Re: [Talk-us] Washington DC place node cleanup
On 12/4/20 3:43 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 04.12.20 12:33, Mikel Maron wrote: I'm not sure what the "name" tag should be, but I am wondering what the point of the translations are which simply duplicate the default name. Is it like a marker to say "don't try calling this place anything else"? Is that common, seems unneccesary? FYI, other cases of this exist. States are usually assumed to completely partition a country, but there are lots of federal districts that are not in a state. I think Mexico City and Brasilia are both like this. If not, it is Friday. My apologies. Every now and then we have an avid fan of language X go around the globe and add name:X tags, it always looks to me like an attempt at making the language more relevant (especially if name:X==name). "Hey, language X is not dead yet, we still call Washington Washington!!!" Well, there are cases you would want names in, for example, Russian. Most Russian speakers can, I suspect, sound out words in the Latin alphabet, but it is a thing. And if you wanted to start a fight, you could go around tagging things with Kurdish language versions. That would be fun, yes? :-- I have often argued for just dropping name:X if it is the name as name, because I would assume that every language-specific map or other use case would revert to the name tag if no language-specific name was present. Automated crawlers could find these. Are there any crawlers doing this and putting up edits? The counter-argument was usually that if Washington has a name:de=Washington then you positively know that this is the name used in Germany, whereas if it doesn't have a name:de tag it might just be "not yet mapped". Fat chance with name:de ;) Yeah, Germans. I had a German manager once who spoke at a very large public gathering and mentioned "America and the 53 states". There was much hilarity. Of course, he was right that because lists of states sometimes need to include Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Marshall Islands. It took a bit of time to realize that, though. We all learn, every day. cheers - ray Bye Frederik ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Extremely long Amtrak route relations
It seems that OSM has a an architectural problem with over-large relations? Is modifying the relations in potentially arbitrary ways a good solution? Seeking something that may work now, can any "size-based" relation splits be done in a way that they can be automatically removed at some futute point? Is there a meta-relation structure that can relate relations, or is that just a relation? I do not know enough about how OSM is implemented to make real suggestions, but changing the data for this seems like a bad smell. cheers - ray On 11/21/20 9:06 AM, Clay Smalley wrote: I posted this on the Slack but I figured I should put this on the mailing list to make sure it reaches everybody: Many long-distance Amtrak trains have route relations with 1000+ members. If I split one way that happens to be a member of one of these routes, I end up with a changeset with a gigantic bounding box, and often get edit conflicts due to someone doing a similar change hundreds of miles away along the same line. I really would like to split up these relations into smaller chunks to make them more manageable. One way of doing that would be to split them up by state (as US and Interstate highways are) but that seems odd for a train relation, since they'd start and end at places that aren't train stations (except maybe Texarkana). My other thought would be to split them up at "station stops", where trains dwell for 10+ minutes to facilitate crew changes and allow passengers to step off the train and get some fresh air. These are roughly every 4 hours apart schedule-wise (typically 200-300 miles apart). The annoying part is that station stops are not well-advertised and you pretty much need to ride the train to figure out where they are. Other suggestions on the Slack include splitting them up by the underlying railway infrastructure lines (aka subdivisions). I'm not convinced this is an intuitive way to approach splitting long routes into sub-relations. Anybody have opinions one way or the other? -Clay ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] interesting crossing of borders between CA and AZ
On 11/9/20 3:07 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: Ray, Thanks for taking on the task of fixing the tribal boundaries. From personal experience of having done a number of these, it's hard work and easy to make errors. But don't let that discourage you. It feels great once you're complete. One note - as far as I know, tribal boundaries should just be boundary=aboriginal_lands. Admin levels are designed for areas tagged boundary=administrative. Because tribal lands/reservations have a unique standings they should just be tagged boundary=aboriginal_lands. Feel free to contact me directly if you need help. Clifford When I was creating the relation, I found the "boundary=aboriginal_lands" thing. Give a shout if you see anything wrong with this. http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11867393 And I have not yet, of course, added the bit that will cross into California. cheers - ray On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 2:03 PM Ray Kiddy <mailto:r...@ganymede.org>> wrote: Hello - I am seeing an interesting editing task at the eastern edge of Riverside County in California. As of now, I am not expert enough in JOSM to do it, but I will, at some point, be able to do it and I will do it then. Unless someone else wants it. I am starting to add lines to define the city boundaries of Blythe, CA. Almost nothing is there in OSM. But the interesting bit is at the nothern part of the eastern edge of the city boundary. This line in the Colorado River actually separates the states of California and Arizona and is the eastern boarder of Blythe but it is also the western border of the Colorado River Indian Tribes Reservation (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/702934460 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/702934460>). The issue is that the southern border of the reservation actually crosses the CA-AZ state line and this is not seen in OSM. It has a "toe" sort of shape, facing west. See the eastern edge of the map below. https://gis.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public <https://gis.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public> So, what I think I need to do is: 1) Change the reservation from a way into a relation with the proper admin level. (Done) 1a) Fix the southern border of the reservation, which should cover the road there. The reservation does not include the road in OSM. 2) Split the way that currently cuts off the toe, but I need to not muck up the CA-AZ border. 3) Add the lines for the toe. This also involves moving the northern edge of the Palo Verde Ecological Reserve, whose northern edge is too far north in OSM. 4) Actually the nothern edge of the eco reserve needs to be split off because it is now also the border of the reservation. 5) Add the ways created for the norther edge of the toe into the reservation's relation. And that is it. And I need to not break all of the other things around. Easy peasy! :--) I am open to any suggestions. On the other hand, I am willing to do these things when I figure out some of the advanced stuff in JOSM. Fun stuff. cheers - ray ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us> -- @osm_washington www.snowandsnow.us <https://www.snowandsnow.us> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] interesting crossing of borders between CA and AZ
Hello - I am seeing an interesting editing task at the eastern edge of Riverside County in California. As of now, I am not expert enough in JOSM to do it, but I will, at some point, be able to do it and I will do it then. Unless someone else wants it. I am starting to add lines to define the city boundaries of Blythe, CA. Almost nothing is there in OSM. But the interesting bit is at the nothern part of the eastern edge of the city boundary. This line in the Colorado River actually separates the states of California and Arizona and is the eastern boarder of Blythe but it is also the western border of the Colorado River Indian Tribes Reservation (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/702934460). The issue is that the southern border of the reservation actually crosses the CA-AZ state line and this is not seen in OSM. It has a "toe" sort of shape, facing west. See the eastern edge of the map below. https://gis.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public So, what I think I need to do is: 1) Change the reservation from a way into a relation with the proper admin level. (Done) 1a) Fix the southern border of the reservation, which should cover the road there. The reservation does not include the road in OSM. 2) Split the way that currently cuts off the toe, but I need to not muck up the CA-AZ border. 3) Add the lines for the toe. This also involves moving the northern edge of the Palo Verde Ecological Reserve, whose northern edge is too far north in OSM. 4) Actually the nothern edge of the eco reserve needs to be split off because it is now also the border of the reservation. 5) Add the ways created for the norther edge of the toe into the reservation's relation. And that is it. And I need to not break all of the other things around. Easy peasy! :--) I am open to any suggestions. On the other hand, I am willing to do these things when I figure out some of the advanced stuff in JOSM. Fun stuff. cheers - ray ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] app for keeping track of relations
Hello - I have an early version of an application that I wanted to share. Please be kind with it. There is documentation on the app. The idea here is that people may want to keep track of the health of a set of relations. Governmental entities, if they find a way to use OSM, will want to "watch over" the relations that they care about. Someone doing thematic analysis of maps using OSM data will most likely have to maintain external references to the OSM relations that they are relating their data to, so they may want to be aware of the referential integrity of the relations. Does anyone have suggestions or thoughts on this? I am more interested in ideas than an evaluation of this particular implementation. I used a fairly old-school technology for building the app, but I was in the team at Apple that developed these frameworks, so I still use it. Which is not the point. If anyone is interested in having write=access to the app, let me know. See the link on "Accounts" for details. Right now, I have sets for: - 'Cities of California' - 'Counties of California' - 'US Federally Recognized Native American Reservations' - names only, no relation links yet. (a work in progress) - 'States of Countries' - includes Colombia and a start at Peru. Well, if anyone has ideas, do not be shy. But then, that is not a problem for this group, is it? :--) cheers - ray ps: the URL will change once I finish tweaking my web server, but forwarding information should be up if it is needed. See: http://opencalaccess.org:5/cgi-bin/WebObjects/app.woa/wa/boundaries?i=f9e5024c-2c68-4621-8d6a-1bae0f93dcc3 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] relations on which thematic data can be connected? eg internet availabilty byt zipcode
Wow. Bizarre, but good to know. Yes, I _always_ have thought that zipcodes partition land areas. Now I have to wonder if ZCTAs are still around and if they are mapped. I expect not. much thanx - ray On 6/24/20 2:39 PM, Spencer Alves wrote: Zip Codes are Not Areas http://www.georeference.org/doc/zip_codes_are_not_areas.htm Specifically for Zip codes, the best you could do is query for addr:postcode. On Jun 24, 2020, at 2:33 PM, Ray Kiddy wrote: Hello - I am interested in where people in the US lack internet connectivity and I keep thinking that I should be able to use OSM for some part of this. I am recalling (perhaps not accurately) that connectivity information is published by the FCC and I think that at least some of the information is per zipcode. This led me into a bit of a rat hole as I sought to find out if there are relations for zipcodes in the US. Does anyone know? I know that TIGER data defines lines that bound zipcodes. But can one craft a query that maps just the edges of a zipcode area? Are there then relations defined for those edges? I can keep thematic data on my own database but, so far, I do it by linking directly to a relation or way. If it had to be a set of relations, that would be unfortunate, but possible. But I am not seeing how to make the queries. Any ideas? cheers - ray ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] relations on which thematic data can be connected? eg internet availabilty byt zipcode
Hello - I am interested in where people in the US lack internet connectivity and I keep thinking that I should be able to use OSM for some part of this. I am recalling (perhaps not accurately) that connectivity information is published by the FCC and I think that at least some of the information is per zipcode. This led me into a bit of a rat hole as I sought to find out if there are relations for zipcodes in the US. Does anyone know? I know that TIGER data defines lines that bound zipcodes. But can one craft a query that maps just the edges of a zipcode area? Are there then relations defined for those edges? I can keep thematic data on my own database but, so far, I do it by linking directly to a relation or way. If it had to be a set of relations, that would be unfortunate, but possible. But I am not seeing how to make the queries. Any ideas? cheers - ray ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties
Is there a way that the alt_name vs name situation can be sorted for a key like "operator"? For example, the "San Jose Unified School District" in California gives too few results in overpass. Add queries for "San José Unified School District" and you are good. If I was looking at the district, it would work to have the name without the accent as "name" and then, without the accent, it would be the "alt_name". But there is no "operator" or "alt_operator" tag on the schools, so I guess I keep having to use this? [out:json][timeout:25]; // gather results ( // query part for: “operator="San Jose Unified School District"” node["operator"="San Jose Unified School District"]; way["operator"="San Jose Unified School District"]; relation["operator"="San Jose Unified School District"]; node["operator"="San José Unified School District"]; way["operator"="San José Unified School District"]; relation["operator"="San José Unified School District"]; ); // print results out body; >; out skel qt; cheers - ray On 12/27/19 9:57 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Thanks, Tod. BTW, I believe the "official_name" for all California counties is now in the format "County of Los Angeles", right? This shouldn't be used for the "name=" since almost everyone still puts the County last (e.g. "Los Angeles County") in common usage, but official documents will use the other way with "of" in the middle. Joseph Eisenberg On 12/28/19, Tod Fitch wrote: Based on this discussion and my own checking to see what search engines are doing with the data, I think it would be okay to move the alt_name tag value to be a short_name value for the counties in California and Arizona where the current alt_name tag is the same string as the name but without a “ County” suffix. For example: alt_name=“Los Angeles” name=“Los Angeles County” Changed to name=“Los Angeles County” short_name=“Los Angeles” From my side this is now just a desire to be logical and consistent (not always a trait seen in OSM tagging). My initial annoyance has been dealt with on my topo map rendering by creating a Postgresql function that, among other things, will ignore alt_name values if they fit the above criteria. As noted by Joseph Eisenberg, the alt_name/short_name value could probably be dropped in these cases but I suspect that will get more push back than changing the tag. — Tod On Dec 27, 2019, at 7:21 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: It's not necessary to add an alternative like "Josephine" if the name= is already "Josephine County" because geocoding and search application already know to search for part of a name. For example this search already finds the "Josephine County" administrative boundary as the first result: https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Josephine - and there is no short alt_name or short_name. So I think there is no reason to have this information duplicated if we are just worried about search. -Joseph Eisenberg On 12/27/19, stevea wrote: I truly love the level of detail we get "coming out of the woodwork" so that we may have excellent real-life examples to share with one another (and +1 to one another, too!) To be brief about it (rare for me, I endeavor to get better): good examples, discussion / dialog and sharing our real-world experiences and knowledge is only going to help things. If somebody reading now has a more-concrete understanding of differences between old-, alt-, official-, and so on, hooray. If such sharper focus finds its way into a more-enlightened sentence or paragraph in a wiki, great. Chip, chip, chipping away at it (are all of us), SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Local OSM groups in the US
On 1/12/16 5:23 AM, Steven Johnson wrote: Dale & list, TeachOSM has initiated a project with the US Census Bureau we've been calling 'Missing America', dedicated to mapping those marginal areas and vulnerable populations. We're just getting organized, but anticipate local communities playing a part in both mapping as well as community organization. Happy to chat more off list. -- SEJ -- twitter: @geomantic -- skype: sejohnson8 "Wretches, utter wretches, keep your hands off beans!" - v.141, /On Nature, /Empedocles This sounds like a project that HOT would do also. Have you thought about connecting to them, perhaps using their tools? It may help. - ray While Missing Maps is mostly internationally focused we always hoped to support local OSM communities in the US. We would love to find more ways we can support the mapping of vulnerable populations in the US. I'd like to participate when you have your next call. Great initiative and I look forward to helping out. Dale On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Martijn van Exel <mart...@openstreetmap.us <mailto:mart...@openstreetmap.us>> wrote: Hi all, Eleanor, Clifford and I started talking about ways to make local OSM groups more successful, and / or how to support more of them. See our meeting notes here if you are interested: https://gist.github.com/mvexel/ffefcbf2c3012af51f16 Currently we are compiling a list of local groups that are active. Here is what we have right now (after only a bit of searching Meetup by Clifford) Bay Area OSM Toronto OSM Enthusiasts OSM Colorado OSM Seattle OSM Salt Lake City OSM Tampa Bay Phoenix Geo OSM St. Louis Mid America Mappers OSM Southern California OSM Ottawa Mapping DC OSM Kansas City OSM Vancouver MapGive mapathon (DC) Do you know of any others, please let us know! With a link / contact person if possible. We will meet again in a couple of weeks. If you want to help think about and work on ways to support local OSM groups, let us know and we will make sure you get on the next call with us. Thanks, Martijn ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- sent from my mobile device Dale Kunce http://normalhabit.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Legislative districts, Land-use zoning, etc.
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:19:20 +0200 Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/21/2015 04:46 AM, Ray Kiddy wrote: > > To me, OSM is a tool which is ideal for relating various information > > layers across a multi-dimensional substrate. This substrate is a > > two-dimensional geography, which is defined geographically. To me, > > it seems perfect for things like borders. > > OSM is first and foremost a community of people curating a data set. > This process works best with data that is verifiable on the ground, > because if two community members disagree over something, the dispute > can be resolved by simply looking at the place. Also, the mapper > (surveyor) is the ultimate authority in OSM; we map what *is*, not > what some government says should be. > > We do have a few items that go against these principles, most notably > borders. They are not easily verifiable, and they are items where the > authority lies elsewhere - where OSM can only ever be a copy of some > master data being defined by a government, instead of being the > authoritative source. OSM is certainly not "perfect" for collecting > and curating such information; this is a fact and not a matter of > personal opinion. Having these borders in OSM is already a compromise > where the usefulness (high) has been weighed against the suitability > of OSM as a medium (low). I am seeing the truth in what you are saying now. First, I am still somewhat new to the OSM game. But also I am interested in the use of it for borders for, for example, school districts in the US. And I am seeing that (in line with Richard's suggestion, different e-mail), I may want to investigate doing that in a separate database connected to OSM. And I created just such a database several weeks ago, so yes, that makes sense. I am currently writing software which keeps track of the relations and which periodically checks their integrity. > > It is very true that, as you say, OSM "excels at holding information > > that users can see, verify and update." I think it is also true that > > OSM excels at relating abstract themes in a multi-dimensional space. > > I can't process the use of "multi-dimensional" in this context. OSM is > not multi-dimensional, it is 2.5-dimensional at best, and affixing > bits and bobs of extra information to some objects doesn't make it > multi-dimensional. OSM certainly does not excel at relating abstract > themes - the contrary is true, OSM is about concrete stuff. As soon as > we veer into the less concrete - for example, public transport > relations instead of steel tracks on the ground - we hit the limits > of our editing tools, and of most people working with OSM too. Yes we > do that (public transport relations) but we certainly don't "excel" > at it. I meant "dimension" in terms of themes. So a map (2 d) with a layer for average family income, a layer for electricity usage and a layer for foliage coverage is a 5-dimensional map. Like that. > > And OSM is many, many others things as well. Many others would > > define it differently and all of those would also be valid and > > useful. > > > All of our viewpoints are valuable, and it is more clear that this > > is true when we describe our viewpoints as viewpoints, not as norms. > > I think this lovey-dovey relativism doesn't go anywhere. To me, it > smacks of "well, the scientific method is one way to look at physics > but of course there are many others that are equally valid and > useful". OSM is certainly not whatever anyone sees in it, and > certainly not all these views are equally valid and useful. > > Bye > Frederik > "Lovey-dovey" :-) I like that. I usually have been accused of not being, shall we say, "lovey-dovey". Perhaps I am just trying to be politic and have sung the pendulum too far. The points I am seeing from you all make sense, so I stand corrected. thanx - ray ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Legislative districts, Land-use zoning, etc.
On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:10:00 -0500 Toby Murray <toby.mur...@gmail.com> wrote: > OSM is not the ideal tool to be a dumping ground for all GIS data. It > excels at holding information that users can see, verify and update. > Boundaries like this cannot be seen or verified by anyone except the > government agency that originally made them. So the data gains no > benefit from being in OSM and in fact makes it more difficult to > update both the boundary data as well as non-boundary data in the > vicinity. > > Yes, we do have national/state/county/city boundaries. Some people > aren't happy about this either... but they are tolerated because they > enable geocoding functionality. > > Toby Toby, I am sorry but I think you are making a normative statement here where it is not useful to do so. Your statement above would have been perfect if you started it with "To me, ...". To me, OSM is a tool which is ideal for relating various information layers across a multi-dimensional substrate. This substrate is a two-dimensional geography, which is defined geographically. To me, it seems perfect for things like borders. There are many kinds of "themes" that appear in thematic maps, and administrative entities are a useful theme. It is very true that, as you say, OSM "excels at holding information that users can see, verify and update." I think it is also true that OSM excels at relating abstract themes in a multi-dimensional space. And OSM is many, many others things as well. Many others would define it differently and all of those would also be valid and useful. All of our viewpoints are valuable, and it is more clear that this is true when we describe our viewpoints as viewpoints, not as norms. cheers - ray > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Charles P. Lamb <cl...@acm.org> > wrote: > > Looking thorough the OSM Wiki Map Features entry there didn't > > really seem to be features defined for such things as legislative > > districts, polling place districts, and land-use zoning. I don't > > think such features are peculiar to the USA. Am I missing something? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Charles P. Lamb > > New Jersey > > > > ___ > > Talk-us mailing list > > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Increasing the number of US Mappers
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:28:18 -0400 Bryan Housel <br...@7thposition.com> wrote: > Agree with everything you said about *why* groups are important, > except that: now that it's 2015, Facebook groups is really a better > place for this. Well, isn't Facebook so two years ago? :-) As for state mailing lists, that seems a little unnecessary. I am new to the list so I may be wrong, but this seems to be a list with reasonable volume. And, even though I am in California and am not going to get excited about, for example, road types in Kansas, it is not a problem to be aware of the discussion. To me, the mailing list is a useful adjunct to my other sources of connection, those being the user diaries and the occasional meet-up (which we have a lot of in SF, so YMMV). Just my $2/100. - ray > > On Oct 15, 2015, at 3:43 AM, Richard Fairhurst > > <rich...@systemed.net> wrote: > > > > Paul Norman wrote: > >> The problem is that if you make a discussion group too small, it > >> doesn't have enough activity to sustain interest in it. > >> > >> Larger regions might work, but even a statewide group abandons > >> the might meet for a geobeer idea where it takes 6 hours to drive > >> across the state. > >> ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] what happened to Sacramento?
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 22:12:52 + (UTC) Minh Nguyen <m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us> wrote: > Jack Burke <burkejf3@...> writes: > > > > > You're not crazy. Just using the regular OSM website interface, I > > can find > the city node, and the county boundary, but not a city boundary. > AFAICT, it isn't a consolidated city-County, so it should exist. > > Looks like the original TIGER boundary way got deleted back in 2010, > and I can't find any traces of ways that superseded it: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/4084221 > > As a first step, I undeleted that way using Potlatch 1: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33135846 > > Now it needs to be turned into a relation and integrated with the > adjacent boundary ways. > Wow. I have not gotten to the point, in my mapping adventures, where I have had to look at changesets like this. A new thing to learn. Thanks for the reverts. I will get to fixing the rest of that soon. thanx - ray ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] what happened to Sacramento?
I have been fixing up boundaries of cities in California and I have
found something odd.
Where is the city of Sacramento?
There is a city there. There is a county. The county boundaries are at
http://openstreetmap.org/relation/396460 and that all looks good. And
it is not a county/city hybrid thing like San Francisco. Yes? And I can
find the cities of West Sacramento, Rancho Cordova and others nearby,
But I cannot find boundaries for the actual city of Sacramento. Google
has boundaries for it, but OSM does not?
Or is there some way I should be finding it that I am not doing? I
guess it could be mis-spelled.
I am going to the area around the county in
http://overpass-turbo.eu/ and doing this search:
[out:json][timeout:360];
(
relation["name"="Sacramento"]({{bbox}});
way["name"="Sacramento"]({{bbox}});
node["name"="Sacramento"]({{bbox}});
);
out body;
>;
out skel qt;
It finds lot of stuff, but no city. Any ideas?
cheers - ray
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] ok to create a new relation?
I just wanted to check with the list on this. I think it makes sense to do this, but I would like to know if I am wrong or if there are concerns. I am looking at 2 ways: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33075997 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/107712882 Together they seem to delineate the city of Chino Hills, CA, which is a small city and not the same as Chino, CA. And I am seeing no relation for Chino Hills. Am I right in thinking that it would be correct to create a relation to contain these two ways to define the city boundaries? I am then thinking that I can remove these tags from the two ways and put the union of the values (only one way has a "name:de", for example) on the relation only: admin_level, border_type, boundary, is_in, is_in:*, name, name:*, place, and wikipedia Yes? I think I should leave all the tiger:* tags attached to the two ways. Yes? Any other suggestions? Just FYI, these are the cities that I have found in California that do not seem to have a relation that defines them and that seem to have more than one way attached to the name of the city. I will probably be looking at the others on this list later. Chino Hills Arcadia Diamond Bar Cypress San Dimas Seal Beach La Palma California City San Marino Sierra Madre cheers - ray ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fictional / Old locations (was: User HomocideBaltimore)
Good to know about the opengeofiction site. I have wondered what to do, for example, with a school in Sunnyvale CA that closed 20+ years ago. I think it is still on the OSM map. It seems there could be a way to mark a location with "x was here" but that could become a huge mess Have others had ideas, not on fictional sites, but on actual sites that existed in the past? I know there are "historically re-created maps". I seem to recall a map of ancient Rome as it was then. But anything with OSM data? cheers - ray On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 23:30:48 +0200 Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On 09/11/2015 11:14 PM, Luis Villa wrote: > > Agreed that clearly these edits need to be reverted and the account > > probably blocked, but just curious: is there no alternate service > > (akin to the historical maps project) for this person to play in? > > There's opengeofiction.net which uses OSM software to drive it, but > allows you to create your own fictional (part of) the map. Of course > basic communication skills are a plus even there. And they don't have > aerial imagery (unless they've turned their fiction level to eleven > since I last looked). > > Bye > Frederik > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] understanding administrative boundary relations
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 21:40:57 -0400 Richard Welty <rwe...@averillpark.net> wrote: > On 9/4/15 5:09 PM, Ray Kiddy wrote: > > So, there is nothing that a relation brings to the table that a way > > does not? I mean, it is clear that for the purposes of drawing, they > > are the same. But then are they really just the same? > i don't know about the current style, but in the past there has been > an issue > where a way was contained in a relation, and both the way and the > relation had the same admin boundary tagging. the stylesheet of 1-2 > years ago would draw the admin boundary twice. > > i haven't checked to see if this problem has been fixed or not. the > correct answer is to only tag the relation and remove any duplicate > tagging from the way, especially because the way may be in multiple > relations and with different admin levels in the different relations. > > richard > Yes, that is what I would do. It would just be what would make sense. thanx - ray ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] understanding administrative boundary relations
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 07:06:33 +0200 Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:56 AM, Ray Kiddy <r...@ganymede.org> wrote: > > > It has occurred to me that there will probably need to be a > > "boundary watcher" tool, which can let an interested group know > > about it when a boundary gets broken in some way. And I have > > started playing with the python libraries for accessing OSM data > > with this in mind. > > > > There is a German team that does this. They maintain the website > https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/boundaries/ from which you can > download all administrative boundaries in a number of formats. > They also have a website with all missing (or broken) administrative > boundaries: > https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/index.php/projekte/internationale-administrative-grenzen/missing-boundaries > (in German) > > regards Others had mentioned the site to me. When I was looking at it, things did not make so much sense, but I can see it now. Strangely, I am finding that some of the cities in California _are_ in the system, but as ways and not as relations. This seems odd, but we will see. And, actually, it looks as though the missing-boundaries pages are in both German and English. So that will help. Other parts are still in German, but I can deal. I will check with them about some of this. thanx - ray ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] understanding administrative boundary relations
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 14:11:26 -0500 Toby Murray <toby.mur...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Ray Kiddy <r...@ganymede.org> wrote: > > > > Strangely, I am finding that some of the cities in California _are_ > > in the system, but as ways and not as relations. This seems odd, > > but we will see. > > Well the primary reason to use relations in boundaries is to reduce > duplication. So if two cities share a border, the same way can be used > in both relations. Sometimes people even use roads or streams or other > physical ways as part of boundary relations. I personally usually > avoid this because I like having boundary relations completely > separate from other things so that they are easier to update in the > future. So for a city that is not part of a metro area with adjoining > cities, it is perfectly fine to just used a closed way instead of a > relation for the boundary. At the end of the day, both ways and > relations generally get turned into either linestrings (if linear) or > multipolygons (if closed) in things like a postgis database or a > shapefile. > > Toby > So, there is nothing that a relation brings to the table that a way does not? I mean, it is clear that for the purposes of drawing, they are the same. But then are they really just the same? I am tempted to try to add relations for these that refer to the ways, moving the associated data appropriately, but then I like to do things like re-normalizing databases and it is sometimes not such a good idea So, I will believe you if you say that ways are just aliases for relations. Is this the case? - ray ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] understanding administrative boundary relations
Hello - I am on a quest to learn more about how administrative boundaries can be managed as relations. I have a bit of experience with these things, but I am discovering the limitations of my knowledge also. Which was the point, actually. I would like to be able to suggest that governmental entities could manage their district geo data with OSM. I am interested in seeing why this does not work now and what can be done. Well, and it would be interesting to find out why so few cities in California actually seem to have a relation. Or perhaps I am missing it. I know that TIGER data was imported into OSM, but I am seeing some disconnects. To be precise: Using QGIS, I can load the vector files (SHP) from the following as two different layers: ftp://ftp2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2015/ELSD/tl_2015_06_elsd.zip ftp://ftp2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2015/EDGES/tl_2015_06085_edges.zip Using JOSM, I can see the "Sunnyvale East Channel": https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/37.364537971457935/-122.02110206207291 I cannot see how to get the id of this way from JOSM and its tag info seems to be: boat=no intermittent=yes name=Sunnyvale East Channel scvwd:FACILITY=2026 scvwd:ROUTEID=20260 waterway=drain And in QGIS, I can see the same feature (removing empty TIGER fields): wkt_geomLINESTRING -122.02132171 37.364089025 -122.0209720001465 37.364640178 -122.019929475 37.366293634 -122.0196390001217 37.366754025 STATEFP 6 COUNTYFP85 TLID618169892 TFIDL 229597201 TFIDR 230278901 MTFCC P0001 HYDROFLGN RAILFLG N ROADFLG N OLFFLG N EXTTYP N GCSEFLG N OFFSETL N OFFSETR N TNIDF 39083667 TNIDT 409312163 But there seems to be no connection between the feature in OSM and the TIGER data. So, TIGER data was used to define new features? But perhaps TIGER id data was not merged onto existing features? I am certainly not seeing "tiger:tlid"="618169892" associated with this object in OSM anywhere. So, if I want to give the Sunnyvale District the relation that defines its boundaries, I cannot use TIGER data to find those lines? Or rather, I must use the TIGER data and find the line in OSM and set up the connection myself? Ok Any other suggestions? thanx - ray ps: My early stumblings are in my diary: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/rayKiddy/diary Please excuse any ignorance on my part. I know a bit about the GIS practices of the state of California. I have a very small bit of experience with Santa Clara County. I have a smidgen of knowledge about the city of Sunnyvale. And I have more exposure to the Sunnyvale Elementary School District, having once been on the Board. And I develop database software and am interested in mapping applications. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] understanding administrative boundary relations
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 18:51:50 -0500 Toby Murray <toby.mur...@gmail.com> wrote: > The area you linked to has no boundary data in OSM. You don't state > this in your email but by pulling up the TIGER shapefile, it looks > like you are wanting school district boundaries? I see one runs > through the area you linked to, in the shapefile. School districts > were not imported into OSM. The only things that were imported from > TIGER is roads, state, county and city boundaries. Interesting. There are lots of linear features that are not roads or the boundaries mentioned. The water feature I described is one. And, yes, I am looking at school district boundaries right now. But really, the question is about any other set of relations that are supposed to tile the map. For example, I knew about Sunnyvale's relation, which you mention below, but there are over 350 cities in California and there do not seem to be that many relations, or I cannot find them (despite some banging of my head against OverPass), or both. I was hoping that city boundaries would follow conventions like "admin_level"="8", "place"="city" and so on. More fool I. Most of these "rules" definitely seem to be honored in the breach. > Administrative boundaries in OSM have always been a tricky subject. > OSM thrives on information that can be verified by someone standing on > the ground, looking around and seeing something that can be put into > the map. Administrative boundaries are (usually) not that way. They > are imaginary lines drawn on the map. Sometimes they follow physical > features but often they don't. So the only source to verify or update > them is to go back to the imaginary line drawer and ask for an update. I had not heard this perspective. I am not sure what to say, other than that though it is a "tricky" subject, it is not really something that can be ignored. Too many things in real life depend on these boundaries. > Because of this, I think boundaries in OSM tend to deteriorate in > quality quicker than other features. Sometimes people modify a way > that is part of a boundary relation and don't realize that they are > affecting the boundary. I have done a lot of work fixing up boundaries > (mostly county) across the country and there are definitely a million > ways to break them. It has occurred to me that there will probably need to be a "boundary watcher" tool, which can let an interested group know about it when a boundary gets broken in some way. And I have started playing with the python libraries for accessing OSM data with this in mind. > > If you want an example of an admin boundary in OSM, here is the > Sunnyvale city boundary relation: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/112145 > Yep. Knew about that one. Here is the table I am keeping my "meta-data" list of relations that I am interested in: mysql> select * from osm_relations; ++--+--+-+ | pk | url | name | place | ++--+--+-+ | 1 | http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/112145 | Sunnyvale, CA, USA | city| | 2 | http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/148838 | United States of America | country | | 3 | NULL | Sunnyvale Elementary School District | school district | ++--+------+-+ As you can see, the relation for the SESD still needs to be defined. And there are some others TBD. - ray > Toby > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Ray Kiddy <r...@ganymede.org> wrote: > > > > Hello - > > > > I am on a quest to learn more about how administrative boundaries > > can be managed as relations. I have a bit of experience with these > > things, but I am discovering the limitations of my knowledge also. > > Which was the point, actually. > > > > I would like to be able to suggest that governmental entities could > > manage their district geo data with OSM. I am interested in seeing > > why this does not work now and what can be done. Well, and it would > > be interesting to find out why so few cities in California actually > > seem to have a relation. Or perhaps I am missing it. > > > > I know that TIGER data was imported into OSM, but I am seeing some > > disconnects. To be precise: > > > > Using QGIS, I can load the vector files (SHP) from the following as > > two different layers: > > > >
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group 2013
Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz We'll be discussing our future role and any input on that, preferably to this list, is most welcome. We've started putting together a remit document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D3KwSM_BO7KkcbVADQVVn7eFwkD-RNauMwidhhlVPsI/pub I'm not quite sure whether it's confered by another heading, but I feel that ICA.coop and its members (and members members and so on) should be a priority target in point 6. There we've got a large family of organisations (over 5000 in the UK alone) with a very large membership (12 million in the largest) that believes in self-help, solidarity and openness, but far too many of them are not sharing with OSM yet. Instead, they're still using locked-down maps and many don't realise that they could easily give back to OSM by recording new tracks on GPS phones, bugfixing and so on. This should be pushing on an open door. How about it? Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] tesco store location data
Richard Fairhurst Many non-NMA sources will fall somewhere between the two. I don't know if you have Tesco over there, but based on their general corporate behaviour in the UK, I suspect their method of finding co-ordinates probably involves killing the firstborn and sacrificing a goat... not sure whether that's compatible with ODbL+CT or not? That's a disappointing thing about this thread. Wouldn't we be better to start with more social retailers that are more likely to support the general spirit of OSM? uk.coop already have a map of branches to support their Co-operate phone app and may have enough permissions over the location data to release it in a compatible way, repeatedly. There's also a coopopendata or opencoops push recently. It would be very cool if OSM store data updates could be fed back too... Any interest and/or pointers of what permissions are required, what formats would be best, including how to mark up licensing? (It might be that different members of uk.coop have supplied info under different terms...) Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
Mike Collinson wrote: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/open-government-licence.htm http://www.jordanhatcher.com/2010/uk-open-government-licence-now-out/ [...] I look forward to any other comments. Anyone see any gotchas? There's what looks like a stupid field of use restriction if your use is actually endorsed by the Provider, due to it missing the CC-style express prior written permission language. I've had some replies from nationalarchives people, discussions continue, ask me next week. It also seems a bit like unnecessary licence proliferation. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Webmaster, Debian Developer, Past Koha RM, statistician, former lecturer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for various work http://www.software.coop/products/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [talk-ph] Bacolod is still a big problem
Hi, this topic is discussed every now and then. Facts are free, but you can't use the help of copyright protected material. If you only copy one house/street/whatever maybe that doesn't matter. But what if all of us are doing this? You end up with a 100% copy of the map and than even you will agree, that this is a no go. So where to drew the line? It's impossible and that's why the community agrees not to use copyright protected maps even for a poi to copy. What you can to with this maps is comparing for areas which need attention, go there and do your mappings. Or use openstreetbugs to report them, so others can pick up. OSM license allows anyone to use our data for any purpose and without the need to give anything back, even sell it and make money out of your/our work. They only have to mention the license. That's the open part in OSM. But you can't expect to do everyone like this and we respect this. Take a look at the OSM history, e.g. http://www.geofabrik.de/en/gallery/history/index.html It's amazing what has been done only with free sources or donated date in this short periode of time. We should be proud of it and keep the OSM free from data of copyright protected sources. If there are white spaces, give it some time and somebody will do traces and close them. We need more mappers. Also note, that google and others can't give away what they don't have. The images on goolge maps/earth are bought from other companys which own the copyright - you can see the company's name on the map. Maybe this will change if they are using the images from their own satellite. AFAIK they wanted to wait with updating gmaps when they have images from the whole world. IMHO they should have them already - we'll see. There is even an difference in the yahoo images free to copy and the ones on the yahoo webpage which are not free to copy. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Aerial_Imagery On the other hand pls. be aware that not everybody want's to upload this gps tracks due to privacy concerns or some body could find out about one's nice and quiet camping place. Questions about anonymizing gps data arise on the user mailing list form time to time. But in this case ppl. should respond different to questions about the source. Greetings Ray Craig wrote: Maybe there is something fundamental that I don't get, but, let me ask a question, please. How is it possible that a location of a road or building or anything can be copyrighted? I understand not copying entire maps, etc., from a source and then claiming it as your own is contrary to copyright, but facts, and a road location is a fact, not something created from someone's imagination. Google itself allows businesses to use tools to correct the location of that business if it is in error on Google's maps. Nobody is copying and distributing Google satellite images, nor are they distributing other Google properties. I think this worry about copyright violations is a knee-jerk reaction and would not stand up in a court of law. Big companies with big law firms backing them up is very intimidating, but that doesn't change the fact that you should be able to refer to a Google map or image to confirm a road location or other geographical entity. I see this as fair use. Also, thousands of people around the world have contributed to mapping for Google through efforts around the Haiti and Chile earthquakes. I'd say copyright is a bit dicey in that situation because Google only facilitated the mapping. Also, thousands upon thousands of buildings have been placed in Google Earth, thanks only to users like us. Myself, I have contributed mapping and 3D buildings. Is OSM open to the world? If it is, then Google can use OSM data. If Google sued OSM for improving maps using Google's data only to integrate that into their own products, that would be major hypocrisy. I'm sick of corporations creating this atmosphere of we're going to sue your asses off at the drop of a hat. It's a sad thing, and well-minded people like those contributing to a better world via OSM and other similar projects should not have the spectre of litigation hanging over their heads. ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Uploading my GPX Tracks from my Phone Directly?
Andre Marcelo-Tanner wrote: Does anyone know of a java or Blackberry app that can upload my tracks straight to OSM. I can't find time to map at home but when I'm out I sure could track my travels and input POI's (mapzen for iphone). Meron kya ng pang upload ng tracks direct from my phone to OSM? Anyone used something like that before? I know I can transfer to my pc and then upload pero hassle yun :) tska convenient yung straight from phone. GpsMid http://gpsmid.sourceforge.net/ is j2me and has some support for online OSM editing but no gpx upload (yet?). Havn't tried it out yet. They have prebuild maps including the philippines: http://gpsmid.sourceforge.net/prebuild/ Ray ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] Navteq/Nokia finally shows their mapping data for the Philippines
Ronny Ager-Wick - Develo Ltd. schrieb: I think the best way to detect theft of data is an old and proven one, making certain (privately documented) mistakes on purpose, so you can check if the map in question includes it. As most of you well know, it's not possible to copyright reality, but fiction (erroneous data is fiction) is copyrightable. However, I'm not sure what's the consensus for introducing errors on purpose? We are creating a map of reality, not one of errors. If someone notice your error he will hopefully correct it and you have no pointer anymore. Keep in mind, that open also means that anybody can use the data as he likes, even sell it. He only has to mention the creator (openstreetmap is enough) and the license (CC-by-SA). Ray ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] changes of road types
Hi, Reviewing the map reveals that many places roads seems to have too high of a classification, misleading people to use roads that are not meant for a lot of traffic. From an overall perspective the classification of roads should be used to guide people which roads to prefer. +1 I'm also in favor of tagging the roads after their properties and how good you can travel on them. Eugine explained it very well. When i can recognize a better type on the images than road i'll change it for nearly the same reasons Ian pointed out. For residential vs. unclassified: a road (or part of) which doesn't have [a couple of] houses is IMHO unclassified. Maybe you can describe residential as an special form of unclassified (i.g. not tertiary). There are houses around so expect slow driving cos of parking cars and people walking around. When someone traces a new road from images and don't know what kind of road it is he should follow the legal classification. Later someone with local knowledge can retag the road / split it up. On the satellite images you can also see how much houses are around, so residential should be easy. Assuming that all motorway, trunk, primary, secondary and tertiary roads have been mapped long ago, newbies should only be concerned with the lower classes of roads. I suggest the out come of this discussion will be a series of photos of typical roads and how to tag them. I have started a document already for this purpose so this discussion is very welcome :-) http://idisk.mac.com/michael.riber//Public/osmph/Road Types 0.0.doc A guide with pictures is a great idea. Looking at the list, i would use footway for roads / tracks to narrow for cars. Or highway=path and foot / bicycle = yes if this matters. Pedestrian is For town centres and civic areas, where wide expanses of hard surface are provided for pedestrians to walk (often between shops). (Wiki) As maning said, we need to get more use of track and tracktype. Can you include this in your document? I suggest also that we make use of surface and lane keys. surface=paved/unpaved/compacted will be important for rural roads and navigation. Ray ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Lawyer responses to use cases, major problems
Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: With the GPL, the right to request the source is attached to receiving and using the binary. Withe the AGPL it is attached to being a user of the service. You can't just wander by and say hey! please can I have the source?, you have to be a user of the binary. (In practice people just pop the source on an FTP server, but that's less onerous than having to make minute-by-minute snapshots of OSM available.) That touches on two of the Big Unexploded Lawyerbombs of the AGPL:- 1. are you still a user of the service if the service only says Access Denied to you? 2. if you pop the source on an FTP server, does that mean the service must stop if that FTP server is down? I don't know if either of those are concerns for the OSM licence. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 23rd Dec board meeting
Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: MJ Ray wrote: As I understand it, once the trademark registration is confirmed (no matter who to), unauthorised commercial use of the mark becomes a criminal act punishable by unlimited fines and up to 10 years prison. Has a written license been granted, or are you expecting people not to call it OSM any more? Has anyone been contacted by OSMF's lawyers regarding trademark use? Doesn't being a criminal act mean that the state can investigate (and prosecute) without waiting for OSMF's lawyers to act? [...] But guidelines on trademark use would be good. In particular, the OSM trademark should serve the traditional purpose for trademarks of protecting consumers from inferior knock-offs. e.g - http://www.debian.org/trademark Yes and I feel the OpenJDK Trademark Notice would be a more complete example. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 23rd Dec board meeting
Andy Robinson \(blackadder-lists\) ajrli...@googlemail.com wrote: The November Board meeting minutes confirm the agreement that the Transfer of the trademark applications to the OSMF from Steve will take place. The December meeting reported that OSMF had started a dialogue with the solicitors processing the applications. It is correct that the actual transfer paperwork has not yet been completed, but this will happen in due course. Thanks for the explanations and clarifications. One question remains from me: what steps are being taken to avoid OSM users committing unnecessary wilful trademark infringement at this time? As I understand it, once the trademark registration is confirmed (no matter who to), unauthorised commercial use of the mark becomes a criminal act punishable by unlimited fines and up to 10 years prison. Has a written license been granted, or are you expecting people not to call it OSM any more? Thanks, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Trademark applications
SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On 20 Jan 2009, at 11:08, MJ Ray wrote: Appealing for patience is all well and good, but it sounds like if Peter hadn't acted when OSMF and the trademark agent had not acted in time, it might have become criminal to call some things openstreetmap tomorrow! If you think I'm a total idiot, then yes, I would have tried to make it criminal to use an un-granted trade mark which didn't pass the uniqueness test to kill the project I started. Presumably my puppet board would have gone along with it, because I control them. Mwa Mwa Mwahahhahaa. I think you're trying to secure the trademark for the whole community to use, but either: you didn't realise the tight time limits on registration and that some trademark infringements are now a criminal offence; or that things are simply taking longer than anyone expected; or any one of a number of other possibilities. If so, then thank you, but could you please public-license the trademark ASAP? Even a temporary license to interested parties until the OSMF transfer+licensing would probably avoid criminal offences. If that's wrong, then please excuse my interruption, but I really don't see how an unforseen consequence means anyone is an idiot. Stuff happens. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Trademark applications
Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: [...] I.e. he was saying that nobody was needed to make it criminal - that the simple grant of a trademark would be sufficient to do that. I can't believe he's right but I think that's what he said. [...] If I hadn't been seeing this steadily deteriorate, I probably wouldn't believe it either. Here's TRIPS Article 61: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm4_e.htm#5 Members shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied at least in cases of wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale. Remedies available shall include imprisonment and/or monetary fines [...] and here's the EU's IPR Enforcement Directive requiring implementation: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=230622 criminal sanctions also constitute, in appropriate cases, a means of ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights and the UK's Trade Marks Act 1994 as revised 1996 gold-plates it. http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislationtitle=trade+marks+actYear=1994searchEnacted=0extentMatchOnly=0confersPower=0blanketAmendment=0sortAlpha=0TYPE=QSPageNumber=1NavFrom=0parentActiveTextDocId=1868072ActiveTextDocId=1868194filesize=6604 Please tell me if I'm wrong about wilful trademark infringement. Thanks, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright of OSM-Logo
Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Grant Slater wrote: Both trademarks are being registered in Steve Coast's own name. This sounds all very much like a storm in a teacup to me. Has it not occurred to anybody that Steve registering the trademark is most likely just a technicality (easier/faster/cheaper/more convenient etc.)? There seems no benefit in form or fee in a personal registration. If anything, it's more expensive because there's a GBP50 transfer fee. I suspect the agent made a mistake. Even so, OSMF only has until 15 December to file a TM7a (free) and then until 15 January to oppose a misregistration (GBP 200). Does anybody here really think that the foundation's chairman would snatch the trademark away from his own organization? [...] It wouldn't be the first time, but I expect it was a mistake. Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final call forcomments
Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Feel free to tinker with the wiki page directly and then post to say what you have done. There is no edit link on the top of the wiki page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License Best wishes, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final call forcomments
Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no edit link on the top of the wiki page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License Sign in (or register) and then there will be an edit button! That should be mentioned on the page, because it's different to other MediaWikis. I won't because I don't want yet another bloody website password. I'm already scared of the amount of stuff I'll lose if my browser password store goes titsup. Isn't there an OpenID MediaWiki plugin? Oh well, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final call for comments
Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Brief - Does anyone strongly disagree with any aspects of the brief? I feel that the above question should never appear in a call for comments: no one person can speak for everyone else. It's very much an anyone feel like being shouted at? question. However, I'll stick my neck out: I don't agree with the list in point 1)2. which seems to permit non-machine-readable changesets, while not permitting a CD in the box with a hardware device containing the derived dataset. Those two cases should be the other way around: allow accompanying datasets outside the end-user experience; and forbid non-machine-readable changesets if the original dataset is machine-readable. Are there any ways we could make it stronger and better? 1) should be also made available is unclear and clunky - perhaps should be available is sufficient? Similarly all other made availables. 2) What is similar? Is this a backdoor? 3)b) licence should be license - even in English English, the verb has a s. Use of protects is ambiguous and inappropriate - covers? 5) Whose fair-use rules? The USA's? The pretty-minor UK ones? If so can we hear about the issues in the next few days so we can try to accommodate them? See above. I have not time to review the use cases at this point. Sorry. -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License update
Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2008-February/000680.html I was concerned to see that the answers received were not conclusive and that no response has been given by a qualified lawyer. With regard to the brief for this licence and the acceptance procedure for the completed licence I recommend that we: [...] Bully for you. What's in it for other participants? More abuse that they can't give conclusive answers and aren't not qualified lawyers? Sorry if I'm coming into this cold from the outside, but I really don't see why any readers would help this apparently-tangential licence project. The email linked above was also rather indirect can I suggest ... (Sgt Wilson?) rather than saying what you seem to want. I'm surprised it got two answers, but I guess this list is nicer than what I've seen before. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License update
Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: MJ Ray [...] Not *the* licence project. *That* licence project, making use cases and testing things against them. I don't see how that connects to the OSMF licence development work except at one point = it is a tangent. I don't follow your argument. Use Cases and Validating against Use Cases seems an entirely appropriate method to ensuring that we end up with something fit for purpose. It is a technique that will be familiar to most software developers which is a bonus. Sure. They're interesting tests once we see the licence, but I don't understand how continuing the previous thread much further would inform the OSMF licence development work more, so getting upset at the lack of continuation seems a bit odd. [...] I am keen that the final licence agreement is checked by independent competent lawyers drawn from our target commercial user community. Otherwise we won't have tested to licence effectively. Well, if you can make that happen, great, but I wonder whether the target commercial user community's lawyers are likely to tell this list if they spot a vulnerability. The benefits of doing so have not been made clear, really. (By the way, I'd find it easier to reply if you continued the previous thread instead of sending new mail and didn't include lines containing only one space. They're just small things, really, though.) Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] London Emissions Zone
Has anyone started this zone? Or have the information around it? Cheers Ray ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-Talk-ZA] Cape Town Warning!
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Grant Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OSM ZA, Warning to you map happy capetonians; the Platteklip Gorge trail up the mooountain is mine. ;-) I'm going to map it, first week of April. Someone has already stolen the Sani Pass 4x4 trail on the Lesotho border from me. Stolen? Hehehe, first one there wins. ;) / Grant ___ Talk-ZA mailing list Talk-ZA@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-za ___ Talk-ZA mailing list Talk-ZA@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-za
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Planned Server Maintenance - 28/02/08 13:30-15:00
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Tom Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ray Booysen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Forwarding to talk. Because Grant never thought of sending it there Oh wait, he did send it there, didn't he... Tom Ummm, didn't get it in talk so I thought I would forward out of interest to the talk list? Not had your coffee today yet? ;) -- Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk -- Ray Booysen [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-Talk-ZA] Northern Cape GPS Tracks
Got a link to the public GPX file on OSM? On Feb 18, 2008 9:53 AM, Grant Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OSM ZA, I have uploaded a huge GPX file from a 4x4 enthusiast. It is centred around Upington and covers most of the main routes. Along with some 4x4 trails. Others are welcome to jump-in and help tagging it up and tweaking existing routes. ;-) / Grant ___ Talk-ZA mailing list Talk-ZA@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-za -- Ray Booysen [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Talk-ZA mailing list Talk-ZA@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-za
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Software under GPLv2 / v3
Martijn van Exel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It states that 'This software platform will be built in open source under GPLv3 license'. It is pointed out that that may be too restrictive, as projects being included in the funding might already be under development under GPLv2. What do you think? What is the motive for the GPLv3 specification? Also, why GPLv3 and not GPLv3 or later? Without knowing that, it's hard to comment. Unless it is building on other GPL work, it may be better for the intial development to be under more liberal terms than GPLv2, even, as it can always be remixed up to GPL by later work. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-Talk-ZA] New Garmin OSM ZA Map available.
On Feb 11, 2008 12:57 PM, Grant Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OSM-Talk-ZA, Updated Garmin img map file available: http://code.firefishy.com/files/garmin/osm-southafrica-080207.img How to install onto a Garmin GPS: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Mkgmap#Installing Alternatively to view in; Windows: http://www.geopainting.com/en/ Linux: http://qlandkarte.sourceforge.net/ / Grant Azureus Magnet Uri: magnet:?xt=urn:btih:NUVA6V7OX6QICW6DWCBT7EEJSC7USTCQ Cheers Ray -- Ray Booysen [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Talk-ZA mailing list Talk-ZA@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-za
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why, exactly, does CC recommend CC0 even after they have thoroughly looked at our situation, and on what basis does the OSMF board reject the CC suggestion? Please cross-post any such explanation/links to legal-talk. I wish you luck on this, but after bad experiences trying to get any definitive information on why CC holds particular opinions during the Debian-CC working group, I don't hold out much hope of transparency from CC. It seems to be a self-perpetuating black box, common of so many US-originated foundations, with all the problems that involved. OSMF seems better than that, so I'm biased towards OSMF in any disagreement and I feel that most readers here should be too. If you're backing CC, do you know why? CC's licences are pretty good, but not as brilliant as the hype IMO. Maybe their advice will or won't work for the OSM. Keep an open mind. Related: shall we ask debian-legal about the osm-legal-talk thread? It would be good to have OSM data in debian and similar without problem. Regards, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] This is Parallel Distribution. We (the cc-licences mailing list) discussed it during the CC 3.0 public review. My personal opinion is that it is not a good idea because there is so much room for mischief in it. If you think it's a bad idea for another reason, then fine, but room for mischief applies to almost all licences. Ultimately, whether work is Free and Open with a capital F O is how it's actually handled in practice. After all, with the FDL, there was enough room for mischief that a GNU project declared its whole manual to be an invariant section and a magazine that said its table of contents was an invariant section. Those uses were clearly not what FDL's authors intended, but there will always be someone who misinterprets or deliberately misuses a licence and then the default licensing position is no licence. As long as Parallel Distribution as specified will stand up as a requirement if challenged, that's not a problem in itself IMO - it seems a good way to make DRM copies more expensive and more cumbersome and so discourage it. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can Mediawiki notify by mail?
On Feb 4, 2008 12:04 AM, Hakan Tandogan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I was just adding the template pages I use to my watchlist. Can Mediawiki notify me with a mail if a certain (a template or even group of templates, like Template:Map_Features_*) changes? I'd rather not check my watchlist manually, computers are far better suited for automatically providing information to humans ;-) Its something I've been wanting from Wikipedia for a while too. -- Ray Booysen [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Expanding the postcode database
On Jan 22, 2008 10:27 PM, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ray Booysen wrote: I actually have a database lying around somewhere will all possibilities. Quite a high number. Any chance of digging it out and doing SELECT COUNT(*)? Gerv Sorry Gerv, no luck. Can't seem to find it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk -- Ray Booysen [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Slippymap Hosting Recommendations
On Jan 23, 2008 1:56 PM, Lambertus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeremy Adams wrote: Do they really offer 1.5TB of storage and 15TB of transfer a month for $6.95? Aparently so. There are other companies in the US providing similar services. I guess they rely on the fact that most users will never really use so much space and bandwidth. Then there is also the 'catchall' clause where you are only allowed to use an hour (or so) CPU time a day. Your site is move to another server when you go over the limit and will be closely monitored. If that happens often you can/will be removed from their hosting. Hey Jeremey Do you have a link for this clause? Bottom line is: They can set such generous limits because there are only very few applications that can really use 1.5 TB space and 15TB bandwidth without crossing the daily CPU time limit. The very few that do are a selling point to the majority that don't. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk -- Ray Booysen [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-Talk-ZA] Administrative Boundries
Ray Booysen wrote: Hey all Just to let you know, with Grant Slater's help, I'm uploading some of the province's administrative boundries. I've started with Mpumalanga and should be done shortly. It might need a few tweaks as it is a work in progress. Regards Ray ___ Talk-ZA mailing list Talk-ZA@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-za And by Mpumalanga, I of course meant Gauteng. ;) ___ Talk-ZA mailing list Talk-ZA@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-za
Re: [OSM-Talk-ZA] IRC Channel
Adrian Moisey wrote: Hi Russell, Jonathan and I have started #osm-za on irc.furion.org (http://www.furion.org/?content=home) We're not sure if this is the best server to host such a channel, but osm-za is a local group and should be hosted on a local server, I think. If anybody objects with it being on furion, please speak up. Otherwise, come join :) Adrian ___ Talk-ZA mailing list Talk-ZA@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-za Sounds good! :) This e-mail and any attachments are strictly confidential and intended solely for the addressee. It may contain information which is covered by legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of this document then you must immediately inform the sender at the address below and delete this e-mail and any attachments completely from your computer system. You must not take copies or disclose the contents of this document to anyone, nor take any action based upon it. E-mail is an informal method of communication and is subject to possible data corruption. Dot Net Solutions Ltd is unable to exercise control over the content of the information contained in transmissions made via the internet. Opinions, conclusions and other information expressed in this message are solely those of the author and are not given or endorsed by Dot Net Solutions Ltd unless otherwise indicated by an authorised representative independent of this message. It is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Dot Net Solutions Ltd for any loss or damage arising in any way for its use. Dot Net Solutions Ltd, George V Place, 4 Thames Avenue, Windsor SL4 1QP. Reg No: 4972823 ___ Talk-ZA mailing list Talk-ZA@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-za
