Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
Am 13/lug/2014 um 22:29 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: If osm is missing placename population figures, deducting the importance from population alone doesn't hit it, and adding ranks is generally disputed by many mappers (subjective), so here there is no easy solution. IMHO there is not even a complicated solution, as it is indeed subjective how to weight different aspects like economy, politics, transportation, communication, religion, ... or if the worldwide admin boundaries are too complicated to use, using our own data here has become relatively easy and doable in the meantime (boundaries much completer than years ago when NE was inserted in the style), could create a shapefile with reduced detail for low zoom similar to how we do for the coastlines. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
On 14/07/2014, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 13/lug/2014 um 22:29 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: If osm is missing placename population figures, deducting the importance from population alone doesn't hit it, and adding ranks is generally disputed by many mappers (subjective), so here there is no easy solution. IMHO there is not even a complicated solution, as it is indeed subjective how to weight different aspects like economy, politics, transportation, communication, religion, ... Indeed it's a thorny subject, but delegating the decision to NE sounds like a cop-out. Whatever hard data NE used in it decision making (population, area, administrative status, connectedness...) should be available in OSM, and the subjective algorythm that takes this data to output a global place ranking could go either in the style or in a common extraction script. For that matter, how does the osmfr style do its place ranking ? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
On the first zoom levels, I'm using the capital=* tag to select the country
capitals, then sorting them with decreasing population.
It is a very small number of objects, that can easily be maintained.
The postgis query is here:
https://github.com/cquest/osmfr-cartocss/blob/master/osmfr-cartocss.mml#L2070
If you remove the FR specific part, it looks like:
(SELECT way,
place,
name,
cast(regexp_replace('0' || population,'[^0-9]','','g') AS bigint)
AS pop,
coalesce(tags-'is_capital', (CASE WHEN coalesce(admin_level,
capital)='2' THEN 'country' WHEN coalesce(admin_level, capital)='4' THEN
'state' ELSE NULL END)) AS is_capital
FROM planet_osm_point
WHERE place IS NOT NULL
AND place IN ('city',
'town')
AND (tags-'is_capital' IN ('country',
'state')
OR capital IN ('2',
'4')
OR (capital='yes'
AND admin_level IN ('2',
'4')))
ORDER BY is_capital,
place,
pop DESC) AS placenames
As it is a bit a mess in the capital/is_capital tags so I had to use this
long coalesce/case to deal with different tagging.
As you can see it uses the place=* tag + is_capital/capital + population.
The result looks ok to me:
http://tile.openstreetmap.fr/?zoom=5lat=43.52781lon=4.22487layers=B000FFF
At zoom 4, I just put a black dot for capitals.
Starting at zoom 6 there is an additional placenames layer to fill empty
spaces. This avoid large areas with no names at all due to hard cuts in
place=* tags. Many areas in the world have far less population than in
Europe so the stylesheet has to adapt to this.
Compare:
osm.org:
http://tile.openstreetmap.fr/?zoom=6lat=23.87977lon=-4.41038layers=00B0FFF
mapquest:
http://tile.openstreetmap.fr/?zoom=6lat=23.87977lon=-4.41038layers=000BFFF
osm-fr:
http://tile.openstreetmap.fr/?zoom=6lat=23.87977lon=-4.41038layers=B000FFF
2014-07-14 11:54 GMT+02:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com:
On 14/07/2014, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 13/lug/2014 um 22:29 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com:
If osm is missing placename population figures,
deducting the importance from population alone doesn't hit it, and adding
ranks is generally disputed by many mappers (subjective), so here there
is
no easy solution. IMHO there is not even a complicated solution, as it is
indeed subjective how to weight different aspects like economy, politics,
transportation, communication, religion, ...
Indeed it's a thorny subject, but delegating the decision to NE sounds
like a cop-out. Whatever hard data NE used in it decision making
(population, area, administrative status, connectedness...) should be
available in OSM, and the subjective algorythm that takes this data to
output a global place ranking could go either in the style or in a
common extraction script.
For that matter, how does the osmfr style do its place ranking ?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
--
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
2014-07-14 12:44 GMT+02:00 Christian Quest cqu...@openstreetmap.fr: On the first zoom levels, I'm using the capital=* tag to select the country capitals, then sorting them with decreasing population. It is a very small number of objects, that can easily be maintained. this works not too bad for Europe, but fails e.g. for the US, where just Washington appears in Zoom 5, but New York City takes up to zoom level 11 (!) till it gets spelled out, while there is already NYC (short name) in zoom 6 together with a sea of more or less unimportant (at that zoom level) cities http://tile.openstreetmap.fr/?zoom=6lat=40.74623lon=-75.75272layers=B000FFF San Francisco is hard to find, L.A. doesn't appear before zoom 10 (but is hard to spot due to its brevity), and spelled out at zoom 11. But also in Europe there are some serious problems, e.g. Zurich (typical hard case, OK) isn't there at zoom6, unlike Clermont-Ferrand, Brive-la-Gaillarde, or the famous Ebingen on the Swabian Alb ;-) IMHO we shouldn't use such a simple approach for the main style. An alternative to the opaque Natural Earth dataset might be a community-generated ranking based on a series of criteria (I named many in my previous post), and which is continuously discussed, modified and voted upon ;-), or a detail ranking for some subjects with relative ranks (i.e. more detailed ranking not mixing up religion and economy in one overall ranking, but having detailed ranking to mirror relative importance in fields like trade, production, transportation, banking, religion, culture, health, public administration, education (e.g. universities), so everybody creating a map can decide what matters to them. Or we could use some other external dataset, e.g. important cities according to the analysis of someone else (usually economy centered), see e.g. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
2014-07-14 16:40 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: Or we could use some other external dataset, e.g. important cities according to the analysis of someone else (usually economy centered), see e.g. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city It would be quite easy to find the number of wikipedias from different languages that have an article about a place. That way small but internationally known towns or villages could have better rating than some places with more population. For example, Smiljan [1] is a small village in Croatia where Nikola Tesla was born, and it has 22 wikipedias with an article about it. Oteš [2] is a village right besides it, and it has 5 wikipedias. Also, if a place has a wikivoyage page about it, that means it's quite a popular tourist place. It's a bit of a heuristic way of solving this, but heuristic is maybe the only way we have. Janko [1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q367211 [2] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2473950 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
2014-07-14 17:13 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: It would be quite easy to find the number of wikipedias from different languages that have an article about a place. That way small but internationally known towns or villages could have better rating than some places with more population. For example, Smiljan [1] is a small village in Croatia where Nikola Tesla was born, and it has 22 wikipedias with an article about it. Oteš [2] is a village right besides it, and it has 5 wikipedias. Also, if a place has a wikivoyage page about it, that means it's quite a popular tourist place. It's a bit of a heuristic way of solving this, but heuristic is maybe the only way we have. Yes, we are basically discussing (at least) two topics here, one is to get the most important cities on a world scale (likely doable manually), and the other is to get a good approximation for every place (i.e. thousands or millions of small ones, with relative importance for everyone, likely to be done automatically or semi-automatically with help of good algorithms). Of course even if you try to be objective you will never be, and the perception of what is important does vary a lot based on your own cultural background, e.g. Mecca is not on one of the linked Cities lists of wikipedia, but hundreds of millions of people would probably want it there... cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
2014-07-14 17:38 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: Yes, we are basically discussing (at least) two topics here, one is to get the most important cities on a world scale (likely doable manually), and the other is to get a good approximation for every place (i.e. thousands or millions of small ones, with relative importance for everyone, likely to be done automatically or semi-automatically with help of good algorithms). Of course even if you try to be objective you will never be, and the perception of what is important does vary a lot based on your own cultural background, e.g. Mecca is not on one of the linked Cities lists of wikipedia, but hundreds of millions of people would probably want it there... The thing is, what you need is relative importance of nearby cities. Nearby cities are not so much subject to cultural background bias, because they are usually from similar cultures. Here's a list of some cities and wikipedias (number of wikipedia articles in different languages about a city). I think it looks pretty good. New York - 192 (more than nearby Washington even though Washington is capital) Tokyo - 192 São Paulo - 188 (more than nearby Rio de Janeiro) Washington - 182 Wien - 176 (more than nearby Bratislava) Rio de Janeiro - 156 Bratislava - 153 Baghdad - 152 Zagreb - 142 (more than nearby Ljubljana) Mecca - 138 (more than nearby Jeddah, even though it has less then half the population) Ljubljana - 130 Montevideo - 125 Ulan Bator - 121 Bamako - 113 Jeddah - 106 Perth - 95 Casablanca - 93 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
2014-07-14 16:40 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2014-07-14 12:44 GMT+02:00 Christian Quest cqu...@openstreetmap.fr: On the first zoom levels, I'm using the capital=* tag to select the country capitals, then sorting them with decreasing population. It is a very small number of objects, that can easily be maintained. this works not too bad for Europe, but fails e.g. for the US, where just Washington appears in Zoom 5, but New York City takes up to zoom level 11 (!) till it gets spelled out, while there is already NYC (short name) in zoom 6 together with a sea of more or less unimportant (at that zoom level) cities http://tile.openstreetmap.fr/?zoom=6lat=40.74623lon=-75.75272layers=B000FFF Not worse than the current osm.org rendering... but I agree that it is weird ;) It is not catched by my query because there is no capital=* tag on it. Albany is the state capital (something I've just learned thanks to WP). So more tags may be useful to catch these major places. There are two tags on the NYC place=* node: importance=international and rank=0. importance=* is a proposed tag since 2009, with 700+ occurences. rank=* is not documented in the wiki and currently have 600 occurences. For place=* nodes rank=0 has 135 occurences, with a lot of then in Lituania and several too in Brazil... to avoid too many false positive, it need to be limited to place=city Given the emptyness of the area around Clermont-Ferrand, and Brive, it is quite logical to get them on the map. They are the major cities in the area ;) San Francisco is hard to find, L.A. doesn't appear before zoom 10 (but is hard to spot due to its brevity), and spelled out at zoom 11. But also in Europe there are some serious problems, e.g. Zurich (typical hard case, OK) isn't there at zoom6, unlike Clermont-Ferrand, Brive-la-Gaillarde, or the famous Ebingen on the Swabian Alb ;-) Zurich... admin_centre:4=yes, a tag you'll find only in Switzerland... no capital/is_capital/importance/rank... - IMHO we shouldn't use such a simple approach for the main style. An alternative to the opaque Natural Earth dataset might be a community-generated ranking based on a series of criteria (I named many in my previous post), and which is continuously discussed, modified and voted upon ;-), or a detail ranking for some subjects with relative ranks (i.e. more detailed ranking not mixing up religion and economy in one overall ranking, but having detailed ranking to mirror relative importance in fields like trade, production, transportation, banking, religion, culture, health, public administration, education (e.g. universities), so everybody creating a map can decide what matters to them. Or we could use some other external dataset, e.g. important cities according to the analysis of someone else (usually economy centered), see e.g. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city We need a default uniform tagging scheme, then update OSM. capital=* + importance=* should be enough, with population to provide a sort order to help text placements for similar capital/importance values. importance maybe have different subjects attached to it. For example, importance:religion=international/national/regional so Mecca or Lourdes may be promoted on some maps but at least data is there. By switching the default rendering to a uniform default tagging, this will quickly push us to improve the data. The only problem may be a new kind of vandalism based on these tags... From time to time thank to my rendering I'm detecting new countries coming from mistakes between country and maybe countryside... Maybe we should switch to the tagging list ;) -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
Using the importance=* tag did not really help much, so I switched to the same approach I've used in higher zoom to fill empty areas with place names. Basically, there is one layer with names I absolutely want (capitals), then the other stuff (markers, icons, names) are placed, then a final layer of filling is done with a relatively high text-min-distance value to adjust the density. I've also added a test on the number of tags on the place=* node. Only the ones with at least 20 tags are selected. New-York is now there, along with LA, San-Francisco and San Jose, San Diego, Seattle, Las Vegas... and Zurich too ;) I still consider this as a hack to temporarily solve a tagging/data related problem. It is better for zoom 5, not tuned yet for zoom 6. -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
On 2014-07-09 11:42 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Wednesday 09 July 2014, Michael Reichert wrote: The website now has an attriution in the lower right corner: © Geopoi, Map Data: © Here, OpenStreetMap contributors Here is a link to http://here.com/ OpenStreetMap is a link to http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright I think that this is not enough. Because they mix data they should declare which data is from where. There should be a link to website (or a pop-up) with a text like this: It would be great if they did but nothing in the license requires them to, the attribution requirements are fully satisfied by this. In general a tile layer is going to be rendered from a collective database, of which part of is a derivative database licensed under the ODbL. They're obliged to disclose the derivative database, but not which parts of it are used, and nothing about the other databases in the collective database. In general rarely any OSM based map out there tells exactly where OSM data is used and where not, even OSMs own 'standard style' map fails to mention the use of non-OSM data. The style documentation does cover other sources. Also, the other sources are all under ODbL compatible licenses anyways, so the situation is a bit different as the entire set of sources can be released under the ODbL. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
On 13.07.2014 15:35, Paul Norman wrote: In general a tile layer is going to be rendered from a collective database, of which part of is a derivative database licensed under the ODbL. They're obliged to disclose the derivative database, but not which parts of it are used, and nothing about the other databases in the collective database. Can you point to sources? 4.3 only requires attribution for produced works. 4.5 explicitly says that you don't need to share your collective database. http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1-0/ 4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License. a. Example notice. The following text will satisfy notice under Section 4.3: Contains information from DATABASE NAME, which is made available here under the Open Database License (ODbL). 4.5 Limits of Share Alike. The requirements of Section 4.4 do not apply in the following: a. For the avoidance of doubt, You are not required to license Collective Databases under this License if You incorporate this Database or a Derivative Database in the collection Stephan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
Am 13/lug/2014 um 16:19 schrieb Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de: a. For the avoidance of doubt, You are not required to license Collective Databases under this License if You incorporate this Database or a Derivative Database in the collection yes and this is followed by a sentence to ensure that this db or a der. db remains under ODbL (I.e. the ODbL part remains ODbL but doesn't infect the whole collective db) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
2014-07-13 16:19 GMT+02:00 Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de: On 13.07.2014 15:35, Paul Norman wrote: In general a tile layer is going to be rendered from a collective database, of which part of is a derivative database licensed under the ODbL. They're obliged to disclose the derivative database, but not which parts of it are used, and nothing about the other databases in the collective database. Can you point to sources? 4.3 only requires attribution for produced works. 4.5 explicitly says that you don't need to share your collective database. http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1-0/ 4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License. a. Example notice. The following text will satisfy notice under Section 4.3: Contains information from DATABASE NAME, which is made available here under the Open Database License (ODbL). 4.5 Limits of Share Alike. The requirements of Section 4.4 do not apply in the following: a. For the avoidance of doubt, You are not required to license Collective Databases under this License if You incorporate this Database or a Derivative Database in the collection Hi all, my opinion is the same as Stephan's. All we know is that they are downloading OSM data (periodically), they are filtering only some elements (i.e. filtering out the roads, maintaining buildings and landuse). Then they are probably rendering the background with the OSM data, then rendering the road network from other data (probably Navteq) and they collate the two images superimposing the roads on the background. I think they could, as well, have added the road data in another table and have a single rendering step, I do not think this change in procedure would change anything about the licensing. At the moment, we have no sign of the fact that they derived any data from OSM data, or have used OSM data in any other way other than producing the background of the tiles. For how I understand the ODbL (but IANAL) and how I understand they are using OSM data this is a collective database and they are not activating the share alike clause. I think we may asak them to either: * disclose which tags they are using/filtering out * publish a copy of the filtered OSM database they are using For the campaign we have run, the only thing we were 100% sure is that they were not attributing OSM correctly, so we mentioned only that in the campaign. Cristian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
On Sunday 13 July 2014, Paul Norman wrote: In general rarely any OSM based map out there tells exactly where OSM data is used and where not, even OSMs own 'standard style' map fails to mention the use of non-OSM data. The style documentation does cover other sources. Also, the other sources are all under ODbL compatible licenses anyways, so the situation is a bit different as the entire set of sources can be released under the ODbL. Of course, i was just trying to point out that the standard OSM map does not really give a good example here for others to imitate. Since the style is open you can of course see where external data is used but this only works as long as it is open. Anyone who uses a proprietary style but otherwise follows OSMs own example in terms of attribution will not have this information available including those styles on osm.org which are not open. And the ODbL as far as i can see does not make any difference if a derivative/collective database contains data originally published under an ODbL compatible license or not. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
Am 13/lug/2014 um 17:51 schrieb Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com: For how I understand the ODbL (but IANAL) and how I understand they are using OSM data this is a collective database and they are not activating the share alike clause. +1, you can see this from the examples where there was landuse but no roads, that the layers seem to be completely independent cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
On 13/07/2014, Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de wrote: Of course, i was just trying to point out that the standard OSM map does not really give a good example here for others to imitate. Since the style is open you can of course see where external data is used but this only works as long as it is open. Maybe we should point out when we use non-OSM data on osm.org, even if that data's license doesn't require attribution. Is there consensus on this ? For example, the default mapnik style uses data from NaturalEarth, to display placenames and boudaries at low zoom I think. Note that displaying attribution is the job of the website hosting a style, not the job of the style itself. That said, I don't feel too pushed to ask other OSM-and-misc data users to disclose exactly what mix of data they are using (not that we have the legal basis to require it anyway). I imagine we could tweak our license to require disclosing which subset of OSM data is being used, or even what other datasets it is being mixed with, but that's IMHO going too far (and some community members are arguing that the current license is already too cumbersome). Ok to encourage, not ok to require. Lastly, changing the topic, it seems like a bit of a failure that our default rendering apparently has to use non-osm data as well. If osm is missing placename population figures, or if the worldwide admin boundaries are too complicated to use, then we need to fix the download options and/or the data itself. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
We could use 100% OSM data... In the OSM-FR style, I've replaced NaturalEarth data with OSM one. 2014-07-13 22:29 GMT+02:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: On 13/07/2014, Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de wrote: Of course, i was just trying to point out that the standard OSM map does not really give a good example here for others to imitate. Since the style is open you can of course see where external data is used but this only works as long as it is open. Maybe we should point out when we use non-OSM data on osm.org, even if that data's license doesn't require attribution. Is there consensus on this ? For example, the default mapnik style uses data from NaturalEarth, to display placenames and boudaries at low zoom I think. Note that displaying attribution is the job of the website hosting a style, not the job of the style itself. That said, I don't feel too pushed to ask other OSM-and-misc data users to disclose exactly what mix of data they are using (not that we have the legal basis to require it anyway). I imagine we could tweak our license to require disclosing which subset of OSM data is being used, or even what other datasets it is being mixed with, but that's IMHO going too far (and some community members are arguing that the current license is already too cumbersome). Ok to encourage, not ok to require. Lastly, changing the topic, it seems like a bit of a failure that our default rendering apparently has to use non-osm data as well. If osm is missing placename population figures, or if the worldwide admin boundaries are too complicated to use, then we need to fix the download options and/or the data itself. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
Hi, On 07/07/14 11:20, Stephan Knauss wrote: Cristian Consonni writes: The agency has copied only some data (buildings and landuse [parks, rivers, lakes, etc.]) and they superimposed the road graph taken from another source, probably proprietary data. So you talk about a produced work in the terms of the ODbL. As their features are not derived from OSM data. Having the streets intersect with the OSM building clearly shows that they did not derive. So the only thing missing is a proper attribution. The website now has an attriution in the lower right corner: © Geopoi, Map Data: © Here, OpenStreetMap contributors Here is a link to http://here.com/ OpenStreetMap is a link to http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright I think that this is not enough. Because they mix data they should declare which data is from where. There should be a link to website (or a pop-up) with a text like this: The map data is from following sources: Building polygons and landuse polygons are from OpenStreetMap © OpenStreetMap contributors, licensed ODbL 1.0. All other data is either from othersources. The map data is still available under ODbL and the user should be able to know which data he can use free. Best regards Michael signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
On Wednesday 09 July 2014, Michael Reichert wrote: The website now has an attriution in the lower right corner: © Geopoi, Map Data: © Here, OpenStreetMap contributors Here is a link to http://here.com/ OpenStreetMap is a link to http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright I think that this is not enough. Because they mix data they should declare which data is from where. There should be a link to website (or a pop-up) with a text like this: It would be great if they did but nothing in the license requires them to, the attribution requirements are fully satisfied by this. In general rarely any OSM based map out there tells exactly where OSM data is used and where not, even OSMs own 'standard style' map fails to mention the use of non-OSM data. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
Cristian Consonni writes: The agency has copied only some data (buildings and landuse [parks, rivers, lakes, etc.]) and they superimposed the road graph taken from another source, probably proprietary data. So you talk about a produced work in the terms of the ODbL. As their features are not derived from OSM data. Having the streets intersect with the OSM building clearly shows that they did not derive. So the only thing missing is a proper attribution. Is this maybe only a (unfinished) test server yet? wwwt sounds a bit like it. And a lot of links lead to non-existing pages. Sounds a bit over-reacting to me. Have you tried to contact them already? Stephan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
2014-07-07 11:20 GMT+02:00 Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de: Cristian Consonni writes: The agency has copied only some data (buildings and landuse [parks, rivers, lakes, etc.]) and they superimposed the road graph taken from another source, probably proprietary data. So you talk about a produced work in the terms of the ODbL. As their features are not derived from OSM data. Having the streets intersect with the OSM building clearly shows that they did not derive. So the only thing missing is a proper attribution. Is this maybe only a (unfinished) test server yet? wwwt sounds a bit like it. And a lot of links lead to non-existing pages. Sounds a bit over-reacting to me. Have you tried to contact them already? As said above, we contacted them 3 times over the last 3 months, asking for proper attribution. We sent legally-valid emails (in Italy we have this certified e-mail [PEC, posta elettronica certificata] whose sending is legally recognized (as for the paper registered mail)). We received no answer whatsoever. This server is online since 4 years and it was praised in the press: «The base of GeoPoi [the name of the service] is vector graphics that nobody, not even Google Maps [...] can pride of»[*] (sic et simpliciter) (we found this article just now) For the sake of completeness, we know that they updated the data from OSM in the system at the end of June, i.e. a couple of weeks ago. Before the data they had were from somewhere at the end of September 2013. So well after we notified them privately of the violation, and asked for proper attribution and they did anything to add that simple little line that is required. Cristian [*] La base di GeoPoi è la cartografia vettoriale che nessuno, neanche Google Maps [...], può vantare. http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/tecnologie/2010-10-21/tutta-italia-georeferenziata-064638.shtml?uuid=AYbmPLcC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
On Monday 07 July 2014, Cristian Consonni wrote: This server is online since 4 years and it was praised in the press: «The base of GeoPoi [the name of the service] is vector graphics that nobody, not even Google Maps [...] can pride of»[*] (sic et simpliciter) (we found this article just now) It seems this 'Geopoi' is being created by a company called SOGEI - see http://www.sogei.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/EN/IDPagina/424 Your approach of making this public is not a bad idea but you probably need to expect they don't care, especially if they have already ignored you for months. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de wrote: It seems this 'Geopoi' is being created by a company called SOGEI - see http://www.sogei.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/EN/IDPagina/424 Your approach of making this public is not a bad idea but you probably need to expect they don't care, especially if they have already ignored you for months. of course. but it is now public for everyone to enjoy. SOGEI is the inhouse software company of the Revenue Service, so it really is Agenzia delle Entrate. -- -S ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
2014-07-07 12:11 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de: On Monday 07 July 2014, Cristian Consonni wrote: This server is online since 4 years and it was praised in the press: «The base of GeoPoi [the name of the service] is vector graphics that nobody, not even Google Maps [...] can pride of»[*] (sic et simpliciter) (we found this article just now) It seems this 'Geopoi' is being created by a company called SOGEI - see http://www.sogei.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/EN/IDPagina/424 We know, it is a 100% state-owned company[1], controlled by the Italian Ministry of Economy and Finances. Your approach of making this public is not a bad idea but you probably need to expect they don't care, especially if they have already ignored you for months. We hope to use this to start a public discussion about the release of the Italian cadastral data (which are administered by this agency and the technical system is again designed by Sogei) with an open license. Cristian [1] (sorry, Italian only) https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sogei ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
2014-07-07 10:21 GMT+02:00 Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com: The agency has copied only some data (buildings and landuse [parks, rivers, lakes, etc.]) and they superimposed the road graph taken from another source, probably proprietary data. ... Isn’t this a great proof that OpenStreetMap works? The Cadastre, the keeper of the data about Italian building, is using a database built by the people to visualize online their territory. One possible reason to use our buildings and not theirs could be, that in the mid term there will be more buidlings in OSM as in the official cadastre due to many buildings and extensions not being officially registered ;-) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
