Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
On 05/10/2009, at 8:18 PM, Marc Schütz wrote: IMO (a) is the correct way to do this. ... For a road, we can either choose to map it as a linear object (this is the common case), or we can map its geometry more exactly by using an area. In both cases, however, the object in our database represents the entire road (i.e. not only the middle line). Because in reality, there is no gap between the road and the areas next to it, there shouldn't be one in the database either. I agree with this, for things like landuse (which is what is mentioned in the topic) where the road is represented by a way. A residential area or farming area abuts the road reserve, so the polygon should abut the road's area or way. If you're actually mapping the road and not the road reserve, so putting things like footpaths as separate ways, you obviously wouldn't want to have the landuse cover those, but for just a single way it makes sense. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging schema
On 06/10/2009, at 10:58 PM, David Earl wrote: On 06/10/2009 13:35, James Livingston wrote: I can see things getting ickier than they are now if you can just go around adding new shop= values, without having some prior discussion to what it means. If I saw a suggested option in an editor, I would generally assume that there is some agreement as to what it is supposed to mean. You can already add new shop values willy nilly with no discussion, and lots of people do (and value this capability and would be loathe to give it up). Sure, and I uses that all the time. I was just trying to say that I think a lot of people (myself included) would tend to assume that suggestions being offered by an editor had at least some vaguely consistent meaning, which a lot of the shop tags don't. The action to add a new tag/value ought still to be simple in an editor, so you're not held up for lack of anyone adding shop=joke previously, but it should at least ask you to describe what you mean so you can spread the word and at least minimally document your tag. (Of course, you could code an editor to bypass all of this, but that would be rather unhelpful to everyone else). I think that being able to document your tag would be useful, even (or especially) when someone else has already done so. It would allow us to collect more data about how people are actually using the tags, and might help to find things that need to be ironed out. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL virality questions
On 06/10/2009, at 11:30 PM, Matt Amos wrote: so far, all the responses seem to indicate that everyone thinks linking to OSM data by ID is OK. what about Andy's idea, though? is it OK to take a location, name and possibly an ID as well to perform fuzzy linking? my view is that all the linked-to OSM information would have to be released; the list of (location, name, ID) tuples. but that it would still be OK to not release the linked-by proprietary information. That sounds good in theory, but I think at some point getting out the locations and names of things could be Extraction and Re-utilisation of the a Substantial part of the Contents. Am I allowed to mine the database for the name and location of all the pubs and restaurants in the world, without having the data fall under the ODbL? If not, how could it become okay if I claim to just be using them as lookup keys? I guess you could have a database with all of your proprietary data, and second one which acts as a link between the fuzzy-OSM data and IDs in your database, and only release the second. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
On 11/10/2009, at 12:08 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: This proposal includes the deletion of all voting-related stuff including the casted votes of the past. I'd say that this helps prove the point that different people reading different things into what pages on the wiki say. The proposal wasn't really serious, but I didn't intend it to mean that we would delete all voting-related content from the wiki, only ban new votes. the thing is that not everybody will write a documentation for every key he uses, and in the end (we're already in some tags at this stage), there will be many same tags with different intended meanings. By deleting the voting-process things will get worse. I'm not entirely sure how not having the voting process will make things worse. Instead of having a tag with several different meanings, one of which is approved but may not even be the most common meaning, we'll just have a tag with several different meanings. The voting process doesn't mean that the approved version is what people actually use. If there is a wiki page which describes a tag in a limited way, and I want to document how I've used it, what should I be doing? * edit the main page, which could annoy the people who created the page * add a note to the discussion page, which someone searching the wiki for how to tag things won't read * create a new page describing my version, which leads to conflicting information ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Osmf-talk] New license proposal status II
On 03/12/2009, at 10:19 PM, Mike Collinson wrote: - Whether friendly or unfriendly, they never have any obligation to merge in their data improvements into our database. - However, you or I can. Does that make sense? I completely agree that they don't have to do anything towards merging any data, I meant unfriendly as not actively working towards improving the upstream data in the main OSM DB (where sensible), not in any way hostile. The key will be clause 1 of the Contributor Terms[1] allowing you or I to do. Is the ODbL license itself explicit permission from them? I'll bring it up for review at an License Working Group in the light of your question. I can't see how the ODbL would give a third party (e.g. you or I) permission to agree to that, as it would mean we could relicense data without the copyright holders approval, but I'd be interested to know what they think. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Osmf-talk] New license proposal status II
On 03/12/2009, at 10:19 PM, Ed Avis wrote: That was my interpretation too. It appears to me that if some well-meaning body released a set of data under the ODbL (which presumably we recommend as an appropriate licence for geodata) then the OSM project would not be able to use it. In other words, under the proposed way of using it (with these contributor terms), the ODbL is not compatible with itself. A somewhat similar situation happens with open-source software that is licensed GPL 2 or later - people can license their changes under GPL 2 only, meaning they can't practically be used upstream. The difference is that doing so is an active thing, you are not likely to release your changes like that without knowing that you're doing it. With the contributor terms however, you have to actively choose to make your data importable, rather than it being importable by default. The 'without giving up the ability for easy re-licensing' part is not a disadvantage of the ODbL or the proposed contributor terms; it applies to any licence. (Currently, data released under CC-BY-SA can be imported into OSM, but the project doesn't have the right to relicense it without separate permission.) I probably could have left out the references to the ODbL in my mail. However, if the policy is that no data (ODbL or otherwise) can be imported without agreement to contributor terms that allow broad relicensing, then in practice data derived from the OSM data cannot be merged back in without special permission. This does seem to defeat most of the point of share- alike licensing. (The data set may be available, but without permission to reincorporate it into OSM, it becomes much less useful.) This is the main point of what I was getting at. We'll have to see what the LWG thinks, but as I read it the proposed contributor terms defeat the main point of choosing a share-alike license: that we can benefit from when a derived database contains some useful information. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ideas for student project on OSM
Andy, Unfortunately it will be too late then. We h ave to seed them with ideas, which they choose fairly soon, in order to start next year, so we are looking for examples of projects to get them interested, rather than hope they get interested first, James On 28 Oct 2008, at 14:54, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: James Stewart wrote: Sent: 28 October 2008 2:38 PM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] Ideas for student project on OSM Hi, I am a contributor to the map,but also work in the University in Edinburgh. I have been talking to the people who run the MSc in GIS, they have 140 students, and have to propose potential dissertation projects. Most of the students work on the technology side, programming and developing tools. Has any one got any ideas of the sorts of work that could be done/needs to be done for the OSM project that a post grad student could work? I'd suggest you get students to read up about the project and get enthusiastic for something. They will be much more productive if they come up with an idea themselves, true OSM style. Cheers Andy -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] UK Industrial Estate Roads
There has just been this discussion on the spanish list - and the conclusion was to label these roads as 'residential', since they are generally public roads with traffic similar to residential areas, rather than roads between places which would be 'unclassified' or 'classified', and are not really 'service' roads, which might apply to the roads within a private industrial complex. James Dr James Stewart Research centre for Social Sciences Institute for the Study of Science, Technology and Innovation University of Edinburgh http://www.issti.ed.ac.uk http://homepages.ed.ac.uk/jkstew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import populated places from vmap0
I spend quite some time working on central asia republics - especially the Fergana Valley (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wiki_Project_Fergana_Valley ) which is in Uzbekistan, with parts of Tajikstan and Kyrgystan. I could not find any really reliable source - most places have at least 2 names, if not 4 or 5 - Russian name, cyrillic script, local language in local script, local languge in cyrillic, local language in latin script, other local language in relevant script, English name, french name, german name alternative english name... etc etc. Searching databases, newspaper articles etc can be frustrating when several places have similar/same names. Geonames map interface has many of the villages in the wrong place anyway, so not very useful. FallingRain is one souce that has pulled together alternative names and presented with a map, but I am not sure which database they have used, possibly vmap0, and of course they have plenty of mistakes too, and do not use cyrillic (http://www.fallingrain.com/world/UZ/3/Yangiqorgon.html). For the roads, from documents I could read, there is no established local classification in Uzbekistan, I hope that Russia is better organised! Not much help, but good luck! James Hello all, I want to import populated place names from vmap0 for some regions of Russia. There are many blank areas in Russia without any data, so vmap0 data, especially place names can be a quite good basis for these regions (road network is better to trace using satellite imagery). Dr James Stewart Research centre for Social Sciences Institute for the Study of Science, Technology and Innovation University of Edinburgh http://www.issti.ed.ac.uk http://homepages.ed.ac.uk/jkstew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tag for suburb of village
That is another strategy I have tried - the residential area tagged with a name. This works OK for small neighbourhoods, but name can be rendered rather small for larger ones. Again, it involves drawing a border, which is fine it is clear and known, but then we might as well use boundary. In some ways the way that the name is rendered should be related to the tag is_in - so in general members of a place have names rendered smaller than the parent. But I am sure there are problems with this both theortical and practical. James On 24 Mar 2009, at 11:45, D Tucny wrote: 2009/3/24 James Stewart j.k.stew...@ed.ac.uk How are we to mark the 'suburb' of a village... or at least the name of a district or neighbourhood in a village or small town. I tend to have to use hamlet to make sure that it does not appear at several zoom levels higher than the main village. Should we not have an new tag for neighbourhood. If one knows the boundary, one can use that with admin_level=10, but often we do not know exact boundaries, maybe oneone does. Any thoughts, guidance? I've used landuse=residential and named it where I've named what are effectively neighbourhoods before when I've known the boundary, though in my case, they were urban residential areas... I'm not sure how 'correct' this is, but, the landuse is residential and there is a name associated with it, so in my mind at least it carries a certain amount of correctness... I'm not sure how 'correct' an admin_level would be as I don't believe they necessarily have a separation in administration... There's something being discussed at the moment in the OSM Philippines community regarding addressing that's sort of related... Barangays, Puroks and Sitios, though Barangays at least are officially an administrative division... Maybe using hamlet is the best solution as the meaning is closest... or... maybe as you say, it's time for a new neighbourhood tag so that the most accurate meaning is captured... I'm not sure... The different levels of 'place' within a country when you look at the accompanying differences in 'urbanness', 'ruralness', population or 'importantness' get vague and confusing enough, factor in other countries and there are just too many dimensions :) d The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
There are lots of paths that are primarily footpaths, but bikes can go on them. I think that cycleway is best kept for paths that are designed and designated for bicycles. For example in our local park bikes can go on all the paths, but there are some specific divided cycle paths too. (We are in Scotland so bikes can legally go anywhere that pedestrians can go, more or less) James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] intermittent streams
I cannot find any note in the documentation for intermittent streams. Usually they are marked with a dashed blue line. Has anyone discussed this, or uses a tagging system (I cannot find anything in tag watch). Do we need type= intermittent, perennial , ephemeral, with the default being Perennial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_stream The same would apply to ditches, and even some rivers. The renders could then pick up on this and render in the usual way. Since I am a mountain biker, intermittent streams become excellent descents in the summer :-) (and some paths become streams in winter) James Dr James Stewart Research centre for Social Sciences Institute for the Study of Science, Technology and Innovation University of Edinburgh t: +44 131 650 6392 skype:jameskstew2 http://homepages.ed.ac.uk/jkstew/ LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/jamesks http://www.issti.ed.ac.uk ***Mobile Phones, Cigarettes for the 21st Century*** The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] intermittent streams
Thanks. I thought of using seasonal, but a short bit of research revealed 3 classifications of waterway. In countries with seasons it makes sense to have seasonal=yes, which can be used for a range of other map features too, but maybe we need something for water features such as Wadis, and streams that appear in storms - i.e. ephemeral. Is it worth reinvigorating a waterways proposal on this? James On 7 May 2009, at 19:37, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: r changing name and moving to a new town. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Greenways
A greenway may be some sort of permissive path for bike and walkers in London and Canda but in Edinburgh it is a bus lane (painted green) http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/CEC/CityDevelopment/TransportandTravel/Parking/GreenwaysandBusLanes/Greenways_And_Bus_Lanes.html A quick websearch in London only seems to come up with a single cycle/ pedestrain path called 'The Greenway'. Best not use that tag unless it used a bit more widely. James Message: 2 Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:44:45 - From: Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Good routing vs legal routing (was: Path vs footwayvs cycleway vs...) To: 'Sam Vekemans' acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com,'Steve Bennett' stevag...@gmail.com Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org, 'Tim Hoskin' thos...@tctrail.ca, i...@tctrail.ca Message-ID: c95987a0daa94d3a85496b648700d...@axis Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 'Greenways' does have a specific meaning in England - doubtless subtly different from whatever the Canadian definition is! But they can all be covered, IMHO, by the tags usually used in England without introducing an additional one. Usually they are permissive ways for pedestrians and bicycles - usually in urban / suburban /near urban areas. Sometimes they coincide with a public right of way but they are usually additional. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Sam Vekemans [mailto:acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com] Sent: 02 December 2009 18:41 To: Steve Bennett Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org; Tim Hoskin; i...@tctrail.ca Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Good routing vs legal routing (was: Path vs footwayvs cycleway vs...) Hi all, just jumping in here, on my show today (if i have time) im going to talk about 'greenways' and how this concept works, and highlights a challenge for mapping. (path vs. Cycleway vs. Footway vs. Bridleway) Cheers, Sam ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On 06/12/2009, at 8:44 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote: Tom Hughes schrieb: Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to relicense. With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing.. If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different understanding about voting. I'd say it isn't a vote, it's asking whether you agree to relicense your contributions under the ODbL subject to the Contributor Terms. I would imagine there are quite a few people who couldn't legitimately agree to that, even if they want the ODbL. Have you ever important any CC-BY(-SA) data using your account? If so, they I would think that you can't legally agree because you are not the copyright holder of all your contributions. For example, I have inferred road positions from the CC-BY-licensed Queensland DCDB-lite dataset, and have uploaded national park and world-heritage areas from the CC-BY dataset on data.australia.gov.au. As I'm not the copyright holder of those base datasets, I don't see how I could agree to the relicensing, or contributor terms which allow for future relicensing. Does that mean everything I've ever contributed (even my own work) has to be deleted? Probably. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On 06/12/2009, at 10:05 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: James Livingston wrote: For example, I have inferred road positions from the CC-BY-licensed Queensland DCDB-lite dataset, and have uploaded national park and world-heritage areas from the CC-BY dataset on data.australia.gov.au. As I'm not the copyright holder of those base datasets, I don't see how I could agree to the relicensing, or contributor terms which allow for future relicensing. Does that mean everything I've ever contributed (even my own work) has to be deleted? Probably. Are we sure that CC-BY is any more incompatible with ODbL that what we're doing now? I mean, nominally we have CC-BY-SA but data.australia.gov.au is not listed on the maps anywhere... data.australia.gov.au is just a repository for data, the actual copyright holders are various departments in various levels of government. For example various ways have source=au.qld.dcdb_lite attribution=Based on data from State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Resource Management) 2009 or source=ABS_2006 attribution=Based on Australian Bureau of Statistics data and the ABS is mentioned on the Attribution wiki page. Aside from any incompatibility between CC-BY and ODbL, the contributor terms would prevent us using CC-BY data in OSM unless the copyright holder agrees to the terms. I think that by satisfying the ODbL you also satisfy all the conditions of CC-BY, so it would be distributable under the terms of ODbL - but strictly speaking I don't think you could say it's all ODbL-licensed. If we're talking about a lot of data, and if you have put proper source tags in or tagged your changesets in a way that makes them discernible, then we can find a way to open a new account and transfer this tainted data to the new account and you then accept the relicensing with your old account. As above, I think everyone has been putting those tags (and similar ones for other datasets) on the ways, so hopefully they'd be extractable. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] Fwd: Re: Why PD is not better for business
On 11/12/2009, at 8:02 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: so we don't need imported data? In most cases we don't need imported data, but it can be useful. For example rather than painstakingly crafting the entire coastline of Australia from a few GPS traces and a lot of imagery (much is relatively inaccessible), we can import it from someone's dataset and spend that large amount of time doing other things to improve OSM that we can't import data for. There are also some things where importing external datasets is the *only* way to get it into OSM. For example boundaries of areas that have no physical edge, just a (not necessarily straight) line on someone decided on at some point in time. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What's the policy on unsurveyed roads from imagery?
2009/12/27 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: In Australia there is this legacy speed limit sign for people with racing licenses that they can drive any speed they wish, everyone else is limited to 100, how exactly do you map that? (and I saw one such sign only the day before yesterday). Umm, actually that one's a bit of an urban myth. The sign (and it's a UN standard sign, not just Australian) means end of local speed limits, back to State/Country default speed limit. The racing licence thing comes from very old rule in NSW where they didn't enforce the limit (for anybody) as long as you were not driving at excessive or dangerous speeds, and no longer applies. Somebody once used the I'm a racing driver, it's not excessive for me excuse and got off. As long as you know the state default speed limit, this is easy to tag. It is exactly the same as a sign with that limit. Except that there is the possibility that the default limit might change in the future. In that case if default limit signs had been tagged with the limit as it was when they were tagged, they'd now all need to be changed. In the UK that sign means national speed limit applies; the national speed limit is different for single carriageways, dual carriageways, and motorways (though I think all motorways are explicitly signed with the relevant speed limit). The national speed limit has changed in the past. -- David James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] fwd: Two thirds of mobile users want driving AND walking navigation
http://www.mobile-ent.biz/news/36033/MWC-2010-Two-thirds-of-mobile-users-want-driving-AND-walking-navigation MWC 2010: Two thirds of mobile users want driving AND walking navigation by Stuart Dredge | Email a friend | PrintAdd a comment Two legs good, four tyres not necessarily better A survey conducted by Nokia's mapping division Navteq claims that at least two thirds of mobile users want their mobile navigation services to offer both driving and walking directions. The study also appears to show that mobile navigation is picking up steam fast. Two thirds or more of people currently using maps or directions on their phones have been doing it for less than a year, while a third have only been doing it for six months. Meanwhile, the proportion of people making daily or weekly use of mobile navigation apps was between 33% and 40% across the nine countries surveyed. Getting back to those walkers, though. Navteq says it's identified four features requested by large numbers of users when they're on foot. They are: public transport information including real-time data; “logical guidance” which can provide specific pedestrian routing and shortcuts; visual cues during guidance such as landmarks; and micro maps of destinations such as airports and shopping malls -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik rendering of Marinas changed
Patrick Kilian wrote: Hi all, IIRC there was a discussion in #osm which basically went like this: Hi Which forum do you mean by #osm? IRC channel I'd guess. -- David James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] transhumance routes
In Spain there is a large network of historic transhumance routes (cañadas or Viás Pecuarias http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%ADa_pecuaria) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumance) that we have started a discussion about how to tag. So far we are creating relations that link the various bits of path, track and road that make them up (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vias_Pecuarias_de_España). However we need consensus on how to tag them, since they are an international feature - primarily, what to call them. In England they are called 'drovers' roads' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drovers'_road) en Australia 'stock routes', USA 'cattle trail', French 'chemin de transhumance'. Any suggestions on what to call them. route= transhumance could be a more academic solution, route='livestock' a bit more agricultural. In some countries transhumance is still a practice, so the routes are 'live'. In Spain they are historic, but many exist and are a point of controversy between landowners and ecologists/historical right of way people. James -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bug reporting problems (was: Big sponsors)
On 18/06/2010, at 4:56 PM, Ben Last wrote: The existing editors (and I include Potlatch, JOSM and MapZen in that) are powerful and well suited to users who understand mapping and OSM and are motived to deal with the UI complexity, but are not at all well suited to generalist users who want only to make small, simple edits. Providing simple, targeted UI support for making such edits I'd been thinking about this for a while, and the talk-au discussion had reminded be about it, but I don't think I replied there. What we really need is a task-based editor, where you tell it what you want to do, and then it help do you do just that one thing. Click contribute to OSM, then get presented with a few choices: 1) Name streets 2) Add house number 3) Draw streets from imagery 4) Add traffic sign stuff (turn restrictions, give way, etc) 5) ... When you click Name Streets, you see the map and can click on a street then enter it's name - and nothing else. Want to add house numbers too? Go change modes. For number (3) it could offer to switch to (1) when you'd finished, in case you know what they're called too. As well as being simpler, it will stop people (newbies and experienced mappers alike) from accidentally breaking other things. I'd use it when uploading house numbers I've collected, since there would be no chance of me accidentally pressing a key and wondering what I just did. -- James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 23/06/2010, at 8:56 PM, Andy Allan wrote: Don't worry, it hasn't actually changed the meaning of anything - it's just that the wiki is now wrong. The easy way to fix the situation is to correct the wiki - it's as straightforward as that. You could argue the wiki is now wrong, but you could argue the wiki is now right too. Just because the wiki previously said X or lower previously doesn't mean it was correct. I, and from what I see in use where I live quite a few other too, have always used xxx_link tags to join a highway=xxx with a higher one, because we think what was documented on the wiki (xxx_link joins highway=xxx with a lower one) is silly. Many of us refer to this kind of activity as wikifiddling, or the counter-productive deliberate insertion of false statements onto the wiki in an attempt to influence the real world. You could argue that it's wikifiddling in an attempt to influence how people map, or that it's documenting how a lot of people already map. It's all a matter of perspective. Short of a tagging dictator, how do we decide which camp wins the argument? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Calling all bulk importers
On 17/06/2010, at 2:21 AM, Mike Collinson wrote: If you have been involved in bulk import of data from third-parties, may I ask you to check that this is on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue . Why? Now we have final versions of everything, the License Working Group is checking compatibility with the proposed change to the Open Database License. We are aware that in some cases the donor's permission will need to asked. We like to leave you as much time as possible to do that and to be prepared to assist you if needed. There is a new support page here. I'm going to update the page with some of the data imports that have been done in Australia, most of the ones from government sources being CC-BY (not -SA). As far as I'm aware the conditions of CC-BY should be met by being ODbL, so the licensing wouldn't be a problem, however I'm wondering about the contributor-terms bit. If I recall correctly, there was discussion that bulk imports could be exempted from the contributor terms - for example AND isn't going to let us arbitrarily re-license their data, so we'd have to exempt that if we wanted to keep it. We're trading off the usefulness of the data for being beholden to the company if we want to re-license in the future. How does a decision about whether the tradeoff is worth it, and hence gets exempted from the contributor terms, get made? Presumably AND data would get one, but my personal edits wouldn't be worth the tradeoff. We're getting more Australian government data coming along, so what should we be doing to either know that it can be exempted or that we shouldn't import it? -- James Doc Livingston ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] new license use case questions
On 09/07/2010, at 1:07 AM, David Carmean wrote: They use a shapefile generated from a filtered snapshot of OSM data--leaving only roads--as a base layer. If they do nothing else but serve this one-time snapshot as a base layer, what are their obligations? My opinion is that since they've changed the data (stripping out the non-road bits) that creates a derived database, which strictly speaking has to be provided. However like with similar situations with the GPL, this may not be as onerous as it sounds - many people package binaries of GPL'd software without putting the source along side it. Per ODBl 4.6b, you would just need to tell anyone asking the filtering algorithm you used - for example remove all ways that don't have a highway=* tag (in machine readable form). Secondly, what if one of their staff, being unfamiliar with OSM but a GIS expert, sees a problem with one or more roads about which they have personal knowledge, and fixes those problems in the GIS data only--then publishing the result as a mapserver layer only. What are their obligations in this case? Making either the derived database or the changes available. Since it's not algorithmic, you have to provide a diff (or the whole derived db) if someone asked for it. If you are doing a one-off import, you'd just need to either have a copy of the original to produce a diff upon request, or be willing to produce a dump of the OSM-based part of the database. If they're not doing a one-off import of OSM data, you'd presumably have some way of merging you local changes with the upstream changes, so a diff should be easy. Third: there is the usual problem/condition (depending on your political leanings) of divergence in the tag values. For example, surface=Dirt vs. surface=dirt, surface=cement vs. surface=concrete, etc. I'd certainly want to fix that, but if I were that agency, I woulnd't have the time/skills to make a 'bot fix back in the OSM database. Strictly speaking you'd have to provide those changes. But if it's a rendering rule then it's not a DB change, and if it's automated you can just provide the algorithm change surface=Dirt to surface=dirt. The two things to note are, 1) like with the GPL, you have to offer it to the recipients, however if it's not interesting (e.g. just filtering), no-one will probably ask, and 2) if it's an algorithmic change, you just have to provide the algorithm. -- James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
On 09/07/2010, at 12:24 AM, Matt Amos wrote: I agree with Andy. This is what I understand the ODbL to be saying. Unfortunately, as with any legal text, its difficult to read and this is an unavoidable consequence of the legal system. If you need interpretation of the license, new or old, the best route may be to consult a lawyer. Consult a lawyer with the caveat that what they tell you may only apply to the one jurisdiction. While they can tell you whether you're likely to be able to do or not do[0] something, it's harder for them to tell you whether other people can/can't do something in a different legal environment. [0] as far as lawyers can advise about things, without being tested in court it's just an (obviously educated) estimate of your chances. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 14/07/2010, at 10:28 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: I'm no expert on this sort of thing, but there are probably a lot of well known pitfalls to avoid when trying to run an inclusive international project in many languages. I'd think having English-only discussion at a set time convenient for Europeans would be pretty high on that list. I don't know if you'll get out of being English-only, since like it or not it is the main working language of OSM (as with many open projects on the Internet). Using any other language is probably going to exclude even more people. One thing that I've seen done in other projects is rotate between three meeting times eight hours apart. So for example one meeting would be 1800 UTC, the next 0200 UTC and the next 1000 UTC. Further to what Frederik has said, there's a couple more points that are important. The OSMF receives legal advice on matters relating to the license change, and as far as I'm aware they are forbidden from making the legal advice public. I can't speak for them, but I would guess it's more inadvisable than forbidden (with respect to licensing anyway). If you get advice saying we believe that sections A, B and C will hold up in court, section D probably would, E should unless XYZ happens and we don't know about F, then telling everyone that means anyone trying to get around it knows about the potential holes you found. Of course, people using the license will want to know about that kind of thing, so it's a trade-off. I.e. can the legal advice only be shared among people actually on the LWG conference call, and not all OSMF members? Who can be on the call - LWG members, any OSMF member, or anyone involved in the project? Actually, I can't even find how you get on the LWG in the first place. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On 14/07/2010, at 9:52 PM, John Smith wrote: On 14 July 2010 20:59, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: What do you suggest would be acceptable / unacceptable? I would consider things to fail if more than 5-10% of data disappears in any region. At the very least it would be demoralising for anyone that spent even a few hours working to make OSM data better. Every keep talking about 5% of the data disappearing, but being kept as-is and being remove aren't the only two possibilities. Being removed is only necessary is the person who first created it refuses. If the object has say 6 version and mapper 4 refuses, it can be reverted to version 3. If mapper 5 says yes and just added the street name, you should in theory be allowed to re-add that to the version 3 data. How all that will work in practice, I don't know. However part of it will still need to be dealt with, if nodes get removed but a way they are in doesn't, or things that are part of a relation. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A plea for meaning ful changeset comments
On 30/07/2010, at 9:52 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: For me, very frequently, the changeset just represents a random bunch of edits I happened to be doing at one time, with not much cohesion. There are different suburbs all in the same changeset as I flitted about. My editing falls into two categories, casual editing and big tasks. I think I put in reasonable comments for big tasks (my current one is uploading National Parks data). For casual editing, I'm not sure what I could put in that would be useful. Often I start off adding some street numbers I've collected, and then trace those houses from nearmap, and then start tracing a creek, and then start doing something when that ends. When I set the changeset comment, I don't know exactly what I'll be fixing up - I know the location, but you can get that from the changeset anyway without any comment. For any kind of semi-automatic or large scale things, I agree that good changeset comments shouldn't be difficult to write and would be very useful, but I'm not sure about small-scale editing when you go along with things. -- James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] new bing hires updates not visible in JOSM?
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:53:11 -0400 From: nice...@att.net To: talk@openstreetmap.org; talk...@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] new bing hires updates not visible in JOSM? On 6/13/2012 5:58 PM, Jonas Häggqvist wrote: Remove bing.attribution.xml from the cache dir: %APPDATA%\JOSM\cache\bing.attribution.xml on Windows ~/.josm/cache/bing.attribution.xml on Linux This appears to be a JOSM bug, as the attribution file/config should not be cached. https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/7778 Thanks - that worked here! That worked here as well. :) Thank you! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] City routing grid for Australia and the US
Kai, as I mentioned in talk-us (but I think you might have missed it), here's a few more cities for the US one that I would suggest adding that might help out in spotting problems. Pittsburgh Cleveland Las Vegas Toronto, Ontario, Canada (mainly because you added Winnipeg which is also in Canada)Montreal, Quebec, Canada -James___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] City routing grid for Australia and the US
Kai, as I mentioned in talk-us (but I think you might have missed it), here's a few more cities for the US one that I would suggest adding that might help out in spotting problems. Pittsburgh Cleveland Las Vegas Toronto, Ontario, Canada (mainly because you added Winnipeg which is also in Canada) Montreal, Quebec, Canada -James == On second thought, Nashville, TN would be a much better choice than Cleveland, OH. But I still also suggest the other cities I mentioned. Also add Miami, FL to that list. -James___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OSRM
Does anybody know how to get in contact with the person who runs it? I've found some routing bugs that aren't OSM data bugs (I've double checked the area it's happening in more than once to make sure). It seems like his server never imported the road(s) properly because they haven't been edited in over 2 months. Thanks. --James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSRM
Thanks for the link. And believe it or not, somebody has already reported this same bug. LOL!https://github.com/DennisOSRM/Project-OSRM/issues/354 So, no need for me to report it now. Still, thanks again for pointing me in the correct direction. ;) --James From: m...@rtijn.org Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 22:59:27 -0600 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OSRM To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com CC: talk@openstreetmap.org He's on IRC as DennisL (although his handle is currently DennisL_Vacation). Or try github: https://github.com/DennisOSRM Martijn On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:46 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote: Does anybody know how to get in contact with the person who runs it? I've found some routing bugs that aren't OSM data bugs (I've double checked the area it's happening in more than once to make sure). It seems like his server never imported the road(s) properly because they haven't been edited in over 2 months. Thanks. --James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- martijn van exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch 2 - revert
See: https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/4622 -James Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 02:07:09 +0100 From: dave...@madasafish.com To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] Potlatch 2 - revert Hi I noticed that the edit in Potlatch 1 option has been removed from the Edit pull-down. The only reason I used this is to revert complete ways back to a previous state. Has this been added to P2? Couldn't see anything in the Help/Primer pages. Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Google Maps being praised for removing I-5 colasped bridge quickly
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/collapsed-i-5-bridge-gone-google-maps-almost-quickly-it-6C10067906 If I remember correctly, we had it marked as access=no and the segment removed about an hour faster than on Google. Somebody needs to get ahold of Rosa from NBC (who did the article) and let them know about OSM pawning Google here. -James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Google Maps being praised for removing I-5 colasped bridge quickly
Well, when I did my original edit in that area because of the collapse, somebody had already deleted the small section that collapsed. So, I just added the missing access=no tags on the other ways. Plus, it didn't hurt that I was on my PC already and watching the local 11PM (EDT) news and they mentioned that there was a bridge collapse on an Interstate. -James (rickmastfan67) From: cliff...@snowandsnow.us Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 16:36:44 -0700 CC: talk@openstreetmap.org; talk...@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Google Maps being praised for removing I-5 colasped bridge quickly Let's forget about Google Maps for a moment that give thanks to the contributors who updated I-5 on OpenStreetMap. Alan, rickmastfan67, Sundance and katpatuka have all contributed to the update. It is dedicated mappers like these that make OSM great. -- Clifford OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list talk...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Re-opening a note if necessary?
I'm curious, but does anybody think that notes should be able to be re-opened if necessary? Like if somebody falsely closes it when it shouldn't have been? That or at least allow people to post follow up comments in case somebody needs to add more info to if the person who closed/fixed it didn't correctly fix the map. -James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Application error at openstreetmap.org
Simple, something is wrong with the website. lol. I got nailed by it after I had typed up a long response to a PM. :( Seems everything else is working fine, just not the website. So, I'm thinking there were doing a change to the site, and it fubared it unfortunately. :( -James Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:15:37 +1000 From: stevag...@gmail.com To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] Application error at openstreetmap.org -- Application error The OpenStreetMap server encountered an unexpected condition that prevented it from fulfilling the request (HTTP 500) Feel free to contact the OpenStreetMap community if your problem persists. Make a note of the exact URL / post data of your request. This may be a problem in our Ruby On Rails code. 500 occurs with exceptions thrown outside of an action (like in Dispatcher setups or broken Ruby code) Surprised not to see anything about it on this mailing list. Can anyone explain? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Application error at openstreetmap.org
And now it's back up. :) -James From: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com To: stevag...@gmail.com; talk@openstreetmap.org Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 21:58:58 -0400 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Application error at openstreetmap.org Simple, something is wrong with the website. lol. I got nailed by it after I had typed up a long response to a PM. :( Seems everything else is working fine, just not the website. So, I'm thinking there were doing a change to the site, and it fubared it unfortunately. :( -James Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:15:37 +1000 From: stevag...@gmail.com To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] Application error at openstreetmap.org -- Application error The OpenStreetMap server encountered an unexpected condition that prevented it from fulfilling the request (HTTP 500) Feel free to contact the OpenStreetMap community if your problem persists. Make a note of the exact URL / post data of your request. This may be a problem in our Ruby On Rails code. 500 occurs with exceptions thrown outside of an action (like in Dispatcher setups or broken Ruby code) Surprised not to see anything about it on this mailing list. Can anyone explain? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Upgraded map controls
I'm personally not liking that they now have hidden the long/short links to the map location behind buttons. Instead of just one click to get the map location, now it's two clicks and is really annoying and slowing down work for me. :( -James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Upgraded map controls
Good to know that. Hope it can be fixed soon as I don't like having to add a second comment to the note, just to subscribe myself to it for e-mail updates. (At least the follow-up comment part is still working when you're logged in.) Anyways, I had already submitted a ticket on Trac before your e-mail arrived. I bet TomH will probably mark it as a duplicate very soon. lol. -James From: t...@macwright.org Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 19:09:27 -0400 To: dave...@madasafish.com CC: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Upgraded map controls Hi James, That issue has been reported and is being worked on: https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/356 On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 20/07/2013 12:57, Paul Norman wrote: Whoops - resending to the right talk@ list Which list? All rails port pull requests and issues automatically goes to the rails-dev@ list, which is the list for discussion of rails port (web site) development If you prefer a format other than email, I believe if you watch the repo (where the source is) though github you can get all the updates. Rails port pull requests?!?! wtf. How about posting it to a real world, end user forum that speaks in English? And also not to an instant chat one that only certain people, in certain time zones, can see. I really think some developers are living in their own world. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions about CTs 1.2.4
On 14/04/2011, at 6:57 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: This method seems a much more satisfactory way of doing things to me -- assuming it could work legally (IANAL). We would still have the flexibility to re-license if we needed to without individual mappers being able to hold their data hostage, and we have much clearer rules for contributors to follow about what sources it is acceptable to use. I think the big problem with that would be people editing, and combining licences. Say for example there is some CC-BY derived coastline, and a road traced from Bing. I know that the area in between is a sandy beach, so add that to OSM. What licence is my beach under, and what are the restrictions for changing it in the future? Right now this works because everything is CC-BY-SA or compatible with it, so it's not really an issue. I honestly don't know how it'd be figured out for a change to ODbL, probably just ignoring the issue, but if we're tracking what licence all the data is, then it would seem like something people would want us to figure out. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions about CTs 1.2.4
On 14/04/2011, at 8:06 AM, Francis Davey wrote: On 13 April 2011 22:24, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote: * If so, how do we know what data must be removed in a switch to ODbL? That clause doesn't appear to put any obligation on you to remove data. All it requires of you is that _when you contribute_ you have a right to give that authorisation. Okay. So those maps that people are producing showing how much data would need to be removed if we changed to ODbL are a work of fiction then, since that are based off who has agreed to the CTs, which don't guarantee the data is re-licensable. Hmm. -- James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] [OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 15 June 2011 11:56, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 10:39 +0800, James Andrewartha wrote: On 15 June 2011 09:36, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: Hi all As promised, with apologies for the delay, here is the statement from NearMap regarding submission of derived works of our PhotoMaps to OSM. Dear Ben, Thank you for providing this clear statement, for NearMap's contributions to the OpenStreetMap community, and for the generous decision to allow current NearMap-referenced data to remain in OSM. Does it? I haven't agreed to the CTs, therefore my NearMap tracings are CC-BY-SA, and hence will be purged from the database in Phase 5. Bens statement said: may be held and continue to be used by OSM under the terms in place between OSM and the individual In other words, nearmap allows you to make your own mind up in regards to derived data youve contributed. If you havent agreed to CTs, then your work will be removed, but if you wish to agree you are now not breaching any existing rights. So I guess that cuts down the amount of dirty data OSM will have in their DB, it doesnt remove it completely, but there seems to be no interest in a 100% clean db, as long as 99% is good enough. The words immediately following that quote are quite relevant: may be held and continue to be used by OSM under the terms in place between OSM and the individual which submitted the addition or edit at the relevant time. So only contributions a user made after the CT/ODbL was agreed to by that user (and before June 17 2011) can be kept. James Andrewartha ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] [OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 15 June 2011 09:36, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: Hi all As promised, with apologies for the delay, here is the statement from NearMap regarding submission of derived works of our PhotoMaps to OSM. Dear Ben, Thank you for providing this clear statement, for NearMap's contributions to the OpenStreetMap community, and for the generous decision to allow current NearMap-referenced data to remain in OSM. Does it? I haven't agreed to the CTs, therefore my NearMap tracings are CC-BY-SA, and hence will be purged from the database in Phase 5. James Andrewartha ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] shortened names
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 08:05:47PM +0200, colliar wrote: Am 08.07.2011 05:49, schrieb John Harvey: I find there are a lot more abbreviations if you look at addr:street= rather than the name= . I suspect that with mobile entry of POI's we are going to see more and more abbreviations being entered, just because mobile keyboards are slow. I would applaud a bot that asked me if I meant the nearby Main Street when I entered Main St.. I would also applaud a bot that converted loose addresses like this into better structured relations like: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/House_numbers/Karlsruhe_Schema#Using_relations_to_associate_house_and_street_.28optional.29 I use associatedStreet relations for some time now but we might need to adjust it a bit: 1. More than one way with role=street should be allowed. Otherwise you end up with lots of relations and I do not know any editor which supports this relation when splitting ways. I use type=street: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Street which in my opinion is more concise and flexible, and permits multiple ways with role=street. There are 10k instances instead of 40k for associatedStreet. Unfortunately the tools don't seem to understand it yet, e.g. searching for 19 third avenue, york, nominatum gets the wrong house: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=1021672 Cheers James 2. the role=house should also work with closed ways and relations. For closed ways it is obviours since buildings are mapped as areas. I found many places where an area with several buildings has one address, sometimes theses areas are site or multipolygon relations. I found some streets with more than one postcode. For these streets I used one relation for each postcode and added the postcode in the relation's name + addr:street=[Streetname] I grouped them in a main relation which might be not needed. i was under the impression consensus was to type the full word, then renderers would shorten where necessary? apparently some mappers disagree though +1 cu colliar ___ 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] Mapping of multiple-lane toll areas
Here's what I did for the Gateway Toll Plaza on the PA Turnpike (I-76): http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/40.90416/-80.49337 I know it isn't perfect, but at least it has the correct # of lanes for the toll plaza. Till we can a agree on a proper tag for Toll Tag Only lanes when there are still Cash lanes, I'm betting the routers direct everybody onto the E-ZPass Express lanes. -James___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Key:highway it's talk page moved?
Does anybody know why they were moved the other day on the wiki? I think it might have just been an honest mistake by the user, but is there any way to revert it so that the original history is back in place for Key:highway? -James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:highway it's talk page moved?
Pieren, I don't think it was moved back per say. It seems to me that somebody just copied the last good version from before the move and then pasted it over the redirect. Thus, that's why the history [1] the talk page [2] didn't return to the main page. -James [1] - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:highwayaction=history [2] - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Key:highwayredirect=no Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:58:31 +0100 From: pier...@gmail.com To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Key:highway it's talk page moved? On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:50 AM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote: The page has been moved yesterday and restored yesterday as well. But surprisingly, the page history is lost... A mediawiki bug ? Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Welcome box on the new map page
Well, I do know with the new map page change, all the changeset search feeds are now completely broken. For instance, this url [1] used to create a feed for the for following area -80.54,40.358,-79.526,40.779 and let me know if there were any changesets that in that bounding box. Now, all I get are the last 20 changeset in all of OSM!!! That isn't good at all if you're trying to keep a watch on your home area for changes!! There should have been a built in feed redirection from the old style here to the new style instead being broken the first time a user used the old style. And when I try to access the new history menu [2] and pull the RSS FEED from the site, Firefox's build in Subscribe feature gives me this feed URL [3]. The OSM site should be giving the user a valid feed url for the area you're viewing, not just the base feed. Thankfully, I've figured out what the new feed link is for my watch area manually and updated it in my RSS feed reader [4]. Still, there needs to be some tweaks to the history part of the new design. -James [1] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changesets/feed?bbox=-80.54%2C40.358%2C-79.526%2C40.779 [2] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/history#map=10/40.4433/-79.6893layers=N [3] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/history/feed [4] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/history/feed?bbox=-80.54%2C40.358%2C-79.526%2C40.779 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The new OpenStreetMap.org design
To: talk@openstreetmap.org From: o...@malenki.ch Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:31:44 +0100 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] The new OpenStreetMap.org design A regression is the inability to browse the changesets of users efficiently. Example: From time to time I need to have a look at what I mapped e.g. about two years ago. Until now I could skip several pages of my edit history by clicking the according links [page 1 2 3 ...11] or editing the url like it is still used on nodes and ways of changeset. Now browsing the distant history of edits is a pita. [Load more]period I fully agree with this. There is now no way to link somebody to a specific page if a user has several questionable edits that aren't within his last ~20 edits. This is something IMO that needs to be brought back ASAP. -James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Interesting use of OSM data in Battlefield 4
I just recently got Battlefield 4 and noticed that in the leaderboards area, that they have a real map so you can add your location to see how others around you are ranked. To my surprise, they are using OSM data for the map. I confirmed this by going down to Corridor H (US-48) in West Virginia and it was exactly how I did it in the OSM data on the most recently opened segment of that highway. I just thought that this was interesting and wanted you guys to know about this. -James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] MapQuest Open tiles not updating?
See this tweet I got back from them asking the same question: https://twitter.com/MapQuestTech/status/436876342861512704 -James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Global Admin Boundary Extracts
Hi all, I've been trying to find the best way to extract global admin boundaries for admin_level 2 - 4 (or more, depending on size). Up until now, XAPI has been my go-to, but that seems to tap out at anything more than 10 or 20 degrees square. [moreover, and this might be due to a mistake on my part, not XAPI's, after extracting and using osm2pgsql, the planet_osm_polygon table is often incomplete, though planet_osm_line is complete. Every time I experiment w/ semi-large (country-size) XAPI extracts, the results are slightly different] Anyone have any pointers on how to get global extracts (extracts of large areas, even if the resulting file is not itself large)? Thanks for the pointers. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] High res DigitalGlobe imagery open for tracing through Mapbox Satellite
Thank you Mapbox and DigitalGlobe. Just one little flaw with the feedback tool. The additional notes part doesn't show up when I'm selecting areas that need a refresh. I wanted to point out some major Interstate Highway projects that are being done that either are building brand new highways or massively reconfiguring other segments. I still submitted the two areas that I know need imagery updates badly (the final segment of I-485 being built in Charlotte, NC; the massive I-40/I-77 interchange reconfiguration + complete rebuild of I-40 in that area to Collector/Distributor lanes and other interchange reconfigurations in the Statesville, NC area), but wanted to add the extra note info but couldn't since that part didn't show up. So, I hope you can get the notes part fixed and working. I tried it in both IE-11 (patched all the way) and Firefox Beta 29. -James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Upcoming openstreetmap-carto changes
I just hope that the 'tertiary_link' casing problem can be fixed soon. In some places, that looks horrible. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Upcoming openstreetmap-carto changes
I just hope that the 'tertiary_link' casing problem can be fixed soon. In some places, that looks horrible. https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/753 -James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental to the OSM database
Well, I have to admit, I've only seen one problem with the armchair mapping with the smoothing in my local area of Pittsburgh, PA so far. What happened was a long time ago, I cleanup up US-19 and separated segments that were divided and segments that had a 'Center Turn Lane' and tagged as such. Well, it seems that MapRoulette happened to flag one of the segments where it transitioned from divided highway to un-divided w/ a Center Turn Lane and then back to divided for another major intersection. The imagery in Bing clearly showed that there was a Center Turn Lane there and I had he un-divided segment tagged as such. Instead of it being marked as a 'false positive' on the MapRoulette site, the user twinned this segment, even when the Bing imagery didn't justified it (Changeset 22050738 [1]). (And yes, the imagery right now in Bing is still the same as when the change was made.) When I discovered this, I promptly reverted that changeset in Changeset 22262496 [2]. So, as you can see, there are still a few flaws in the MapRoulette smoothing challenge. And unfortunately, not everybody seems to acknowledge that there might be a false positive here and there and mark it as such. Maybe a stronger warning could be given, but I don't know. All I do know is that any time there is a 'Center Turn Lane' on a highway here in the USA, it stays as a single way and only becomes divided is when there is a physical item dividing the highway like a concrete divider. Maybe this particular flag could have been avoided where it wouldn't flag one-way roads merging into a single way if the angle wasn't like a ~90 degree turn or larger as everything is the same right now as when it was unfortunately falsely 'smoothed'. Any thought how this might be avoided in the future Martijn? -James [1] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/22050738 [2] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/22262496 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset comment function
I like! Do you know if people comment on a changeset you make, will you automatically get an e-mail mentioning said comment, or will you be in the dark and have to stumble across said comment? -James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Major licence violation by app myTrails?
Here's the only mentions of 'OpenStreetMap' on their site: http://www.frogsparks.com/?s=openstreetmaplang=en ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Query Overpass for multiple small areas
Yup, exactly, I was running many small queries in parallel. Aggregating them into one query resolved it. If the query bbox grows too big--right now looking at ~60% of the DRC, but will need to expand the query to run across all of the Congo Basin--then I'll divide into country-sized queries but be sure not to run them simultaneously. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de wrote: Yeah, that all makes sense. I had spent a lot of time trying to limit the area I was searching against, and the result was a /429 Too Many Requests/ error. Thank you for the feedback. Just for clarification: You should get HTTP 429 only if you submit more than one request in parallel. This help other users to also get a chance that their queries are executed. If you get HTTP 429 in another case, please enforce that there is no runaway query by calling http://overpass-api.de/api/kill_my_queries This kills another query from your IP adress if any is running. Best regards, Roland ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Query Overpass for multiple small areas
Yeah, that all makes sense. I had spent a lot of time trying to limit the area I was searching against, and the result was a *429 Too Many Requests* error. Thanks Bryce and Roland. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de wrote: Hi all, Was unsure what the best practices for querying overpass were, and was wondering if someone could point me in a good direction. I'm trying to query Overpass for a small amount of data over many small, sparsely populated areas. Was wondering if it made more sense to run separate queries for the bounding box of each small area, or one query for the bounding box of all queries. The first approach sends more queries against smaller areas, the second approach sends only one query against a much larger area. In general, I would suggest to combine all areas with the union operator. Or even, simpler, just concatenate the queries. Overpass can handle multiple print statements. When your return time is below a few seconds, then it makes sense to combine more requests. Best regards, Roland ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Query Overpass for multiple small areas
Hi all, Was unsure what the best practices for querying overpass were, and was wondering if someone could point me in a good direction. I'm trying to query Overpass for a small amount of data over many small, sparsely populated areas. Was wondering if it made more sense to run separate queries for the bounding box of each small area, or one query for the bounding box of all queries. The first approach sends more queries against smaller areas, the second approach sends only one query against a much larger area. (does this belong on talk, or the dev list?) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Chain Store Cleanup
When it comes to McDonald's, at least in the USA and Canada, they (when they are stand-alone stores) are extremely easy to verify via Bing Imagery since they almost always use the same design for the buildings. It also helps when the sun was just right when the imagery was taken that the McDonald's logo casts a shadow on the ground from their tall sign (if they have one). So, you might be able to get away with just checking the imagery for the misspelled ones in the USA/Canada without having to rely on doing anything mechanical. And for the ones you can't verify, you could just add a note for them to be field checked if the building design doesn't match any of the normal designs, or is inside a gas station/WalMart and can't be verified for sure since those locations can/do change often sometimes to another brand. -James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] PennLive.com using OSM without attribution?
It's been fixed. Thanks for handling the e-mail part Hans. -James From: hans.dekryge...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 05:55:34 -0700 To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com CC: talk@openstreetmap.org; talk...@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] PennLive.com using OSM without attribution? Just received an email from nick the writer of the article saying he would take care of it today. Regards, Hans http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13 On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Hans De Kryger hans.dekryge...@gmail.com wrote: I sent him a email, i'll let you know when i get a reply. Regards, Hans http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13 On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 6:27 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote: http://www.pennlive.com/projects/2015/pa-turnpike-tunnels/ Just happened to see this article talking about the future of the Allegheny Tunnels along the PA Turnpike (I-76/I-70). About 2/3rd down in the article, they have a screenshot of OSM there showing the possible new alignments for the PA Turnpike. My question is, is this allowed with the current license, or do they still need to have the attribution on the image (or right below it)? If somebody that is more knowledgeable in this would like to contact them about this if they are in the wrong, please, be my guest. -James ___ Talk-us mailing list talk...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list talk...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] PennLive.com using OSM without attribution?
http://www.pennlive.com/projects/2015/pa-turnpike-tunnels/ Just happened to see this article talking about the future of the Allegheny Tunnels along the PA Turnpike (I-76/I-70). About 2/3rd down in the article, they have a screenshot of OSM there showing the possible new alignments for the PA Turnpike. My question is, is this allowed with the current license, or do they still need to have the attribution on the image (or right below it)? If somebody that is more knowledgeable in this would like to contact them about this if they are in the wrong, please, be my guest. -James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Am I mapping this wrong, or should the router be fixed for this?
I've been normally mapping slip lanes as '_link' highways at intersections since the beginning. However, as most fellow US mappers know, they almost never have 'speed limits' posted for them, and that seems to help cause problems in some routing programs when they give those slip lanes a speed limit higher than the main highway. Anyways, I've been using OSMAnd recently for occasional offline routing on my tablet and have come across weird routing (I'd like to call them 'bugs') at some intersections that have 3+ traffic lights nodes at them because of the roads being divided. Here, OSMAnd routes me onto a slip lane, makes a U-Turn on the side road, and then continues the across the main road to accomplish what a simple 'left turn' could have done [1], all to avoid '1' traffic light node. So, I go report the 'bug' on the OSMAnd Google group [2], and then somebody forwards it to the GitHub site [3]. In the response I get back on GitHub, one of the maintainers of OSMAnd says it's a 'map data' issue and closes it. Claims that in the 'maneuver', since it avoids an extra traffic light node, it's the shortest route, even though it does that funky U-Turn. Say what?! I mean, honestly, if both MapQuest Open OSMR can do that left turn 'normally' without needing to make a funky U-Turn, something has to be wrong in OSMAnd, right?? Sure, there isn't a 'NO U-Turn' sign posted for this maneuver, but still, the routing engine shouldn't be suggesting it since there isn't a 'NO Left Turn' relation there preventing the left turn from McKnight SB to Siebert EB. So, that leads me to my question. Does anybody think I've tagged the intersection incorrectly? This is how I've been tagging intersections like this from since the start, and I know most other US mappers have been doing the same. Or should I start adding 'false' U-Turn restrictions to prevent the routing bugs and then be called out as 'tagging for the router', or even maybe start putting traffic light nodes at the stop lines for intersections that have both roads divided (and just leave simple one-node intersections as-is)? I'm very curious to see what others have to say about this to see how I'll move forward when I map in the future. Also, don't hesitate to respond at the Google Group post or the GitHub one too as I get the e-mail notifications from them as well. -James [1] - (MapQuest routing, OSMAnd suggestion in [2] link) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapquest_carroute=40.53204%2C-80.01073%3B40.53002%2C-80.00614 [2] - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/osmand/XJ-HVOHhKEM [3] - https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand/issues/1501 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Is this legal to what philly.com is doing?
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/will-republicans-impeach-pennsylvania-supreme-court-justices-20180222.html (ignore what the article is about) Just happen to see a thumbnail and clicked on the article since I noticed the OSM base map. Nowhere that I can find does it give credit to OSM for the use of it. Now, the part to where I was curious if this was legal (sans the lack of credit), is that they are 'selling' the uploaded image. Is that allowed currently under the license that OSM has? Just thought I'd throw this out there for somebody more experienced in this sector. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] State of the Map Africa 2019 LOGO Submission Deadline
Dear all, 2 Days to go. Do you have an Idea for a great Logo Design? Drop it here for the State of the Map Africa 2019 conference, Grand-Bassam https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/…/State_of_the_…/Logo_Contest <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/State_of_the_Map_Africa_2019/Logo_Contest?fbclid=IwAR21V_nmDDNPWg4pLDBqc7XmjwATOTQtlLD9slWEBFENEnMkBOO8TL4CiOc> Deadline for Submission: Thursday 31st Jan, 2019. Regards, *Magige **M. **James* *Environmental Planner and Manager* */GIS and Remote Sensing specialist. * *Kenyatta University* *phone no:+2540707602740* *Email: jamesmagig...@gmail.com * *Instagram: james_magige* *Facebook: james magige mwita* *"GIS AND REMOTE SENSING FOR LIFE"* ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] mspray stealth organized mapping
Greetings. I am one of the coordinators for the mSpray organized mapping. We are aware of the issues that have been raised and we are working on them. James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Is this relation really closed?
Hello, I'm trying to turn the English (ceremonial) county boundaries from OSM into MultiPolygons for use with PostGIS. The last step of the process is... ST_Multi(ST_BuildArea(multi-line string)) ST_BuildArea returns NULL if the given lines do not form a Polygon or MultiPolygon. This has worked fine for the majority of counties, even MultiPolygons like Cumbria and Polygons with holes like Greater London. However, some simple ones such as Kent and County Durham return NULL here and I cannot figure out why. Here's the relation for Kent. http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/88071/full The relationship analyzer says that the segment for Kent is closed. http://betaplace.emaitie.de/webapps.relation-analyzer/analyze.jsp?relationId=88071 Am I misunderstanding what it means by closed? Looking at the map, it appears to be closed. I have called the PostGIS functions ST_IsRing and ST_IsClosed on the MultiLineString and they return false. Am I making a bad assumption here? I'll be in a lot of trouble if I don't figure this out soon so some help would be greatly appreciated. :) Thanks, James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Is this relation really closed?
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:28:09 +0100 Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 March 2010 17:20, James Le Cuirot ch...@aura-online.co.uk wrote: The relationship analyzer says that the segment for Kent is closed. http://betaplace.emaitie.de/webapps.relation-analyzer/analyze.jsp?relationId=88071 Am I misunderstanding what it means by closed? Looking at the map, it appears to be closed. I have called the PostGIS functions ST_IsRing and ST_IsClosed on the MultiLineString and they return false. Am I making a bad assumption here? You can use http://analyser.openstreetmap.fr By entering the relation, you can see that there are 3 self intersections on the coast. Thanks for your quick reply, Emilie. No doubt that is the culprit. I have found a PostGIS function that can clean such problems but it would be nice to fix the source data. I'm totally new to OSM and I live nowhere near this area. It seems like a simple enough fix though. Would it be considered rude for me to fix this? If the problem was that obvious, wouldn't someone else have fixed it already? James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Is this relation really closed?
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:57:52 +0100 Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote: what you will find in PostGIS will fix the issue that you are having in your import of the database, but not in the raw data. It would actually consider rude not to fix it actually :) The problem was not obvious. As you have seen yourself, one of the relation tool didn't pick the issue. I don't think anyone is running a verification of all relations in general. You are more than welcome to try, and do not hesitate to ask for help if you don't see what the problem is. I am sure that plenty of people will be offering support if you need it. It is not uncommon for me to fix errors in places like Japan. There are errors that can be fixed just by looking at the geometry. It is the beauty of collaborative work, everyone can fix it. Then fix it, I will! And I have tried actually but that site is still reporting problems and PostGIS still isn't accepting it. I thought the problem was that the ways went back on themselves, though they didn't actually cross, so I merged with the nodes of the other nearby boundary. Why there are two almost identical boundaries for this stretch of coastline, I'm not quite sure. Is this likely to be a mistake? And if this isn't the right way to fix a self-intersection, what is? My edit is here. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4289465 James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Is this relation really closed?
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:23:44 +0100 James Le Cuirot ch...@aura-online.co.uk wrote: And I have tried actually but that site is still reporting problems and PostGIS still isn't accepting it. I thought the problem was that the ways went back on themselves, though they didn't actually cross, so I merged with the nodes of the other nearby boundary. Ignore that, it appears that my fixes did work but the analyser has picked up two more problems elsewhere. My browser was caching the old marker locations. I hope I don't have to fix too many of these. :/ And I still don't know why there are two separate boundaries for the same stretch of coastline. James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status
On 30/09/2009, at 1:00 AM, Matt Amos wrote: yes. but since there hasn't been any case law on what substantial means (at least in europe, yet) The reason I asked was because we had decision (Nine Network vs IceTV) from our High Court a few months ago, regarding the meaning of substantial when applied to database copyright. Not that it means anything in the rest of the world, especially since you have sui generis database rights instead in Europe, but it is interesting to see how things differ across the globe. In this case a network produce a TV guide and someone reproduced the show name and time data from it. From my understanding, it was found that it wasn't substantial because the facts aren't copyrightable by themselves, and they hadn't reproduced a substantial part of the database schema or other things that are a copyrightable part of the database. we were advised to create guidelines on what we, as a community, consider substantial. apparently this would likely be taken into account, in the absence of case law, if anything goes in front of a judge. Sounds pretty sensible, especially since substantial varies depending on whether it's in reference to copyright on the contents of the database, copyright on the database, sui generis database rights, as well as depending on jurisdiction. If you're somewhere that only the contract part is effective, then I assume it and case law would be all that there is to go on. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status
On 26/09/2009, at 3:02 AM, Mike Collinson wrote: - A very much re-worked Contributor Terms is now virtually complete and you can see a snapshot at http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1kqzg8dhr . Something I just thought of that would probably be worth talking about - how does the active contributor for voting, and other things, work if (unfortunately) the project forks? the geo-database of the OpenStreetMap project (the “Project”) ... or another free and open license; which other free and open license is chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership [MJC3] and approved by a vote of active contributors. ... An active contributor is defined as: a contributor (whether using a single or multiple accounts) that has edited the Project in any 3 calendar months from the last 6 months (i.e. there is a demonstrated interest over time,); and has maintained a valid email address in their registration profile and responds within 3 weeks. Two situations to think about: 1) Some time after a relicense to ODbL, there is a big argument and 20% of the mappers go off to form FreeStreeMap, based on a fork of the database. (question) does the OSFM membership retain it's voting power over a re-license for all derivative databases? A while later ( 3 months) OSM decides to relicense the db, perhaps to ODbL 2.0. (question) what exactly defines _the_ geo-database of the the Project? (question) and following that, if someone was contributing to OSM before the fork and FSM after it, do they get a vote on the re-license? 2) Some time after a re-license to ODbL, someone creates a derivative database called EvilStreetMap. They continue to release the data in accordance with the ODbL, but do not accept any outside contributors. (question) after waiting three months, who has voting rights over a re-license of EvilStreetMap? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Osmf-talk] New license proposal status II
On 03/12/2009, at 6:12 AM, Mike Collinson wrote: We have now fully updated the OSM Contributors agreement section of the main proposal. I hope that meets concerns about clarity of the change-over process. http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf A while ago on the legal-talk list I mentioned that the contributor terms didn't quite sit right with me, although I know why we want them to help lessen the pain of re-licensing in the future. Thinking about it again after reading the above, I think I've figured out what was sticking in my craw. The reason (well, my version) for a share-alike licence is that people who use OSM data have to release theirs, we can merge that in, and everyone benefits from the extra data going around. ODbL help that because (I'm serious hoping) that we could combine two ODbL-licensed data sets together into a new ODbL-licensed data set. However I think that requiring the contributor terms would prevent that from working properly. Consider Unfriendly Map Corp which fulfils it's legal obligations, but doesn't go out of their way to be nice to us, and that they combine OSM data with their own to produce something they distribute. They release the combined data as required by the ODbL, however unless they agree to the contributor terms (which they don't have to), we can't take that combined data and bring it back into OSM without giving up the ability for easy re-licensing. Am I missing something here? From what I can make out, using the ODbL to force people to release combined data doesn't mean we can do anything with the result. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On 09/12/2009, at 11:46 AM, Anthony wrote: A transfer of copyright is a transfer of exclusive rights. In the US, and probably in other jurisdictions as well, it must be signed and in writing. One key difference is that someone who is granted a nonexclusive license does not have the power to sue for copyright infringement, whereas someone who is the recipient of a transfer of copyright can sue for copyright infringement - in fact, in the absense of a license to the contrary the recipient of a copyright assignment can even sue the person from whom the copyright was transferred. Additionally, in the case of an assignment of copyright, the original copyright holder can terminate the transfer after 35 years. This is not possible in the case of a nonexclusive license. http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html Some other potential points against using copyright transfer: * Given one of the arguments against CC-BY-SA is that in some jurisdictions the data isn't subject to copyright, copyright assignment of the data would be a bit questionable. * Businesses and government department are unlikely to want to assign copyright to someone else, assuming that they are even the actual copyright holder. * A lot of people won't want to do that. Quite a few people won't work on various open-source projects because they require assignment. * You'd probably need to be a lot more careful. I believe that there are some jurisdictions where signing copyright transfer paperwork for something you aren't the copyright holder of is a lot more serious than plain copyright infringement. * You wouldn't be able to use data you personally collected, except under the ODbL (the last part of the second sentence on the second paragraph above). The downside of not requiring copyright assignment is that OSMF can't sue for copyright infringement of the data. They could still sue for breach of contract and possible infringement of the database rights (I'm not sure about that, I don't know enough about EU law). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On 12/12/2009, at 7:07 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote: But if the foundation wants to have copyright in the data I think it's trivial for it to have some by doing *some* of the maintenance edits on behalf of the foundation or one person (or more) transferring their rights instead of everyone doing this. One of the claimed problems with CC-BY-SA was that users were worried that they could be sued by any contributor for copyright infringement. Aside from any can the data have copyright rights questions, if OSMF was to claim some copyright in the data then they're basically implying that other contributors do too, and anyone of us could sue users. Which I don't think is what they want. Out of curiosity, could the license at all work if contributors didn't have to assign copyright *nor* database rights? Apart from the fact that updating the license would require a new vote (or licensing under ODbL v1+, similar to GPLv2+), but could that be done? As I understand it, contributors don't have to (and aren't being asked to) assign either of those rights in the exclusive transfer sense. We're giving OSMF non-exclusive permission to distribute our contributions under ODbL (and future licenses, etc.). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] You may not sublicense your rights under these Terms to any person
On 11/02/2010, at 8:14 PM, Stefan Neufeind wrote: Agreed, trying to ask them would be a good thing. Has helped in some cases in the past where authorities (city government or the like) re-thought their license :-) The Australian Toilet Map data got discussed on talk-au back in December, and from the discussion the problem is that the department's records of where various data came from is a bit sketchy, so they aren't sure they can actually put it under a better licence :( ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL Use Case: comparing OSM and proprietary data
On 15/06/2010, at 7:24 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: 2. create a data set derived from OSM with number of road kilometres in each tile I'd argue that this step could be seen as creating a Produced Work not a derived database. Consider if you rendered a heat map of OSM where each pixel in the output contained a z18 tiles, and value of the pixel was equal to the number of roads in it. Similar to the ITOWorld heat maps of the where the edits have been. Conveniently you can do the same for the other map data, and then just create a new image which is the difference of the two. Would it still be a produced work if instead of storing it in an array (e.g. an image) you stored it as a list of lat, lon, value triples, say in a database? I've never managed to figure out where the seemingly arbitrary cutoff between Produced Work and Derived Database is. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 13/07/2010, at 10:47 PM, Richard Weait wrote: Anybody who can suggest a way to accurately predict the user numbers and data % and location and the extent where blank spots might arise should help us to allay these fears. But I think that there are simply too many variables to predict the future in a sensible way. I agree that the only way were going to find out is by actually getting people to agree/disagree to ODbL+CTs. Personally I think sooner is better, since not knowing means people may be either holding off doing some work or doing work that ends up not able to be used. It's also worth remembering that it's not simply a X% of data is kept and100-X% of data is removed thing. If for example an object is currently at version 6 and the first four editors agree it could be reverted to version 4. Exactly how that works with data consistency I don't know (relation members disappearing, or reverting nodes that were later made part of a way). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 16/07/2010, at 6:35 PM, Rob Myers wrote: ODbL is a comparable licence to BY-SA, with the main change being that it has actually been written to cover data. If people don't relicence because they are afraid not enough people will relicence then that will be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. While that is definitely one of the main changes, it's not the only one - there is also: * Tiles do not have to be under the same license as the DB (whether or not people realised what when originally choosing CC-BY-SA) * It also uses contract law, which makes things a *lot* more complicated Since we're not voting on ODbL, but ODbL + contributor terms, there's also: * Changing the licence in future may not require your permission (if you do contribute for a while, or are un-contactable for three weeks) * Currently you can import any data with a compatible licence (e.g. CC-BY-SA, CC-BY), you can't if we change without the copyright holder's permission BY-SA does not protect the freedom to use OSM data in Australia. Trying to continue pretending that it does doesn't serve the interests of Australians. Assuming you mean protecting contributor's right to be attributed a number of Australian groups would disagree - including our government. -- James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 16/07/2010, at 6:28 PM, Andy Allan wrote: On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:53 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: There's only one undeniable fact in this whole affair. Exactly 100% of all contributors have signed up to CC-BY-SA and have indicated that they are willing to contribute their data under that license. Given that that has been the only option, that's hardly surprising. Nobody was ever given the option to contribute under a different license. Using this to bolster your position is a bit disingenuous, especially since the last 30,000 people have also agreed to ODbL without any mass hysteria. Using 30 000 people signing up with dual-licensing is just as disingenuous, we have no way of knowing how many people would have signed up with the old licence in the same period. I doubt there at many people who changed their mind after seeing ODbL+CTs, but we can't know. They do, both amongst Foundation members and by a (small) survey of contributors. Now we'll find out what the full contributor body has to say, but you're pretty outspoken in trying to ensure this stage has a time limit - effectively ensuring that some people will be excluded. I expect you'd be quite happy to see as many people as possible failing to meet whatever deadline you wish to see imposed on the relicensing, since that works in your favour too. I absolutely think we need a time limit, I don't how long it should be, but we need one so we don't stay in the future-licence limbo forever. I'm sure there are quite a few people who have data that they have been given access to that they'd like to import into OSM, but aren't due to not knowing what licence it will be under in the future. I had some CC-BY data (parks and conservation area boundaries, which can't be acquired on the ground) which I wasn't uploading because I didn't know if I'd have to remove it after a licence change. Since it's been dragging on for ages, I've just gone screw it and started uploading it. Someone can go and sort out the mess of removing it if we change licence. After reading your arguments on the wiki and all these messages it's pretty clear you want to keep the CC-BY-SA license, ignore the fundamental problems with it, and have little interest in any other option. And if we gave you a veto, you'd use it, regardless of how many people want ODbL. And you want to change to ODbL, ignoring the fundamental problems with that, regardless of how many people don't. These arguments are just going to go round and round until we try to relicense and get an answer one way or the other. Hopefully soon. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 17/07/2010, at 4:12 AM, Simon Ward wrote: On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:01:08PM +1000, James Livingston wrote: * It also uses contract law, which makes things a *lot* more complicated Despite my strong bias towards copyleft, I thought this was a problem with the license. Unfortunately people thought that because laws about rights to data are vastly different that contract law is needed to balance it out—it’s apparently unfair otherwise. I don’t really believe that. It certainly harmonises things a bit more, both removing some of the loopholes in various countries copyright law which people can exploit, and removing some of the fair use provisions countries have. Of course, a loophole and a fair use provides are basically the same :) I'm still not sure how useful it will be in enforcing the ODbL in the US. Consider if Bob from the US takes the OSMF-provded planet dump, produces a North America extract and makes it available on his FTP site. Jane from the US downloads it, uses it and doesn't release her Derived Database. What can we do about it? We can't use copyright or database rights to enforce it in the US (one of the main reasons for using contract as well). Ignoring any arguments about whether she could agree to a contract by downloading it from a FTP site, the only person she could have a contract with is Bob, not the OSMF. Since we're not voting on ODbL, but ODbL + contributor terms, there's also: * Changing the licence in future may not require your permission (if you do contribute for a while, or are un-contactable for three weeks) I didn’t realise it was that short a time period. :/ Three weeks isn't that long, if someone is on holiday. For example I'll be on a longer one later this year, with only intermittent Internet access and only reading my special email here if you need me while on holiday account, not my normal one. Not that we'd be re-licensing using the CTs by then, I don't even know if we'll have done the ODbL relicense. Regards, James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Upgrading to future ODbL version
On 17/07/2010, at 4:58 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: I noticed something that had escaped my attention until now. The contributor terms say that OSMF will release the data under ODbL 1.0, CC-BY-SA 2.0 or another free and open license accepted by 2/3 of active members. Notice the absence of any or later clause here. This means that if ODbL 1.1 comes out, it will not be usable out of the box, but we would have to go through the whole 2/3 of active members have to accept poll to upgrade. Is that a desired safeguard against OKFN releasing bad new license versions, or is it an oversight? It's presumably the same reason a lot of people use GPL 2.0 not GPL 2.0 or later. Who gets to call something ODbL 1.1, and how can we be sure we trust them? Consider the dodgy legal hack the FSF and Wikipedia used to do their re-licensing - Wikipedia was under GFDL 1.2 or later, and they convinced the FSF to release a GFDL 1.3 which let them relicense to CC without copyright holders' permission. I had no problem re-licenseing my small amount of Wikipedia contributions under a CC license, but what they did to do it made me trust the FSF a lot less, and I'm not going to put or later on anything I release (L)GPL in the future. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17/07/2010, at 6:34 PM, Heiko Jacobs wrote: Michael Barabanov schrieb: Consider two cases: 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone. 2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to change. Where's the issue? It's case (1) in some jurisdictions and case (2) in other jurisdictions. The OSMF can't just relicense because of the places where it is (2), but people can arguable just reuse the data in places where it is (1). There are no solution possible. Think about history function in case of splitted or joined ways. And what about a way, mapped by A with 3 points and highway=path and B sets a fourth point in the middle and add surface=... smoothness=... Who is the true holder of copyright of the way and first three points? And so on ... Easy, both of them - there doesn't have to be a single copyright holder for a piece of work. I don't know how to deal with the splitting-merging problem and other similar cases. OSM seems to try to take a whiter than white approach to not copying of other sources, so it would seem a bit weird to be more lax with contributor's data. Of course, the only solution that is guarantees to work is to nuke the DB and start again. I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ... I don't recall that being said, but I could be wrong. A lot of us Australians posting on the list 1) don't like the ODbL a lot, and 2) wondering about all the CC-BY data we've gotten from the Govetnment. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 20/07/2010, at 9:10 AM, Emilie Laffray wrote: To the best of my knowledge, violating a contract and making the data available doesn't make the data public domain. Indeed. The relevant question is then Is hosting a copy of ODbL licensed material (e.g. a planet dump) on your website without requiring people to agree to a contract a violation of the ODbL?. If you aren't violating the ODbL by hosting the data without requiring contract agreement, then that is a easy way to get around the license if copyright and database right don't apply or exist. Richard Fairhurst pointed out some legal issues about this. To quote him from higher up in the thread: Under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, a person who is not a party to a contract (a 'third party') may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if... the term purports to confer a benefit on him. It's already been discussed way back on legal-talk, but not having a choice of law clause in the ODbL (with good reason) makes enforcing the contract part of it more interesting. I don't know how you'd go trying to use that to enforce the ODbL if the neither of the first nor second parties are in England. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On 26/08/2010, at 2:12 AM, Simon Ward wrote: I don’t know if that’s how legal types read it, but couldn’t it also be taken transitively as follows: 1. CTs allow licensing under ODbL 1.0; 2. ODbL 1.0 allows licensing under a compatible licence, or later version of the ODbL; 3. By (1) and (2), CTs allow licencing under ODbL 1.0, which includes licences compatible with ODbL 1.0, or a later version of the ODbL? I believe so, via: 1) OSMF releases a copy of the data they collected under the CTs with a ODbL 1.0 license 2) Someone takes that copy and then re-releases it under ODbL 1.1 There is no reason that someone in step can't be the OSMF as well. However I think they couldn't release _only_ under ODbL 1.1, they have to do both ODbL 1.0 (from the first step) and 1.1, unless f they could get around that by releasing non-publicly in the first step. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On 25/08/2010, at 5:41 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: There is also a very practical reason against fixing anything, and *specifically* a share-alike requirement, in the CT, and that is that in order to make *clear* what you want you will have to write half a license into the CT. I completely agree - if you want to add a clause requiring that future licenses be share alike you'll need to come up with a good definition of what that means, and once you do you're probably made it impossible to relicense. The whole point of the relicensing clause is that we don't know what we'll need in the future. Consider for example if OSM had originally had the CTs along with the CC-BY-SA license. I would argue strongly that we couldn't then re-license to ODbL under the CTs because ODbL's version of share-alike isn't what people would have assumed it meant when they signed up. If I agreed to the CTs along with CC-BY-SA, I would expect that share alike meant rendered images would have to be under the same license, but ODbL doesn't require that. For the people who want a share-alike requirement in the CTs, how do you want it defined? If we want to require Derived Databases to be under the same license, but not Produced Works or Insubstantial Extractions, you'll have to define those terms. In addition, you'll probably need to define Publicly Use and many of the rest too. Once you've defined all of those in the CTs, then realise that it means we probably can never use the CTs to relicense because the target licence has slightly different definitions of those terms or doesn't have the exact same requirements. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence Implementation plan - declines or non-responses
On 30/08/2010, at 10:03 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: If the majority of the community (including OSMF and the sysads who run the servers) agrees with the license change, why should the onus of forking be on the license-change agreers? If this is indeed the case, then the ones who should fork are those for CC-BY-SA 2.0. It all depends on what exactly you mean by the word fork. You could very well say that there is going to be a ODbL re-licensing fork, it's just that the one hosted by OSM would change to be that fork rather than the existing data. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
On 30/08/2010, at 3:04 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Perfect. So the new license is being shown as possibly non effective against such an attack. I've asked about this case before on the list, and gotten no real response about it. Consider for example if someone in the US[0] takes the ODbL-licensed planet dump provided from OSMF, and creates a North American extract of it, and makes that extract available (under ODbL) from their website. Another person/company in the US downloads that extract and uses it in a way that violates the ODbL. What can we do to enforce the ODbL? Since the US doesn't have database rights, we can't use that part of ODbL. Since copyright doesn't cover the OSM data (don't reply arguing just about that) in the US, we can't use that part of the ODbL. So the only way of enforcing the license would be through the contract parts. However the contract (if one even exists, which is arguable) would be between the person making the extract and the person using it, how can anyone other than the extract-creator enforce the license? There's also the issue that when the person hosting the extract makes it available, there is nothing forcing them to make it available in such as way that a contract would be formed. Host a copy of the planet or an extract for people to download with just a link, and I would think that you'd get a contract of adhesion at best, and that concept doesn't exist in some places. IANAL, etc - James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On 30/08/2010, at 3:24 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: I think that was already sorted out under the issue of wikipedia point importing, the OSM data is under the jurisdiction of England and has to obey english copyright law. no? No, people are bound by the copyright law where they are or use the data. For example if someone wants to sue me for violating copyright, they'll have to do it under Australian law. The only thing where England comes into play is that the Contributor Terms specify that they fall under English law. The ODbL deliberately doesn't contain a choice-of-law clause. If there is no single law, then we can just extract the changes again back in usa and put them back in no? Then it is a two way street. No. For example there are books which are out of copyright in Australia (due to length of time since publication) but still on copyright in the US. If I use that now public domain work to create something new in Australia, I can't give it to people or sell it in the US without the risk of being sued for copyright infringement. It's fine if I only distribute it places where the book's was out of copyright, but not if it goes to places where it's still in copyright. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
On 27/08/2010, at 1:36 AM, Anthony wrote: Or you could just assign the task of deciding what it means to someone. Whether or not a future license is share alike shall be determined by a vote of the OSMF board. Sure, except I don't know that will really help. If people want certainty that all future licenses will have certain conditions, then presumably they'd want that in legal form, i.e. in the contributor terms. I highly doubt there are enough people in OSMF (and among the active contributors) with such lack of integrity that a switch to a PD-like license could occur under those conditions. I agree. The whole point of the relicensing clause is that we don't know what we'll need in the future. Others do, at least, aside from fixes to the license which are propagated by the originator of the license (License X or any later version). I meant we as a community don't know what we'll need in future to reflect out wants. Various groups of people have opinions on that, but I don't think that we can say the OSM community agrees on what we want to happen in 5 or 10 years. With all the trust that's being put into ODC's lawyers, I'm surprised there isn't more trust that ODbL 1.0 or any later version published by ODC will be adequate. +1. If we want the ability to relicense to fix problems, ODbL's upgrade clause should (I would hope) be enough. If we want the ability to do a relicense other than to fix problems, we're probably not going to want to be bound by what it contains. Consider for example if OSM had originally had the CTs along with the CC-BY-SA license. I would argue strongly that we couldn't then re-license to ODbL under the CTs because ODbL's version of share-alike isn't what people would have assumed it meant when they signed up. And you'd probably lose that argument (even though I'd agree with you). ODbL has been sold as a sharealike license from the get go, by Steve, by the LWG, by the statements attached to the poll... I was surprised they got away with it, but they did. If you could successfully argue that, couldn't just as easily argue that it would allow a change to one that doesn't require Derived Databases to be under the same license? That is what I assume most people want a share alike requirement to actually mean. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Garmin Maps / Produced Works
On 04/09/2010, at 10:30 PM, Rob Myers wrote: If it absolutely has to be one thing or the other I'd say it is a Produced Work. Does it have to be though? I can't see anything in the ODbL that says Derived Database and Produced Work are mutually exclusive. A produced work is: a work (such as an image, audiovisual material, text, or sounds) resulting from using the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents (via a search or other query) from this Database, a Derivative Database, or this Database as part of a Collective Database. To me, it would seem that all Derivative Databases would be produced works too, since they are a work resulting from using the Database. Exactly what that would mean I'm not sure, but 4.5b (creating a Produced Work does not create a Derivative Database) would be a bit confusing if that were the case. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 4 January 2011 17:53, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: My first question is: which version of the CT is referred to there? Does this mean the totally broken v1.0, the partially broken proposed v1.2.2, or some hopefully non-broken v1.3? I haven't been keeping track of this recently, partially due to travelling and partially due to being completely sick of arguing this topic when no-one seems to listen to what people say, but what version number is the current one on the site? What I see if I go to the acceptance page is still You agree to only add Contents for which You are the copyright holder, which I can't do because I have in the past imported data that I'm not the copyright holder for. A few more questions: 1) If the board have decided the cutoff of April 1, why isn't this somewhere obvious on osm.org? 2) If there a FAQ covering things like how do I split edits on my account into those I can agree for and those I can't? and what licenses are the CTs compatible with? ? 3) On the above, how do I split the edits on my account? -- James Livingston ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Acceptable licences and splitting account edits
Hi all, With the upcoming requirement to accept/decline the contributor terms, I thought it was about time to figure out whether and how I can agree to them. I've had a look around but can't see any FAQs for the contributor terms, just for the ODbL part. I'm sure I can't be the only person in this situation, so having a list of what to do in various situations would be quite handy. Using my account I have added data that is under various licences, some of which will and some of which won't be compatible with ODbL. To be able to keep any of it, I'll presumably need to split my changesets up. 1) How do I move changesets to a new account? 2) How should they be split - one account for ODbL-compatible and ODbL-incompatible? One account per licence/source? Something else? For each of the licenses/sources, I think we should have a definitive answer as to whether they are a) ODbL compatible, and b) Contributor Terms compatible. In my case I have my own contributions, CC-BY data, CC-BY-SA data, and public domain data. In addition there is data that is derived from imagery from Yahoo, NearMap, and Bing. Were those to questions answered and the list of okay licences listed anywhere? If not, can we get good answers and add them to a FAQ? -- James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On 5 June 2011 22:35, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: John Smith wrote: He is yet to back up his claims about people using the data I don't think it makes a difference. If I have one set of data with a questionable copyright situation and no street names, and another set of data with street names surveyed by someone who agrees to the CT, there's no reason to prefer the former. Being more accurate (traced from high quality imagery, versus GPS) could be a reason to prefer the former. I'm not certain about how the person in question would take this, but you'd want to be careful not to get into edit wars about this. The original person could quite easily put their more accurate ways back, and copy the names from the newer ones (since they can be CC licensed). Do we want to encourage people to delete perfectly good data because they don't like the licence? -- James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On 5 June 2011 10:09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I know for a fact that among the current disagreeing mappers there are some who intend to stay with OSM and who are just holding out until the last minute; As far as I can tell, doing that is the only way to say I don't like the licence/CTs/process/whatever, but I will re-license my data. Accepting is taking as a vote for liking the new license, and I quite a few people that are going to do it at the last minute for this reason. The group of people who want the new licence and the group of people that will accept the licence isn't quite the same. I for example have had to say No, because you now have to give an answer to edit, but would almost certainly change that to a Yes at the last minute (subject to figure out how to split incompatible data into it's own account). -- James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
