Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODBL enforcement: contract law and remedies
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes:
[CC-BY-SA unclear, or not permissive enough?]
We know for a fact that a number of people (especially people that have
asked their lawyers for an opinion) have indeed decided not to use our
data for this reason.
That is certainly a good reason to switch to a simpler and legally
unambiguous licence. Have these same lawyers reviewed the ODBL and given
it the thumbs up?
Several lawyers have looked at ODbL and commented.
Yes - specifically what I was asking about was whether these same people
who decided they were unable to use OSM data under CC-BY-SA would be
happy to use it under ODBL. (Myself, I suspect not!)
we'll have to wait and see if they respond to the open letter. i
wouldn't want to put words in their mouths, but i suspect that ODbL
clears up a lot of the uncertainties with CC BY-SA.
you say simpler and legally unambiguous, but it's become clear to me
from my work on the LWG that it is impossible for something to be
simple, unambiguous and global in scope. copyright law is sort-of
harmonised across the world by the Berne, Buenos Aires and Universal
Copyright Conventions, which makes it easier to write licenses based
on copyrights. there's just nothing like that for mostly factual
databases yet.
Agreed. My inclination would be to keep things simple and stick with
copyright - with an additional permission grant of the database right
in countries where a database right exists. ('You may use and copy
the database as long as you distribute the result under CC-BY-SA, and
grant this same database permission to the recipient.')
ODbL does exactly this: it is a copyright and database rights license,
in addition to being a contract. the contractual part is necessary
because copyright + database rights almost certainly doesn't give
enough protection in most of the non-EU world, e.g: USA.
Clearly there is a tradeoff to be made between simplicity and covering
every possible theoretical case where somebody in some jurisdiction might
possibly be able to persuade a court that they can copy OSM's data.
It seems that the ODBL optimizes for the latter.
ODbL optimises for a trade-off of simplicity and completeness. it has
been through several comment stages and, at each stage, people said it
was too complex. however, when you dig into any particular clause
you'll find that they are necessarily complex. i'm not saying it can't
be shortened - just that most of the unnecessary complexity has
already been removed. lawyers don't revel in complexity for
complexity's sake - they deal with it because it's an unavoidable part
of the legal system.
even if you were to optimise for size over coverage, you'd still want
it to work in at least the EU and USA. the EU needs the bits about
database rights, the USA needs the bits about contract. throw in the
bits about copyright in an attempt to cover that base as well; that's
the ODbL!
here is my rationale for moving away from CC BY-SA
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable
Thanks. Those are indeed problems with the licence. But only the first
one is a reason to *drop* CC-BY-SA; the remaining ones are just as easily
addressed by dual-licensing under both Creative Commons and some other,
more permissive (and acceptable-to-some-lawyers) licence. I would happily
support such a move.
you'd happily support distributing the data under a license which is
not likely to protect it?
cheers,
matt
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What should be considered legal?
On 10/24/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/10/21 rhn opstmaac@porcupinefactory.org: I'm a mapper for more than a year, and I know a little bit about intellectual property, but some questions have been puzzling me for quite some time. First of them - how much is allowed when referring to proprietary maps? Is it right to look at the street names to see whether I got them right? Or can I compare topology of the streets with the external map? See if I got the village placement right and adjust it? IMHO (IANAL) you can always compare your map to others, but if the don't match, you will not know, who's right, unless you recontroll. i'd agree - it's OK to compare OSM to proprietary maps and use that to figure out where needs surveying. but it's not OK to take information from that proprietary map - if there is a difference then you'll have to go out and survey the difference. so (imho) it wouldn't be OK to adjust village placement based on proprietary maps; if there's a difference you'd have to look at other allowable sources like Y! aerial imagery or out-of-copyright maps, or go out and survey it with a GPS. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL virality questions
On 10/16/09, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Erik Johansson wrote: Open Database License (ODbL) “Attribution and Share-Alike for Data/Databases” Yep. Exactly. CC-BY-SA, famously, allows you to combine different types of creative content as a collective work. Wikipedia regularly combines GFDL text with CC-BY-SA photos, and no-one bats an eyelid: it's a collective work. I now have a practical case. Routes for public transports are usually printed on a map, this map is usually licensed and it might be difficult to get permissions to distribute the map on the net (see picture). So how do I get to use OSM data for free? you always get to use OSM data for free - that's the point! i guess what you mean is how do i get to use OSM data in conjunction with other licensed data without releasing the other licensed data? under the linking system described previously in this thread (hereafter The Fairhurst Doctrine), i think that the following would be required: I can store my data as 1. already georeffed shape files if neither the geometry, not any attributes, have come from OSM, then there's no need to release them. even if the shapefile is rendered together with OSM data, it doesn't create a derivative database at any point - it's essentially the same as rendering a pushpin mashup - so it's a collective work. 2. shapefiles of the routes that are created from OSM data anything that comes from OSM would need to be released, e.g: geometry or attributes. other attributes not coming from OSM may not, under the Fairhurst Doctrine, unless they are modifications of attributes already existing in OSM. in my view, the shapefile geometry would need to be released, along with a dbx file containing all the attributes which originated with or derived from OSM, but not ones from any non-OSM dataset. however, it's possible that the whole dbx file may be considered a whole derivative database, as dbx files aren't capable of the sort of relational linkage that was discussed before. 3. route relations in OSM format, but no from OSM (just referencing IDs in OSM) i think this doesn't require any release of those relations, as they're basically just lists of OSM way IDs. under the Fairhurst Doctrine, such lists aren't qualitatively substantial and therefore aren't derivative databases. 4. description used by bus drivers to get around there's nothing in the description derived from OSM, so my view is that this doesn't need to be released. it's a list of directions, after all. Then a separate database with Share-Alike Openstreetmap data. this would need to be made available, of course. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] view blocks received?
On 10/10/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: On 10/10/09, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote: On 7 Oct 2009, at 11:06, Lars Francke wrote: I'm waiting for the announcement on the new mailing list :) Actually it was already announced: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/announce/2009-October/01.html so if something didn't go wrong everytime i tried to sign up to the new list i could have read that? what shaun failed to mention is that message has the following header: On Wed Oct 7 18:25:24 BST 2009, Matt Amos wrote: it wasn't already announced, at the time of lars' email. it's a pity that something goes wrong every time you sign up to a new mailing list, but there's a good reason for a seperate announce list. maybe every announce mail could be automatically copied to talk as well? although that might be a bit annoying to those subscribed to both... cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Doctau created the following page, and various other people have contributed to it. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/VotingOnTheWikiIsStupid I don't think voting is stupid, but I do believe that voting is not productive. Here's what I believe we should do instead of voting on features: 1) Just map. 2) Use existing keys if you can. 3) Use existing tags if you can. 4) If you used a tag that isn't in the wiki, document your use of the tag, so that other people won't use your tag to mean something else. this is awesome advice. if i could add to (4) that any new tag ought to be verifiable (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability), as this helps avoid confusion and edit wars in the long-run. there seem to be several different aspects to tagging that the current tag voting procedure seems to conflate; use, documentation and map features. separating these out, i think: 1) tags don't need to be voted on in order to be used. this is just common sense - there's nothing in the editors to prevent free-form tagging and i'm sure we don't want to stop people free-form tagging. that's part of what makes OSM genius and unique. 2) tags shouldn't need to be voted on in order to be documented. i don't see why we would ever want to prevent anyone documenting anything. documentation is good, right? especially if it comes with pictures. 3) the inclusion (or not) of a tag on map features may well be something that it is worth voting on. it could be done on a purely mechanical basis by counting the tag usage in the database, but this is somewhat lacking in reason and flexibility. harry wood suggested some useful ideas in his SotM talk http://www.harrywood.co.uk/blog/2009/10/04/community-smoothness/ . certainly, though, we should assume that not all tags make it onto map features, not even most of them, but a small set of the most commonly used / most important (fsvo important). 5) If you disagree with the definition of the key or value, then create a new key or value with a different name, use it in your editing, document it in the wiki, AND (this is important) put a link to it in the definition that you disagree with. from our useful chat the other day on IRC maybe we can put a set of guidelines out there to help people resolve these competing tagging schemes. in general, prefer the tagging scheme which: 1) preserves more information 2) is verifiable, or more easily verifiable 3) has been recommended by respected members of the community for (3) we're back to harry's talk about how do we, as a community, recognise those respected members? 6) The risk of this system is that people will not find tags that have the meaning they're looking for. They'll then create a new tag which has an identical or similar meaning to an existing one. If you find a pair of these tags which have similar meanings, you should edit the wiki pages for them, and include pointers to each other. and possibly a link to tagwatch/osmdoc/tagstat so that people can find out which is more often used in practice. The benefit is that people spend more time mapping and less time coordinating with each other on things that don't need to be coordinated in advance. +1. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL virality questions
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: what are your thoughts? I have a hard time seeing how any of these usecases can be anything other than insubstantial extractions. The database directive (article 15) says that Any contractual provision contrary to Articles 6 (1) and 8 shall be null and void where 8 says that extraction of insubstantial parts are allowed. substantial itself is not defined, so we have a guideline for it http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_Defined looking at the definition (which is negative, these are for insubstantialness): * Less than 100 Features. all UK pubs is likely to be more than 100 features. * More that 100 Features only if the extraction is non-systematic and clearly based on your own qualitative criteria for example an extract of all the the locations of restaurants you have visited for a personal map to share with friends or use the locations of a selection of historic buildings as an adjunct in a book you are writing, we would regard that as non Substantial. The systematic extraction of all eating places within an area or at all castles within an area would be considered to be systematic. looks like all UK pubs would be considered systematic, therefore substantial. * The features relating to an area of up to 1,000 inhabitants which can be a small densely populated area such as a European village or can be a large sparsely-populated area for example a section of the Australian bush. UK population is almost 61 million, so it looks substantial on this count too. are you suggesting that we change our guideline on what is substantial? Why would we want to make guidelines that are null and void in the EU? I cannot see any gain for OSM in trying to overstate our rights. we aren't. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL virality questions
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Dan Karran d...@karran.net wrote: What would happen if the beerintheOSM site encouraged their users to add new pubs to their site, would that data - the equivalent of what would have come from OSM, had they come from there - need to be released as well, or again something we should just encourage the site to release? good question. even if OSM IDs or lat/lons are OK for linking purposes, where do we draw the line on what is attached data, like reviews, and what is new data added to the ODbL extract, requiring it to be available? cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] reciprocal data agreements
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Richard, Richard Weait wrote: Imagine a data provider using perhaps cc-by, or a BSD style permissive license contributes their data to OSM. Imagine then that they would like to monitor changes in OSM to data that originated from their source. Imagine then that they would like to incorporate those changes, with or without further vetting, back into their dataset under their license. I agree that this would be very desirable; however it would allow our sacred data to leave the protecting cage of ODbL and live on under a CC-BY-SA or, God forbid, a BSD license which would be unpalatable to many contributors. if they've got balls of steel, they could just claim that CC BY-SA doesn't apply to factual data and just take the current OSM data ;-) on a more serious note, this is very much like the Biba model. if we order licenses by property: BY-SA, BY, 0, then it follows a write-down, read-up model. in other words, even if we had a BSD type license, our data could be incorporated into BY-SA projects, but not into PD projects. the only way to become a universal donor also means rejecting non-PD imports. personally, i think that imports are bad, m'kay? so i'm not that bothered ;-) cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL virality questions
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Matt Amos wrote: this is the crux of the question. the ODbL makes no distinction between lat/lon data, ID data, or any other sort of data. so the question then becomes; if i'm using some data from an ODbL database and incorporating that into my database, do i have to release all of my database, or just the bits of it which came from or were derived from the ODbL database? Let's look at the reason why we have this whole viral license, shall we? (I'm taking off my this is all stupid and we should do PD hat for a moment and act as if I were a share-aliker.) /me adjusts headgear also. The idea behind this is that we don't want to give anything to people which they then make proprietary - the worst case being that one day OSM ceases to exist and only some proprietary copy remains. The license is there to ensure that OSM data remains free. But a site that *only* takes OSM IDs in order to link to them does not create anything of their own. If OSM one day ceases to exist then the OSM IDs stored in that site become worthless. They only store pointers into our database, they don't make a derived product. (If I tell you to download a film and skip to 6'32 because that's where the action is, am I creating a derived work of that film?) no, but a time code pointer into a copyrighted work isn't necessarily a good analogy for an ID extracted from a database rights-protected database. You are right in saying that by the letter of the license, an id is data just like anything else. But the spirit surely affects only *useful* data? i think i can hear lawyers having heart attacks over the word useful ;-) can the SA requirement be satisfied by saying that we consider the extracted IDs to be an ODbL part of a collective database, where the proprietary data is the other part? it would require the ODbL part (i.e: the list of IDs) to be made available, but nothing else. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL virality questions
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Andrew Turner ajtur...@highearthorbit.com wrote: On 2 Oct 2009, at 18:06, Matt Amos wrote: hi legals, i've come across a couple of interesting questions / use-cases for the ODbL and wider discussion. it basically reduces to whether we want the ODbL to have viral (GPL-like) behaviour, or whether it should be less viral (LGPL-like). we've discussed this at an LWG meeting and the general feeling was that the LGPL-like behaviour would be more desirable, as it would allow wider use of OSM by third parties. however, it was felt that a wider discussion is necessary. first case: a site wishes to use OSM data as a basis for non-geographic data. the example used is a review side, like beerintheevening.com or tripadvisor.com. they might want to use OSM as the source of geographic data by linking its reviews to OSM node IDs (or lat/lons taken from the OSM data). under a GPL-like interpretation of the ODbL, this would taint the database, requiring its release. considering that the records in the database may contain private information (IP/email address of the reviewer) this may mean that the site decides not to use OSM, because releasing the DB would violate their own privacy policy. second case: OSM data is downloaded to a handheld device (e.g: iphone). this is likely (given the screen size of the device) to be an insubstantial amount. the data is locally used for reference when entering other information (e.g: abovesaid reviews). the reviews are uploaded to a non-OSM site, linked to the OSM-derived node ID or lat/lon. if many people do this, does that constitute repeated extraction and therefore require release of the non-OSM DB under the ODbL? i.e: can 3rd party sites use OSM IDs or lat/lons from OSM as keys into their database? I've had these very same questions. The in-person responses have typically been of course that's ok to do without releasing the review data but never in any way that I thought would make a large company feel comfortable. I understand that typically copyright law like this is at the behest of 'best practices' and prior cases - but obviously this is not the model OSM follows in general and is in fact trying to break out of. Really, it is akin to linking to a URL (if you consider any node in OSM is a Resource and could have a URI). My linking to a Wikipedia definition of Map does not change the copyright of my material. What can we do to make it very clear if this is acceptable use of OSM? Can we make it very clear that the equivalent of 'linking' to OSM data that doesn't alter it (or effectively replace primary data within OSM) does not virally release all data linked to it? we can make this very clear by: 1) discussing it here, 2) forming a consensus, 3) documenting the results (e.g: on the license FAQ on the wiki) when i have discussed the question of grey areas with lawyers the answer has always been that we can make up our own rules in those areas. the prerequisites for it having a good chance of standing up in court are that it is easy to find these guidelines in association with the license and that it represents a consensus view of the community. so far, all the responses seem to indicate that everyone thinks linking to OSM data by ID is OK. what about Andy's idea, though? is it OK to take a location, name and possibly an ID as well to perform fuzzy linking? my view is that all the linked-to OSM information would have to be released; the list of (location, name, ID) tuples. but that it would still be OK to not release the linked-by proprietary information. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL virality questions
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:55 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote: On 06/10/2009, at 11:30 PM, Matt Amos wrote: so far, all the responses seem to indicate that everyone thinks linking to OSM data by ID is OK. what about Andy's idea, though? is it OK to take a location, name and possibly an ID as well to perform fuzzy linking? my view is that all the linked-to OSM information would have to be released; the list of (location, name, ID) tuples. but that it would still be OK to not release the linked-by proprietary information. That sounds good in theory, but I think at some point getting out the locations and names of things could be Extraction and Re-utilisation of the a Substantial part of the Contents. yes, i think it is. Am I allowed to mine the database for the name and location of all the pubs and restaurants in the world, without having the data fall under the ODbL? If not, how could it become okay if I claim to just be using them as lookup keys? I guess you could have a database with all of your proprietary data, and second one which acts as a link between the fuzzy-OSM data and IDs in your database, and only release the second. no-one is suggesting that the extraction of names, locations and IDs would be somehow outside of the ODbL. any site using these as lookup keys would have to release that data under the ODbL. the question is, should they have to further release the data in their database which is using those lookup keys? as a concrete example, let's pretend i have a site, beerintheOSM, which rates pubs and allows commenting and photo uploads. if i'm storing the reviews linked against pubs linked against OSM (name/location/ID), i definitely have to release the (name/location/ID) records - that's not up for discussion. should i also have to release the reviews, comments and photos records despite the fact that they have no OSM-derived data in them? should i have to release my entire database, including my users table? cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL virality questions
On 10/5/09, Laurence Penney l...@lorp.org wrote: It seemed clear that such data extractions would not be considered public domain, simply by virtue of having no grid reference or lat- long. They were part of MasterMap, hence regarded as chargeable data. that's the suck-'em-dry licensing model ;-) So even if they had responded with the data, I probably wouldn't have been able to anything with it. (A local authority might well respond positively to an FOIA request of, say, a list of all the footbridges in its jurisdiction, yet I'd not necessarily be allowed to republish that data, or use the TOIDs in my database.) FOIA, for some values of free... It’s good that OSM is asking the same questions of itself! FWIW, I very much hope that OSM would be freer with its IDs than Ordnance Survey seems to be with its TOIDs. However, since Vanessa had “no idea” about the OS's policy on TOID reuse, perhaps there isn’t one. i would hope so too, as it makes OSM data more attractive for those users who don't need to manipulate the data, but need to annotate it or reference it. i, for one, would really like to see the next beerintheevening or tripadvisor based on OSM data, not just the tiles. we have the opportunity here to decide whether or not we, as a community, feel that this use of OSM data is OK. from my reading of the ODbL (insert standard disclaimers here) it's a grey area which we can strongly influence by public discussion. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/10/4 Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com: ...that he's conducting bizarre breeding experiments on cute little animals. Basically, SteveC doesn't find this teasing at all funny. what's this breeding stuff about? Can anyone point to a relevant page? it's just a little in-joke. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-March/002236.html cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
russ and i had a useful chat on IRC late last night and i think we've cleared up the misunderstanding that lies at the root of this thread. (russ - please correct me if i've misreported anything here). apologies to anyone who's getting really tired of this thread. hopefully we're at or near the end now. On 10/4/09, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: you asked why people are thinking that you're in favour of people being told what to do. your answer appears to confirm that, yes; you're in favour of people being told what to do. It appears to me as if your being told what to do should be interpreted as coercion, but I've repeatedly said that leadership in a voluntary organization is not coercion. How many times do I have to tell you that it's NOT POSSIBLE TO COERCE VOLUNTEERS Why do I have to shout to be heard? the misunderstanding here came from different interpretations of the word decide. my reading of it was the meaning final, authoritative judgement, but russ' intended meaning was different, something more like give advice, and have it listened-to (my words). for this definition of decide i'm in complete agreement with russ; steve should be able to give advice and have it listened to. russ had some good guidelines for appropriately resolving tagging debates (slightly paraphrased): 1) if it's an issue where the community hasn't been able to decide, they might need a decision/advice. 2) if one of the schemas preserves enough information to be transformed into the others at some future date, use that one. 3) it's better to keep mapping and tagging than argue about tagging. there was some discussion of whether voting is a good way of resolving anything. but that's a whole other debate, which i'd rather leave for another day ;-) cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 10/4/09, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: That said, I believe it a mistake to NOT have perfect consistency as a goal even though that goal cannot be achieved. If you don't know where you're going in the long term you'll likely go in circles in the short term. Like this discussion. i'll keep this short, then ;-) Matt Amos writes: On 10/3/09, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: you seem to be advocating for a tag with the sole purpose of not rendering something in a single renderer. to me, that seems wrong. No, that's not the sole purpose. See my reply to Andrew which you should have already received. so the purpose is to indicate to other mappers, including via the nonames renderer and other debugging tools, that there is no name? so you're not tagging what's on the ground (that there is no name), you're tagging out-of-band information that isn't useful to any end-users of the map? let me put it a different way: maybe convergence hasn't happened *yet*. That argument is not falsifiable; it is no argument at all. for the noname tag, it isn't measurable. the parallel debate with oneway=yes/true/1 can be measured, though, and the results are attached. notwithstanding some bot vandalism in earlier parts of the year, it's pretty clear that convergence is happening and oneway=yes is the winner. i would conjecture that convergence isn't specific to the oneway tag and is happening to all tags, although as you correctly point out, it's not testable for many tags. note that i didn't say forced this time, but i do get the impression that you're suggesting that people should be told what to do and how to tag. Yes. I believe in leadership. Imagine that. Google for Servant Leadership. Or find out how Quaker meeting's clerks operate. Same idea. that's a non sequitur. you asked why people are thinking that you're in favour of people being told what to do. your answer appears to confirm that, yes; you're in favour of people being told what to do. The OSM community is hostile to leadership even when that leadership merely renders advice. Frederick's advice to create a committee to provide leadership is not useful advice. maybe the community feels that such leadership advice is not useful advice, just as you feel towards frederik's advice? Are you agreeing with me that the community is hostile to leadership? sure - you're part of the community and you're rejecting frederik's advice. so, by your definition of hostile and your membership of the community; some of the community is hostile to leadership. cheers, matt PS: this is a re-post with the png reduced in size to meet this list's size limit. sorry if anyone gets any duplicates. attachment: oneway.png___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 10/3/09, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Matt Amos writes: forcing all mappers, editors and renderers to support it? Why do people keep saying that I want to use force? From where do they get this idea? Have I ever suggested the use of force? Gun, knife, sword, empty hand? Rejection of ill-formed tags at the API? Please, quote me on it if you think I have. you've repeatedly said that we should have a leader and that when that leader makes a decision we should do it that way. you're not talking about a recommendation, you're talking about a decree: If SteveC says that mountain=green means that first there is a mountain, and that mountain=blue means there is no mountain, then damnit, we should do it that way. if mappers tag the way they feel is best and the tool authors (i.e: nonames layer) consume the tags in the way they feel is best then the two will converge, Let me propose an alternative course of events which is less desirable: Anyone who asks how to mark a road as having no name is told that there is no consensus. They might get sent to the Wiki page on it. That page gives no advice or too much advice. The mapper takes no action. The database has no tags, the tool authors don't implement any of them because the data isn't there, and the issue doesn't converge. I point to the +1 year age of the Noname proposal and recent inactivity and suggest that convergance isn't happening. maybe there isn't a need for convergence here? we've got a nonames map to help mappers decide where their time might be well-spent. if they find a road which genuinely has no name they're welcome to add a note= tag, or a noname=yes tag, or whatever they like. nowhere has anyone said that the debugging tools available show all errors, or that everything shown will be an error. as in most things in life, personal judgement is required. of course, there's always the possibility of action; why not make a nonames layer which reflects your view of how the data should be interpreted? I suggest instead that in cases such as these, SteveC should bless one of them with his Holy Water of Antioch (and the number of the tags shall be 3, no more and no less). His blessing will tip the stable disconvergance in one direction. steve is perfectly able to weigh in on one side of the argument or other. where we're disagreeing is that you're suggesting some sort of special status to his opinion, and i'm suggesting that, while his opinion is important and valuable, there are others in the community who are equally well-placed to offer good guidance. But for him to be able to do that, we need to not be throwing the sheep or Furher word around just because some people are trying to lead and others are trying to follow. and i agree with you 100% - steve's contribution to this project can't be played down (it wouldn't exist in its current form without him) and this pervasive steve is evil thing is just weird and unhelpful. it has to be said that, according to my german dictionary, the word Führer just means leader or guide. i don't know if there are pejorative overtones to it in modern german use. finally, for effective leadership there also has to be the opportunity for people to *not* follow. if you want to follow someone's leadership that's fine. but please don't try to compel that followership onto others. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 10/3/09, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Matt Amos writes: I point to the +1 year age of the Noname proposal and recent inactivity and suggest that convergance isn't happening. maybe there isn't a need for convergence here? we've got a nonames map to help mappers decide where their time might be well-spent. And well-spent and well-spent and well-spent, as mappers repeatedly home in on roads which have no name, and no way to tell the nonames map that there is in fact no name. So they put in name=Fiddle-de-Faddle Street and gee, nonames stops marking it as not having a name. WIN! Can I prove that this has happened? No. And that's the problem. If it happened, then we now have a namless road which is named only in OSM. I can understand mistakes and omissions. I can't understand why people would advocate FOR error. no one is advocating for error. you seem to be advocating for a tag with the sole purpose of not rendering something in a single renderer. to me, that seems wrong. The claim was made that convergance happens automatically, with no guidance. I've presented an example where it doesn't, and now you're trying to say that when convergance doesn't happen, it's because convergance isn't necessary. let me put it a different way: maybe convergence hasn't happened *yet*. maybe there isn't the impetus from mappers and tool-makers to converge any quicker? i don't consider complaining on the mailing lists / irc to be impetus. what works is either well-reasoned arguments or alternative actions, such as building your own nonames layer that takes the noname=yes tag into account. steve is perfectly able to weigh in on one side of the argument or other. Actually, not, he's not. He's told me that he's tried doing that, and when he does, he's told that he's shilling for Cloudmade, or that he's evil, or that he has a portal to hell in his basement, or in his attic or wherever, or that he's breeding strange conglomeration animals. he's perfectly able - he just doesn't want to. i fully understand and commiserate the reasons why he doesn't, along with you. and he *is* breeding strange conglomeration animals, see the attachment to [1], a picture i helped him take. very exciting genius research ;-) where we're disagreeing is that you're suggesting some sort of special status to his opinion, and i'm suggesting that, while his opinion is important and valuable, there are others in the community who are equally well-placed to offer good guidance. No. A project founder always has a greater gravitas. It's possible to destroy that gravitas through years of a consistent pattern of misbehavior, but Steve hasn't done that. we'll have to agree to disagree. i don't think that steve's status as founder gives him any special insight above and beyond his natural intelligence. finally, for effective leadership there also has to be the opportunity for people to *not* follow. if you want to follow someone's leadership that's fine. but please don't try to compel that followership onto others. Where does this WEIRD idea come from that I'm advocating that anybody be forced to do anything??? I've already said that the paragraph you quoted earlier was taken out of context and then misinterpreted. note that i didn't say forced this time, but i do get the impression that you're suggesting that people should be told what to do and how to tag. here are some more (potentially out-of-context) quotes, which have helped me form this impression: So, Steve, would you PLEASE tell us what the canonical binary true and false values should be? And when you're done there, would you choose one of the schemes for marking a highway or a bridleway with no name? The reason [the tagging debate] eternal is because there's no one to choose. No, I'm saying that mountain=green and mountain=viridian are the same thing, but that when SteveC tells us to use green we should use green. So, when we have true/false, yes/no, and 0/1, then damnit, we should look to SteveC to pick one of them as arbitrarily as if he was picking between mountain=green and mountain=blue. I suggest instead that in cases such as these, SteveC should bless one of them with his Holy Water of Antioch (and the number of the tags shall be 3, no more and no less). His blessing will tip the stable disconvergance in one direction. The OSM community is hostile to leadership even when that leadership merely renders advice. Frederick's advice to create a committee to provide leadership is not useful advice. maybe the community feels that such leadership advice is not useful advice, just as you feel towards frederik's advice? SteveC (or you, or Shawn, or Andy) are willing to provide advice. The community has been told that anybody who takes advice is a sheep, or that we intentionally don't tag consistently and that's okay, or that we'll never ever do things that way here. you're
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] distribution
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Greg Holloway peanutzkingpeng...@hotmail.com wrote: Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 10:19:01 + From: ava...@gmail.com To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] distribution On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Greg Holloway peanutzkingpeng...@hotmail.com wrote: I hope i have picked the right list to ask these questions, please alow me to explain myself; I am a 4x4 off-roader and i have a laptop on the dash of my vehicle running memory map. I have been searching the internet for cheap detailed maps. I have had little success. I took the decision to make my own maps. I have began compiling DVDs/CDs with map data taken from the US Gov GeoCover website https://zulu.ssc.nasa.gov/mrsid/mrsid.pl and openstreetmap xml data. i have then encoded it into geotiff tiles for use with memory map and other gps based software. i have the intention of selling the dvds at cost, around £10. this will include a donation of £2.50 to openstreetmap. the remainder of the money will cover the free postage,ebay fees and the cost of a dvd with a case. I have been trying to find someone at openstreetmap that can help me with the legalities of putting openstreetmap onto a dvd which i then sell. I don't want to step on anyone toes as it were. for an idea of what i am doing point your browsers to http://maps.sj410.co.uk on there i have the html which autorun when the dvd/cd is inserted into the users pc. i have only started work on iceland for the moment but i hope to include other contries if what i am doing is acceptable. What you're doing is just fine by the CC-BY-SA license. You're also not modifying the map data so all you have to worry about is making it clear when you distribute it that it's from OpenStreetMap See this text for more information: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F The attribution appropriate to your medium I think would be: * If you're printing something on the DVD itself or its casing it should include (c) OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA somewhere or a similar text you can reasonably fit. * In your autorun HTML you should not refer to the OSM license as OpenStreetMap.Org Creative Commons License but rather something like OpenStreetMap data available under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license with a link to the license How will users view your maps? Are you just distributing GeoTIFF files or do you bundle some sort of map viewer as well? i will just be including the tiles, no software. i will be writting details to the dvd not the casing and i shall mention openstreepmap copyright and any others related., i'll change the text on the autorun html to include your suggestion. should i include the raw data on the dvd, ie before i have encoded the geotiff? there's no need to include the raw data on the dvd. and you're already showing the openstreetmap attribution, so people will know where to go if they want the raw data. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL virality questions
hi legals, i've come across a couple of interesting questions / use-cases for the ODbL and wider discussion. it basically reduces to whether we want the ODbL to have viral (GPL-like) behaviour, or whether it should be less viral (LGPL-like). we've discussed this at an LWG meeting and the general feeling was that the LGPL-like behaviour would be more desirable, as it would allow wider use of OSM by third parties. however, it was felt that a wider discussion is necessary. first case: a site wishes to use OSM data as a basis for non-geographic data. the example used is a review side, like beerintheevening.com or tripadvisor.com. they might want to use OSM as the source of geographic data by linking its reviews to OSM node IDs (or lat/lons taken from the OSM data). under a GPL-like interpretation of the ODbL, this would taint the database, requiring its release. considering that the records in the database may contain private information (IP/email address of the reviewer) this may mean that the site decides not to use OSM, because releasing the DB would violate their own privacy policy. second case: OSM data is downloaded to a handheld device (e.g: iphone). this is likely (given the screen size of the device) to be an insubstantial amount. the data is locally used for reference when entering other information (e.g: abovesaid reviews). the reviews are uploaded to a non-OSM site, linked to the OSM-derived node ID or lat/lon. if many people do this, does that constitute repeated extraction and therefore require release of the non-OSM DB under the ODbL? i.e: can 3rd party sites use OSM IDs or lat/lons from OSM as keys into their database? the discussion at the LWG meeting centered around whether the database linking to OSM data could be considered stand-alone. using the similarity with the LGPL; whether the reviews database could be re-linked against another source of geographic data while continuing to work. this would imply that the list of (e.g: pubs or hotels) would need to be released as an extract of OSM as a list of OSM IDs or lat/lons, but that the reviews themselves and auxillary tables (such as the users' information) wouldn't constitute a derivative work of the OSM database. what are your thoughts? cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 10/3/09, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Jukka Rahkonen writes: You seem to believe that SteveC would make such a decision that makes you happy. How about if he says that if you want people to continue working with OSM in creative, productive, or unexpected ways then true/false, yes/no, and 0/1 issue must be tolerated. That's okay, too. What I want, what I REALLY want, is for SteveC to be able to exercise leadership without being told that he's evil for doing so. i agree - there's nothing constructive about ad-hominem attacks. if steve wants to breed dinosaur-spider-monkeys in the privacy of his own home, that's noone's business but his. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BauW170B.jpg There's a set of people who feel that mappers shouldn't be given guidance, because if they accidentally don't follow it, they'll feel bad and might stop mapping. this is a nonsense straw man. But there's also a [non-disjoint] set of mappers who are editing because they want to create the best map possible. there's also a set of people who feel that mappers are perfectly able to judge for themselves which guidance is worth following and which isn't. this set is a subset of those who want to create the best map possible. We change true and 1 to yes when we edit something. And we want to know what is the proper way to mark a road as having no name. Going to the wiki and finding nine different schemes (none of which are supported by the Noname renderer) is not helpful. are you suggesting that the best way forward is for some authority to decree that there is One True Way of tagging noname roads and forcing all mappers, editors and renderers to support it? it might be helpful if the wiki documented the guidance of experienced mappers, rather than the free-for-all of half-baked ideas that it seems to have become. I'm 100% in favor of freedom. I'm 100% in favor of free-form tagging. But I'm also 100% in favor of guidance from experienced editors. then why suggest placing any one person in an exalted leadership position? guidance from experienced editors - we've got lots of that, and sometimes they disagree. assuming that people can't make judgements of their own about these issues is patronising. Oh, to hell with it. I'll just mark the damned road noname=yes, and if you find a road with no name and YOU mark it noname=yes, then good for you. And if not, then I don't have to cooperate with you either. if mappers tag the way they feel is best and the tool authors (i.e: nonames layer) consume the tags in the way they feel is best then the two will converge, as long as everyone keeps an open mind and refrains from childish antagonism. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Please
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/10/1 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net: let's have a tagging list. But not here. +1 +1 cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Andy Allan writes: can win, and I decided about 6 months ago to ignore (or at least not rise to) the eternally pointless tagging debate. The reason it's eternal is because there's no one to choose. surely it has more to do with different people having different opinions? Steve refuses to do it because too many people give him hell when he does, and nobody defends him for doing it. Fine. I'm officially defending his right to say This is the SteveC(tm) compliant way of tagging. without catching grief from people with more time to argue than edit. i absolutely agree. i'd also defend frederik's right to say this is the Frederik Ramm approved tagging scheme without catching grief, or andy to say it's the One True Gravitystorm way, etc... etc... I'm fine with anarchy; I'm an anarchist. But chaos is not appealing to me, otherwise I'd move to Somalia. you're fine with anarchy, but you'd like an organisational method of resolving arguments? anarchy + rules? free-form tagging was genius, but it was based on the idea that these folksonomies (urgh, i hate that word) naturally converge by people using them, tools consuming them and the feedback loops that creates. we need to be strengthening those processes - not defining rules, elevating adjudicators or otherwise compromising the original awesome genius of free-form tagging. cheers, matt PS: i resisted as long as i could. penance: http://imgur.com/paLI8.png ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Protection time of ODbL
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Matt Amos wrote: And 2. you are wrong because ODBL tries exactly that, to assert rights over the collection even in jurisdictions where there are none, by invoking the idea of a contract - so where is it written that the contract, which may well exist in parallel to sui generis rights in Europe, also terminates after 15 years? you're wrong - the contract asserts no rights over the collection. that's why we need a contract, because there are no sui generis rights to take advantage of. I don't think I understand you, or maybe you don't understand me. I'll try this in individual steps: snip Clearer now? i understood that part of your point the first time around, but i was correcting your claim that the ODbL tries ... to assert rights over the collection even in jurisdictions where there are none. i was pointing out that ODbL doesn't (and, as you say, can't) claim any *rights*, so it has to try to emulate them using contract law instead. maybe this is why lawyers use capitalised terms, like Rights, with a defined meaning :-) but i take your point about the variable length of the protection in different jurisdictions. maybe it's cold comfort that any copyright-based license has exactly the same problem. i can't find anywhere in the GPL, for example, which states the length of the term and countries have wildly varying copyright terms according to [1] (from life+100 years in mexico down to life+25 in the seychelles or even 0 in the marshall islands, where copyright law doesn't exist) yes. over insubstantial amounts of data, there's no copyright claimed. Aren't you now mixing database law and copyright terms. Whether or not something falls under copyright has nothing to with whether it is substantial related to some kind of database, has it? well, in some jurisdictions there might be copyright over the data arrangement, but - you're right - that's not what i meant. i should have said database rights. For example if OSM user n80 artfully crafts a way that doesn't even exist and uploads it to OSM, then that way would perhaps be protected by copyright in some jurisdictions, completely independent of the database and whether or not it is substantial. If I read the contributor agreement correctly, then we require from n80 that he declares never to exercise his copyright. Whether or not, and for how long, database protection covers his work of art, does not come into the equation - the copyright question is over when the data is uploaded. Correct? the contributor terms covers the copyright in individual elements, granting a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. so, yes; individual data items come with a very liberal license. this doesn't mean that certain aspects of copyright don't still exist (e.g: in some jurisdictions an author's moral rights are non-waivable), but then we can start arguing over whether any copyright is valid over factual data, etc... etc... cheers, matt [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_length ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote: On 28/09/2009, at 11:16 PM, Gustav Foseid wrote: Well... There is no copyright that expires after 15 years. Sui generis database rights expire after 15 years, but copyright is hardly very relevant for an OpenStreetMap database dump. In Europe maybe - however there are countries where database do have inherent copyright separate from the copyright over their contents, for example in Australia. I think the copyright wouldn't expire for 70 years here, which is definitely more than the 15 for European sui generis database rights. I see the qualification that substantial is in terms of quality, quantity or a combination of both - but out of interest, is it supposed to mean basically what it means in terms of the underlying copyright/database rights? yes. but since there hasn't been any case law on what substantial means (at least in europe, yet), we were advised to create guidelines on what we, as a community, consider substantial. apparently this would likely be taken into account, in the absence of case law, if anything goes in front of a judge. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, James Livingston wrote: On 28/09/2009, at 11:16 PM, Gustav Foseid wrote: Well... There is no copyright that expires after 15 years. Sui generis database rights expire after 15 years, but copyright is hardly very relevant for an OpenStreetMap database dump. In Europe maybe - however there are countries where database do have inherent copyright separate from the copyright over their contents, for example in Australia. I think the copyright wouldn't expire for 70 years here, which is definitely more than the 15 for European sui generis database rights. I think we should try very hard to make conditions the same for all OSM users on the planet, as far as possible. If what you say is true then we should make sure (via the content license) that the content is not protected longer in Australia than anywhere else. interesting. we should make sure that ODC are aware of this for the next version of ODbL. (note that the contents license != database license, though. individual contents and substantial extracts of the database are licensed separately). Personally, as I am opposed to us trying to dictate to our users what they may and may not do with our data, I would appreciate to see OSM data go out of copyright as quickly as possible. (I once tried to talk our share-alike hardliners into accepting one year, on the grounds of one-year-old OSM data being practically useless... but they wouldn't have it.) hi, i'm matt and i'm a PD heretic ;-) cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] attribution of data for use on TV
On 9/19/09, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: On 19 Sep 2009, at 04:38, Paul Johnson wrote: On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 23:19 -0500, tele...@hushmail.com wrote: My question is what type of attribution is appropriate? I have no problem informing my end-users where I get the data. More than happy to do that. However, do I need to attribute while the application is used on-air? Screen real estate is precious on a TV screen. Plus, some clients are un-easy about attribution during the broadcast. Attributing during the credits roll at the end of the broadcast would be doable I suppose. Anyway, I want to do what is right here. So, do I simply attribute in the app and let my TV users know I'm using OpenStreetMap data OR do I need to attribute on-air? I could easily add an OpenStreetMap attribution in the splash screen and about box. I've noticed almost all the local broadcasters use Google Earth for this, and display a small, translucent Google logo in the corner of the map view. I imagine a little osm.org in the corner similar to Google's attribution would work for that format. That seems to be a good idea. We have a trade-marked logo - possibly that would be useful. I know it isn't a URL but might be more identifiable and 'reasonable' for the medium. Mention on the website associated with a program is another option that has been proposed. We do have this situation described as a 'use case' for the new license and the recommendation against the use case is to create a community guideline for it - possibly we have just done so! http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases I certainly don't see anyone who makes and effort and does something reasonable in the circumstances getting criticised. i agree - if the ODbL is accepted as the new license, that could clear up a lot of the worries about what the correct attribution is. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] attribution of data for use on TV
On 9/17/09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, tele...@hushmail.com wrote: My question is what type of attribution is appropriate? I think I'm speaking for the majority of contributors when I say that having the credits in the credits roll at the end of a TV production is perfectly all right (that's the usual place for credits in that medium) but the responsiblity rests with you, or the broadcaster, in the end. +1 i agree - the method of attribution can be whatever the standard method of attribution is for the medium. of course, we'd all like to see the OSM logo displayed prominently on the screen, but it should be an advantage of using OSM data that you don't have to give free advertising to TA/NT/MS/GG ;-) cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Monopoly City Streets
On 9/9/09, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@... writes: By the sound of that, it seems that they're joining up the GMaps data and the OSM data, and filtering out the street names in common. I think that their DB is a derivative work of the OSM data and that share-alike should apply. Even if that is true, they are not distributing their database to anyone else. indeed. one of the myriad flaws (as i see it, anyway) of the CC license is that only the end-product needs to be shared-alike. if they're only distributing tiles derived from the OSM database, but not a merged database... well, the tiles are required to be CC BY-SA, but not their merged database*. cheers, matt *: as i understand it, anyway. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Summary of Meeting with OSMF Counsel ...
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:11 PM, zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: I've shared a document with you: Summary of Meeting with OSMF Counsel ... http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZPN91k8AaLAZGM5NW14cHNfMWNoeGc4Y2hrhl=eninvite=CJ-c5YkG It's not an attachment -- it's stored online at Google Docs. To open this document, just click the link above. hi LWG 80n, i've written up some notes from the meeting with Clark in this document. it would be of greatly appreciated if you could have a quick look and make comments, either in the document or back via email. i hope to send this to the legal-talk mailing list next week to help wider discussion. cheers, matt FAIL oh well - any comments would still be very much appreciated ;-) cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Liam123 again
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Nick Barnes wrote: Point taken, but Wikipedia isn't trying to position itself as a viable and reliable alternative for a mission critical commercial solution (I'm thinking about mapping for SatNav devices here). I don't think we should either, because this leads to more control and less freedom. +1 even mission critical commercial solution providers have a limitation of liability in their terms of use which basically says these data may contain errors, you can use it at your own risk, but you can't sue us. e.g: 10a from the tomtom ToS: TomTom does not and cannot warrant that the Products operate in a manner that is completely error-free nor that any information provided is always accurate. Calculation errors may occur when using navigation systems such as those caused by local environmental conditions and/or incomplete or incorrect data. e.g: from Garmin's about page: The user is solely responsible for safe navigation and the prudent use of any Garmin Cartography product. i tend to find that commercial solutions are often no better than free ones, they just give you someone to sue. ubuntu and redhat offer commercial support, but i don't think their commercial offerings are technically better than their free ones - they just give you someone to scream at over the phone when your boss is screaming at you and you can't fix it yourself ;-) cheers, matt ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Where do we stand regarding collective/derivative databases
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Dave Stubbsosm.l...@randomjunk.co.uk wrote: On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Matt Amos wrote: LWG cannot entirely resolve these questions, as they need open discussion and community consensus (which we obviously can't provide on our own). even then, final interpretation is up to the courts. Of course. Thanks for your comments, I especially liked the a(b(X)@c(Y)) part which is a nice structure to think about this. But about my Navteq+OSM example, you said that my reading would be that the deletions from the OSM data are a derivative database of both the OSM data and the navteq data and that the combination of navteq + (OSM - derivative) constitutes a public use of that derivative database, requiring the release of the navteq data. Now if I loaded my Navteq database into postgis and created a buffer around every object, generating one giant buffer area multipolygon for the whole world, then I could use that to subtract data from my OSM data base and would then only have to publish the giant multipolygon under ODbL (because that was mixed with OSM data) and not the original Navteq data. So this means I'd have to get permission from Navteq to release the giant buffer multipolygon under ODbL but if that is granted, I could continue with my OSM-enhanced Navteq tiles plan, and OSM would gain precious little from having access to the Navteq buffer multipolygon. Right? Do you even have to go that far? The Navteq multipolygon isn't actually part of the resulting derivative database, it's just part of the algorithm to get there. Assuming the result is just a shrunk version of the OSM DB I'd have thought the only thing you had to release in this case was the alterations made to the OSM DB -- ie: a list of the bits you deleted. We'd be within our rights to try and reconstruct the multipolygon from those deletions, but you wouldn't have to actually release it? or put another way: if I do o...@navteq = DD (where @ is some function that combines the datasets), there's no circumstance in which I have to release Navteq. My obligation is to release DD under ODbL (I can hand out the DD-OSM diff). This happens to entitle anybody else to attempt to reconstruct as much of Navteq as possible. The ODbL says I have to release changes, it doesn't say I have to tell you why I'm making them. Is that remotely the right reading? hmm... i think you may be right. i guess it depends on how it's done. if the merging is done by clipping out OSM data then maybe at most the polygon would need to be released, but maybe not even that. if the merging is done by matching (e.g: roadmatcher) then there's an argument that the database of matches is also a derivative database (which gets used to make the final derivative database) and would require the release of (maybe only some) navteq data... a very specific example may help: if i wanted to take navteq's list of petrol stations and merge it with OSM's - always preferring navteq's then i guess it would be simple to delete those in OSM which are close (fsvo close) to navteq's and then render the two superimposed by method #1. i think this fits your argument above - i can't see any reason why ODbL wouldn't be satisfied by the release of just the deleted items. taking it further, if i wanted to join those petrol stations to a routable network, or put them into a geocoding database... i think you might get away with the geocoding example if, like rendering, your geocoding search was independently performed on both the navteq and OSM lists of points and composited. routing... may be different. i can't, off the top of my head, think of any sensible way to keep the two datasets separate and still useful for those purposes... my head hurts now. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC; C = Cool
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Stefan de Koninkste...@konink.de wrote: SteveC wrote: inventing nodes, ways, segments (remember them?) You *did not* invent the spaghetti model, please give credit to the original inventor Stan Aronoff, in Geographic information systems: A management perspective (1989). actually, OSM doesn't use the spaghetti model. according to [1,2], Aronoff's spaghetti model treats points as coordinates and lines as lists of coordinates - basically what the OGC's simple features architecture [3] uses - and there's no explicit connectivity. OSM, on the other hand, uses a topological model which comes from a graph theory background, so really we should be crediting Leonhard Euler. cheers, matt 1: http://www.unescap.org/stat/pop-it/pop-guide/gis_ch04.pdf 2: http://eprints.utm.my/6685/1/78062.pdf 3: http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/sfa ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC; C = Cool
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Stefan de Koninkste...@konink.de wrote: On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Matt Amos wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Stefan de Koninkste...@konink.de wrote: SteveC wrote: inventing nodes, ways, segments (remember them?) You *did not* invent the spaghetti model, please give credit to the original inventor Stan Aronoff, in Geographic information systems: A management perspective (1989). actually, OSM doesn't use the spaghetti model. according to [1,2], Aronoff's spaghetti model treats points as coordinates and lines as lists of coordinates Isn't this exactly how segments and ways are stored within OSM? An XML subtree referencing to points (thus lower diminensional objects)? from those references, it seems that the spaghetti model includes coordinates directly, rather than referencing a lower dimensional object by ID. apparently it's called the spaghetti model because each way is independent, like spaghetti strands (presumably as opposed to potato waffles or something joined). spaghetti model - coordinates are directly included, topology is implicit. node lat=y lon=x/ waynode lat=y1 lon=x1/node lat=y2 lon=x2/node lat=y3 lon=y3//way graph theory model - coordinates are logically referenced, topology is explicit. node id=1 lat=y lon=x/ way id=1node ref=1/node ref=2/node ref=3//way OSM uses the latter. - basically what the OGC's simple features architecture [3] uses - and there's no explicit connectivity. OSM, on the other hand, uses a topological model which comes from a graph theory background, so really we should be crediting Leonhard Euler. Always good to credit him :) yep. he was a total genius - invented a whole new branch of mathematics without which we wouldn't have amazon/netflix recommendations ;-) cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License for OSM logo
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Phil Endecottspam_from_osm_t...@chezphil.org wrote: Dear All, I'd like to use the OSM logo (i.e. the magnifier on a map one) for a go to openstreetmap.org button in an iPhone app. It looks like the logo is GPL licensed, which prevents me from doing this. Quoting this page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Matt the icon has the same license as most other stuff in the OSM repository - GPLv2. [...] If anyone wants it under a different license then please contact me directly and I'll see if its possible. --Matt Unfortunately I'm unable to find an email address for User:Matt so I'm posting here. Can Matt (or anyone else) offer any advice? please use it. the use case you've described is perfectly in keeping with the intended use of the logo (i.e: it's relevant to OSM). what sort of license do you need? is your app closed-source? just ignore the trademark stuff - no-one is going to sue you. the only reason to trademark the logo (and name) is to prevent them being abused. the evilness / incompetence (delete as appropriate) around the trademark transfer shouldn't prevent you from making good use of the logo. cheers, matt PS: i'm not in the habit of putting my email address on the wiki, but i thought posting to my User_Talk page would do the trick? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License for OSM logo
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Phil Endecottspam_from_osm_t...@chezphil.org wrote: Matt Amos wrote: please use it. the use case you've described is perfectly in keeping with the intended use of the logo (i.e: it's relevant to OSM). what sort of license do you need? is your app closed-source? Thanks. I simply wish to replace the textual go to OpenStreetMap button that you can see here: http://topomapsapp.com/features_imgs/actions.jpeg (or in context, here: http://topomapsapp.com/features.html) with an icon. The app is closed-source and I think I am happy with any terms that are non-viral and do not require in-situ attribution (the physical size of e.g. a Creative Commons attribution graphic is impractical). by the powers of greyskull, i hearby grant you a single worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable copyright license to use the OSM logo for your app without attribution. /me waits for the amateur lawyers to descend PS: i'm not in the habit of putting my email address on the wiki, but i thought posting to my User_Talk page would do the trick? I interpreted your contact me directly as an invitation to email you, and I found an address that was not your current gmail one. no worries :-) over the years i have collected many email addresses, some of which are now colossal spam-traps. i'm wary of creating more, but gmail seems to be holding up pretty well. i shall amend the wiki page. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License for OSM logo
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 2:19 PM, 80n80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Phil Endecottspam_from_osm_t...@chezphil.org wrote: Matt Amos wrote: please use it. the use case you've described is perfectly in keeping with the intended use of the logo (i.e: it's relevant to OSM). what sort of license do you need? is your app closed-source? Thanks. I simply wish to replace the textual go to OpenStreetMap button that you can see here: http://topomapsapp.com/features_imgs/actions.jpeg (or in context, here: http://topomapsapp.com/features.html) with an icon. The app is closed-source and I think I am happy with any terms that are non-viral and do not require in-situ attribution (the physical size of e.g. a Creative Commons attribution graphic is impractical). by the powers of greyskull, i hearby grant you a single worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable copyright license to use the OSM logo for your app without attribution. s/hear/here/ -- oops. Since you addressed this email to talk@ did you intend that you in the above sentence refers to all current subscribers to this list? i intended it to mean Phil, but sure - why not? we can rely on OSMF's trademark and the community to help make sure it isn't abused. cheers, matt *: ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Ulf Möller wrote: No (though you will often see small print disclaimers on them). The idea of restricting access to age 13+ strikes me as odd in the extreme. When I get some time I'll do some research into what is going on in the US that makes them do this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act Should we perhaps have two sets of Terms and Condition - one that applies if the user is in the USA, and the other if he isn't? One with 200 lines of text, the other with 10? i'll suggest that to our lawyer, but this might mean having more than two sets - apparently Canada and Australia have their own versions of COPPA. and i guess the EU has something similar. it may end requiring us to to have a different set of TsCs for each jurisdiction. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Ed Avis wrote: ODbL, as fast as I understand, does not permit re-licensing, which means that even if you have other data that is ODbL licensed, you cannot upload it to OSM without express permission of the license holder. But if OSM also adoped ODbL then no re-licensing would be necessary. Isn't this the whole point of copyleft or share-alike licensing? My reading until now was that because ODbL gives the original licensor super cow powers (namely of determining which other licenses are deemed compatible), everyone has the super cow powers, but they're cascaded. e.g: if OSMF is the original licensor and i want to license some derived database under a different license i have to ask OSMF. if you license it from me and want to distribute your derived version, then you have to ask me *and* OSMF. however, i can delegate my super cow powers to a 3rd party (e.g: OSMF) to make my life easier. it must be avoided to pass on these super cow powers to evil people like me (Fred sets up free world database, licenses it ODbL with himself at the license root, imports full OSM database without asking anyone, then decrees under section 4.4.e that for his project, ODbL is compatible with PD, and this makes the OSM data PD.) indeed. this is why the upstream compatibility decision is necessary. much as i'd *love* to have a PD-OSM (not the one with specially named zip files on an FTP server, but just OSM in the public domain), there were many in the community who were against PD/BSD style licenses. hence, why ODbL is an SA/GPL style license. But please let someone from the license working group say something to this before I confuse everyone. The current wording of the page says that the OSMF can grant any licence they want as long as it is 'free' and 'open', which hardly rules out the above scenario. Sh, don't say that too loud, it has taken us PD advocates a lot of work to sneak that bit in! no, that's not what it says at all. it says OSMF can grant any license they want as long as it is free and open **and approved by a vote of active contributors**. if you really want PD, or you really don't want PD: join OSMF, keep your email up-to-date and continue mapping! then your voice will be heard (twice). cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Ed Avise...@waniasset.com wrote: Francis Davey fjm...@... writes: Therefore, granting permission on the data can only be a real consideration when there is some pre-existing law which means the other party needs such permission. That can be copyright law, database right or whatever. Sure. That's exactly right. But that assumes that the other contracting party has the data already. Having a contract that only permits you to download it from my site (or whatever) will have consideration because I don't have to let you do that Good point. So if there is a contract you must agree to before downloading the data, the consideration can be that you received a copy of the data. not really. the ODbL is enforceable through IPR alone. there is no need to have people agree to *view* the data. the license (or more probably a link to it) will be present in all downloaded data, similar to the LICENSE file in GPL software. Much better IMHO to rely on copyright law and other laws such as database right, which apply whether you have signed a contract or not. If these laws do not exist in a particular country, well, that's a choice for the citizens of that country. the ODbL does. perhaps you should read it? The idea behind the ODbL is, as I understand it, precisely to try to impose wider controls than would be possible by merely using intellectual property law. Yes, that's exactly why I for one dislike it. And the side-effects, such as banning anonymous downloads of the data set (or indeed downloads by minors, who might not be bound by any purported contract) are unpleasant too. it doesn't ban anonymouse downloads. But you are mixing up more than one issue. The lack of negotiation and standard form is a wholly different question. Such a contract (a contract of adhesion as my US colleagues would call it) may well bring in other legal considerations. Yes... I think the proposed ODbL has all three question marks over its validity as a contract. You have dealt with one of them, consideration, by pointing out that merely getting a copy of the data can be consideration - which is fine, as long as nobody somehow gets a copy other than from the OSM website... all forms of license suffer from this, including common opensource licenses like GPL, etc... even CC-BY-SA. and, as we all know, GPL and CC-BY-SA are ineffectual for databases. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Ed Avise...@waniasset.com wrote: As far as I can tell Wikipedia doesn't have 'terms and conditions' on the website, despite being equally dependent on user contributions and with more scope for legal risk from libel, offensive content and so on. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy see also the terms at the bottom of every edit box. There is no reason anyone should have to 'agree' to anything in order to browse the website and look at the map, and if they wish to upload data to OSM, they only need agree to license it under the correct terms. i think you have misunderstood; i don't see anyone suggesting that you'd need to explicitly agree to anything to browse the map. if they wish to upload something, they'll need an account. when they register for an account they will be presented with the contributor terms which include licensing. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Ed Avise...@waniasset.com wrote: Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy see also the terms at the bottom of every edit box. These terms and conditions don't try to impose an EULA on people reading the site but give guidelines on uploading data, on copying text (which is normally restricted by copyright law, and so you need to read the licence), and the privacy policy is something that sets standards for the Wikimedia Foundation to follow, not a set of restrictions or disclaimers that users must agree to. i think you're still misunderstanding: the privacy policy and terms of service are not EULAs - they don't need to be agreed to. as you say, the privacy policy is simply a declaration by OSMF about the conditions under which it collects and retains data. the terms of service are the conditions under which you may use the site - again, they don't need to be agreed to. i think you have misunderstood; i don't see anyone suggesting that you'd need to explicitly agree to anything to browse the map. if they wish to upload something, they'll need an account. when they register for an account they will be presented with the contributor terms which include licensing. I think that's fine. In that case the 'terms and conditions' should not purport to apply to people just using the website or the OSM data (which has its own licence), but only be something you explicitly agree to on uploading data. That means any stuff about 'personal use only' and so on doesn't belong. what you're referring to are the contributor terms, which is a contract between OSMF and the contributor regularing each party's rights and obligations. wikipedia has something very similar. the personal use only stuff comes into the terms of service. you don't need to agree - it's simply a statement by OSMF that the site is intended for personal use and that any non-personal use of the site may result in service being withdrawn. to make this very, very clear: we're not proposing the privacy policy and terms of service because we're evil, or we're excited by long and boring legal documents or even that we're anticipating a clear threat. we're doing it **because our lawyer is recommending it**. wikipedia's documents are much, much shorter. why they make no explicit reference to COPPA, i don't know. how they get away with that, i don't know. all i know is that our lawyer has said that having these documents is A Good Idea. your lawyer may disagree. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:20 AM, Matt Amoszerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Ed Avise...@waniasset.com wrote: Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy see also the terms at the bottom of every edit box. These terms and conditions don't try to impose an EULA on people reading the site but give guidelines on uploading data, on copying text (which is normally restricted by copyright law, and so you need to read the licence), and the privacy policy is something that sets standards for the Wikimedia Foundation to follow, not a set of restrictions or disclaimers that users must agree to. i think you're still misunderstanding: the privacy policy and terms of service are not EULAs - they don't need to be agreed to. as you say, the privacy policy is simply a declaration by OSMF about the conditions under which it collects and retains data. the terms of service are the conditions under which you may use the site - again, they don't need to be agreed to. i think you have misunderstood; i don't see anyone suggesting that you'd need to explicitly agree to anything to browse the map. if they wish to upload something, they'll need an account. when they register for an account they will be presented with the contributor terms which include licensing. I think that's fine. In that case the 'terms and conditions' should not purport to apply to people just using the website or the OSM data (which has its own licence), but only be something you explicitly agree to on uploading data. That means any stuff about 'personal use only' and so on doesn't belong. what you're referring to are the contributor terms, which is a contract between OSMF and the contributor regularing each party's rights and obligations. wikipedia has something very similar. i should have linked to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Contributor_Terms bear in mind that it still isn't a finished document - it's under discussion in LWG meetings and being reviewed by our lawyer. we think it sets out, with the minimum of legalese, a fair contract with the balance rights and obligations that the community wants. of course, we could be mistaken. so please let's continue discussing it. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New (better?) source of contours
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 3:36 PM, MPsingular...@gmail.com wrote: They just mention that the data is free of charge, but don't make further comments as to the license of it. I tried to actually download anything ... and I failed ... seems their server is way too overloaded currently. i managed to download a few tiles. quality looks good. better than SRTM, anyway. But in the process, there is some agreement page saying this: # I agree to redistribute the ASTER GDEM only to individuals within my organization or project of intended use or in response to disasters in support of the GEO Disaster Theme. (Required) # When presenting or publishing ASTER GDEM data, I agree to include ASTER GDEM is a product of METI and NASA. Seems not like very open license, though perhaps something better could be negotiated ... well... to be fair it was announced for free - i was expecting PD, but they didn't say anything about open. during the sign-up and download process they collect a whole bunch of data about why you're downloading it and what you're going to use it for. i assume this is to generate support for more government funding or something. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset history - hide 'big' edits?
2009/6/27 Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es: El Sábado, 27 de Junio de 2009, Dirk-Lüder Kreie escribió: Where big edit = bbox is larger what the API would allow in a map call? +1 +1 Would it be possible for the API* (or the editors) to split up big changesets in bboxes that size? maybe instead of (or as well as) changesets having bboxes they could have a footprint - a set of touched quadtiles or something. this would be much faster to query, i guess. as an experiment, this could already be done by a 3rd party site looking at the diff stream, so there's no real need to do it on the main server(s) just yet. on the other hand, the editors could easily do it themselves :-) cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CanVec:CODE vs. CanVec:UUID -relevancy
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Dave Stubbsosm.l...@randomjunk.co.uk wrote:
2009/6/26 Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com:
Hi all,
Im sending it out to everyone, as its of international significance when
dealing with bulk data.
The 4 general tags
attribution=Natural Resources Canada
- tells the users what agency it came from (public/private)
created_by=canvec2osm
- tell the user what program was used to create it. ... ie. blame me if the
script doesnt work or is wrong.
source=CanVec_Import_2009
-tells the user what import project session it is ... ie. next year we might
do an import again for the updates.
canvec:UUID=11CF43756692E5F4E0409C8467120387
- is the 'lot number / series and actual product identifier, more detailed
than the bar code (' which tells the user the identity of each node/way/area
they are looking at.
The 5th, which is currently being debated
canvec:CODE=1200020
- This is the feature identifier, the SKU (Stock keeping unit) or the BIB
(Library catelogue number). This tells the user which
Library/floor/section/shelf/book/page number that they are looking at. When
the UUID identifies each character on the page.
Not having this CODE, would be like going to the library and asking if they
have a word in a book of 11CF43756692E5F4E0409C8467120387, when the CODE is
human-readable. The 0 at the end means its a NODE a 1 - means a way and a 2
means an area. The 120 at the begining means it's part of the 129 series
of features. and the '2' means it's the 2nd feature type in the set.
Like identifing 2 identical books, 'Times Atlas' where they has different
UUID's, but the same Catelogue code.
So does anyone have objections to the logic and usefullness behind me
keeping canvec:CODE? Or any arguments for/against what i wrote above?..
And at the same time im recommending for all imports that this gets added
(it its available).
Where are these tags going?
Some definitely belong on changesets (there's no way
source=CanVec_Import_2009 needs to be on every object when it's the
same for everything you upload), whereas the UUID looks like it should
be on the objects themselves.
+1
the attribution, source and created_by tags should definitely go on
the changeset, if possible.
the UUID might even be going too far. what happens when someone edits
a node with a UUID on it? is it still, for any useful purpose, the
same node?
Also I'm a bit confused about what this CODE is. Is it about finding
the feature, or about telling you what the feature is? If it's just
what the feature is then it's possibly redundant. If it's about
finding it, then is it likely to be the same for all elements of an
upload? -- in which case it can also go on the changset.
+1
if CODE is common for each upload (or at least the non-feature-type
part of it) then it would save a lot of time, bandwidth and space to
put it on the changeset.
cheers,
matt
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Translations of osm.org
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote: Jonas Krückel wrote: And the second question is, if it is allowed to translate the agreement for the user at the sign up process (a word was ported about the license, I don't really now what this means here)? If we take all this seriously (and I don't necessarily want to say we have to), then, since the body responsible for the legal side of all this is OSMF and OSMF cannot possibly check every language all the time, I guess that there would have to be some disclaimer at the end of all legal-related translations saying that the translation is given on a best-effort basis but where uncertainties arise, the English version is the binding one. Then again I don't know if that's legal, ouch. as i understand it (and i'm not a lawyer, etc...) the ported license goes beyond a simple translation and uses laws specific to the jurisdiction. in that case it isn't appropriate to use the ported license and specify that the english one is binding, as the english one may have differences in interpretation. from the Licensing Working Group discussions with OSMF's counsel, our best option might be to not translate the license itself but translate the extra-legal text (i.e: FAQs and do's and don'ts). these often have legal weight - in case of dispute the court may take them into account - but then the english text can unambiguously be used as the binding version. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Move the Map
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Dave Stubbsosm.l...@randomjunk.co.uk wrote: 2009/6/18 Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com: On Jun 18, 2009, at 3:07 AM, Joe Richards wrote: Maybe http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=0lon=-0zoom=2 would be more diplomatic, but then we should be using a map that did not make the Uk, India, Brazil and New Zealand all the same size. snip Maybe we should be using a projection whose critical data-preserving quality is the number of OSM contributors in the area. Don't like the look of the map?? Edit it and mark your home! You just end up with a very big map of germany :-) like this one? http://blog.cloudmade.com/2008/11/07/wheres-interesting/ cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] minor stats
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:52 PM, SteveCst...@asklater.com wrote: Isn't that skewed by what the import process to 0.6 defined as a changeset? yes. e.g: JOSM uses a changeset for each upload, but the changeset synthesis procedure created one for each continuous session without gaps of more than an hour. also there are no empty changesets pre-0.6. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL RC and share-alike licensing of Produced Works
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote: Matt Amos wrote: my understanding is that, because we have database rights (and possibly other IP rights) in the original database, the re-created database is still (a substantial extract of) an ODbL licensed database. So you can create a substantial extract of a database without ever having had access to the database in any form; in fact, without even knowing that it exists? oh yes indeed. an analogy would be if i were handed a sheet of handwritten script and i photocopied it - i might be reproducing a copyrighted poem/short story/haiku without ever knowing that it was copyrighted. of course, it would be difficult to sue me, as i was not aware of the infringement, but it would be easy to prevent me distributing any more photocopies. and it wouldn't make the photocopies i had already distributed free in any way. also, because ODbL requires attribution which states that the original data was ODbL licensed, it would be harder to claim that i didn't know the database even exists. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL RC and share-alike licensing of Produced Works
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote: Before, the reverse engineering clause would have kicked in and forced FSM to be under ODBL. In the future, the above will be fully legal, and the resulting FSM database, which contains facts derived from OSM data but which were not in database form, can be distributed as a BSD product. This has been earned by FSM through the manual work involved in re-creating a database from a non-database. Ist that correct? my understanding is that, because we have database rights (and possibly other IP rights) in the original database, the re-created database is still (a substantial extract of) an ODbL licensed database. RichardF's findings on tracing over photographs make me wonder whether similar arguments can be made for tracing over rendered images. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted feature for API 0.7 ??
2009/6/8 Peter Dörrie peter.doer...@googlemail.com: Whatever you say. I dont have the hacking chops needed to fully understand the APi and how it works. But I am really interested in seeing some form of lifespan feature implemented in OSM. So it would be grate if this discussion makes some progress in getting closer to that goal. as frederik says, it doesn't need to be implemented in the API - all of it can already be done client-side using the appropriate tags*. frederik is also right when he says this can be made simpler and easier if we have filtering support. XAPI already has some filtering support, making it easy to test out ideas before trying to get stuff implemented in the main API. cheers, matt * there may not be a consensus on what the appropriate tags are, but that doesn't change the technical point ;-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted feature for API 0.7 ??
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:17 PM, MPsingular...@gmail.com wrote: I thought of another wanter feature for 0.7 API Retrieving deleted objects, similarly like it is done in potlatch. Currently only potlatch can do this and since potlatch does not work well with larger areas (it is way too slow) and does not support many features that JOSM have (WMS, plugins, loading/saving to disk, gpx tracks, gpx waypoints ), it is not good for more advanced users what, like this? http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2009-May/015582.html its on my TODO ;-) cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted feature for API 0.7 ??
2009/6/8 Peter Dörrie peter.doer...@googlemail.com: 2009/6/8 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org There are many unsolved questions here. For example: What happens if parts of the ancient world transcend your fourth dimension, e.g. a contemporary secondary road uses a few bits of an ancient Roman road. They would surely share the same nodes, wouldn't they? But if someone then deletes the secondary road (which he downloaded without ever knowing that the Roman road also exists because that was shielded from him), he must not delete the nodes because they are still used by other objects... My angle on this is primarily the historical-genetic one. Taking your example: i'm pretty sure this isn't the example that frederik was talking about. 1. Brutus Mappus maps this roman long distance road in 100 B.C he tags it correctly with highway=roman and surface=cobblestone. The road is used in that form for the better part of the next two millennia. 2. In the 19th century it gets some heavy usage and deteriorates. The local government decides to build a new road, which uses some of the same vectors the roman road used so far. The grat-great-great (etc) son of Mappus (John Maps) splits the road, tagging part of it as highway=disused and others as highway=construction. and if he just deletes the road? 3. The new highway is ready and John tags it as highway=primary 4. The same thing happens several times over until fake Steve finds a motorway, using some parts of the primary road, using some parts of the roman road (which by now is not longer visible in the landscape and has been tagged as historic). until Victor Vandal comes along and moves some of those nodes halfway across the world, or uses them to spell a rude word. Okay, what does this mean for whom? Users: The normal user will see a rendering which shows what is on the ground. - Motorway and those parts of the primary road that still exist Mappers: The normal mapper will see, what is relevant to him. - Same as user and some additional tags (oneway, surface, maxspeed, etc.) plus perhaps those disused roads, as they may still be relevant to mapping. Special interest person (scientist, etc): He gets the possibility of seeing exactly what he wants to see. The situation in 100 B.C? no problem. Ask the database about all disused / historic / etc objects? also no problem. Different object sharing the same nodes over time (and changing them) is not a problem. this 4-D usage of OSM has some problems: 1) given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. in other words, we shouldn't be hiding data; the more users who are looking at the data, the more users who are correcting and extending it. any special interest layer would, by definition, be default hidden. 2) sharing information which shouldn't be shared. there will be two ways from different special interest layers which share a node when they shouldn't, leading to all sorts of fun when that someone tries to delete that node from one layer and can't because it's being used by a way from an invisible layer. this was frederik's point, i think. 3) not sharing information which should be shared. if i went to a roman road and surveyed it extremely accurately and, because its a currently-in-use road, lined up the current highway with the measurements that would update the special interest roman road, right? well, it depends on how that works. if the roman road and current road share all their nodes, but i add a node to the current road, does that make the client add a node to the roman road too? again, the client can't know this without downloading all the data. my solution would be to set up my own OSM server for this kind of purely historical data, where it won't conflict with existing OSM data. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted feature : VALID_PER tag ?
2009/6/8 ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl: The essential thing of my proposal (however it be implemented) is that NOTHING changes with the current software or apps. A standard request will just deliver the current state of the map. The API will filter out all “deleted” (just as now) and additionally all object that have a valid_per tag that evaluates to false (new). If you think about it, deleted just means: valid_per= false per today so the API isn't current software? JOSM might request “CURRENT + FUTURE” to let people edit future stuff. wouldn't this require a change to JOSM? The valid_per data needs not be implemented in OSM but can be retrieved from a separate “bus routing” database, where the OSM data just tell the user where to find “valid_per” data. that sounds like an awesome idea. even better if the external database says where to get the OSM data, so the OSM data doesn't need to be changed. I , just like Peter, do not see how problems in mixed data (the roman way) could get in the way, as nothing is deleted, just becomes invalid for standard application. thanks, but we already have a few problems with ways referring to invalid nodes. i don't really want more (and more complex, time-dependant) problems. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted feature for API 0.7 ??
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote: I guess this has the potential to be hellishly complex but also fun. i guess we've just got different ideas of what fun is... i agree about the hellish part, though ;-) cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Addresses and POI
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Jack Stringerjack.ix...@googlemail.com wrote: People, companies, organisations can already add anything to the database right now. They could render a map (or pay someone to do it) with their locations on. Without having to sign-up with a OSM account and then workout the various apps that you need to learn to be able to add the info. If so what URL should I be pointing people towards. :-) we welcome anyone with data to import, who would like support, to contact the new data import working group (impo...@osmfoundation.org). i'm sure we can help them to either learn the tools, or find a member of the community willing to perform the import on their behalf. The reason why I would like to add business locations means we have another way to add postcodes and to give people reference points on a map. If a company is willing to provide the info of where their businesses are then for the moment I am willing to try and add them into the OSM system (for the GB). as long as the locations aren't derived from the PAF, that sounds like a great plan. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] script to cut a big OSM map into letter or A4 size papers
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Peter Childs pchi...@bcs.org wrote: I'm thinking web based script that produced pdf files of OSM would be really really good, Possibly rendering direct to PDF (which is actually a vector based format) Possibly done so the scale was correct on each page rather than trying to fit a globe on a bit of paper. (Like a big road map) and we don't end up with page after page of blue sea. I'm thinking php can produce pdfs quite well so why not. you might want to look at the python bindings and scripts (e.g: http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/rendering/mapnik/generate_image.py) which can easily generate PDF using pycairo rather than the raster image output. If done well, we could then send the pdf to a printer and get it published. I'm thinking a published Road Atlas sitting on the book shelf next the the RAC and AA versions would be rather impressive. (and a good money spinner to boot) i've found that printers often prefer high resolution images over PDFs, but these are also pretty easy to generate. for the mappa mercia A0 print [1] it looks like 9934 x 14046 (300dpi) was a good resolution. cheers, matt [1] http://blog.mappa-mercia.org/2009/03/birmingham-solihull-map-now-in-print.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Produced Work guideline working
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Mike Collinson wrote: If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is a database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work. We can clearly define things that are USUALLY Produced Works: .PNG, JPG, .PDF, SVG images and any raster image; a map in a physically printed work. Database dumps are usually not Produced Works, e.g a Planet dump. I think it was 80n who, in an older discussion about this, pointed out that it may not be helpful to focus on the *intent* of someone doing something. Someone might make an SVG file that contains the full original OSM data, but without the intent of extracting data, and someone else then uses that as a database. But I guess we don't need to get all upset about this because if a database is made from the Produced Work then ODbL again applies through the reverse engineering clause... exactly - this is really only about whether someone has a choice of license for their files or not. i think its helpful to build up a set of things we think are produced works and a set of things we think are not. it doesn't have to be an exhaustive set, since we can build inwards to the grey area based on common sense (maybe...) it might be helpful to consider these examples: 1) is the planet dump a database? we've suggested it is, but it would be interesting to hear any dissenting views. 2) are SVG files produced works? we've suggested they are, but SVG files are one XSLT transform away from planet files and could be reversible given some extra custom attributes. 3) are osmChange diffs databases? 4) are routes (i.e: from YOURS, ORS, CM) produced works or DB extracts? 5) are garmin (or other vendor) device images databases? 6) are KML files extracted from OSM databases? my opinion is that none of the above are databases - but i think i'm in the minority holding that opinion ;-) cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highways tagging vs Polygon
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: so... frequently running bots over entire countries to change the speed limit, or adding (by my count) about 20 million new tags to the DB, or dealing with inconsistencies between different editors, etc... that doesn't hold any water? We already have bots changing so many things. And some of them irritate me immensely. and you want *more*? But they are forcing me to align my tagging style to the rest of the community. as you say, sometimes moderate bot activity can have good side-effects, but i don't want to get into a position where we rely on bots to do editing tasks. think about it this way; if you had a huge file and you needed to replace every one of 20 million instances of one word with another - the first time you'd use sed (or some regexp-replace in your editor). the second time too. when it got to the tenth time you might wonder whether it would have been better to replace the word with a variable (entity reference / #define / whatever) and push the lookup work from the producer to the consumer. Do you have any idea how many tiger: tags are already in the database ? yes: 629,644,961. its shocking and horrible. maybe we should run a bot to delete them? especially the ones on the nodes - they're really annoying. If there inconsistencies between editors, then there disputes in the community that needs to be resolved. there are bound to be. the editors may get fixed and a bot run to harmonise the tags. but soon they'll get out of sync again and the bots come out again. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highways tagging vs Polygon
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: As stated above, I'd certainly expect that it would be easier for #989431 to tag DE:rural info I missed the bit where DE:rural was proposed. How many roads outside of Germany are in Germany? How many roads in Germany are not in Germany? Surely the DE: prefix is redundant? I missed the bit where rural was proposed. How many roads in urban areas are in rural areas? How many roads in rural areas are in urban areas? Surely the rural tag is redundant? cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highways tagging vs Polygon
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: My opinion is that all defaults should be global. We should not have any country or urban / rural specific defaults. It will mean most ways will need a lot of extra tags. So we may need to improve the editors to make it easier to add all those tags. For example give the editors modes like Rural UK where they apply the defaults when new ways are created. and the editor should make it easier for the mapper by choosing the mode based on the area being edited. there should be something in the DB to help the editor choose whether an area is rural or urban and which country and state the user is looking at. something like... polygons and admin boundaries? But it will make it a lot simpler for mappers. If you see a No Cycling sign on a trunk road and want to compare it to the DB, then you don't need to think about where the country border polygon ends. what would be even simpler is not to have to worry about it at all, safe in the knowledge that wherever i put a road a sensible default will be chosen by whatever routing software wants to know. None of the arguments against it (e.g. countries frequently changing the speed limit, larger planet file etc) hold any water. so... frequently running bots over entire countries to change the speed limit, or adding (by my count) about 20 million new tags to the DB, or dealing with inconsistencies between different editors, etc... that doesn't hold any water? But my views may no be shared by the community. i hope they are not ;-) cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Satellite for OSM
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: On 18 May 2009, at 01:38, Matt Amos wrote: On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 11:32 PM, MP singular...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TopSat http://www.qinetiq.com/home/defence/defence_solutions/space/topsat.html Apparently you can rent it for £25k a week... easily within the ambition of donate.openstreetmap.org. How large part of earth could be imaged in that timeframe? Topsat have 2.5m resolution, which is quite fine for most areas, though less than aerial imagery ... 2.5m sounds about the same as Y!, so its even enough for rudimentary building mapping. but thats the black-and-white figure, the colour resolution is about 5m. :-) out of interest, is there a link to the £25k figure? i couldn't find any pricing information on the net anywhere... Sound great, but in the mean time we can of course buy commercial photography including the right to derive mapping at a cost of about $17 per sq km which is affordable for compact European cities but not for large rain-forests! The Gaza strip cost £4,500 didn't you have to restrict that to a small number of signed-up mappers though? i would have thought that, hiring topsat rather than licensing the imagery, we wouldn't have to restrict imagery use to a small group of people. and photography for the Birmingham conurbation would be about £5,000. A small UK town would be £5000. The West Midlands are looking for sponsors at present. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Aerial_photography_funding_appeals but, again, sounds from that wiki page like it would be restricted to a few users, rather than truly open. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Re verting Changes....
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 7:21 PM, MP singular...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote: It's WAY too easy for a newbie (and I was once) to try to scroll in Potlatch like they scroll in OpenLayers, munge a way or a node by moving it inappropriately. Then they panic, are unable to find the Undo or don't know about the Undo, or are just so scared that they immediately close the Window (so they don't accidentally save their changes). What about ading some 10 seconds delay before actual uploads to server, so such panicked actions would have the desired effects? we tried doing that on the server, but tom has done such a good a job of optimising it you can't tell any more ;-) cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Satellite for OSM
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 11:32 PM, MP singular...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TopSat http://www.qinetiq.com/home/defence/defence_solutions/space/topsat.html Apparently you can rent it for £25k a week... easily within the ambition of donate.openstreetmap.org. How large part of earth could be imaged in that timeframe? Topsat have 2.5m resolution, which is quite fine for most areas, though less than aerial imagery ... 2.5m sounds about the same as Y!, so its even enough for rudimentary building mapping. but thats the black-and-white figure, the colour resolution is about 5m. :-) out of interest, is there a link to the £25k figure? i couldn't find any pricing information on the net anywhere... i guess hiring it for any fixed period is a bit hit-and-miss, since satellite imagery will be affected much more by cloud conditions. MP's point about what you do with the vast quantities of data that you get is well-observed, of course. But we like a challenge. One thing is having the data on ground - entire world (510,072,000 km²) from Topsat in 2.5m resolution will have ~ 245Tb of uncompressed data (you'll get to about 1/3 of that if you discard imagery with just sea), which is lot, but perhaps still manageable. at 5m in colour, thats about 20.4 Tb for the land portions of the world. compressing in JPEG, which compresses about 2:1 based on their sample images, thats 10.2 Tb - or 1,400 gmail accounts ;-) or it would cost $20,110 to put it into S3 and host for a year (without downloading) or about £1,400 to stick it on some 1Tb SATA drives in a RAID1+0... (interesting co-incidence which implies that each gmail account at capacity costs google about £1 in storage...) But you have to either store some non-trivial part of it on the satellite (that is not as easy as on earth where you can buy some server with RAID and plug it into wall) while the satellite does not have direct visibility of the earth contyrol center where it can relay stored images (and then you have some means to transmit large amount of the data while the satellite flies over the earth control center) or have multiple ground stations or bunch of another satellites that relay the continuously transmitted data. i have to assume that qinetiq have some way of solving this. also, would it be worth it as a PR stunt for qinetiq to just use up whatever spare capacity they have when maneuvering or between clients and give us whatever gets photographed...? anyone know anyone at qinetiq? cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Satellite for OSM
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 2:19 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: On Monday 18 May 2009 02:38:10 Matt Amos wrote: But you have to either store some non-trivial part of it on the satellite (that is not as easy as on earth where you can buy some server with RAID and plug it into wall) while the satellite does not have direct visibility of the earth contyrol center where it can relay stored images (and then you have some means to transmit large amount of the data while the satellite flies over the earth control center) or have multiple ground stations or bunch of another satellites that relay the continuously transmitted data. i have to assume that qinetiq have some way of solving this. That satellite is specifically designed to work with mobile ground stations that are somewhere near the area that gets photographed. qinetiq have a ground station in the UK, so i presume they have contact with the satellite while its over europe and parts of africa. their docs seem to suggest that the mobile ground station is optional, so they might either have a network of stations or some storage on the satellite. they also say the download format is a CCSDS standard, so it may be possible to get some help from universities around the world who may have the appropriate equipment to receive the signal... maybe. The current satellite is just a proof of concept. They'll need 4 of them to get to once a day coverage for the whole world So they didn't really solve the problem, but avoided it. sounds like pragmatic engineering ;-) cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] QA with a lawyer
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: There is both the situation were OSM bulk-imports some data from another source into OSM that is published as ODbL where the original data owner can not be contacted which I would hope would be possible, under the ODbL as proposed, i don't think it is possible. the contributor uploading the data would have to contact the source to obtain permission for OSMF to sub-license it. Removing the right for anyone else to migrate to a new license in the situation that ODC is not able to do so would clearly be inappropriate, especially as we can't be sure that OSMF will still exist in 50 years! these are the choices, as i see them: 1) licensees can use other licenses and may choose the meaning of compatible, in which case the loophole of re-licensing BSD appears. 2) licensees can use other licenses, but only those approved by the original Licensor (OSMF), in which case the data is non-forkable and arguably non-free. 3) licensees must use ODbL. like the GPL, once it is GPL-licensed only the original source may re-license it. How do other organisations deal with this situation and can we learn from them? the only similar situation i can think of is trolltech's licensing of Qt. but even then it was the GPL - they weren't allowing licensees to migrate to a new license. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Live Data - all new Data in OSM
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Lennard l...@xs4all.nl wrote: Matt Amos wrote: these might be of interest: http://matt.sandbox.cloudmade.com/ Which would have been fine and dandy in the past, but somebody needs to nudge that one into life again, /me thinks. yeah, sorry. its on my todo list ;-) cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Live Data - all new Data in OSM
2009/5/13 Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com: 2009/5/13 Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es As a wise man once said, all problems in computer science can be solved by adding another indirection layer. If you really really want a stream, I'm positive it can be hacked with a couple of scripts and the minutely diffs. +1 You have discovered one of my use-cases for the stream: the minutely diffs should be generated from the stream by slicing the stream up into minute-long segments and saving them to disk, not the other way around. why not? when its done the other way around its far, far simpler - just xml files on disk. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Live Data - all new Data in OSM
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: In a different mail you said: Ian Dees wrote: OSM isn't about the geodata, it's about the data. That includes the fact that it is in the geographic domain, but it also means that we can manipulate it or store it however we want. You can. On your own infrastructure. Except you can't right now, the dumps don't provide enough information to duplicate OSM database even on your own infrastructure. they don't *yet*. brett has been working on full diffs, i.e: diffs with all edits, whether they were later overridden or not. this would allow you to fully reproduce the whole database. see http://planet.openstreetmap.org/history/ for whats been done so far. Frederik said: I fully agree that streaming is probably a niche thing, a nice-to-have and not a must-have, and I have no problem if the idea is treated as a small priority. But dismissing it just because your imagination is too limited...? +1 i think if we can get the delay on the diffs down from 5 mins to under 2 mins then there's no reason why streaming can't be built on top of the diffs and be able to support all the things people want to do with streaming. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Live Data - all new Data in OSM
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: Ian Dees wrote: The whole argument I'm making is that after the initial implementation**, streaming the data is a lot less resource intensive than what we are currently doing. Perhaps I don't have the whole picture of what goes on in the backend, but at some point the changeset XML files are applied to the database. At this point, we already have the XML changeset that was created by the client. The stream would simply be mirroring that out to anyone listening over a compressed HTTP channel. You don't want Potlatch's changes then? or changes made by changing individual objects rather than uploading diffs? +1 or even the diffs? any diff where someone creates an element has negative placeholder IDs, so extra work would have to be done altering the XML to match the IDs returned by the database. and the HTTP stream would contain many osmChange documents? that won't really work with any XML parser i know of... you'd need to pre-parse it into separate XML documents first. and how would you take these XML documents on the API servers and merge them into a consistent ordered stream, ensuring all data dependencies are satisfied? all of that in less work than than osmosis' diff queries? cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Live Data - all new Data in OSM
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: Ian Dees wrote: The whole argument I'm making is that after the initial implementation**, streaming the data is a lot less resource intensive than what we are currently doing. Perhaps I don't have the whole picture of what goes on in the backend, but at some point the changeset XML files are applied to the database. At this point, we already have the XML changeset that was created by the client. The stream would simply be mirroring that out to anyone listening over a compressed HTTP channel. You don't want Potlatch's changes then? or changes made by changing individual objects rather than uploading diffs? +1 or even the diffs? any diff where someone creates an element has negative placeholder IDs, so extra work would have to be done altering the XML to match the IDs returned by the database. These are implementation details that would have to be hammered out after we talk about design. You're right, I would prefer to have the database itself (via triggers) dump to a file/network handle the data that's being written to it. This way, it would be able to get everything (including Potlatch and diffs) as it was created. why via triggers? cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Live Data - all new Data in OSM
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: why via triggers? Because the database is the only aggregation point for the data. There are many API servers (which would be the ideal spot for creating this data feed), but my initial thought was that it was quite cumbersome to try and aggregate the streams from the various API servers (along with time-aligning them) when the DB server was already doing that for you. sorry, i wasn't clear in my question: why triggers in particular, rather than one of the many other features that the DB provides for doing this? cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Live Data - all new Data in OSM
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Matt Amos wrote: i think if we can get the delay on the diffs down from 5 mins to under 2 mins then there's no reason why streaming can't be built on top of the diffs and be able to support all the things people want to do with streaming. What you are talking about is simulated streaming not real streaming. But it would be a good start; establish some kind of simulated streaming that is based on the diffs and costs us almost nothing (can be done by someone on their own server off-site!), indeed! good, isn't it? ;-) and when interesting applications spring from this where everybody says oh if these could only be real-time instead of 2 minutes delayed then one an still work on providing the same stream in a live fashion. given that nothing is ever truly live - there will be a processing delay with any method - whats the real advantage in a 2 minute delay rather than a 1 minute delay? By the way, if someone really wants to chase the edge of the database by always downloading the latest minute diff, what is the suggested way to do this? If he makes only one GET request per minute then the diff he is looking for might already be 59 seconds delayed ;-) yep... but does another 59 seconds really matter? ;-) can any of today's hip trendy messaging protocols be used to painlessly notify anyone who is interested that there's a new diff ready, instead of having over-eager scripts poll the directory every 10 seconds? i guess it would be fairly easy to have a CGI script for the next diff, i.e: after receiving the request it blocks until a new diff is ready and then returns that diff. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Live Data - all new Data in OSM
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: sorry, i wasn't clear in my question: why triggers in particular, rather than one of the many other features that the DB provides for doing this? Mostly because it would allow us to use the same XML format that everybody already knows how to parse and because it's what I've worked with in my limited PostgreSQL experience. why would it allow us to use the XML format? nothing in XML ever goes near the database. What other features were you thinking about? i was looking at snapshots and transaction IDs to isolate the updated rows in the history tables. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Live Data - all new Data in OSM
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: sorry, i wasn't clear in my question: why triggers in particular, rather than one of the many other features that the DB provides for doing this? Mostly because it would allow us to use the same XML format that everybody already knows how to parse and because it's what I've worked with in my limited PostgreSQL experience. why would it allow us to use the XML format? nothing in XML ever goes near the database. I meant that it would trigger some external executable that would build up the XML, not that the database would do it. is the external executable called osmosis? What other features were you thinking about? i was looking at snapshots and transaction IDs to isolate the updated rows in the history tables. I yield to your judgment on that. I haven't given myself enough time to explore abusing the database app for such a thing. its better to get this done without the main db and the rails_port code diverging too much, so i'm looking for methods which are as un-invasive as possible. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] QA with a lawyer
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: the OSMF LWG recently had a couple of calls with Clark Asay, who has generously agreed to give OSMF legal advice concerning the new license. i've attached the write up of the first of the calls Was that based on the 0.9 or 1.0 license? I am concerned because of Q: Is the process of creating a Produced Work restricted or affected by the ODbL in any way? Do any details of the process of creating a Produced Work need to be made Public? A: No. The process of creating a Produced Work does not need to be revealed, so any artistic interpretation involved does not have to be made available. The only requirement of the ODbL is the notice from section 4.3. the question here needs to be clarified - my bad. the intent of the question is whether anyone producing works would have to reveal their creative inputs, e.g: their mapnik/osmarender/kosmos style rules or ITOworld's custom renderer for OSM mapper. Q: How often does a Derived Database have to be made available? Must this be as often as my produced work or can I do this on a less frequent basis? How soon after the Produced Work is published must I make it available? A: Under the current version of the license, it isn't necessary to make the derived database available. It was my understanding that the above would have been true for 0.9, while the April 2008 ODbL draft and 1.0 would require making available the derivative database on which a produced work is built. this is a question we have open with Jordan/Rufus and we're very actively trying to get it resolved. it seems that there was some text dropped between the response of ODC on their wiki to the co-ment comments and the released version of 1.0-rc1. it is everyone's intent to have the SA requirements triggered when a produced work is publicly used, but clearly its unfair on Clark to ask him to answer a question based on the assumption of some text which isn't in the license in front of him. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] QA with a lawyer
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: ...and Peter Miller's concerns are legit: If you are the licensor, then, under 4.4.d... Licensors may authorise a proxy to determine compatible licences under Section 4.4 a iii. If they do so, the authorised proxy's public statement of acceptance of a compatible licence grants You permission to use the compatible licence. ... you get to choose what the compatible licenses are, don't you? So I can take the planet file, add a node thereby creating a derivative database, publish it with me as the licensor, and under 4.4 d declare that I am myself the proxy who determines license compatibility, and one second later proclaim that the BSD style license is compatible with ODbL. Yay! Where can I sign up ;-) hmm... that does seem to be a problem. would it solve the problem if 4.4a iii were removed? would that prevent any reasonable use case, to not be able to distribute a derived database under anything other than ODbL or later versions similar in spirit? given that OSMF is the original licensor, holding the database rights, it wouldn't prevent OSMF choosing a new license. assuming, of course, that the terms of the contributor agreement are upheld regarding voting, etc... cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Live Data - all new Data in OSM
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:50 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: You can in theory extract all edits, at higher than 1 minute granularity, from http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changesets together with all history. (From the minutely diffs if a new way is created and deleted in the same minute, you would never know about it) in theory, yes, but please don't as it puts extra strain on the servers. please use the minute diffs from the planet server instead :-) cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Live Data - all new Data in OSM
2009/5/13 Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es: El Miércoles, 13 de Mayo de 2009, andrzej zaborowski escribió: From the minutely diffs if a new way is created and deleted in the same minute, you would never know about it Can't you get the changeset IDs from the diff, then query the API to know the exact time of the changeset? the way (and the changeset its in) may not even appear in the diff. also, changesets are not atomic, so they don't have a single time - they have a created_at time and a closed_at time which can be up to 24h apart. however, brett is testing a new form of diffs that contain all edits, which should solve that problem. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Live Data - all new Data in OSM
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:36 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: To be just slightly more constructive, the least invasive way of querying the API for new data only without changing the code would be to make multi-GETs for batches of object IDs just above the highest known object ID. That would probably not disrupt services if done by one user, but then if one user is allowed to do it, what can we say if 10 others wanted to do the same? the least invasive way is to use the minutely diffs, as it doesn't touch the API or DB servers at all. Probably the best way to have a live feed - and a technique that has been discussed on dev about two years ago - would be to have the rails code log all successful database operations into a file which could then be retrieved by an independent daemon and fed into whatever distribution network you want. That would be about the same thing that database replication does, just on a higher level. given that there are more efficient ways of doing the database replication than aggregating these feeds from all the different API servers into a coherent whole, i think its probably better to continue creating the feed (i.e: diffs) from the database. unless, of course, you're talking about twittering the updates. that would be teh moar ;-) cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Live Data - all new Data in OSM
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Bernhard zwischenbrugger b...@datenkueche.com wrote: Hi http://planet.openstreetmap.org/minute/ That's perfect!!! Is there also the a file with the *newest* data? Or do I have to read the timestamp file? reading the timestamp.txt is the best way to do it. I don't want to synchronize a database. The thing I'm thinking about is a visualization of the current activity. these might be of interest: http://matt.sandbox.cloudmade.com/ http://trac.openstreetmap.org/browser/applications/utils/export/tile_expiry http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2009-February/013934.html http://vimeo.com/4548155 /shameless plug cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Live Data - all new Data in OSM
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Matt, the least invasive way is to use the minutely diffs, as it doesn't touch the API or DB servers at all. Sure, but they are (a) delayed by 5 minutes and (b) broken ;-) we're working on both (a) and (b) at the moment... we'll fix it real soon now, i promise :-) I was initially opposed to the concept of diffs. I remember a developer meeting in Essen in 2007 where I rather violently requested more frequent updates and NickB said something like we could do daily or hourly diffs and I said I want the f*ing real thing, not canned diffs. the trouble with the f*ing real thing is that, because it needs the very latest information, it has to hit the database. imagine that TF*RT is like WMS - every different request has a slightly different lat/lon/scale, so its basically uncacheable unless some clever things are done. granular diffs are like tiles - you only get discrete chunks, but it makes caching *so* much easier. in fact, you could look at the files on planet.osm.org as direct access to the cache - no need to hit the DB, no extra DB load which would be better used serving editors**. :-) I must say that, especially with the convenience Osmosis brings in dealing with them, I have meanwhile changed my mind. The diffs are a very crude solution but they work remarkably well, and they are quite robust compared to some kind of replication feed that may go out of sync at any time. exactly. because they're just files on disk they're robust against API downtime or bugs, they're quick to download, etc... I still think that there are use cases for almost-realtime feeds but the diffs work for most people. - I didn't know the original poster was unaware of the diffs; I assumed he must know the diffs and was looking for something better! i think we can find a compromise. if we could get the diff generation time down from about 5 minutes (and fix (b)!) to 1-2 minutes, would that be good enough for almost-realtime? given that there are more efficient ways of doing the database replication than aggregating these feeds from all the different API servers into a coherent whole, As I said in another post, I was under the impression that while you can easily have any number of servers running API daemons on them, you'd rather not stuff too much into the database because at least for write requests we'll be stuck with it for a long while to come. But hey, maybe I underestimate the Postgres factor ;-) but then a single something has to communicate with all the API daemons, collate all the API activity, and ensure edits' atomicity, consistency, isolation and durability... what kind of software might have these ACID properties, i wonder? ;-) unless, of course, you're talking about twittering the updates. that would be teh moar ;-) For once, it would not be TomH who bans an IP range then ;-) hey, the postgres guys were happy with OSM using postgres - why wouldn't twitter be happy? they just re-wrote their backend for better scalability, so we'd be doing them a favour by testing it! cheers, matt **: yeah, there's going to be an overhead for pulling the minute diffs out, but thats done once and amortised over all the consumers of the data. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-legal-talk] QA with a lawyer
the OSMF LWG recently had a couple of calls with Clark Asay, who has generously agreed to give OSMF legal advice concerning the new license. i've attached the write up of the first of the calls, in which we went over a series of short questions that grant and i had previously extracted from ulf's compendium of use cases and open issues. clark had lots of useful thoughts which are well worth reading and discussing here. the most important issues are highlighted in yellow, some of which require community input to resolve. we had the second call earlier today and we'll be writing up the results of that real soon now. cheers, matt Q_A_Session_with_Clark_Asay.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] QA with a lawyer
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:17 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: I have just concluded an email discussion with Jordan following our lawyers review of 1.0 who has answered some points but is now saying that he would need someone to pay him to answer more of them which leaves things in a rather unsatisfactory state given that I am not prepared to pay two lawyers to talk to each other! We have not had any response to the review from the OSMF council to date. i guess its hard for him when he's volunteering so much of his own time to answer all the questions put to him. So... could you help me with a couple of the points raised by our lawyer at your next Q and A? The review of 0.9 is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ITO_World/ODbL_Licence_0.9_legal_review_for_ITO we'd be happy to. lets discuss them now, so we've got a full understanding. I am particularly interested in a view of the following: Regarding point 3 could someone confirm that the Factual Information License has now been dumped in favour of the 'Database Contents License'? This is implied by the latest release candidate but hasn't been discussed on the list to my knowledge. It seems a lot more applicable but our lawyer hasn't reviewed it. my understanding is that the FIL has been renamed to the DbCL and has been considerably simplified. in our discussions we are no longer talking about the FIL. Point 9 - Governing Law - Lets assume someone in China creates a new work based on OSM and claims from Chinese law that it is not a substantial extract. That is then used by someone in Vietnam to combine it would something else and manipulate it which makes it more like the original OSM DB and then someone in the UK uses that DB. Can one procecute the final UK company using UK law or would one need to travel to Vietnam and China to do this given that some of the interpretations happened under their law? Clark agreed with your lawyer that having a choice of law is the normal done thing in contracts, and suggested that we would want to consider either US or UK law. apparently this choice of law doesn't have an effect on the IP rights and is mainly for interpreting the contractual parts of the license. in the situation you describe, it is my understanding that we would have a better chance prosecuting the final UK company under IP laws (e.g: copyright, database rights) on the original database. given the difference in IP laws in vietnam or china (i'm guessing) it would be easier to go after them based on the contractual parts of the license. one of the things i'm gaining a better understanding of, having spoken with Clark, is that no license is ever fully watertight and we are highly unlikely to be able to defend all of our rights in all possible jurisdictions. in this regard i think we will have to strike a balance with practicality and license brevity. Point 13. Our lawyer states that the OSMF could change the license as they see fit at any time, and of they can then so can anyone else who publishes a derivative DB as far as I can see which would be alarming. Can you ask who can change the license and by how much. Our lawyer writes: Clauses 3.3 9.3 – The OSMF reserves the right to release the Database under different terms. It is not the current intention of the parties to permit exclusive use of the Database to any single person. However, this provision would permit the OSMF to withdraw the share alike and free access nature of the Database and even to sell it on commercial and exclusive terms. Likewise the OSMF expressly reserves the right to “stop distributing or making available the Database.” this was one of the questions in the write-up and was discussed again in the second call. my feeling is that this isn't an issue for the license, but instead forms part of the contribution agreement between contributors and the OSMF. Ulf did some work putting a three-point contribution agreement together and, as soon as its ready, i'm sure it will be posted here. the contribution agreement is something that we'll be working on in the LWG and we'd like to have your input. discussions up to now have focussed on the idea of the OSMF being required to hold a membership vote before being able to change the license, although we haven't yet gone into details of the mechanics (i.e: majorities, etc...) i'm sure you understand the need for the OSMF to reserve the right to discontinue hosting the database, since hosting and distributing the database requires a great deal of resources. while these resources are currently available, it seems unwise for OSMF to legally commit to providing them forever. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] 500 Internal Server Error during upload
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: Look people, we have new servers and software and we are working to tune them and resolve various issues. Please be patient and stop all this moaning in the mean time... 406 ;-) cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Blame me for JOSM yellowness
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote: On Apr 24, 2009, at 11:48 AM, David Lynch wrote: I agree that checking the import is good, but I have my own issues with the review tag (having to edit something in order to indicate that it's correct is counter-intuitive, and unless you know it's there and remember to remove it/change the value, it's way easy to leave a false positive.) Maybe we need a keybinding in JOSM which removes the tag from the selected way? this would be ideal for a plugin, rather than core functionality. maybe some other tiger-related functionality could be bundled in, such as merging two identical ways where they're duplicated across county boundaries? Perhaps we need a reaper which looks for ways which have tiger:reviewed which aren't last edited by Dave Hansen? As you say, if somebody edited it, then it's likely that the change was made to fix a problem. It's possible that there are still remaining problems, but ANYTHING in OSM can have errors. when i'm fixing tiger i often review a segment of a very long way and split it, setting (or removing) the tiger:reviewed tag on the part that i've checked. this means i am the last edited user on *both* parts of the split way, despite having reviewed only one of them. so the reaper would have to be a bit more sophisticated than just looking at the last edited user. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Generating Mapnik Images to epsg:27700 (British National Grid) Projection
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Kev js1982 o...@kevswindells.eu wrote: depending on what the data is stored in - alas I have an issue where it isn't rendering tiles properly, looks to be memory related - those with really complex coastlines (North West Wales) are rendering in sea colour, and those with less complex coastlines (Birmingham) are only rendering roads for the first 50px or so from the left. i remember i had the same problem when i was trying to render tiles in OSGB. i managed to fix it by importing the UK extract of the planet into postgis in OSGB, rather than spherical mercator. if i remember right, the problem stemmed from mapnik converting the bounding box from the rendering CS into the DB CS (i.e: OSGB-900913) to do the query and then converting it to the screen CS (i.e: 900913-OSGB-ish) to setup the draw clipping box. it wasn't calculating the second transform correctly - or the results were being swamped by numerical error - so the clip box was offset from the drawing area, producing the blank areas you're seeing. i can't remember why i didn't fix mapnik, but i think it may have been easier to just re-import the database in the native projection and avoid all the issues. hope this helps, matt ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions ambiguity
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:16 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: If one were to refer to nodes on the two ways instead of the way itself, it would remove the ambiguity wouldn't it? Albeit more complicated for the consumer to work out, in that it would have to decide which way the two nodes were on. an alternative is to use the implicit direction of each way where there is ambiguity, as is done for oneway. this would mean all combinations can be uniquely resolved without way splitting or explicit reference to nodes. it is also forward-compatible with the existing scheme. it would seem that the most user-friendly way of presenting this would be built-in editor support*, e.g: by drawing an arrow from one way to the other showing the disallowed route, rather than expecting users to parse the relation themselves. cheers, matt * i know, i know, patches welcome, etc... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] rendering some large maps, e.g. whole world
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:34 AM, D Tucny d...@tucny.com wrote: 2009/4/18 Torsten Mohr tm...@s.netic.de Has anybody got any experience with changing osm.xml to create maps that look fine when printed (readable text, ...)? Or do i worry too much and printing PNGs looks just all right? The maps are typically rendered for viewing on a screen, so, text and symbols may appear too small when printed, you would likely need to adjust their size for print, but, how much you adjust it can be a taste thing... I haven't done it with a map myself, but others have and hopefully they will be able to contribute here with their experiences... i've seen two approaches: 1. render to PDF/PS and rasterise/print that at whatever scale you want. this means no mucking about with the style file, but some features (e.g: transparency, text halo-ing) sometimes don't come across the same as they do on the rendered tiles. 2. alter the style file so that everything is ~3 times bigger. this means everything will render right, but is a pain to do by hand. both approaches give comparable results. for the best results, replace the icons with a scalable icon set rendered at 3 times their normal size. 2. When rendering the whole world with coordinates like this: # unused: ll = (4.5, 46, 16, 56) # Germany ll = (-180.0, -90.0, 180.0, 90.0) # World Then i just get an empty file (just background). Is this related to the scale denominators in osm.xml? It likely is a combination of the scale and potentially a lack of the coast shapefiles... The lowest level of detail just has the coast line rendered from the shapefiles... i think its more likely to be that -90/+90 lat project to infinity in the mercartor projection. if you want a square image, use -85.0511/+85.0511 lat. see also http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Slippy_map_tilenames#X_and_Y cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Roads/Rails Shapefile Import for Tanzania, Uganda, DRC, Rwanda
hi robert, this is really cool! great to see that africover is willing to donate this data. one thing thats worth pointing out, just in case you hadn't seen it already; the OSM server will be down from the 17th possibly until the 20th for an upgrade to the API. hopefully this will not inconvenience you, as most of the OSM tools and clients are ready for the upgrade. this page contains more information - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Protocol_Version_0.6/Information and we're all happy to help if there are any problems. cheers, matt On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Robert Soden robert.so...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, Over the last few months, I've been in contact with FAO's Africover program: http://www.africover.org/ . Africover maintains shapefiles containing rivers, roads, towns, and admin boundaries for a number of countries that we would like add to the OSM dataset. While they normally do not release data under an OSM-acceptable license, they have granted us permission to add their data to Open Street Map. Over the next few weeks, we will be working on importing data for Tanzania, DR Congo, Uganda, and Rwanda. We'll be working slowly in order to ensure accuracy and integrity of the OSM dataset. Please feel free to get in touch if you are interested in learning more about our progress, but we will also be posting status reports on the project wiki pages. Africover also maintains datasets for Burundi, Egypt, Eritrea, Kenya, Somalia, and Sudan. We may work on these over the longer-term, and would be happy to collaborate with other folks on this. Cheers, Robert Soden rob...@developmentseed.org ___ 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] xybot
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:59 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Someoneelse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: I see that xybot has woken up again. Would an announcement on this list really have been too much to ask? This might be a pretty drastic question to ask, but perhaps it's time to start coming up with a community policy regarding banning or blocking-temporarily users that damage the data by putting it to a vote. indeed. too many people are damaging the data by voting :-P Perhaps with API 0.6 coming it will be easier to get rid of crummy edits, but as OSM gets more popular, it'll be important for the community to at least have thought of ways to prevent vandalism from happening. it will definitely be more possible. with changesets it'll be possible for people to write practical revert tools. also, the changesets give us a way of monitoring and controlling the number and extent of changes. it will finally be possible to enforce the community policies on unannounced bots/imports and large-scale vandalism on the server. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] People's Map
2009/4/11 Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es: El Sábado, 11 de Abril de 2009, Tim Waters (chippy) escribió: I think the way these are done are to use a digital evevation model - I would hope the free SRTM could be sufficient? On the contrary: AFAIK, SRTM's are done by seeing the differences between overlapping aerial photos. SRTM stands for Shuttle Radar Topography Mission, so i don't think they use aerial photos. :-) many of the high-quality DEMs (Digital Elevation Model), such as the soviet ones, are created from stereo photogrammetry. although more modern ones are starting to use LIDAR. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Possible UTF-8 encoding errors in changesets
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Brett Henderson br...@bretth.com wrote: As someone who has spent many hours dealing with the current database utf-8 issues I'll be ecstatic when 0.6 goes live :-) just a little tip for anyone else who is really annoyed by broken UTF-8 - i run all the change files through utf8sanitizer before trying to apply them, or even parse them. since i started doing that, i haven't had any problem with broken utf8. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] xybot rides again
hi everyone, a couple of weeks ago xybot appears to have added the fairly pointless tag addr:country=DK to all the address point information that was imported in denmark. the information about the import is here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/KMS but i can't find any information about the edits that xybot did on its page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Xybot i thought it was considered polite for those who are running mass automated bots to at least announce them on the wiki or here and give a rationale? most people do, but i haven't seen anything from xybot's owner. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-GB] Reminder: London Pub Meetup Tonight
hi thirsty OSMers, possibly the last bi-weekly london winter pub meetup is tonight at the Freemason's Arms in Covent Garden[1]. it has been suggested that, now the clocks have changed and its lighter in the evening, collection of POIs or addressing data on the way to the pub[2] might be a good way to ease ourselves into the coming season of evening micro mapping parties. either that, or we'll have need a cake. :-) for more details, or to optionally sign up, please see the wiki page[3]. look forward to seeing you there! cheers, matt [1] http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/50/5069/Freemasons_Arms/Covent_Garden [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.51442lon=-0.1224zoom=17layers=B000FTF [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/London/Winter_2008-9_Random_Pub_Meetup ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging dangerous areas
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Brian Quinion openstreet...@brian.quinion.co.uk wrote: On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) ajrli...@googlemail.com wrote: This should be tagged in a different way that uses fact instead of opinion/fiction. Perhaps by referring to crime statistics for a given boundary area. How about: i_was_violently_threatened_while_trying_to_map_this=yes Speaking from my experience of this weekend :-( after the wembley mapping party last year i heard suggestions of a locals=angry tag. maybe we should expand that to include locals=violent or locals=heavily_armed? cheers, matt PS: or combine with smoothness - locals=very_horrible :-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging dangerous areas
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:31 PM, MP singular...@gmail.com wrote: after the wembley mapping party last year i heard suggestions of a locals=angry tag. maybe we should expand that to include locals=violent or locals=heavily_armed? What happened at the Wembley mapping party? andy and steve independently attempted to map the same road on a council estate but both decided it might not be a wise idea. no violence was done i think, just evil stares. andy actually tagged it locals=angsty, rather than angry, but there is a precedent :-) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/27794700 cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bogus GPS Uploads
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Adam Killian vi...@bonius.com wrote: You will find a trace for a very long elliptical area, oriented East-West.. I am very familiar with this area, and I can't imagine how anyone would have generated such a trace by any legitimate means. looks to me like a track from an aeroplane in a holding pattern, possibly headed towards newark? that might also explain why the points are so widely spaced. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] immutable=yes Fwd: DEC Lands
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote: On Mar 16, 2009, at 7:09 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: People can then access it using exactly the same language/currency/ interface that they're used to with OSM. This only works if Potlatch, JOSM, Merkaartor, Chris Schmidt's editor, and however many other editors that exist all add this URL to their editors. Can you see how this doesn't really work when there are twenty or thirty editors, and twenty or thirty external data sources? potlatch, JOSM and merkaartor already support several external data sources (yahoo! imagery, gpx points, WMS, etc...) if your data source is useful to a significant number of people then they (or you) will add support to the editors. in my opinion your arguments for a unified interface to GIS data are not compelling. on the other hand, i don't see any disadvantage to adding DEC lands data to OSM. in the end it reduces to: do you want to import and maintain this data, including the responsibility of resolving mistakes and disputes with other community members, or would you prefer to just debate the point endlessly on this list? cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] immutable=yes Fwd: DEC Lands
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Richard Fairhurst wrote: Hell, if you think having to call two URLs is too much like hard work, you can augment your data with minutely-updated OSM dumps, and make everything available from that one place. What id range would he use for nodes, ways, and relations of his immutable dataset? whatever range he likes, if he's writing the implementation ;-) cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
