Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
Michal Migurski wrote: (*) There is no final algorithm. There is the best that OSMF can come up with but it will have problems, and there*will* be things deleted which will be reinstated later, and there*will* be things kept which have to be deleted later after a complaint. In a way, the algorithm that OSMF comes up with is just a best guess, much like the algorithm currently used by the OSM inspector. Yeah, but it will come from the OSMF, which makes it authoritative. Unlike every other tool that has been suggested and developed. Since the algorithm will be so provisional at launch, there should be a parallel data and tile service set prior to launch and an old data set and tile service post-launch. Can I get a little clarity here ... I am assuming that 'undecideds' have until the 1st April to finally make a decision? Which is an utter pain for me since the main blocks I have left now are undecides. The 'declines' can simply be dealt with except where they are wrapped in a large 'undecided' as well. Personally I would prefer to see anything left as 'undecided' simply switched to a new user account called 'undecided'. If people have simply disappeared or are simply not 'declining' just to be difficult, then they had their opportunity to decline and didn't? So we just accept that work as clean. We do need a clear statement on what WILL happen on the 1st April? but if that is switch off day, then the 'decide by' day NEEDS to be earlier! If we are NOW simply classifying 'undecided' as 'declined' which does seem to be the recommendation, then what is the point of waiting for the outstanding users to accept, anyway? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
On 28 Jan 2012, at 11:00, Lester Caine wrote: Michal Migurski wrote: (*) There is no final algorithm. There is the best that OSMF can come up with but it will have problems, and there*will* be things deleted which will be reinstated later, and there*will* be things kept which have to be deleted later after a complaint. In a way, the algorithm that OSMF comes up with is just a best guess, much like the algorithm currently used by the OSM inspector. Yeah, but it will come from the OSMF, which makes it authoritative. Unlike every other tool that has been suggested and developed. Since the algorithm will be so provisional at launch, there should be a parallel data and tile service set prior to launch and an old data set and tile service post-launch. Can I get a little clarity here ... I am assuming that 'undecideds' have until the 1st April to finally make a decision? Which is an utter pain for me since the main blocks I have left now are undecides. The 'declines' can simply be dealt with except where they are wrapped in a large 'undecided' as well. Personally I would prefer to see anything left as 'undecided' simply switched to a new user account called 'undecided'. If people have simply disappeared or are simply not 'declining' just to be difficult, then they had their opportunity to decline and didn't? So we just accept that work as clean. Unfortunately, copyright doesn't work like that – to be allowed to copy something, you must have a license – they have not accepted the CTs, and thus not granted any license, so we can't use their work. Bob ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
Hello all, A brief interruption from your scheduled programming. legal-talk is currently more administered than moderated because I don't have the time to moderate it and no moderator has been appointed. That notwithstanding, I would ask participants in this thread to refrain from using emotive words like ridiculous, hypocrisy and vandalism. Remember too that, though you might not agree with them, there are a lot of people working hard on this, and just because your opinion differs on the implementation, it doesn't actually mean they're bad people. Thank you. :) cheers Richard legal-talk admin -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Critical-Mass-for-license-change-over-tp5436116p5437827.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] Critical Mass for license change-over
Hi, On 01/28/2012 05:59 AM, Michal Migurski wrote: I think that realistically, taking into account the time, manpower, and other resources available, you can expect to have an unambiguous plan in the form of a verbal description, or *maybe* at most a script or program that enables you to generate an ODbL planet from the full history file*. But certainly not a definitive, fast, and planet-wide cleanmap, nor regular planet dumps with the license change rules applied. That's weird. What's going to happen on April 1, then? It is not yet clear what form the algorithm will take. Technically, it could be something that takes a full history planet file or some other, specially created, extract and loads it into a new, initially empty, database; or it could be something that looks at (a copy of) the current database and selectively deletes stuff from that. The code used by OSMF to make the switch can certainly be published but it is not necessarily something that you can quickly run on your machine; it is possible that the code is geared towards the OSM database in a way that makes it impractical for someone else to execute it. Your message seems to imply that someone who is ready to make the modifications necessary for the license change to our database would automatically also have to have the technology to create something like a planet-wide cleanmap or planet dumps with the license change rules applied. This assumption is not true; even if the algorithm is ready, a planet-wide cleanmap would possibly require a full copy of the current database to be made on a separate server, dumps to be created from that and imported into a third server where they can be rendered. Keeping in mind that I am in support of the license switch, I think it's completely reasonable to expect a technical plan for a switch just 60 days in the future. You talk about reasonable - I talk about realistic. Especially in the context of a thread starting by the license group looking for feedback. The question was do we have critical mass? - there's no way to answer that without a way to measure impact. It is worth noting that the 1st April goal was set by the OSMF board in their latest face-to-face meeting, not by the License Working Group. I am not party to these communications but I believe that the first LWG heard of that date was after the board meeting was over. I doubt that LWG have even been consulted beforehand. The first LWG meeting after that has the following in its minutes: Board would like to set 1st April 2012 for cutting over to ODbL latest. LWG feels that with current status this is a practical goal for the community to work towards and resolves to meet this target... The f2f meeting at which the 1st April goal was set seems to have been operating under the headline: Strategic planning for the coming year. Set high levels goals, align with some specific 'Big Audacious' actions for the Foundation I agree these things would be nice to have but I don't see where they should come from. Currently we don't even have the algorithm. Then it sounds like nobody's ready for April; not the LWG, not the Foundation, and not any of us. Maybe that's why they called it Big Audacious ;). Sadly the OSMF board meeting minutes don't record who came up with 1st April and who supported the idea, else we could invite these individuals to discuss. If anyone has the hardware and time and brain capacity to build something that generates parallel planet files, my recommendation is to start setting this up now, even though the final algorithm might not be clear, so that once the algorithm is published you can react quickly. I donated money towards a new server just a short time ago. Might that be useful for this purpose? That's for OWG to decide but I don't think the new server is available for that. there should be a parallel data and tile service set prior to launch and an old data set and tile service post-launch. I think this depends on how the changeover is done. I certainly don't see an old tile service on the cards but copying over the currently existing tiles to some static storage should be possible. And an old data service *might* happen as a side effect *if* the license change should be done in a fashion where data is loaded onto a new server and that goes into production - then the old server could carry on read-only for a while. But it might just as well be that the old database is dropped and re-created or something, and in that case I don't see anyone making resources avaialble to carry on serving old data. Of course, if someone were interested enough, they could just take a planet file and load it up into a rails port of their own to serve old data. There's a special mailing list called rebuild which has been created to discuss exactly how the database rebuild is going to be run. Anything we come up with on that list would have to be tried out of course
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
Frederik Ramm wrote: Personally, I don't believe in audacious goals; but then again I believe that one should at least do what is possible to help. If we don't make April 1st then we'll want to make May 1st or June 1st, and every minute we spend making catalogues of things that someone should do and things that can reasonably be expected is a minute not spent to actually achieve these things. I think that it IS perfectly reasonable to make the 1st April the cut off date for 'acceptance' and any account that is not so flagged is then simply switched to declined if the legal beagles say that we can't simply recycle 'undecided'. It does at least give us a clean point at which we know that anything left IS fair game to be remapped. I'm currently holding fire on a number of large chunks from 80n and sherbourne but they are hiding stuff by Simon Ward who has declined. I don't get much time to add detail, so I would rather add clean new stuff than remap what MAY be allowed before 1st April anyway. Cleaning out the tainted data is something that can then be organised on a cleaner basis since there is no maybe? It's the current uncertainty which is a lot more of a pain! -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
Richard Fairhurst wrote: A brief interruption from your scheduled programming. Haha. I'm an idiot. Sent to the wrong list. *pours coffee on in effort to wake up* I did wonder since I though we were being constructive on the thread you had posted to ;) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
Lester Caine wrote: If we are NOW simply classifying 'undecided' as 'declined' which does seem to be the recommendation, then what is the point of waiting for the outstanding users to accept, anyway? The point is that about 60 undecideds are still accepting the license every day. If no one has got around to remapping that part of the map yet then this late acceptance can still save a lot of work. Look at this graph for a quick impression of the current agreement rate: http://ni.kwsn.net/~toby/OSM/license_count.html Tobias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
So look. There have been many reasonable questions and discussions on this topic, good. But moderation in still going to happen (is happening) on inflammatory posts and attacks. -Moderators * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron From: Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com To: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 1:49 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over andrzej wrote Nick, On 28 January 2012 05:43, Nick Hocking nick.hocking en gmail.com wrote: NE2/NE3 (Nathan) wrote This condescending tone isn't useful. We should all care about the entire map, not just our little area. So which part of this quote do you not agree with? It's the hypocrisy of one of the licence change whingers telling someone like Frederik that he should care about the entire map This hyprocrisy beggers belief. For about a year we have been inundated with whinging about you can't change the licence because I don't agree with the decisions of the licence debate/votes. Now, when we are finally about to resolve the tainted data issues, all we see are the licence whingers desperately wailing you can't change the licence for 60 or 70 years (1) because we may lose some roads and I'm not about to do any hard work to remap them for the project. If the licence whingers could put a sock in it, that'd be great. If they could help with the remapping that would be even better, but I'm probably hoping for too much there. (1) I always exaggerate ___ 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] Critical Mass for license change-over
On 27/01/2012 19:19, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 1/27/2012 12:44 PM, Michael Collinson wrote: As the license change process evolved, concern was expressed that an unacceptable amount of data might be lost from the current version of the OSM database and consensus was reached that phase 5 [1] - the actual license cut-over - should only happen when a critical mass was achieved. The question I ask you is, do you agree that we have reached critical mass? This cannot be answered until we know exactly what criteria will be used for determining taintedness. The current tools (all? based on WTFE) do not take into account splitting and merging of ways. If the OSMF decides to be more diligent and dig into the history, we have a big problem, since much of the remapping effort will have been based on assumptions that are no longer true. (It's possible that this is a much bigger issue in places like the U.S. where the initial street data was imported, and thus splits and merges of initially-untainted ways that contain untainted nodes are more common, so perhaps anyone looking at this issue should concentrate on these areas.) In short, we cannot know if the data loss is acceptable without knowing what data will be lost. Will the OSMF follow the WTFE algorithm? More than one person has expressed similar concern, I hope this adequately responds to everyone. I cannot as yet speak for the OSMF board. However, the LWG position is that: Reasonable efforts should now be made to remove the contribution value of non-agreeing mappers in a process that is both fair to non-agreers, for whatever reason, and to those that are continuing to map and that the process should be community-driven. In other words, we (the LWG) should get out of the way unless we feel that non-agreers contributions are not being dealt with fairly. The resource we watch, and so far have seen no need to intervene on, is the What is clean? wiki page [1]. Reasonable efforts includes something which is practically and technically implementable. WTFE [2] is, as far as I am aware, the only quantitative heuristic to have been developed and, again as far as I am aware, follows the What is Clean? criteria. I therefore we suggest that we now explicitly adopt the WTFE algorithm as criteria for any final rebuild, provided that incremental improvement can continue and also that folks can challenge any precepts on legal-talk. That vastly reduces the uncertainty that several folks express as we can use the figures it produces for the basis of this discussion. That leaves splits and merges as a potential uncertainty factor. My personal opinion here, and I stress personal, is that we make no adjustment for them and I'll be happy to discuss this further on legal-talk I will however put the USA situation on the LWG agenda. Mike [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WTFE ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org writes: Hi, On 01/28/2012 05:59 AM, Michal Migurski wrote: Keeping in mind that I am in support of the license switch, I think it's completely reasonable to expect a technical plan for a switch just 60 days in the future. You talk about reasonable - I talk about realistic. It's realistic (and reasonable) to think it will take longer to figure out the deletion rules. It's not reasonable to have the deletion rule decision be delayed and not also delay the actual deletion time. The notion that deletion will not happen until 60 days after the rules are published is an entirely reasonable expectation. While there may or may not be some good coming from the CT/ODBL, it's clearly causing harm to the community, as there are a lot of upset people (including a lot of agreers). More clarity and attempt to accomodate those people will positively increase the balance of usefulness of the change minus the harm. Your point about useful effort vs arguing is quite valid. But when LWG announces: first we're going to publish tainting rules, and then after that we're going to set date - 4/1 is off the table, a lot of this arguing will stop. pgpR6t6zhcvwW.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
Hi, On 28.01.2012 01:48, Frederik Ramm wrote: If anyone has the hardware and time and brain capacity to build something that generates parallel planet files, my recommendation is to start setting this up now, even though the final algorithm might not be clear, so that once the algorithm is published you can react quickly. Time is the scarcest resource here, at least for me, considering April 1st. If we first determined what is tainted in dialogue with LWG, second developed the tools, and third set the deadline to allow for some remapping, we might finally reach critical mass, which in my opinion should be 99.9%. cheers ant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
Hi, I certainly support your sentiment but I suggest 99% is too high. We have, in rounded figures, 1,200M nodes in the database. [1] Here are just three decliners [2] who definitely are not going to agree in any form, have very high proportions of imported nodes and which WTFE is also certainly marking all or most for removal. I've also added in old anon contributions as we've probably already reached all those we can. argath 7 025 025 100% POI import as far as I am aware ABS20062 498 993 100% boundary import anon edits 560 467 (may be too high as some previous anon mappers have actually agreed) h4ck3rm1k3 348 274 High but unknown import proportion in a geographically concentrated area This gives 10.4M nodes or roughly 0.86% of the entire database. Add in a few other smaller and harder to quantise examples from around the world and that is the one percent right there. Caveat: I have done nodes because it is easiest, an analysis of highway ways might be better for the standard you are suggesting. There is a trade-off. The longer we leave it the more unproductive over-editing occurs and many folks in problematic areas are not going to map what appears to be already there. I'd certainly like to see these examples removed right now if the respective communities agree. But that is only rational if we have consensus that critical mass is here. Mike [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats [2] http://odbl.de/world.html On 27/01/2012 21:19, LM_1 wrote: I would have higher standard for critical mass, definitely over 99 %. There should be a prolonged (at least one year) period where it is known what data can remain and what cannot to allow seamless switch. Having two months to the planned switch and still not knowing the exact algorithm to determine what stays seems just stupid. Lukas (LM_1) 2012/1/27 Michael Collinsonm...@ayeltd.biz: [cut] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
Well since you mentioned my name, h4ck3rm1k3 wanted to point out my blog post : http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Michael%20DuPont/diary/15777 I do not want to harm the project or the people in Kosovo and Albania where I personally did much work there. And considering that the team there is very healthy and continuing in Kosovo, I do not see any further personal work of mine being needed in Kosovo, I am not going to waste any more time or money on Albania, I do not see *any* chance there to start a community that is sustainable. you can re license *my* personal work, I don't care about that, and imports, you will have to just review them yourselves. dont expect me to be wasting time on understanding your new license scheme or checking compatibility, and I am not going to agree to any contributor terms. working on hosting my own changesets in blogposts, we will talk in some years about creative commons compatibility. spent enough time on this license stuff, and wish you all the best of luck. mike On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Hi, I certainly support your sentiment but I suggest 99% is too high. We have, in rounded figures, 1,200M nodes in the database. [1] Here are just three decliners [2] who definitely are not going to agree in any form, have very high proportions of imported nodes and which WTFE is also certainly marking all or most for removal. I've also added in old anon contributions as we've probably already reached all those we can. argath 7 025 025 100% POI import as far as I am aware ABS2006 2 498 993 100% boundary import anon edits 560 467 (may be too high as some previous anon mappers have actually agreed) h4ck3rm1k3 348 274 High but unknown import proportion in a geographically concentrated area This gives 10.4M nodes or roughly 0.86% of the entire database. Add in a few other smaller and harder to quantise examples from around the world and that is the one percent right there. Caveat: I have done nodes because it is easiest, an analysis of highway ways might be better for the standard you are suggesting. There is a trade-off. The longer we leave it the more unproductive over-editing occurs and many folks in problematic areas are not going to map what appears to be already there. I'd certainly like to see these examples removed right now if the respective communities agree. But that is only rational if we have consensus that critical mass is here. Mike [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats [2] http://odbl.de/world.html On 27/01/2012 21:19, LM_1 wrote: I would have higher standard for critical mass, definitely over 99 %. There should be a prolonged (at least one year) period where it is known what data can remain and what cannot to allow seamless switch. Having two months to the planned switch and still not knowing the exact algorithm to determine what stays seems just stupid. Lukas (LM_1) 2012/1/27 Michael Collinsonm...@ayeltd.biz: [cut] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
Thanks Mike, I will follow up on the blog post off list. Publicly, I would like to emphasise that the examples are highlighted only because the numbers are big and they need dealing. They should not be taken as any personal criticism. Mike On 28/01/2012 16:23, Mike Dupont wrote: Well since you mentioned my name, h4ck3rm1k3 wanted to point out my blog post : http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Michael%20DuPont/diary/15777 I do not want to harm the project or the people in Kosovo and Albania where I personally did much work there. And considering that the team there is very healthy and continuing in Kosovo, I do not see any further personal work of mine being needed in Kosovo, I am not going to waste any more time or money on Albania, I do not see *any* chance there to start a community that is sustainable. you can re license *my* personal work, I don't care about that, and imports, you will have to just review them yourselves. dont expect me to be wasting time on understanding your new license scheme or checking compatibility, and I am not going to agree to any contributor terms. working on hosting my own changesets in blogposts, we will talk in some years about creative commons compatibility. spent enough time on this license stuff, and wish you all the best of luck. mike On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Michael Collinsonm...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Hi, I certainly support your sentiment but I suggest 99% is too high. We have, in rounded figures, 1,200M nodes in the database. [1] Here are just three decliners [2] who definitely are not going to agree in any form, have very high proportions of imported nodes and which WTFE is also certainly marking all or most for removal. I've also added in old anon contributions as we've probably already reached all those we can. argath 7 025 025 100% POI import as far as I am aware ABS20062 498 993 100% boundary import anon edits 560 467 (may be too high as some previous anon mappers have actually agreed) h4ck3rm1k3 348 274 High but unknown import proportion in a geographically concentrated area This gives 10.4M nodes or roughly 0.86% of the entire database. Add in a few other smaller and harder to quantise examples from around the world and that is the one percent right there. Caveat: I have done nodes because it is easiest, an analysis of highway ways might be better for the standard you are suggesting. There is a trade-off. The longer we leave it the more unproductive over-editing occurs and many folks in problematic areas are not going to map what appears to be already there. I'd certainly like to see these examples removed right now if the respective communities agree. But that is only rational if we have consensus that critical mass is here. Mike [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats [2] http://odbl.de/world.html On 27/01/2012 21:19, LM_1 wrote: I would have higher standard for critical mass, definitely over 99 %. There should be a prolonged (at least one year) period where it is known what data can remain and what cannot to allow seamless switch. Having two months to the planned switch and still not knowing the exact algorithm to determine what stays seems just stupid. Lukas (LM_1) 2012/1/27 Michael Collinsonm...@ayeltd.biz: [cut] ___ 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] Critical Mass for license change-over
Michael Collinson writes: anon edits 560?467 (may be too high as some previous anon Why are we defending the copyright of people who are unwilling to fill in the question mark in their copyright declaration: Copyright 200X,?. The U.S. courts won't defend your copyright if you don't identify yourself. I expect that courts in most systems of law won't. Why are we? I appreciate that people have good and legitimate reasons for editing anonymously. I hope they can appreciate that they shouldn't, then, be allowed to retain copyright in those edits. -- --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] Critical Mass for license change-over
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: I therefore we suggest that we now explicitly adopt the WTFE algorithm as criteria for any final rebuild, provided that incremental improvement can continue and also that folks can challenge any precepts on legal-talk. That vastly reduces the uncertainty that several folks express as we can use the figures it produces for the basis of this discussion. That leaves splits and merges as a potential uncertainty factor. My personal opinion here, and I stress personal, is that we make no adjustment for them and I'll be happy to discuss this further on legal-talk I will however put the USA situation on the LWG agenda. OK well this helps. After I sent my last message there was a conversation on IRC about way splitting/merging... It might not be as big of a deal as I thought. I'm not yet 100% convinced though. And really it could affect how I remap interstates if such things end up being taken into account. The easiest way to clean a dirty section of interstate is to find an unmapped bridge near the beginning of the way. Splitting the way will contain the dirtyness to the first part which can then be easily removed and recreated. Now, this *could* be used to hide license taint improperly. I do not believe I am doing so in this situation since at the end of the day, this is all from TIGER anyway and I am just redoing what the decliner did in the first place. But this could be a problem in places where the base data isn't from a PD source. The other major thing that no existing tools take into consideration is relations. They are mentioned on the What is clean? page but they aren't being factored into any existing algorithms. Not the easiest thing to show since some of them aren't even rendered on most maps... Toby ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
Mike, Thank you for the detailed report and request for comments. This is my view on where we are. I think clarity on what will be deleted is very important, because without that it is hard to make a judgement on the cost-benefit of going ahead with the licence change. I will probably need a reminder about the positive side of the balance, because as I see it at the moment, it is mostly negative. We should not assume that contributors' acceptance of the new licence means that they are particularly in favour of it - they may have just accepted because it was easier than getting involved in the argument, and did not see it as doing any harm. From a personal point of view I fall into that category - I have no interest in changing the licence, but am not against it per-se, so accepted. Because I see negligible benefit in changing the licence, I find it very hard to justify data loss by progressing with it. Some of the numbers in the links you provided look very low to me, but I may have been interpreting them wrong. I also think it is a huge distraction of effort and resources - people have written tools (like those you refer to) to look at the possible effect of the change, and lots of people are putting effort into 're-mapping' areas. I feel there would be more constructive things to do. Given these issues, I wish I had thought about the consequences a lot more before I voted in favour of starting the process! But if we assume that there will not be a huge cry to abandon the change, as there seem to be a lot of people who are genuinely in favour of it, then I would like to see clarity on what will be deleted. My main issue with it is the assumption that is currently being made that people who do not respond to requests to accept or decline the new licence are treated as decliners. I have tried to contact some people in my are who made a few edits and disappeared, but they have not responded. I think it is overly pessimistic to treat these as decliners - we should assume they accept unless they complain and make a definitive statement that they decline.This is especially important for people who may have deceased - I would not like to think that if my near miss cycling accident had turned out worse, that my contributions would be deleted - that does not seem right to me. Without clarity on what the criteria for deleting information will be, I do not think I can make a judgement on whether we have reached a 'critical-mass'. Sorry for the rambling reply. To summarise my views: - We should not assume that everyone that has accepted the licence is particularly in favour of it - they may be pretty much neutral on it. - We should not treat non-responders as decliners, as this is overly pessimistic, and in my judgement is unlikely to be what the non-responders would want. - I will make a judgement on whether we have reached the 'critical mass' once we have clarity on what Thank you again for asking for feedback, and sorry I did not give you a straight answer. Regards Graham. -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
I would have higher standard for critical mass, definitely over 99 %. There should be a prolonged (at least one year) period where it is known what data can remain and what cannot to allow seamless switch. Having two months to the planned switch and still not knowing the exact algorithm to determine what stays seems just stupid. Lukas (LM_1) 2012/1/27 Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz: This is a report from the License Working Group and a request for feedback. If anyone can do translations or summaries for other language mailing lists, I would be very grateful. Our moderators have agreed that this is a general topic of concern to the whole OSM community. If you are a continuing mapper, please feel free to respond and give your opinion. Only strictly legal questions will be pointed at legal-talk list. As the license change process evolved, concern was expressed that an unacceptable amount of data might be lost from the current version of the OSM database and consensus was reached that phase 5 [1] - the actual license cut-over - should only happen when a critical mass was achieved. The question I ask you is, do you agree that we have reached critical mass? Here is our report. I and the License Working Group think we clearly have reached critical mass and that the situation will only improve over the next few weeks. An intense effort is being made to reach still undecided mappers. We have already asked your help in the UK, Philippines, Canada and USA. We will go global soon. A number of decliners have also kindly allowed us to continue using their contributions after making sure that their concerns were known. A few more may still do so. The OSM Foundation board has asked us to target April 1st for the change-over. First, the good numbers. Several hundred thousand mappers are now actively mapping under the new contributor terms. Only 420 older contributors have currently explicitly declined. At least 97.1% of nodes [2] and 96.6% of highways [2] in the current database were created by continuing mappers. However, some of those may have been edited later. From up-to-date figures, [3], it looks as though 3.2M out of 120M ways are problematic in some way. That is 2.68%. It is declining. So, if we can use just one figure, I suggest we could be at 97.32% readiness ... feel free to challenge! But what about negative factors? - There are subjective criteria. The removal of 100 hospital nodes may be far worse than than the removal of several million import points. ... Or the loss of a repeatable import may be bad because folks have editted over the top. It is difficult to judge whether this has a positive or negative bias overall. - There are regional and country [2, 4] variations. You might be in an area where there are bigger problems than than implied by the figures I have given you. The easiest way to see this is with OSMI License View tool [5] . - We still have not been able to get responses from about 35,000 older contributors who have mapped at least one node. Sorry, this is an approximate figure at the moment. One impact of this is that there are a lot of folks who have mapped a small town, stopped mapping and have not responded. - On a national level, there are still specific issues we are working on in Poland and the Czech Republic. In Australia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia and, on a regional basis, in Germany there large concentrations of data by folks who have specifically declined. In Liberia and Cyprus, there are key large contributors who have so far not responded. In Japan, there is also one very large contributor who has declined, but we understand this is a POI import that will be dropped. - http://odbl.de/ [4] gives a more pessimistic view than the numbers I have given you. This is probably due to bot edits and changes which are harmless, but should be taken into consideration. And, lastly, you can see what the new map will look like if we changed over today at http://cleanmap.poole.ch/. This is running on a small machine, so please be patient and try again later if lot's of folks are hitting it. Mike License Working Group [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan#PHASE_5_aka_Done_-_License_Cut-over_from_CC-BY-SA_to_ODbL_.28date_to_be_decided.2C_depends_on_the_technical_work.29 [2] http://odbl.poole.ch/ (based on early December data) [3] http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html [4] http://odbl.de/ [5] http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe ___ 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] Critical Mass for license change-over
On 01/27/2012 02:19 PM, LM_1 wrote: I would have higher standard for critical mass, definitely over 99 %. There should be a prolonged (at least one year) period where it is known what data can remain and what cannot to allow seamless switch. Having two months to the planned switch and still not knowing the exact algorithm to determine what stays seems just stupid. Lukas (LM_1) Despite not knowing the exact rules either, I do think that critical mass has been reached, certainly in my area. Further I would not expect the changeover to be a lot more seamless if it is allowed to take another 10 months. I suspect that people who have not acted already are likely to wait to the last minute, no matter if that is in two or in twelve months. And this has been going on for a long time already. Best regards, wichita dweller ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
My suggestion would be to tag the data that maybe deleted. That way individuals can see what needs to be repaired and the tags can be chosen so that the data doesn't render on a normal web render, is that Mapnik rules? It would also allow someone to build a set of rules that would display the area under the new licence and the changes. This could be done in Maperitive on an individual level but because this really needs some coordination a central web tile server would be best. Cheerio John ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
I would definitely echo the concerns of uncertainty put forward by others. Right now all the existing tools have disclaimers that this is MY interpretation of what will be deleted. We need something without that disclaimer before we can really say what will be lost. Specific questions that need an answer: 1) As Nathan pointed out, nothing currently looks at way splitting/combining. This could be HUGE deal for the interstates in the US thanks to some declining armchair mappers who did a lot of initial work on them after the TIGER import. I tried contacting a couple of them to see if they would be willing to specifically relicense their armchair edits but never got a response. 2) Are trivial bot/typo type edits as are being documented on the Quick History Service wiki page[1] really going to be relicensed even if the user has declined and has not given permission? 3) will the odbl=clean tag be respected? We are closing in on 15,000 uses of this tag. At this point I kid of doubt we will get solid answers to these questions in time to allow for any further remapping before April 1... [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quick_History_Service Toby ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: My suggestion would be to tag the data that maybe deleted. That way individuals can see what needs to be repaired and the tags can be chosen so that the data doesn't render on a normal web render, is that Mapnik rules? It would also allow someone to build a set of rules that would display the area under the new licence and the changes. This could be done in Maperitive on an individual level but because this really needs some coordination a central web tile server would be best. This is already being done by the map at http://cleanmap.poole.ch/ linked in the initial email. There is a clean view and a dirty view that you can switch between. There are some limitations as documented in the inital popup but any tool like this will have some limitations. Toby ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
mc == Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz writes: mc As the license change process evolved, concern was expressed that mc an unacceptable amount of data might be lost from the current mc version of the OSM database and consensus was reached that phase 5 mc [1] - the actual license cut-over - should only happen when a mc critical mass was achieved. mc mc The question I ask you is, do you agree that we have reached critical mass? This is ridiculous. How can the LWG ask whether the amount of data which is to be deleted is acceptable, when it hasn't yet decided on what is to be deleted? - there is a huge difference between the two damage-estimation sources that you cite (OSMI/WTFE and odbl.de) - noone seems able to answer the question of split ways. If interpreted rigourously with respect to copyright, it would significantly increase* the amount of damage currently estimated by WTFE. If not interpreted rigourously, there seems to be little point in the licence change since much data will be tainted. That no answers to such fundamental questions are available, just two months before the planned switchover, is ludicrous. * Something less than double, depending on how many non-acceptors have been using split/merge operations during editing (according to my understanding). -- Eric Marsden ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
Mike, - There are subjective criteria. The removal of 100 hospital nodes may be far worse than than the removal of several million import points. ... Or the loss of a repeatable import may be bad because folks have editted over the top. It is difficult to judge whether this has a positive or negative bias overall. this is quite important perspective. In the Czech Republic, we're facing significant frustration by the community when they see what happens to the map after deletion of the data. We had at least two very active mappers who did lot of work (both imports and manual work), who declined to accept ODBL (our understanding is namely because they don't like the concept of changing the license on an established project). We're trying to solve at least part of this problem by adopting their imports, but it is not going to be very easy. The problem is that their work served as a bases for work of other people and therefore we will lose significant amount of work by the people who agreed to the change. And these people just get frustrated and want to leave the community - I'm talking, e.g., about a guy who contributed 2% of total volume of data in the Czech Republic by himself, so it's not anything marginal... So if it affects highway=* (which are very important for many reasons and often hard to map, esp. tracks and paths under foliage), waterways (which are hard to map as these are also often under foliage), and landuse outside of imports (again, lot of manual work), my suggestion is that we need to get significantly over 99% preservation to justify the license change. Petr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
Hi Mike and Graham, We should not assume that contributors' acceptance of the new licence means that they are particularly in favour of it - they may have just accepted because it was easier than getting involved in the argument, and did not see it as doing any harm. From a personal point of view I fall into that category - I have no interest in changing the licence, but am not against it per-se, so accepted. Because I see negligible benefit in changing the licence, I find it very hard to justify data loss by progressing with it. +1 on this : this is precisely my view. I really don't mind one way or the other about the licence, and have kept out of it until now mostly because I have no wish to get into arguments... but what I definitely don't want to see are large holes appearing on the map come April 1st. I am particularly concerned about my local patch, Hampshire, with a former mapper, almost certainly in the top 5 Hampshire contributors, having declined the CTs. I do wonder if it will do more harm than good to switch over. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
On 1/27/2012 6:48 PM, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Hi Mike and Graham, We should not assume that contributors' acceptance of the new licence means that they are particularly in favour of it - they may have just accepted because it was easier than getting involved in the argument, and did not see it as doing any harm. From a personal point of view I fall into that category - I have no interest in changing the licence, but am not against it per-se, so accepted. Because I see negligible benefit in changing the licence, I find it very hard to justify data loss by progressing with it. +1 on this : this is precisely my view. I really don't mind one way or the other about the licence, and have kept out of it until now mostly because I have no wish to get into arguments... but what I definitely don't want to see are large holes appearing on the map come April 1st. I am particularly concerned about my local patch, Hampshire, with a former mapper, almost certainly in the top 5 Hampshire contributors, having declined the CTs. I do wonder if it will do more harm than good to switch over. I in fact oppose the license change. But I oppose it because of the damage it will do, so declining would be hypocritical. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
On Jan 27, 2012, at 3:48 PM, Nick Whitelegg wrote: I really don't mind one way or the other about the licence, and have kept out of it until now mostly because I have no wish to get into arguments... but what I definitely don't want to see are large holes appearing on the map come April 1st. I am particularly concerned about my local patch, Hampshire, with a former mapper, almost certainly in the top 5 Hampshire contributors, having declined the CTs. I do wonder if it will do more harm than good to switch over. I feel similarly, though I'm biased toward the new license because I'm happier with its stance toward derived works. Personally, I'll be happiest with a clean break on April 1st. If some data is destroyed and has to be re-created or parts of community peel off to form their own derived works using the last-known-CC planet dumps, I believe that's acceptable collateral damage in return for an unambiguous license situation and an end to nearly a half-decade of this cloud hanging over our heads. I strongly agree with Nathan and others in this thread who point out that critical mass is impossible to judge without an unambiguous plan for data deletion from the Foundation. We have to know what will actually be deleted and how relations or merged/split ways will be affected to truly judge. http://cleanmap.poole.ch offers a possible view of how the map will look on April 1, but it's my understanding that it's an interpretation rather than an official outcome, and comes with numerous sorry, slow server caveats. OSMF should adopt Clean Map and publish a version which reflects the actual future, with the same performance as the current Mapnik layer. I'd also like to see a parallel planet dump, with all 20GB of data in the form it will actually take on April 1st, so we can generate our own downstream works as necessary and predict impact. -mike. michal migurski- m...@stamen.com 415.558.1610 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
Hi, as others have pointed out - how can we decide if we're at critical mass, if we don't know the actual mass. There is absolutely no point in asking this question, until the precise algorithm of changeover is presented. By the way, in the latest license related discussion in talk-cz, Lukáš Matějka (LM_1) suggested one idea worth thinking about. Before the total cut off date for CC data, we could have one more phase: the database would still contain old incompatible data, but API would accept only changesets that contain only ODbL+CT clean objects. This would allow more seamless change of licensing. In current state of the OSM database it is possible (and in some regions I would say quite common) to upload changesets that will be simply lost in a couple of months. And what's worse, the contributor may not even know that. Petr Morávek aka Xificurk signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
Hi, On 01/28/2012 01:05 AM, Michal Migurski wrote: I strongly agree with Nathan and others in this thread who point out that critical mass is impossible to judge without an unambiguous plan for data deletion from the Foundation. ... OSMF should adopt Clean Map and publish a version which reflects the actual future, with the same performance as the current Mapnik layer. I'd also like to see a parallel planet dump, with all 20GB of data in the form it will actually take on April 1st, so we can generate our own downstream works as necessary and predict impact. I think that realistically, taking into account the time, manpower, and other resources available, you can expect to have an unambiguous plan in the form of a verbal description, or *maybe* at most a script or program that enables you to generate an ODbL planet from the full history file*. But certainly not a definitive, fast, and planet-wide cleanmap, nor regular planet dumps with the license change rules applied. I agree these things would be nice to have but I don't see where they should come from. Currently we don't even have the algorithm. If anyone has the hardware and time and brain capacity to build something that generates parallel planet files, my recommendation is to start setting this up now, even though the final algorithm might not be clear, so that once the algorithm is published you can react quickly. Anyone who says I can't really do anything before I know the exact algorithm should perhaps take the second half of March off work. Bye Frederik (*) There is no final algorithm. There is the best that OSMF can come up with but it will have problems, and there *will* be things deleted which will be reinstated later, and there *will* be things kept which have to be deleted later after a complaint. In a way, the algorithm that OSMF comes up with is just a best guess, much like the algorithm currently used by the OSM inspector. -- 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] Critical Mass for license change-over
On 1/27/2012 7:48 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Anyone who says I can't really do anything before I know the exact algorithm should perhaps take the second half of March off work. This condescending tone isn't useful. We should all care about the entire map, not just our little area. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
On Jan 27, 2012, at 4:48 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: On 01/28/2012 01:05 AM, Michal Migurski wrote: OSMF should adopt Clean Map and publish a version which reflects the actual future, with the same performance as the current Mapnik layer. I'd also like to see a parallel planet dump, with all 20GB of data in the form it will actually take on April 1st, so we can generate our own downstream works as necessary and predict impact. I think that realistically, taking into account the time, manpower, and other resources available, you can expect to have an unambiguous plan in the form of a verbal description, or *maybe* at most a script or program that enables you to generate an ODbL planet from the full history file*. But certainly not a definitive, fast, and planet-wide cleanmap, nor regular planet dumps with the license change rules applied. That's weird. What's going to happen on April 1, then? Keeping in mind that I am in support of the license switch, I think it's completely reasonable to expect a technical plan for a switch just 60 days in the future. Especially in the context of a thread starting by the license group looking for feedback. The question was do we have critical mass? - there's no way to answer that without a way to measure impact. I agree these things would be nice to have but I don't see where they should come from. Currently we don't even have the algorithm. Then it sounds like nobody's ready for April; not the LWG, not the Foundation, and not any of us. If anyone has the hardware and time and brain capacity to build something that generates parallel planet files, my recommendation is to start setting this up now, even though the final algorithm might not be clear, so that once the algorithm is published you can react quickly. I donated money towards a new server just a short time ago. Might that be useful for this purpose? (*) There is no final algorithm. There is the best that OSMF can come up with but it will have problems, and there *will* be things deleted which will be reinstated later, and there *will* be things kept which have to be deleted later after a complaint. In a way, the algorithm that OSMF comes up with is just a best guess, much like the algorithm currently used by the OSM inspector. Yeah, but it will come from the OSMF, which makes it authoritative. Unlike every other tool that has been suggested and developed. Since the algorithm will be so provisional at launch, there should be a parallel data and tile service set prior to launch and an old data set and tile service post-launch. -mike. michal migurski- m...@stamen.com 415.558.1610 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
andrzej wrote Nick, On 28 January 2012 05:43, Nick Hocking nick.hocking en gmail.com wrote: NE2/NE3 (Nathan) wrote This condescending tone isn't useful. We should all care about the entire map, not just our little area. So which part of this quote do you not agree with? It's the hypocrisy of one of the licence change whingers telling someone like Frederik that he should care about the entire map This hyprocrisy beggers belief. For about a year we have been inundated with whinging about you can't change the licence because I don't agree with the decisions of the licence debate/votes. Now, when we are finally about to resolve the tainted data issues, all we see are the licence whingers desperately wailing you can't change the licence for 60 or 70 years (1) because we may lose some roads and I'm not about to do any hard work to remap them for the project. If the licence whingers could put a sock in it, that'd be great. If they could help with the remapping that would be even better, but I'm probably hoping for too much there. (1) I always exaggerate ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
