Re: [OSM-talk] Internet cable map

[SteveC]

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/ffglass.html




On 10/17/2011 10:40 AM, yvecai wrote:
As far as I know, submarine data cables are highly strategic. You can 
see on the map linked they are only few of them but carrying 99% of 
the information between continents.
I am certain it would be pretty hard to guess their position, so even 
Janko proposal may be hard to achieve, unless you tag the 'Apollo' 
cable ends at the Lannion (F) and and Shirley (NY) townhall.

Yves

On 17. 10. 11 15:36, Janko Mihelic' wrote:
I think only cable starts and ends should be mapped, and tagged in a 
standardised way. If that is all we have, that is all we should map. 
Then cable starts and ends could be put in a relation with a name, 
number and tags like that.


Janko

2011/10/17 Matthias Meißer mailto:dig...@arcor.de>>

Am 17.10.2011  13:39, schrieb Pierre-Alain Dorange:

Matthias Meißermailto:dig...@arcor.de>>  wrote:

Looks like a wonderful resource :)
Maybe you could get in contact with user:Bahnpirat that
does a lot of
work concerning Powerlines, so I guess he is interested
in communication
lines, too.

Just means that this is authentic and so just give it try :)


Do you dare to contact that company, Pierre? Would be great!


I can try to contact this company, but my english is medium
(i'm french
speaker).
But Toby is probably right, the only real (acurate)
geographical dat is
start and end point of this cables.

Yes of course, but isn't this the principle of OSM? Start with
something raw and improve it step by step :D

cya
Matthias



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



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




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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pre SOTM gathering

[SteveC]

blake street sports/dive bar for the NFL is where many are headed

On 9/8/2011 3:40 PM, Gregory Arenius wrote:
Are there any pre-SOTM gatherings going on this evening?  Or failing 
that can anybody recommend a brewery to get one going at?


Cheers,
Greg


___
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] twitter handling

[SteveC]

On 9/8/2011 11:30 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 09/08/2011 05:20 PM, SteveC wrote:

* Chicken and egg. No OSM answers supplied today - so why would there be
lots of questions?


+1 to Mikel: Let's answer questions by pointing people to our existing 
support infrastructure; not by trying to create another support 
infrastructure (one of the disadvantages of which is that after a few 
hours no second person will profit from the answer given because it is 
not archived).


To *encourage* people to use twitter as a support medium would be 
detrimental.



Personally I want the OSM attitude to be "that's a fun idea, let's try
it". This costs us basically nothing


You're free to answer tweets like anyone else is free to do, and 
indeed does already. That doesn't cost anything indeed. Setting up a 
project that bundles peoples' time by enticing them to take part in 
your fun idea will ONLY cost us nothing if these people were NOT using 
their time to help OSM before. If, on the other hand, by giving 
twitter users the impression that they will be personally cared for if 
they just shout out their problems, you create an atmosphere where 
experienced OSMers will spend much more time to personally tend to 
such questions (because participation is drawn away from media like 
help.osm.org where answers are archived and because new users are not 
encouraged to search for answers in these well-redacted media), then 
this does indeed lower the overall quality of service we can provide 
because our resources are limited.


I suppose it's a sign of the project's maturity that we discuss rather 
than solve problems.


Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] twitter handling

[SteveC]

Chris

* Remote searches aren't guaranteed to be accurate. Therefore you're 
probably missing posts. I do all the time.
* There are lots of search terms, OSM, openstreetmap, #openstreetmap, 
open streetmap, open street map ... Therefore you're probably missing posts.
* Chicken and egg. No OSM answers supplied today - so why would there be 
lots of questions?


Personally I want the OSM attitude to be "that's a fun idea, let's try 
it". This costs us basically nothing, if it doesn't work we can kill it. 
With a bit of luck though, it will result in more mapping.


Steve

On 9/8/2011 8:43 AM, Chris Fleming wrote:

On 08/09/2011 00:20, SteveC wrote:
There are a bunch of people asking things on twitter about OSM that 
we miss. Or people saying nice things that we should be retweeting.


I'm looking for a solution. Mozilla has this:

http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/army-of-awesome

and I'm in touch with them to see if the src is available.



I have a saved openstreetmap twitter search and keep an eye on it. I 
think only twice I've actually replied to people looking for help on 
opensteetmap most of it's people talking about osm or various bots.


Have I missed something here?

Although I can't see setting up the mozilla army of awesome doing any 
harm, although excluding various OSM bots will be needed. Helping 
people into the community isn't a bad thing; most people won't signup 
the first time they land on the openstreetmap page, and once they've 
signed up it may be some time before they edit. One regular at our 
Edinburgh meetups signed up after seeing a talk I did, but didn't 
start to edit for 2 years.


So, using channels to remind people and about OSM and give them a 
gentle push in the right direction won't do any harm; and a 
professional use of twitter is just part of that.


The @OpenStreetMap account has over 6000 followers (although a good 
number are certainly spam) and I would like to see a bit more posting 
than when there is a blog posting and the occasional retweet. So 
interesting press coverage or uses of OSM, etc.




Cheers
Chris




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

[OSM-talk] twitter handling

[SteveC]

There are a bunch of people asking things on twitter about OSM that we 
miss. Or people saying nice things that we should be retweeting.


I'm looking for a solution. Mozilla has this:

http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/army-of-awesome

and I'm in touch with them to see if the src is available.

Anyone have any better ideas?

Steve

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

[OSM-talk] featured image

[SteveC]

Very funny - it's my heatmap, right?

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] How to start to remove non-CT compliant data..

[SteveC]

things have changed since then, might be worth revisiting

On 8/31/2011 5:48 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Ed Avis wrote:

Why not do what Wikipedia did and work together with the licence authors
(in
this case Creative Commons and Open Data Commons) to provide an automatic
upgrade clause?  Then nothing need be deleted.

I expressly asked this a couple of years ago:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001971.html

and was told "no":
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001982.html

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/How-to-start-to-remove-non-CT-compliant-data-tp6744723p6746371.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] A happy birthday OpenStreetMap song from Nagoya Japan

[SteveC]

On 8/20/2011 9:57 PM, Shu Higashi wrote:

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/16768642/highlight/195864

Not all the members are OSMers though ;-)

Shu Higashi

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


that is awesome :-)


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF elections

[SteveC]

I would encourage everyone to have a think about running for the board 
and look to what you can contribute. Be aware when thinking about it 
that we have a lot of work to do and meet frequently. That might impact 
your work and social life, it's not a ceremonial role, just ask Henk :-)


The upside is that you're deeply involved with one aspect of helping 
things move along in the project, but you don't get a window seat.


Steve


On 8/15/2011 3:27 AM, Kate Chapman wrote:

Hi Richard,

Is how many positions are open and which positions available?

Thanks,

Kate

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Richard Weait  wrote:

In prior years the elections were held at an AGM with proxy votes by
email for those not able to attend.  Last year, the OSMF board
election was held at SotM - Girona, with the same proxy votes by
email. this was seen as an improvement and will be the method used
this year as well.  We're coming up on SotM Denver. It's less than a
month away now.  Which means that the official notification of the AGM
and board election will be coming up soon.

If I remember correctly the AGM was held at lunch in Girona.  That may
well be the case in Denver, too.

So if you have been thinking about standing for election to the OSMF
board, if you have issues that you would like to see discussed by
candidates, if you have suggestions and requests for those involved,
now is a good time to start putting things in order.

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


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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.

[SteveC]

How will fosm (assuming it reaches the stage of being functional) continue to 
sync with OSM when the licenses are incompatible?

Steve


On Jun 22, 2011, at 11:18 AM, 80n wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> As I suggest in the subject line: I'd really love us not to punish the 
> world's disadvantaged with our license/CT disagreements.
> 
> That's why fosm.org exists.  No data will get deleted.  It will continue to 
> exist and can be updated at fosm.org.
> 
> If you are worried that your data is threatened then that's because you are 
> now looking in the wrong place.  Fosm has more data than OSM already and will 
> continue to sync with all OSM updates as well as accepting new updates 
> directly.
> 
> OSM is not trying to punish anyone, its just that the community thinks that 
> less data under a different license is better for them.  If you are happy 
> with the way things were then you don't have to lose anything, just change 
> your URL from osm.org to fosm.org.
> 
> 80n
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[SteveC]

Tim

An ad hominem attack would be something where you complained about what the LWG 
spent it's time on and I replied with a comment about your mother. Instead, I 
replied pointing out that you are in fact the one using most of their time 
recently. That would be called a rebuttal or perhaps a riposte, but it's not an 
ad hominem attack.

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Jun 20, 2011, at 9:47, TimSC  wrote:

> On 20/06/11 16:33, Steve Coast wrote:
>> I think the LWG is more than well aware that they are imperfect human beings 
>> volunteering in a horrible environment to make things better.
> So, can you point to where LWG itself has explicitly asked for help? Or 
> recognised it's difficulties with communication in writing? Perhaps we need a 
> request for help page on the wiki? It would be good to have them ask for 
> specific types of help because people with those skills can step forward.
> 
>> 
>> I'd take a long look at how you have sucked up the LWGs time, Tim, before 
>> you make these kinds of statements.
> Steve, can you stop changing the subject on to me? It's ad hominem and a 
> violation of etiquette. And it is off topic and doesn't assume good faith. Do 
> you understand what I am asking, as you keep doing it even when I ask you to 
> stop?
> 
> Everything I have done, I have done in good faith. I shouldn't have to defend 
> myself on every thread. (And Steve, if you want to talk about this seriously, 
> try constructively responding to my email to the LWG on 15th June first. 
> Continued discussion on this probably should be off the mailing list.)
> 
> On 20/06/11 16:39, Chris Hill wrote:
>> Maybe part of the reason that these volunteers are working too hard is 
>> because some people demand individual attention. Imagine if everyone made 
>> their own demands of the LWG ...
>> 
> Are you seriously saying that a handful of people directly talking to the LWG 
> is a significant factor in LWG having communication difficulties? Or is this 
> just another ad hominem? Is there a constructive solution to this? or are you 
> telling me to shut up?
> 
> It seems to me the same issues come up again and again, but never concluded, 
> so it is not necessarily the fault of the person asking the question (or even 
> of the LWG). I suggest that people directly trying to communicate with the 
> LWG is a symptom and not a cause of the communication problem.
> 
> Of course the LWG has a tough job, because legal issues are very hard to 
> resolve and I have never denied that. But the solution is not to blame me or 
> LWG but to actually try to solve the problems. So stop pointing fingers, 
> please.
> 
> Perhaps if we can reduce the barriers to people helping OSM it would help. We 
> obviously do this in mapping with friendlier tools. But I am told we talk 
> people that can do sys admin tasks and get involved with the LWG (and 
> probably many other things I don't know about). This might be due to the 
> selection of pretty obscure prerequisites to get involved: ruby on rails in 
> development (I have never met a RoR developer in person, at least knowingly), 
> and being familiar with the background of ODbL (which most normal legal 
> professionals can't understand, unless they are specialists). I suggest as 
> many tasks as possible be moved into domains were people actually have the 
> skills to help out. (This might be a lame idea but at least I am trying to be 
> constructive.)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> TimSC
> 
> 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !

[SteveC]

I only said +1 for a start, and that was in a thread where you managed to annoy 
Richard Weait. That's quite a feat.

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Jun 20, 2011, at 10:43, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:

> 
> Steve Coast wrote:
>> 
>> On 6/18/2011 12:54 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
>>> Erik Johansson writes:
>>>> The Troll word is used so often around in this community that it's
>>>> hard to speak about courtesy.
>>> 
>>> That's because SteveC uses it on people who don't agree with him.
>> 
>> Can you point to an example where I call someone a troll who was not 
>> characterized by the wikipedia definition? 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
>> 
> 
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2010-October/004601.html
> I can say for sure that my aim was to get the bicycle=avoid tags removed,
> and I would presume that Paul's aim was to keep them. Hence neither of us
> was posting "with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional
> response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion".
> 
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Join-the-OSMF-tp6461437p6496731.html
> Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual

[SteveC]

Tim

Chris is trying to gently point out to you, as I was, that you're the one who's 
sucked up the most LWG time lately and thus making your suggestions on how they 
sound their time is a bit odd.

Ignoring the point isn't helping.

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Jun 20, 2011, at 10:25, TimSC  wrote:

> On 20/06/11 18:11, Chris Hill wrote:
>> 
>>> It seems to me the same issues come up again and again, but never 
>>> concluded, so it is not necessarily the fault of the person asking the 
>>> question (or even of the LWG). I suggest that people directly trying to 
>>> communicate with the LWG is a symptom and not a cause of the communication 
>>> problem.
>>> 
>> 
>> And exactly how did making a long list of personal demands at the eleventh 
>> hour help with that process?
> 
> Ok, just sanity check here - I looked at subject line as to what we are 
> talking about - which is communication difficulties and LWG and related 
> issues. Part of the problem in OSM mailing lists is that discussions keep 
> going off topic and this is even directly after I raised it as a problem. 
> Given that is a significant problem, the question is how do we address it?
> 
> I suggest list moderation (which is community lead, not by a dictator) and a 
> high standard of behavior set by the community leaders. (Yes, admittedly 
> moderation takes volunteers but we need to agree on a plan before 
> implementing it.) Can anyone think of a better plan?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> TimSC
> 
> PS I plan to disregard, as much as I can, all non-constructive input. I will 
> probably only be partly successful though.
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

[SteveC]

So those guys put out a legal statement and an employee even gave you his 
interpretation on this list, which you can cite in court if you want. I think 
you're pretty solid and it feels like people are just looking for problems no 
matter what is done or said. :-(

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Jun 16, 2011, at 0:44, Nick Hocking  wrote:

> My understanding is that Nearmap wish all contributions to OSM, by any mapper 
> who has agreed to the CT, derived from their imagery (before the 17th June 
> 2011) to be able to be relicenced by OSMF under any licence it (OSMF) chooses 
> at any time.
> 
> However I also can't see exactly how the published statement meets this wish.
>  
> Nick
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !

[SteveC]

Thats a kind of odd set of statements given... the random polls you're showing 
around...?

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Jun 13, 2011, at 13:53, TimSC  wrote:

> On 13/06/11 12:30, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
>> 
>> That vote took place three times. It was done first by the OSMF
>> members, then the community at large, and then separately by the
>> community by a different community member who had concerned over the
>> first poll. Check the archives, you'll find references to them.
>> They're several years old now.
>>   
> The community polls were post-hoc rationalizing, window dressing, unofficial 
> and poorly worded. In legitimate democratic votes, the vote occurs BEFORE the 
> decision to implement a plan takes place. It is tacitly acknowledged in that 
> the mechanism in the CTs is different from what previously had happened. But 
> really the past doesn't matter as much as what we do next.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> TimSC
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !

[SteveC]

On Jun 11, 2011, at 1:02, Nic Roets  wrote:

>> Not at all - I know of no form of democracy that distinguishes between
>> grudging acceptance or evangelical zeal.
> 
> Dermot,
> 
> I would quite like to take my data and start my own PD / CC0 project.

What is stopping you?


> So by simply matching my new license to the conditions set by the
> OSMF, I would be voting "yes" in your "referendum".
> 
> In this "referendum", the OSMF substantially influenced the outcome by
> declaring beforehand "We are changing the license". They refused to
> register new users who do not vote "yes". The emails that was sent out
> only listed the advantages of the license change.
> 
> Go and look how an electoral commission operates. Something as simple
> as the order in which the candidates appear on the ballot can be seen
> as unfair.
> 
> --
> I am not saying OSMF acted illegally or that the license change is a
> bad thing. I am merely saying that the OSMF decided on the license
> change before there was overwhelming support for it from the
> community. The license change was not driven by the community. It was
> driven by a few individuals. How else can you explain the dismally low
> voter turn out when the OSMF members voted on it ?
> 
> Regards,
> Nic
> 
> ___
> 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] early OSM webmap request

[SteveC]

Try image search?

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Jun 4, 2011, at 16:31, Steve Chilton  wrote:

> For my SOTMEU presentation I need an image of the OSM webmap prior to mapnik, 
> the old landsat +white lines version. 
> I have looked on 'history' and 'featured images' on wiki but no luck.
> There are a couple of examples in blackadder and coast lecture presentations 
> in SVN but not really clear enough to use.
> Can anyone send me, or point me to, a suitable image (even the famous 
> Regent's Park one would be fine!)?
> 
> Cheers
> STEVE
> 
> ___
> 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] New Logo in the Wiki

[SteveC]

Come on Martin. Look, yes we can always, always be better at communication. But 
if we had a process like that we might have got to actually one day putting a 
new logo up. In the process with all the flames and the people screaming no, 
and all that, the people actually doing then work would get demoralized, like 
they are right now.

You should take it as a good sign there isn't some huge process and that you 
are as involved as anyone. I think jockru also said he wanted a blog post? Well 
he has access to opengeodata as much as we all do! :-)

The process you outline is reasonable on a constructive list. This just isn't a 
constructive place a lot of the time.

Instead of taking 8 weeks to have a process, let's treat it as 8 weeks where 
anyone can help fix these theoretical and technical logo issues. It's right 
there, anyone can help. So who's going to do it?

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Apr 30, 2011, at 9:17, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> 2011/4/30 SteveC :
>> You will also find discussion of this list in that meeting. If I had posted 
>> the new logo idea here before doing anything there would have been a 
>> gigantic discussion on it and nothing would happen.
> 
> 
> I remember a different process when the foundation got its logo, and
> it did happen.
> 
> 
>> Any progress at all in any direction now means at least 5 or 10 people on 
>> this list don't like it. That makes it very hard for anyone to achieve 
>> anything without treating this list as noise. We need to get away from that. 
>> Any ideas appreciated.
> 
> 
> It is not that people "don't like" the new logo, I would have expected
> a process like:
> 
> 0. Announce that you are going to change the logo in 4 (or 8) weeks.
> 1. publish a link to the logo proposal
> 2. get some comments
> 3. implement (eventually) some of the conclusions
> 4. you are satisfied or go to 1.
> 
> cheers,
> Martin
> 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New Logo in the Wiki

[SteveC]

Mikel and SWG don't have to take all this, I did it so flame me Jochen.

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Apr 30, 2011, at 9:04, Mikel Maron  wrote:

> So tired of the bad attitude in OSM. Perhaps you're just trying to be funny 
> Jochen, but really, this makes me want to quit trying to do anything.
> 
> From: Jochen Topf 
> To: Martijn van Exel 
> Cc: osm 
> Sent: Sat, April 30, 2011 10:53:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] New Logo in the Wiki
> 
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 04:11:52PM +0200, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 1:56 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer  > > wrote:
> > 
> > > I noticed that there is a new OSM logo in the wiki. I find it strange
> > > that important things like changing the well established logo of the
> > > project are beeing changed without any discussion or notice on any of
> > > the lists, or did I miss something? Or was the site hacked?
> > >
> > >
> > I'd have to concur. Firstly, a new logo is not something you roll out on its
> > own, it's part of a new 'corporate identity' and it's not something you just
> > implement by accepting a pull request. Secondly, there's tons of derived
> > products that are sitting there looking dated all of a sudden; not only
> > national or sub-project web sites, also printed materials. It seems very
> > amateurish to have different logo versions sitting around in different parts
> > of the project. All in all I believe some advance notice would have been a
> > good idea. Mind you, I'm not even talking about a community voting process -
> > I'm not in favor of that in this case at all.
> 
> Don't be so hard on the Strategic Working Group. After months of talks they
> have actually done something! I think we should celebrate that! After dipping
> their toes into many important subjects for the future of OSM they have chosen
> the logo change as the most important strategic change and implemented it! I 
> am
> glad OSM is not just a bunch of nerds any more, but that we now have a
> strategy! Yeah!
> 
> And I think having a logo that looks a bit skewed is a perfect fit for OSM. It
> symbolizes the imperfect nature of OSM!
> 
> Jochen
> -- 
> Jochen Topf  joc...@remote.org  http://www.remote.org/jochen/  +49-721-388298
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New Logo in the Wiki

[SteveC]

You will also find discussion of this list in that meeting. If I had posted the 
new logo idea here before doing anything there would have been a gigantic 
discussion on it and nothing would happen. Any progress at all in any direction 
now means at least 5 or 10 people on this list don't like it. That makes it 
very hard for anyone to achieve anything without treating this list as noise. 
We need to get away from that. Any ideas appreciated.

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Apr 30, 2011, at 7:23, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> 2011/4/30 Mikel Maron :
>> From: Simon Poole 
>>> While I don't quite understand why the SWG has turned in to the WDWG (Web
>>> Design Working Group)
>> SWG has taken this on because the usability of the site is a the primary way
>> users, new and old, engage with OSM, there are definitely issues with it.
> 
> 
> the logo is not an usability topic.
> 
> 
>> Yet, in yesterday's meeting, we realized that actually doing anything would
>> be a good start.
> 
> 
> Yes, looking at the working group log, I realized that. Looks like
> Steve posted this proposal [1] he found in the web (or someone sent
> him), and one day later some logos are changed on the front page (some
> still are old versions).
> 
> There is two quotes I want to cite from the log:
> 
> 1.
> (12:38:15 PM) SteveC: TomH: how is rails 3 coming BTW?
> (12:39:02 PM) TomH: oh it mostly works, but there's an issue with our
> multi-part primary keys that is giving me grief
> (12:39:11 PM) TomH: that's the only thing causing test failures now though
> 
> 2.
> "(12:42:31 PM) SteveC: wonderchook: and I have opinions on Fukushima
> despite not being a nuclear engineer, but it's much better to have
> people work on design who... know how to design and build things"
> 
> It's not that I necessarily prefer the old logo above the one that is
> there at the moment, it is the process I want to point at. Why, if
> there are apparently no designers in the SWG, should there be such a
> hurry (and why should they decide at all, maybe setting up a design
> group would be a better alternative)? The logo change is a big deal,
> it affects hundreds of sites (also of other people using OSM data and
> show the logo), stickers, t-shirts, cups, flyers and other print
> material and maps(!)...
> 
> Usually changing the logo is not a oneliner, it is an iterative
> process. Make some proposals, choose the aspects you like, recombine
> them, ...
> 
> Like software deployment requires testing (see irc-log above, 1.) the
> same is valid (in a different way) also for design (2.) and even more
> for UI-design. Usually the first experiments are not done on the front
> page.
> 
> cheers,
> Martin
> __
> 
> [1] (12:35:35 PM) SteveC: Go look at this logo:
> http://raraken.deviantart.com/art/OpenStreetMap-Icon-Logo-174454488?q=gallery:Raraken/6244368&qo=8
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License graph

[SteveC]

You know I don't have a private jet, right?

But if I did, Fred could pilot it.


On Apr 19, 2011, at 12:45 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen 
wrote:

> I don't think Steve, it's a good idea to admit that in public.
> 
> I remember that some osm user publicly confessed to have used Google
> while 
> mapping OSM data and he was very badly treated... ;<) or ;<((
> 
> Gert
> 
> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: SteveC [mailto:st...@asklater.com] 
> Verzonden: dinsdag 19 april 2011 21:18
> Aan: Frederik Ramm
> CC: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] License graph
> 
> It's true.
> 
> On Apr 19, 2011, at 5:33 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On 04/19/11 14:14, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
>>> Of course, those who can remember a bit further back, recall that
>>> Frederick Ramm is in favour of Public Domain, and not ODbL.
>>> Perhaps if you explain just how your support was bought it would make
>>> more entertaining reading that your recent posts.
>> 
>> SteveC said he'd let me pilot his private jet if I say yes.
>> 
>> Bye
>> Frederik
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>> 
> 
> Steve
> 
> stevecoast.com
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] License graph

[SteveC]

It's true.

On Apr 19, 2011, at 5:33 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 04/19/11 14:14, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
>> Of course, those who can remember a bit further back, recall that
>> Frederick Ramm is in favour of Public Domain, and not ODbL.
>> Perhaps if you explain just how your support was bought it would make
>> more entertaining reading that your recent posts.
> 
> SteveC said he'd let me pilot his private jet if I say yes.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

[SteveC]

I want to go to that mapping party.

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Jan 21, 2011, at 17:59, Kenneth Gonsalves  wrote:

> On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 19:30 +, Steve Doerr wrote:
>>> Nothing official, but it would be very unusual for anybody to call
>>> something that wasn't surfaced a road.
>> 
>> Unless they were expatriates in a third-world country? 
> 
> please refrain from such remarks - I suppose you think we map by snake
> charming while riding on elephant back?
> -- 
> regards
> KG
> http://lawgon.livejournal.com
> Coimbatore LUG rox
> http://ilugcbe.techstud.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] It's fun while it lasts

[SteveC]

Don't count your chickens until they are hatched.

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Feb 11, 2011, at 1:44, Chris Browet  wrote:

> 
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:40, Andrew Ayre  wrote:
> What is the point of spreading unfounded FUD? OSM doesn't need Microsoft to 
> exist anyway.
> 
> I think he meant that now that MS will have access to Navteq, there is more 
> than reasonable doubts regarding their future involvment in OSM...
> 
> - Chris -
> 
> ___
> 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] magical road detector to play with

[SteveC]

Maybe put the magicshop version number in the creator?

Steve

On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:12 PM, John-Michael Wiley  wrote:

>  
> 
> I made the changes, checked in the code and published them to the staging 
> servers. If someone else wants to take a look at the output and let me know 
> if you think. Unless I hear complaints I will update the production servers 
> tomorrow.
> 
>  
> 
> http://c5a33f72a0594a6b87931c2e3f984324.cloudapp.net/
> 
>  
> 
> I pasted the new output below.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> J.M.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>  maxlon="-122.116432"/>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> From: christian.bro...@gmail.com [mailto:christian.bro...@gmail.com] On 
> Behalf Of Chris Browet
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 6:47 PM
> To: John-Michael Wiley
> Cc: Steve Coast; talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] magical road detector to play with
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> I am also wondering if we should switch to osm change as the enclosing tag 
> although the idea is not to give someone something they submit right to OSM. 
> In our prototypes we have been adding the detected ways onto the map for the 
> user to edit and approve. I generate new id’s for the ones passed back to me 
> so they don’t conflict with current changes the user has already made.
> 
> 
> I personally see no advantage for switching to osm change, as all features 
> are new anyway, but indeed the disadvantage of being too easy to upload 
> "as-is", without proper review...
> 
> - Chris -
> 
>  
> 
>  
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] magical road detector to play with

[SteveC]

Thanks for the feedback. Eyal and jm any chance of confidence?

Steve

On Feb 3, 2011, at 3:10 PM, François Van Der Biest 
 wrote:

> Thanks for this new service.
> 
> I felt quite frustrated when I saw the silverlight stuff warning, so I
> decided to create a simple client with OpenLayers.
> Here it is: http://maps.qualitystreetmap.org/bingtracing/
> 
> I really like the whole idea, but the service lacks a confidence index
> for the returned feature.
> I also guess that the algorithm gives several paths and only the one
> with the highest score is returned.
> Is it possible to get the other paths along with their scores ?
> 
> F.
> 
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Steve Coast  wrote:
>> http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2011/02/03/automatically-detect-roads-with-bing-aerial-imagery.aspx
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] magical road detector to play with

[SteveC]

That's an interesting idea, I wonder what else lurks on the web, like postcodes 
for example?

Steve

On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Nic Roets  wrote:

> Steve,
> 
> Another thing that Bing can help us with is determining address ranges
> of roads. For example, when you spider the web and find references to
> 5, 20 and 48 Lion Street, Pretoria, then it may help the user who is
> mapping that street. Perhaps it's a cul de sac and now he doesn't need
> to travel all the way down it to see where the range ends.
> 
> A little bit of care will be needed to suppress databases that may be
> legally protected. But I can't see any problem if you extract 1
> address per website.
> 
> Regards,
> Nic
> 
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Steve Coast  wrote:
>> http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2011/02/03/automatically-detect-roads-with-bing-aerial-imagery.aspx
>> 
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>> 
>> 
> 

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

[OSM-talk] Watch out if mapping in Florida, Georgia...

[SteveC]

GPS might not work;

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/20/unavailabe_gps_warning/


Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phone survey results

[SteveC]

On Jan 8, 2011, at 5:18 PM, David Murn wrote:

> On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 12:00 -0800, SteveC wrote:
>> That's kind of interesting. Sold over what time period though?
> 
> The article I posted gave figures (in both volume and $ sales) for
> per-quarter periods, compared with other quarters in 2010 and the
> previous year.
> 
> 
>> "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game..
> 
> I find this a very interesting response when the question asked of you
> was:
> 
> "*I* don't want to know who's using what 'phone; I wanted to know why
> *you* wanted to know."
> 
> Someone fairly and squarely asked the reason why youre surveying users
> on this mailing list, a mailing list for a project that begins with
> 'Open', and your response is to call it an argument with an anonymous
> idiot?

No, I answered it several times, as did others. It was simple curiosity. My 
reply was to the trolling.

> 
> Wouldnt it be easier (and less personally insulting) to simply give an
> answer to the question everyone has politely asked you, or if youre
> under some commercial-in-confidence agreement, then at least say so?  
> 
> You asked everyone here for their help with your project, then launch
> into a tirade that everyone who enquired for more details about your
> project, is a 'self-righteous sixteen-year-old posessing infinite
> amounts of free time'.
> 
> David
> 
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Use of Bing imagery visualised - update

[SteveC]

now you just need to go add addr:* tags for all of them, and you're done :-)


On Jan 4, 2011, at 4:21 AM, Steve Chilton wrote:

> Updated and colour differentiated:
> http://www.stevechilton.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/osm/buildingsBing.png
> 
> Cheers
> STEVE
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] 
> On Behalf Of Steve Chilton
> Sent: 23 December 2010 00:23
> To: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [OSM-talk] Use of Bing imagery visualised
> 
> Have done a quick render to show the effect of using Bing imagery to get 
> building outlines.
> The two illustrations are for the Borough of Enfield (using today's geofabrik 
> data file).
> The larger shapes are predominantly those done earlier from OS OpenData.
> The smaller shapes are a bunch of buildings traced from Bing imagery.
> Whole Borough http://www.stevechilton.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/osm/buildings1.png
> Detail http://www.stevechilton.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/osm/buildings2.png
> 
> Cheers
> STEVE
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phone survey results

[SteveC]

That's kind of interesting. Sold over what time period though?

On Jan 6, 2011, at 1:05 PM, Michael Kugelmann wrote:

> On 05.01.2011 23:45, SteveC wrote:
>> Results from my crude little survey;
> 
> For my point of view this is somehow the same as the distribution of phones 
> sold. Except: the very low number of BB-Devices.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Michael.
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phone survey results

[SteveC]

"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because 
they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable 
from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free 
time." 
— Neal Stephenson (Cryptonomicon)


On Jan 6, 2011, at 4:34 AM, Dave F. wrote:

> On 05/01/2011 22:45, SteveC wrote:
>> In response to the critique of the validity, feel free to go do a better job.
> 
> Why do people who are afraid of criticism (in fact, it was just a question to 
> start with) always post ridiculous non sequiturs such as the above?
> 
> *I* don't want to know who's using what 'phone; I wanted to know why *you* 
> wanted to know.
> 
> Was that too hard to comprehend?
> 
> Your failure to give a conclusive reason suggests an ulterior motive.
> 
> Dave F.
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

[SteveC]

very funny

On Jan 4, 2011, at 7:11 AM, Rob Myers wrote:

> On 04/01/11 15:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> 
>> Peter Miller wrote:
>>> I will currently be one of the people locked out because I have used
>>> the Ordnance Survey open data which is apparently incompatible with
>>> the new license.
>> 
>> OS OpenData is AIUI compatible with ODbL and the latest Contributor Terms.
> 
> [citation needed]
> 
> (http://fandomania.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/xfiles1.jpg)
> 
> - Rob.
> 
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

[OSM-talk] What phone survey results

[SteveC]

Results from my crude little survey;

count   percentage
Android of some kind70  30%
Nokia   65  28%
iPhone  39  17%
Other   45  19%
Rim/Blackberry  5   2%
Windows Phone 7 4   2%
Palm4   2%

In response to the critique of the validity, feel free to go do a better job. I 
was just curious.

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference

[SteveC]

On Nov 26, 2010, at 3:25 PM, Ed Avis wrote:

> SteveC  asklater.com> writes:
> 
>> Speaking personally about what large orgs and what they want, I think it's
>> pretty simple. Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what are
>> the main things missing?  Addressing for geocoding and turn restrictions for
>> routing.
> 
> For addressing, I guess it is usually sufficient to have a street name - the
> exact addr:housenumber stuff is not needed I assume?

Imagine a country where many streets are miles and miles long. Then yes, it 
matters as you could be 10 miles out :-)

The country would be the US or Canada.

> Turn restrictions are also hard to survey manually.  A mapper on foot or 
> bicycle
> might not pay much attention to them, and again, it is hard to know when you 
> have
> all of them.  They might possibly be suggested from analysis of GPS traces,
> provided we have a large number of traces for an area and they are clearly
> tagged to show which ones are for travelling by car.  This is one reason why a
> standard tagging scheme for GPS traces is needed.

You can expose it with things like routing.

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference

[SteveC]

On Nov 26, 2010, at 3:03 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:

> The metrics TeleAtlas and NAVTEQ give you are all smokescreens and impossible 
> to verify.

Can you expand on that - what are they?

> Completeness and spatial accuracy are interesting but what will be your 
> reference to measure against? What I think is interesting is something you 
> could call crowd quality, where you measure things like how many users have 
> been active in an area, what is their experience / reputation, and how does 
> their mapping activity affect individual features: how many versions, growing 
> attribute richness, spatial convergence. If you can correlate this to the 
> 'objective' quality metric (completeness, accuracy) you could predict how 
> "good" OSM is even in places where you don't have any reference data to 
> measure against.
> 
> Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org
> laziness – impatience – hubris
> http://schaaltreinen.nl | http://martijnvanexel.nl | 
> http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
> twitter / skype: mvexel
> flickr: rhodes
> 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:49 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> 
> On Nov 26, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> 
> > ...and some metric that tells you that the data covers 99.1273% of reality. 
> > fwiw. But there's a point there, serious users want to know more about 
> > quality than they can find out easily right now. How you define quality, 
> > that's another discussion.
> 
> And that's kind of the problem - what is it?
> 
> Everyone wants a simple definition and metric but it just doesn't exist.
> 
> Even when you compare to ground truth, commercial providers are almost as 
> wrong as they are right. That means if OSM has 100 turn restrictions and they 
> have 100 it doesn't tell you very much about which ones are right and which 
> are wrong. Which is counter-intuituve and hard to explain when advocating OSM 
> as a source.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org
> > laziness – impatience – hubris
> > http://schaaltreinen.nl | http://martijnvanexel.nl | 
> > http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
> > twitter / skype: mvexel
> > flickr: rhodes
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:36 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> > Speaking personally about what large orgs and what they want, I think it's 
> > pretty simple. Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what 
> > are the main things missing? Addressing for geocoding and turn restrictions 
> > for routing.
> >
> >
> > On Nov 26, 2010, at 1:27 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
> >
> > > I think everyone agrees that detailed legal discussion belongs on the 
> > > legal list.
> > >
> > > Questions such as how any licence transition should proceed, deletion of 
> > > existing
> > > bits of map, and how to organize the voting process are not legal arcana 
> > > but
> > > questions of project governance, and surely belong on this list.
> > >
> > > I am sorry I asked about what Microsoft and others would like to see from 
> > > OSM's
> > > licensing terms.  I hoped that some concrete answers would help 
> > > discussion to
> > > move on from the mostly fixed positions and legal nitpicking we see on 
> > > the legal
> > > mailing list (of which I am just as guilty as anyone else).  But I guess 
> > > the
> > > big mapping sites are not willing to make a public statement for fear of 
> > > being
> > > seen to influence the project.  That is a shame, since we are somewhat in 
> > > the
> > > dark about what the rest of the world thinks.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ed Avis 
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > talk mailing list
> > > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> > >
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > stevecoast.com
> >
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >
> 
> Steve
> 
> stevecoast.com
> 
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference (from osm-talk)

[SteveC]

On Nov 26, 2010, at 3:03 PM, Grant Slater wrote:

> On 26 November 2010 21:37, SteveC  wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Grant Slater wrote:
>> 
>>> There have been many round of question, answers and many revisions.
>>> The LWG spends at around 25% of their time just keeping minutes. I'm a
>>> member of the LWG, we are all volenteers with the exception of
>>> occasional member Steve Coast.
>> 
>> Er... what makes you think I'm not a volunteer? :-)
>> 
> 
> True, fair comment.
> 
> I should have been phrased it better
> ...We are all volunteers working on this in our own time. SteveC's day
> job is in Geo and without a doubt puts OSM interests first. The rest
> of us poor suckers work for the man in non-Geo related day jobs.

:-)

> 
> / Grant
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference

[SteveC]

On Nov 26, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:

> ...and some metric that tells you that the data covers 99.1273% of reality. 
> fwiw. But there's a point there, serious users want to know more about 
> quality than they can find out easily right now. How you define quality, 
> that's another discussion.

And that's kind of the problem - what is it?

Everyone wants a simple definition and metric but it just doesn't exist.

Even when you compare to ground truth, commercial providers are almost as wrong 
as they are right. That means if OSM has 100 turn restrictions and they have 
100 it doesn't tell you very much about which ones are right and which are 
wrong. Which is counter-intuituve and hard to explain when advocating OSM as a 
source.



> 
> Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org
> laziness – impatience – hubris
> http://schaaltreinen.nl | http://martijnvanexel.nl | 
> http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
> twitter / skype: mvexel
> flickr: rhodes
> 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:36 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> Speaking personally about what large orgs and what they want, I think it's 
> pretty simple. Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what are 
> the main things missing? Addressing for geocoding and turn restrictions for 
> routing.
> 
> 
> On Nov 26, 2010, at 1:27 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
> 
> > I think everyone agrees that detailed legal discussion belongs on the legal 
> > list.
> >
> > Questions such as how any licence transition should proceed, deletion of 
> > existing
> > bits of map, and how to organize the voting process are not legal arcana but
> > questions of project governance, and surely belong on this list.
> >
> > I am sorry I asked about what Microsoft and others would like to see from 
> > OSM's
> > licensing terms.  I hoped that some concrete answers would help discussion 
> > to
> > move on from the mostly fixed positions and legal nitpicking we see on the 
> > legal
> > mailing list (of which I am just as guilty as anyone else).  But I guess the
> > big mapping sites are not willing to make a public statement for fear of 
> > being
> > seen to influence the project.  That is a shame, since we are somewhat in 
> > the
> > dark about what the rest of the world thinks.
> >
> > --
> > Ed Avis 
> >
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >
> 
> Steve
> 
> stevecoast.com
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference (from osm-talk)

[SteveC]

On Nov 25, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Grant Slater wrote:

> John,
> 
> On 25 November 2010 20:15, john whelan  wrote:
>> Just a comment from one of the 130 who has voted yes on the recommendation
>> of one of the people I thought was fairly sensible here and I now regret
>> taking his advice.  I now strongly suspect I should have spent six months
>> wading through through the legal talk side of things rather than mapping
>> because a whole slew of issues seem to be coming up here.
>> 
> 
> ~4800 existing users have agreed to the Contributor Terms, this
> excludes the new OSM signups.
> Or are you discussing the foundation members vote?
> 
>> I would like the ability to go back and change my vote.
>> 
>> I don't like being told this is not the place for discussion of license
>> issues or concerns.  In light of the recent involvement of Microsoft and
>> other large players I think there are perception problems that need to be
>> addressed.
>> 
> 
> Microsoft/Bing has spoken to the Licensing Working Group on 2
> occasions. I flagged these up in the minutes. MapQuest has not spoken
> to the Licensing Grouping Group.
> 
>> For example I'm very concerned that there is no plan to deal with the
>> transition to the new licensing model.
>> 
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan
> If you would like expansion on the items ask.
> 
>> Perhaps OSM should take note of the Open Data mob and be a little more open
>> about what is happening rather than trying to censure discussion on issues
>> and concerns which apparently have not been addressed by the decision
>> makers.  They seem to have taken decisions but won't accept any
>> responsibility to address issues and concerns.  I'm not asking to stay with
>> the old licenses necessarily but I would like to see some sort of plan and
>> if we can find a way to address the issues and concerns.
>> 
> 
> Censure discussion? Please expand. Moving licensing discussion to a
> dedicated public list is not censure in my view.
> 
> There have been many round of question, answers and many revisions.
> The LWG spends at around 25% of their time just keeping minutes. I'm a
> member of the LWG, we are all volenteers with the exception of
> occasional member Steve Coast.

Er... what makes you think I'm not a volunteer? :-)

> Full minutes: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes
> 
> Regards
> Grant
> 
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference

[SteveC]

Speaking personally about what large orgs and what they want, I think it's 
pretty simple. Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what are 
the main things missing? Addressing for geocoding and turn restrictions for 
routing.


On Nov 26, 2010, at 1:27 AM, Ed Avis wrote:

> I think everyone agrees that detailed legal discussion belongs on the legal 
> list.
> 
> Questions such as how any licence transition should proceed, deletion of 
> existing
> bits of map, and how to organize the voting process are not legal arcana but
> questions of project governance, and surely belong on this list.
> 
> I am sorry I asked about what Microsoft and others would like to see from 
> OSM's
> licensing terms.  I hoped that some concrete answers would help discussion to
> move on from the mostly fixed positions and legal nitpicking we see on the 
> legal
> mailing list (of which I am just as guilty as anyone else).  But I guess the
> big mapping sites are not willing to make a public statement for fear of being
> seen to influence the project.  That is a shame, since we are somewhat in the
> dark about what the rest of the world thinks.
> 
> -- 
> Ed Avis 
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference

[SteveC]

Hrm.

I think we should have some kind of idea of what we're trying to accomplish. 
There are a bunch of companies interested in OSM, and it might be nice for them 
to talk. I suspect it's about as simple as that? But we don't want to do that 
and exclude anyone else, so it should be free for anyone else to come along.

I'd avoid discussion about where we both get value... because OSM isn't really 
a company you can negotiate terms with. The license on the data is what it is, 
take it or leave it. So there's not really any discussion about OSM giving 
anyone more value in that sense.




On Nov 24, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Steve Citron-Pousty wrote:
> Hey Peter and Emilie:
> Totally agree - hence the reason to have an unconference. The important part 
> of this conference would be the back and forth as we try to find the place 
> where we both can get value. I think everyone who wrote the original letter 
> is very sensitive to the claims of any company "driving OSM" - this is NOT 
> what we want. 
> 
> Does that make sense?
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org on behalf of Emilie Laffray
> Sent: Wed 11/24/2010 10:33 AM
> To: Peter Wendorff
> Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 24 November 2010 18:20, Peter Wendorff  wrote:
> 
> 
>   Dangerous question.
>   On the one hand you are right: It would be awesome.
>   But on the other OSM should not be as a big companies wants it to be.
>   
> 
> 
> I agree with the statement that OSM should be what OSM wants to be. If the 
> goal of OSM coincides with those companies, good, else we should not move out 
> of our way to serve those companies interest.
> 
> Emily Laffray
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] SotM11 will be held in Denver.

[SteveC]

Believe it or not (and I look forward to the conspiracy theories on 80n's 
mailing list) it's one very large coincidence.

I originally pushed Denver (where I live) with some folks here for SOTM-US and 
Eric asked me to help with the FOSS4G bid for 2010. Both fell through. Then 
Hurricane and others took the SOTM-US bid and turned that in to a SOTM 2011 
bid, and Eric did a ton of work on FOSS4G 2011 and both came through.

Personally I have always thought there should be a strong separation between 
the conferences, and have advocated that in both camps.

I'm super glad SOTM is coming to the US, there's huge potential here. Denver's 
a great place and it's my hope that SOTM '11 in Denver will help form a 
stronger community here.

Steve

stevecoast.com


On Oct 25, 2010, at 1:39 AM, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
> SotM11 is planned to be arranged just after the FOSS4G conference. I do not
> believe it is an accident because Steve Coast and Mikel Maron are members of 
> the
> FOSS4G Local Organizing Committee
> (http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2011_Denver_LOC). 
> It can be a good idea if people can spend the whole week and take part in the
> both conferences. Or then somebody could have a speech in both conferences.
> After all, we are not so far away from the FOSS4G folks and software. OSM was
> very visible in FOSS4G this year but also we might have something to learn 
> from
> the paleogis side.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Code of Conduct: civil discussion, lists etc.

[SteveC]

On Oct 16, 2010, at 9:50 AM, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:

> On Saturday 16 October 2010 17:40:36 SteveC wrote:
>> :0:
>> 
>> * ^(to|cc|bcc).*...@inbox.org|\
>>   ^(to|cc|bcc).*deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com|\
>>   ^(to|cc|bcc).*ed...@billiau.net
>> .spam/
> 
> :0:
> * ^(to|cc|bcc).*...@inbox.org|\
>  ^(to|cc|bcc).*deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com|\
>  ^(to|cc|bcc).*ed...@billiau.net
> /dev/null
> 
> ... is much more fun.

another fair point!

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Code of Conduct: civil discussion, lists etc.

[SteveC]

Fair point Dave. I'm joining you guys and filtering from now on.

:0:
* ^(to|cc|bcc).*...@inbox.org|\
  ^(to|cc|bcc).*deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com|\
  ^(to|cc|bcc).*ed...@billiau.net
.spam/



On Oct 16, 2010, at 9:25 AM, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 4:02 PM, John Smith  wrote:
>> On 17 October 2010 00:58, SteveC  wrote:
>>> I wish i had a pony.
>> 
>> This is why things end up in a endless debate, people pose serious
>> questions and you either can't be bothered, or won't respond properly
>> so the debate can move forward.
>> 
> 
> 
> I, and probably a lot of others, would rather a whole lot of people
> stopped posting to these lists.
> 
> If someone posts a question or discussion point to the list we don't
> want to see a dozen trolls and a flame war attached. It happens.
> Without fail. Every single post. The people trolling, you know who you
> are. The people getting personal, you know who you are. Please, please
> stop it while there are still one or two people worth talking to left
> subscribed to the list. Oh, and ending this pointless little back and
> forth would be a good start.
> 
> So +1 to Code of Conduct, although I think it's too late because too
> many people have already made the easiest filter configuration
> possible and unsubscribed.
> 
> Dave
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Code of Conduct: civil discussion, lists etc.

[SteveC]

Well that's kind of hilarious given you cut out the first half of my email 
where I exactly answered your question Duane.

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Oct 16, 2010, at 9:02 AM, John Smith  wrote:

> On 17 October 2010 00:58, SteveC  wrote:
>> I wish i had a pony.
> 
> This is why things end up in a endless debate, people pose serious
> questions and you either can't be bothered, or won't respond properly
> so the debate can move forward.
> 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Code of Conduct: civil discussion, lists etc.

[SteveC]

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Oct 16, 2010, at 8:43 AM, John Smith  wrote:

> On 17 October 2010 00:36, SteveC  wrote:
>> Oh hardly. All I have done is call out Anthony and link to the things he 
>> denies about wikipedia.
> 
> What specifically has any of that to do with OSM?


Because he's doing the same thing here.


> 
>> You, too, are another example of someone using a fake name and occasionally 
>> trolling,
> 
> I wish you'd really stick to questions posed to you, instead all you
> come off as doing is complaining about the conduct of others and not
> addressing the questions posed to you.

I wish i had a pony.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Code of Conduct: civil discussion, lists etc.

[SteveC]

Oh hardly. All I have done is call out Anthony and link to the things he denies 
about wikipedia.

You, too, are another example of someone using a fake name and occasionally 
trolling,

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Oct 16, 2010, at 3:13 AM, John Smith  wrote:

> On 16 October 2010 19:08, Al Haraka  wrote:
>> initiatives mentioned before.  However, I think we should keep it
>> plain and simple and remove some caustic behavior that seems to be
>> returning to the list after a hiatus.  Collaboration and consideration
> 
> Most of the caustic behaviour I've seen lately is from SteveC...
> 
> ___
> 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] Response to A critique of OpenStreetMap

[SteveC]

On Oct 15, 2010, at 9:13 PM, Anthony wrote:
> I also haven't been kicked out of Wikipedia, though you have claimed
> it multiple times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raul654/Anthony_evidence#Anthony_DiPierro

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Anthony+DiPierro

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiPierro&action=historysubmit&diff=150082529&oldid=127296822

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Anthony&diff=prev&oldid=18550249

http://miamichaela.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/moron.jpg

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Response to A critique of OpenStreetMap

[SteveC]

On Oct 15, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:22:56 -0600
> SteveC  wrote:
> 
>> Anthony is just trolling. He's been kicked out of wikipedia, as noted
>> multiple times. Ignore him.
> 
> That is untruthful.

Which bit?

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Response to A critique of OpenStreetMap

[SteveC]

On Oct 15, 2010, at 8:36 AM, Randy Meech wrote:
> Why would you expect that?

Randy

Anthony is just trolling. He's been kicked out of wikipedia, as noted multiple 
times. Ignore him.


> 
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Mike N.  wrote:
> > And along those lines,  based on the constructive criticism, the default map
> > shown on the main OSM page should be a "pretty map", using tiles
> > from Mapquest, while mappers that have a need to view more details can
> > select one of the existing map styles.
> 
> Once OSM goes ODbL, I'd expect that Mapquest will stop licensing their
> tiles under a free license.
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] If you've missed this ...

[SteveC]

On Oct 6, 2010, at 9:23 AM, Nic Roets wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Richard Weait  wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Stefan de Konink  wrote:
>>> Op 06-10-10 15:12, Nic Roets schreef:
 On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:55 PM, TimSC
  wrote:
>  On 06/10/10 00:59, Richard Weait wrote:
>> 
>> http://opengeodata.org/osm-founder-steve-coast-leaves-cloudmade
> 
> What, if any, impact does this have on OSM and OSMF, I wonder?
 
 It may remove a conflict of interest problem or two ??
>>> 
>>> He is still shareholder, as is stated in the message. That shows that
>>> there is a potential financial conflict of interest. For example if OSM
>>> switches license, it can be good for Cloudmade or bad for them, he could
>>> defend his own financial position.
> 
> He will definitely be more independent now that he doesn't spend 8
> hours a day in close proximity to the CM employees and he never has
> meetings with their lawyers (see some of the discussions on legal-talk
> in recent months).
> 
>> Y'all have a funny way of demonstrating your warm wishes for his
>> future and presumption of good faith.
> 
> Unlike you, I guess I'm just seeing him and his wife as ordinary
> members of the team (taking into account code written, keynote
> speeches etc). So yes, good luck to him and good luck to anyone else
> on this list changing careers.
> 
> And saying someone has a conflict on interest is not an insult. Nor
> should it lead to automatic exclusion from debates or votes. But it
> should be mentioned.

Thank you for your warm thoughts.

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Introducing Taginfo

[SteveC]

but the point is hooking the two things together?

On Oct 5, 2010, at 9:18 AM, Jochen Topf wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 08:56:00AM -0600, SteveC wrote:
>> The first thing I wanted to look at was this
>> 
>>  http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/FIXME
>> 
>> and then go fix things near me. Maybe if I click on the map it could 
>> redirect to a nominatim search for that tag, if you can constrain the search 
>> to a bbox near where I click?
> 
> You can use the OSM Inspector for that...
> 
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=tagging&lon=-122.43938&lat=37.73945&zoom=12&overlays=fixmes_on_nodes,fixmes_on_ways
> 
> Jochen
> -- 
> Jochen Topf  joc...@remote.org  http://www.remote.org/jochen/  +49-721-388298
> 
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Introducing Taginfo

[SteveC]

Jochen this is level 17 awesome.

The first thing I wanted to look at was this

http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/FIXME

and then go fix things near me. Maybe if I click on the map it could redirect 
to a nominatim search for that tag, if you can constrain the search to a bbox 
near where I click?



On Oct 5, 2010, at 7:37 AM, Jochen Topf wrote:

> For the last months I have been working on a software called Taginfo that
> brings together information about OSM tags from the OSM database, the wiki
> and other places. Somewhat like Tagwatch, Tagstat, and OSMdoc, but more
> ambitious. :-)
> 
> I am happy to announce that the beast is now available at
> 
>http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de
> 
> There are still some bugs and lots of missing features, but its already
> usable. Updates are currently done manually, but I will do automatic daily
> updates soon.
> 
> All the software to run this is Open Source so please go ahead, run your
> own versions and send me patches.
> 
> More details and background in my blog entry at:
> 
>http://blog.jochentopf.com/2010-10-05-introducing-taginfo.html
> 
> Bug reports and feature ideas welcome.
> 
> Jochen
> -- 
> Jochen Topf  joc...@remote.org  http://www.remote.org/jochen/  +49-721-388298
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OSM User Testing

[SteveC]

sounds like you should join us in SF!

On Sep 30, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Peter Batty wrote:

> I think it's great that something is being done on this.
> 
> Personally I would suggest finding a few volunteers to be tested and sit in a 
> room with them. You don't need a lot of people to find the key issues and I 
> think you get more from seeing them do it in person and having them "think 
> out loud" rather than using remote screen recording software.
> 
> I've posted this before but I highly recommend this book on usability 
> testing, "Don't make me think", it's a very quick read: http://amzn.to/9A5LTz
> 
> Just my few cents!
> 
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:42 AM, SteveC  wrote:
> 
> On Sep 30, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 16:20, SteveC  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sep 29, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 15:34, SteveC  wrote:
> >>>> Those people fill out a form and are invited later to use some simple 
> >>>> online
> >>>> screen capturing software while asked to do some simple tasks and this is
> >>>> where you come in.
> >>>
> >>> What screen capturing software package is it?
> >>
> >> I believe it is
> >>
> >>http://www.usertesting.com/
> >
> > So, a Windows only client: 
> > http://www.usertesting.com/popups/ApplicantFAQs.aspx
> 
> Feel free to suggest something 'better' then.
> 
> Steve
> 
> stevecoast.com
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> talk...@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM User Testing

[SteveC]

On Sep 30, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 16:20, SteveC  wrote:
>> 
>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 15:34, SteveC  wrote:
>>>> Those people fill out a form and are invited later to use some simple 
>>>> online
>>>> screen capturing software while asked to do some simple tasks and this is
>>>> where you come in.
>>> 
>>> What screen capturing software package is it?
>> 
>> I believe it is
>> 
>>http://www.usertesting.com/
> 
> So, a Windows only client: 
> http://www.usertesting.com/popups/ApplicantFAQs.aspx

Feel free to suggest something 'better' then.

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM User Testing

[SteveC]

On Sep 29, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 15:34, SteveC  wrote:
>> Those people fill out a form and are invited later to use some simple online
>> screen capturing software while asked to do some simple tasks and this is
>> where you come in.
> 
> What screen capturing software package is it?

I believe it is

http://www.usertesting.com/

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

[SteveC]

On Sep 29, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Dave F. wrote:

> On 29/09/2010 16:13, SteveC wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 8:15 AM, Dave F. wrote:
>> 
>>> On 29/09/2010 12:22, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>>>> kevin wrote:
>>>>> The issue here is a licence has been chosen, that appears incompatible
>>>>> with current practise
>>>> Think you've got your chronology the wrong way round there.
>>>> 
>>>> Blog post on moving to ODbL: January 2008. [1]
>>>> OS OpenData released: April 2010.
>>> The campaign to get OS to release data started long before it happened, as 
>>> you well know. I don't know the precise date but would put a small wager 
>>> that it was before 01/08
>> You're way off, there was no campaign that I know of.
> 
> 
>>  I thought lobbying the government was a total waste of time, which is why I 
>> worked on OSM instead. The best you could say was that a few individuals 
>> blogged about how the world would be better with open government data.
> 
> a) I wrote to my local MP about data availability in general & OS 
> specifically. I'm pretty sure I wasn't alone.

Sure but I wouldn't call that a campaign.

> b) There was (is) a national newspaper campaign to "Free our Data".

Meh, it was a PR stunt on a low hanging fruit by an individual or two. It 
wasn't a lobbying organisation, didn't have a membership etc etc etc.

> c) There was a post on these forums saying that OSM was taking partial credit 
> for being responsible in getting OS data released.

Personally I think it deserves all the credit :-) for making happen by doing 
something and proving it can be done, rather than ranting on the sidelines.

> 
> As I asked you before, will I be able to use this data under the proposed new 
> regulations?

If you ask on the list and don't cc me I don't always see it because I just 
start deleting stuff randomly when I see the bizarro conspiracies.

But to answer your question; AFAIK yes, but I defer to the LWG.

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

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

[OSM-talk] OSM User Testing

[SteveC]

I've written previously about OSM usability studies, and now it's happening. 
Nate Bolt from the fantabulous Bolt|Peters is going to help OSM run usability 
tests and we need your help.

The timeline looks something like this: This week or next we're going to switch 
on some javascript on the OSM signup page that invites a percentage of signups 
to help OSM run a user survey. Those people fill out a form and are invited 
later to use some simple online screen capturing software while asked to do 
some simple tasks and this is where you come in. We need to think of some 
simple tasks for new users to complete, and we'll put them together over on 
this wiki page. Add a street? Find a mailing list? Add a point of interest? 
What should they do? That's up to you.

Also, if you're running a mapping party we can give you a super secret link 
where you can send new users to do the same tasks with screen recording. You 
mustn't help them on the first go, as that's exactly what we're trying to find 
out - what goes wrong.

Then on December 8th (tentative) at the Bolt|Peters office in San Francisco, 
OSMers together with the UX wizards will analyze the videos and make some joint 
suggestions on how to push things forward. Anyone in SF, or can be in SF around 
then, please drop me a mail.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Measuring the OpenStreetMap Economy

[SteveC]

On Sep 23, 2010, at 9:43 AM, Nic Roets wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:05 PM, SteveC  wrote:
>> Once you have the criteria of what goes in to the measuring pot of the "OSM 
>> economy" you further have large error bars on the data for each thing. For 
>> example, are those freelancers going to tell you what kind of money they're 
>> making?
> 
> It's almost pointless to count actual revenue. The reason why no one
> started a new competitor to NA / TA in the mid-noughties, was that the
> intense competition would reduce revenue making it unprofitable. (Ok
> Google started to compete with NA / TA, but they cleverly combined it
> with other things like streetview).

I disagree. The lack of competition is the sunk capital in creating the map. 
There's lots of room for a third player, and some people tried. But the cost of 
mapping the whole US or Europe is large, and the risks high. 


> 
> Most open source / open content projects are a bit like a security
> guard or an external auditor. If all goes well, it will appear to
> casual observers that their only function is to consume oxygen. But
> take them away and you get chaos.
> 
> A better exercise would be to take the page rank of osm.org and
> compare it with the market cap of a website with the same page rank.

Now that's a neat idea.

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

[OSM-talk] Measuring the OpenStreetMap Economy

[SteveC]

When I see announcements flying around like MapQuests $1M commitment to OSM, or 
CloudMades $12M VC round it begs the question of how big is the OSM economy?

Purely as an academic exercise it's interesting to think of OSM as an ecosystem 
around which people find work and provide goods and services. But also perhaps 
it would be a nice exponential graph to show as a slide along with user growth.

We have some limit cases. In 2004 when founded, the economy was approximately 
zero. Or was it? Do we measure volunteer hours? How about the power and 
bandwidth the servers are burning? Or is that negligible compared to the other 
large numbers thrown around?

Today I would estimate we have about 5 people freelancing on OSM work 
worldwide. Perhaps 50 that do OSM work as part of their job, say writing a 
plugin or using the data. Full-time employees working explicitly on OSM? 
Perhaps 50 again. These are all guesses with some rough education behind them. 
These numbers would probably follow the kind of growth curves that various 
projects around linux did, rather than wikipedia I'm guessing. Because 
wikipedia was much more about the destruction of value around britannica and 
others, and the secondary service and otherwise market around wikipedia is 
pretty small (I think?). Unless you count MediaWiki itself.

Once you have the criteria of what goes in to the measuring pot of the "OSM 
economy" you further have large error bars on the data for each thing. For 
example, are those freelancers going to tell you what kind of money they're 
making?

Still, an interesting thought exercise.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Exceeded API bandwidth limit, now what?

[SteveC]

On Sep 14, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Michal Migurski wrote:

> On Sep 14, 2010, at 12:06 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Michal Migurski wrote:
>>> I'm downloading London, in small sections. I just exceeded my API bandwidth 
>>> limit.
>> 
>> Get
>> 
>> http://download.geofabrik.de/osm/europe/great_britain/england.osm.bz2
>> 
>> then do
>> 
>> bzcat england.osm.bz2 | time osmosis --rx - --bb left=-.6 bottom=51.3 
>> right=.4 top=51.7 --wx london.osm
>> 
>> (or whatever "London" is for you).
> 
> Thanks guys. I understand about the extracts, I've used them extensively for 
> years.
> 
> I'm experimenting with a way to get at smaller areas of OSM data (generally 
> city-sized) for a possible update to http://tiledrawer.com, and I'm hoping to 
> understand how to both work within the API limitations and be able to 
> piecemeal together a town-sized area without requiring end-users to deal with 
> bzip files or osm2pgsql on their own.
> 
> The code I'm developing is here:
>   
> http://github.com/migurski/TileStache/blob/osm-mirror/TileStache/Goodies/Providers/MirrorOSM.py
> 
> It's a provider class for Tilestache that mirrors OSM on a tile-by-tile basis.
> 
> Is there any interest here in publishing the OSM API via tile-like URLs? For 
> example, being able to make a request like this to pull a chunk of bounded 
> XML cached out of the OSM API:
>   http://tile.openstreetmap.org/14/2627/6331.xml  < note "xml" on the 
> end
> 
> The advantages with this should be plainly obvious: a source of data that's 
> trivially cacheable, on the order of hours-to-days old, and available for 
> specific areas of the world, without the massive download and parse overhead 
> of OSM extracts.

Can't you do the hours-to-days old with diffs or your own api server based on 
diffs? The key is that it's out of band of the main API. Granted you appear to 
be breaking new ground here - perhaps what you *really* want to work on is 
something like tiledrawer - where tiledraw wakes up on an ec2 image, grabs data 
and begins rendering tiles (from my limited knowledge) - you want APIdrawer 
which wakes up and starts serving an up to date read-only API automatically? 
For use with tilestache clients on the net, or whatever.

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

[OSM-talk] list of OSM use by commercial entities

[SteveC]

I've been asked a few times for examples of companies that are using OSM and as 
the list keeps getting longer I keep forgetting examples. Anyone fancy setting 
up a wiki page to keep a track of them?

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions

[SteveC]

Did you read the minutes where all the CT issues are being discussed?

Have fun,

Steve | stevecoast.com

On Sep 3, 2010, at 3:03 AM, Simon Ward  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 12:39:11PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
>> On 09/02/2010 11:24 AM, TimSC wrote:
> 
>>> 1) How is the future direction of OSM determined? Community consensus?
>>> OSMF committees with OSMF votes? Something else?
>> 
>> Consensus decision making doesn't mean a 100% plebiscite vote or
>> minority veto power. It means an honest attempt to converge on a
>> compromise. Given this, the ODbL does represent community consensus.
>> It represents a compromise between many different ideological
>> positions present in the community around the norms that have
>> emerged in discussion over the years.
> 
> I don’t see much compromise happening from OSMF on the contributor
> terms.  There is a very small amount, but OSMF seems to want to stick as
> close to what they have, with no chance of what they consider a
> significant change.
> 
> The contributor terms are now the sticking point for many people against
> the ODbL+DbCL+CT combination, and these are not just people against a
> licence change from CC by-sa, but people who are in principle happy with
> the licence change.
> 
> These contributor terms define a large part of how the future direction
> of OSM may be determined.
> 
> Simon
> -- 
> A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
> simple system that works.—John Gall
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Waze and OSM in Chile

[SteveC]

Awesome.

As I said on opengeodata - this is a cool example of a firm taking swift action 
on an unintended problem and working well with a community. +1 to waze.

Steve

stevecoast.com


On Aug 31, 2010, at 3:33 PM, Noam Bardin wrote:
> Guys,
> we saw your post on Chile (thanks for letting us know).  We investigated it 
> with our partner in Latin America and discovered a data source who has been 
> infringing on OSM data.  We have taken immediate action by removing all data 
> from that source while our partner investigates further.
> 
> Please see our apology at 
> http://www.waze.com/blog/thanks-and-huge-apology-to-the-openstreetmap-community/.
> 
> Noam
> 
> -- 
> Noam Bardin
> CEO Waze
> www.twitter.com/noamb11
> 
> ___
> 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] Waze using OSM Data

[SteveC]

I have pinged waze with this.

Have fun,

Steve | stevecoast.com

On Aug 31, 2010, at 10:11 AM, Julio Costa Zambelli 
 wrote:

> Last night in the process of responding some comments to our GPS
> selling campaign
> (http://www.fayerwayer.com/2010/08/chile-compra-un-gps-barato-y-ayuda-a-openstreetmap/)
> (The goals being to buy a lot of Data Loggers and a server for the
> local community) I found out that Waze is using OSM for its map here
> in Chile and not giving any kind of attribution, is it the same
> anywhere else? Is it a known fact that they are using OSM Data and not
> giving any kind of credit to the community?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> ___
> 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] iPad app

[SteveC]

awesome :-)

Am Aug 23, 2010 um 12:36 AM schrieb Zsombor Szabó:

> Steve,
> 
> OpenMaps for iOS has already some great tag editing and node creating 
> features, but, as hinted in some of our support responses to our users, we 
> are working on a full-featured OSM editor. I can't tell a deadline yet when 
> it will be available, but soon. The best part: it will be free.
> 
> Best regards,
> Zsombor Szabo
> IZE, Ltd.
> 
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 21:30, SteveC  wrote:
> I keep thinking an editing app for the 3G / wifi iPad would be awesome. It's 
> always on the network, GPS and compass are built in.
> 
> It would be a sweet surveying device, but would have to be super fault 
> tolerant in doing things like waiting for the network.
> 
> Steve
> 
> stevecoast.com
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

[OSM-talk] Moderation

[SteveC]

talk@ is not the place for acrimonious posts about the license like this

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-August/053323.html

Both sides have had their say in the "Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 
2.0continuation" thread.

Please, when responding to that thread now move to legal-talk@

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] iPad app

[SteveC]

The problem with a remote app is that connectivity will really, really suck 
while you're out wandering around with an ipad. You'll be hopping cell towers, 
going on to broken wifi networks and half the time things will be very slow or 
timeout. It strikes me it'll be easier to handle all that in a native app than 
JS, but feel free to prove me wrong.


On Aug 21, 2010, at 10:09 AM, bernhard zwischenbrugger wrote:

> Am 20.08.10 21:17, schrieb John Smith:
>> On 21 August 2010 05:12, bernhard zwischenbrugger  
>> wrote:
>>   
>>> But editing with a touchscreen is not easy.
>>> How to set a point using a finger?
>>> If you put the finger to the screen, you don't see where the point is set.
>>> The finger covers the point and it can't be exact.
>>> 
>>> Any idea how to solve this problem?
>>> 
>> Cross hairs on the screen and then move the screen/cross hairs to the
>> place you really wanted it to be...
>>   
> I started to make an html vector editor. It's a really early prototype and 
> maybe it will not work on all platforms:
> 
> http://www.khtml.org/osm/v0.79/examples/edit.html
> 
> The base map (http://khtml.org) should work on iPad (incl. multitouch) but I 
> don't have an iPad and could only test on iPhone.
> For vector editing I didn't add touch support but mouse events are supported 
> for move nodes.
> It uses SVG and on Android it will not work - there is no SVG on Android.
> 
> The crosshair idea is really good, but solves only one part of the UI.
> 
> The userinterface for Android and iPad/iPhone can't be the same.
> Android does not support multitouch.
> 
> Maybe someone could draw a userinterface.
> 
> 
> Bernhard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

[OSM-talk] iPad app

[SteveC]

I keep thinking an editing app for the 3G / wifi iPad would be awesome. It's 
always on the network, GPS and compass are built in.

It would be a sweet surveying device, but would have to be super fault tolerant 
in doing things like waiting for the network.

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] I quit

[SteveC]

I didn't mean to - I was discussing the legal CT stuff on legal-talk, I thought 
I dropped the talk@ in the to: unless someone else put it in there?


On Aug 19, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Chris Hill wrote:

> OK, this stupidity has gone too far.
> 
> Now the 'moderator' is arguing with the trolls on a 'moderated' list.
> 
> I quit this list.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers, Chris
> user: chillly
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

[OSM-talk] moderation going forward

[SteveC]

The list has become sane again, and I've not had to use any Evil Powers.

But, is this what you want going forward?

My own inclination is that list moderators are elected per list for, say, a one 
year period. But I suspect that finding people who want to be a moderator might 
be hard.

Thoughts?

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

[OSM-talk] Legal discussion on talk@

[SteveC]

Please move all legal discussion (except announcements of course) to

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

or

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-general

Steve

stevecoast.com

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

Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL & Moderation

[SteveC]

I agree with all Andy said.

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Aug 11, 2010, at 5:05 PM, Andy Allan  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:29 PM, steve brown  
> wrote:
>> Hey
>> 
>> As BFDL, do you still want a Code of Conduct, or does your wiki page
>> suffice? I'm happy to abandon it and get back to coding if it's not
>> needed in the new system of "dictatorship" (which I support).
>> 
>> I've updated it to merge in various changes suggested by people, and
>> especially lots of stuff stolen from the great US version.
> 
> The code of conduct is great, and I'd love to see you work on it
> further. I'd like see the community looking after itself, with a
> sensible escalation path.
> 
> self control > common sense > advice from peers > guidelines >
> policies > 'official' warnings > interventions > backstop
> 
> What we've come to recently is the final five steps have been pretty
> much non-existent, and things have broken down when the advice from
> peers isn't being taken on board. Hopefully very few people need to
> even get as far as requiring written guidelines on etiquette, but I
> guess it turns out we need them. Your code of conduct would play an
> important part of the guidelines / policies level.
> 
> Steve has basically made himself backstop. All the things that come in
> front are more important to work on and get right, but at least now
> the buck has somewhere to (eventually) stop. I'd hope that nothing
> ever gets escalated that far though.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
> 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL & Moderation

[SteveC]

On Aug 11, 2010, at 12:41 PM, Al Haraka wrote:

> Steve,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:26 PM, SteveC  wrote:
>> I plan only to moderate people (for 24 hours) after taking a poll of key 
>> people including Andy Allan, Matt Amos, Katie Filbert, Tom Hughes, Emilie 
>> Laffray, Frederik Ramm, Ivan Sanchez, Grant Slater and Richard Weait. If you 
>> think more than these would be good then let me know. Any moderation will be 
>> announced to those people I just mentioned, and not publicly. Why not 
>> publicly? On balance, it seems better to not call out individuals publicly 
>> which might only make things worse and make them feel more upset, which is 
>> not the purpose of a 'cooling off' period. Any one of those people I 
>> announce it to could announce it publicly if they want to.
>> 
>> I am happy to listen to a different panel, if one constitutes itself. If I 
>> have full confidence in said panel, I'll consider handing over the power and 
>> stepping back.
> 
> A question in the interest of transparency: will you be publicly
> *documenting* when a person is locked out for a period?  I completely
> understand not calling the person out publicly on the list, but will
> you keep a record on the wiki or something (I am not so picky on the
> actual form of documentation) of who in this group voted on locking
> out a particular user and the specific reason?  I know, I know, that
> is more s*** people need to do, and really do not want to.  I ask
> because I see a need to keep this very transparent to not feed into a
> user's impression that they are being bounced for thinking
> differently, not misbehaving (whether or not I agree, I would like to
> know why).

I agree on the transparency, but like you I'm not sure how to do it thought the 
way you outline is reasonable. Anyone know how other projects do it? How did 
subversion do it?

> 
> That is all.
> 
> Regards,
> _AJS
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

[OSM-talk] BDFL & Moderation

[SteveC]

Despite the discussion resulting from my post yesterday, there continue to be 
individuals on the talk@ mailing list disrupting the community.

I would personally like to reach out to John Smith as one of the people who 
seems to have cooled off, and thank you.

I have posted Andy's draft etiquette to the wiki

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Etiquette

Specifically, I point to the basics of mailing list etiquette:

Mailing Lists
• Assume good faith
• Stay on topic
• No conspiracy theories
• No grandstanding
• If you've made your point already, you don't need to tell us all again
• Nitpicking doesn't help you or anyone else
• Learn to live with the reply-to setting. We're not changing it, no 
matter what your opinion is and so on.

Having had deep discussions with many key people in OSM, asked for their advice 
and direction, I reluctantly appoint myself Benevolent Dictator For Life.

As BDFL, I hereby give warning that in 24 hours time I will begin enforcing 
these etiquette guidelines. Specifically, anyone who continuously and 
deliberately breaks the guidelines, despite warnings, will be moderated off the 
list for a 24 hour 'cooling off' period. If after this cooling off period, 
further continuous and deliberate breaches occur, despite warnings, additional 
cooling off periods will be enacted growing exponentially with each time. For 
example, 24 hours cooling off, then further breaches, then 48 hours cooling 
off, then further breaches, then 96 hours and so on.

This is not about squashing dissent. If you disagree with others license 
opinions, legal-talk is there for you. If you want to join a Working Group, you 
still can. If you want to create a PD OSM project, you have all the source and 
mailing lists are freely available around the web.

This is purely about restoring the mutual respect and balance of the talk@ 
mailing list, and not allowing a few to disrupt the main channel of 
communication to the point where the vast majority no longer find discussion 
worthwhile.

I plan only to moderate people (for 24 hours) after taking a poll of key people 
including Andy Allan, Matt Amos, Katie Filbert, Tom Hughes, Emilie Laffray, 
Frederik Ramm, Ivan Sanchez, Grant Slater and Richard Weait. If you think more 
than these would be good then let me know. Any moderation will be announced to 
those people I just mentioned, and not publicly. Why not publicly? On balance, 
it seems better to not call out individuals publicly which might only make 
things worse and make them feel more upset, which is not the purpose of a 
'cooling off' period. Any one of those people I announce it to could announce 
it publicly if they want to.

I am happy to listen to a different panel, if one constitutes itself. If I have 
full confidence in said panel, I'll consider handing over the power and 
stepping back.

As BDFL I still have limits upon my power. You can vote me out of the OSMF. You 
can convince the server team to change the mailman password so I can no longer 
moderate. I am also imposing a self-limiting, four week (28 day) period 
starting from when this warning period ends (in 24 hours) whereby, if I don't 
exercise my BDFL powers during that time, I will step back.
 
So, please, have a think about what and where you are posting, and lets make 
talk@ a nice place to be again.

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[SteveC]

On Aug 10, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Simon Ward wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 02:50:26PM -0600, SteveC wrote:
>> Someone mentioned that in addition there should be some topic
>> guidelines per mailing list too, eg newbies@ should not be a debate
>> list but a questions list... should we add that in too? I think that
>> will be super helpful.
> 
> I think this should be a general code of conduct, and each list can have
> its own additional guidelines in the list info page, or linked from it.
> The topic of the list should be there already. :)

Maybe a line saying "mailing list posts should follow the topic of the list"

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[SteveC]

thanks steve

Someone mentioned that in addition there should be some topic guidelines per 
mailing list too, eg newbies@ should not be a debate list but a questions 
list... should we add that in too? I think that will be super helpful.

On Aug 10, 2010, at 2:29 PM, steve brown wrote:

> Forgot the link. http://openetherpad.org/h2MuQYeCRP
> 
> On 10 August 2010 21:29, steve brown  wrote:
>> Hey
>> 
>> I've drafted a potential "OpenStreetMap Community Conduct" page -
>> would people suggest any changes? And more importantly, to all people
>> who have already commented or started this thread, would you sign and
>> abide to this code?
>> 
>> If you do suggest changes, just go ahead and make them on the page
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Steve
>> 
>> On 10 August 2010 21:23, F. Heinen  wrote:
>>> TimSC
>>> I agree he is only talking about how the discussion should be conducted but
>>> OSM needs both. If the project definition is unclear then the discussions
>>> will also be unclear. The license change is IMHO one of these issues. It is
>>> not about wrong or right but about
>>> being clear what the intended goals are and why.
>>> 
>>> 2010/8/10 TimSC 
>>>> 
>>>> On 10/08/10 20:40, F. Heinen wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> You can have very valid points and be very right but if the guidelines
>>>>> tell that the project is defined "red" and you think "blue" is better then
>>>>> when you making this point time after time then you can be defined as
>>>>> poisonous (even though you can even be right) as you are draining the
>>>>> community.
>>>> 
>>>> What are you talking about? The guidelines SteveC proposed are to moderate
>>>> how the discussion should be conducted, not how the project is defined!
>>>> 
>>>> TimSC
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> talk mailing list
>>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[SteveC]

On Aug 10, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Dave F. wrote:

> On 10/08/2010 19:13, SteveC wrote:
>> Interesting statistics:
>> 
>>  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Aude/osmtalk
> 
> What does that prove?
> 
> verbosity *doesn't* equate to disruption.

Interestingly the talk I linked to makes the exact opposite case, even when 
people are posting hundreds of very nice emails.

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[SteveC]

On Aug 10, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Peter Körner wrote:

> 
> 
> Am 10.08.2010 18:59, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
>> Personally I think this idea of labeling people as poisonous is itself
>> poisonous, and anyone who agrees with it is at least slightly poisonous.
> 
> It's the dose that makes the poison, and when a very loud but small number of 
> people are very poisonous, I'd welcome a slightly poisonous move from Steve 
> to get rid of them.
> 
> In a wealthy community this move would be poison but it seems, that the OSM 
> community is somehow ill (Steve called it infected) and needs some kind of 
> Chemotherapy. Sure, that's poison, too.

Interesting statistics:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Aude/osmtalk

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

[OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[SteveC]

OSM is mostly a consensus-based community, or a do-ocracy. It was never a 
benevolent dictatorship, and I have given up (as far as I know, anyway) all 
power I have in OSM. I used to write the code, own the domain names, run the 
mailing list(s), run the servers, evangelize, talk to the press and so on. I've 
successively and successfully given up those rights to very capable 
individuals. However this has led to a power vacuum when it comes to making 
some key decisions because nobody, for example and in a sense, is "in charge" 
of everything. For the most part I've enjoyed giving up control and seeing the 
project blossom, because it wouldn't have if I hadn't.

However, things break down in a consensus-based community if you don't have a 
way to deal with malcontents.

As background to the topic of this post, there is a nice video on how open 
source projects can survive poisonous people on youtube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE

It's about an hour long so I've provided a summary I made while watching it 
again at the bottom of this post. It's thesis is that you need to understand 
the problem of poisonous people, fortify your project against them, identify 
who they are and ultimately remove them.

The talk above identifies people who are poisonous as those who appear with 
traits (amongst others) of obviousness that they will suck and drain your time, 
use silly nicknames/email addresses, are hostile, make demands and blackmail 
threats, make sweeping claims, refuse to acknowledge reasoned argument, make 
accusations of conspiracy and reopen topics continuously.

One quote from the talk in particular comes to mind: "it's a technique that 
poisonous people can use to derail a consensus-based community from actually 
achieving consensus. You have this noisy minority make a lot of noise and 
people look and say 'oh wow there is no agreement on this' and if you look 
carefull the 'no agreement' comes from one person while seven or eight people 
actually agree"

With that in mind, take a quick look at the recent discussions on the main 
mailing list link. I won't point to an individual thread or post, it's easy 
enough to figure out:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-August/thread.html

Without discussing the individuals or the topics of the conversations, it is 
clear to me we are infected by poisonous people. This is bad because as the 
talk above specifies in the 'comprehension of the problem' section, such people 
distract, drain, paralyze, slow cause needless infighting and destroy the 
attention and focus of a community.

I know this first hand. Many (if not most or all) of the key people in OSM are 
feeling drained, distracted and upset. Some are talking of hiatus or resign. 
These are the key people who write code, build things, maintain things and run 
our working groups.

There is a tipping point between which our working groups and individuals have 
the time and patience to deal with poisonous people and the work they cherish 
doing, which are the things that make OSM work every day.

The discussions have spilled over now from poisonous people merely making life 
difficult on the mailing list, to paralyzing the project and even 
systematically corrupting the data we serve out using bots. This is not to say 
there are not good points in the discussion, good points being dealt with by 
the License Working Group or others either in meetings or on the mailing lists, 
but these are being buried by poisonous people on the mailing list and 
elsewhere. Personal communication from multiple people, public discussion, 
phone calls and more have been tried without effect.

This destroys consensus-baesd community.

So we are at a point now in OSM, I believe, where a few poisonous people are 
wrecking the time, focus and goodwill of the majority of contributors, creating 
dissent out of nothing and even purposefully breaking our data. And we don't 
have a clear process to deal with all the factors. The Data Working Group is 
one piece of the puzzle, but is not responsible for curtailing the mailing list 
going in infinite circles.

Worse - it's giving the project a bad air to outsiders, both newbies and those 
outside the project. It's stopping people from becoming more involved.

Thus we need some kind of process for calling timeout on people in the project, 
blocking them for a limited time. This could range from electing individual 
mailing list admins with a remit of when to shut down discussions (much like an 
IRC chat admin(s)), to more clear and actioned policies on list etiquette (like 
forcibly keeping legal discussion to the legal list), to an ejection committee 
to me just appointing myself benevolent dictator and blocking people for a 
limited time out cooling off period based on advice from the community (a worst 
case option I'd like to avoid).

Let's be clear - we've tried all the nice things. We've sent nice emails. We've 
sent nice emails pr

Re: [OSM-talk] Revert requests in general

[SteveC]

On Aug 6, 2010, at 4:21 PM, John Smith wrote:

> On 7 August 2010 03:14, SteveC  wrote:
>> If they have several orders of magnitude more money then probably the 
>> cost/benefit tradeoff would suggest throwing out the data is the better 
>> option.
> 
> Even wikipedia doesn't take that attitude, they're currently being
> threatened by the FBI over a SVG image.

How much money does the wikimedia foundation have?

How much money does OSMF have?

At a guess, they have approximately 1,000 times our resources.

Therefore, they have more hope in a fight like that.

I'm not saying that's how it should be forever, or it's a wonderful situation, 
I'm just pointing out the realities of where we are right now.

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Revert requests in general

[SteveC]

On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:09 AM, John Smith wrote:

> On 7 August 2010 03:04, SteveC  wrote:
>> Sounds like you've never been to court. Who's right or wrong is a secondary 
>> consideration here, the first order of magnitude issue is who has more 
>> money. We lose on that one.
> 
> So basically anyone can make any copyright claim they like and OSM
> will throw out data rather than risk going to court over the matter?

If they have several orders of magnitude more money then probably the 
cost/benefit tradeoff would suggest throwing out the data is the better option.

Of course you could envisage entirely frivolous claims or losing huge amounts 
of data, but I suspect it would more be a list of 10-100 users and a relatively 
small set of data. Losing that compared to an injunction shutting down OSM 
(which would be an early step if we didn't comply, as we're the publisher of 
the data and safe harbor would be argued against) I'd pick lose the data.

Of course, IANAL. I've just taken people to court for copyright infringement in 
the past.

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Revert requests in general

[SteveC]

On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Ed Avis wrote:

> SteveC  asklater.com> writes:
> 
>> The reason is pretty simple - the first line of copyright defense if we get 
>> an
>> email from TeleAtlas Legal saying 'user NearMap copied our data' is that we
>> will remove _all_ NearMap data.
> 
> Wouldn't you tell them to get lost, since copyright doesn't apply to map data,
> etc etc?

Sounds like you've never been to court. Who's right or wrong is a secondary 
consideration here, the first order of magnitude issue is who has more money. 
We lose on that one.

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

[SteveC]

On Aug 5, 2010, at 7:36 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> 
> Anthony wrote:
>> And who told you that OSM is a collection of unoriginal facts?
> 
> I did, last time I did some mapping. I faithfully recorded where the paths,
> gates and stiles were, rather than pulling some fictitious locations out of
> my ass.
> 
> I realise that you've been far too busy trolling the mailing lists this year
> to actually do much mapping, given that
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Anthony%20/edits shows the grand total of
> six tiny edits in the last six months. But, you know, some of us are in this
> project to make a map, not just for the mailing list lulz.

Silly RichardF with his 'facts'. We all know rumor and speculation are more 
important.

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

[SteveC]

On Aug 5, 2010, at 7:23 AM, John Smith wrote:

> On 5 August 2010 22:44, SteveC  wrote:
>> Oh and BTW this exact dragging on is why I suggested we bound the problem by 
>> signing up new users - so the problem doesn't grow every day with more and 
>> more people.
> 
> But that has it's own issues, now any new users are limited as to what
> data sources they can use, even if those data sources are ODBL
> compatible.

This entire process is a series of choices between 'not great' or 'not 
brilliant'. There are no decisions, I think, which the LWG has which won't have 
their own issues.

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

[SteveC]

On Aug 5, 2010, at 7:22 AM, John Smith wrote:

> On 5 August 2010 22:43, SteveC  wrote:
>> I agree, FUD isn't fun. But it's you and a couple of others having a 
>> significant time sink effect on the people trying to move it forward.
> 
> I'm not the one that came up with ambiguous wording for the new CTs
> that makes a lot of the current data incompatible... At least plant
> the blame on those trying to push through PD onto everyone else, you
> seem to be pro-SA so why are others getting more of a say in this?

As in, why is the PD camp so loud here?

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

[SteveC]

On Aug 5, 2010, at 7:13 AM, Anthony wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:25 AM, John Smith  wrote:
>> You essentially have 2 camps here, the pragmatists who think anything
>> but minor data loss is unacceptable, and you have the idealists who
>> think even if we loose a most of data people will just put new "freer"
>> data back in and we'll be able to then license under the most freest
>> license possible so there is no restrictions at all on anything ever
>> again.
> 
> So why can't the latter camp just start a new project from scratch?

That's what I said

> They'd probably have caught up by now.

I'm far more doubtful of that

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Revert requests in general

[SteveC]

Ben if I read this right then you're hiding the users from OSM and we'll see a 
stream of edits from NearMap which are actually from multiple users. This is 
why CM/matt/others built the OAuth code so that mapzen etc didn't do that, 
because it's horrific.

The reason is pretty simple - the first line of copyright defense if we get an 
email from TeleAtlas Legal saying 'user NearMap copied our data' is that we 
will remove _all_ NearMap data. We don't have many other options as we don't 
have any money to fight and we are the infringer as the publisher. If you don't 
believe me, go ask a lawyer.

There are lots of other reasons. I suggest you rethink.

Steve

stevecoast.com



On Aug 5, 2010, at 1:13 AM, Ben Last wrote:

> On 5 August 2010 14:44, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> You're trying to remove two "barriers" at the same time, both quite unrelated:
> 1. The barrier of users having to sign up to OSM;
> 2. The barrier of a (supposedly) complicated editing process.
> An interesting take on it :)  But I disagree that these are not related.  
> Right now, you need to do 1 in order to do any edits, so it's not negotiable. 
>  So you can't implement a better editor without users facing the barrier of 
> signup.  We could build a better editor for users who are already signed up 
> with OSM, but that's a very small subset of the user population we're aimed 
> at, and I'm not sure that most OSM users want a simpler editor.
> 
> Think of it as a use case; someone is happily using NearMap and finds that a 
> street they know well isn't named (this happens a lot).  All they want is to 
> be able to quickly fix that.  At that point in time, from their point of 
> view, given that this is almost certainly a side-issue to whatever they're 
> trying to do, the signup barrier is a really big deal.  They don't care about 
> OSM, they don't care about mapping, they don't want to join an OSM community. 
>  We have a small window of opportunity to have them help out before they lose 
> interest and motivation.  So our starting point is that it has to be as easy 
> as possible for them to contribute.
>  
> If we at OSM had an editor available that was easier than everything else we 
> can offer, we'd surely have put it up on the web site some time ago - but we 
> don't have one. So your effort and money on that front are surely welcome.
> Actually... I'm not sure you would :)  My reasoning is thus; OSM members are 
> interested in mapping, and relish the power of JOSM or Potlatch (I do 
> myself).  You don't want a simpler editor, you want one that helps you do OSM 
> mapping.  The motivations and interests of the "average user" community are 
> very different, and that drives the definition of "easier".
>   
> I think the problem with your suggestion is that you're offering your help 
> only in the form of a package (1+2).
> That's true; we do have valid reasons for doing that (well, we think they're 
> valid).  We can't solve 1, because we don't run the OSM website, nor is there 
> a defined way in which we can help users sign up with some degree of 
> assurance that someone won't rework openstreetmap.org and break integration 
> with our site.  We can do something to solve 2, but as expressed above, we 
> see 1 as a big barrier.  If, as you suggest, there were a way to use openid 
> so that the OSM site could authenticate against our user database (or any 
> other openid one), then it wouldn't even be an issue; we'd just submit edits 
> with openid authentication.  Or build a Facebook app so that both OSM and 
> NearMap could let a user sign in with their Facebook credentials :)  I can 
> hear some people cringing, but there's a much bigger percentage of our users 
> who are on Facebook than are on OSM.
>  
> Yes there would be an added burden for your users if you dropped "1", but 
> would that really be such a problem? One signup page, one E-Mail 
> confirmation, and then click "ok" for the OAuth page. How often does the 
> modern Internet user do that every day?
> Given enough motivation, sure, people will sign up.  But if the only reason 
> for signing up is to fix something that they think should be right in the 
> first place... not so much.
>  
> If you were to decide to actually send your users to create an account with 
> OSM, you'd also be saving time because you would no longer have to be the 
> middle man in community communication. And if this is a factor for you, you 
> could still retain whatever rights you want on the content submitted by the 
> user, by way of their agreement with NearMap.
> We save ourselves time at the expense of making it more work for our users.  
> Not really what we want to do.  We're not interested in rights in the edits 
> (in fact, we have some rights anyway because those edits are derived from our 
> PhotoMaps and therefore we must be able to use them under CC-BY-SA).  The 
> primary motivation here is to make the OSM data more usable, as fast as 
> possible.
> 
> But having said th

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing "free and open license"

[SteveC]

That's really for the LWG to answer...

On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:55 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> 2010/7/19 SteveC :
> 
>> Can you restate the question as I don't have mail archives etc here (on my 
>> phone)
> 
> Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause
> as requirement for any new open and free license in CT point 3. It
> would help to ease problems with big data contributors which could
> agree with ODBL (as it still have SA and Attribution), but are uneasy
> about clarification of point 3 in CT.
> 
> Already thanks for answer,
> cheers,
> Peter.
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

[SteveC]

On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:43 AM, John Smith wrote:

> On 20 July 2010 10:38, SteveC  wrote:
>>> I'm left wondering if this problem is being over "engineered" by lawyers...
>> 
>> Go ask on odc-discuss?
> 
> Is there much point if I'm only likely to get a biased answer?

You're right, much better to publicly bitch than to make an effort and ask them 
a simple question huh?

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing "free and open license"

[SteveC]

On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:20 AM, Liz wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, SteveC wrote:
>> From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email
>> and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone
>> else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on
>> with the license.
> 
> quash all discussion, move it out of sight, and proceed?

Yes, quash all the discussion on 4 public mailing lists, don't have any public 
phone calls, don't have any consultation periods or working groups that anyone 
can join, don't have public minutes, don't convince large legal firms to donate 
time and effort. Keep the license all to ourselves rather than support it being 
hosted externally by OKFN.

Yes, we've really clamped down on all that discussion so we can proceed!

Tell me Liz, have you contributed anything positive to this entire process, 
ever, in any way?

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing "free and open license"

[SteveC]

We did have a vote, remember? You just disagree with the outcome an the remit 
the OSMF has.

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:31 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> 
> On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 
> > On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> >> And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
> >> want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
> >> or two years, "two thirds of active contributors" will be a greater number
> >> of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're
> >> the minority ;)
> >
> > I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
> > employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out
> > right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will
> > have been in vein exactly?
> 
> I think you're overblowing the numbers here with 'risking a out right 
> rejection'. 200,000 people, or whatever, will be asked about the ODbL under 
> the plan, and there are about 20 people here slugging it out. From my 
> experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email and in 
> person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone else who'd 
> prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on with the 
> license.
> 
> So why are you afraid of putting it to a vote?
> 
> Why have you felt the need to coerce 30,000 newbies by not giving them a 
> choice?  Not, even linking to the license that they are being asked to agree 
> to?
> 
> My experience off list is clearly different to yours.
> 
> 80n
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Steve
> 
> stevecoast.com
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing "free and open license"

[SteveC]

Come on that wasn't a flame - now any reasonable point is a flame?

Can you restate the question as I don't have mail archives etc here (on my 
phone)

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:30 PM, Peteris Krisjanis  wrote:

> 2010/7/19 SteveC :
>> 
>> On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
>> 
>>> On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>>>> And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
>>>> want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
>>>> or two years, "two thirds of active contributors" will be a greater number
>>>> of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're
>>>> the minority ;)
>>> 
>>> I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
>>> employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out
>>> right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will
>>> have been in vein exactly?
>> 
>> I think you're overblowing the numbers here with 'risking a out right 
>> rejection'. 200,000 people, or whatever, will be asked about the ODbL under 
>> the plan, and there are about 20 people here slugging it out. From my 
>> experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email and in 
>> person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone else who'd 
>> prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on with the 
>> license.
> 
> Steve, can you instead of flaming back give me stright answer what do
> you think about suggestion I mentioned in the first post of this
> thread?
> 
> Already thanks for answer,
> Cheers,
> Peter.
> 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing "free and open license"

[SteveC]

On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:

> On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>> And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
>> want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
>> or two years, "two thirds of active contributors" will be a greater number
>> of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're
>> the minority ;)
> 
> I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
> employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out
> right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will
> have been in vein exactly?

I think you're overblowing the numbers here with 'risking a out right 
rejection'. 200,000 people, or whatever, will be asked about the ODbL under the 
plan, and there are about 20 people here slugging it out. From my experience 
off list with all the people frustrated both in email and in person, those 20 
or so people here just don't represent everyone else who'd prefer all this 
discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on with the license.

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?

[SteveC]

On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:53 PM, Anthony wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> It seems to me that Steve's post is not just a harmless rant, but
> contains an implication, whether purposeful or not, that some mappers,
> namely stay-at-home sons (and daughters?), are less equal than others.
> Perhaps this should not merely be implied, but written out in the
> bylaws.
> 
> I thought it was just a mindless attack, since I'm currently a stay-at-home 
> father, not a stay-at-home son, and I don't even have a basement.  When facts 
> aren't on his side, SteveC likes to make up false shit and start hurling it 
> around.  Par for the course and not very surprising.

Oh bollocks, you just want to be able to throw insults my way and not have me 
respond. If I respond in kind then you act surprised and upset and try to hide 
the fact that you were the one throwing insults in the first place.

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?

[SteveC]

Where is all this bitterness and anger coming from 80n? You took everything I 
said and twisted it 180 degrees. Gun to your head? I'm not even on the LWG. 
Quashing discussion? All I said is maybe we could be nicer to people in the LWG.

There are a hundred ways you could contribute meaningfully to this and yet you 
pick bitter dissent. That's not the 80n I remember, where's it coming from?

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:17 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:29 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> 
> On Jul 17, 2010, at 12:06 PM, 80n wrote:
> > In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license out of ignorance. 
> > Shit happens.
> >
> > Yeah, shit happens, OSM becomes outrageously successful and nobody abuses 
> > the spirit of the license.  What kind of shit is that?
> 
> People abuse it all the time, cf Nike and many others.
> 
> I'm not surprised it's low level anyway right now, the amount of abuse will 
> be a function of the completeness of the data. We're not really a routable 
> dataset just yet and most of the planet is missing address data. As we 
> approach these points fast, the amount of abuse will go up with it.
> 
> And how will ODbL stop that?  Nike hasn't taken any notice of CC-BY-SA and 
> presumably wouldn't have taken any notice of ODbL either.  I suppose you 
> could argue that what they did would be permitted under ODbL, but that's a 
> slightly different argument.  Your point was that the ODbL would somehow stop 
> license abuse.
> 
>  
> Anyway. Let me make two points:
> 
> My take on the idea of having a vote on whether we'd theoretically move to 
> the ODbL so long as everyone else does... is that it's basically just a vote 
> on whether to have a vote. It's also without any consequences.
> 
> The consequences part: Because nothing will really happen either way if the 
> majority of this proposed step vote yes or no, that means that the incentives 
> to vote yes or no are vastly different than saying yes or no to the actual 
> license change. That means that people will vote differently and perhaps to 
> the extent that it will be uncorrelated with an actual license change 
> decision. In other words, your reasons for voting yes or no 'theoretically' 
> are very different to voting yes or no in actuality. If anyone here has a 
> degree in economics or psychology they'd be able to wave around all kinds of 
> textbooks showing how hard it is to measure things like this when you have no 
> real incentives - for example asking people if they'd pay for and go to a gym 
> to get fit - we all know people say they'd like to do those things and never 
> do.
> 
> Indeed.  That is the whole point of having such a vote.  It allows people to 
> express an unbiased view rather than being presented with an ultimatum.  It's 
> long been a criticism that the license change proposal is a gun to head.  The 
> LWG has chosen not to take any notice of that.  No wonder there's an outcry 
> at each step in the process.  Please, put the gun away.
>  
> 
> Based on the theoretical vote being wildly inaccurate and also not really 
> affecting anything, I say the LWG should just push ahead with the plan.
>  
> You're the one with the gun.  What you say goes.
> 
>  
> If everyone catastrophically says 'no' to the ODbL (which I doubt, but hey) 
> then they can go back to the drawing board with a concrete result. If we all 
> agree, then we can just get on with mapping. But going back to the drawing 
> board with a proxy to a vote - a vote on whether to have a vote - is 
> incredibly flimsy and will just pull out everyone on the other side of the 
> argument who'll charge that it was an invalid vote.
> 
> In sum, having a vote on whether to have a vote just slows us all down for no 
> particular reason.
> 
> Therefore, just put the voluntary license change thing out there (so people 
> can change if they want to) and continue with the rest of the plan. If it 
> turns out to be awful and we lost lots of people (which I doubt) then you can 
> consider things at that stage.
> 
> Oh and by the way, as a thought experiment - if 50% of people drop out due to 
> the license change then you only have to wait a few months for the data to be 
> put back in by other new people - go and look at the user growth and data 
> growth graphs. It's really not as bad as it looks, even under a bad scenario 
> like 50%.
> 
> 
> 
> My second point - have a think on what affect you're all having on the people 
> in the LWG. They've now been working on this for _years_ meeting every week. 
> That's a huge am

Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?

[SteveC]

On Jul 19, 2010, at 12:08 AM, Anthony wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 5:56 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> 
> On Jul 18, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Anthony wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> > The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first 
> > basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to 
> > contribute anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second 
> > think it would be nuts because then the project wouldn't have long term 
> > growth potential and would probably die and fragment like BSD did etc etc 
> > etc.
> >
> > I'd count the second group as the brighter ones.
> >
> > That's interesting, because last time you commented on it, you said "it 
> > would be much better to move OSM to PD or CC0 for CloudMade and all the 
> > other companies".  Glad to see you're being more honest about it.
> 
> Hi
> 
> Of course it would be better - then CM and everyone else could do what they 
> like without having to deal with emails like this one. There's nothing new or 
> complicated here - it's very simple. The best thing for CloudMade would be to 
> have complete and free access to the data. The best thing for OSM and the 
> community as a whole, including commercial vendors like CM, is to have 
> share-alike provisions which keep everyone contributing and honest.
> 
> Just basic game theory.
> 
> I guess I'll count you as one of the "less bright" ones. 

And I'll try to imagine your parents basement where you toil endlessly on such 
counts.

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?

[SteveC]

On Jul 18, 2010, at 11:23 PM, Liz wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Did imports and Nearmap tracing in Australia start before the 
>> relicensing effort, or were you simply not aware of it, or did you not 
>> take it seriously?
> We started imports a while ago, with the first I recall in 2007.
> In 2007 I was not aware of an attempt to relicense OSM, but it was probably 
> started by then. What I read on signup was CC-by-SA, and no talk of any 
> future 
> change.
> 
> Then ODBL was presented, with a fanfare, and later the "Contributor Terms" 
> crept out, more quietly.

No... it slithered out from the 7th Circle of Hell, spawned by the Evil LWG and 
her commander Mike of Norse.

The Brethren Thirteen (the Evil Number) hath rendered blah blah blah...

Seriously - where do you guys get off with these dark mutterings? The CT's 
didn't 'creep out quietly', you just weren't paying attention.

You don't have to cast these vague aspersions on the LWG to make your point.

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?

[SteveC]

On Jul 18, 2010, at 8:18 PM, John Smith wrote:

> On 19 July 2010 04:11, SteveC  wrote:
>> The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first 
>> basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to 
>> contribute anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second 
>> think it would be nuts because then the project wouldn't have long term 
>> growth potential and would probably die and fragment like BSD did etc etc 
>> etc.
> 
> I'm not talking about end users of the data, but companies suppling
> either aerial imagery or other data, like AND for example, how would
> they feel if all attribution was stripped from their contributions to
> OSM?

Okay - you're saying that nearmap's concern is attribution?

Here's another scenario - You could say to nearmap that when we switch over to 
odbl they switch off the aerial imagery but allow us to keep using the data so 
far under the odbl. When things have settled down in X number of months and 
they see we're not going to jump license again any time soon then they can 
start letting us use the imagery again?

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?

[SteveC]

On Jul 18, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Anthony wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first 
> basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to 
> contribute anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second 
> think it would be nuts because then the project wouldn't have long term 
> growth potential and would probably die and fragment like BSD did etc etc etc.
> 
> I'd count the second group as the brighter ones.
> 
> That's interesting, because last time you commented on it, you said "it would 
> be much better to move OSM to PD or CC0 for CloudMade and all the other 
> companies".  Glad to see you're being more honest about it.

Hi

Of course it would be better - then CM and everyone else could do what they 
like without having to deal with emails like this one. There's nothing new or 
complicated here - it's very simple. The best thing for CloudMade would be to 
have complete and free access to the data. The best thing for OSM and the 
community as a whole, including commercial vendors like CM, is to have 
share-alike provisions which keep everyone contributing and honest.

Just basic game theory.

Steve

stevecoast.com


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