Re: [OSM-talk] Contributor Terms
Correcting myself: My clear recollection of it is that we decided to ask new contributors to agree to ODbL+CT should be to ODbL and a contents licence. CT wasn't on the table then. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Contributor-Terms-tp5415290p5419378.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
[moved from t...@] Dave F. wrote: On 13/08/2010 10:34, Richard Fairhurst wrote: ...(This is one of the reasons I'm not greatly enamoured of the upgrade clause in CT 3.) Am I understanding this correctly? Of the people that drafted the CT, 50% now don't like it? The Contributor Terms postdate my spell on OSMF; I wasn't involved in drafting them. Some Contributor Terms are necessary. My own preference would be for ones that do less than the current set. However, my main concern is that ODbL itself is adopted: it's an excellent licence and much more suitable for OSM than CC-BY-SA. As the Rolling Stones once sang, you can't always get what you want, so I'm happy to sign up for the current Contributor Terms if it means we get ODbL. Who's Jordan? (Lawyer?) A specialist IP lawyer (though not OSMF's) and one of the authors of ODbL. cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
Chris Browet wrote[1]: The fact that many key players (SteveC, Frederik, Richard(?)) in the project also have commercial interests in the OSM data Wut? I don't have any commercial interest in OSM, at all. I'm a magazine editor. We do have maps in our magazine but we (well, I) make them using Ordnance Survey OpenData, SRTM, and tracings from the New Popular Edition sheets which I bought, scanned and rectified at my own expense. OSM data is too fiddly and too uneven to be of any use for small-scale mapping when there's lovely, consistent Ordnance Survey data available instead. cheers Richard [1] a week or so ago. I've been on holiday. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/NearMap-Community-Licence-and-OSM-Contributor-Terms-tp5439327p5449920.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch for Newbies
Steve Bennett wrote: I note someone below saying Potlatch 2 will only have the offline mode. Ugh. That's a real pity. Live mode is more complex to code (and, hence, a potential source of bugs) by an order of magnitude. Stuff like merging ways and undo is incredibly convoluted in P1 because of this. There's no theoretical reason why P2 couldn't have it... but I certainly wouldn't volunteer to code it and I'd take pity on anyone who did. Personally I use 'save mode' in P1 with the approach save early, save (very) often. Once you've made your first save (with changeset comment) it's only a matter of pressing 'S' now and then, which'll bring up a progress dialogue for a second then disappear with Potlatch's trademark happy plop. I'd like to make P2's save function equally low-profile. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Potlatch-for-Newbies-tp5447342p5456142.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
Pieren wrote: Question 1 : is culvert commonly used by native english speakers ? Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ? It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5466616.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
Pieren wrote: Question 1 : is culvert commonly used by native english speakers ? Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ? It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Culvert-and-average-contributor-tp5466555p5466615.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Russ Nelson wrote: Second, because it will do minimum damage to the community (the discussion here is evidence that the community WILL be badly harmed by relicensing). We'll lose people whichever way it goes. I guess, for example, that Etienne might not contribute to an ODbL-licensed OSM. Similarly, if OSM decides to stay with CC-BY-SA, I will leave the project. That's why forks are good: people can choose to contribute to the project that most closely fits their beliefs. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Community-vs-Licensing-tp5475468p5479454.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Feature Proposal - Voting - Craft
Peter Körner wrote: after two weeks without contradictions, I'll open up voting for the Craft proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Craft Please, this stuff belongs on tagg...@. If there is a tagging suggestion that you really really feel that talk@ HAS to know about, despite the fact that anyone who's into this wiki voting stuff doubtless watches both/either tagging@ and the wiki pages, then make sure you set follow-ups to tagging@ _and_ say as such in the body of the e-mail. talk@ no more needs to know about the difference between a tailor and a fashion_designer than it needs to know about my problems trying to get the AS3 OAuth library to work in Potlatch 2 on OS X 10.5 running on a PowerPC machine. Though if you do want me to post the stack traces... cheers Richard tagging@ list admin -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-Voting-Craft-tp5506069p5509846.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Exceeded API bandwidth limit, now what?
Frederik Ramm wrote: [helpful response] I've wikified this for the Developer FAQ: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ#I.27ve_been_blocked_from_the_API_for_downloading_too_much._Now_what.3F cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Exceeded-API-bandwidth-limit-now-what-tp5528472p5529204.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers
Nic Roets wrote: This is because a gate with no access tags implies that nothing can go through. Where on earth do you get that idea from? barrier=gate states that there's a gate. The thing about gates, as opposed to (say) walls, is that you can open them to get through. Here are some pictures if I haven't explained it clearly enough: http://www.artlondon.com/photogallery/images/wellmann/Open-gate.jpg http://www.camulos.com/Virtual/wall.jpg cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/A-warning-about-gates-and-other-barriers-tp5547675p5547756.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers
Nic Roets wrote: Nic Roets wrote: This is because a gate with no access tags implies that nothing can go through. Where on earth do you get that idea from? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barrier in the sidebar under 'implies' And AFAIK that rule goes back to 2008. Wow. The OSM wiki never ceases to disappoint with its limitless provision of confusing, badly written, half thought-out crap. So we have a page that says implies access=no and then happily contradicts itself by saying an entrance that can be opened or closed to get through the barrier. That's can be opened (access=yes), not can't be opened (access=no). It's probably just as well the wiki documents, not defines. And given the vast preponderance of highway=gate nodes within (say) highway=footway ways, the wiki docs look pretty unambiguously wrong. Anyway, follow-ups to tagg...@. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/A-warning-about-gates-and-other-barriers-tp5547675p5547906.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
Kevin Cordina wrote: As to the usefulness - a map compiled from purely the OS streetview data would serve one of my purposes for OSM data (rendering nameless maps of streets and natural features) 100% perfectly, so it is not a fair assumption that more data = more value. If you want a nameless map of streets and natural features, just go straight to the source and use OS VectorMap District. It's complete, consistent, reliable, and has a sane licence. There's absolutely no point involving OSM. I'm speaking from some experience here. Every month for our magazine I produce a set of maps from OS OpenData (in this case Meridian2 rather than VMD, because we're working at roughly 1:70,000 and Meridian2 is better suited for that). I did once experiment with using OSM data. It was really painful. OSM's strength is in its rich data. Mindless tracing from OS StreetView, as others have said, destroys the motivation of others to make the data rich. I've seen this in Worcester, where an excellent quality map advancing at moderate speed has now largely drawn to a halt after some thoughtless OS tracing. No-one gains from this. OSM gets a worse map in the medium (not even long) term. Prospective users of the map data don't gain because they could have used OS anyway. I guess the one use-case is short-term use in OSM-derived products (such as Garmin .img files), but if one-tenth the effort spent on tracing had been spent on a utility to intelligently merge OSM with A.N.Other source without uploading it, that'd be much more sane. OS StreetView is a useful tool in moderation, for checking your own surveying and for filling in little gaps here and there. To get back to the original point, I support efforts to make the Contributor Terms compatible with this and other attribution-only licences. But some of the mindless tracing really makes me weep. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OS-Opendata-the-new-license-tp5538273p5580709.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
Kevin Cordina wrote: As to the usefulness - a map compiled from purely the OS streetview data would serve one of my purposes for OSM data (rendering nameless maps of streets and natural features) 100% perfectly, so it is not a fair assumption that more data = more value. If you want a nameless map of streets and natural features, just go straight to the source and use OS VectorMap District. It's complete, consistent, reliable, well plotted, and has a sane licence. There's absolutely no point involving OSM. I'm speaking from some experience here. Every month for our magazine I produce a set of maps from OS OpenData (in this case Meridian2 rather than VMD, because we're working at roughly 1:70,000 and Meridian2 is better suited for that). I did once experiment with using OSM data. It was really painful. OSM's strength is in its rich data. Mindless tracing from OS StreetView, as others have said, destroys the motivation of others to make the data rich. I've seen this in Worcester, where an excellent quality map advancing at moderate speed has now largely drawn to a halt after some thoughtless OS tracing. No-one gains from this. OSM gets a worse map in the medium (not even long) term. Prospective users of the map data don't gain because they could have used OS anyway. I guess the one use-case is short-term use in OSM-derived products (such as Garmin .img files), but if one-tenth the effort spent on tracing had been spent on a utility to intelligently merge OSM with A.N.Other source without uploading it, that'd be much more sane. OS StreetView is a useful tool in moderation, for checking your own surveying and for filling in little gaps here and there. To get back to the original point, I support efforts to make the Contributor Terms compatible with this and other attribution-only licences. But some of the mindless tracing really makes me weep. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OS-Opendata-the-new-license-tp5538273p5580714.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM User Testing
SteveC wrote: We need to think of some simple tasks for new users to complete, and we'll put them together over on this wiki page. Add a street? Find a mailing list? Add a point of interest? What should they do? That's up to you. At the risk of stating the really bleeding obvious, there's not an enormous amount of point doing user testing on Potlatch 1 given that development of Potlatch 2 is so far advanced. For example, two lessons you could feasibly take from P1 user testing are what the hell's with this tagging thing?, and why doesn't this map look at all like the one I had a minute ago?, both of which are of course addressed with P2. It might be possible to get some generalised issues from it, of course. But since it would be a shame to waste a promising initiative on things that have already been fixed, it might be worth concentrating on some of the other aspects of the site (like the whole lack-of-documentation what the hell do I do now thing). cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-User-Testing-tp5584505p5594367.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch2 and shp files
Sam Vekemans wrote: Does anyone know if there are plans to ipliment the auto-conversion of shp files to be used in the foreground of the potlatch2 environment? Not automatically converted into the foreground, no. The idea is that you load them as a vector background layer, and you can then either trace over them, or alt-click (shift+ctrl for those of you whose window managers won't permit it :) ) to bring them manually through to the foreground. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Potlatch2-and-shp-files-tp5617275p5617577.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ongoing bulk uploads of GPS traces?
Elizabeth Dodd wrote: There was a Russian transport mob who managed to completely overload the track upload system trying to put up gps traces to the main database. Separate hosting would keep that from happening - WA is on the same huge scale as Russia. Different issue. The issue with the Russian transport mob is that they uploaded the tracks all in one go with no delay between them. Simply putting sleep 60 in your upload script between each track fixes this. Sam: this is great. Go for it. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Ongoing-bulk-uploads-of-GPS-traces-tp5629920p5630878.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Response to A critique of OpenStreetMap
Mike N. wrote: And along those lines, based on the constructive criticism, the default map shown on the main OSM page should be a pretty map, using tiles from Mapquest, while mappers that have a need to view more details can select one of the existing map styles. 41latitude is a really interesting blog and I like it, including this latest post. I think you could largely sum up his criticisms in two broad headings: 1. US OSM contributors need to get their shit together 2. European maps don't look like American ones For 1 - seriously, you do. In the UK we don't have some roads tagged A3400 and others tagged A-3400 and others tagged CNSE (Chipping Norton Stratford Expressway, _obviously_): they're all tagged a la A3400. Our roads are coherently classified according to the UK highway system, even though it might seem counterintuitive (we tag non-primary A roads as highway=primary - well, so what). As a result our map looks lovely. If you get your shit together than your map will look lovely too. For 2 - right. That's why you're saying use MapQuest tiles. But over here we're used to the Ordnance Survey and its subtle use of colouring, and so OSM looks just right and Google et al look spartan. It's no coincidence that when Mary Spence of the British Cartographic Society was all over the newspapers criticising Internet cartography, she qualified it with but OpenStreetMap looks lovely. Now the way that Google and friends solve this is by having country-specific rendering rules. They're all within a certain framework, of course, but it means that Google US has shields and orange interstates, while Google UK has boxes and blue motorways. We really ought to do this. But AIUI there will need to be some Mapnik/osm2pgsql patches before it can happen. svn is that way :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Response-to-A-critique-of-OpenStreetMap-tp5635020p5635967.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Response to A critique of OpenStreetMap
Kate Chapman wrote: Point 1: I'm not denying that the data in the U.S. is messed up. On the other hand I can't count the number of times people say things that I summarize to 'God, why are you Americans too stupid, lazy or import crazy to map your own country? It really makes people want to continue mapping with the project. Understood absolutely. But put that out of your mind. No matter how I or anyone else phrase it, no matter whether it's accompanied by a helpful smile or a superior sneer, you do genuinely need to sort this shit out anyway. You do need to make sure that your data is as consistently attributed as Google's (or OSM's UK data), because otherwise people, like Mr 41latitude, will compare the two to your detriment. And you need to do that for yourselves. With the awareness of being part of an international project, sure, but it needs to come from US mappers. I mean, I personally dislike the overuse of relations to model absolutely everything, but you should take no bloody notice of me whatsoever and use route relations for your roads if you think it works well and will be reasonably in keeping with the rest of OSM. So if, say, you think you need eight levels of importance within your highway network, yet OSM only has seven (motorway, trunk, primary, secondary, tertiary, unclassified, residential), screw it. Invent another one. Quaternary or minor or something. The Germans have done that (motorroad=yes) and no-one has died as a result. Yes it appears when people compare OSM to Google/Bing/etc they seem to start in the U.S. Funnily enough only US people do that. :) Personally I'm more used to UK cyclists comparing OSM and Google. Google has no cycle paths or routes. The cyclists love OSM! I think, actually, you have an advantage in that the US community is quite small: it's easier to get agreement. Whereas over here, where the community is big and fractious, it takes forever to get anything done. You're still young. Use the advantage while you can. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Response to A critique of OpenStreetMap
Peter Körner wrote: Valent Turkovic wrote: On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:41:30 -0400, Anthony wrote: Once OSM goes ODbL, I'd expect that Mapquest will stop licensing their tiles under a free license. They distribute it now for free? Why? They are forced to by the CC-BY-SA License. ...is evidently not the reason why they distribute tiles under a open licence. http://github.com/MapQuest/MapQuest-Mapnik-Style is MIT-licensed. That is more permissive than required by CC-BY-SA (of course, CC-BY-SA doesn't actually require they distribute the stylesheet at all). MapQuest aren't distributing the tiles and stylesheet under an open licence because they have to; they're doing so because they want to. Still, never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, etc. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Response-to-A-critique-of-OpenStreetMap-tp5635020p5639067.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
Gorm E. Johnsen wrote: Again: Left and right co-exist nicely. I do not propose to convert between them. That is of course up to the individual mapper. Again: What I _do_ propose, is to rename a tag on some elements. From top to bottom in the example. It's all right, you can stop explaining. People aren't disagreeing with you because they don't understand your proposal. People are disagreeing with you because they don't see the merits of it. From this distance, you simply haven't made a convincing case for why this change should be made. There is no actual evidence of data consumers finding that highway=ford is a problem. People are not saying my routing can't work because fords are in the highway namespace. People aren't saying I really want to tag mini-roundabouts in fords and the current system doesn't let me. There isn't actually a problem. Rather, you appear to be proposing it for some mythical idea of consistency and because it would be nice. As SomeoneElse has pointed out, if you change it now, you _will_ break existing uses of OSM. People who currently compile Garmin cycling maps of OSM will find that fords suddenly disappear from their rendering, and users of these maps will have a worse experience. Anyone who uses osm2pgsql will have to employ an extra column for what is a fairly little-used tag. All this for a change that achieves nothing. Tag migrations do happen. Sometimes there are good reasons. I think, for example, that moving highway=gate to barrier=gate was a sensible change and enabled finer-grained tagging in the 'barrier' tag. But it was largely a consensus-driven change and the database evolved from one to the other over time. Maybe one day someone will come up with a smart, genuinely beneficial idea like that, and we can migrate the ford tagging over time. But they haven't done yet. Please. Go outside and do some mapping. Stay inside and code. Write or tidy some documentation. Do something that makes a real _difference_. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/highway-ford-vs-ford-yes-tp5668436p5696548.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=ford vs ford=yes
Dave F. wrote: In fact tagging it highway=*, ford=yes makes it *easier* for routers as they have to do less checking to see whether the ways on each side are the same. Hang on a sec. :) Gorm has already changed highway=ford on _ways_ to ford=yes, highway=something_or_other. This has happened. Arguably there could have been some more discussion beforehand but hey, it's happened. What's principally under discussion now is changing it on _nodes_. John Smith's posting (second in the thread) refers: There was/is very good reasons why highway=ford wasn't good enough for ways, but why do nodes need to be updated at all? Gorm replied Simply to de-clutter the highway tag and to be more consistent. The debate is as to whether this is adequate reason given the disruption involved. (Same reply applies to Kevin Peat's posting.) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/highway-ford-vs-ford-yes-tp5668436p5697874.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google expands their map data
S Omeone wrote: OpenStreetMap has of cause something similar with OpenStreetBugs (which Google may well have used as inspiration), but unfortunately, as too often, less convenient. [...] Can we perhaps learn something from Google of how to build a nice user friendly crowd sourcing of local knowledge? Pretty much everyone _already_ knows that a) OSB is fabulous b) that sort of functionality should be integrated on the main osm.org site Unfortunately, of the 000s of people who comprise pretty much everyone, exactly 0.0 people have come up with some deployable code to do it. It's really not complicated. You need some basic OpenLayers knowledge (for a draggable marker), some basic Rails knowledge (for a Node-like object), and the ability to write code within a particular style (i.e. fitting with the current site) rather than imposing your own personal preferences. The design is very simple: I could probably rattle off a useful spec within about 10 seconds. I and others will be happy to help with suggestions, advice etc. on #osm whenever you need it. My own excuse for not having done it is that I'm already spending vast amounts of development time on Potlatch 2. What's yours? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Google-expands-their-map-data-tp5735850p5736000.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tracking deletions
Mikel Maron wrote: Is there an easy way to track deletions only in a particular area? When editing the area in Potlatch, you can press 'U' (for undelete) to find deleted ways, and recover them if you desire. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tracking-deletions-tp5743084p5743447.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tracking deletions
Mikel Maron wrote: that works great, thanks how does potlatch recover this information? is there an API method I haven't noticed? Only in Potlatch 1's AMF API at present, but you can call this from Perl, Python or Ruby if you're feeling brave: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/browser/applications/utils/amf/ cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Ed Avis wrote: Do you mean to say that the earlier statement is true - that it's not possible to produce truly public domain, unrestricted map tiles or printed maps from the ODbL data? Yes. ODbL is very clear that there's an attribution requirement (4.3). (I believe that the reasonably calculated in 4.3 imposes a downstream requirement as part of this: in other words, you must require that attribution is preserved for adaptations of the Produced Work, otherwise you have not reasonably calculated that the attribution will be shown to any Person that views, accesses [etc.]... the Produced Work. At least one person disagrees with me here. :) ) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Best-license-for-future-tiles-tp5747363p5751683.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Ed Avis wrote: It's curious that two of the strongest defences of 'strong share-alike' come from yourself and Richard F. - but both of you prefer public domain. I, too, would prefer public domain over the ODbL. What's going on? Shouldn't we stop adding more legalese and just focus on transitioning OSM to PD or attribution-only? Good luck with that, as the phrase goes. :( Basically, OSM has several outspoken people who won't countenance a permissive licence (e.g. Etienne and Steve). If you'd like to try and convince them of the error of their ways you're a braver man than I am. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Best-license-for-future-tiles-tp5747363p5762573.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Steve Coast Joins Microsoft as Principle Architect ofBing Mobile
Grant Slater wrote: Same answer for the Potlatch... http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/1602/how-can-i-use-microsofts-aerial-imagery-in-potlatch Potlatch 2 can now, as of five minutes ago, display Bing-format tiles. We're waiting for the official start tracing announcement, and any provisos (only through this API, only with this copyright message, only on Tuesdays etc. etc.), before making it live. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Steve-Coast-Joins-Microsoft-as-Principle-Architect-of-Bing-Mobile-tp5767431p5767827.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
[follow-ups to legal-talk please] David Murn wrote: I have no interest in the legal detail of the licence, only interested in talking about the ramifications of the licence on our map data, no matter how many times people try to derail this important issue to a legal mailing list. It is nothing to do with derailing. The tagging@ list is there for discussions of how tagging impacts on our map data. No-one is saying that tagging isn't important: it's just a big subject that some people have chosen not to be interested in. The legal-talk@ list is there for discussions of how legal matters impact on our map data. No-one is saying that legal matters aren't important: they're just a big subject that some people have chosen not to be interested in. Please have some respect for your fellow mappers, and let _them_ choose what they're interested in by subscribing to the right list; don't try and tell them what they should be interested in by posting everything to talk@ regardless. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Suggestion-for-an-Unconference-tp5768507p5773851.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch2 almost down?
Dave F. wrote: I get a 404 error for P2 via Mapquest through geowiki It loads the editor displays a selected background but no data Could you try the Geowiki instance again? I've just tweaked a little problem that was showing up. (I tend to forget people use the Yahoo imagery. Roll on Bing. :) ) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Potlatch2-almost-down-tp5780052p5780072.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing imagery now available in JOSM
Felix Hartmann wrote: Is source=bing verified? Else it is pretty bad to start mapping As already posted, there is no formal requirement in the Bing licence to use a source tag, but it's good OSM practice anyway. FWIW Potlatch 2 has source=Bing as the preset tag. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Bing-imagery-now-available-in-JOSM-tp5791483p5792577.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
Simon Poole wrote: That however does require the importer/mapper to raise the issue to a level where that support exists. As the LWG has pointed out, that hasn't worked in the past, and there is IMHO no reason to believe that it will magically start working in the future. Oh, sure, nothing magically starts working. It requires willingness and commitment to make it work, just like everything else in OSM. I'm willing to put effort into licence compatibility (and have made suggestions to LWG, which they've taken up, to ensure CT compatibility with attribution-required licences). Are you? Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5815086.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Massive import of airports
Toby Murray wrote: The source is documented in both the changeset comments and on the nodes themselves. I saw a conversation on IRC to the effect that the data is indeed PD so there don't seem to be any worries on that front at least. A simple assertion that this is PD isn't good enough. Lots of people don't have any understanding of IP in geodata, and will happily trace from Google Maps then say I declare the result to be CC-BY/PD/CC-BY-SA/entirely my copyright/what-have-you. Pretty much the entire quantity of Wikipedia's co-ordinate data is like this, for example. We need some confidence as to the actual surveying method before being able to take a PD declaration on trust. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Massive-import-of-airports-tp5844802p5844985.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Massive import of airports
Stefan de Konink wrote: Come on, this is non-sense. If someone accepted the CT and imports the data, it should be enough. No. By that logic we'd never revert data which is clearly traced from infringing sources. We can, and we do. The OSM map is a single collaborative project, not a series of personal projects. Data (and core code, for that matter) should satisfy our collective standards. If I see a badly mapped road, I'll delete it and replace it with something better. Exactly the same applies to badly licensed data. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
David Murn wrote: So, can you tell from every edit you did, whether you used nearmap as a reference while doing the edit? If so, you must be one of the very small percentage of people who tagged 100% every change they made or one of the very large percentage of people not from Australia. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Objects-versions-ready-for-ODbL-tp5847855p5855515.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Did Googles map quality recently degrade?
Stefan de Konink wrote: I'm really wondering who is pulling the strings there, because now it is even more trivial to see how much better we are. Anyone is seeing this happening in their area's as well? Certainly in the UK there's a lot more 'Google-sourced' data appearing on the maps, often seemingly scraped from the web. http://blog.telemapics.com/?p=344 is an amusing take on it all. I think it's generally assumed that this is a precursor to Google dumping TeleAtlas data completely and replacing it with their own data, largely sourced from StreetView cars - just as has happened in the States. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Did-Googles-map-quality-recently-degrade-tp5858040p5859573.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What phones do OSMers have?
SteveC wrote: Specifically I'm wondering if everyone has androids because we're all open source nuts or if it's more balanced? Only the data will show. I have a Samsung B130. It's fantastic. You can make phone calls on it, and stuff. Actually, no. You can make phone calls on it. According to a user review on CNet it's proper donky shit which pretty much sums it up. http://www.samsung.com/ph/consumer/mobile-phone/mobile-phone/essential/SGH-B130CNAXTC/index.idx?pagetype=prd_detail cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/What-phones-do-OSMers-have-tp5886033p5886914.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Peter Miller wrote: I will currently be one of the people locked out because I have used the Ordnance Survey open data which is apparently incompatible with the new license. OS OpenData is AIUI compatible with ODbL and the latest Contributor Terms. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5888953.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: Clause 2 requires contributors to make a large grant of IP rights to OSMF on any content added to OSM. I believe that the intent here is actually that you only grant OSMF the rights necessary for them to act as described in clauses 3 and 4. Agreed. Lets now consider what rights are necessary for OSMF to act as described in clauses 3 and 4. Since the data will be initially distributed under CC-By-SA and ODbL, you must have sufficient rights to allow the data you contribute to be distributed in this way. Agreed. Since there is also the possibility of OSM content later being distributed under a license that requires no downstream attribution or share-alike provisions Agreed on share-alike. Attribution: CT 4 could (and perhaps should) be more explicitly worded; I have more confidence that it implies a downstream requirement than that it doesn't, so I'm happy to agree to CT 1.2.2 and make contributions from (say) CC-BY sources, but I'm aware that others may disagree. [...] So if the license you have data under contains share-alike or viral-attribution clauses then you do not have the necessary rights to grant to OSMF, and therefore it cannot be contributed under the terms of clause 2. Again, agreed on share-alike. However, I'm not sure how clause 1 fits into this. [...] If it is meant to only cover the contributor's own IP rights in the submitted contents, then I think the wording needs to be clarified. I like Francis's suggestion for such a clarification very much, and have forwarded it to the LWG with a request that they consider it. But then I'd be happy that you'd be able to use OS OpenData under those CTs. \o/ cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5892668.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Mike Collinson wrote: given that at least one contributor has been pointlessly editing my personal contributions apparently so that they are no longer ODbL-ready, sickly sadly all too possible. That's vandalism, of course. Could you share their user ID? cheers Richard (Rather coincidentally, this was published today: http://mimiandeunice.com/2011/01/06/ownership/ ) -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5896284.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
Gorm E. Johnsen wrote: They seem to be evenly spread over the planet and was depreciatedhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Deprecated_features almost three years ago. Depreciated means reduced in value. You mean deprecated, but you can only deprecate a feature from the wiki docs, not from the database. I would like to replace them with something better. I was thinking highway=road + surface=unpaved. No. highway=unsurfaced could be what's now commonly tagged as highway=track, or highway=unclassified, or highway=bridleway. Only one of those three is a road. You should create a rendering which highlights highway=unsurfaced, so that people will find them and modernise the tagging _appropriately_ for that specific case. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/highway-unsurfaced-tp5904655p5904843.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
Alex Mauer wrote: Which one were you thinking of? I count two road types in your list: highway=track and highway=unclassified. And it could be other highway=* types too. highway=track doesn't imply a road round here; clearly YMV. It’s still better to use highway=road even if it turns out to be a bridleway, because highway=road is basically “we don’t know what it is, only that there’s something there; this needs to be (re-)surveyed”. In the UK there is absolutely no need to use highway=road. We have high-resolution imagery (Bing) and reliable road classification data (Ordnance Survey) for the whole of the country. You can reliably infer any road type from these two sources, remembering too that OSM is an iterative project and that a best guess with a fixme can always be improved upon. Obviously I can't speak for (and don't really care about) your part of the world, but I would consider a mass change of highway=unsurfaced to highway=road in the UK as vandalism, and would take steps to revert it. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/highway-unsurfaced-tp5904655p5907804.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
Alex Mauer wrote: Sounds like the usage is wrong “round there” then. The example image on the wiki[1] clearly shows a road http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fr%C3%BChlingslandschft_Aaretal_Schweiz.jpg I think if you described that as a road in the UK you'd have the Trades Descriptions people onto you pretty sharpish. Maybe this explains why our newspapers get so over-excited when satnavs direct us down bumpy, inhospitable things and claim they're roads. That would be described only as a track here. But it doesn't matter. There is simply no need to fiddle in this way. The situation is just as it was last time Gorm tried to enforce his own idea of tag tidiness (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-November/054639.html); again, this change achieves nothing and is at risk of breaking plenty, including every mkgmap .img based on its default styles. A cursory glance suggests Britain appears to have more highway=unsurfaced than other places, and even then there aren't that many. I will happily fix 200 of them _properly_ (i.e. with what the track actually is, not the cop-out of highway=road) if someone creates a rendering to highlight where they are. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/highway-unsurfaced-tp5904655p5908118.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced
David Murn wrote: Crikey, dont let them see the Old Eyre Highway across southern Australia, or the Outback Highway[1] across Central Australia. Together over 3000km of highly travelled road, connecting the western coast of the country to the central/eastern regions. Just goes to show the folly of making global tag changes in areas you don't know - a UK mapper replacing highway=unsurfaced according to his/her own understanding would foul up Australia just as an Australian mapper would foul up the UK. FWIW I've now replaced several occurrences of highway=unsurfaced in the UK (thanks to Steve's very timely rendering), starting in areas I know personally (West Oxfordshire and Rutland), and not a single one would be described as a road in the UK. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/highway-unsurfaced-tp5904655p5910447.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] surface=unpaved
Asztalos Attila wrote: On 11-Jan-2011 15:51, Richard Mann wrote: Which is not to say that knowing which roads are cobbled wouldn't be handy sometimes (but I probably think of this as something you need to render for yourself (cue ad for Maperitive...)) I certainly see the merit of the argument the data is in there, nobody stops you from using it, but the fact is that even a lot of the other OSM-data-using map sites use the default mapnik and osmarender basemaps The two aren't contradictory. Try playing with Maperitive, or Osmarender, or Mapnik, or Halcyon, or whatever, to have a go at rendering it yourself. Keep playing until you've got something that looks simple, intuitive and neat. When you've got this really great rendering, even if it's just a static file, post it somewhere. If any of the main stylesheet maintainers like it, they could incorporate it into their work. Sometimes great work in OSM just comes out of the blue like that. For me, the single best moment in Potlatch 2 so far was when someone suddenly turned up with an excellent patch to support tagging multiple objects, a problem I'd pretty much given up on as far too hard. Maybe you might do the same with a rendering idea. If I could give you two particular bits of cartographic advice: - Be selective. Showing everything at every zoom level produces a horrid map. It might often be more effective just to have, say, two styles (the standard one for paved road, one for unpaved road), and relegate really crappy tracks (e.g. tracktype=grade5) to a path style instead. A different style for every surface type would be confusing. - Learn _not_ to use colour. One of the things I really like about Ordnance Survey Landranger maps is their consistent dot/dash scheme for rights of way: . . . . for footpaths, - - - - - for bridleways, -.-.-.-.-.- for byways. All three are the same colour. Colour is a great tool but there's much, much more to map design. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/surface-unpaved-tp5910749p5911552.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why I don't use JOSM (was Re: Non-map-based OSM editor)
Frederik Ramm wrote: Come on people. There's enough editors for everyone. There's a ton of reasons, for *every* editor, why someone would use or not use it. Personally I am glad that this is so Absolutely. I'd also add that transferring your expectations of how one editor works onto another is always going to end in heartache. For example, Martin wrote: But Potlatch is much slower, at least for me, once there are several thousand primitives in view it will become quite unuseable. Yes, if you try and use Potlatch to show several thousand objects you are certifiably insane. If you want to work in a JOSM-like manner, use JOSM! cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Why-I-don-t-use-JOSM-was-Re-Non-map-based-OSM-editor-tp5954371p5954929.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why I don't use JOSM (was Re: Non-map-based OSM editor)
Martin wrote: I am not sure for newer potlatch, but the few times I was forced to use it (why the hell there is undelete api available only for Potlatch and not as XML?) Hey, calm down. Less of the why the hell, please. The reason Potlatch 1 can undelete is because I wrote the undelete code. The reason it isn't exposed via the XML API is that I don't know the first thing about XML, or Rails, or tying the two together, and I would probably have broken the entire server if I'd tried. The reason that there isn't any undelete functionality available via the XML API is... well, that neither you nor anyone else has coded it, I guess? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Why-I-don-t-use-JOSM-was-Re-Non-map-based-OSM-editor-tp5954371p5954951.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way
Daniel Sabo wrote: This is a really bad idea. Drawing collinear features by sharing nodes is NEVER a good idea beyond 1 or 2 shared corners, that's what multipolygons are for. Disagree very very strongly. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-tool-in-Potlatch-2-for-areas-that-share-a-way-tp5975811p5976514.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Investigating missing relation
Steve Bennett wrote: I'm thinking this would be a useful feature to add to Potlatch - loading and saving files from disk. (If possible within Flash) That'll happen when we migrate from requiring Flash Player 9 to Flash Player 10, but we're not ready for that yet. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Investigating-missing-relation-tp5968579p5979982.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
Jonathan Harley wrote: Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database, in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work based on a database, ever. For print, yes, that's about the size of it. It illustrates that CC have a mountain to climb in making CC 4.0 relevant to databases, and I (genuinely) wish them luck. Electronically, you could perhaps layer one database (represented as pushpins, say) on top of another (represented as other pushpins, or a polyline, or even a map), in a separable way (e.g. layers can be switched off), and call it a collective work. OSM users have traditionally permitted this, but I believe Rob generally refers to it as a consensual hallucination. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CC-BY-SA-Non-separatable-combination-of-OSM-other-tp5982104p5985604.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
Jonathan Harley wrote: On 03/02/11 14:23, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net wrote: OSM applies the license to data - the license attribution it requests specifically mentions Map data. Again, who wrote the license attribution request? Not me. In fact, I'm not even sure what license attribution request you're talking about. If you mean the one in the slippy map, I consider that to be incorrect. The entire work must be CC-BY-SA, not just the data. http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright - if you think it's incorrect, you should probably take that up with the OSMF, which is the publisher of www.openstreetmap.org (so one can assume that the website represents the OSMF's view). You are, once again, misunderstanding. The cited webpage says: If you are using OpenStreetMap map images, we request that your credit reads at least '© OpenStreetMap contributors, CC-BY-SA'. If you are using map data only, we request 'Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, CC-BY-SA'. That is perfectly correct. If you build (say) your own rendering using OSM map data, then only the map data is (c) OpenStreetMap contributors. The added value of the rendering is not (c) OpenStreetMap contributors. OSM's contributors can ask you to credit them in a particular way for the data, and you have to maintain that in any credit given with the rendering, but you may of course request your own credit for the added value. That is what the above says. However, the rendering _is_ still subject to CC-BY-SA. That is made perfectly clear on the cited page (If you... build upon our... data, you may distribute the result only under the same licence); in the CC human-readable terms; and the CC legal code. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CC-BY-SA-Non-separatable-combination-of-OSM-other-tp5982104p5990496.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] (magical?) road detector
Stephan Knauss wrote: I'm not a lawyer, but the current TOU seam not to allow it to be used in our editors. My understanding of this Bing term is that it's _intended_ to mean not available for use in an editor that is only available under commercial terms, e.g. the ArcGIS plugin. I agree there's ambiguity there and clearing up the NC terms was one of the suggestions I made for clarifying the licence (suggestions which are currently with OSMF on the way to Bing, I believe). Potlatch (2) is GPL. That is not non-commercial. No it fricking isn't GPL! Potlatch 2 is proudly WTFPL: http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/editors/potlatch2/LICENCE.txt cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/magical-road-detector-tp5993637p5998722.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] (magical?) road detector
Stephan Knauss wrote: Oh, I was tricked by the wiki page stating it's GPL... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potlatch2 Wow. Who on earth added that? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/magical-road-detector-tp5993637p5998760.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] (magical?) road detector
David Murn wrote: You mean, as author of potlatch Only one of the authors. you dont have the potlatch wiki page on watch for edits? I also notice the edit you made, removed the entire software info block from the wiki page, not just changed the licence. Was that intentional? Yep. Way too many inaccuracies: wrong licence, citing just two of several authors, citing just one of several URLs were the ones I spotted at a cursory glance. If the authors would like to do five minutes of research and put some correct info back that's great - or, alternatively, they could mail the potlatch-dev@ list and ask for assistance. But this kind of oh, let's just put some unchecked info up is why so many people disregard the wiki these days. We wouldn't tolerate anything so disconnected from reality on the map, and nor should we on the wiki. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki editing (was Re: (magical?) road detector)
Steve Bennett wrote: On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: We wouldn't tolerate anything so disconnected from reality on the map, Yes, we'd fix it. Up to a point. We have scarce resources. We don't have enough mappers and we _certainly_ don't have enough developers. It is thus incumbent on us all not to make more work for other people. We should try and solve problems, not create them. If, for example, I create a new feature in P2 that has the side-effect of bringing down the server through, I dunno, overuse of relation/id/full or something, then TomH will have to spend a whole load of time either fixing the server or, at the least, rolling back the P2 deployment. In that event, no matter how awesome the new feature might be, I have caused work for already hard-pressed people and I shouldn't have done it. The wikibox stuff is a neat idea and it'd be great if it could be done right. But as originally posted, it was actively misleading in at least three regards, and we'd already seen someone on the lists who had been misled. At 11pm on a Sunday evening my first response to that is bin it, not oh, what I really wanted to do before going to bed was learn some new MediaWiki syntax. ;) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Wiki-editing-was-Re-magical-road-detector-tp6000107p6000415.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki editing (was Re: (magical?) road detector)
Matthias Meißer wrote: Sorry for the mistake, but as everybody knows, this can happen, even if you fight alone against a dozen of wikipages ;) Anything I say here will only get me into trouble so I better not. :) But I don't see why did you removed the template completely instead of fixing just the license? Because the first three things I looked at were wrong: 1. Licence 2. Developers (just Dave and me named, which is unfair on Andy and Steve and others) 3. URL (the osm.org instance is only one - there are instances at MapQuest Open, CycleStreets, wanderreitkarte.de, geowiki.com, Sustainable London Map and elsewhere) At that point I gave up looking and decided to take it down before it could mislead anyone else. Tobias Knerr has very kindly offered to post some accurate information and that'd be great. But please, if you're cleaning up the wiki and there's something you're not sure about, do what we do on the map: add a FIXME. Don't just put a guess in there and assume that someone will spot it. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Wiki-editing-was-Re-magical-road-detector-tp6000107p6000424.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki editing (was Re: (magical?) road detector)
Matthias Meißer wrote: well your theorem on getting all with one shot is great, but this doesn't work for me. Things (esp. on the wiki) are to large to do it in one step. So if you don't know, put a FIXME there. It's what we do on the map. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Wiki-editing-was-Re-magical-road-detector-tp6000107p6000617.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Returning to the question of collateral damage
Edward Hillsman wrote: We refer to the OSM community, and the need to respect the work of others. The way this particular situation was handled could have done a much better job of respecting the work of others. If software needs to be modified to make it easier to show such respect, then I hope those who have the skill and knowledge to make such modifications will do so. If the organization takes action against one mapper that can cause collateral damage to the work of other mappers, I think it has a responsibility to minimize the amount of damage and, where some damage cannot be avoided, to provide information that could help in repairing it. No-one's disputing that. These are good guys here, working their behinds off in order to minimise the amount of damage done by one person. All tools get better with feedback. This has all been useful feedback, and I know there have been some discussions today about how the operation can be improved next time round. It will be improved, just as every other tool that's used in OSM has been and is improved: editors like JOSM, Merkaartor and Potlatch, renderers like Mapnik and Maperitive, and so on. Our development community has a really good track record of continuous improvement. Please, you (and John Eldredge and anyone else) don't need to write any more long screeds on this particular micro-topic, the message is understood. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Returning-to-the-question-of-collateral-damage-tp6012832p6012871.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why isn't any XAPI server available ?
Vladimir Vyskocil wrote: It seems there is no XAPI server available for a long time, what's going on ? Is this service deprecated ? http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/iandees/diary/12916 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2011-January/021742.html cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Why-isn-t-any-XAPI-server-available-tp6040442p6040666.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why isn't any XAPI server available ?
David Murn wrote: If the service isnt designed to be portable (it only runs on one system currently, in the world), then who cares about java, why isnt it written in optimized C or some other similarly lowish level language, rather than java? Your search - murn site:svn.openstreetmap.org - did not match any documents. Suggestions: Make sure all words are spelled correctly. Try different keywords. Try more general keywords. Try fewer keywords. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Why-isn-t-any-XAPI-server-available-tp6040442p6041773.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Zero tolerance on imports
This is getting crazy. Exhibit 1: http://twitter.com/#!/maproomblog/status/39053538692698112 Whoever imported CanVec in Aylmer, Quebec obliterated hours of work and introduced hundreds of errors. #osm #openstreetmap #whybother Once again, some keyboard jockey has decided that his l337 import skills are better than the knowledge and hours of work by a local mapper. The offender appears to be user 'sammuell' by the look of it - http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/sammuell - though he hasn't posted anything about his activities on the user page, the wiki, or indeed anywhere. This is killing OSM. We are not here to provide a free API to government geodata that can be obtained trivially elsewhere. OSM is all about added value; by deleting genuine surveyed data in favour of mindless duplication of other, poorer quality datasets, we are _destroying_ value. From what I can tell (talk-ca postings etc.) 'sammuell' is a fairly inexperienced OSMer who presumably thinks this is how things are done. It isn't. How do we stop this impression taking hold? How do we explain that imports are _not_ welcome except as a last resort, and if you do them, you _must_ follow a very, very rigorous set of guidelines? cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] odbl
Joseph Reeves wrote: without explaining in layman's terms what this means. http://old.opengeodata.org/2008/01/07/the-licence-where-we-are-where-were-going/index.html Follow-ups to legal-talk please, so that those here who have made their mind up one way or the other don't have to read the whole caboodle all over again. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/odbl-tp6092609p6094042.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] mapping hypotheticals with OSM, e.g., for public charrettes?
Tom Roche wrote: How best to use OSM to map non-existent features for planning purposes, e.g., for public charrettes? This shouldn't be mapped in the main OpenStreetMap database. OSM is for mapping real, verifiable locations, not hypotheticals. Rather, you should set up your own OSM install on your local server, and seed it with the existing OSM data. You can then use the usual tools to talk to this rather than to osm.org. There's lots of documentation on the wiki, or you can ask on the d...@openstreetmap.org list. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/mapping-hypotheticals-with-OSM-e-g-for-public-charrettes-tp6097707p6097812.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Named passages on hiking paths
Gilles Bassière wrote: Eventually, I used a custom tag for my latest edit: hiking=passage [5] but I'm not sure this can make sense for other mappers I _think_ I'd call that a traverse. Generally that would apply to a passage with significant movement in the x/y axes as well as the z axis! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traverse_(climbing) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Named-passages-on-hiking-paths-tp6170108p6170391.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licensing Working Group
F. Heinen wrote: Z,akskjsjkjdi That certainly wins the prize for the most coherent posting in this thread. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Licensing-Working-Group-tp6199509p6207146.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Okay, this is just cool (Lockport, NY)
Pieren wrote: My first intention was to ignore this message but I cannot Anyone round here ever seen the film 'Groundhog Day'? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Okay-this-is-just-cool-Lockport-NY-tp6225128p6227765.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Okay, this is just cool (Lockport, NY)
Pieren wrote: Anyone round here ever seen the film 'Groundhog Day'? If you mean it's a desperate fud which will never end, I understand. Yes. If we separate the horrid neologism into its three component parts - Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt - then I'm entirely with you on that. We are Uncertain as to what exactly copyright law and Google's (IMO deliberately[1]) ambiguous terms allow. We are Doubtful at what point Google would start suing people. We are Fearful that the world's biggest technology company could, with one carefully publicised nastygram, undermine the promise at the heart of OSM - you can rely that this data is legally safe to use. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. That's exactly why we don't do it. If you are a world-beating copyright, database rights and contract lawyer with a billion-pound fortune you don't mind pissing away, then maybe you can elevate the debate beyond that. But I doubt it (not least because it's pretty clear there's no such thing as a world-beating database rights lawyer). Come on, Pieren, you are smart enough to know all this. IIRC you were among the first to comment on my long Bauman vs Fussell posting way back when, which was pretty much the same issue. We know the parameters of the debate: all we can do is rattle around inside them, Groundhog Day-style. cheers Richard [1] I actually think Google is being depressingly smart on this. They purposefully don't elucidate what you can and can't do. On the one hand, they want people to build geo apps and create indexable geodata on the Google Maps platform - even though some of this might well infringe their data/imagery suppliers' copyright. On the other, they don't want anyone - like OSM - to leverage their data to build their own platform. So they just say nothing. It's best for their business that way. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Okay-this-is-just-cool-Lockport-NY-tp6225128p6228293.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] April fools that should have been
Project of the Week: Mother's Day. Map your mother. As, of course, amenity=your_mum. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/April-fools-that-should-have-been-tp6234058p6234432.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
80n wrote: There is zero chance that any large organisation would try to use OSM's CC-BY-SA licensed map data and think that they would get away with it. I agree with you here FSVO large. I doubt we have to worry about Google, Tele Atlas or Navteq consistently and deliberately using OSM data under the current licence. For them, it's not about the law one way or another: it's about reputation risk. No matter if we have CC-favoured community norms on top of a PD waiver, ODbL+CT, or CC-BY-SA, for these three companies, being seen to do the wrong thing in their key market would be a sufficient disincentive. Plus, of course, TA/NT sure as hell aren't going to use OSM and therefore undermine their sole selling point - to get good data, you have to pay professionals. So Google, Tele Atlas and Navteq are, in my view, largely irrelevant to the licence discussion. It's everyone else who we have to worry about. In the last couple of months, I've personally noticed a national railway company, a charity with a turnover of £100m, a vast firm of couriers, a magazine publisher, a book publisher, all infringing our requirements/requests for attribution and share-alike. (I've spotted these by chance: I don't go out there looking for this stuff.) Deliberate? In some cases, definitely. You wouldn't put an entirely fictitious credit to another organisation if you were just innocent of the niceties. No, Google, Tele Atlas and Navteq aren't infringing OSM's licence. Everyone else is, though. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6281529.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Ed Avis wrote: What's not clear is how the ODbL+DbCL licence would help this situation. It would at least straightforwardly permit the publishing of map tiles without any attribution or share-alike requirement Disagree. (This has been gone over ad nauseam on legal-talk, I'm just pointing it out here for the record.) Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6281939.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Ed Avis wrote: So do the produced map tiles (a Produced Work under the ODbL, I think, or am I mistaken there to?) have to be distributed under the ODbL also - or can you use any distribution terms as long as it has attribution - or what? ODbL 4.3 allows you to distribute Produced Works under any licence as long as you provide attribution. [...] if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6283046.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Ed Avis wrote: To answer my own question - I guess that 'reasonably calculated to make...' suggests you should include an attribution notice and ask downstream users to respect it - although it doesn't mandate any particular choice of licence. So we would still have the attribution requirement as now. That's also my understanding (but that one's been hashed out on talk-gb ad tediosum). To return again to the possible infringements of the OSM licence - in the cases where currently OSM tiles are being used without attribution, I can't see any reason why requiring or enforcing attribution would become easier under the ODbL rather than the current licence. Principally, the CTs (rather than ODbL per se) make it easier for OSMF to act, rather than the burden solely being on individual mappers. As a nice bonus, there are zillions of solicitors who are experienced in contract disputes, but comparatively few in copyright law. Of course, I wouldn't disagree that it's a human problem as well, but then I'm a PD supporter. ;) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6284258.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New Logo in the Wiki
Jochen Topf wrote: Don't be so hard on the Strategic Working Group. After months of talks they have actually done something! I think we should celebrate that! After dipping their toes into many important subjects for the future of OSM they have chosen the logo change as the most important strategic change and implemented it! I am glad OSM is not just a bunch of nerds any more, but that we now have a strategy! Yeah! Leave the humour to Fake SteveC, Jochen, he does it so much better than you. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-Logo-in-the-Wiki-tp6319413p6320382.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New Logo in the Wiki
Frederik Ramm wrote: It would be great if we could somehow reboot and arrive at something sane again. Superb posting. +1 to all of that. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-Logo-in-the-Wiki-tp6319413p6321156.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ipad and openstreetmap.org
Floris Looijesteijn wrote: I was wondering if anyone is working on Ipad support for openstreetmap.org? AIUI gesture (touch-screen) support is in the latest development builds of OpenLayers, and will be available on osm.org when they make an official release. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Ipad-and-openstreetmap-org-tp6351574p6351588.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tracks and there place in society
Ben Robbins wrote: [...] Please take this to talk-gb. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Tracks-and-there-place-in-society-tp6389100p6389114.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tracks and there place in society
Ben Robbins wrote: All we need is a phisical list, and an access list. Um, we have that already. For physical tags, we have: highway=footway, or highway=cycleway, or highway=bridleway, or highway=track See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Duck_tagging. If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, call it a duck. If you want to refine this further, there are other physical tags you can use, such as surface=. For access, we have, and always have had, access tags for particular users. Such as: foot=yes horse=no bicycle=permissive One of the keenest principles in OSM (and one which tag proponents would do well to remember now and then) is that we optimise for ease of mapping. Mappers are scarce resources. So tagging systems should not impose an extra burden on the mapper, which means that there are long-established shortcuts that mappers can take. One of those is that if it both quacks like a footway (physical) and has access rights consistent with footways (access), you can infer one from the other. So a rural public footpath in the UK would typically be tagged: highway=footway (physical, implies foot access) But if it had additional permissions you could add highway=footway (physical, implies foot access) bicycle=permissive (access) If it was only available because of the generosity of some owner or other, you could add highway=footway (physical, implies foot access) foot=permissive (overrides the above) If it was a bit bigger physically, you might want to change it to: highway=track foot=yes bicycle=no horse=no There are other tags you can add to ice the cake. surface= is the obvious physical one. In the UK, we like the 'designation' tag, which adds the legal icing to this particular cake, and which you can infer access values from. And so on. I know you've been away for a while, Ben, but it would help if you actually read some of what's happened since then. In the UK we are all happily mapping as per above and we really don't need someone who hasn't kept up (that's fine, we all have busy lives) to blunder in without checking and say YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. One other thing that has changed is that we now have a tagging list, and even if you won't take this to talk-gb (which you should), you should take it to tagging. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Tracks-and-there-place-in-society-tp6399867p6399930.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tracks and there place in society
Ben Robbins wrote: Also, I have no idea how to take this to talk-gb, except by simply replying there not here, and breaking up a string of responses. I did however justify why it's here, which your welcome to read. I'm still struggling some what with getting these replies in the right place, so sorry about that. I find nabble.com is really good for being able to follow threaded discussions on the OSM lists without having ten tons of messages dumped in your inbox every day. :) I've crossposted this to talk-gb so you can reply there. So to get back on track, and I think the answer is clear. There is no way to get a byway on a track to render as a byway on a track on either mapnik or osmarender. Is that correct? And if so, does the current tagging scehem simply require a render change to allow this Yep. The tag highway=byway has fallen out of use. It doesn't really make sense to anyone outside the UK. Instead, in the UK, those of us who like tagging byways tend to add designation=restricted_byway or designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic (which are the two legal categories, and imply access) to a more physical tag - usually highway=bridleway or highway=track. So if you wanted a map that highlights byways, you'd just need to make sure that the stylesheet noticed those tags and chose the rendering occasionally. I _think_ Nick W's Freemap does this already. Personally I think it's fairly unlikely for either Mapnik or Osmarender, because they're worldwide stylesheets. But you can always ask! cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] level_crossing, leveled
Richard Weait wrote: Any thoughts or widely accepted customs regarding this? I'd use a length of either railway=disused or railway=abandoned. IMX it only takes a year or so for a disused railway, often called OOU in the UK (out of use), to become unsuitable for trains to turn up and go. On occasion the problem is just a bit of overgrowth, but more frequently, there'll be something serious that needs addressing before trains can pass again: signalling, skewed or stolen rails, washed-out trackbed. A bit of tarmac across the rails is probably the least of these problems. So, given that disused means permanent way still largely in place but some work required to get it back in place, I'd be tempted to stick with railway=disused even despite the odd bit of tarmac. (The example that springs to mind most readily in the UK is the Amlwch branch, for those who know it.) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/level-crossing-leveled-tp6404088p6406306.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Private negotiations
TimSC wrote: Yes, I attended to previous LWG teleconference and I asked for LWG, as a committee, to enter into direct negotiations with me, an individual mapper. The draft minutes are online [1]. Thanks for the link, which I see contains your conditions. As I know there are people on this list who won't look at Google-hosted documents on principle I'll copy and paste them here for convenience. [quote begins] CONDITIONS FOR TIMSC TO RELICENSE HIS DATA (Version 1) This list is negotiable. The rationale for each point is omitted but I am willing to discuss it as needed. DECISION MAKING IN OSM 1.1) All future significant decisions regarding OSM licensing, or changes to OSM features that might impact the ability of contributors to edit the database, or third parties to use the OSM database, shall be discussed and decided in a public forum. If consensus cannot be reached in the public forum, a vote of all active contributors shall be conducted. Significant decisions shall not be made by committee concerning OSM, unless that committee has a direct, relevant and democratic mandate from all active OSM contributors. This includes the decision to switch the database to ODbL. 1.2) Significant decisions shall be documented on the OSM wiki, including the rationale and supporting references. 1.3) The process that OSM reaches decisions shall be documented on the wiki. 1.4) Future proposal documents and communications from OSMF to the OSM community give appropriate weight to dissenting views in the community, and written from a neutral point of view. 1.5) The OSM database shall not be filtered based on licenses agreement until the feasibility of repairing the database to a usable state in a reasonable time frame is determined. 1.6) A vote shall be conducted to determine the support of SA vs. non-SA, BY vs. non-BY, single vs. multiple licenses, fork vs. no fork in the OSM mapping community. This shall determine OSMF's priorities in the direction of licensing and allocation of resources. 1.7) OSM policy that significantly affects mapping contributors shall not be decided or ratified by votes of the OSMF membership. A future version of the OSM license (and CTs) shall address this. Indivual members of OSMF may of course participate in the discussion through community wide channels. OSMF policy that does not significantly affect OSM contributors may be determined by OSMF membership voting. OSMF AND LWG 2.0) Forum moderation, if used, should be community lead and moderators shall be selected based their excellent conduct. Users with a history of ad hominem attacks, or controvercial figures, will not be considered as a moderator. Views expressed on the forum shall not be censored merely because they are unpopular, but may be censored if they are maliciously repetitive. 2.1) OSM community leaders shall be held to the highest standard of conduct when communicating with anyone regarding OSM. OSMF committees and senior OSM community figures shall privately admonish and advise those of their number who fall short in this regard. If an OSMF committee member persists in poor behaviour, the committee shall ask for their resignation. 2.2) OSMF shall reaffirm that they are supporting but not controlling the project as stated on their wiki and recognise that the mapping contributors are the primary generators of value in OSM. The wiki shall be updated to remove the reference that OSMF have no desire to own the data. 2.3) LWG commits to answering questions on license compatibility and usage promptly (or to publically disavow this role). The LWG shall clarify which licenses may be used for produced works. 2.4) OSMF shall not combine opinion polling with relicensing questions, as seen with the recent CTs/PD web page. 2.5) Discussions between OSMF and their legal advisors should centrally document and be made public where possible. Areas that remain private must be agreed with the OSM community. 2.6) OSMF shall strive to maintain at least civil relations with fork projects and other related open data projects. Mutual support between these communities should be encouraged, particularly when it fits with OSM's mission statement (to create and provide free geographic data). 2.7) Direct and specific questions to any OSMF committee from a external party shall receive a personalised response within a set time frame. If the information is not known or not decided or cannot be provided, that is fine. This shall work rather like the FOI system in the UK; questions clearly intended to harress OSMF may be ignored. 2.8) OSMF committee members shall affirm that they are representitives of the community, not dictators until the next election. If the OSM community wants OSMF to steer in some direction, they shouldn't have to defeat the current OSMF board in elections to enact change (except as a last resort). LICENSING 3.1) Users to be able to optionally license their contributions under alternative licenses in account
Re: [OSM-talk] Kothic JS - a full-featured JavaScript map rendering engine using HTML5 Canvas
Komяpa wrote: Glad to announce the first release of Kothic JS map rendering engine. There's live demo on http://kothic.org/js/ This is seriously amazing. This is possibly the first thing that brings the promise of it's open source, make your own maps into the realms of possibility for your average hacker. Plus, of course, the maps look gorgeous. It really validates the whole idea of OSM. Best thing in OSM this year. Huge amounts of congratulations for this. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Kothic-JS-a-full-featured-JavaScript-map-rendering-engine-using-HTML5-Canvas-tp6464000p6464072.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Frederik Ramm wrote: Graham Jones wrote: In my day job I look after quite a few decision making processes to help our organisation make difficult decisions. I always say that I will have failed if at the end of the day we have to resort to a vote to decide what to do That's good. But also remember that in your day job, it is very likely that the people who have to live with a decision in half a year will be more or less the same who have made the discussion, give and take a bit. Indeed. Remember, too, that in your day job, the people who have to _carry_out_ the decision will do so because they're paid to. We don't do that. We can have all the processes we like, but they make no difference if we don't actually have skilled volunteers who are both able and willing to implement the decisions. That is why OSM is, and will remain, a do-ocracy. I'll let you into a secret. The real power in OSM _isn't_ Steve's secret portal in his basement. Nor even Fake Steve's. It's here: http://svn.openstreetmap.org/ [1] cheers Richard [1] well, ok, git too these days ;) -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Join-the-OSMF-tp6461437p6465328.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Airspace Co.
[sorry, just noticed this one] Lennard wrote: the editor can hide all nodes with a certain tag Potlatch doesn't do it, but it seems it's a feature just waiting for a developer. Potlatch can do it fairly trivially; just give it a MapCSS stylesheet that doesn't render said tag. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Airspace-Co-tp6448447p6466017.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Poll on Governance, what constitutes news, wiki front page
TimSC wrote: This issue not just one person's hobby horse - its an issue that is very topical and very relevant. Think you're missing an IMHO in there... and that's rather the point. I can list plenty of things that I personally think are more topical and relevant. I'm sure others on this list have their own lists. Do we all get to put our subjective favourites at the top of the supposedly objective list of News? There are plenty of places where opinion can be aired in OSM. A box headed News is not one of them. People actually bothered to vote, including significant people in the community. This shows people care. Sure. I care too. I know people who've voted on that poll precisely to show that they do not support your current crusade. I've chosen not to vote for that same reason. Also, OSMF is actively debating this issue and it would be invaluable to have some empirical data. If there was some documentation on guidelines on what constitutes news, Richard might have a point. Briefly flicking through the previous news items, they comprise things like statistics (e.g. 400,000 registered users), software releases, changes to the OSM website, new hardware etc. Concrete changes, not discussion. I can't see any precedent for an unofficial poll being placed there. If you want a box to encourage discussion (because, after all, maybe people have just not noticed the 976234 channels we already have for it ;) ), maybe you could talk to the wiki guys and get one set up. But 'tain't news. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Navigon to Sell OpenStreetMap POIs Packages for PNDs
andrzej zaborowski wrote: That means we can mix it with OSM, but not contribute it back to OSM because the new contributor terms don't allow using ODbL licensed data. The standard Contributor Terms don't have to be the only Contributor Terms. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-OSM-legal-talk-OSM-talk-Navigon-to-Sell-OpenStreetMap-POIs-Packages-for-PNDs-tp6474142p6474153.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Poll on Governance, what constitutes news, wiki front page
TimSC wrote: Richard, can't we just live and let live? You're profile has the wise words to avoid endless discussions and go do stuff. I think it is possible since we recently dropped a discussion that was going nowhere, at your suggestion [5]. I respected your request - live and let live. I am not asking you to do much - I am just asking for you to lay off, please. I will happily withdraw when you decouple your threat to damage the map of Great Britain, by withdrawing your contributions, from the separate issue of OSM governance. There is certainly a debate to be had about OSM governance. It is something that I've discussed with numerous people for many months. I have several times gone on the record as saying that there are aspects of OSMF's behaviour that I have found perplexing at best and irresponsible at worst. This is a big debate, and needs to be approached carefully, not rushed. Yet Phase 4 of the relicensing starts next week. The governance debate will clearly not be concluded by then. Your fellow British mappers need clarity about whether to start remapping the areas where you have contributed. You have stated that you support a public domain licence: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-April/003273.html [We would be better serviced in our project goals by a simpler license i.e. a public domain-like license... legal problems are almost inevitable with any share-alike license] I also support public domain. I have placed my edits in the public domain, and therefore cannot disagree with these Contributor Terms or indeed any non-exclusive terms. I would presume you, as a PD supporter, would do the same. You have not yet done so. Instead, you have linked your acceptance of ODbL+CT to issues of OSM governance. You are the only one in the 30 most active contributors to Britain not to have accepted or declined ODbL+CT, and one of just three in the 100 most active. If you really want a debate about OSMF governance untainted by other considerations, please accept or decline the Contributor Terms. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
Eric Marsden wrote: Reading odbl.de, 60% of users have accepted the new contributor terms in Europe (40% in the USA, the proportion worldwide is not shown). There 417k users. So (extrapolating) 200k have not accepted the new terms and 190k have accepted. Hopefully the decision on whether to go ahead with the odbl transition will be based on how much data would be deleted, not this kind of misleading statistic. Sorry, you've puzzled me a bit here. You state that it's better to cite how much data would be deleted. However, that directly contradicts your previous paragraph, in which you quote, um, the number of users, not the amount of data. Reading odbl.de, although 60% of users in Europe have accepted the new contributor terms, that actually equates to between 80% and 92% of nodes, and between 70% and 93% of ways. In North America, your 40% of users is 54%-94% of nodes, and 66-85% of ways.[1] Would you like to revise your assessment of who's doing the misleading here? cheers Richard [1] I suspect that when obvious bot edits are stripped out, the figure will be a lot higher, especially in America. Certainly, looking around my local area, the only significant non-relicensable objects are ways edited by someone who has made a trivial tag search-and-replace, which can easily be reverted without adverse effect on the data. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Announce-Beginning-of-Phase-4-of-license-change-process-tp6475830p6480006.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
David Groom wrote: However your argument above completely fails to refer to Clause 2 of the CT's (and Robert Whittaker wrote similarly) Yes. It's my belief that 2 onwards have to be read in the context of 1a/1b. There would be no point having 1a/1b if that were not the case; and my reading of the LWG minutes is that this was the intention. As I said in the original message, though, it is perhaps not as clearly worded as it could be. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Statement-from-nearmap-com-regarding-submission-of-derived-works-from-PhotoMaps-to-Opp-tp6477002p6483004.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] Potlatch 2.2
Hi all, I'm pleased to announce Potlatch 2.2 is live. New features include: - Greatly improved vector background layer support (load shapefiles in the background and bring elements through one-by-one), including reprojection from OSGB - Control-drag an area to select multiple elements - MapCSS 0.2 support - Highlight 'merged' tags (e.g. name=High Street;Main Road) - 'View data' button in the upload progress dialogue, so you can select, copy and paste the changeset XML - Timed reminders to save your work! - Lots of bugfixes and little improvements As ever, thanks to everyone who's helped, particularly Andy (A) who contributed lots to the unglamorous refactoring behind the vector background layer improvements. There's also a special mode to show the licence status of the elements you're editing. This will help you not to waste time editing an element that may be deleted later, and make it easier to get areas ODbL-ready. To use it, simply choose 'Show licence status' from the Options dialogue, and make sure you're editing with the standard Potlatch map style. It will show: - Elements where version 1 was created by someone who's declined ODbL+CT: solid red - Elements where a later version was edited by a decliner: transparent red - Elements with a version edited by someone who hasn't decided yet: transparent orange (As yet it only shows node/way status, not relations.) Results are from wtfe.gryph.de. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
NopMap wrote: Well, if it is to be this way... ...then maybe it would be a good opportunity for you to help! Why not volunteer to help LWG in its communications with the German community? It seems a shame to lament that things are as usual and not do anything about it. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6495430.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
David Groom wrote: Apologies if this feature exists in all of the mainstream editing software. JOSM has a MOTD feature. Potlatch doesn't (and won't) because it's always used when embedded within a website which can choose to display whatever message it likes: indeed, osm.org does sometimes display such flashes. I note that, at the moment, osm.org is prompting you on login to Find out more about OpenStreetMap's upcoming license change. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6495443.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
NopMap wrote: How should that work - without concrete information posted anywhere? Ok. How do you fancy volunteering to be the person who posts the concrete information, then? You seem to be under the impression that magic communication fairies will crop up and make everything ok. It doesn't work like that. Everyone here is a volunteer. If you're not happy with the effort that other volunteers are making, you should volunteer yourself. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6495858.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
David Murn wrote: Maybe you dont understand the role of office-bearers of a 'non-profit' foundation. Sure, they are volunteers, but if they dont have the time to do the job they volunteered for properly, then it only hurts the community they claim to serve. Indeed. And if they don't, you get to vote them out at the next election. That, of course, requires someone to stand. So how about it? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6496063.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
NopMap wrote: Yeah, sure, I'll just burn some incense, look deep into my crystal ball and guess what everybody has been doing. Why do you need to do that? Why don't you e-mail LWG and say: I think you've been having difficulties with your communications. I'd like to volunteer to be your communications officer. I'll sit in on your weekly meetings, draw up a comms plan, and be responsible for carrying it through? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6496069.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Is it a temporary file or Derivative Database under ODbL
ThomasB wrote: And what do you think a laywer will say when asked when the community using the license has no idea? The community has a perfectly good idea, as indeed you would do if you actually read the licence. ;) Under ODbL you are publicly using a Produced Work from a Derived Database. Your obligations are therefore to produce either the Derivative Database itself or, more practical in this instance, A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database or the method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an algorithm), including any additional Contents, that make up all the differences between the Database and the Derivative Database. There is no stipulation that the algorithm is machine-readable, simply an expectation that it could be followed by anyone reasonably competent in such matters. So a readme.txt detailing the steps required to transform OSM data into the derivative database will be fine. Show your working, if you like. Now, please stop being such a self-righteous arse and post to the proper mailing list in future. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Is-it-a-temporary-file-or-Derivative-Database-under-ODbL-tp6501556p6501822.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Flash cookies
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: Since recently was decided that in NL cookies are subject to explicit permission of the users, I'd think that Openstreetmap provides information on what information and settings are actually used by OSM. Ok then. OSM per se doesn't store anything in Flash cookies. Potlatch does. That's because, oddly enough, it's a Flash app and wants to remember your preferences (selected background and stylesheet, TIGER highlighting, function key settings) from one session to the next. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Flash-cookies-tp6502897p6503650.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Flash cookies
Markus Lindholm wrote: But there's no need to store them on the client, as all users have to log in the preferences can be stored server-side. Atleast I throw away all cookies when I close the browser. That works for osm.org but not on a third-party Potlatch deployment, where it would require the user to authenticate with OSM on opening Potlatch rather than on first save - not so friendly. I tend to take the position that people who are worried about privacy to the extent of blocking all cookies are natural JOSM users. ;) cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Flash cookies
Steve Doerr wrote: In that case, could it be made to remember custom backgrounds from one session to the next? If I want to use the UK postcode layer, I have to add it manually every time. Sure - as ever, put it in a trac ticket. Stuff mentioned passingly on mailing lists gets forgotten. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Flash-cookies-tp6502897p6504118.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Flash cookies
Adam Hoyle wrote: Sorry to be dumb/lazy, and I'm sure you've told me before, but please can you point me at the Potlatch2 trac/svn etc. trac is the same for all of OSM: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ . Make sure to select potlatch2 as the component. And only set the priority to critical if it causes your computer to catch fire or major if it deletes whole cities from OSM without any human intervention whatsoever. :) Source code is in git these days: my repository is at https://github.com/systemed/potlatch2 . There's documentation on the Potlatch 2 pages on the wiki. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
jaakkoh wrote: This may well be my first post to the talk list Brave soul. :) (But welcome, seriously.) Browsing a little with the new license status option of Potlatch 2.2 I'm seeing unfortunately lot of red on the map (and some orange, too). Don't get too disheartened. To take your second point first, in my experience most people are actually pretty amenable to being contacted. A lot will simply not have noticed the original mail. Others may have seen it but not realised that it's really something they need to respond to. Personal contact saying hi, I'd really like to keep your data means a lot. When you do manage to contact them, the 98.5% agree/1.5% split (of those who've responded thus far) suggests that in most cases they'll be happy for the data to continue through to ODbL+CT - so it'll probably be ok. If not, as David Groom mentioned, the idea of allowing people to say I relicense these bits, but not those was once mooted - along the lines of what you suggested. There wasn't much take-up but I see no reason why it couldn't be resurrected if really needed. It doesn't even need to be part of the formal relicensing process: you or I or anyone could write a tool that deleted a problematic object, and recreated it with a clean history, _if_ all the contributors gave their permission to the tool author (and documented the permission). But I do genuinely think it won't be necessary: most people are happy to click 'Agree' if you ask. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6505963.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
John Smith wrote: The attribution was put into the JS file, but I'm looking into why that doesn't display. You probably need a DG file instead. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6507935.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
