Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[80n]

2011/12/21 Dirk-Lüder Kreie :
> Am 13.12.2011 23:24, schrieb 80n:
>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Frederik Ramm > > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>     It is important to note that the OSM Inspector view is not the final
>>>     word - not even an "official word" - on the question of what gets
>>>     deleted. It is just my interpretation of the current situation.
>>
>> Frederik, If the OSM Inspector view is just your own interpretation of
>> the current situation then this is surely problematic.
>>
>> Contributors may be reassured by OSM Inspector that a path is safe and
>> that it can be edited.  It may then later get deleted.  Who gets to make
>> the official decision about what is safe and what is not?  And when does
>> that decision get made?
>
> OK, I'll bite.
>
> I would trust Frederik that if any official decision is made the view
> will reflect that. Frederik has updated the rules for the Inspector from
> time to time, and I have no reason to believe he will not keep the
> ruleset current as the legal situation on corner cases becomes clearer.
>
I have no doubt about Frederik's integrity in this matter, but that
wasn't the question.

The questions were:
Who gets to make those decisions?
When do those decisions get made?

Until those questions are answered the information presented by OSM
Inspector may be counter-productive.  Misguiding users with both false
positives and false negatives.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Dirk-Lüder Kreie]

Am 13.12.2011 23:24, schrieb 80n:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Frederik Ramm  > wrote:
> 
> 
>> It is important to note that the OSM Inspector view is not the final
>> word - not even an "official word" - on the question of what gets
>> deleted. It is just my interpretation of the current situation.
> 
> Frederik, If the OSM Inspector view is just your own interpretation of
> the current situation then this is surely problematic. 
> 
> Contributors may be reassured by OSM Inspector that a path is safe and
> that it can be edited.  It may then later get deleted.  Who gets to make
> the official decision about what is safe and what is not?  And when does
> that decision get made?

OK, I'll bite.

I would trust Frederik that if any official decision is made the view
will reflect that. Frederik has updated the rules for the Inspector from
time to time, and I have no reason to believe he will not keep the
ruleset current as the legal situation on corner cases becomes clearer.

-- 

Dirk-Lüder "Deelkar" Kreie
Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Jo]

I put up a video where I do some remapping. I'd like to hear whether I can
add this to the wiki as a good way to go about it?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaJ3DAFTjX8

Polyglot

2011/12/13 Frederik Ramm 

> Hi,
>
>   apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have
> posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs
> could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.
>
> I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
>
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/**osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-1.80469&**
> lat=35.88371&zoom=2
>
> This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined
> with a current planet file. The view is updated nightly.
>
> There's also statistics on the number of objects here:
>
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/**osmi/munin.html
>
> And detailed information here:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Remapping/License_Change_**
> View_on_OSM_Inspector
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> __**_
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Andrew]

Frederik Ramm  remote.org> writes:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have 
> posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs 
> could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.
> 
> I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
> 
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-1.80469&lat=35.88371&zoom=2
> 

I’ve changed the ‘ODBL coverage’ link on wiki project pages to use your map 
instead of the less thorough Leipzig map.

--
Andrew



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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Richard Weait]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Adam Hoyle
 wrote:

> Is there any tool out there that can highlight the red users in a given
> area?

In JOSM, use select-all (crtl-a) then look at the list of authors in
the author panel (alt-b).  This will give you a list of accounts that
were the most-recent to edit objects in your loaded data.  The license
details plugin will show you tainted objects.  Even if they were
subsequently edited.

Ian Dees excellent deep diff tool will show you the history of a
single object.  http://osm.mapki.com/history/

> The damage around Aylesbury / Wendover / High Wycombe is going to be huge
> (looks like they will all essentially cease to be), but in some ways it
> could be quite a beautiful art project, rather like throwing a wrecking ball
> at a Ming vase. #thewhiskeyisnthelping

I see the problem.  You left an extra "e" in your whisky. :-)

Reconciling the data with ODbL before the changeover is preferable.
While scripts can remove tainted data, it is difficult to make a
script care about the resulting beauty of the map like a local
contributor does.  Contacting idle mappers and having them consider
CT/ODbL is helpful.  Replacing the data with a new survey is wonderful
and updates things that haven't been checked since they were first
added.

> Hang on, it's happening on April 1st - this isn't an April Fools joke is it?
> #iwouldbesorelievedifitwas

No joke.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Russ Nelson]

Nathan Edgars II writes:
 > I have done many edits of this sort over the years. It has been standard 
 > practice for a long time. Any tainting has already happened.

I agee with Nathan. I do this all the time. Mostly it's to GNIS POIs,
but the principle remains: some "tainting" of information cannot be
detected. Threatening editors who are following standard practice is
... not particularly friendly nor helpful to a process which is
already going to be difficult., Frederick.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Hi John,

fyi, you can also create a new (empty) layer with ctrl+n.

cheers,
Martin

2011/12/13 john whelan :
> What you can do is create an osm file on your local hard drive, in JOSM
> download a very small area with nothing in it.  New download the area you
> have made edits in as a separate download.
>
> Select on username so user:xyz
>
> Merge the selection onto your empty map and save it locally.  Then after the
> great clean up has happened you at least have a record of your edits.
> Alternatively there is always the other OSM style maps that aren't changing
> their license.
>
> Cheerio John

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Adam Hoyle]

On 13 Dec 2011, at 21:59, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> I can't emphasise enough the importance of contacting people and asking them
> to agree. It really works.

Is there any tool out there that can highlight the red users in a given area? 
Fredrick, is that at all possible to add to your excellent, but frankly 
terrifying, map? 

Or is there a tool for entering a given osm username and finding out the ways 
they have initially created. I'm sure there is, there seem to be billions of 
awesome map hacks out there.

Also, what happens to a way that was say 2 nodes long and I've added 20 nodes 
to it, does the whole thing get deleted or just the 2 nodes that the other 
person created?

The damage around Aylesbury / Wendover / High Wycombe is going to be huge 
(looks like they will all essentially cease to be), but in some ways it could 
be quite a beautiful art project, rather like throwing a wrecking ball at a 
Ming vase. #thewhiskeyisnthelping

Hang on, it's happening on April 1st - this isn't an April Fools joke is it? 
#iwouldbesorelievedifitwas

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Ian]

On Tuesday, December 13, 2011 12:34:34 PM UTC-6, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> Adam Hoyle wrote:
> > For example (there are a lot more examples):
> > 
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-0.81228&lat=51.72366&zoom=17
> > shows a path with red nodes, but I added that and no-one else has edited
>
> If you look at the history of each node, you can see who's edited it.
>
> In this case, opening the area in Potlatch 2 shows those nodes highlighted
> in orange, which P2 uses to mean "someone who edited this way hasn't
> responded to the CTs yet". You can click on any of these nodes and then,
> using the advanced view, click on the object ID to open it in OSM's data
> browser like so:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/413600706
>
> which says that the nodes were created by ngent. ngent is "undecided" (not
> responded), as you can see by clicking on their username. Maybe send them a
> mail asking?
>
I've added a handy dandy row to my "deep history viewer" to show license 
status:

http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=413600706

There are node.php, way.php, and relation.php that share the same id 
parameter and give similar information. 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 12/13/2011 11:20 PM, Pieren wrote:

Could someone explain why the way_id 4776297 is reported as "created
by non-agreers" on osmi:


[...]


we can see that version 1 has been created by user_7568 (user_id=7568):
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/user_7568

which is reported as "accepted CT's over 1 year ago". Any thoughts ?


There is a rather complex quirk that involves de-cloaking anonymous 
users. It is possible that this user accepted the CTs but was anonymous 
at the time; therefore his edits had to be treated as non-agreed. If he 
has "de-cloaked" meanwhile, then his edits can now be marked clean but 
that is a non-automatic process.


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[80n]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

>
> It is important to note that the OSM Inspector view is not the final word
> - not even an "official word" - on the question of what gets deleted. It is
> just my interpretation of the current situation.
>
> Frederik, If the OSM Inspector view is just your own interpretation of the
current situation then this is surely problematic.

Contributors may be reassured by OSM Inspector that a path is safe and that
it can be edited.  It may then later get deleted.  Who gets to make the
official decision about what is safe and what is not?  And when does that
decision get made?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Pieren]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

Could someone explain why the way_id 4776297 is reported as "created
by non-agreers" on osmi:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=5.98159&lat=45.34536&zoom=17&overlays=wtfe_line_created

Current version is 21:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4776297

But from history:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/4776297/history

we can see that version 1 has been created by user_7568 (user_id=7568):
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/user_7568

which is reported as "accepted CT's over 1 year ago". Any thoughts ?

Pieren

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 13 December 2011 22:46, Peter Wendorff  wrote:
> Am 13.12.2011 20:59, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
>> There is no difference in terms of acceptability under the ODBL+CT. Such
>> copying is either OK or not.
>
> Even in law exists the distinction between crimes done willingly and those
> done unwillingly or without knowledge. You don't get necessarily out of the
> case without any harm if you didn't know or didn't want it, but often you
> have to do/pay/be imprisoned less than if you would have done that
> willingly.

In this case this is not a crime and not a violation of Contributor
Terms, the only reason a mapper may suspect it to be wrong is if they
know that it is going to lead to the OSMF later violating the
copyright of the original author by not applying sufficient criteria
for detecting that a given element's licensing is not compatible with
ODbL and publishing it under ODbL.  I'd say that's very far fetched
and (hopefully) an underestimate of the LWG's brain power.

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 12/13/2011 5:03 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

No. The only thing I was talking about was that if you should have the
audacity to publicly proclaim "loopholes" in the process and that you
intend to use them, I will block your account.


I have already used them many times as part of normal editing, and so 
have many others. I will not change my editing practices because the 
OSMF is not diligent enough.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 12/13/2011 10:52 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

We're not talking about crimes here, but about copyright status.


No. The only thing I was talking about was that if you should have the 
audacity to publicly proclaim "loopholes" in the process and that you 
intend to use them, I will block your account.


In my eyes, the license change does not have to be 100% perfect. If we 
apply diligence, and are seen to apply diligence, and still a few 
copyrightable bits and pieces slip through our hands and end up in the 
new database even though their authors didn't want that, then that's not 
too bad - we can fix that when someone complains. As long as we try hard 
to do the right thing, that's good enough in my eyes.


However if someone blares on the lists about having found a loophole, 
and planning to use it, and we stand idly by, that's certainly not 
"trying hard to do the right thing".


And that's why it is a hell of a difference if *you* copy tags from a 
non-agreer node to a new way in the future, or of someone else does it.


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Richard Fairhurst]

Adam Hoyle wrote:
> Oh wow - I must have been on some long gone map 
> style, it's all looking very different now I've changed 
> the map style (and looking good too). Am I right in 
> saying that purple outlines mean things are part of 
> a hiking route, and green outline means foot route right?

Green is route=foot, the blue/purple is any other route (i.e. not foot or
one of the cycling types) IIRC. It would be nice to move all the hiking-type
things to green, but I get confused as to the difference between
route=hiking, root=foot, root=uk_ldp, etc. etc...

> And orange outlines are bad, orange outlines mean 
> it'll get wiped, is that correct? Damn it, there are 
> a *lot* of orange outlines. 
> #wipestearsfromeyesandrollsupsleeves

In P2:

* dark maroon means "created by someone who's disagreed. Abandon all hope"
* semi-transparent maroon means "edited by someone who's disagreed. Will
probably be reverted to an earlier version"
* orange means "created or edited by someone who's not responded. Use the
history function to find out who that is, and flutter your eyelashes at
them"

I can't emphasise enough the importance of contacting people and asking them
to agree. It really works.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-Change-View-on-OSM-Inspector-tp7089165p7091636.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Adam Hoyle]

On 13 Dec 2011, at 21:34, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> On 12/13/2011 09:39 PM, Adam Hoyle wrote:
>> Is the process for deciding whether or not to delete a node set in
>> stone? I am fairly sure that I have moved the majority of those nodes
>> from where they were originally (I am fairly sure because there was
>> originally only 1 path on OSM going up the hill when there are 2
>> different paths on the ground), so surely if I moved them from their
>> original position they can't be deleted just because the specific node
>> id in the database was originated by someone else?? that's crazy -
>> what's the logic behind that decision - shouldn't the check ensure that
>> they are at least in the same place as the originator positioned them?
> 
> This is an argument put forward by a number of contributors and it certainly 
> has something going for it.
> 
> My usual counter-example is: Assume I highlight a river in my editor and move 
> the whole thing by one metre - leaving all the curves, bends, and zigzag 
> shapes that the original mapper placed there intact - does that then afford 
> me, exclusively, the copyright for all the nodes (if there is any at all)?

an interesting and very valid point.
 If it is agreed to be an issue, then surely it's another thing a computer 
could check - eg. if the relationship (distance and angle) between all the 
points on a line don't match (or a % of them don't match) then that can be 
considered different and so not necessary to remove.

> It is important to note that the OSM Inspector view is not the final word - 
> not even an "official word" - on the question of what gets deleted. It is 
> just my interpretation of the current situation.


it's awesome, and although this has panicked the hell out of me, I am glad to 
better understand the situation before things get deleted and I wonder why.

Regards,

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 12/13/2011 4:46 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote:

Even in law exists the distinction between crimes done willingly and
those done unwillingly or without knowledge. You don't get necessarily
out of the case without any harm if you didn't know or didn't want it,
but often you have to do/pay/be imprisoned less than if you would have
done that willingly.


We're not talking about crimes here, but about copyright status. An 
unknowing derivative work is still a derivative work. The penalties for 
profiting off such a work may be less if infringement is not 
intentional, but the status of the work does not change.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 13 December 2011 22:03, Graham Jones  wrote:
> I agree, it sounds mad, and I find it hard to believe that 'we' would do
> this.   Surely we need to apply a bit of pragmatism to  this and think about
> 'reasonableness'?
>
> I can see that it is reasonable to delete the contributions from someone who
> has explicitly said that they do not agree to the new terms - that is a
> shame, but it is their choice.
>
> From the discussion on this list (and I have not looked into it properly - I
> gave up on thinking about licences when the 'debate' all got out of hand
> earlier in the year), it sounds as though if someone who has neither
> accepted nor declined the terms has touched an object, that object will be
> deleted - is this really the intention of those looking after this licence
> change?
>
> I see there are three potential reasons for someone neither accepting nor
> declining the terms:
>
> They really do not agree with them, but for some reason that I can not think
> of they decide not to click the 'decline' button - These are an awkward
> case, but it is up to them to make their intentions clear.
> They left the project having made their contribution and are now not
> contactable (changed email address etc.), or so un-interested that they do
> not respond.
> They could be really keen OSM contributors who have since died, so are not
> answering their emails.
>
> In my opinion, it would be reasonable to assume that the last two have the
> best interests of the project at heart and do not want to have their
> contributions deleted, so they should be retained.  If at some point they
> contact us to say that they object to their contributions being in the
> database, then yes, delete them, but leave them there until they do.

What's in the best interest of the project is very discussable.  My
personal opinion is that the change to the licensing model where a
single body is the licensor instead of every contributor, is not in
the project's interest and anything that helps this change isn't
either.

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Peter Wendorff]

Am 13.12.2011 20:59, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:

On 12/13/2011 2:57 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 12/13/2011 08:47 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I have done many edits of this sort over the years. It has been 
standard

practice for a long time. Any tainting has already happened.


I am not talking about any tainting that has happened in the past
without people having thought about it. I am talking about any tainting
that you, willfully, and in the full knowledge that it is problematic,
commit (or incite others to commit) after today.


There is no difference in terms of acceptability under the ODBL+CT. 
Such copying is either OK or not.
Even in law exists the distinction between crimes done willingly and 
those done unwillingly or without knowledge. You don't get necessarily 
out of the case without any harm if you didn't know or didn't want it, 
but often you have to do/pay/be imprisoned less than if you would have 
done that willingly.


I would agree, that this particular edits are harmless and should not be 
criminalized - AS LONG AS the editor didn't know about it.
You in particular told us here, word by word, that you know about it and 
that you will planfully follow that approach in the near future, too.
That is different to someMapper doing that without knowledge of any 
future license change and without the intent to circumvent any legal issues.


regards
Peter


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




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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 13 December 2011 22:30, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> On 12/13/2011 4:25 PM, john whelan wrote:
>>
>> The intentions don't matter here, its to be able to defend the new
>> licensing / copyright in court you need to show all the content has come
>> from people who have accepted the new license.
>
>
> Which is impossible because of the common practice of copying tags from a
> node to a building polygon.

It is possible but not in an automated manner.  With some very clever
automated heuristics it might be close to correct.  But certainly not
only by looking at the history of each object individually.  This is
one reason the current ODbL-status tools are of little value.

The second reason I see is that they look at CT-acceptance, which as
it stands is orthogonal to ODbL-compatibility.  Both of these things
are present in OSM now:
* data incompatible with ODbL but compatible with the current
licensing terms, allowed to be contributed under CT and
* data which available under ODbL (such as my contributions)
contributed by mappers who decline the current version of CT.

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Adam Hoyle]

On 13 Dec 2011, at 21:20, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> Adam Hoyle wrote:
>> is there something else I need to do?
> 
> It'll only work in the default, 'Potlatch' map style (not 'Network' or
> 'Wireframe' or others - I need to fix that!) but apart from that, yes, that
> should be all you need to do.

Oh wow - I must have been on some long gone map style, it's all looking very 
different now I've changed the map style (and looking good too). Am I right in 
saying that purple outlines mean things are part of a hiking route, and green 
outline means foot route right?

And orange outlines are bad, orange outlines mean it'll get wiped, is that 
correct? Damn it, there are a *lot* of orange outlines. 
#wipestearsfromeyesandrollsupsleeves

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Graham Jones]

On 13 December 2011 21:25, john whelan  wrote:

> The intentions don't matter here, its to be able to defend the new
> licensing / copyright in court you need to show all the content has come
> from people who have accepted the new license.
>

It will only come to court if someone sues, and in the context of this
re-licensing discussion, the only person who would do that is someone who
has not accepted the new terms, and objects to their data being retained.

My view is that a reasonable approach would be to assume that
non-contactable mappers actually want their data to be used, but if they
complain and say that this is not the case, delete it thenso it would
never go to court.   But I think it is a defensible position anyway - "xxx
complained that we retained his data, so we have done what he wanted and
deleted it...".

Anyway, that is enough of legal stuff for me, but wanted to share what I
think is a reasonable alternative approach to dealing with this issue,
rather than re-mapping things that people may not actually want deleting in
the first place.

Graham.


> --

Graham Jones
Hartlepool, UK.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Floris Looijesteijn]

and do those, and the other examples mentioned before show up in the
inspector as problematic?

i think they should.

gr,
floris

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> How does the OSMF plan to handle split or combined ways?
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Frederik Ramm]

Adam,

On 12/13/2011 09:39 PM, Adam Hoyle wrote:

Is the process for deciding whether or not to delete a node set in
stone? I am fairly sure that I have moved the majority of those nodes
from where they were originally (I am fairly sure because there was
originally only 1 path on OSM going up the hill when there are 2
different paths on the ground), so surely if I moved them from their
original position they can't be deleted just because the specific node
id in the database was originated by someone else?? that's crazy -
what's the logic behind that decision - shouldn't the check ensure that
they are at least in the same place as the originator positioned them?


This is an argument put forward by a number of contributors and it 
certainly has something going for it.


My usual counter-example is: Assume I highlight a river in my editor and 
move the whole thing by one metre - leaving all the curves, bends, and 
zigzag shapes that the original mapper placed there intact - does that 
then afford me, exclusively, the copyright for all the nodes (if there 
is any at all)?


I think that while we probably cannot ok such nodes wholesale, we should 
give individuals (like you) the option of saying (like you did above) "I 
think that while this may technically look like it was using nodes from 
user X, it isn't really", and then that's that.


It is important to note that the OSM Inspector view is not the final 
word - not even an "official word" - on the question of what gets 
deleted. It is just my interpretation of the current situation.


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 12/13/2011 4:25 PM, john whelan wrote:

The intentions don't matter here, its to be able to defend the new
licensing / copyright in court you need to show all the content has come
from people who have accepted the new license.


Which is impossible because of the common practice of copying tags from 
a node to a building polygon.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Nathan Edgars II]

How does the OSMF plan to handle split or combined ways?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[john whelan]

The intentions don't matter here, its to be able to defend the new
licensing / copyright in court you need to show all the content has come
from people who have accepted the new license.

Its a lawyer thing and I'm not even sure that in the US OSM has a solid
case anyway.  Street names are facts for example.

Cheerio John

On 13 December 2011 16:03, Graham Jones  wrote:

>
>> Is the process for deciding whether or not to delete a node set in stone?
>> I am fairly sure that I have moved the majority of those nodes from where
>> they were originally (I am fairly sure because there was originally only 1
>> path on OSM going up the hill when there are 2 different paths on the
>> ground), so surely if I moved them from their original position they can't
>> be deleted just because the specific node id in the database was originated
>> by someone else?? that's crazy - what's the logic behind that decision -
>> shouldn't the check ensure that they are at least in the same place as the
>> originator positioned them? Otherwise I can see a lot of senseless
>> destruction and that makes me really quite sad.
>>
>> I agree, it sounds mad, and I find it hard to believe that 'we' would do
> this.   Surely we need to apply a bit of pragmatism to  this and think
> about 'reasonableness'?
>
> I can see that it is reasonable to delete the contributions from someone
> who has explicitly said that they do not agree to the new terms - that is a
> shame, but it is their choice.
>
> From the discussion on this list (and I have not looked into it properly -
> I gave up on thinking about licences when the 'debate' all got out of hand
> earlier in the year), it sounds as though if someone who has neither
> accepted nor declined the terms has touched an object, that object will be
> deleted - is this really the intention of those looking after this licence
> change?
>
> I see there are three potential reasons for someone neither accepting nor
> declining the terms:
>
>- They really do not agree with them, but for some reason that I can
>not think of they decide not to click the 'decline' button - These are an
>awkward case, but it is up to them to make their intentions clear.
>- They left the project having made their contribution and are now not
>contactable (changed email address etc.), or so un-interested that they do
>not respond.
>- They could be really keen OSM contributors who have since died, so
>are not answering their emails.
>
> In my opinion, it would be reasonable to assume that the last two have the
> best interests of the project at heart and do not want to have their
> contributions deleted, so they should be retained.  If at some point they
> contact us to say that they object to their contributions being in the
> database, then yes, delete them, but leave them there until they do.
>
> A pragmatic approach along these lines would seem quite reasonable to me,
> and would save a lot of un-necessary re-work - deleting contributions of
> people that we can not make contact with just seems excessive, and is
> probably not what the non-contactable contributors wanted anyway.
>
> Graham.
>
>
> --
> Graham Jones
> Hartlepool, UK.
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[john whelan]

What you can do is create an osm file on your local hard drive, in JOSM
download a very small area with nothing in it.  New download the area you
have made edits in as a separate download.

Select on username so user:xyz

Merge the selection onto your empty map and save it locally.  Then after
the great clean up has happened you at least have a record of your edits.
Alternatively there is always the other OSM style maps that aren't changing
their license.

Cheerio John

On 13 December 2011 15:39, Adam Hoyle  wrote:

> Thank you all - I was looking at the Way, not the individual points, and
> it was obviously one that was there before I started mapping that I then
> edited.
>
> Is the process for deciding whether or not to delete a node set in stone?
> I am fairly sure that I have moved the majority of those nodes from where
> they were originally (I am fairly sure because there was originally only 1
> path on OSM going up the hill when there are 2 different paths on the
> ground), so surely if I moved them from their original position they can't
> be deleted just because the specific node id in the database was originated
> by someone else?? that's crazy - what's the logic behind that decision -
> shouldn't the check ensure that they are at least in the same place as the
> originator positioned them? Otherwise I can see a lot of senseless
> destruction and that makes me really quite sad.
>
> Do I sound panicked? That might be because I am - it appears a *lot* of
> the footpaths and bridleways I've been editing over the last 3 years might
> be deleted. I will try to contact ngent, but to be honest I spend maybe an
> hour or two a week on OSM adding in walks I've done, so with all the good
> will in the world I don't realistically have the time to chase all of the
> original people who created nodes that are now potentially going to be
> deleted.
>
> Help(?)
>
> Adam
>
> On 13 Dec 2011, at 18:45, Michael Collinson wrote:
>
>  Hi Adam,
>
> Yes, you have definitely accepted the new terms. You can check the UK list
> at http://odbl.de/great_britain.html
>
> I opened the same location with the on-line Potlatch editor
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=51.723507&lon=-0.812403&zoom=18
>
> It looks like the way itself is yours (Nov 2009) but that you have used
> nodes made (May 2009) by an earlier contributor called ngent. He/she has
> not yet accepted the new terms.
>
> I suggest that you send him a message saying that your edits depend on his
> work and would he kindly login to his account and accept.  He may think his
> contributions too small/old to be worth while.  I have done this several
> times in the UK and have good response. Alternatively, remap it if you have
> enough information to do so without just copying his work.
>
> If this happens again and you  use Potlatch, you and anyone else in the
> same situation can do this:
>
> - Select the way or node.
> - Hit the "t" key to get the "Advanced" view on the left-hand side.
> - At the top, you will now see something like "Node: 413600709 unsure"
> - Left click on that.
> - Thus opens a new window
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/413600709
> - You can then click on ngent's name and see he is "*Contributor 
> terms:*Undecided " and send him a message. Thank him for the contribution and 
> ask
> him to log in and accept as your contributions depend on his.
> -  (often there is more than one editor you will have to click on the View
> History link and find which user by by going through each one):
>
> This is a pain to do for just one or two nodes, but as the same
> contributor may have edits in other places we should collectively get these
> red points minimised pretty quickly. Germany, UK and Spain are the worst at
> the moment.
>
> Mike
>
> On 13/12/2011 19:08, Adam Hoyle wrote:
>
> Wow, that's scary, most of the major towns around where I live are going
> to cease to be.
>
>  Actually, I've just looked in more detail at some of the areas I've been
> editing, and think there is a bug somewhere.
>
>  For example (there are a lot more examples):
>
>
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-0.81228&lat=51.72366&zoom=17
>
>  Shows a path with red nodes, but I added that and no-one else has
> edited, and as far as I know I've signed the updated license thing. (I am
> 'atom oil' on openstreetmap.org). Also other paths around that are edited
> only by me and don't show up as red, so that's inconsistent at least.
>
>  Do I need to file this as a bug somewhere (can anyone point me where
> please?).
>
>  Best,
>
>  Adam
>
>  On 13 Dec 2011, at 08:46, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
>   apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have
> posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs
> could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.
>
> I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
>
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-1.80469&lat=35.88371&zoom=2
>
> This is

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Richard Fairhurst]

Adam Hoyle wrote:
> is there something else I need to do?

It'll only work in the default, 'Potlatch' map style (not 'Network' or
'Wireframe' or others - I need to fix that!) but apart from that, yes, that
should be all you need to do.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-Change-View-on-OSM-Inspector-tp7089165p7091486.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Richard Weait]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Graham Jones  wrote:

> I agree, it sounds mad, and I find it hard to believe that 'we' would do
> this.   Surely we need to apply a bit of pragmatism to  this and think about
> 'reasonableness'?
>
> I can see that it is reasonable to delete the contributions from someone who
> has explicitly said that they do not agree to the new terms - that is a
> shame, but it is their choice.
>
> From the discussion on this list (and I have not looked into it properly - I
> gave up on thinking about licences when the 'debate' all got out of hand
> earlier in the year), it sounds as though if someone who has neither
> accepted nor declined the terms has touched an object, that object will be
> deleted - is this really the intention of those looking after this licence
> change?

"Touched" no.  "Created" yes.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Adam Hoyle]

Hi Richard,

On 13 Dec 2011, at 18:34, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> In this case, opening the area in Potlatch 2 shows those nodes highlighted
> in orange, which P2 uses to mean "someone who edited this way hasn't
> responded to the CTs yet". You can click on any of these nodes and then,
> using the advanced view, click on the object ID to open it in OSM's data
> browser like so:

When I open P2 on my mac I don't get anything highlighted in orange (there is a 
yellow outline around 'The Ridgeway' but I have always presumed that's because 
it's part of a way). I've opened 'options' and ticked 'show license status' and 
also closed the window and re-opened, but nothing shows - is there something 
else I need to do?

Thanks in advance,

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 12/13/2011 4:03 PM, Graham Jones wrote:

I see there are three potential reasons for someone neither accepting
nor declining the terms:

  * They really do not agree with them, but for some reason that I can
not think of they decide not to click the 'decline' button - These
are an awkward case, but it is up to them to make their intentions
clear.
  * They left the project having made their contribution and are now not
contactable (changed email address etc.), or so un-interested that
they do not respond.
  * They could be really keen OSM contributors who have since died, so
are not answering their emails.


A fourth: they are not sure if they can legally do so. I am in this 
position (for example, I have copied tags from points to ways and have 
created nodes along existing ways) but have agreed under duress; others 
may not wish to do so.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Graham Jones]

>
>
> Is the process for deciding whether or not to delete a node set in stone?
> I am fairly sure that I have moved the majority of those nodes from where
> they were originally (I am fairly sure because there was originally only 1
> path on OSM going up the hill when there are 2 different paths on the
> ground), so surely if I moved them from their original position they can't
> be deleted just because the specific node id in the database was originated
> by someone else?? that's crazy - what's the logic behind that decision -
> shouldn't the check ensure that they are at least in the same place as the
> originator positioned them? Otherwise I can see a lot of senseless
> destruction and that makes me really quite sad.
>
> I agree, it sounds mad, and I find it hard to believe that 'we' would do
this.   Surely we need to apply a bit of pragmatism to  this and think
about 'reasonableness'?

I can see that it is reasonable to delete the contributions from someone
who has explicitly said that they do not agree to the new terms - that is a
shame, but it is their choice.

>From the discussion on this list (and I have not looked into it properly -
I gave up on thinking about licences when the 'debate' all got out of hand
earlier in the year), it sounds as though if someone who has neither
accepted nor declined the terms has touched an object, that object will be
deleted - is this really the intention of those looking after this licence
change?

I see there are three potential reasons for someone neither accepting nor
declining the terms:

   - They really do not agree with them, but for some reason that I can not
   think of they decide not to click the 'decline' button - These are an
   awkward case, but it is up to them to make their intentions clear.
   - They left the project having made their contribution and are now not
   contactable (changed email address etc.), or so un-interested that they do
   not respond.
   - They could be really keen OSM contributors who have since died, so are
   not answering their emails.

In my opinion, it would be reasonable to assume that the last two have the
best interests of the project at heart and do not want to have their
contributions deleted, so they should be retained.  If at some point they
contact us to say that they object to their contributions being in the
database, then yes, delete them, but leave them there until they do.

A pragmatic approach along these lines would seem quite reasonable to me,
and would save a lot of un-necessary re-work - deleting contributions of
people that we can not make contact with just seems excessive, and is
probably not what the non-contactable contributors wanted anyway.

Graham.


-- 
Graham Jones
Hartlepool, UK.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Adam Hoyle]

Thank you all - I was looking at the Way, not the individual points, and it was 
obviously one that was there before I started mapping that I then edited.

Is the process for deciding whether or not to delete a node set in stone? I am 
fairly sure that I have moved the majority of those nodes from where they were 
originally (I am fairly sure because there was originally only 1 path on OSM 
going up the hill when there are 2 different paths on the ground), so surely if 
I moved them from their original position they can't be deleted just because 
the specific node id in the database was originated by someone else?? that's 
crazy - what's the logic behind that decision - shouldn't the check ensure that 
they are at least in the same place as the originator positioned them? 
Otherwise I can see a lot of senseless destruction and that makes me really 
quite sad.

Do I sound panicked? That might be because I am - it appears a *lot* of the 
footpaths and bridleways I've been editing over the last 3 years might be 
deleted. I will try to contact ngent, but to be honest I spend maybe an hour or 
two a week on OSM adding in walks I've done, so with all the good will in the 
world I don't realistically have the time to chase all of the original people 
who created nodes that are now potentially going to be deleted.

Help(?)

Adam

On 13 Dec 2011, at 18:45, Michael Collinson wrote:

> Hi Adam,
> 
> Yes, you have definitely accepted the new terms. You can check the UK list at 
> http://odbl.de/great_britain.html
> 
> I opened the same location with the on-line Potlatch editor 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=51.723507&lon=-0.812403&zoom=18
> 
> It looks like the way itself is yours (Nov 2009) but that you have used nodes 
> made (May 2009) by an earlier contributor called ngent. He/she has not yet 
> accepted the new terms.
> 
> I suggest that you send him a message saying that your edits depend on his 
> work and would he kindly login to his account and accept.  He may think his 
> contributions too small/old to be worth while.  I have done this several 
> times in the UK and have good response. Alternatively, remap it if you have 
> enough information to do so without just copying his work.
> 
> If this happens again and you  use Potlatch, you and anyone else in the same 
> situation can do this:
> 
> - Select the way or node.
> - Hit the "t" key to get the "Advanced" view on the left-hand side.
> - At the top, you will now see something like "Node: 413600709 unsure"
> - Left click on that.
> - Thus opens a new window http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/413600709
> - You can then click on ngent's name and see he is "Contributor terms: 
> Undecided " and send him a message. Thank him for the contribution and ask 
> him to log in and accept as your contributions depend on his.
> -  (often there is more than one editor you will have to click on the View 
> History link and find which user by by going through each one):
> 
> This is a pain to do for just one or two nodes, but as the same contributor 
> may have edits in other places we should collectively get these red points 
> minimised pretty quickly. Germany, UK and Spain are the worst at the moment.
> 
> Mike
> 
> On 13/12/2011 19:08, Adam Hoyle wrote:
>> 
>> Wow, that's scary, most of the major towns around where I live are going to 
>> cease to be.
>> 
>> Actually, I've just looked in more detail at some of the areas I've been 
>> editing, and think there is a bug somewhere.
>> 
>> For example (there are a lot more examples):
>> 
>> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-0.81228&lat=51.72366&zoom=17
>> 
>> Shows a path with red nodes, but I added that and no-one else has edited, 
>> and as far as I know I've signed the updated license thing. (I am 'atom oil' 
>> on openstreetmap.org). Also other paths around that are edited only by me 
>> and don't show up as red, so that's inconsistent at least.
>> 
>> Do I need to file this as a bug somewhere (can anyone point me where 
>> please?).
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Adam
>> 
>> On 13 Dec 2011, at 08:46, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>>   apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have 
>>> posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs 
>>> could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.
>>> 
>>> I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
>>> 
>>> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-1.80469&lat=35.88371&zoom=2
>>> 
>>> This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined with 
>>> a current planet file. The view is updated nightly.
>>> 
>>> There's also statistics on the number of objects here:
>>> 
>>> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html
>>> 
>>> And detailed information here:
>>> 
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Bye
>>> Frederik
> 

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstre

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Nathan Edgars II]

It would be useful to have an idea of how many objects have been edited 
by a red user *and then edited by someone else*. These are the biggest 
problem in terms of damage.



It's also important to keep in mind that relations are the most 
vulnerable of all, and do not show up on this view.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Toby Murray]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> I have done many edits of this sort over the years. It has been standard
> practice for a long time. Any tainting has already happened.

Yeah expanding nodes into buildings is pretty standard practice for me
whenever I'm touching an area, assuming the available imagery is good
enough. I sometimes also make the old node a part of the new way but
remove all tags from it. So I guess that would leave the way with an
odd shape after the license change.

Of coures in my case a lot of them are imported GNIS nodes... but not all.

Looking at each object before I do this will be a pain. I might be
willing to but that is going to be above the heads of most mappers.

Toby

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 12/13/2011 2:57 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 12/13/2011 08:47 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

I have done many edits of this sort over the years. It has been standard
practice for a long time. Any tainting has already happened.


I am not talking about any tainting that has happened in the past
without people having thought about it. I am talking about any tainting
that you, willfully, and in the full knowledge that it is problematic,
commit (or incite others to commit) after today.


There is no difference in terms of acceptability under the ODBL+CT. Such 
copying is either OK or not.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 12/13/2011 08:47 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

I have done many edits of this sort over the years. It has been standard
practice for a long time. Any tainting has already happened.


I am not talking about any tainting that has happened in the past 
without people having thought about it. I am talking about any tainting 
that you, willfully, and in the full knowledge that it is problematic, 
commit (or incite others to commit) after today.


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Toby Murray]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:30 PM, john whelan  wrote:
> Fascinating, I was always taught that reliability was the most important
> thing to end users.
>
> In Ottawa it looks like many footpaths, steps etc will be the big losers.
> The imported road network looks fine.
>
> So it looks like the tools and specialist maps for the disabled, ones that
> make use of details mapped by hand about access will be what suffers the
> most.
>
> Do we care about the end users of our maps, who perhaps have come to depend
> on them.  I suspect the blind community for one will be less embracing of
> OSM if its reliability track record is less than perfect.
>
> Or is it just one of those unplanned things that happens, there seems so
> many with OSM.

This is definitely unfortunate :(

But at this point I seriously doubt the license change is going to
stop (for better or for worse) so here's a proposal: For every message
anyone sends to a mailing list about this, also make an attempt to
contact a local mapper who has not indicated a decision about the
license yet.

Lukcily, I think I see two red and 3 orange objects in my city and
that's it. So I don't have much to do around here but there are more
cities in the area that will see a bigger impact so I will try to
track some people down tonight.

Toby

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 12/13/2011 2:30 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 12/13/2011 08:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

Presumably nothing will happen, since there is no easy way of
identifying these. So this is an easy loophole - if you see any red
nodes that represent points of interest, replace them with building
polygons and copy the tags.


Anyone who is caught doing that will be told to stop,


(In fact I just did this the other day
(though I have no idea if the node was red) before realizing this might
cause problems, and I will continue to do it after thinking about it and
realizing that it's been common practice for quite some time.)


Anyone who is caught doing that *against better knowledge* will quite
possibly get his account blocked and/or cause a wholesale revert of his
recent edits.

I have absolutely zero patience with people trying to subvert the
license change process, and especially those who deliberately
misconstrue the intent of the process in the way you seem to be proud of
doing. I will personally block your account if I should become aware of
any edits of the kind you're sketching above.


I have done many edits of this sort over the years. It has been standard 
practice for a long time. Any tainting has already happened.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[john whelan]

Fascinating, I was always taught that reliability was the most important
thing to end users.

In Ottawa it looks like many footpaths, steps etc will be the big losers.
The imported road network looks fine.

So it looks like the tools and specialist maps for the disabled, ones that
make use of details mapped by hand about access will be what suffers the
most.

Do we care about the end users of our maps, who perhaps have come to depend
on them.  I suspect the blind community for one will be less embracing of
OSM if its reliability track record is less than perfect.

Or is it just one of those unplanned things that happens, there seems so
many with OSM.

Cheerio John

On 13 December 2011 13:08, Adam Hoyle  wrote:

> Wow, that's scary, most of the major towns around where I live are going
> to cease to be.
>
> Actually, I've just looked in more detail at some of the areas I've been
> editing, and think there is a bug somewhere.
>
> For example (there are a lot more examples):
>
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-0.81228&lat=51.72366&zoom=17
>
> Shows a path with red nodes, but I added that and no-one else has edited,
> and as far as I know I've signed the updated license thing. (I am 'atom
> oil' on openstreetmap.org). Also other paths around that are edited only
> by me and don't show up as red, so that's inconsistent at least.
>
> Do I need to file this as a bug somewhere (can anyone point me where
> please?).
>
> Best,
>
> Adam
>
> On 13 Dec 2011, at 08:46, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>   apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have
> posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs
> could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.
>
> I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
>
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-1.80469&lat=35.88371&zoom=2
>
> This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined
> with a current planet file. The view is updated nightly.
>
> There's also statistics on the number of objects here:
>
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html
>
> And detailed information here:
>
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> ___
> 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] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 12/13/2011 08:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

Presumably nothing will happen, since there is no easy way of
identifying these. So this is an easy loophole - if you see any red
nodes that represent points of interest, replace them with building
polygons and copy the tags.


Anyone who is caught doing that will be told to stop,


(In fact I just did this the other day
(though I have no idea if the node was red) before realizing this might
cause problems, and I will continue to do it after thinking about it and
realizing that it's been common practice for quite some time.)


Anyone who is caught doing that *against better knowledge* will quite 
possibly get his account blocked and/or cause a wholesale revert of his 
recent edits.


I have absolutely zero patience with people trying to subvert the 
license change process, and especially those who deliberately 
misconstrue the intent of the process in the way you seem to be proud of 
doing. I will personally block your account if I should become aware of 
any edits of the kind you're sketching above.


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 12/13/2011 11:57 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

What will happen to buildings that were drawn by a CT-agreeing mapper
but with tags copied from a red node?


Presumably nothing will happen, since there is no easy way of 
identifying these. So this is an easy loophole - if you see any red 
nodes that represent points of interest, replace them with building 
polygons and copy the tags. (In fact I just did this the other day 
(though I have no idea if the node was red) before realizing this might 
cause problems, and I will continue to do it after thinking about it and 
realizing that it's been common practice for quite some time.)



What I'm more concerned about is linear features. There has been a 
significant amount of dualling, adding bridges, and other realignment by 
mappers who have not agreed to the CTs. Reverting will not only remove 
these improvements, but will also vandalize any subsequent changes (e.g. 
ref, lanes, hgv, sidewalk).


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Michael Collinson]

Hi Adam,

Yes, you have definitely accepted the new terms. You can check the UK 
list at http://odbl.de/great_britain.html


I opened the same location with the on-line Potlatch editor 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=51.723507&lon=-0.812403&zoom=18


It looks like the way itself is yours (Nov 2009) but that you have used 
nodes made (May 2009) by an earlier contributor called ngent. He/she has 
not yet accepted the new terms.


I suggest that you send him a message saying that your edits depend on 
his work and would he kindly login to his account and accept.  He may 
think his contributions too small/old to be worth while.  I have done 
this several times in the UK and have good response. Alternatively, 
remap it if you have enough information to do so without just copying 
his work.


If this happens again and you  use Potlatch, you and anyone else in the 
same situation can do this:


- Select the way or node.
- Hit the "t" key to get the "Advanced" view on the left-hand side.
- At the top, you will now see something like "Node: 413600709 unsure"
- Left click on that.
- Thus opens a new window http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/413600709
- You can then click on ngent's name and see he is "*Contributor terms:* 
Undecided " and send him a message. Thank him for the contribution and 
ask him to log in and accept as your contributions depend on his.
-  (often there is more than one editor you will have to click on the 
View History link and find which user by by going through each one):


This is a pain to do for just one or two nodes, but as the same 
contributor may have edits in other places we should collectively get 
these red points minimised pretty quickly. Germany, UK and Spain are the 
worst at the moment.


Mike

On 13/12/2011 19:08, Adam Hoyle wrote:
Wow, that's scary, most of the major towns around where I live are 
going to cease to be.


Actually, I've just looked in more detail at some of the areas I've 
been editing, and think there is a bug somewhere.


For example (there are a lot more examples):

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-0.81228&lat=51.72366&zoom=17 



Shows a path with red nodes, but I added that and no-one else has 
edited, and as far as I know I've signed the updated license thing. (I 
am 'atom oil' on openstreetmap.org ). Also 
other paths around that are edited only by me and don't show up as 
red, so that's inconsistent at least.


Do I need to file this as a bug somewhere (can anyone point me where 
please?).


Best,

Adam

On 13 Dec 2011, at 08:46, Frederik Ramm wrote:


Hi,

  apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I 
have posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any 
major bugs could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider 
audience.


I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-1.80469&lat=35.88371&zoom=2 



This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, 
combined with a current planet file. The view is updated nightly.


There's also statistics on the number of objects here:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html

And detailed information here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector 



Bye
Frederik


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Michael Andersen]

There's no bug there

If you examine more closely you'll notice that those 7 nodes were added by 
user 'ngent'. You're probably listed as the only contributor to the path 
because it was part of a longer path which was cut in 2 by you (when you cut 
up ways you get listed as original author of one of the 2 new paths).

Tirsdag den 13. december 2011 18:08:52 Adam Hoyle skrev:
> Wow, that's scary, most of the major towns around where I live are going to
> cease to be.
> 
> Actually, I've just looked in more detail at some of the areas I've been
> editing, and think there is a bug somewhere.
> 
> For example (there are a lot more examples):
> 
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-0.81228&lat=51.72366&zoom=17
> 
> Shows a path with red nodes, but I added that and no-one else has edited,
> and as far as I know I've signed the updated license thing. (I am 'atom
> oil' on openstreetmap.org). Also other paths around that are edited only by
> me and don't show up as red, so that's inconsistent at least.
> 
> Do I need to file this as a bug somewhere (can anyone point me where
> please?).
> 
> Best,
> 
> Adam
> 
> On 13 Dec 2011, at 08:46, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> >   apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have
> >   posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major
> >   bugs could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider
> >   audience.> 
> > I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
> > 
> > http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-1.80469&lat=35.88371&zoom
> > =2
> > 
> > This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined
> > with a current planet file. The view is updated nightly.
> > 
> > There's also statistics on the number of objects here:
> > 
> > http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html
> > 
> > And detailed information here:
> > 
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_
> > Inspector
> > 
> > Bye
> > Frederik
> > 
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Richard Fairhurst]

Adam Hoyle wrote:
> For example (there are a lot more examples):
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-0.81228&lat=51.72366&zoom=17
> shows a path with red nodes, but I added that and no-one else has edited

If you look at the history of each node, you can see who's edited it.

In this case, opening the area in Potlatch 2 shows those nodes highlighted
in orange, which P2 uses to mean "someone who edited this way hasn't
responded to the CTs yet". You can click on any of these nodes and then,
using the advanced view, click on the object ID to open it in OSM's data
browser like so:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/413600706

which says that the nodes were created by ngent. ngent is "undecided" (not
responded), as you can see by clicking on their username. Maybe send them a
mail asking?

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-Change-View-on-OSM-Inspector-tp7089165p7090946.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 13 December 2011 11:52, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> "Remapping means 'replacing with new content'. It does not mean simply
> copying the old content - that might infringe the original mapper's rights."

Is that statement even correct?  If editing old content after May 12
doesn't infringe rights of the authors of previous versions then
surely copying and pasting old content does not infringe either, or
this functionality should not be in the editors.

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Adam Hoyle]

Wow, that's scary, most of the major towns around where I live are going to 
cease to be.

Actually, I've just looked in more detail at some of the areas I've been 
editing, and think there is a bug somewhere.

For example (there are a lot more examples):

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-0.81228&lat=51.72366&zoom=17

Shows a path with red nodes, but I added that and no-one else has edited, and 
as far as I know I've signed the updated license thing. (I am 'atom oil' on 
openstreetmap.org). Also other paths around that are edited only by me and 
don't show up as red, so that's inconsistent at least.

Do I need to file this as a bug somewhere (can anyone point me where please?).

Best,

Adam

On 13 Dec 2011, at 08:46, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Hi,
> 
>   apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have posted 
> to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs could be 
> ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.
> 
> I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
> 
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-1.80469&lat=35.88371&zoom=2
> 
> This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined with a 
> current planet file. The view is updated nightly.
> 
> There's also statistics on the number of objects here:
> 
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html
> 
> And detailed information here:
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector
>  
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Nathan Edgars II]

What will happen to buildings that were drawn by a CT-agreeing mapper 
but with tags copied from a red node?


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Floris Looijesteijn]

I just think it's unclear...

deleting and recreating is probably not considered copying by some people.

greets,
floris

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Richard Fairhurst
 wrote:
> Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
>> I think that should be made more clear on the remapping page.
>
> You mean the fact that the _very_ _first_ _sentence_ of the main page
> content is
>
> "Remapping means 'replacing with new content'. It does not mean simply
> copying the old content - that might infringe the original mapper's rights."
>
> isn't enough for you? Blimey.
>
> cheers
> Richard
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-Change-View-on-OSM-Inspector-tp7089165p7089462.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] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Richard Fairhurst]

Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
> I think that should be made more clear on the remapping page.

You mean the fact that the _very_ _first_ _sentence_ of the main page
content is

"Remapping means 'replacing with new content'. It does not mean simply
copying the old content - that might infringe the original mapper's rights."

isn't enough for you? Blimey.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-Change-View-on-OSM-Inspector-tp7089165p7089462.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Floris Looijesteijn]

Oh course, that's right. I was talking about single nodes, not part of a way.

I've added a little note to the wiki.

Greets,
Floris Looijesteijn

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Floris Looijesteijn  wrote:
>>
>>    Most nodes ('information type' nodes like POI) can not be easily
>>    verified by another source except for resurveying.
>
>
> It is true that "information type" nodes will require re-surveying or good
> knowledge.
>
> It is however not true that these make up "most nodes". In fact, of about
> 1.3 billion nodes in our database, only 30 million nodes are such
> "information type" nodes - that's about 2.5%.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Floris Looijesteijn  wrote:

Most nodes ('information type' nodes like POI) can not be easily
verified by another source except for resurveying.


It is true that "information type" nodes will require re-surveying or 
good knowledge.


It is however not true that these make up "most nodes". In fact, of 
about 1.3 billion nodes in our database, only 30 million nodes are such 
"information type" nodes - that's about 2.5%.


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Jo]

Go ahead, it's  a wiki.

I found a way to make screencasts. Would it be useful to create a
screencast of an editing session with JOSM, while I'm resolving license
issues?

Jo

2011/12/13 Floris Looijesteijn 

> That's exactly why I'm asking.
>
> Most nodes ('information type' nodes like POI) can not be easily
> verified by another
> source except for resurveying.
>
> I think that should be made more clear on the remapping page.
>
> Or am I being paranoid? :)
>
> Greets,
> Floris
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Thomas Davie 
> wrote:
> > The key is to have your own valid source for the information.  If your
> can
> > source the data in a license compatible way and recreate the node
> yourself
> > without the use of the old node, then it's all good.
> >
> > if (*ra4 != 0xffc78948) { return false; }
> >
> >
> > On 13 Dec 2011, at 09:29, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
> >
> > So now we're remapping???
> >
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping
> > states you can just delete a node and add a new one to resolve a license
> > issue.
> > I can hardly imagine that is legally right.
> >
> > Greets,
> > Floris Looijesteijn
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frederik Ramm 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >   apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have
> >
> > posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs
> could
> >
> > be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.
> >
> >
> > I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
> >
> >
> >
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-1.80469&lat=35.88371&zoom=2
> >
> >
> > This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined
> with
> >
> > a current planet file. The view is updated nightly.
> >
> >
> > There's also statistics on the number of objects here:
> >
> >
> > http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html
> >
> >
> > And detailed information here:
> >
> >
> >
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector
> >
> >
> > Bye
> >
> > Frederik
> >
> >
> > ___
> >
> > 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] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Floris Looijesteijn]

That's exactly why I'm asking.

Most nodes ('information type' nodes like POI) can not be easily
verified by another
source except for resurveying.

I think that should be made more clear on the remapping page.

Or am I being paranoid? :)

Greets,
Floris

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Thomas Davie  wrote:
> The key is to have your own valid source for the information.  If your can
> source the data in a license compatible way and recreate the node yourself
> without the use of the old node, then it's all good.
>
> if (*ra4 != 0xffc78948) { return false; }
>
>
> On 13 Dec 2011, at 09:29, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
>
> So now we're remapping???
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping
> states you can just delete a node and add a new one to resolve a license
> issue.
> I can hardly imagine that is legally right.
>
> Greets,
> Floris Looijesteijn
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>   apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have
>
> posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs could
>
> be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.
>
>
> I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
>
>
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-1.80469&lat=35.88371&zoom=2
>
>
> This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined with
>
> a current planet file. The view is updated nightly.
>
>
> There's also statistics on the number of objects here:
>
>
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html
>
>
> And detailed information here:
>
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector
>
>
> Bye
>
> Frederik
>
>
> ___
>
> 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] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Jo]

If the coordinates of the new node are based on an independant source, like
Bing and if care is taken to remove tags contributed by
decliners/inaccessibles, why wouldn't it be?

Also I don't know about you, but I've been remapping ever since the license
change plugin first came out, as I resent to be adding modifications to
objects that might simply disappear in the future. So I've been spending
inordinate amounts of time in order to safeguard the time I'd have put in
to do the normal mapping.

Jo

2011/12/13 Floris Looijesteijn 

> So now we're remapping???
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping
> states you can just delete a node and add a new one to resolve a license
> issue.
> I can hardly imagine that is legally right.
>
> Greets,
> Floris Looijesteijn
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frederik Ramm 
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >   apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have
> > posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs
> could
> > be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.
> >
> > I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
> >
> >
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-1.80469&lat=35.88371&zoom=2
> >
> > This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined
> with
> > a current planet file. The view is updated nightly.
> >
> > There's also statistics on the number of objects here:
> >
> > http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html
> >
> > And detailed information here:
> >
> >
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector
> >
> > Bye
> > Frederik
> >
> > ___
> > 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] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Thomas Davie]

The key is to have your own valid source for the information.  If your can 
source the data in a license compatible way and recreate the node yourself 
without the use of the old node, then it's all good.
if (*ra4 != 0xffc78948) { return false; }

On 13 Dec 2011, at 09:29, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:

> So now we're remapping???
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping
> states you can just delete a node and add a new one to resolve a license 
> issue.
> I can hardly imagine that is legally right.
> 
> Greets,
> Floris Looijesteijn
> 
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>>   apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have
>> posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs could
>> be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.
>> 
>> I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
>> 
>> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-1.80469&lat=35.88371&zoom=2
>> 
>> This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined with
>> a current planet file. The view is updated nightly.
>> 
>> There's also statistics on the number of objects here:
>> 
>> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html
>> 
>> And detailed information here:
>> 
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector
>> 
>> Bye
>> Frederik
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Floris Looijesteijn]

So now we're remapping???

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping
states you can just delete a node and add a new one to resolve a license issue.
I can hardly imagine that is legally right.

Greets,
Floris Looijesteijn

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Hi,
>
>   apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have
> posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs could
> be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.
>
> I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
>
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-1.80469&lat=35.88371&zoom=2
>
> This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined with
> a current planet file. The view is updated nightly.
>
> There's also statistics on the number of objects here:
>
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html
>
> And detailed information here:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> ___
> 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] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

   apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have 
posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs 
could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.


I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-1.80469&lat=35.88371&zoom=2

This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined 
with a current planet file. The view is updated nightly.


There's also statistics on the number of objects here:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html

And detailed information here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector 



Bye
Frederik

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