Re: [Diversity-talk] Diversity and Inclusion session - SOTM

[Liz Barry]

great! thanks.
--

+1 336-269-1539 / @lizbarry  / lizbarry.net




On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:53 AM Heather Leson 
wrote:

> HI folks, building on last year's Open Gender Monologues, I am submitting
> a session for SOTM on Diversity and Inclusion. The deadline is today but I
> am hoping we can all co-create the plans.
>
> "The OSM community is global and diverse. Building on last year's Open
> Heroines conversation, we will co-create a space for OSM to talk about how
> to improve diversity and inclusion in our amazing project. All welcome. "
>
>
> How can OSM be more diverse and inclusive? Join us to share your lessons
> and ideas on how we might grow and support a Diversity and Inclusive
> approach in OSM. This is an activity taking place across other 'open'
> communities.
>
> We will ask participants to co-create plans and identify how we might
> incorporate it into small and big activities within the global network.
>
> The format will be co-created with some potential outcomes. The goal is to
> be a conversation with interactive, participatory methods and some small
> group work.
>
> See more about this topic:
> https://blog.mozilla.org/internetcitizen/2019/03/04/open-source-inclusion/
> https://opensourcediversity.org/
> https://github.com/mozilla/diversity
>
> All the best
>
> Heather
>
> Heather Leson
> heatherle...@gmail.com
> Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
> Blog: textontechs.com
> ___
> Diversity-talk mailing list
> Code of Conduct:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
> Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Diversity-talk] "The Post-Meritocracy Manifesto"

[Liz Barry]

Thank you for this.
The concept of meritocracy is referenced in the explanatory documents of
early open source communities (Apache, Mozilla, ...).

--

+1 336-269-1539 / @lizbarry  / lizbarry.net



On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Rory McCann  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Here's an interesting page & project:
>
> https://postmeritocracy.org/
>
> Meritocracy is a founding principle of the open source movement, and
>> the ideal of meritocracy is perpetuated throughout our field in the
>> way people are recruited, hired, retained, promoted, and valued.
>>
>> But meritocracy has consistently shown itself to mainly benefit those
>> with privilege, to the exclusion of underrepresented people in
>> technology. The idea of merit is in fact never clearly defined;
>> rather, it seems to be a form of recognition, an acknowledgement that
>> “this person is valuable insofar as they are like me.”
>>
>> It is time that we as an industry abandon the notion that merit is
>> something that can be measured, can be pursued on equal terms by
>> every individual, and can ever be distributed fairly.
>>
>
> Some good points & values. 
>
> Rory
>
> ___
> Diversity-talk mailing list
> Code of Conduct: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org
> /wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
> Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Diversity-talk] Code of Conduct & Moderation for this list

[Liz Barry]

These links are so great, i am really appreciating this thread! I will be
+1 on whatever CoC the group is into practicing on this listserve, it will
be a big step forward.

The HOT Complaint Handling Process is super clear -- something like this,
and like the reporting structure of OSGeo, is critical for a CoC to come
into practice and not just be another poster on the wall/web. Similarly,
check out the process described at the top of the anonymous reporting form
on publiclab.org/conduct. http://sage.thesharps.us/ is a great reference on
this.

Being based in rights was critical for Public Lab as we set up a CoC to
describe how we want to relate to each other, which goes beyond stopping
harassment as it reframes the internal power dynamics of open source
communities from being like a clubhouse to being like a society. It is
useful to explain with clear, mundane examples how to relate to each other
when introducing sometimes abstract / high minded principles of
responsibility, empathy, dignity, consent.

Adjacently, I will mention the book "Conflict Is Not Abuse" by Sarah
Schulman, which details in a very readable, relatable manner the cost of
*not* figuring out how to hold a caring democratic space amongst each other
-- the extension of external power into our individual and community lives.
I have an inkling that some of the dynamics that she walks through might
apply to some of the misunderstandings about CoCs that we've seen in OSM --
perhaps not enough self-checking, meaning that those whose actions are
sometimes harassing to others actually perceive themselves as victims and
continue to escalate in a misdirected effort against peers to resist the
perceived expansion of external power, when in fact, these escalations only
weaken our community from the inside out. I would happily re-read this book
and book club it with any group of people thinking deeply about open source
community health.

I am really grateful for everyone here, thanks for reading,
Liz

PS, in case you still feel like reading, here's the full sourcing of the
lineage that we pulled into Public Lab's CoC <https://publiclab.org/conduct>
(copied from about halfway down in this post
<https://publiclab.org/notes/Shannon/07-06-2016/public-lab-code-of-conduct>
).

We framed the very top of the document with language from in-person
democratic space holding that emphasizes the combination of respect and
responsibility. The sentiment of "for democracy to work for everybody..."
as practiced by the Highlander Center for grassroots organizing and
movement building in Appalachia / the South is described in the book by
Miles Horton "The Long Haul: an autobiography". Also see
http://highlandercenter.org/. We also drew from the Jemez Principles for
Democratic Organizing <http://www.ejnet.org/ej/jemez.pdf> which was written
in 1996 by forty people of color and European-American representatives who
met in Jemez, New Mexico with an "intention of hammering out common
understandings between participants from different cultures, politics and
organizations." Carla
<https://publiclab.org/profile/thegreencommunitygarden> added the
clarifying points on dignity during interactions.

For the fundamentals, we looked to the Ada Initiative guide to writing
Codes of Conduct (CoCs)
https://adainitiative.org/2014/02/18/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/,
specifically these three points:

   - List specific common behaviors that are not okay
   - Include detailed directions for reporting violations
   - Have a defined and documented complaint handling process

Over that, we added a heavy overlay of JoyConf consent and empathy culture:
https://github.com/maitria/code-of-welcome/blob/master/coc.md
Refinements

   - After Geek Feminism http://geekfeminism.org/about/code-of-conduct/ and
   Django https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/, we described the set of
   spaces that our community is active in and to which the CoC applies
   - From @Mathew <https://publiclab.org/profile/Mathew> suggestion of
   http://stumptownsyndicate.org/about/guiding-principles/ we added a list
   of who the CoC applies to, seeking to level status
   - @Klie <https://publiclab.org/profile/Klie> designed the reporting
   process via anonymous online submission form, and converted the list of
   unwanted behaviors to "Do's and Don'ts":
   https://goo.gl/forms/Ma6lEkZ0TuE7D9FZ2 (updated for 2017)
   - @Kanarinka <https://publiclab.org/profile/Kanarinka> wrote in our
   existing practice of checking in before posting people on social media
   - Potentially unique to Public Lab, we created a dual moderators group
   and facilitation group which cannot entirely be described by an
   online/offline dichotomy. The Addendum clarifies that staff of the
   non-profit are additionally bound by their Employment handbooks which meet
   federal and state laws.
   - Generally, a lot of solid and cla

Re: [Diversity-talk] Diversity in FOSS projects Call

[Liz Barry]

Thank you so much for sharing this!
--

Liz Barry <http://publiclab.org/profile/liz>
director of community development
PublicLab.org / @PublicLab <http://twitter.com/publiclab> / Public Lab
events
<https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=5vots6khle6m6vssualt2of870%40group.calendar.google.com>
/ @lizbarry <https://twitter.com/lizbarry> / +1-336-269-1539
*Love our work? Become a Public Lab Sustaining Member
<http://publiclab.org/donate>*
*today!*



-- Forwarded message --
From: Selene Yang <seleneya...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 12:17 PM
Subject: [Diversity-talk] Diversity in FOSS projects Call
To: OSM Diversity <diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org>


Hi! There's a call going on about diversity in FOSS communities. This
activity is led by Emma Irwin from Mozilla. You can watch the call here:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3aPHZpgAls
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3aPHZpgAls>

-- 
Selene Yang Rappaccioli
Candidata Doctoral en Comunicación
Universidad Nacional de La Plata
@SeleneYang

___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: TBD
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
(_internal_name)s
___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: TBD
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Klong Toey Slums

[Liz Barry]

Hi everyone,
It is inspiring to hear of these projects in Bangkok and Cartagena! <3

Depending on the wind and when the rainy season is about to start in
Bangkok, putting a kite up in the air with a small camera could be the
fastest and most community-engaged / hands-on / accessible / repeatable way
to get aerial imagery:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/learning-news/524907/the-kite-flying-season-in-bangkok

Once you have an aerial photo (by balloon/kite/drone/really long bamboo
pole <https://publiclab.org/wiki/balloon-mapping>:), you can place
(georeference) it in http://mapknitter.org/, then it's one click to loading
that base imagery in any/all of OSM's editors for tracing over.

I copied the grassroots mapping list where there are people to chat with
about DIY aerial imagery for mapping.

Yours,
Liz



--

+1 336-269-1539
@lizbarry <http://twitter.com/lizbarry>


On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 6:23 PM, hyan...@gmail.com <hyan...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Mishari,
>
> I can share from the experience to mapping slums in Cartagena, Colombia
> with a Latinamerican NGO called TECHO (is not an acronym), plus the last
> steps that you list (a, b, c) we started mapping the past using Bing
> imagery (normally have imagery date); then a small aerial filming company 
> donate
> drone flights <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRRHAgxioZw> to map the
> present.  After that we count double of houses that community leader
> beleive that exists; but using filedpapers on the field we get exact number
> of houses an his conditions
> <https://hyances.carto.com/viz/1607cb08-319c-11e5-868c-0e853d047bba/public_map>
> (like presence of tilts to deal with floods).
>
> Pictures from mobiles apps and ballons just serve as helpers, but maybe
> could be some security issues, so we prefer to use papers, all the steps
> always include community members.
>
> This actually is a methodology for mapping slums in connection of every
> house as spatial element with household surveys that give us a clear
> picture of community dimensions, so useful for his inner development.
>
> I'm glad to say that now this slum is on the way to became a formal
> neighborhood and OSM map is the base to achieve that, so mapping slums can
> be a tool for poverty overcome, because as a formal one, they can be part
> of local administration planning services and budget, and of course, with
> all this information (that became in knowledge throught action) they know
> how to proceed in his development path.
>
> I humbly hope this could help with your question; if not feel free to come
> with more,
>
> Humberto Yances
>
>
> 2016-07-14 5:58 GMT-05:00 Mishari Muqbil <mish...@mishari.net>:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I just wanted to feedback from the community for our effort to map the
>> slums in Klong Toey, Bangkok. The size of the area is about 1km x 2 km
>> around here <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/13.7071/100.5763> and
>> I have captured a sequence on Mapillay here
>> <https://www.mapillary.com/map/search/13.711477616336708/100.5742382513609/17>.
>> There are several challenges here including access to internet and English
>> literacy, so I have come up with the following rough plan.
>>
>> 1. Put out a call for volunteers, work with NGOs in the area to find
>> local kids who are interested in putting their community on the map.
>> 2. Train the kids in using ID editor. I think I will limit them to doing
>> specific things i.e. walkways, houses, trees, restaurant, convenience
>> stores with individual kids limited to 2-3 features to avoid confusion then
>> as they get the hang of it, increase their repertoire.
>> 3. Take over a local internet cafe for a day for training and mapping
>> purpose.
>>
>> Now I'm not sure about the rest of the process, you can see from
>> Mapillary that due to the somewhat dense nature of the community, GPS is
>> inaccurate and neither Bing nor Mapbox has enough of a resolution to be
>> meaningful. So I have several (possibly overlapping) ideas.
>>
>> a) hire or borrow a drone to take aerial imagery and upload to
>> openaerialmap and use that as a basemap but I'm not sure how possible it
>> will be to see through the roofs.
>> b) get a team of surveyor students from Prof. Garavig to map out the
>> paths in the community (it's pretty big so I'm not sure how tine consuming
>> it is) then have the community kids fill in the blank.
>> c) use walking papers and have the kids go out, sketching what they see
>> from the rooftop but I feel this may be prone to errors.
>>
>> Does anyone have any experience or tips they can share on how we can
>> achieve this?
>>
>&g

Re: [OSM-talk] Www.openstreetmap.org Down?

[Liz Barry]

maybe something local. no tiles loading for me in Brooklyn, NYC USA

@lizbarry http://twitter.com/lizbarry


On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote:

 The site is up and traffic is at expected levels.

 Does the site not respond at all or a part not load?

 If there were a major outage it would be reported here:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Platform_Status

 Regards
  Grant
  Part of OSM sysadmin team.


 On 14 August 2013 20:33, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote:

 Is it?

 --
 Steve

 __**_
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] comments on new map widget on main page

[Liz Barry]

+1

@lizbarry http://twitter.com/lizbarry


On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Michal Migurski m...@teczno.com wrote:

 On Jul 29, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Lester Caine wrote:

  John Firebaugh wrote:
  On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com
  mailto:g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
 
 I'd like to see two things different; both of these are regressions
 from
 the old way and I think easy to address
 
  I believe that persisting the location and zoom in the URL hash will
 address
  both of these concerns.
 
  Please try it out: http://hash.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/
 
  That works reasonably well for me  I'm used to seeing that sort of
 info from the hover over links on the bottom of the browser, so having it
 stable is probably an improvement.


 +1.

 
 michal migurski- contact info and pgp key:
 sf/cahttp://mike.teczno.com/contact.html





 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)

[Liz Barry]

+1 to Alex's original post -- the new attribution mark is well designed
and versatile for its purposes. The shape of the folded map links the
attribution mark with our logo.

+1 spiffed up copyright page BUT the proportion of image to information
above the fold still needs finetuning, as well as the exact text.


On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:

 John,


 On 04/24/2013 03:56 PM, the Old Topo Depot wrote:

 The proposed mark is very well suited as a replacement.  It is simple,
 minimalistic, and works well on a variety of backgrounds.


 You wrote the above as a +1 to a statement from Mike Cuttler that said

  What should be done first is establishing good visual identity for
 OpenStreetMap, primarily through logo (both long 'OpenStreetMap' and
 short 'OSM' version) with special attention for usability - meaning
 that we should be able to put it everywhere and brand would be
 recognizable.


 Are you therefore saying that what has been designed as an attribution
 mark should be our new logo, or are you saying that there does not have to
 be a likeness between the logo and the attribution mark?

 Bye
 Frederik

 --
 Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09 E008°23'33


 __**_
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk




-- 
@lizbarry http://twitter.com/lizbarry
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)

[Liz Barry]

I quickly put the logo side by side with the attribution mark. I feel it is
clearly of the same family, linked by

   1. the shape of the folded map
   2. the color grey in the magnifying glass handle

i uploaded the JPG to twitter --
https://twitter.com/lizbarry/status/327071379105120257

What do you think?


On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Kathleen Danielson 
kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com wrote:

 I agree wholeheartedly with Mike's points about the current branding
 around the project. However, as there has been generally positive feedback
 for the design of this attribution mark, would it make sense to move
 forward with using the attribution mark (since it addresses an immediate
 problem) and use that as a jumping off point for rebranding OSM? Rebranding
 is no small task, and it seems like it would be a shame to hold off on
 going ahead with what (I'm hearing) most folks think is a good initiative
 so that we can complete a rebranding initiative first.



 On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.orgwrote:

 On 24/04/2013 16:03, Frederik Ramm wrote:

 Are you therefore saying that what has been designed as an attribution
 mark should be our new logo, or are you saying that there does not have to
 be a likeness between the logo and the attribution mark?


 Let me add the following alternative : there has to be a likeness between
 the logo and the attribution mark, in order to maintain the visual
 consistency of the brand - whatever the chosen design.


 __**_
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk




-- 
@lizbarry http://twitter.com/lizbarry
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

[Liz]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:44:13 -0400
Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:

 On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
 
  As we are trying to tell you, AGIMO, who owns the data.gov.au
  domain, does not grant any copyright permissions whatsoever. They
  are a place which consolidates data and makes it available, but the
  actual government department or qango which owns the data has to be
  approached for an alteration in any licence conditions or
  confirmation of licence conditions.
 
 Are you suggesting that data.gov.au aren't aware of their own license
 terms or that they are acting outside of their terms?  What evidence
 to you provide to support your accusations?
 


I draw your attention to the following page
http://data.gov.au/data/how-to-submit-a-dataset/
As you read this page, you will see that the submitting government
authority specifies the licence under which the data is distributed,
not AGIMO (data.gov.au)

Licensing your dataset

13. Choose a license for your dataset from the drop down box.



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

[Liz]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:34:48 +1100
Sam Couter s...@couter.id.au wrote:

 Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
  Dear Talk-au,
  
  The License Working Group have had further communication with
  data.au.gov to confirm their position on permitting data.au.gov data
  in OpenStreetMap.  data.au.gov have reviewed the Australian section
  of the attribution page
  
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets
  
  and responded as follows:
  
   That is terrific – thank you
  
   Regards, data.au.gov Team
  
  We trust that you will find this to be sufficient confirmation that
  it is okay to include data from data.gov.au in OpenStreetMap with
  your CT/ODbL accounts.
 
 There's clearly some communication failure going on here. This isn't
 sufficient confirmation of anything except maybe that somebody at
 data.gov.au thinks something is terrific, probably something on the
 attribution page. There's no mention of licence compatibility or
 special permission grants, and a complete lack of the clear
 statements I'd expect to see. All context has been removed, and the
 phrase That is terrific can't stand alone.
 
 Richard, is it possible to simply forward the communications you have
 from data.gov.au to this list, or otherwise make them publically
 available? That should put the matter to rest one way or another.

The answer from AGIMO (data.gov.au) will actually be irrelevant. 

Problem 1
At the beginning (email one of this thread) Grant said 
You will see two lists.  The first are datasets that are definitely
from data.gov.au. The second is a list we are unsure of and will be
working to contact individual agencies now we have the basic principle
in place.
This is the big misunderstanding. AGIMO only hosts or provides links to
the datasets, all of them. It does not own any, and any request for
permission to use these copyright works other than under the originally
published licence has to come from the copyright holder.
For example, the first one on the first list is
National Parks and Asset Locations (South Australia), 29 October 2009,
CC-BY 2.5 Australia, Department for Environment and Heritage (SA),
originally retrieved from http://data.gov.au/589
If you want to use this under ODbL you have to ask DEH of SA. No use
asking AGIMO, because it is a totally different government and has no
ownership nor jurisdiction over the data.

Can we finally get this straight?

For example
I take a photo. My sister publishes a link to the photo. Asking for
permission to use it from my sister is inappropriate. We are related,
but its not hers to approve any other use.


Problem 2.
There has been a lot written about reusing CC-by under ODbL. The
incompatibility has been with the Contributor Terms. I am not going to
read them again, and I don't care what they are now, but they were the
big sticking point of legality. 

For example
OSMF asks that my sister gives permission for the (same) photo to be
used in OSMF owned dataset. My sister cannot give the permission
because the photo isn't hers.


The Dunny Database is quite specific in its licence on this point -
prohibiting sublicensing absolutely. I have not examined any of the
other individual licences of data on AGIMO's site.


Liz

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

[Liz]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 22:10:36 -0400
Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:

 On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
  On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:19:56 -0400
  Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
 
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets
 
  and responded as follows:
 
   That is terrific – thank you
  
   Regards, data.au.gov Team
 
 
  Looks blatantly fraudulent
 
 No.
 
  it's data.gov.au
 
 Of course it is.  And they got it right in the original.  I flipped au
 and gov in the transcription.  Sorry.
 
  and again, they don't own the data, the data is owned by other
  entities in the name of the Crown
 
 And still, they'd know what they may and may not permit.
 
 ___

Well I suggest that you don't transcribe.
I suggest you use copy and paste as normal lazy people do.
You have omitted the entire context.
Last time you made these claims, we asked for the original to made
available, and we still haven't seen an original.

When I get an email from a bureaucrat, it follows a specific formula
Dear writer
In reply to email of date xxyyzz
Text
End Text
Yours sincerely
Joe Bureaucrat
Head_Of_Writing_Emails
Department of XXYY

As we are trying to tell you, AGIMO, who owns the data.gov.au domain,
does not grant any copyright permissions whatsoever. They are a place
which consolidates data and makes it available, but the actual
government department or qango which owns the data has to be approached
for an alteration in any licence conditions or confirmation of licence
conditions.

As you persist down this path, you will be responsible for putting in
your ODbL-licensed database material which is incompatible, as it is
CC-BY 2.5 licensed data.

Liz

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

[Liz]

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 16:31:38 +1000
Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote:

 The Princes Highway is an historical curiosity, and internal name
 management name assigned by the NSW roads authority, and the name of
 a bunch of roads between Sydney and Adelaide.
 
 It isn't a route any longer.
 
 I'm sure people say they are going to drive the Princes Highway from
 Sydney to Melbourne, but you can never pin it down to actual set of
 roads.  They just mean they are driving down the coast, as opposed to
 the Hume.  It is a useful turn of phrase, but it is a mapping
 anachronism.

So you would be happier if there was a fourth dimension n the data,
that of time?
So that you could mark a route as 'original princes highway'
and another route as 'princes highway 1990' and so on?

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

[Liz]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:20:15 +1000
Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 According to Wikipedia, it should extend all the way from Adelaide to
 Sydney: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_Highway

according to my personal knowledge, it has run between Adelaide and
Sydney via Melbourne for decades.

But the ref number does not equal the Princes Highway
Route 1 is Cairns to Darwin via coast, and was signposted thus in the
60s.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Missing streets in Sydney

[Liz]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 06:32:14 +1000
John Henderson snow...@gmx.com wrote:

 On 26/08/11 13:33, Nick Hocking wrote:
 
  I'd  really like it if all roads that don't have names yet (in OSM)
  were just deleted. Then II'd be much more inclined to drive there
  and collect all the infomation.
 
 Having a quick look around, it looks like one of us needs to put some 
 names onto the map of Cowra:
 
 http://osm.org/go/uNfeplBS-?layers=N
 
 John H
 

A lot of those streets were placed by a particular person whom I know
traced from Google in particular places.
I'll stop that accusation there.
I haven't been able to put many names to streets in Cowra because I
don't travel through there often.
If the streets are traced from sources which shouldn't have been used,
then of course they should be deleted as Nick suggests.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] GPS traces

[Liz]

I have removed all my gps traces from the OSM database.
I have worked primarily from survey.
If anyone wishes to query my edits regarding source, position etc, I am happy 
to answer private emails or email via the OSM site regarding my gps traces.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing

[Liz]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Richard Weait wrote:
 The OSMF are
 OpenStreetMap contributors.
However
OpenStreetMap contributors != OSMF

because OSMF is a subset of contributors
(although being a contributor is not a prerequisite, so this may not be 
completely true).

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing

[Liz]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Richard Weait wrote:
 Every time OSM contributors have been asked, they have supported ODbL
 (or license change before ODbL had a name).  All the way back to SotM
 Manchester. And all the way forward through polls and surveys and more
 SotM conferences.  All the time, collaborative discussions and
 compromise.  Every contributor will make their own choice to proceed
 or not.

I've been asked ONCE.
I formally voted in an OSMF poll
very few were in that poll compared to the thousands not in the poll

and you cannot claim that you have made even an attempt at asking the 
community what they want.

How many people do you really think you have asked? Remember that some will 
have been asked more than once.
Now that is you numerator, now count the denominator.
This might be 'all contributors, ever', or 'contributors active in the last x 
months', or some other denominator, and then honestly decide if you have 
polled enough contributors to provide a fair answer.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions

[Liz]

The complete lack of any arguments left in the brains of the pro-ODbL lobby 
shows in the complete falling apart of any discussion on this list, with 
previously thoughtful people concentrating on personal attacks on others, 
mostly claiming that they are making personal attacks.

So
1. From where does OSMF get the mandate to choose the licence? OSMF mandate is 
to own and run the servers . I got that from the OSMF website.

2. Why is a vote among ~300 people binding on a community of ~300,000 
contributors, of whom ~12,500 are active mappers.

3. Why does the OSMF use the advice of a lawyer who was party to writing the 
ODbL? I see there the biggest conflict of interest in the project. Good legal 
advice is independent, and the price should not involved in determinign 
whether it is good or bad.

4. How much data loss is acceptable to the pro-ODbL lobby?

5. When will the tools be available to see how much data worldwide will be 
removed? - on a world map, not a diagram.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing

[Liz]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
  Please Do Not Feed The
 Trolls.

The person who has chosen the pseudonym Jane Smith has a right to have their 
point heard.
I would not consider this person to be a troll, whether or not I am the person 
recalled as intending to be publicly disruptive.
The troll has no specific interest in the discussion nor its solution.
Just because Jane Smith chooses a pseudonym and phrases reminiscent of the 
extreme left of the 1960s and 70s does not invalidate the point.

This person feels that some of their freedoms are at risk.
Could we consider this point?

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing

[Liz]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote:
  data will not be available under ODbL temporarily. I'm very sure it will
  be re-mapped, probably within less than a year.
 
  
 
  I disagree, especially without access to some of the existing data
  sources, and so far no one is offering to come to australia and map
  the regional and rural areas that every keeps claiming will be so easy
  to get re-mapped...
 
 I was referring to user-mapped data. Imports have to fit the license,
 not the other way around.

At the time of import the data imported fitted the licence.
Perhaps you had better look back at the archives for March 08 and see the 
discussion over the LINZ import.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [talk-au] FYI I removed a whole bunch on nodes where ways existed for the same object.

[Liz]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Andrew Harvey wrote:
 FYI. As per
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#One_feature.2C_one_OSM-ob
 ject I've removed a whole bunch of nodes where the same feature was mapped
 out as a way. I made sure not to loose any tags in the process.
 Changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5634963.
 
 I checked some of the other QA tools at
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quality_Assurance, but of course it
 would be good if there was some central framework for having QA checks
 run centrally on OSM servers. This way one could get updates when say
 a node and closed way are in the same location with the same tags.
 


Welcome to talk-au
I don't subscribe to the newbies list, so have no idea who is preaching what 
on that list.
Thanks for letting us know here what you did, so that we can discuss and 
provide our point of view.
Aussies of course revel in being different
:)

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] FYI I removed a whole bunch on nodes where ways existed for the same object.

[Liz]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, John Smith wrote:
 On 31 August 2010 17:30, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
  On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Ross Scanlon wrote:
  Sarcasm switch firmly on.
  
  :D
 
 Can anyone explain why aussie humour isn't understood in most other
 parts of the world?
I put the question to google, and there are no academic articles in the first 
page.
Instead
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnNews:Australia_says_%22You_just_don%27t_understand_our_humour!%22

-- 
You have a truly strong individuality.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing

[Liz]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Rob Myers wrote:
 If OSM ends up asking governments to reduce people's freedom to use map 
 data in order to restore that freedom, do you really think that would be 
 a good idea?

This is a new concept on the list, that OSM starts negotiations with 
governments over licensing of map data (assuming not owned by government).
Is this a real concern of anyone else?

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons

[Liz]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
 actually I feel that you treated this issue a little negligent. The
 import guidelines stated since 5 March 2008 (quote):
 At the time of writing (spring 2008),


well spring isn't in March (here)
spring starts shortly
so whoever wrote that was a little careless.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence Implementation plan - declines or non-responses

[Liz]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Anthony wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
  First go through all the nodes:  If a node was positioned in a
  particular place by an accepter, keep it, otherwise revert it to the
  last accepter-positioned location.  If no accepter positioned it
  anywhere in the history, delete the node.
  
  Then go through all the ways:  If a way references two or more nodes,
  keep it.  Otherwise, delete it.  Ditto with relations
  s/nodes/elements.
 
 Hmm...then again, maybe this won't work.  There needs to be a
 provision where an accepter taking and moving an entire way doesn't
 cause the entire way to become accepted.  That would reposition all
 the nodes.  But it doesn't change the shape of the way.
 
 Hmm...not sure how to fix that without causing a lot of complications...
 

I was thinking about that, as it would leave an opportunity for bot-control
Could the system look at the history up to May 2010 and then decide?

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Relicensing graphic

[Liz]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010, 80n wrote:
 By way of a rather tongue-in-cheek contrast I thought I'd prepare my own
 graphic showing how many OSM contributors have now agreed to CC-BY-SA.  In
 this graphic the green boxes are those who have agreed and the red boxes
 are those who have not:
 http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g51/80n80n/osm/cc-by-sa.png

Etienne
I cannot see the red at all
Should I get my eyes checked?

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation

[Liz]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
 2. Much more stringent requirements are put on lots of projects
 
 You may have heard of the GNU project. Are you aware that all
 contributors to GNU project must sign over not just license
 agreements, but copyright assignments?
 
 Just this week a new project came along called OpenStack, and all
 contributors must sign a license agreement to the central body.
 
 This is normal and there are very good reasons these organizations do
 what they do.

However, that its the original agreement which all of these contributors 
signed up using.
Other projects have different ways of handling the copyright issues. 

Both schemes are *normal* but changing between them is not.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution

[Liz]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
 Hi,
 
 On 20 August 2010 03:09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
  one million objects is really not
  something we should make a big fuss about. [...]
  After the Haiti earthquake, 1
  million objects were traced by 300 people in two weeks.
 
 So 300 mappers' work is not something we should make a fuss about?
 Hopefully people who will make the switch decision have a different
 opinion.

I find the choice of 300 people quite ironic.
That's about the membership of OSMF, from where comes the pressure to change 
the licence and the CTs.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik rendering of nature reserve is very, very bad

[Liz]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, pavithran wrote:
 Re: NR for natural reserve . IMHO using names for landuses doesn't
 look good . Replacing it with some other art work which converys the
 same meaning would be a better idea.

I agree with your point - as soon as we consider users of non-Latin scripts 
and non-English speaking users it is a poor choice.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] NOTICE: Scheduled Maintenance - Tuesday Morning

[Liz]

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010, Alex S. wrote:
  On 20/08/10 18:00, Martin Fossdal Guttesen wrote:
  what kind of upgrades are beeing performed ?
 
  
 
  We're installing extra memory - doubling what is there now.
 
 And that takes 90 minutes?

Now when it is finished in 30 minutes you'll all be happy
If it takes 91 minutes you will complaining
Of course the time estimate has to be high.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms

[Liz]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, SteveC wrote:
 Maybe it's fine to publish advice as public opinion in Australia. I don't
 know.
If I, as a company director, in Australia, receive legal advice obtained for 
that company, I can share it with the entire Board, and then the Board makes 
the decision on with whom the advice is shared.

The lawyers do not get to decide with whom the advice is shared. 

When assessing legal advice consider
Who asked for it
What questions were actually asked
and what the objectives of obtaining the advice were

for example

Board member AB seeks legal advice on removing Board Chair BC from office
will produce a different result to
Board Chair seeking legal advice on Board member AB's plan to unseat the Chair




___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms

[Liz]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, Grant Slater wrote:
  OSMF is just a legal entity to do things. OSM is the project.
  
  There are people behind. I was a part of the OSM project as soon as I
  contributed and I am not part of OSMF. Those are thus 2 different things.
 
 You access OSMF paid for resources (hardware), domains, OSMF
 negotiated legal agreements (eg: aerial imagery) and OSMF negotiated
 hosting contracts etc and likely in future OSMF paid staff who manage
 things like servers and agreements. So no, they are not 2 different
 things.

I've just been reading up carefully on the OSMF website, and it is written 
there that OSM and OSMF are not the same. 
So should I believe Grant Slater or the published material of OSMF which has 
been unaltered over more than a year?

There is a marked difference between the stated objectives of OSMF and the 
current behaviour of the Board and its subcommittees. 

http://www.osmfoundation.org/
will take you to the OSMF published material

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] I quit

[Liz]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, Chris Hill wrote:
 OK, this stupidity has gone too far.
 
 Now the 'moderator' is arguing with the trolls on a 'moderated' list.
 
 I quit this list.


I see you use Thunderbird. I'm sure you can filter off any correspondents 
whose posts annoy you and not have to leave the list.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] A GPS Trace Visualizer

[Liz]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, Toby Murray wrote:
 I personally tag all my trace uploads with mode of transportation
 (bicycle, car, walking) as well as the make and model of the GPS unit
 (garmin, edge 305) but yeah that probably can't be relied upon too
 much.
I don't break the trace at the point at which I get out of the car or off the 
bike and walk, so I have mixed tracks almost always.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] proposal: rental=*

[Liz]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Peter Wendorff wrote:
 It's the same question in other cases, too:
 - post offices as service of normal shops
 vs. selling office stuff as service of post offices
 - kind of shops inside shops, in Germany e.g. Tchibo deals with that 
 business model a lot; the real supermarkets include pharmacys quite often
 - a butcher inside a supermarket - or a butcher selling spices, cheese 
 etc., too.

It is very common where I travel for shops to be multipurpose.
I understand that we are restricted by the API to a single value
and this is another reason not to put every possible tag under amenity.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Walking Papers integration with OSM.org ?

[Liz]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, Michal Migurski wrote:


big snip
 I've got some work toward this goal on a branch, mostly consisting of
 adding a bbox to the URL in the QR code and increasing the print
 dimensions of the code to account for the consequently higher resolution.
 If the request doesn't return a status=200, a look at the bounds in the
 URL should be enough to do a complete scan.


please take this to a developer list, where I don't have to read it

(just a request on principle, that's all, I am quite capable of ignoring it)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?

[Liz]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Mike Collinson wrote:
 Personal conclusion: The CC-BY-SA license are great on fully creative
 works.  It was never intended to be applied to highly factual data and
 information, and if it is, it is vague and confusing.  If you believe
 strongly in  pandemic virality, then it is a good thing.  If you believe
 that all the chain of Share-Alike and Attribution should be far more
 constrained, then it is just dangerous and should be avoided. Which is why
 most of us want to move away from it as our own license. Our primary goal
 is disseminating data we collect ourselves.


alternate conclusion, 

If you believe, like many data donors, that the attribution must be preserved, 
then a licence which incorporates the viral provisions is necessary.

If you believe that the data should be completely freely available then 
neither ODBL nor CC-by-SA is appropriate, and a CC0 licence should be 
considered.

If your major concern is that improvements to the data should be fed back into 
the common pool of data, then CC-by or CC-by-SA would be suitable (and maybe 
others)

Please leave out very emotive language like dangerous and unproven 
assertions like most of us without defining us. I realise that it was 
headed personal conclusion.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Legal discussion on talk@

[Liz]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, SteveC wrote:
 Please move all legal discussion (except announcements of course) to
 
   http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
 
 or
 
   http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-general
 
 Steve
 
 stevecoast.com
 

I think that is censorship.
Not every person on talk belongs to legal-talk.
If a poster wishes to spread a message more widely to the community, they 
should be quite free to do so.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM-legal-talk] Contributor terms (was : decision removing data:

[Liz]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Mike Collinson wrote:
 At 02:58 PM 12/08/2010, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
 PS: I'd be interested to know if the current CTs have had any legal
 review from OSMF's lawyers...
 
 Yes. Our initial desire was to have something very short, more in-line with
 what is now the summary [1]  but they were re-written professionally ...
 and came back, well, much longer.  We then worked compressing it to the
 minimum and had each small change explicitly reviewed. A number of changes
 were also proposed by kind folks on this list and were subjected to the
 same review.
 
 Mike
 
 [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary
 

the output you get from a lawyer is dependent on the input
so you ask a question and the lawyer answers that question.

we can't decide anything  about the lawyer's contributions unless we know what 
the original questions were.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] Deletion of Australian data

[Liz]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Nick Hocking wrote:
 It seems as though if someone ran a bot to add just one tag to most of the
 streets in (say) Canberra


On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Grant Slater wrote:
 There is also a plan of action if people are found to be making these
 sorts of abusive edits.

I can immediately think of an edit which could fall into the above category, 
and it would not be classified as abusive because it did add additional 
information to the tags.

so why is such an edit assumed to be abusive
when there are clear calls for assuming that people act in good faith?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributor Terms

[Liz]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
  [...]
  That said, the strategy adopted by OSFM is one that is calculated to load
  the bases in favour of enabling them to switch to ODbL eventually.  They
  do not intend to ask the whole community to vote on whether there should
  be a switch.  This is a sign of their attitude towards the community
  they control.
 
 Seriously, you believe in that ?
 What is the plan ? Why such an evil plan ? What is the conspiracy ?
 They want to control the world ?

Think carefully
80n has been on 'the inside' and listened to discussion, been party to 
discussion.
If such a person has made a statement their knowledge of the matter(s) must be 
greater than yours or mine.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation

[Liz]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Simon Ward wrote:
 I see two problems in the threads so far:
 
   * The dissenters keep repeating themselves, with the same arguments
 already discussed to death
 
 This doesn’t help with:
 
   * The dissenters have some real issues that people keep ignoring or
 sidestepping.  (The majority response to Australian concerns that
 I’ve seen is “well that’s you’re own fault” (and yes, I have said
 that previously))

There are a list of questions which have not been answered whether on osmf-
talk or legal-talk or talk.

The complete failure to answer some of these questions is some of the most 
irritating behaviour I find. I can cope with flames and bad behaviour. My 
generation was taught that words will never hurt you.

I am now considering OSMF as an annoying third party which has interspersed 
itself between myself and OSM. I have no original contract of any form between 
myself and OSMF.

I'm not going to repeat my questions to prove they remain unanswered. Some are 
merely requests for factual information and some are requests for information 
on Board decisions. Being a member of OSMF did not assist me to get answers to 
the questions.



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Liz]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
  I think we can easily accept loosing a handful of poisonous people
 because all others will spend less time dealing with them and be more
 productive.
 sure some will continue but then it's definitely time to think about
 blocking them.

This is the sort of post I do find offensive. I presume I'm listed as 
poisonous.
I wrote about censorship, and this is the aim at this point, as I see it.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Liz]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Patrick Kilian wrote:
 But there has been the claim CC-BY-SA works perfectly well. If it
 actually works has to be tested in court. But there are enough lawyers
 that have told us it might very well break that the perfectly part
 of the statement is definitely false. If it worked perfectly well
 noone would have any doubt about the current license. Yet the statement
 surfaces over and over again.

The Fear Uncertainty  Doubt exists equally in the new. 
Quote:  If it actually works has to be tested in court.
It's new, ODbL hasn't been tested in court.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Liz]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Ian Dees wrote:
 One of the tenets mentioned in the video SteveC linked to was to not fuel
 the fire by responding to poisonous posts on mailing lists. As we discuss
 what to do about this sort of distraction, we should keep in mind that the
 whole community bears the responsibility: Don't reply to off-topic
 or inflammatory posts.

'Poison' is opinion.
I regard these efforts as attempted censorship

take this back to legal-talk where it belongs
don't reply to poisonous posts

Discussion needs to be free and widespread.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Liz]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, SteveC wrote:
 Maybe a line saying mailing list posts should follow the topic of the
 list
Fine

Talk= talk

and when you get plenty you are upset?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] The story of one ticket.

[Liz]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Aleksandr Dezhin wrote:
 To begin, I'll actually part of story:
 
 Вefore 2009/10/2, I traveled with this problem on different mailing
 lists, apparently I was wrong and should immediately write to the
 DWG...

We need clear instructions on this in the proposed Code of Conduct.
Aleksandr has obviously tried hard to get this problem resolved from the top 
and over a long period of time no assistance has been received.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Liz]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
 John and Liz in Australia say that CC-BY(-SA) works for geodata in 
 Australia, meaning that facts can be copyrighted. Several Australian 
 judges seem to think otherwise but let's assume it were so.
Misquote
John has pointed out twice that one legal decision is under appeal



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] We should recruit these ladies...

[Liz]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Mike N. wrote:
 to become OSM mappers!
 
 http://www.greenvilleopenmap.info/Mappers00.jpg
 
  (Saw that in a magazine ad)
 

not a joke at all
http://www.toiletmap.gov.au/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

[Liz]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, SteveC wrote:
 Thus, it slows everything down.
 
 Oh and this and other threads going on right now are good examples. It's
 explicitly slowing down and complicating the process, which is probably
 the aim of several of the people here.

I don't think it slows everything down, just some things.
My explicit aim is not to slow down nor complicate the process of licence 
change, but to pull it to a halt.

I have had the same concerns with the licence change over a long period of 
time. 
I signed up to a CC-by-SA project. I did read the terms and check the licence 
over at Creative Commons.
I have contributed to a CC-by-SA project.

Some of my work is incompatible with the proposed licence and contributor 
terms. The only responses I get are along the lines of relicence the source 
or remove the imported data.

So far the technical work involved in remove the imported data or remove 
all my contributions is incomplete. I have decided against relicencing my 
work. Relicencing is breaking faith with the project as I signed up (November 
07). I believe that I am entitled to my choice.

Am I prepared to leave and join a fork which remains CC-by-SA?
Yes I am. I have registered some domain names, intended for regional use, and 
will choose and register some more if I determine there is support which 
extends past our region.

Liz



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Liz]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Ian Dees wrote:
  Most of the cases you are probably familiar with involve simple lists of
  telephone numbers and subscribers.  The moment you add even the slightest
  originality to a collection of facts then it become eligible for
  copyright.
 
 Can you give examples of what you consider originality in the OSM database?

On tagging within the last 24 hours was a discussion on Living Street.

Living Street in some jurisdictions is clearly defined. Marking those 
streets so signed as highway=living_street is noting down a fact.

Deciding that a Shared Zone is highway=living_street is not a fact, it is my 
or some other persons decision, and if the matter is not so clear at all, and 
the decision is made as recommended on the street's features (low speed limit, 
no marked centre line) then it is clearly an original decision.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] Dislike the new wiki skin?

[Liz]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Grant Slater wrote:
 PS: Being from the Southern Hemisphere, when is someone going to make
 a correct side up OSM map?

With the new southern hemisphere fork, except i need to keep all of Brazil in, 
so the northern boundary may be rubbery

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

[Liz]

On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
 I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever 
 again says we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline.

The PGS shoreline has been removed because it isn't as accurate as the 
imported one.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Liz]

On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
 Therefore OSMF need not treat the two groups separately as long as it 
 does not exert the future licence change option for the 30,000 'CT 1.0' 
 signups.

For OSMF not to treat them separately it cannot exert a future licence change 
option at all


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Liz]

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
 I don't see any reason for an outcry other than this might make the 
 coastline less precise for a while. Chances are it is going to be fixed 
 very quickly in areas with Yahoo imagery, and might retain some of the 
 typical blockiness of the PGS import in wilderness areas.

If you knew what you were talking about I might be more patient.
Yahoo imagery in high definition covers an extremely small proportion of 
Australia.
Landsat imagery is better than Yahoo imagery in low definition, and it isn't 
much good either.

check this
http://www.maths.mq.edu.au/numeracy/tutorial/cts1.htm
With PGS you get the least accurate coastline
and we got the more accurate one from Geoscience Australia
http://www.ga.gov.au/education/geoscience-basics/dimensions/coastline-
lengths.jsp

and then further work has gone into this from high resolution aerial 
photography.


But the coastline is not the total of the imported data.
Something like a quarter of the data for the entire continent has attribution 
markers on it (I didn't do the maths, and it may have been closer to one 
third)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Liz]

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Cartinus wrote:
 It doesn't take as many manhours to map a desert as it takes to map
 downtown  Melbourne.
Cartinus
Please don't come up with this sort of nonsense

Imports have increased our number of contributors, not decreased them.
I have mapped, with my partner, a VERY large area of my state. Mostly from 
survey work. That means we got the main roads, streets in towns and some side 
roads, POIs.
Nowhere would I claim it is complete. My survey work has been supplemented by 
imports which have provided some river and some rail and some road alignments.

My work extends from Cobar to Tocumwal with a little overlap at the southern 
end
and between Adelaide and Wollongong
East West the area between Yass and Mildura is mostly my work, with little 
overlap.

My work is not going under ODBL but I am still waiting to hear how my work is 
going to be excluded. 

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] NSW Parish Maps

[Liz]

On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Andrew Harvey wrote:
 I've collated a list of URLs of all the mrsid files (and an
 index) they offer if anyone wanted to mass download them.
that would be handy as the site opens into a popup so if you have popup 
windows blocked (like me) you get a blank page


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

[Liz]

On Sat, 7 Aug 2010, 80n quoted:
  I have been leading a team of digitizers tracing features from aerial
  images. I
  was doing everything I could to minimize the creative or artistic part of
  their
  work. Actually, a quite heavy system of internal and external quality
  control
  was there just to make sure that every worker was producing about the
  same sort
  of bulk data.

I've missed the original email here

This argument is one of the arguments used in the Australian High(?)Court 
decision (over the Yellow Pages directory)

The Yellow Pages had strict criteria of sameness from a list of quality 
control measures.
Another argument was that the owner of the Yellow Pages used contractors to 
perform the work and was not the owner of the data in the same way as if it 
had used employees to complete the work of collecting data for the directory.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Languages, OSM, scripts and all that.

[Liz]

On Sat, 7 Aug 2010, Paul Houle wrote:
 Cultural imperialist or not,  my suspicion that that the roman 
 alphabet is (at least somewhat) understood by educated people who use 
 non-roman alphabets regularly (this is definitely the case in the CJK 
 area.) On the other hand,  my guess is that the ability to read Arabic 
 is as common in, say Korea, as it is in the U.S.


Step one pace to the side and consider again
If I read in Cyrillic script normally I will have been taught some Roman 
script at school. If I leave my home where I use Cyrillic script and go to 
Egypt  to see the Pyramids how will I manage when my only scripts are 
Cyrillic and Roman with a bit of effort?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

[Liz]

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Richard Weait wrote:
 How do you find your fictional September first deadline reasonable?

I consider it a political deadline.
Since 80n has mooted this deadline some time ago, and only now you consider 
it, of course you think it is quite short.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

[Liz]

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
  Prolific editors don't tend to restrict their activity to a single 
  location.  This might be more widespread than anticipated.
 
 Prolific editors also tend not to leave the project in a huff.
No, they continue to make noise before they do.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

[Liz]

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
 Liz,
 
  Since 80n has mooted this deadline some time ago, and only now you
  consider it, of course you think it is quite short.
 
 80n first mentioned this deadline on 14th July, i.e. at the time that
 was six weeks.
 
 It was unclear to me what exactly the deadline was about; he wrote if
 there isn't a clear majority by September 1st then I'd say the
 relicensing has failed but a majority of whom, in what question?
 
 Did anybody - you, 80n, anybody? - think that we'd somehow, in these six
 weeks, be able to email every contributor, and ask them to relicense
 their content, chase up those that don't answer, and consolidate the
 results? - Personally I didn't even think about that deadline becasue it
 seemed quite absurd.
 
 Plus, I don't know if we need any kind of deadline at all.
 
 We can simply decide to re-license, then ask everyone to agree, then
 disallow contributions from people who haven't agreed. All the time, the
 planet is still under CC-BY-SA. Then we evaluate the losses. Say we find
 that 20% of data has not been relicensed. Ok, we start working on
 replacing that data, using the work of people who are ok with ODbL.
 After a while, only 10% of old data is still there. We continue, with
 the planet still under CC-BY-SA. After another while, we have brought
 down the losses to 1%, or 0.1%, or whatever. At that time we throw out
 the rest and publish the planet under ODbL.
 
 Who cares if that time is one year in the future? If it helps to keep
 our losses to a minimum - why not.
 
 As you know we have many people who don't fear the license change, but
 they fear data loss incurred by people not agreeing. In theory, the LWG
 could even set an arbitrary limit (e.g. we promise not to re-license
 the planet until global data loss is less than x%). That should then
 bring all those people on board who fear data loss. Then we just carry
 on as I described above, slowly eliminating the old data by replacing
 it with re-surveyed new data until we achieve what we want.
 
 Just a thought. Not necessarily bright. Might have its problems, might
 also work.
 
 Bye
 Frederik

Frederick i compliment you on actually thinking instead of holding firm in a 
particular viewpoint.
I have not changed my mind, as you still will have changed the licence by 
stealth and creep.
As you realise, in my jurisdiction, CC-by-SA is a better licence than ODbL, as 
it has been well checked and has government use.
In other jurisdictions the matter is different.

A previous idea of yours was different licences for different areas, and this 
has not been fully explored.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] A plea for meaning ful changeset comments

[Liz]

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010, Liz wrote:
 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
  Dear all,
  
  we've had the changeset feature for quite a while now and I believe
  
  it is very helpful in a number of ways.
 
 I thought I'd have a look at the documentation provided for the
 documentation called changeset comment
 
 The documentation I found was at
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:comment
 and
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changesets
 
 and these give a completely different slant on the changeset comment.
 They discuss them being optional and note that anything mandatory annoys
 some mappers who will retaliate with garbage comments.
 
 Thanks to the persons who pointed out changeset comments I know realise
 that I am quite free to write anything or nothing useful.
 Yes I can see their potential use, however would the other persons in this
 thread who are dogmatic about their use read the existing documentation on
 the documentation.
 

The stuff I read changed within hours.
Of course you can read the wiki history to see what it did say at the time  
wrote the email.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] A plea for meaning ful changeset comments

[Liz]

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
 You spend an hour doing edits, then 
 cannot be bothered to spend a minute to think of a good changeset 
 comment.

so how do *you* summarise adding POIs and side streets and putting in maxspeed 
along a hundred km of highway?

because i just put in the name of where i have been, that's all.

and that is glaringly obvious from the bounding box

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*

[Liz]

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010, Cartinus wrote:
 And nobody puts 
 all Key: and Tag: pages in his wiki watchlist.
Use one of the feeds (eg RSS) and it is easy.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] A plea for meaning ful changeset comments

[Liz]

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010, Ed Avis wrote:
 Another way to look at it is that it's your own time you are saving.
 If another mapper has a question about your changes and they have to
 contact you and you need to reply, that uses a lot more time than a quick
 explanation attached to the change when it was uploaded.
 
 Certainly doing so takes a lot less time than posting messages on this
 list.

Mailing people who have just mapped something which I wish to query doesn't 
take long. It may take a couple of weeks to get an answer - other mappers who 
stray into my areas of interest are travelling and may not have internet 
access regularly.
I've not found what I want to know from the changeset comments. I want to know 
when the mapping happened (I may have newer knowledge) or how they actually 
got some information I'd not been able to obtain. The mail process improves 
our teamwork and gives me new hints on information gathering, or allows us to 
politely approach a new mapper and offer advice.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] A plea for meaning ful changeset comments

[Liz]

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010, Ed Avis wrote:
 Liz edodd at billiau.net writes:
 so how do *you* summarise adding POIs and side streets and putting in
 maxspeed along a hundred km of highway?
 
 because i just put in the name of where i have been, that's all.
 
 I'd also mention how I found the data - spotted from the car window as I
 drove past, or painstakingly surveyed on foot?  That can help someone else
 if they need to verify the exact position of some post box to the nearest
 metre, or whatever.
 
 So I would say 'POIs from car window driving through X' or 'mapping trip on
 foot to X'.
 
 (You could instead tag source=survey;survey=foot or something equally
 Byzantine on every single object, but nobody is pedantic enough to do
 that.  So a short note in plain English on the changeset helps.)

So are you all now putting examples on the wiki about changeset comments?
To the humble mapper they would have just arrived. Some editing programmes 
prefill the changeset comment. One (which I have not tried) apparently does 
not allow any comment. 
If freeform text is what you want, could you file bug reports on the editors 
that don't make that obvious?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*

[Liz]

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
 Hi,
 
 Ross Scanlon wrote:
Filter[emergency] = 'police_station'/Filter
 
 What does a police station have to do with emergencies? Are you going to 
 tag the UN headquarters next because they run international disaster
 relief?
 
 Bye
 Frederik

Well here, it's in the portfolio of the Emergency Services Minister, so in New 
South Wales, Australia, its culturally correct.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] A plea for meaning ful changeset comments

[Liz]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
 Dear all,
 
 we've had the changeset feature for quite a while now and I believe 
 it is very helpful in a number of ways.

I thought I'd have a look at the documentation provided for the documentation 
called changeset comment

The documentation I found was at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:comment
and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changesets

and these give a completely different slant on the changeset comment.
They discuss them being optional and note that anything mandatory annoys some 
mappers who will retaliate with garbage comments.

Thanks to the persons who pointed out changeset comments I know realise that I 
am quite free to write anything or nothing useful.
Yes I can see their potential use, however would the other persons in this 
thread who are dogmatic about their use read the existing documentation on the 
documentation. 

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] Showgrounds

[Liz]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010, Craig Feuerherdt wrote:
 Well unless recreation includes purchasing showbags and eating
 fairy floss :)
What about the rides?

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] What makes a good change set comment?

[Liz]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010, Richard Weait wrote:
 What goes in to a good change set comment?  Should it include the
 nature of your edits, the sources used, edit theme, and location?
 What else?
 

The question is good, but from a mapper point of view I don't want to put in 
masses of information. I want it to upload, and be saved before a crisis 
occurs. 
But when I'm trying to sort out what someone was doing, and why I disagree 
with their actions, no changeset comment is ever going to give the information

here is an example correct errors from tagwatch update to nearmap (I know 
whose this is, and I'm not picking on you.
I've been putting town names eg murrumburrah. Of course when you see where 
the edit was, that information isn't really helpful either.

I find changeset comments like the secret police, very invasive, and will be 
unlikely to write anything effusive in the space.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-talk] Image Of The Week proposal

[Liz]

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Adam Killian wrote:
  But the girl is worth image of the week anyhow...
 
  
 
 Could we please not talk about the girl anymore?  This is the kind of
 behavior that can drive women away from open source projects and geekery
 in general.

thanks Adam

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] Direction of flow, rivers and streams

[Liz]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Craig Feuerherdt wrote:
 In some cases it is pretty difficult to
 determine which way streams flow as pointed out by Liz and in these
 instances it may be worth putting a fixme=direction tag onto the stream.

If the flow is in either direction, depending on rainfall, fixme is not going 
to work, unless you speak to the Diety of Your Choice.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] SES Station

[Liz]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, John Smith wrote:
 Does anyone have a suitable picture of a SES station so it can be used
 on the wiki?
 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Emergency
 

probably do.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Sydney-Canberra trip

[Liz]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Nick Hocking wrote:
 I can check Yass on Friday, as the Department of Health and Ageing is
 paying
 me to drive that way again.
 
 Thanks Liz, that'd be great.
 
 I'll bet a virtual $5.00 that there will still be no signposts but maybe
 you can find some corroborating evidence that I've missed.
 For some reason the two down near the river ( maybe-Warrambaluah and
 maybe-riley) have always irked me to be still unamed in OSM.
No signs for the two streets by the river or the street by the Country Energy 
Depot
Maybe I'll have to go into the Council Office, which it seems I haven't mapped 
either
I found new street(s) off Grand Junction Road
took a photo of the clear sign 
and have a clear photo of the dirt on the car side window instead.
A trawl of the real estate sites hasn't provided the street name so I'll try 
Council minutes next

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

[Liz]

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, Kai Krueger wrote:
snip


 
 Enough of preamble, so here again I would like to ask the question again:
 
 What is the criterion of when critical mass is reached and thus data is
 lost (even if it isn't lost as data, it is lost to the project and the
 (editing) community)? Who gets to decide this criterion? What are the
 objectives of those deciding this criterion? What influence does the wider
 community have on setting these criteria? Will at least the full OSMF
 membership have a vote on the question of if it is enough. If yes, what
 would be the formalities of this vote? simple majority? Absolute majority
 of members?
 

snip

 So far the the impressions I got from the members of the licensing group
 vary from anywhere between e.g. 10% data loss is acceptable to as high as
 90% data loss is acceptable (as long as a majority of signed up accounts
 agree), which means as far as I can interpret, there is no where close to
 an agreed process even within the licensing group.


When do we get an answer to this question set?
Almost 3 weeks have gone, and again no straight answers.
It has become quite obvious that some are happy with a very large data loss 
for some areas of the planet. How much data loss will they accept on their own 
sector of the planet?


Liz

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

[Liz]

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, Richard Weait wrote:
 On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
  On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, Kai Krueger wrote:
  So far the the impressions I got from the members of the licensing group
  vary from anywhere between e.g. 10% data loss is acceptable to as high
  as 90% data loss is acceptable (as long as a majority of signed up
  accounts agree), which means as far as I can interpret, there is no
  where close to an agreed process even within the licensing group.
  
  When do we get an answer to this question set?
  Almost 3 weeks have gone, and again no straight answers.
  It has become quite obvious that some are happy with a very large data
  loss for some areas of the planet. How much data loss will they accept
  on their own sector of the planet?
 
 Dear Liz,
 
 you say, It has become quite obvious that some are happy with a very
 large data loss...
 
 I see two problems with this, Liz.  Who are you suggesting is happy?
 
 Also, there will be no data loss.
 
 No data will be lost.  Data that is now CC-By-SA will always be
 CC-By-SA.  Currently published planets, for example are CC-By-SA and
 will stay that way.  No data loss.  The data is still there.  Still
 CC-By-SA.
 
 We'll each choose to allow our data to be promoted to OSM with the
 license upgrade, or we will not.  We'll have that informed choice.  As
 we should.  Do you advocate just taking data and re-licensing it
 without consent, Liz?  I don't.
 
 That informed choice means that some contributors will choose not to
 proceed.  At a minimum those who are unreachable or deceased will not
 be able to assent to the license upgrade.  And those who make the
 informed decision to not proceed will have their wishes honoured as
 well.
 
 It is my preference that each contributor agree with ODbL and CT and
 allow their data to be promoted to the ODbL-licensed future
 OpenStreetMap.  But still you create friction with your fiction.
 
 I see ODbL as a better way forward for OSM.  Not just because it is
 designed for data from the start.  Not just because it is designed in
 the same Attribution, Share Alike spirit that lead to the choice of
 the unfortunately inappropriate CC-By-SA in the first place.  But also
 because ODbL makes improvements over CC-By-SA.
 
 I think that it is a big improvement that data is SA and Produced
 Works may be licensed differently.  One prominent OSM contributor
 provides code and data and much more to OSM, but can't use the very
 data he contributed to OSM in his publication because he must maintain
 copyright in the images.  Why is that?  He's already given the data to
 OSM.  Under ODbL, we fix that.  He can render the data in a way that
 adds value for his readers, and maintain copyright in his publication.
 
 And you restate the question, how much promoted data is enough to
 proceed.  I'll restate the answer.  The same answer that you have had
 before.  It is impossible to know how much will be promoted because
 the contributors have not yet had their say.  And it is impossible to
 know how much will be enough because not all data is equal.  So we
 will have to find out.  All of us.  Together.  Let's see what the
 result is.
 
 In which ways would you like to help?
 

I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions.
Answering with more questions is not particularly helpful.
It strongly suggests that there are no answers.

I'm not doing a standard I don't want ODBL piece, I'm asking for information 
on how this change is going to be implemented.
More questions to follow, on implementation, but the first question should be 
answered first.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [talk-au] Wagga Wagga Airport

[Liz]

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, John Smith wrote:
 It looks like it's half a military airfield and half a commercial
 airport and I've sort of split it up with a couple of relations but
 I'm not entirely sure what I've done accurately describes the
 situation.
 
 Is anyone familiar with Wagga airport able to comment further on the
 situation?
 

There is an area which is a air force base
areas which are general aviation stuff
shared air traffic control and runways

been inside the base twice but about 10 years ago now


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Wineries

[Liz]

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, John Smith wrote:
 I don't think this kind of thing is Aussie specific and it would be
 better off being on it's own web page and/or going through the tagging
 list...
 

I have no idea about similar systems in other countries 
We could ask?

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping a blank spot

[Liz]

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, cam_...@fastmail.fm wrote:
 And it'll show all the ways that were last edited by that user (yourself
 in this case).
 Note that this is a half truth, it doesn't show all the work that's been
 done.
It would be a half truth because some person well known to list readers 
changed highway=residential to
highway=residential maxspeed=50 source=default (or similar)
which has altered a lot of last editors


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Sydney-Canberra trip

[Liz]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, John Smith wrote:
 The only places I've seen signs vandalised are usually in residential
 locations, Hoylen and myself spotted one the other day during the
 mapping party...
Because our Council uses surnames of people to name the roads, others with the 
same surname steal them. My road has no roadsigns at present - all disappeared 
the same night.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping a blank spot

[Liz]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Richard Weait wrote:
 Dear Liz,
 
 You said in a recent post to a list that you had mapped what was once
 a blank spot on the map.
 
 Have you seen the OSM History animations from GeoFabrik?
 http://www.geofabrik.de/gallery/history/index.html
 
 If the area that you mapped is not in a current animation, you might
 ask them to add it.
 

I made an animation a couple of years ago, and probably still have a copy.
What is now needed pictorially is the difference with and without my edits.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

[Liz]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Simon Ward wrote:
 To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although
 it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the
 contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case.

A good example is shrink-wrap licences which are one-sided contracts.
Some countries do not accept that they have any validity, others do.
Where I live a contract has to be agreed to by both parties, is not valid if 
signed under duress and is not transferable without agreement.
So the copy left on a train (popular with UK politicians) has no contract when 
i pick it up and use it, but any copyright it has is preserved.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

[Liz]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
 Sorry, but as far as I remember CT suddenly appeared on the table.
 Before that there was just ODBL.

SteveC has already told me that either my memory was faulty or I wasn't paying 
attention for stating exactly that.


Couldn't be bothered to look for the details, because I'm sure my memory is 
excellent.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

[Liz]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, SteveC wrote:
  From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email
 and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone
 else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on
 with the license.

quash all discussion, move it out of sight, and proceed?



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] Sydney-Canberra trip

[Liz]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Nick Hocking wrote:
 Streets without names are highlighted in red. I only see about 3 for
 Yass, and 1 in Gundaroo.
 
 Thanks Steve.
 
 The last 3 or 4 times I've checked Yass, those 3 have had no street signs
 and there were no other indications of what name they were. Still it's been
 a few months since I drove out to Yass so maybe it's due up again, just in
 case thay decide to signpost the streets nicely.
 I'm pretty sure that when I tagged Gundaroo, that one street also didn;t
 have a sign post.  I know what all these streets should be called but
 untill there is some indication on the street itself, I'm not about to
 infringe copyright by copying them in.
 
 However there is one new street in Bungendore (opposite O'Neil Place)  that
 should have a sign post by now.  I'll check it on Thursday.
 
 Nick
I can check Yass on Friday, as the Department of Health and Ageing is paying 
me to drive that way again.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Sydney-Canberra trip

[Liz]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Nick Hocking wrote:
 I can check Yass on Friday, as the Department of Health and Ageing is
 paying
 me to drive that way again.
 
 Thanks Liz, that'd be great.
 
 I'll bet a virtual $5.00 that there will still be no signposts but maybe
 you can find some corroborating evidence that I've missed.
 For some reason the two down near the river ( maybe-Warrambaluah and
 maybe-riley) have always irked me to be still unamed in OSM.
i'd better check where i am supposed to be checking , then :)


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?

[Liz]

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
 Did imports and Nearmap tracing in Australia start before the 
 relicensing effort, or were you simply not aware of it, or did you not 
 take it seriously?
We started imports a while ago, with the first I recall in 2007.
In 2007 I was not aware of an attempt to relicense OSM, but it was probably 
started by then. What I read on signup was CC-by-SA, and no talk of any future 
change.

Then ODBL was presented, with a fanfare, and later the Contributor Terms 
crept out, more quietly.

At the stage of announcement of ODBL we were already using CC-by-SA data from 
the Australian government. At a later date this data was changed to CC-by, and 
we would be able to retain it under ODBL, but not with the Contributor Terms 
which had by then been published.

Nearmap chose to make their orthophotos available to OSM under the current 
licence, CC-by-SA. The email to a few of us yesterday indicated firmly that 
Share-Alike was very important to NearMap, and that there is no possibility of 
the share alike being removed at a later stage.
So ODBL  contributor terms which preserve share-alike would possibly be 
acceptable.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...

[Liz]

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Grant Slater wrote:
 I used a PD data sets for creating the OSM coastline of Africa. It
 took me 3 months in 2006. I imagine if for example the much quoted
 CC-BY coastline of Australia was removed tomorrow it could be rebuilt
 within a week from new data with community assistance. Yes I am aware
 there are other CC-BY imported datasets too.

This is a vastly simplified view of the world.
If the new data was not superior, why did OSM contributors spend months moving 
from the PGS derived coastline (which also took months to make) to the ABS 
derived coastline?

Why do we want to take better data and then throw it out?

My personal survey mapping efforts extend over a vast geographical area. I'd 
like to be able to show you what the OSM map would look like without this, but 
there aren't any tools yet available. (One mapper is trying to work one out).
My gut feeling is that I have drawn in the main roads, the rivers, the minor 
roads, and the streets over the major part of a piece of planet Earth.

I am not in favour of the licence change, and my work will have to be removed. 
No one yet can sort out exactly how this will be removed - I don't think that 
a minor change by me makes it my work, or vice versa.

There is still time for compromise. Some people are not in favour of any form 
of compromise, and insist that their way is the only way.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?

[Liz]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Simon Ward wrote:
 On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 07:07:19AM +1000, Liz wrote:
  - There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to the data.
  But this is the key need for those who are rather interested in the data
  than the legalese. Please develop the tool first or leave sufficient
  time to let develop such a tool.
 
 I’m still struggling with how to get such statistics without first
 getting an opinion—the catch‐22 I referred to earlier but John seemed to
 brush off without actually thinking about it.  I’m in favour of a
 non‐binding straw poll to all OSM accounts before a “final”
 agree/disagree thing.
 
 Simon
just to make it clear, I'm not the author, I forwarded a mail by 
Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] fact-based vote?

[Liz]

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
 there is no loss of data! It has always been said that the old data will
 remain available under the old license.

If you take somewhere between one third and one quarter of the data for a well 
defined area and lock it up from further edits on OSM

what will those mappers do?

Will they continue with OSM and remap those missing bits
will they give up altogether
or will they fork?


This is not a philosophical question - this is our first estimate on data loss 
for one substantial area of the globe.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Murray River Shared nodes between non-routable objects?

[Liz]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Ross Scanlon wrote:
 Have a look at the Murray River,  the correct state boundary is the
 southern bank but someone has changed parts of the river to be the admin
 boundary so when the map is drawn from the data the river appears in the
 wrong place.  The same happens with roads where the admin boundary is made
 into a highway=* and is actually of to one side or the road has been
 realigned.

The original Murray River trace was either made by swampwallaby using vmap or 
by a few of us tracing from Landsat.
The only surveyed points then would have been bridges and bridge piers.

So the admin boundary, which is definitely not the wet part of the river, is 
more accurate overall

Some can now be seen on Nearmap, and this is enough resolution to split the 
river from the admin boundary.
This might be best done by drawing in riverbanks and making areas of the 
river.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

[Liz]

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote:
 BY-SA does not protect the freedom to use OSM data in Australia. Trying 
 to continue pretending that it does doesn't serve the interests of 
 Australians.

a complete untruth

I see that you are based in UK
so I'm not sure how you obtained such advice.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

[Liz]

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote:
 Has anyone asked the Australian or New Zealand governments how scared 
 they would be of ODbL?

This statement indicates your complete failure to understand political 
process.

I'm not young, I'm white haired actually, and glib remarks like this don't 
contribute to the discussion.

The government has little control over the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy took 
many years to agree to any data release, and we would expect that the process 
of agreeing to another licence by those bureaucrats to be as convoluted as the 
process here. It would also take a minimum of three years, starting from after 
the next election. If we ask now it won't happen because an Australian 
election date is imminent.

I don't know how long it took to get LINZ data released - I'm not sure when 
the process was started.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?

[Liz]

Forwarded from talk because it might miss someone not on both lists

--  Forwarded Message  --

Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more 
inclusive?
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010, 01:13:36
From: Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de
To: t...@openstreetmap.org

 I've split this from the original thread before it derails the one it
 was in any further, and cc'd legal-talk.
[...]
 What could we (you/me/LWG) do to make this more inclusive?

Just some bullet points at first, explanation follows:
- There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to the data. But 
this is the key need for those who are rather interested in the data than the 
legalese. Please develop the tool first or leave sufficient time to let 
develop such a tool.
- Please present a sound and complete technical solution to disentangle the 
data between the relicensed and the not relicensed.
- Be prepared on a successive per-region move to the license. The communities 
in different parts of the world are at different pace.

I don't think that the mappers in general are annoyed about that somebody 
works on legal issues. But don't forget that one of the key features of the 
project is the message: Care for the data and the applications - we promise 
you won't be affected by legal trouble. Thus, I would consider the license as 
a technical detail, like the change from API v0.5 to API v0.6.

Now, if the API change would have damaged an unknown amount of data at unknown 
places, if would have been never done. This is because those responsible for 
the API change were aware that the new API is a mean, not and end. Legal 
things are less logical than technical things, thus everybody would accept 
more collateral damage. But still, I would expect good faith from the LWG: it 
is technical feasible to preview the impact of the license change on the data 
with an appropriate tool. Some suggestions

- Have another read-only mirror that contains only the already relicensed 
data. This would allow to render a map with the ODbL-avaiable. Thus, the data 
loss or not-loss gets easily visible. We only need another server and a list 
of all user-ids that have so far relicensed, and about 4 weeks to make 
everything working.

- Don't use an extra server, but make the relicensing data available via the 
main API. This needs much more brainpower, would save a server and prevents 
the user-id list from being published. I would estimate this takes at least 8 
weeks to develop.

I would volunteer to do option 1 if I get time until the end of the year. 
Maybe somebody else could offer this faster.

Then, the algorithm unbroken chain of history of ODbL users is close to 
nonsense. An easy exploit would be a bot, possible camouflaged by different 
user accounts, that systematically deletes and re-inserts every object. Then, 
all data would have unbroken chain of history but won't have in general. 
Note that massive delete and re-create takes place from time to time, e.g. 
when imports and synced with pre-existing data. I claim more time to first get 
a more elaborate algorithm for the data move decision, so please remove the 
fixed timings from the plan.

And, of course, things like translating messages into foreign languages and 
back, explaining the licensing issues at all to mappers in foreign systems of 
legislation and so on takes time. Indeed much more time than to implement a 
license within the special legal system it was designed for. I don't find the 
issues addressed in the implementation plan at all.

Cheers,

Roland

___
talk mailing list
t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

[Liz]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote:
  Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases,
 
 In the US.
 
  OKFN
  seem to think it might.

After a recent High Court decision, in Australia copyright is not applicable 
to databases. Maps were not included in the Court decision, but a database was 
the subject of the case.
The contract part of ODbL may not have any force either in Australia. That 
would need court hearings to determine.
Against - It is presented as a shrink wrap licence with no opportunity to 
negotiate terms
- The entity representing the data does not 'own' the data and it could 
be argued has no right to be a party to a contract over the data


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

[Liz]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote:
 Given this, the facts are still that a majority voted and a clear 
 majority of the votes were in favour.
False
A majority of *contributors* have not voted, not even a majority of 
contributors who edited anything in the last year.
Offering a vote to those who paid a fee in pounds or euros to belong to a 
particular organisation (OSMF) and ignoring the far larger group who were not 
offered a vote but actually are the legal copyright holders does not make a 
valid poll.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

[Liz]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Sam Larsen wrote:
 I feel imho that the LWG do represent the vast majority of mappers, care
 about  the project, care about all the hard work that we all have put into
 this, have noted all the concerns that have been raised and will not make
 a decision that will cause too much damage to the project.

This statement has as much basis in fact as my belief that neither the OSMF 
nor its LWG have decided on anything except changing the licence.

I have asked for 
(a) the terms of reference of the LWG (not recently, late last year)
and 
(b) some idea of what are the parameters which would give this change the go-
ahead

When these questions cannot be answered, especially (b) then I assume that no 
one knows.

Next question
Is the LWG or the OSMF Board going to make the decision on how many 
contributors/ how much data is needed to agree to change over to change to 
ODbL?
(Is this question part of the LWG terms of reference, or not?)



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-talk] Question on filtering data

[Liz]

I would like to filter OSM data in a large area which is about 600km square 
and find what has been surveyed by a particular mapper.

If data has been added to this later eg a maxspeed tag by another mapper, I do 
not want this data excluded.

I accept that this may involve a series of searches.

Can anyone assist me?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk