't it be more useful for routing software to know that, than keep track of a bunch of strings that may or may not be documented properly. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] question for folks working on routing engines
On 16 April 2011 00:36, Richard Welty wrote: > i ask this because in NY, the default speed limit in rural areas is 55 > on all roads. there are numerous unpaved roads (dirt, gravel) which > do not have posted speed limits, but where driving at 55 is not > reasonable unless you're a rally driver and the road is closed. Pfft, I was taught to drive on gravel roads, and they can be perfectly safe to drive on at 100km/hr in places, but you have to be familiar with the stretch of road you're on and drive for the condition etc. > i want to tag these accurately, and am doing so, but i should think > that the routing engines ought to avoid, when possible, this combination > or others like it: > > highway=unclassified > name=Mead Road > maxspeed=55 mph > surface=dirt Dirt isn't very useful information imho, in Australia dirt roads could be made of gravel, black soil, red soil etc, and knowing the type of dirt road is useful, gravel roads are often still usable after lots of rain, but you definitely don't want to do black soil roads after heavy rain. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On 15 April 2011 12:51, David Murn wrote: > This was a question in regards to whether you will reverse the selection > of someone accepting the new licence/terms, if you (or they) become > aware the data is tainted. Wouldn't breach of clause 1 break the entire contract ? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On 15 April 2011 00:49, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Eric Marsden wrote: >> >> It is not clear to me, from your message or from what I have read on >> the wiki, whether choosing "Decline" is a irreversible decision, or >> whether one would still be able later to accept the licence + CT. > > "Decline" is reversible. "Accept" isn't. Once we've got you, we'll never > let go. So you are happy to breach your own contract? Since already there are people decieved by all this have blindly agreed only to find out later they don't have the right to. It seems all those years of pushing to not include tainted data only matters if you aren't an individual, and OSM-F is more than happy to include tainted data from end users. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 14 April 2011 22:20, Tom Hughes wrote: > If you mean that currently there is no decline button for existing > contributors then that is a feature, not a bug. When making a decision > becomes mandatory on Sunday there will be a decline button. I reported it several messages back. I see a decline button, but clicking it doesn't seem to do anything. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 14 April 2011 19:56, Michael Collinson wrote: > Don't forget this is a pre-announcement! The technical implementation is > ongoing thanks to Tom, Matt and Grant. The revised contributor terms should > now be live and I have just got the go ahead to be able to announce that the > mandatory Accept/Decline will be switched on on Sunday. You might want to fix the decline bug before doing so... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available? (was: OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement)
On 14 April 2011 00:49, Ed Avis wrote: > It's _a_ goal but I think the more important selling points for ODbL/DbCL > are the positive ones - more uses it would permit for the data, for example > distributing map tiles without having to follow any particular licence for > them. Some claim it would need attribution as a minimum, however it may even need a license agreement from end users so the ODBL applies to tiles not just map data. Otherwise data could be reversed back into vector format, with no minimum license, which seems to breach ODBL to me. In any case I'm yet to get a straight answer for that. > In my view the 'negative' selling points - that it would supposedly allow the > OSMF to sue people in all the cases where the map is currently being used > wrongly and we can't do anything - are less central to the project's vision. How many parties have needed to be sued so far because they refuse to comply with CC-by-SA? > In the end, legal reasons aren't the most important ones. I hope that OSM > can be a broad church. The aim is for everyone to feel able to agree to the > CTs, whichever faction they belong to, or none. So it would be good to follow > a broad-based licensing plan that can accommodate everyone. Why do we even need the CTs, supposedly we needed a new license, but all that is going to do is remove large tracks of data, and an increasing distrust in OSM-F both to do things morally and even smoothly at all, at this point I highly doubt they could even successfully organise a piss up in a brewery... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping huge lakes as coastline
On 14 April 2011 03:24, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > This results in bad rendering for low zoom tiles, with the lake > showing up on zoom6 but not on zoom5 (in Mapnik). Wouldn't it be better to fix the rendering side of things, than incorrectly mapping just so it renders how you expect it to? In terms of fixing the rendering, all that would need to be done is have polygons of a certain area render sooner. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 13 April 2011 10:44, Richard Weait wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:59 PM, SomeoneElse > wrote: > >> Mike, >> "https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms"; appears unchanged. Is that some >> sort of caching effect, or does "has been improved" actually mean "is about >> to be improved, but has not been yet"? > > Dear Andy, > > The updated terms v1.2.4 will be presented when the accept / decline > buttons are both available. You may read the v1.2.4 terms in advance > at http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms When I used the link SomeoneElse pasted above and click on decline it redirects me to the main user page and instead of stating I've declined it states I haven't agreed to the new terms. Bound to confuse someone and/or a bug where it doesn't accept my rejection. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licensing Working Group
On 25 March 2011 14:11, Russ Nelson wrote: > So why aren't the ODbL folks being told the same thing? You want a > different license? Hey, great, no problem, go ahead, create a fork of > OSM. But don't expect us to follow you. Anthony has been asking this for some time, since copying suitable data is the only moral if not legal thing to do, rather than trying to shift out non-ODBL suitable data... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licensing Working Group
On 24 March 2011 06:00, Richard Weait wrote: > It's an inoculation. A bit of a pinch, and a sore spot on the arm for > a day, but we're all better off afterwards. It's more like a tainted vaxination, the kind where you end up a lot worst off. > ODbL gives us the real share-alike, open data license that we wish we > had available to us when the project started. ODBL is nothing like share-a-like, it weakens things considerably. > CT future-proofs the project so that we can keep up with the Open Data > environment that we are changing. As others have pointed out repeatedly, no other major project requires this that isn't some how commercially based, this is the kind of terms that Google offers for people contributing. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licensing Working Group
On 23 March 2011 20:45, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I don't agree. Of course it is important how much of the data will > survive, but it is even more important to not loose active > contributors. Many that were previously active contributors have since stopped contributing until this mess is sorted out since they don't want to waste more time and effort on improving things if the efforts of that labour is thrown out at a later date. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
