Re: [Talk-de] OSM in Irland?
On Tuesday, 21 August 2012, Werner Poppele wrote: also vielleicht stell ich mich ja wieder mal dumm an: Aber ich weiss nicht was #osm-ie sein soll. Sorry, da habe ich das IRC-Kanal gemeint, dort sind am allermeisten irische Mapper zu finden. Die Mailingliste ist auch eine Option, aber viel weniger frequentiert. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] OSM in Irland?
2012/8/15 Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de: Aber wenn es keine sinnvollen Luftbilder gibt und es scheinbar nur wenige lokale Mapper gibt ist das verständlich. Und dazu vermute ich, dass die Bevölkerungsdichte in Irland kleiner ist als in Deutschland. Zusätzlich wohl auch in vielen Gebieten deutlich ländlicher geprägt als in Deutschland und damit vielleicht nicht so nahe an Neogeographie (Aussage ist nicht böße/abwertend gemeint!). Lustiges Timing - gerade ist einiges an Bildmaterial von Bing freigegeben worden, darunter auch in Donegal, Fermanagh, ganz Galway und Mayo, halb Clare, Giant's Causweay uvm. Wie man gut erkennen kann...: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.933lon=-7.847zoom=11layers=M ...machen Luftbilder bei uns sehr viel aus, gerade weil die Community sehr stark auf Dublin konzentriert ist. Wir können uns nun auf viel mehr Detail freuen. Wer mithelfen mag - vielleicht ist dem einen oder anderen von euch langweilig weil die eigene Gegend fertig gemappt ist - lang bitte hin! Aber bitte mit Voranmeldung auf #osm-ie um abzustimmen, wo vielleicht Leute schon aktiv sind oder um das Tagging besser anpassen zu können. LG aus Dublin, Dermot ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[OSM-talk-ie] Licence Change - it's happening
Dear Irish community, Most of you know in one form or another about the licence change. Many of you also know that the data redaction was to take place in April. It has of course taken quite a bit longer, but a lot of care has been taken and we now have a good toolset that has been tested against a real data set on a test API server. That test data set was Ireland, as it happens. Since the test ran satisfactorily, it is now planned to start the real redaction - that is, to begin the process of identifying non-ODbL-compatible data and: a) Removing it from the data set. In Ireland, this will not entail the loss of very much data b) Making any non-compliant data from old versions unobtainable This real redaction will start with Ireland and may commence as soon as tomorrow. So if you see some unusual map changes, this may be the cause. Any discussion welcomed here or on IRC. Thanks, Dermot ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
[Talk-de] Billigfliegen nach Tokio für SOTM
Liebe Mapper, es gibt von euch wohl einige, die bei SOTM gerne dabei wären, sich allerdings den teuren Flug nach Tokio nicht leisten wollen. Da habe ich vielleicht eine Lösung, die allerdings schnell verfallen wird. Gestern Abend ist es mir gelungen, eine Flugverbindung von Europa(*) nach Tokio hin und zurück für rund €275 zu buchen. Da helfen sowohl vorteilhafte Tarife als auch eine Sonderaktion von Alitalia (20% Rabatt für Buchungen bis 21 Mai). (*) Warum Europa so grob erwähnen? Um die besten Preisen zu erwischen müssen Startflughafen und Endflughafen unterschiedlich sein. Ich konnte z.B. AMS-TYO-BUD buchen. Die Einzelheiten: http://hukd.mydealz.de/deals/20-rabatt-bei-alitalia-tokio-flüge-nun-89741 Viel Spass! Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[OSM-talk] Rebuild plan (followups to rebuild list, please)
Dear Community, I have waited a day to reply to the sudden wave of feedback regarding the rebuild task list and plan. In this way I hope to ensure that my reply is constructive and useful. I urge others to adopt a similar approach. It would be nice to be able to claim that it was gratifying to see such a sudden surge of interest in a topic for which it has, until now, been difficult to drum up much enthusiasm. Those who have participated in the process of getting us to the point where we have a plan and an emerging toolset - they deserve our thanks and they have mine. Those who have chosen to snipe, often in non-specific terms, at this plan, imperfect though it may be, well, I think they should consider how things get done around here. Clearly they would have done a better job and it's unfortunate that they did not step forward in a timely fashion and do so. All this being said, allow me to address those criticisms that have been made in specific enough terms to allow it. There is a risk I will leave out something important, but something tells me I'll hear about that soon enough. I will politely request that followups be made to rebu...@openstreetmap.org, a list that is open to all interested parties and that exists for the purpose of such discussions as this. I personally will assume that any followup not to rebuild@ is unproductive punditry that need not be addressed in actual planning. The plan should be postponed until after April 1st To this I will simply state that deadlines are a Good Thing when you are trying to get something done. Until we have completed this task it is good that we should work to some deadlines even if they have to evolve in the light of circumstances. If a safe rebuild or a portion of it really has to slip beyond 1st April then that will have to happen. There is, however, no virtue in ensuring that we slip by a token few days just to prove that the world will not end. But be assured that the plan is a living document that will not ignore emerging realities. There should be _much_ more test runs and validation of the edits made The more testing the better, this is clear. I hope that those calling for improvements here have read, understood and fed back weaknesses found in the test suite: https://github.com/zerebubuth/openstreetmap-license-change (all files test*) Unlesss you prefer to systematically verify every object in the planet file, this will provide the single greatest chance of successful data migration. We do also need spot checking of data changes made to a real API database and this is planned. It will need manpower, of course, something that is still lacking in this process. Let me recap on the planned nature of these tests - as can be seen from the plan, this weekend is to see a test run on a subset or subsets of the data set on the dev server, these subsets being chosen for being representative of many of the important test cases (and probably having regard to the locations where volunteer data checkers have the local knowledge to most easily spot unexpected behaviour). As this is a fast moving process, the plan does not yet reflect the fact that we also hope to commisison the new database server and install a full API database. The redaction process will then also be commenced on this box (we have a choice whether to test the offline or online redaction), something that will give us the fairest benchmark (and the most random distribution of test cases) possible. Even during the running of this full planet test it will be possible to view and validate the decisions being made. Until we run these tests we don't know how we will have to react to what we find. If we discover that data is vanishing all over the place and wrong redactions are happening, this will oblige much greater caution than if everything behaves well. The benchmarking will also be revealing. If we discover that live redaction on a non-loaded API seems to suggest (random figure with no basis used for effect) a whole month of database churning, that might indicate that an offline redaction is much smarter (consider the scope for conflicts or just plain degradation of API performance). But we have to perform the tests first - after that, if we can see that our projections are flawed, we will need to address this. This can be done without downtime and should be Two points need to be made about this, and both are hinted at above. Firstly, _if_ we wish to use the opportunity of the licence change to migrate to the new server (and database version), something Matt is keen to do, this will require at least some downtime. A separate discussion must be had about the principle of live redaction V offline redaction (which is assumed to be quicker and avoids certain theoretical issues such as permormance hit and redactions conflicting with real edits). We still lack the benchmarks to make a truly informed decision between the live and offline options. The plan, as many of you have
Re: [Talk-de] OSM in Irland?
Hallo uns sorry, dass ich deine Überlegungen einige Tagelang übersehen habe... 2012/2/23 Steffen Grunewald steffen.grunew...@gmx.net: Was mir noch zusätzlich Kopfschmerzen macht: die Küstenlinie scheint einigermaßen zum Bing-Bild zu passen. Also... Was du als Küstenlinie gesehen hast passt sehr wohl zum Bing-Bild, sofern das Bild auch nicht korrigiert wurde. Überall, wo Bing lediglich Satbilder liefert kann man - jedenfalls in Irland - durchaus 100m daneben liegen. Die Küstenlinie in Irland, wo nicht inzwischen verbessert worden, wurde auf Landsatbasis automatisch erstellt, samt Versatz. Wer also vor hat, von den Bing Satbildern abzumalen hat auch zu kalibrieren, was ich meistens anhand der Straßen mache, die meinstens irgendwo auf dem Satbild zu ahnen sind. Auf dieser Weise habe ich dir soeben ein Geschenk gemacht - die Küstenlinie zwischen Kilkee und Loop Head auf beiden Seiten der Halbinsel habe ich neu abgemalt. Lässt sich sicherlich verbessern, was allerdings gut warten kann, bis uns Bing in einigen Monaten vernünftigen Bilder liefert. In der Zwischenzeit habe ich dir zumindest etwas Terra firma verzaubert, was du wohl gut brauchen kannst. Je nachdem, wie du mit mkgmap umgehst, wirst du aber wohl auch deine Küstenlinien neu berechnen müssen. Das ist allerdings ein Kriterium ;) Dann fahren wir dort hin, wo noch wenig Straßen gemappt sind, dann haben wir wenigstens unsere Ruhe ;);) Für den Loop Drive scheint das halbwegs zu passen... Da fällt mir übrigens was ein... In Kilkee habe wir noch eine (kleine) Menge POIs die von der Lizenzumstellung platt gemacht werden: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-9.65887lat=52.68018zoom=14overlays=overview,wtfe_point_clean,wtfe_line_clean,wtfe_point_harmless,wtfe_line_harmless,wtfe_point_modified,wtfe_line_modified_cp,wtfe_line_modified,wtfe_point_created,wtfe_line_created_cp,wtfe_line_created Auch bei Liscannor haben wir ein kleines Stück Strasse und einen POI. Sollte es dir passen, könntest du uns einen Gefallen tun, indem du diese Daten rettest. Wo wahrscheinlich kein Tourist freiwillig entlangkommt, sind die vielen Nebenstraßen (selbst aus den DOPs bei OSI ist nicht zu erahnen, welche Oberfläche die einem präsentieren werden). Fürs Radl in den meisten Fällen ganz OK. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] OSM in Irland?
2012/2/22 Steffen Grunewald steffen.grunew...@gmx.net: Maidin mhaith, :) Da hat einer geübt! Da ich dort aber mit dem Fahrrad langfahren will, werde ich den Garmin mitlaufen lassen und zumindest die Kreuzungen als Wegpunkte schreiben. Bis dahin sind aber vermutlich source=Bing-Einträge (hier ist eine Verbindung, du mußt halt nur genau gucken) immer noch besser als gar nichts, oder? Ich verstehe eine Menge Spaß, und gebe dem Mapper vor Ort, dem das nicht paßt, gern eine Pint aus. Da riskierst du leider nicht so sehr viel, in dem Eck sind mir nicht viele Mapper bekannt. In welcher Jahreszeit ist es denn soweit? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] OSM in Irland?
Halle Steffen, sei aus Dublin begrüßt! 2012/2/16 Steffen Grunewald steffen.grunew...@gmx.net: in Vorbereitung auf eine Irlandreise habe ich mir auch die OSM mal angesehen, für das Garmin Nüvi und Oregon. Die img-Dateigrößen verheißen ja nichts Gutes, 37MB für die Kukuk-Basemap sind verglichen mit knapp 900MB für D bei Raumbezug nicht wirklich viel Platz für Details... und die fehlen in der Tat, v.a. in den ländlichen Regionen - Dublin isn't everywhere. Ja, auf dem Land wird's weniger dicht, was auch damit zu tun hat, dass eine überzeugende Mehrheit der irischen Mapper eher im Dubliner Ballungsraum leben. Da kommt noch dazu... Die Luftbilder bei bing.com sind auch nicht gerade scharf (jedenfalls nicht im County Kerry). Gibt es eine andere Quelle für halbwegs brauchbar aufgelöste Luftbilder, die man nutzen könnte, um dem ein wenig abzuhelfen? Ja, das ist bei uns immer ein Problem gewesen, was sich erst jetzt langsam verbessert. Für das, dass unsere Mapper nicht so gut verteilt sind und dass unsere Luftbilder keine volle Abdeckung liefern. Da muss ich leider bestätigen dass Bing das beste ist von allem was wir haben. Dafür kann ich einiges positives berichten: die Bing Updateaktion hat die Abdeckung soeben vor zwei Wochen um einiges vervollständigt und eine totale Abdeckung wird bis ende 2012 versprochen. Heute sieht's so aus: http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/?lat=53.180391976040355lon=-6.433096136747681zoom=8 Die größte Grün-dargestellte Flache (Südost und Midlands) sowie ein grosszügiges Gebiet um Belfast sind nagelneu (November bzw. Juli 2011), korrekt kalibriert und von der Qualität mindestens ausreichend (gelegentlich stören Schatten). Dafür muss ich warnen, gerade weil du Kerry erwähnt hast, dass du in fast allen Anderen Gebieten mit Verschiebungen zu rechnen hast. Solltest du also vor haben, vor, während oder nach der Reise abzumalen, unbedingt vorher Kalibrieren! Sonst kann die Verschiebung bis 30m betragen, da verstehen wir Mapper vor Ort wenig Spaß ;) Wenn ungenügend GPX daten vorhanden sind, oder wenn sie wenig genau sind, melde dich einfach bei mir, ich habe für fast alle Gebiete Korrekturen. Du wirst wohl finden, gerade wo viele Touristen gerne hinfahren, dass die Strassenabdeckung gar nicht schlecht ist, anders sieht das mit Landuse aus. Bei Wanderwegen muss man das gut erwischen, wobei man auch erwähnen soll, dass unsere Berge in dieser Hinsicht relativ wild sind, die Wanderwege ergeben sich eher von selbst. Wegen Nebel- und Unwettergefahr empfehle ich, ohne 1:50k Ordnance Survey Karte keine Bergwanderung zu unternehmen - auch wenn die Wege in OSM drin sind, kann 5m neben dir ein Steilhang sein... Bei Fragen steht dir die irische Community gerne zu Verfügung, sowohl auf der Mailing List, wie schon erwähnt, als auch auf IRC unter #osm-ie. Manche von uns können sogar auf Deutsch helfen. Viele Grüße aus DUB, Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
On 24 December 2011 23:03, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: Another mapper walks by, notices that the place is a pizzeria and adds back an identical tag. Are we clean or dirty now? Dirty, because the very same situation could arise with a non-agreeing mapper adding cuisine=pizza, the agreeing mapper cleaning the object and a third mapper reverting that last action. I have no way of telling apart a revert to the non-agreeing mapper's version and a true remapping from original sources. I'm open to suggestions but I can't see an easy way out. Yes, I see the problem - I pose the question because it's interesting given that the desired end-game is a node that is both clean _and_ has cuisine=pizza. But you go on to cover this case... These changes carry with them the slight complication that they make tainted-ness dependent on the current version of the way. This means that an object that was previously untainted could now become tainted again, by exactly the process that you outline above (re-adding of the cuisine tag). That would be a very good use case for odbl=clean, or maybe we could introduce something that users can place in their changeset comment saying all edits in this changeset are remapping from original sources, or we could even say: Whenever the changeset has a source tag we consider this to be original sources... This was the issue I had in mind, and yes, odbl=clean will fix it. For anybody who hasn't read the LWG minutes, LWG is in favour of respecting odbl=clean come the switchover phase. We've asked for community feedback on this (and on the principle that moving-nodes-cleans-their-position, which we also favour) since we want the decision to be an accountable one having regard to all valid legal and ideological points that should be considered. Now for a horrid twist to the thought experiment - odbl=clean is, as you have described its use above, a nice solution to the problem of wanting to cleanly reapply cuisine=pizza without wiping history. But what if things happen like this?: 1. Agreeing mapper maps the restaurant and names it 2. Non-agreeing mapper adds the cuisine tag 3. Agreeing mapper removes the cuisine tag and sets odbl=clean. He or she does not have enough information to assert the cuisine tag and chooses, on balance, to lose the tag for now. 4. Well-meaning new (therefore agreeing) mapper sees the node, notices the cuisine tag in the history and reapplies it without having personal knowledge to back this up. odbl=clean is still set. This is very similar to the case where the cuisine tag is reapplied without us having odbl=clean set. Certainly, we can point out that we expect good faith and due diligence from mappers. But if we are prepared to consider the object clean in this case, why not also in the case where the cuisine tag has just had a temporary holiday from the object even if odbl=clean has not been set? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
On 25 December 2011 21:05, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 13:48:24 + 4. Well-meaning new (therefore agreeing) mapper sees the node, notices the cuisine tag in the history and reapplies it without having personal knowledge to back this up. odbl=clean is still set. To me, this is on par with well-meaning new mapper copies data from Google believing it is ok. It is something where we have to make a good effort to explain to people that they shouldn't do it, and if it turns out somebody has misunderstood, or made a mistake, then we have to fix that. I don't see *many* people using history to look for extra features to re-animate. OK, that's fine by me - I like that answer, because it allows us to respect odbl=clean in all cases. I also agree that anybody rummaging in the history for lost tags can be expected to know better than to re-animate tainted tags. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
On 24 December 2011 19:32, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I have prepared changes to the OSMI map that allow me to * treat untagged nodes as clean if moved by an agreeing mapper Nice * treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if these tags are not present any more in the current version Also nice - two clarifications would be useful, if you could briefly give them: 1. This would, I suppose, mean that a formerly tainted node which has both been moved and stripped of any tainted tags would also be considered clean. Is this so, or is the moved node rule implemented as a special case that can only every apply to untagged nodes? 2. Consider the case of a node that is mapped by an agreeing mapper as a restaurant. A non-agreeing mapper comes along and adds cuisine=pizza. An agreeing mapper cleans the object by removing this tag. Time passes... Another mapper walks by, notices that the place is a pizzeria and adds back an identical tag. Are we clean or dirty now? * treat any nodes added to a way by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if these nodes are not present any more in the current version of the way Excellent. So this will have the effect of ignoring the edit by the non-agreeing mapper in the _way's_ history, right? Thanks for the clarifications. Indeed, thanks for this awesome resource. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are objects still tainted when they are edited from a better source ?
On 15 December 2011 15:17, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: When I use high-resolution imagery to improve areas formerly mapped from low-resolution imagery, I change the source tag on the objects I touch - i.e. from Yahoo low resolution satellite to Microsoft Bing satellite. Since my edit is correlated with a change of source, can it still be considered as a tainted derivative ? What you describe seems to me a reasonable argument for considering the _geometry_ clean. In particular, many of us are strongly of the view that an untagged node which is moved can be deemed clean by virtue of the fact that no aspect of the node endures from any previous unclean state. You haven't indicated whether, in these cases, you would have moved every single node, though that seems not to be the main weakness in your scenario... What about non-geometric aspects of the way? Perhaps it has a name, a highway type, a lanes tag or whatever. If these tags have a clean history, once again, I would be in favour of considering the object clean. But you can't really deem the entire way clean just by recreating the geometry if you also retain unclean tags. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyprotection for OSM based material
On 25 November 2011 11:07, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: I will go even further and say this is already happening by people who have already agreed to the ODbL. (Should I point out the examples that I know of ?) From where we stand now, they are doing nothing wrong, since ODbL does not yet apply to the database. Now, you can of course claim that what those people are doing now represents a good indication of intent for when ODbL does kick in... Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [Talk-de] [bulk]: Re: [bulk]: Re: [bulk]: Re: [bulk]: Re: Datum Lizenzumstellung bekannt
2011/11/23 Wolfgang Barth wolfg...@barthwo.de: Wenn man das einschaltet, wie sehe ich dann die Lizenzprobleme? Hab keinen Hilfetext dazu gefunden. Eingefärbt? Wie? Das ganze ist (vorerst auf Englisch) hier dokumentiert: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping#Visualising_what_needs_to_be_remapped Zusammengefasst: Ja, alles Objekte die als Unsauber gelten (nach gleichen Regeln, wie in JOSM) werden mit farben versehen. Dunkelrot: Der V1 Mapper hat die Lizenzumstellung ausdrücklich abgelehnt. Transparent-Rot: V1 ist sauber, aber ein weiterer Mapper hat abgelehnt. Orange: Mindestens ein Mapper hat noch keine entscheidung getroffen, aber noch keiner hat abgelehnt. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] [bulk]: Re: [bulk]: Re: [bulk]: Re: Datum Lizenzumstellung bekannt
2011/11/20 Wolfgang Barth wolfg...@barthwo.de: Am 20.11.2011 22:52, schrieb Dermot McNally: Bin spät dabei, aber vielleicht ist es für dich noch interessant zu wissen, dass auch Potlatch den Lizenzstatus anzeigen kann. Ja? Dann sag mal wie. Ich hab das bisher nicht entdecken können. Sorry, also: Das Plugin heißt licensechange und erscheint normal auf der Pluginliste unter Einstellungen (schätzungsweise, benutze ich auf Englisch). Kann sein, dass du auch die Pluginliste aktualisieren musst. Einfach installieren, Anleitung lesen: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:JOSM/Plugins/LicenseChange ...und bei Bedarf hier wieder fragen. Viel Spass! Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] [bulk]: Re: [bulk]: Re: [bulk]: Re: Datum Lizenzumstellung bekannt
Wieder sorry, falsche Auskunft gegeben (wie das mit JOSM geht dürfte dir wohl klar sein...): Oben rechts befindet sich in Potlatch eine Schaltfläche. Auf Englisch heißt sie ganz brav Options. Scheinbar sorgt ein Bug dafür, dass sie auf Deutsch [Object Object] heißt, was wohl der Grund ist, dass sie nicht aufgefallen ist. Dahinter sind manche Einstellungen, darunter eine, die Lizenzstatus einblendet. Dermot 2011/11/23 Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com: 2011/11/20 Wolfgang Barth wolfg...@barthwo.de: Am 20.11.2011 22:52, schrieb Dermot McNally: Bin spät dabei, aber vielleicht ist es für dich noch interessant zu wissen, dass auch Potlatch den Lizenzstatus anzeigen kann. Ja? Dann sag mal wie. Ich hab das bisher nicht entdecken können. Sorry, also: Das Plugin heißt licensechange und erscheint normal auf der Pluginliste unter Einstellungen (schätzungsweise, benutze ich auf Englisch). Kann sein, dass du auch die Pluginliste aktualisieren musst. Einfach installieren, Anleitung lesen: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:JOSM/Plugins/LicenseChange ...und bei Bedarf hier wieder fragen. Viel Spass! Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] Aerial photo offsets
On 7 November 2011 08:50, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: The leader of the project, Dermot McNally, talked at the Vienna state of the map. There is no video, but there are slides: http://sotm-eu.org/slides/46_DermotMcNally_TrueOffset.pdf If I understood right, some code was written. Hi - I'm just seeing this now. Not only is code written, the service is up and running on the dev server (or was, it has been neglected in the past while). The biggest lack at the moment is editor support from the three main editors, whose developers have more ideas than time. See also here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/True_Offset_Process Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] [bulk]: Re: [bulk]: Re: Datum Lizenzumstellung bekannt
2011/11/11 Wolfgang Barth wolfg...@barthwo.de: Ich hab jetzt licencechange installiert in josm (owohl ich eher gerne mit potlatch arbeite) und lade mal hier und da in meine Gegend eine Teilmap. Bin spät dabei, aber vielleicht ist es für dich noch interessant zu wissen, dass auch Potlatch den Lizenzstatus anzeigen kann. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] OSMF Board - ich bin Kandidat
Hallo zusammen, ich wollte euch (sehr) kurz mitteilen, dass ich für die kommende OSMF Wahl Kandidat bin. Alles Infos, auch zu den Anderen würdigen Kandidaten, hier: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM11/Election_to_Board#Nominations Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment
On Friday, 17 June 2011, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer o...@amen-online.de wrote: Please note that the CT do not guarantee a 2/3 majority of the community. Only a part of the community is entitled to vote. I read your other mail on that topic. I don't personally have any objection to addressing weaknesses in the definition of active contributor. Given the likely slight impact on the outcome of any vote I wouldn't even object to including a time-limited right to vote for all past contributors (though see below), though we would need to be careful then about whether we would require 66% of former contributors to say yes or just 66% of those who ultimately cast a vote. The former would become unworkable as more and more inactive mappers became unreachable. As to the definition of former contributor - in a post-CT-adoption OSM that would probably mean excluding those never to have agreed to the CT (in other words, restrict voting rights to those who still have data in OSM). It remains to be seen whether the difference will prove a significant one. Shortly after I wrote these words, a respected community member attacked me as being blinded by ideology. He never apologised, and no one contradicted him. This personal attack is the main reason why I am now completely unwilling to accept the CT as long as I see peoblems in it. With reference to Rob's reply on this issue, and assuming his quote to be in-context (it certainly matches my recollection), I agree with his interpretation. The quote does not attack you as blinded by ideology. As such, that post, which I also agree to be well-argued, should have no bearing on your attitude to CT. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
On 16 June 2011 11:00, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Does that not effectively rule out any future relicensing because the burden of checking existing data is just too high? I mean, how would one even *begin* to perform such a check, given that nobody is actually obliged to tell us what license restriction his externally-sourced data might be under? Not quite, based on what Richard is saying. It would allow future relicensing but only if the new licence remained compatible with the terms seen to be required by the OS (currently attribution, if I've understood correctly). It's an unfortunate limitation, certainly, but not quite the same as condemning us to ODbL or CC forever. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Users who disagree to ODbL but want PD / CC0
On 16 June 2011 15:34, Floris Looijesteijn o...@floris.nu wrote: Could we then export change 2 to a PD database first and import that into ODbL OSM? Wouldn't it be much simpler for those users to simply accept CT? PD is a superset of CT and ODbL after all... Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Users who disagree to ODbL but want PD / CC0
On 16 June 2011 16:04, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: No, it would be simpler for OSM. Works for me - I'm an OSM mapper and the work in question is from OSM mappers. Floris' comments talk about saving as much data as possible, by context, saving it for OSM. The easiest way to do this is as I have suggested. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Users who disagree to ODbL but want PD / CC0
On 16 June 2011 16:55, Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com wrote: If we convince them to release under PD, then we can take their work and then license it as ODbL, so not wanting their work licensed ODbL precludes releasing under PD. Notwithstanding the fact that much of the reasoning here would not be out of place in the Vatican... If there are mappers who would happily tick a box saying something like: I authorise absolutely anybody to use the data I have contributed in any way that pleases them, but who prefer not to tick the one we currently have for the CT, and if such an additional box would stand up legally, then sure, why the hell not? A former president of Ireland managed to fudge his oath of office and finally take his seat in Parliament through a broadly similar stunt. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Users who disagree to ODbL but want PD / CC0
On 16 June 2011 18:55, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: I know at least one person who does exactly that just because he wants to harm the OSMF because he disagrees with the processes - not with the outcome, though. The harm he's doing is to the other mappers in the areas he has mapped. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 14 June 2011 05:18, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Nathan was being gracious. You ARE trolling. Stop it. I like to assume good faith on the lists. I have never for a moment doubted the sincerity of your position on the licence change, and I demand the same courtesy from you. It's acceptable for people to draw different conclusions from the same data. In a democracy, a majority decides which way a decision should fall. Very likely many non-Muslims voted against the ban. They were NOT treated differently after the vote. Stop arguing that accepting the license means anything more than accepting the license, Dermot. It doesn't. In particular, I accepted the license because I know that if I do not, then my (rather significant) contributions would be deleted, and I would be banned from further contributions. I can and have accepted the license without approving of it. That too is a reason to accept. Most countries and organisations avoid the kind of micro-democracy that would have avoided the situation we have today in OSM where some people (a minority) complain that they are being asked to vote (or pronounce, decide, choose if you don't want to call it a vote) on the wrong question and that they would prefer to have been asked a different question. Such a micro-democracy would never have managed to agree on a question to ask, and while this might be a useful outcome for those who favour the status quo, that seems to me a lot like one group asserting its will over another not by constituting a majority, but by constituting a loud enough minority (UN Security Council springs to mind here). So instead of a micro-democracy, we have ended up with a central group of people producing the proposal on which ultimately all mappers needed to take a decision. As will be clear, I tend to agree with the thrust of their reasoning and I find that the people involved are honest and have the good of the project at heart. But is it not still unfair that specifically that group got to come up with the proposal? Not at all. And again, I'd like to come back to how democratic governments tend to work. If you look at the role of the OSMF in advancing the licence change initiative, one option is to consider that they were acting in the manner of a government. This might grate if you take the view that you never voted for them. But ultimately, it isn't just governments that get to propose laws. Minority groups in parliaments, right down to single independent members, also get to do so. And in the case of the Bavarian smoking ban, a law change even came from an ad-hoc group of citizens. So the right to propose legislation (or, in this case, a licence change) is not some mysterious one. There is no reason any grouping within the project cannot form to promote a different change - in fact, any group that wishes to do so will find it much easier to do so once the initial change to CT is made because of the 66% majority. But, I (continuously) hear you point out, the OSMF is uniquely well-placed to force through its will because it controls the servers.. This is, of course, true. I can counter with the usual retort that it is everyone's option to fork and that this is the defense against an evil Foundation. You can counter that OSMF will still prevail as it enjoys recognition as the one true fork. And we all go away frowning. Thing is, even an evil foundation would have to consider the sustainability of a post-CT data set. On the one hand, OSMF has the advantage that it could, using the servers and domains it controls, move to ODbL under CT with, say 20% of today's data - technically they are not even subject to any democratic decision of mappers. To return briefly to the issue of legislation sponsored by a government, the cabinet in planning the legislation needs to keep it sufficiently reasonable that it will pass a vote by a majority of the house. Opposition-sponsored bills are harder. They require the same majority and you know that government party can defeat it on a whim. Such a bill needs to be so strong it its merit that even your political rivals will go for it. The Bavarian referendum on the smoking ban is probably closest to our licence change, and even here, a defined majority of the turnout is sufficient to carry the law. In our vote the OSMF had both the theoretical latitude to ignore democracy and operate without a majority, but also the practical constraint that anything less than an overwhelming mandate would screw up the map beyond redemption. This much stronger imperative informed the entire process of licence selection. The process was not a secret and nobody's consent was taken for granted. The eventual proposal is one that failed to please many, for all kinds of reasons. Russ, I've already publicly stated that you did the decent thing by agreeing to the change despite your many difficulties with the process. As far as I'm concerned, barring those mappers who have contributed data incompatible
Re: [Talk-de] PR: June 16, Bloomsday: Pubs in Dublin
2011/6/13 RalfGesellensetter r...@gmx.de: A good puzzle would be to cross Dublin without passing a pub. -James Joyes, Ulysses Pünktlich hat rorym ein Ergebnis zum Thema veröffentlicht: http://www.kindle-maps.com/blog/yes-it-is-possible-to-cross-dublin-without-passing-a-pub.html Fazit: es geht! (meistens...) Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] Poll on Governance, what constitutes news, wiki front page
On 13 June 2011 14:41, TimSC mappingli...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: So I ask any interested parties and Richard: please respond with a definition of what constitutes news and/or some reasoning that it is one person's hobbyhorse, otherwise I will revert you back. Also if you want to raise awareness of the poll, I would appreciate some support here! ;) It was put very succinctly by somebody earlier - paraphrasing, you know something is news if it's important enough that somebody other than the person who did it thinks it's news. In a similar vein, Wikipedia takes a dim view of people writing an article about themselves. We all have diary pages to publicise our OSM deeds that we think people care about. If they actually do, somebody else will post it as news. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] PR: June 16, Bloomsday: Pubs in Dublin
2011/6/13 RalfGesellensetter r...@gmx.de: A good puzzle would be to cross Dublin without passing a pub. -James Joyes, Ulysses Viele Dublin Pubs fehler noch auf OSM, aber User rorym hat sich mit genau diesem Thema beschäftigt. Bislang ohne eine passende Strecke zu finden. Als Voraussetzung soll eine gültige Strecke vom Royal Canal bis zum Grand Canal verlaufen. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 11 June 2011 13:21, TimSC mappingli...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: 4) Join the OSMF as a member (people keep suggesting this but I don't actually agree!) This might be a good point for you to outline how you think important stuff should be organised - how to ensure servers are bought and stay up, how to watch over issues of licence and how decisions should be taken. A difficulty with any status quo is that dissenting opinions tend to be expressed in terms relative to that status quo, which can seem negative. What's the better way? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On Friday, 10 June 2011, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote: then why is it making all the decisions on the new license? Or am I then misunderstanding how the whole process is taking place? I suggest that you are. We the mappers are making the decisions based on a proposal drawn up at great length by OSMF. And mappers will continue to hold the power over future decisions of this sort. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 10 June 2011 21:38, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: 2. How do they know that there is overwhelming support from the community ? (I don't believe the license change passed this test) and Close to 99% of mappers who actively voted supported the change. 3. And waiting for the community to get 100% behind a change can take a very long time. If we want to compete with Google Map Maker, we may need to act much faster. Here I agree with you fully. This is why the CT are hugely important to the future of the project. You have declined them. How do you propose that we, as a project, equip ourselves to react quickly in a way that does not require 100% support? In the short term people should either become OSMF members or live with the consequences. In the long term, we could adopt a process where voting does not cost anything. (For example, I recently received a couple of messages from Wikimedia saying that my small number of edits made me eligible to vote in their election). How much did it cost you to cast your no vote? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 10 June 2011 22:16, TimSC mappingli...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: I think you are confusing support the relicense with accept the relicense and that difference is significant. Not at all - I know of no form of democracy that distinguishes between grudging acceptance or evangelical zeal. In particular, in direct democracy such as a referendum, small groups always design the question that will be put to the electorate, tuning it as required so it will command the support of a sufficient majority while still achieving the goal. If a sufficient majority votes yes (and this is often also referred to as supporting the referendum), it is carried. If close to 99% votes yes then it is common to talk of overwhelming support. Will some voters be grumbling that they didn't like how the question was posed? Sure they will. But the result is still binding, because that's how democratic decisions work. We attack the principles of democracy at our peril - most of the tried alternatives are quite nasty. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
I'd like to save Nic the trouble of taking issue with my claim below - I've since realised that he reversed his no vote, something that changes very much the character of the point he was making. Sorry Nic, Dermot On 10 June 2011 21:50, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 June 2011 21:38, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: 3. And waiting for the community to get 100% behind a change can take a very long time. If we want to compete with Google Map Maker, we may need to act much faster. Here I agree with you fully. This is why the CT are hugely important to the future of the project. You have declined them. How do you propose that we, as a project, equip ourselves to react quickly in a way that does not require 100% support? -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 10 June 2011 23:01, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot think of any democratic process where only the 'yes' voters are allowed to participate in the results. Can you? About a year ago, Bavaria held a referendum to ban smoking in just about all indoor public places including pubs, restaurants and Beer Tents. Non-smokers were free to vote no, and we must presume that many did. But because the vote was carried they are no longer free to smoke in those places. They are, of course, free to use them without smoking indoors. Just as opponents of the OSM licence change will be free to participate in OSM post-change, just not under their preferred terms. It seems a perfect analogy. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 10 June 2011 23:35, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: It's a flawed analogy, since there were two decisions for smokers: whether to vote yes or no on the referendum, and (after it passed) whether to patronize these places. With OSM there is only one decision; someone who 'votes' against the change gets their contributions removed, as if someone who voted no on the referendum was no longer allowed to visit the pub and grab a beer with friends. Not at all. It's not a perfect analogy, but it covers perfectly the future right of the no voters to continue to use the facility. In the OSM context, this is possible by either accepting the terms and keeping your previous contributions on the map or (for whatever reason) standing by the no vote and creating another account. That the no voter would prefer not to have to do all this is clear, but then democracy always disappoints somebody. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 11 June 2011 00:15, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: I think you're being deliberately obtuse That's amusing coming from somebody who thinks he can inhibit the use of data he has declared as PD, but let's carry on... , but I'll continue to assume otherwise. In a democracy, there are no personal consequences for voting either way. One's vote is counted, and *the final tally is the only thing a vote counts for*. If yes voters and no voters are treated differently after the vote, it's not a democratic vote. Switzerland around the same time held a referendum on whether to ban the building of Minarets. I expect that many Muslims voted against the ban. The referendum was carried. No voters _are_ treated differently after the vote. The vote was democratic by any definition. It happens to be IMO a very dark incident for democracy, but that doesn't take away from the facts. Hence the new license acceptance process is not a democratic vote. Your definition of democracy does not seem to accord with mine. Where did you get it? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 11 June 2011 01:02, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: I would quite like to take my data and start my own PD / CC0 project. So by simply matching my new license to the conditions set by the OSMF, I would be voting yes in your referendum. Of course, you are free to do that. So we need to measure OSMF by standards different to those which we would expect from a national government. OSMF can't force you to pay tax and can't divest you of any data you own. Their only leverage is over how or whether you get to use resources that they are managing. And as the managers of those resources they find themselves taking an interest in licence stuff that most of us don't consider all that often. In this referendum, the OSMF substantially influenced the outcome by declaring beforehand We are changing the license. They refused to register new users who do not vote yes. The emails that was sent out only listed the advantages of the license change. Sounds very sneaky the way you portray it. Sins of omission? They should probably have linked to arguments both for and against from the wiki pages outlining the plan. Come to think of it, that's exactly what they did. Odd that you didn't mention it. I am not saying OSMF acted illegally or that the license change is a bad thing. I am merely saying that the OSMF decided on the license change before there was overwhelming support for it from the community. Was The Community ever going to beat a path to the OSMF demanding a licence change? I doubt it. Does that mean that we didn't need one? It does not. Most mappers, and I include myself, are very happy that Somebody Else(tm) runs the servers, scrounges for the funds, made a slippy map work and generally gives us what we need so we can just go out and map. Should the people hosting the data not be at the core of thinking about the legal aspects? It's not like the rest of us were queuing up to have our say. The license change was not driven by the community. It was driven by a few individuals. How else can you explain the dismally low voter turn out when the OSMF members voted on it ? It was driven by the few individuals who took an interest in the matter. They were not secretive about their project, indeed evangelical is the word I would use. For a long time they were met with a large round of indifference, as reflected in the poll turnout you mention. Licences, we discover, are just not sexy. It'll all sort itself out is a common reaction to stuff we find too abstract to care about. It's alright not to care. It's not alright to invent problems that don't exist. So anyway, we've come further in the process. It turns out that in order to find out what people think you have to steal their football and not give it back until they tell you. Democracy might be fair, but it turns out it's pretty boring too. Still, we know now that an overwhelming number of mappers are sufficiently OK with the change. Some aren't, for various reasons. And that's a shame. But those of you who aren't need to consider a few things. You need to realise that you're not the only ones here. You need to realise that there are a _lot_ of smart people contributing to OSM and most of them are OK with this. You need to understand that if you try to use your data as leverage you are typically jeapordising the contributions of lots of your fellow mappers. You need to remember that this change isn't the final roll of the dice. You didn't like the way this change was proposed, promoted, voted upon? Well, the new CTs define in some detail how it has to be done in the future. That's progress. You would have preferred PD/Beerware/CC-BY-stand-on-one-leg? Groovy - just find 2/3 of active mappers who want that too and it can happen without all the accusations of bad faith we've had this time around. In summary - if we were in the business of immediate perfection in OSM nothing would have gone into the map until the whole world was fully surveyed. We do incremental mapping. Learn to attain your licencing goals the same way. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 11 June 2011 00:53, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: True. I clicked the button to accept the license, since this was necessary in order to continue editing, but I don't much care for the license. In particular, I disliked the fact that you had to agree in advance, sight unseen, to any future changes in the license. Wasn't this a provision of CC-BY-SA too? Why is it only a problem when applied to ODbL? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 11 June 2011 02:13, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: When I signed up in the first place, I was required to say I accept having my data placed under the CC-by-SA license, but, unlike the new license, I was not required to waive my right to have a say in any future license change. You are not waiving your right to have a say with the new CT. You are waiving your right to have a veto. I can't name a single mapper important enough to have one of those. The OSMF is replacing democracy with oligarchy, so that, in the future, no mappers except the tiny fraction who are members of the OSMF will have a say in any future license change, such as changing over to charging for the use of map data. No, we've never had democracy prior to CT. What we've had is a situation where any one mapper may erect a barrier to whatever decision needs to be made. CT replaces this with democracy requiring a 2/3 majority of active mappers. Those mappers do not have to be OSMF members as your comments above suggest. Have you actually read the CT? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment
On 8 June 2011 17:59, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer o...@amen-online.de wrote: I am willing to grant the OSFM + 2/3 of the community the right to relicense my contributions in the following ways: * the current versions of the ODbL and/or of the CC-BY-SA, * all past and future versions of the ODbL and/or of the CC-BY-SA, * all licenses that follow the Share-Alike/Copyleft principle, and That's not a bad start - but if I play spot-the-missing-bit, it looks to me that you aren't prepared to trust 2/3 of the community to decide that (for reasons not yet forseen) a licence other than the two you list and which may not be copyleft/sharealike. The difficulty I see is what might happen under those unforseen circumstances. Let's take a fanciful (but not impossible) assumption that in 50 years, the various map data providers operating either free beer or speech policies (as of today that would include OSM for speech and Google for beer) have transformed the landscape to the extent that Navteq decides that map data is a commodity, that they too will give away what they have, will integrate the concept of Community into their data maintenance and otherwise try to out-OSM OSM. Now, keep in mind that this is a fanciful example, so let's not be sidetracked by whether we think they would ever do such a thing. The issue is that the OSM Community at that time would find themselves having to consider how OSM should fit in a world where this had happened. Let's further suppose that some users of geodata continued to find obstacles to using OSM, but seized on the opportunity to exploit this newly freed Navteq data which, let's just suppose, had been declared PD. Such a development might in fact prove to be a game-changer. The OSM Community might well find that, in a world where geodata is often PD, sharealike is the kiss of death for a project. It therefore seems important to equip The Community of the future to decide on all aspects of future licence policy, including a yes or no to sharealike. Your preference should a situation like this arise seems to be: * all other licenses if I am contacted and do not object within 6 weeks. So in 50 years time (and I hope that we are both still alive to cast our vote at that time), each of us will get the chance to express ourselves on this important matter. My interpretation of your 6 week timeout is that, should you be unreachable, bored or dead, The Community is free to make the decision without you, and that's certainly an improvement over where we are today. But suppose you are reachable - suppose you consider the issue for a week and decide to say no, but a solid majority of mappers say yes. 50 years worth of the stuff you mapped and anything sitting on top of it (which I'm going to claim will, by then, have diluted your own stuff into insignificance) will have to be removed somehow. And that's just not fair. If your data gets contributed to a project where it will by definition be mixed with those of other mappers you have to accept that the decision-making process of what may be fairly done with the mixed data set must also be shared with those same mappers. We can talk about what percentage should constitute a strong majority. We can talk about how to prevent gerrymandering of the pool of eligible voters. But we shouldn't and mustn't talk about vetoes. Today every old mapper has a veto on changes of this sort. Your list above proposes to grant a one-time mandate to allow for a specific foreseen licence change deemed necessary. But it proposes to retain the veto. Not one of us is so important to OSM that he or she has the right to stand in the way of the accountable will of The Community. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment
On Tuesday, 7 June 2011, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: The process is pretty simple really: - decide what licence you want without bothering to hold a vote A lot of thought and consultation went into the proposed licence and polls were taken to back up the conclusions. Of course, the fact that the process took years has led to plenty of mappers who can claim not to have been asked. They've all been asked now, though, and the results speak for themselves. - get everyone to sign up to new contributor terms allowing that licence Indeed. Asking people seems like an excellent way to address your no vote concern. - block anyone who says no from contributing and presto! you have your 2/3 majority of active contributors. Such an approach could possibly work, albeit at the cost of losing the community if the community held the process to be unfair. The fact is, though, that people who said no have not yet been blocked from contributing and the 2/3 majority has already been reached. The wrong kind of majority, perhaps? I'm reminded of an argument I was drawn into at the Munich Oktoberfest last year. Smoking is now banned indoors in Bavaria, and one chap, who claimed to be a lawyer, was intent on having a smoke regardless. He considered the law undemocratic. It had been brought in by a referendum forced on the government by a citizen's petition. The referendum was carried. This guy reasoned that lots of smokers abstained from voting because the result was a foregone conclusion, therefore a non-democratic result. How shall we define democracy in OSM? I'm heavily drawn to a model where the course of action endorsed by 99% of those voting can be deemed legitimate. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment
On 7 June 2011 14:35, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: A 2/3 majority of what? When was a poll held? Your next paragraph suggests that you know when. Do you really think it's a valid poll where, for months, you're only allowed to say yes, and then even after you're allowed to say no, you can switch your mind until the answer is yes (at which point you can't change it back)? Yes, I do. And the numbers suggest that most people agree with me. This is besides the fact that the question being asked is not the right question in the first place. It is up to those asking the question to determine what question they would like to have answered. In this case, the people asking for a mandate to change the licence/copyright terms of the database we host are those directly involved in the hosting of said database. They have a right and duty to consider these issues and the mandate they seek will not prevent any of us from making use of today's data set in any way we were already permitted to do so. And besides the fact that I haven't been allowed to vote. In the old days they might have been plucking chickens and boiling up the tar. These days antisocial behaviour just gets you banned. There was no vote. Over 32000 mappers have agreed to a proposal. 387 have disagreed. If you choose not to consider this a vote, fair enough, but any longtime readers have had plenty of chances to form an opinion of your brand of logic. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment
On 7 June 2011 15:20, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Of 8,402,321 people eligible to vote, 8,357,560, or 99.5%, cast ballots--8,348,700 of which favored Hussein, the government said. There were 5,808 spoiled ballots. Luckily our licence vote is more transparent. Details on who said yes and no are available, so any irregularities will easily be found. Happy hunting! Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breaking up is hard to do (was New Logo in the Wiki)
On 4 May 2011 18:21, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: I rejected the CTs because I felt the OSMF* was out of touch with the community. Your statement just reaffirms that. The Community, by my definition, is made up of the people who map, most of whom are not members of OSMF. The change in licence and CTs has been endorsed massively by The Community. I won't make any blanket judgement on people who feel they have to say no to the change - some are indeed in tricky situations - but I find your very premise flawed. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] OSMF
2011/5/4 Markus liste12a4...@gmx.de: - es gibt keine wählbare Alternative Aber der Lizenzwechsel (genau gesehen, der CT-Wechsel) gibt der Community einen Weg, Lizenzvorschläge in Zukunft (von mir aus, sogar in naher Zukunft) zu wählen. Wollen genug Leute einen Lizenzwechsel, kann das auch passieren, indem 66% der aktiven Community das zustimmt. Dass gerade ODbL dir nicht gefällt ist natürlich Schade - dafür haben über 98% aller Mapper, die aktive abgestimmt haben den Wechsel zugestimmt (und zählt man die Neumapper mit dann sind's deutlich mehr). Diese Mapper sind also bereit, die neue Lizenz mindestens zu tolerieren. Ich muss auch davon ausgehen, dass manche davon sich eine andere Lizenz wünschen würden. Vielleicht werden sie, nach der Umstellung, Druck machen, mit der Hoffnung, dass 66% der Community gleicher Meinung ist. Was ich dir auch empfehle - Ja sagen, und die Wege nutzen, die uns bis jetzt gefehlt haben, deine Ideen durchzusetzen - solltest du genug Unterstützung findest, natürlich. Fair is fair. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] OSMF
2011/5/4 Markus liste12a4...@gmx.de: Ja, das ist eine Verbesserung. Der Preis ist aber m.E. zu hoch: - Verlust von verdienten OSMern - Datenverlust (in noch unbestimmter Höhe) Dieses Medizin muss das Projekt früher oder später schlucken. Je früher, desto weniger Verlust an Daten und Mapper. Es kann einfach nicht sein, dass jeder einzelner Mapper ein Veto hat über ungeplante von aussen gezwungene Änderungen. Die Verlust an Mappern kann natürlich durchaus verhindert werden - OSM ist und bleibt euer Projekt. Steht euch wirklich so viel im Wege, weiterzumachen mit einer Lizenz die sich so unwesentlich unterscheidet von der Alten? - Verletzung des Vertrauens zur OSMF Oft behauptet, zu selten begründet. Und wenn, kann jeder etwas dafür. Ist schließlich _unsere_ OSMF. Wer das besser kann soll sich wählen lassen. - Verletzung der Idee der Freiheit (durch unfreies Verfahren) Wer hat dir denn deine Stimme geklaut? Ein Verfahren wird nicht unfrei weil dir das Ergebnis nicht passt. Hätten 98% der Mapper nein gesagt, müsste ich dir wohl Recht geben. Haben sie aber nicht. Ja, aber die reinen Zahlen trügen. Sie sind zu einem grossen Teil Folge - des friss oder Stirb-Zwanges - mangelnder Alternativen - unverständlicher Inhalte - der verbreiteten Gewohnheit Lizenzen einfach zuzustimmen - des die praktische Arbeit wichtiger nehmens - (wichtiger als deine Vermutungen) dass jeder, auch jeder Depp, eine Stimme hat, die zu respektieren ist. Bis jetzt, habe ich im Projekt immer mit sehr intelligenten Mappern zu tun gehabt. Haben wirklich 98% so blöd abgestimmt? Oder halten sie den Wechsel nur für unbedenklich. Es kann echt nicht sein, dass deine Bedenken wichtiger sind als die Stimmen von 98%, oder? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Auswertung der ersten Reaktionen auf Lizenzwechsel Phase 3
2011/4/23 Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com: Das man meine Daten verwendenet um dann PD daten herzuleiten und das als nicht derivat zu erklaren, halte ich fuer einen Streitfall. Mann sollte das erstmals gar nicht zulassen, und wenn man PD daten behalten mochte, sollte man die woanders machen aber nicht mischen. Tut doch keiner. Wollen wir doch nicht bei den Tatsachen bleiben? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Auswertung der ersten Reaktionen auf Lizenzwechsel Phase 3
2011/4/23 Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com: Ich habe es so verstanden : es gibt einige mapper die ihre Daten also PD markieren und so weiterlizenziern, diese Mischen ihre Daten im OSM pool, und geben ihre Beitraege auch als PD weiter, wenn es nicht so ist, habe ich was falsch verstanden. Jeder darf bestimmen wie _seine_ Daten benutzt werden, und manche Mapper bezeichnen tatsächlich _ihre_ Daten als PD - und das übrigens seit lange, mit oder ohne Lizenzwechsel. Aber Mischwerke, wo nicht-PD-Daten auch dabei sind, dürfen nicht so als PD betrachtet werden. Man darf nur das hergeben, was einem gehört. Die neue Lizenz ist keine PD-Lizenz und nichts was ein Alleinmapper über seine Daten erzählt wird diese Tatsache ändern. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Auswertung der ersten Reaktionen auf Lizenzwechsel Phase 3
2011/4/21 Markus liste12a4...@gmx.de: Wenn die OSMF in destruktiver Weise mit der Community umgeht (hier der Inhalt und Ablauf des geplanten Lizenzwechsels), ...dann hätte die Community dementsprechend negativ reagiert beim Abstimmen. Hat sie aber nicht, sondern überwiegend positiv. Ulf ist ein Teil davon. Das muss er selber wissen. Wenn, dann ist er ein Teil von einer Community die _mit_ Lizenzwechsel weitergehen will. Aber gerne sollen wir abwarten, wie sich die Zahlen entwickeln. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] License graph
On 19 April 2011 13:14, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:51:06 +0200 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: One small plea: Could you refrain from saying the camp that wants to move to the ODbL. It sounds like it's a small bunch of people when indeed it is the overwhelming majority. well that's just meadowdust. The ODbL camp did not even get a majority of the OSMF members to vote in favour of the method of changeover. To make your majority you add in X thousand who joined late and didn't get a vote, and subtract Y thousand who haven't yet made an edit. In addition to lacking skills of politeness it seems you cannot count either. Since the artificially-fixed epoch of last Sunday - prior to which over 10,000 users agreed to the change, explicitly, not automatically - the stats of yes versus no decisions, excluding those existing yeses, are, as I type this mail: Yes: 708 (88%) No: 95 (12%) Fred describes this as an overwhelming majority. You disagree. based on some hand-wavy logic and a suggestion of deceit involving new signups when it is abundantly clear that such new signups do not form part of the claim you hope to dispute. Stick to the facts. Learn to add and subtract. Learn some basic human courtesy. Stop the accusations of deceit when you are the one presenting the false information. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] Auswertung der ersten Reaktionen auf Lizenzwechsel Phase 3
2011/4/19 Manuel Reimer manuel.s...@nurfuerspam.de: Mal doof gefragt: Wie schaffe ich es, diese Liste so durch die OSM-API zu stopfen, dass eine Liste von Usernamen rausfällt? Das kann ich nicht direkt antworten, kann aber sein, dass du hier auf deine Kosten kommst: http://fred.dev.openstreetmap.org/ Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] License graph
On 19 April 2011 00:08, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: I actually meant that the 2 graphs had different scales. When youre showing numbers upto 80, fair enough use a scale of 0-100, but dont use 0-100 on one and 0-120 on the other, and call it an even comparison. Skewing graphs is a 5th-grade maths lesson. I didn't see anybody call it an even comparison. The graphing tool use is, as far as I know, choosing its own scale for each line more or less as a consequence of its core purpose of graphing server stats. Those are not comparison graphs, just two graphs that happen to sit on the same axes. We have to do our own mental processing. But even with different scales, the wedge shape that's opening up between the lines tells us all we need to know. We could play with the scale to see how quickly it's happening, but that's about all. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] Auswertung der ersten Reaktionen auf Lizenzwechsel Phase 3
2011/4/18 Doru Julian Bugariu j.buga...@wad.org: Wieso geht es irgendwem an, *wer* auf disagree klickt? Soll das ein elektronischer Pranger werden, oder was? Ich finde, jeder hat das *Recht* sich so zu entscheiden wie er mag, ohne dass er irgendjemandem Rechenschaft schuldig ist. Weil ein nicht-Zustimmer die Macht hat, zu bestimmen dass meine Arbeit irgendwann aus dem Map rausfliegt obwohl ich selber zugestimmt habe und die Lizenzumstellung für unbedenklich halte. Darüber möchte ich schon informiert werden und die Gelegenheit haben, das mit dem Anderen zu besprechen. Da soll er auch nichts dagegen haben, ist halt eine Community... Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Auswertung der ersten Reaktionen auf Lizenzwechsel Phase 3
2011/4/18 Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com: Ich nehme mir das Recht heraus, die Arbeit die ich bei OSM geleistet habe zu einem mir genehmen Zeitpunkt umzulizensieren - oder halt auch nicht. Die Gründe dafür sind alleine meine Sache und dazu bin ich *niemandem* Rechenschaft oder Erklärungen schuldig - und ganz bestimmt nicht Leuten die mir persönlich vollkommen unbekannt sind. Sehe ich doch nicht so: $ grep ulfl ireland.osm | wc -l 64 In einem Land, wo die Mapper zum Lizenzwechsel eher positiv stehen, hast du mitgeholfen. Stichwort mit. Und wer weiß, was noch an Ulfgeschenken in der History stecken? Überlässt du deine Arbeit der Community wirst du wohl geholfen haben. Aber wenn deine Daten wirklich weg müssen wirst du dagegen Mist gebaut haben. Und eine Erklärung bist du in dem fall dieser Community doch schuldig. Da diese eine gute Erklärung sein wird - grundlos würdest du uns so was nicht antun oder? - wird die Community wohl Verständnis dafür haben. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Auswertung der ersten Reaktionen auf Lizenzwechsel Phase 3
2011/4/18 Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com: Ich habe meine Arbeit unter einer bestimmten Lizenz der ganzen Welt zur Verfügung gestellt, nicht nur einer bestimmten Community. Nicht _mal_ der Community. Ob die Community Verständnis dafür hat, spielt eigentlich keine Rolle. Jeder soll selber entscheiden, ob die Community dich verlässt oder du die Community. Viel Glück! Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Auswertung der ersten Reaktionen auf Lizenzwechsel Phase 3
2011/4/18 Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com: Wenn die Community von ihrer eigenen Arbeit jetzt nichts mehr wissen will Ist irgendwie komisch, oder? Fast 11,000 Deppen und weniger als 100 die das richtig sehen. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Auswertung der ersten Reaktionen auf Lizenzwechsel Phase 3
2011/4/19 Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com: Ich sehe das eher so, das 11000 Mapper tendenziell bereit sind, die Arbeit von 100 wegzuwerfen, um einem Ziel zu folgen das keinem so richtig klar ist. Aber das ist meine persönliche Sicht. Klingt nicht sehr klug, wenn das so wäre. Vielleicht ist das Ziel denen doch klar, nur dir nicht, oder dir klar, nur unpassend. Alles legitim. Aber wie gesagt, solche Meinungen soll man bereit sein, mit der Community zu teilen, damit man zumindest versteht, nach welchem Prinzip ein Unbekannter von weit weg die Daten verschwinden lässt. So ist es nämlich aus seiner persönlicher Sicht. P.S: Bitte versuche doch solche Feindbilder wie Deppen und Richtigseher zu vermeiden, das bringt uns doch nicht weiter. Ohne Fakten, keine Feinheiten, man sieht nur gut und böse. Was meine Daten gefährdet kommt mir böse vor. Meint ein Anderer, ich habe nicht mal das Recht zu wissen warum, verstärkt sich diese Meinung. Es muss aber nicht so bleiben, oder? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 07:00, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: Why does the ODbL faction not start with a fork of ODbL compliant data? Why do they need to force a split of the existing CC-by-SA data? A lot of the differences of opinion on this matter are finding expression in the words people choose to use to describe the different points of view. I found your use of faction interesting enough to check some dictionary definitions of the word. Here's one I found particularly apt: 1. a group of people forming a minority within a larger body, esp a dissentious group So let's see which point of view ends up mainstream and which belongs to a dissenting minority. So far, as I look at the volume of map data, as I look at the vast majority of the people who have built and maintained the map and the infrastructure on which it runs, what I see is people who, sometimes with misgivings, are throwing their weight behind the licence change. Among such people I see unity of purpose. Opposition to the change seems to stem from a number of disparate of often contradictory reasons, none of which I personally find compelling. What I can not with any seriousness regard the opposition I have seen as is the mainstream. It is on the anti-change side that I see not one faction, but several. Others may not (yet) share my view, and should observe the rate at which the remaining community votes yes and no. Nothing in this process will remove the freedom from anybody to continue to use the data already mapped exactly as they always have, nor to continue maintaining a data set under those terms. But if The Community should be seen to support the licence change, I will see it as irresponsible for individual mappers to take their ball and go home just because they can. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 08:28, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: In every schism, it's not clear who is splitting from whom. Don't presume an answer without first asking the question. Actually, I have thought widely on this. My slightly earlier email this morning outlines my thought on what defines the mainstream in this difficult issue. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 08:31, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: So has anyone asked the FOSS gurus of licensing? I have never seen it mentioned while I was subscribed to legal-talk. I am quite prepared to start writing emails (phrased neutrally) requesting an opinion if these people have not been asked before. If then the opinion is that the new licence has merit, we then need work on how the contract provisions fit in with other legal codes not just those derived from either the Westminster or Napoleonic codes. How long have you been in this discussion, Elizabeth? Quite a while, according to my recollection. Given that you seem to now see a requirement for this kind of validation, I find it strange that you wouldn't have sought it at a much earlier stage than this. Normally abject opposition should come after, not before, neutral appraisal of the proposal, shouldn't it? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 15 April 2011 23:21, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: At what point was the entire (active) OSM community asked if they wanted to relicense their data? If they haven't (I certainly wasn't) then when will we? Is this accept/decline that vote? If so, how do I vote no? How do I vote yes but withhold the option of changing my vote when I see the final license? Well, I'm not trolling either, though this probably isn't the answer you were looking for. Still, it's one way of breaking what seems to be a deadlock: Ian, could I ask you to consider agreeing to license your work to date under ODbL? And in addition, to agree to the new CTs, which seem to me to contain important provisions to avoid orphaning our map data if for some reason we are not around to agree to some later legally significant point that a significant majority of the Community active at that time agrees is necessary? So now that you've been asked, the discussion can turn in the IMHO more productive direction of dealing with actual concerns with the change rather than the protocol. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for asking me (if this were a vote my answer would be No, but in the interest of moving on from this nonsense and keeping data flowing I'll eventually say Yes), but the important part of my question was everyone else -- the community of OpenStreetMap. When were *they* asked? FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel consulted about the change. On the other, plenty of people have complained throughout the process about being offered a half-baked solution. Turns out this stuff is complicated. I'm not the first person to say so on the lists, but it seems to bear repeating - the process has not been a secret, the key details of what problem the change attempts to solve have been documented for a long time now and absolutely anybody with a thirst for knowledge on the matter has had many resources at his or her disposal. When I first became aware of the documentation and read it, I certainly felt consulted, and very soon after it became possible to indicate approval, it was clear to me both that the promoters of the change wished me to do so (at that point I felt asked) and how I might go about doing so. As of Sunday, we are now aware, those not yet to vote yes are to asked to vote yes or no. It remains unclear whether an OSMF message is to be a part of this asking - I would tend to feel this would be a good thing, as some mappers just wanna have fun^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H map, and may well not know about this process at all. Many mappers have had concerns and actual difficulties with some of the consequences of the changes. Some of them have engaged positively in the process to try and find an accommodation. Many... quite frankly haven't. I started mapping with OSM in good faith and expecting good faith from other mappers. So far I have only been disappointed by those mappers who willfully vandalised the map or undermined it through tainted data. This licence change now gives every mapper the means of undermining the map through withholding of their own data, once freely given and now very likely a foundation of data created by other mappers, also in good faith. I understand that many mappers feel they _can't_ relicense some or all of their work, and that's a really tough situation. But mappers who just plain _won't_ agree to leave their data in, even though there is no legal obstacle to it, should strongly consider whether they are being true to the community they claim to be a part of. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel Phase 3 beginnt am Sonntag
2011/4/15 Rainer Knaepper sm...@gmx.de: Was will Dermot beweisen? Beweisen nichts, sondern nur verstehen. Es scheinte und scheint mir noch, dass du bei der ersten OSM Anmeldung auf gleicher Art eine Liste auf Englisch von verbindlichen Bedingungen zur Teilnahme zugestimmt hast. Und dann, wie auch heute, hättest du die Option gehabt, dich von inoffiziellen aber glaubwürdigen Communityquellen in der Muttersprache zu informieren. Deine Aussage finde ich gerade so überraschend weil es seit lange deutsche Übersetzungen gibt - jeder, der danach gesucht hat hätte mit Sicherheit was gefunden, oder? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 14 April 2011 18:12, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Nathan Edgars II wrote: What happens in the future if I decline? Can I accept at a later date? Since there has been no response to this, I plan to: *hold off on accepting or declining with my NE2 account *create a new account, publicly linked to NE2, for contributions under the CT This seems to be the only way to continue to 'vote' against the change. Let me start by answering your question - declining now does allow you to accept at a later date. But your suggested course of action has me confused - you are happy to make contributions under the new CT and intend to do so, but yet you wish to vote against the change. Your choice, I supposed. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 14 April 2011 19:05, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you. Do you speak for the OSMF? No - hence my silence and no doubt that of others when you asked before. But I have been following the licence issue attentively and have seen this question answered more than once from official sources. I oppose the change, primarily because of the damage it will cause. I've already seen what removing small amounts of data will do (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-March/057318.html) and do not wish to see more of this. On the other hand, I wish to continue to contribute, and, because I am happy to contribute into the public domain, I cannot, under my personal ethics, decline. I applaud your ethics, but it seems to me that your chosen course of action, unless you do intend to accept at a later stage for your existing account, will contribute more to the damage you fear than to the smooth transition many of us would like to see. Witholding one's data from the new licence, especially if there is no objection to that licence, is not a very sane way to avoid damage to the map. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 14 April 2011 19:12, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: I see it logical. Wanting to contribute to the currently biggest, most fun free map, with most impact on the industry and a name you got used to, you soon will have no choice other than to do so under then new CT because that free map is ruled by people in favor of it. Yet the accept/decline buttons are your first chance to vote or express what you think about the switch if you want to have some say in this (quite important for the project) decision. So use this chance, vote with your data as someone said at the beginning of the process. This is also the only way left to find out what the mappers think. Ah, but is it _your_ data? Or might you have built some of it on top of mine? Or perhaps I built in good faith on a foundation you created. So by all means state your opinion and by all means share your opinions with other mappers. But if, once a consensus is clear, The Community comes out in favour of the change, many of us will think very ill of people who still choose to pull out the bottom brick from the wall and go home. Because that's not the kind of community I've had the privilege to belong to. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 14 April 2011 23:38, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: Its not terribly confusing from here. What he is suggesting, is creating an account to contribute 'clean' data, which he is prepared to agree to OSMF's terms about. What he is voting against, is OSMF using previously created data which is not practical to split the 'clean' from 'tainted'. He didn't say that - there is enough FUD in this discussion without inventing more. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 15 April 2011 00:08, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: So, please feel free to tell me where I invented anything? Right here: What he is voting against, is OSMF using previously created data which is not practical to split the 'clean' from 'tainted'. As quoted in my earlier mail. Nothing in Nathan's mails suggested that practicalities or tainted data have any bearing on his decision. That is what you have invented - it might indeed be _your_ reason for voting against, and I would certainly have to respect that. But please stick to facts, this process is complicated enough as it is. Indeed, the last comment on this page indicates that tainted data are certainly not a feature of Nathan's contributions: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2 Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel Phase 3 beginnt am Sonntag
2011/4/14 Rainer Knaepper sm...@gmx.de: Frederik Ramm schrieb: http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms Knuffig ist, daß ich einer rechtsverbindlichen Vereinbarung zustimmen soll, die ich nicht verstehe. War das nicht bei der ersten Anmeldung genau so? Oder waren die Bedingungen dann verständlicher? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available? (was: OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement)
On 13 April 2011 15:15, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: What's the plan for deciding whether and when to cut off CC-BY-SA distribution? Would it require a 2/3 vote of contributors? I guess the problem with continuing to allow CC distribution of the data is that that would leave OSM unprotected in those jurisdictions where CC isn't recognised for map data. Given that this is a main goal of the change, it seems that removing CC as a possible licence (for the data at least - it might be that it would be OK for map tiles) can't be avoided. That said, under the new CT, the door seems to remain open to a reintroduction of a (later version, improved?) CC licence if such were deemed to be Free and Open and subject to the 2/3 mandate. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OSM is dying (was Re: We Need to Stop Google's Exploitation of Open Communities)
On 11 April 2011 16:41, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: When Google turns Google MapMaker on in the US and Europe*, it will become much harder to recruit new mappers to our community (that is already quite small). Being passive about this issue means that OSM and its more-open data will eventually be drowned out by Google's much greater marketing might. (With apologies to the wonderful Slashdot troll team...) It is official; Netcraft now confirms: OSM is dying One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered OSM community when IDC confirmed that OSM market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all online maps. Coming close on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that OSM has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. OSM is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Neogeographer's comprehensive route-finding test. You don't need to be Gulliver to predict OSM's future. The hand writing is on the wall: OSM faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for OSM because OSM is dying. Things are looking very bad for OSM. As many of us are already aware, OSM continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. Mapping parties are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of participants to the shinier Google (™) mapping parties complete with jelly beans and free massages. The sudden and unpleasant departure of long time OSM contributor Fake SteveC only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: OSM is dying. Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers. OSM founder SteveC states that there are over 500k mappers in OSM. How many active mappers are there? Let's see. The number of anti-ODbL posts on the OSM mailing lists versus those praising the OSMF in the strongest possible terms is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 12.33 active mappers. Attendance at a recent Google Mapping Party, cunningly disguised as a flash mob, was estimated to contain 100k disgruntled former OSM mappers. A recent article put indignant Germans who argue instead of mapping at about 80 percent of total OSM mappers. Therefore there are about -200k OSM contributors (adjusting for those who are demanding their data back). This is consistent with the number of incidents of drunk barge owners tripping over ropes and landing in the canal. Due to the Cyprus edit war, abysmal sales and so on, the Java Applet went out of business and was taken over by Pot Latch which makes another troubled map. Now API 0.5 is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house. All major surveys show that OSM has steadily declined in market share. OSM is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If OSM is to survive at all it will be among bearded hippies too behind the times to have discovered Waze. OSM continues to decay. Nothing short of a cockeyed miracle could save OSM from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, OSM is dead. -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] Jetzt Live: True Offset
2011/2/19 pos_ei_don pos_ei_...@yahoo.de: Hm... klingt nett! Nur, welchen Versatz zeigt das Plugin an, wenn in meiner Gegend schon korrigiert wird, und ich eine erneute Messung mache? Komme ich da mit einem anderen Mapper, der Korrekturdaten eingibt, in die Quere? Rein technisch ist es suboptimal, wenn für einen Bereich mehr als eine Korrektur zur Verfügung steht. True Offset geht zwar damit relativ gut um - die Daten von der kleinste Fläche werden genommen - aber stellt euch volgendes vor: ein Kleindorf befindet sich auf einem Hügel, was dazu führt, dass die Luftbilder eine andere Korrektur benötigen als das ganze Umland, obwohl sie eigentlich alle aus einem Bildsatz stammen. Ein Mapper von der benachbarten Großstadt hat die ganze Fläche markiert und so getaggt, dass die Verschiebung weg ist, außer im Dorf, weil er davon nichts weiß. Sollte ein Dorfbewohner einen True Offset Umriss ums Dorf mappen und taggen, Wird das meistens akzeptabel funktionieren - sollte er immer seine Dorfdaten in den Editor laden, dann die Luftbilder holen, wird sein Editor eine True Offset Abfrage machen, und korrigiert wird. Aber sollte er erstmal in dem Bereich mappen, wo sein Kollege schon eine andere Korrektur eingetragen hat, bekommt er halt diese Korrektur, und damit auch ein bbox for einen weiteren Bereich, wo diese Korrektur auch gilt (weil der Serverlast ohne solches Caching zu hoch wäre). Und die Chancen sind gut, dass sein Dorf innerhalb des bbox befindet, d.h. es wird bei diesem Verfahren keine zweite Abfrage gemacht und die Korrektur bleibt falsch für sein Dorf - wobei man merken soll, dass sie vielleicht doch besser ist, als gar keine. Aus dem Grund empfehlen wir eher, bei solchen Fällen, die Grosse Fläche so zu zerteilen, dass die Kleinere sie nicht überschneidet. Inwiefern das Probleme machen wird wollen wir erstmal testen - für besseren Lösungen sind wir auf jeden Fall offen. In Bereichen, wo es keine so saubere Grenze gibt, mussen sich die Mapper natürlich zusammentun, was eigentlich bei jeder Meinungsverschiedenheit nötig ist - nur in diesem Fall, in Vergleich zu z.B. Tagging, sollte man auf Tatsachen zurückgreifen, und schlimmstenfalls eine gemeinsame Messung vornehmen. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] Announcement: Availability of True Offset web service
On 18 February 2011 04:08, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: For imagery sources like NearMap*, which support a time dimension, maybe it's worth including some kind of date field? That would also be helpful for imagery that, even if you can't access older imagery, can at least tell you the date of the current stuff, so you'd know if the offset was out of date. Not impossible to incorporate into the service, but where should the date info come from? The solution doesn't know or care about imagery tiles, which would be the obvious source. Relying on a mapper to notice that the imagery doesn't seem to line up seems to defeat the purpose of the whole thing a bit, in my eyes. I respectfully disagree. Today's best solution to the problem requires every mapper to: * Realise that the default calibration may be incorrect * Adjust for the error per mapping session, either manually or through storing and subsequently reusing a bookmark * Notice whether changes in the base imagery render the assumed correction factor incorrect and to then recalibrate where that occurs. True offset requires no more than one mapper to do those things. The chances of any given mapping session producing offset data are thereby reduced. The only dangerous situation I can foresee is where an offset in a particular area is corrected once, subsequently corrected in the base imagery _but_ not one single active mapper in the area notices the fix and therefore the True Offset correction endures, _and_ where future mappers blindly believe the imagery even though offset from other data mapped in the area. My assumption is that this is unlikely in real life. For a correction to have been stored in the first place requires that an active mapper of clue has been interested in the area and has traced from that same imagery. It is unlikely that he will abandon the area, but if he does, it will likely have reached a level of completeness sufficient to cause a mapper of less clue to assume that the imagery is right and the existing data wrong. But again, even _if_ this were to happen, I think OSM will still experience a net rise in the accuracy of imagery traced. And yes, it is worse, because mappers could end up applying a false offset. and not knowing. They already do that several hundred times a day. It will happen less if we have a solution like True Offset in the mix. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announcement: Availability of True Offset web service
On 18 February 2011 23:35, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, I think you're probably right. One thing that would mitigate the situation I was talking about would be if OSM editors display the current offset somewhere on the screen. Maybe a little red arrow pointing in the appropriate direction (and perhaps length indicating the distance of the offset). Hmm, not bad - that is, at any stage that the imagery has been moved from its default position, there would be a subtle but visible indicator? That fits in pretty well with our underlying goals with True Offset, to make sure no mapper traces without realising that alignment is sometimes wrong, must be considered and can be changed. That suggestion, of course, would need to be taken up by the authors of each editor. Cheers, Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] Jetzt Live: True Offset
2011/2/18 Chris66 chris66...@gmx.de: mir ist noch nicht klar, wie man seine lokalen Korrekturdaten irgendwo eingeben/Melden kann ? Alles hier: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/True_Offset_Process#Recording_known_offsets Kurze Version: In OSM einen Umriss zeichnen, von einem Bereich wo die Korrekturdaten gelten sollen. Den Umriss dann so taggen: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/86370040 Die Werte entnimmt man am besten von eimen JOSM Imagery Bookmark. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Jetzt Live: True Offset
2011/2/18 Chris66 chris66...@gmx.de: Ah, ok, und darf man die Tags einfach bestehenden Polygonen (zB. Admin Level 8 Boundaries) anhängen? Das würde ich eher nicht machen, aus verschiedenen Gründen... Die Gefahr ist gross, dass solche Polygonen überarbeitet werden, in Relationen umgewandelt werden usw. Es passiert eh relative selten, dass eine Bing-Fläche mit einer behördlichen Grenz übereinstimmt. Grundsätzlich ist es gedacht, dass man einen neuen Umriss macht, der kann auch später in eine externe Datenbank ausgelagert werden, sofern praktisch - ist gibt sehr viele Mapper die solche Daten in OSM gar nicht sehen wollen, und da will ich auch neutral bleiben. Wichtige tags sind: calibration = area data_provider = bing (oder yahoo oder usw.) zoom_min = nn area_name = was sinnvolles Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Jetzt Live: True Offset
2011/2/18 Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de: Kann man damit auch lösen, dass Mapper vom falschen / schlechteren Luftbild abmalen? Sprich: Wenn es lokal ein besser aufgelösteres und aktuelleres Luftbild als Bing gibt, kann man dann ein Polygon definiert mit der Botschaft Nimm lieber mich! und wenn ja wie? Oder vielleicht ist ja stellenweise yahoo besser als bing etc. Die Idee ist nicht schlecht. Eine Erweiterung wäre schon denkbar - zum Beispiel, ein Tag wie: better_source=yahoo Da könnte ein Editor zwar die Korrektur nehmen, aber zusätzlich einen Hinweis auf die bessere Quelle zeigen. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[OSM-talk] Announcement: Availability of True Offset web service
Hi, Many of you will have followed earlier discussions of the True Offset process, intended to solve as simply as possible the problem of imagery offsets by enabling editors to, by default, calibrate background imagery based on offset data managed by mappers. In this way, inexperienced mappers or people tracing without local knowledge can avoid polluting the map with badly offset contributions. The service is now live and seems to be working well on the dev server and I have updated the wiki page to reflect this and some late changes: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/True_Offset_Process The highlights: * You can try it at: http://mackerski.dev.openstreetmap.org/offset/1.0/offset/bing/20/53.26/-6.67 * I have re-documented the meanings of the offset northing and easting to ensure compatibility in units and sign with the offset bookmarks already exposed by the JOSM Imagery module. * This restatement of meaning may lead to a sign shift for one or other of the values. So if you have previously entered offset data for consumption by True Offset, please check that it is still correct. This goes doubly for anybody who recorded offsets based on the earliest proposals which used metres instead of degrees. * Offset Database updates are currently manual (this will change). So for now, if you add or change some offset data, please let me know so I can cause it to take effect. * Most of my test offset data has been for Bing imagery in Ireland. Until the next database update, some of these may be inaccurate. My appeal: If you are a developer of one of the OSM editors that supports background imagery layers, PLEASE build support for True Offset, and please have your editors either apply the corrections silently by default or at the very least prompt users that a known offset exists and offer to use it. While I hope True Offset is useful to experienced mappers who already calibrate their imagery, its real purpose is to avoid the destructive effect of tracing mappers who don't even realise they can or should calibrate. Happy Mapping! Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announcement: Availability of True Offset web service
On 18 February 2011 00:08, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: Quick question; how does this cope with updates to aerial/satellite imagery that may change the offset for a given service at a given location? In exactly the same way as, say, the Offset bookmarks offered by JOSM - it doesn't, and the mapper needs to notice that the imagery doesn't seem to line up any more. As such, as a baseline, using True Offset is at worst no worse than other options for managing your calibration. Though in fact, because the correction factors are maintained by the crowd, the story is actually likely to be more positive than that. With private offset bookmarks on JOSM, each individual mapper needs to notice the change and recalibrate, hopefully doing an accurate job. With True Offset, the first mapper to notice the change can update the stored offset. Others may fine-tune it. Everybody else just keeps mapping without noticing any change. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-de] Jetzt Live: True Offset
Hi, einige von euch wissen, dass ich den True Offset Webservice entwickelt habe. True Offset soll verhindern, dass Mapper von unkalibrierten Luftbildern abmalen. Gedacht ist, dass ein Editor, beim Laden von Luftbildern, nach notwendigen Korrekturen abfragen kann: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/True_Offset_Process (auf Englisch, sorry) Die Highlights: * Probiert es doch aus!: http://mackerski.dev.openstreetmap.org/offset/1.0/offset/bing/20/53.26/-6.67 * Die Korrekturzahlen habe ich neu dokumentiert, damit sie mit denen vom JOSM-Imagerymodul besser übereinstimmen. * Also kann es passieren, dass schon erfasste Korrekturen nun nicht mehr stimmen. Wer schon Korrekturdaten eingegeben hat, bitten nachprüfen. * Aktualisieren der Korrekturdatenbank erfolgt noch manuell (wird sich ändern). Bei Änderungen, bitte Bescheidgeben, damit ich das nötige machen kann. * Die meisten Testdaten beziehen sich auf Bing-Bildern in Irland und sind teilweise noch fehlerhaft. Meine Bitte: An allen Entwicklern von OSM Editoren die Luftbilder einblenden, BITTE True Offset unterstützen, und bitte die Korrekturen entweder automatisch holen oder zumindest die User darauf aufmerksam machen. Freilich ist True Offset auch für die Mapper vorteilhaft sein kann, die jetzt schon immer vor dem Abmalen kalibrieren. Viel mehr geht es aber darum zu verhindern, dass ahnungslose Mapper unnötig schlechte Daten erzeugen. Servus, Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Jetzt Live: True Offset
2011/2/18 Johann H. Addicks addi...@gmx.net: Warum dieser Aufwand? Weil die Luftbilder allesamt Schrägbild-Aufnahmen sind, die gegen ein Höhenmodell entzerrt werden. [...] Alles schön und gut. In vielen Punkten kann man das alles besser machen. Aber solange die Bing Luftbilder in manchen Bereichen um 30m verschoben sind, ist mir der Spatz in der Hand viel lieber. Und sollte eine bessere Lösung erscheinen, super. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On 10 February 2011 14:01, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Which, by the way, I denied. Tracing aerials does not involve copying data. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. Since I began mapping on OSM (which was a while ago) the considered opinion of the project was Don't trace Google imagery. We're not sure it's legal, they're convinced it isn't and it's certainly a breach of their terms of use. So don't do it. Seriously. Bad things will happen, and it will be your fault You failed to heed this. Bad things happened. It's _your_ stupid fault. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On 10 February 2011 14:24, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: It definitely doesn't. There's no maybe about it. You seem to have missed my substantive point, so let me restate it: You deliberately did something we as a community have chosen not to do. You willfully put the work of others in jeopardy. This is YOUR fault. You are the wrong-doer here. Your selfishness has caused a lot of work for other people. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
On 11 February 2011 00:00, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: In order to see if an area is super high (z20) I have to be actually zoomed in on that area to zoom level 20. Therefore I can tell if it is hi-res from the Bing imagery. I'm really failing to see the purpose of this product. I think the theory is that if you have already done the hard work of zooming in, the next guy won't have to because he'll see the coloured tiles at that location. So it's quite a valid bit of crowd-sourcing, if we accept that the end result is worth having. The end result being that the whole world appears in _some_ colour, even at very low zoom. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage - more levels
On 11 February 2011 00:27, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: At what zoom level to I have to be at to view an already zoomed in area to view dark blue (z20)? You could be fairly zoomed out if there are enough adjacent z20 tiles turned dark blue. But yes, it all needs a lot of eyes to be zooming into a lot of tiles. Basically a group effort to cover the whole earth down to a fine level of detail. It'll never work... Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On 11 February 2011 01:11, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Actually, let me correct that. A tiny fraction (less than 0.001%) of the OSM community has told me that by deleting contributions which have absolutely nothing to do with my tracing from Google. What percentage has told you that that what you were doing was OK? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On 11 February 2011 01:34, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Oh my God. How many times do I have to say this? NO OBJECTS WERE INVOLVED. By now this is all at risk of getting a little like a soap opera, and like with soaps, there is a risk that people coming in at the middle of a storyline will fail to grasp the nuances of the situation. So for their benefit... PREVIOUSLY ON DYNASTY: * Anthony brags about tracing from Google (did he mean imagery or maps? Oooh! Cliffhanger) * Many within the project appalled - Anthony, how could you, everybody knows it's not allowed * The Man demands to know what objects are tainted. Anthony insists none are. * The Man deletes all of Anthony's contribution and banishes him to the wilderness. Surely only waking up and realising it's a bad dream will save him now. * Various mappers chastise Anthony for having brought this misfortune not only down on his own head, but on those of others. Demand to know why he didn't just answer The Man's question. * Anthony insists that yes, he did trace from Google and that no, none of his contributions represent prohibited content in OSM. * Anthony goes on to have in his possession simultaneously tea and no tea, thereby solving one of the stickier puzzle in the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy text adventure game[1]. Go Anthony! Stay tuned to today's rivetting episode of Dynasty! Dermot [1] The key to this conundrum, incidentally, was to go rummaging inside your own brain, find and remove your common sense, which would otherwise block any attempt at justifying such an obvious paradox -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On 11 February 2011 02:05, nicholas.g.lawre...@tmr.qld.gov.au wrote: Was there ever a sequel to that text adventure? It kind of ended on a cliff-hanger ... Well there was a crucial bit where the protagonist left the planet... Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage
On 11 February 2011 02:09, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: I think the more interesting question is, if I had demanded that all my contributions to OSM be removed, would they have been removed? What basis would you have had for such a demand? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] magical road detector to play with
On Thursday, 3 February 2011, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2011/02/03/automatically-detect-roads-with-bing-aerial-imagery.aspx Ooh! Just what I've always wanted. [goes off to play with it] Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Announcement: Corine 2006 Land Cover Import for Republic of Ireland
After some difficulties with a rogue polygon - a pasture area covering most of Ireland - we now have some working slippy maps linked from the wiki page linked in my first mail. The most interesting one is the preview of what the main map would look like post-import. Note that that includes the effect of Corine landuse polygons overlapping with ones we already have: http://maps.openstreetmap.ie/corineimport.html?zoom=8lat=53.41122lon=-8.23423layers=BT Comments welcome, Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik maxing CPU with Corine data set
Right - it has taken longer than I expected, but I have an update. We have solved the problem, which was, indeed, down to at least one over-large polygon. Stripping out the sea polygons didn't fix things, so we looked for the largest polygon and found a pasture-cover polygon covering most of the country. We removed it and can now import in 10 minutes (about as long as the country extract takes) and render tiles quickly. The results can now be seen on a slippy map: http://maps.openstreetmap.ie/corineimport.html?zoom=12lat=53.00344lon=-6.35329layers=000BFTTFT We don't yet have a single layer version representative of what we would have post-import, but will probably add one. The missing pasture does leave rather a hole in the country, so we are looking for nice ways to chop up that polygon, probably at shapefile level. But that's a much nicer problem to have. Sincere thanks to all who helped us track this down. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Mapnik maxing CPU with Corine data set
Hi folks, I need help with a Mapnik problem we're having in the context of a Corine Import we're preparing in Ireland: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland_Corine_2006_Import An outline of the problem is at the bottom of the page, but here are the key details: * We have http://maps.openstreetmap.ie/ serving a normal slippy map with some laying clevers of our own to do with language switching and a few other things. This has the usual mod_tile and it can render normal map tiles on the fly as you would expect. * We wanted to sanity check our import file by seeing it render, so we rolled a new mapnik config and imported our import file into a new corine DB (that was _very_ slow, more than 2 hours where the current country extract takes 10 minutes) * Trying to use generate_image.py pegs the CPU for 15 minutes or so, then delivers a good image. This is so even for tiny bboxes. * Switching the broken mapnik config to point to our normal ireland.osm-populated database fixes the problem and images are generated instantly. Right now we don't know whether to suspect our data, our stylesheet (the normal OSM one), our server capacity (decent, but nothing special) or Mapnik. Any tips? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik maxing CPU with Corine data set
On 17 January 2011 19:19, Lennard l...@xs4all.nl wrote: If you have some polygons that span half the country, that could be slowing down mapnik. If that's the case, and you import this as-is, you'd likely affect everyone else rendering Ireland in their mapnik renderer stacks. Assuming it's our data to blame (which seems most likely) then yes, it would be bad to have this stuff in the main OSM database. So far this is just test data on a test PostGIS. No polygons of the scale you suggest ought to be _getting rendered_. I emphasise this because there are such polygons in the data set and they even have OSM tagging (invented). Corine has an ocean layer, which we kept in the conversion in case it might be useful for coastlines or suchlike. And here I begin to have a doubt - the sea polygons are tagged natural=water_sea. My assumption was that these would be ignored in rendering because no such tag is understood. But as it's a natural tag, won't it actually be considered a polygon and stored in the DB anyway? If so, it must be the culprit. What do you think? Also, I presume your indexes are good? The DB is freshly imported with osm2pgsql and vacuum analysed. This is the same approach as on the other Database used on this Mapnik instance and it works fine, so I think that's unlikely to be the problem. But I'm about to create a version of the data file without the natural=water_sea polygons. They seem unlikely to be useful anyway, and they are of the kind of size you mention... Thanks for the pointers, I'll report back. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] Mapper für Interviews (Do, ~15 Uhr ) gesucht, Erfassung und Lösung von Adressprobl emen
Hallo Alex, Kurz weil vom iPhone geschickt, würde aber gerne mitmachen. Skype: dermotm Dermot On Wednesday, 12 January 2011, Alexander Steinhart / DThinking dthinking.a...@nder.info wrote: Liebe OSM Community, für einen Design-Thinking Workshop in Rumänien zur “Weiterentwicklung eines Tools zur Erhöhung der Adressenqualität und -quantität in OSM” suchen wir spontan für morgen Mittag 4-8 interessierte Mapper die sich über Skype zum Thema Adresserfassung interviewen lassen. Ziel des Workshops ist Tools wie z.B. MapDust so weiter zu entwickeln, dass einfach und gut Adressprobleme erfasst und gelöst werden können. Dazu brauchen wir eure Gedanken, Ideen und Erfahrungen. Die Interviews werden vom skobbler-MapDust-Team direkt durchgeführt. Zeitraum 14.30 - 15.30 Uhr (Berlin time), Donnerstag 13. Januar Dauer etwa 20 Minuten (in Englisch) Wenn ihr Lust und Zeit habt, dann meldet euch bitte einfach bis 14 Uhr via Mail (bitte mit eurem Skype-Namen). Schon jetzt einmal einen herzlichen Dank. Lieben Gruß, alex (für das Team) ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On 24 December 2010 02:10, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: That service looks very useful if it were ever implemented. I'd note that it probably needs to know about the date of the imagery too. Can't say I'm thrilled about the idea of storing the offset data in the main OSM db though. The service is written and half-deployed, but requires editor support to make it really useful. If a better home can be found for the offset data that will be no problem, since the service uses its own PostGIS database in any case. Consider, though, that the OSM database is a very simple place for mappers to apply offset data as they become aware of it. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing maps is misplaced
On 8 December 2010 11:05, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote: you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about. Period. People should be nicer to their parents. Period Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] Versatz in slippymap-Plugin korrigieren
2010/11/30 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: Es gibt sogar schon einen Vorschlag, den Offset je nach Gebiet zentral zu speichern, und dem User automatisch anzubieten, diesen Offset zu verwenden. Implementiert ist das AFAIK noch nicht, d.h. Kommentare sind erwünscht: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/True_Offset_Process Da dieser Vorschlag von mir ist... Die gute Nachricht - Code dafür gibt's schon, nur die Feinheiten fehlen noch. Hoffentlich gibt's in den nächsten Tagen schon was zu sehen. Und das es auf IRC schon erwähnt wurde - dass diese Lösung sehr grob und unraffiniert ist klar. Es handelt sich hier um eine Zwischenlösung die von jedem Editor leicht einzusetzen ist ohne grosse Schlauigkeit einbauen zu müssen. Wer für einen Editor eine bessere Lösung findet soll diese natürlich bevorzugen. Ich will lediglich verhindern, dass zig Mapper am Bing Tag 1 sofort anfangen, 30m daneben abzumalen. Servus, Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Dublin Bus Stops
On 9 September 2010 06:41, l e expectationl...@gmail.com wrote: is there a difference in overlaying this kind of data on osm and importing it Yes - you can overlay anything you want. So if you are, say, the NRA, and have road centre line data, you are free to use OpenLayers to mash them up with the OSM basemap, even if the road data are OSI derived. The OSM database doesn't in this case become tainted with the incompatible licence. What you couldn't do is to derive a batch of map data _from_ OSM, add it to data of your own and present that as a single layer, unless you were prepared to give your derived data back to OSM (the sharealike condition). You don't have to add the data to OSM yourself, but you have to either do so or make it possible for others to do so. But since you always have the option of keeping the OSM-derived stuff in a separate layer anyway, that shouldn't be too limiting in real life. Dermot -- -- Iren sind menschlich ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
