Re: [talk-au] Reassurance and Licensing
On 27 April 2011 14:42, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir wrote: >> *sarcasm* But it all doesn't matter anyway, John Smith has degreed >> that all Australian geodata is PD anyway. See: >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2011-April/007829.html > > A lot of people do take this issue seriously as it affects how you > collate data from now on. The works dealt with were TV Program Guides > (IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited ) and Phone > Books (Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty > Ltd) which are not considered as ‘original works’ because the creation > of each publication did not involve ‘independent intellectual effort’ > and/or the exercise of ‘sufficient effort of a literary nature’. The > rigid process used to make a phone book especially did not allow the > individual authors (phone company employees) to be creative ;) Perhaps I should have used all caps for the benefit of Grant, specifically the bit about being computer generated. Until or unless computer AI gets good enough to generate map data on their own this ruling has no bearing over geo data... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Reassurance and Licensing
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Grant Slater wrote: > On 26 April 2011 22:06, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > >> Bluntly, >> CC-by-SA for geodata is fine here. It's good enough for our government, >> it's good enough for us. (Au government now is using CC-by for data). >> We believe in Share-Alike. Actually, we have been brought up to believe >> in share alike and helping each other, and that might be part of the >> reason you reach a brick wall on the change to a complex legal licence. >> > > Wait, why did the Australian government stop using CC-by-SA and move > to CC-by? I actually wasn't aware of this, maybe because CC-by-SA adds > needless restrictions and ambiguity on using the data? Basically yes - having to choose between the different variants was causing alot of confusion to individual authors; see recommendations 6.3-6.7 @ http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/gov20taskforcereport/chapter5.htm > The AU government also provides the data under other specific terms on > request. Mike of LWG has made a formal request. Notes in today's LWG > meeting minutes. I can't see them on http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes yet but I'm afraid that horse has bolted on a Federal level; in February centralized government licencing was shut down as part of implementing the previously mentioned recommendations. You might be able to do so through the Office of Spatial Data Management but they had a 2 year working group on Creative Commons for geodata so I think they're pretty locked in. State governments however subscribe to the Australian Governments Open Access and Licensing (AusGOAL) Framework which is the Creative Commons variants plus a proprietary licence for paid data but they could possibly include ODbL. > I believe in Share-Alike too, I have invested 1000s of hours mapping > South Africa.* Thankfully ODbL is a Attribution and Share-Alike > license, with usage ambiguity removed. > > *sarcasm* But it all doesn't matter anyway, John Smith has degreed > that all Australian geodata is PD anyway. See: > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2011-April/007829.html A lot of people do take this issue seriously as it affects how you collate data from now on. The works dealt with were TV Program Guides (IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited ) and Phone Books (Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd) which are not considered as ‘original works’ because the creation of each publication did not involve ‘independent intellectual effort’ and/or the exercise of ‘sufficient effort of a literary nature’. The rigid process used to make a phone book especially did not allow the individual authors (phone company employees) to be creative ;) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Reassurance and Licensing
On 27/04/11 07:06, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:17:33 +0100 > Grant Slater wrote: > >> Unfortunately there are some very vocal (anonymous) members of the >> Australian community who seem intent on creating a virtual "Us vs >> Them" conflict in the community with exaggerated claims and mistruths. > > We aren't anonymous. > We have names, and we do know each other. > Whether we share our names with persons outside Australia is our > business. > > There is definitely a major problem with the future of OSM in Australia. > Writing nincompoop essays on this mailing list about "we are here to > help you" does not convince us otherwise. Hang on, let me just don my disguise as an anonymous bully [http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Wynndale/diary/13669]. I really think the time has come when we should really thank people Grant, Richard et al for their valuable and intelligent contributions to the discussion. I'm gushing, I know. But let me continue with my unfettered admiration. These people are so smart that they just *know* those ignorant hicks in the antipodes are too stupid to know their own minds without pressure tactics like the odious odbl.de. Oh, I nearly forgot - I'm the bully. (And what is it Grant that you have now *twice* in 24-hours attempted to publicly distance yourself from the U.K.? As if that makes you any more credible than your already stellar reputation?) Anyway, these poor bullied individuals should be given all the support they desire; as their embarrassing performances are simply ensuring the cohesion and loyalty of all those they attack. Just a thought - if we are all anonymous then how do we band together? We'd never recognise one another. Haven't thought this one out properly. Now, how do I get out of this restrictive Dalek* costume? Anon. *The heirs of Terry Nation did not authorise this misuse of trademark. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Reassurance and Licensing
On 27 April 2011 07:06, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > Bluntly, > CC-by-SA for geodata is fine here. It's good enough for our government, > it's good enough for us. (Au government now is using CC-by for data). > We believe in Share-Alike. Actually, we have been brought up to believe > in share alike and helping each other, and that might be part of the > reason you reach a brick wall on the change to a complex legal licence. Not to mention that those pushing for the change don't agree what the change actually means, some claim tiles could be published under a PD license if produced from ODBL data, yet others claim CC-by would be the minimum requirement, however both of these seem false answers since that would allow people to turn map rendered tiles back into vector data which to be enforceable would require end users of map tiles to become contractually bound by ODBL for any tiles they copy or use. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] How many NearMap users do you think have accepted the new CTs and ODbL?
On 27 April 2011 04:15, David Groom wrote: > But I thought that Nearmap has said that they did not think the CT's were > compatible with the use of their data. As I understood it this had nothing > to do with CC-BY-SA or ODbL. > > So the issue as I understand it is the CT's, and so anyone who has used > Nearmap as a source and has agreed to the CT's is in violation of both > Nearmap's licence, and the CT's. > > Of course my understanding of Nearmap's position may be wrong, and I suspect > they (Ben?) will be able to clarify matters. That's my understanding as well, even though some have suggested once you agree you can't unagree, even though there is clear breaches of contract with OSM-F. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Comment from another user looking at sign-up screen
It asks you to agree. It doesn't ask you to accept or decline as you wish - and doesn't say what will happen if you decline. " Contributor terms Please read the agreement below and press the agree button to confirm that you accept the terms of this agreement for your existing and future contributions." Then anonymous user is reading the entire agreement and finds in the very fine print you can click accept or decline but still doesn't say what happens if you decline He is now reading the CTs and finds them internally contradictory in that (1) give non-exclusive licence (2) you agree not to assert your moral rights I don't think he will agree to the CTs. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Reassurance and Licensing
On 26 April 2011 22:06, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > Bluntly, > CC-by-SA for geodata is fine here. It's good enough for our government, > it's good enough for us. (Au government now is using CC-by for data). > We believe in Share-Alike. Actually, we have been brought up to believe > in share alike and helping each other, and that might be part of the > reason you reach a brick wall on the change to a complex legal licence. > Wait, why did the Australian government stop using CC-by-SA and move to CC-by? I actually wasn't aware of this, maybe because CC-by-SA adds needless restrictions and ambiguity on using the data? The AU government also provides the data under other specific terms on request. Mike of LWG has made a formal request. Notes in today's LWG meeting minutes. I believe in Share-Alike too, I have invested 1000s of hours mapping South Africa.* Thankfully ODbL is a Attribution and Share-Alike license, with usage ambiguity removed. *sarcasm* But it all doesn't matter anyway, John Smith has degreed that all Australian geodata is PD anyway. See: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2011-April/007829.html *: I am proud to be number 2 in the contribution index for South Africa: http://stat.latlon.org/za/latest/users.html Regards Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] How many NearMap users do you think have accepted the new CTs and ODbL?
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:24:09 +1000 David Murn wrote: > Using my australian test extract from 21/03/2011, I found that 3390 > users have made edits in the area of interest (the Australian extract > available on osmaustralia.org). > > Of these 3390 users, 536 have used the tag source=nearmap at least > once. > > Of these 536 users, 134 have agreed to the ODbL+CTs. In my recent foray into Victoria, I found spots which must have been mapped from Nearmap, judging from the quality of the mapping and the lack of street names or POIs. I haven't done any check to see if those mappers have attributed Nearmap on a changeset or otherwise. I believe 536 mappers is a minimum who have used Nearmap. And if I take 134 as the numerator, and 3390 as the denominator, then I get 4%. This represents a large community who have decided that they are staying CC-by-SA. Some of those mappers aren't local and don't count - like stae**er who traced parts of remote Australia from Google, admitted it and still hasn't had any attention to his edits from the DWG, although I pointed out that he had edited over the whole world from his armchair, and the source of those was likely to be Google as well. Rosscoe cleaned up Crystal Brook, I cleaned up Marree, and Halls Creek remains polluted. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Reassurance and Licensing
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:17:33 +0100 Grant Slater wrote: > Unfortunately there are some very vocal (anonymous) members of the > Australian community who seem intent on creating a virtual "Us vs > Them" conflict in the community with exaggerated claims and mistruths. We aren't anonymous. We have names, and we do know each other. Whether we share our names with persons outside Australia is our business. There is definitely a major problem with the future of OSM in Australia. Writing nincompoop essays on this mailing list about "we are here to help you" does not convince us otherwise. Bluntly, CC-by-SA for geodata is fine here. It's good enough for our government, it's good enough for us. (Au government now is using CC-by for data). We believe in Share-Alike. Actually, we have been brought up to believe in share alike and helping each other, and that might be part of the reason you reach a brick wall on the change to a complex legal licence. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Reassurance and Licensing
Hi. On 27 April 2011 00:56, David Murn wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 15:17 +0100, Grant Slater wrote: > > > Unfortunately there are some very vocal (anonymous) members of the > > Australian community who seem intent on creating a virtual "Us vs > > Them" conflict in the community with exaggerated claims and mistruths. > > We are one project and on the same team. I believe we all value the > > amazing project we have collaboratively built. > > Did you seriously write that with a straight face? Lets address the > points.. > There has been vocal opposition to the change to a licence incompatible > with our data. I think to be fair, some of the "vocal opposition" has been more vocal than necessary. The discussion on this list is not always balanced. Yes there are serious concerns with the large amount of CC-BY-SA licensed material that will become unavailable to OSM. I think I am correct in saying that people do not feel like these concerns are being addressed. It would be good to get some engagement on dealing with these issues. As David says, this is not just a problem for Nearmap. - Ben Kelley. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] How many NearMap users do you think have accepted the new CTs and ODbL?
- Original Message - From: "Richard Weait" To: "OSM Australian Talk List" Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 3:50 PM Subject: Re: [talk-au] How many NearMap users do you think have accepted the new CTs and ODbL? On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:24 AM, David Murn wrote: I was wondering this question tonight. [ ... ] This only shows where there is clear evidence of licence violations without having to look past the data's tags. [ ... ] Food for thought "Junk food" at best. ;-) OSM is currently published under CC-By-SA. There is no current "violation", even if what you suggest would be considered a "violation". We already know that some contributors have But I thought that Nearmap has said that they did not think the CT's were compatible with the use of their data. As I understood it this had nothing to do with CC-BY-SA or ODbL. So the issue as I understand it is the CT's, and so anyone who has used Nearmap as a source and has agreed to the CT's is in violation of both Nearmap's licence, and the CT's. Of course my understanding of Nearmap's position may be wrong, and I suspect they (Ben?) will be able to clarify matters. Regards David changesets that they wish to have removed before ODbL publication. That can't be done until Phase 4. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] How many NearMap users do you think have accepted the new CTs and ODbL?
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 10:50 -0400, Richard Weait wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:24 AM, David Murn wrote: > > > > I was wondering this question tonight. > > [ ... ] > > > This only shows where there is clear evidence of licence violations > > without having to look past the data's tags. > > [ ... ] > > > Food for thought > > "Junk food" at best. ;-) OSM is currently published under CC-By-SA. > There is no current "violation", even if what you suggest would be > considered a "violation". We already know that some contributors have > changesets that they wish to have removed before ODbL publication. > That can't be done until Phase 4. Good point, lets wait until the end of Phase 5 before we start thinking about users who have accepted the terms when they shouldnt have. You refer to 'some' contributors, I refer to over 100. You completely missed my point about the fact that some users (upto 25%) have accepted the terms which they cannot comply with. Whether that is a violation at this point in time, is irrelevant. Whether anyone bothers to look into the problem before relicencing data they dont own, IS relevant, also the fact that people will continue to agree to the terms, having used data which cannot be relicenced. Maybe a more serious note should be put there advising that if youve used a CC-BY-SA data source, you cannot accept the licence (without having to read through a dozen pages of legalese). As has been discussed here previously, many users of software have become accustomed to always accepting licence terms without reading them, as experience tells that declining an agreement means no further progress. This isnt a problem if someone breaks a licence by installing anti-virus on 2 computers, but it is a problem if someone breaks a licence by relicencing incompatible data into the OSM project, which is then used in-turn by millions. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Reassurance and Licensing
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 15:17 +0100, Grant Slater wrote: > I am a volunteer member (like all the members) of the Licensing > Working Group (LWG), OSM Sysadmin Team along with a few other > OpenStreetMap groups. Does this mean we can ask (and receive definitive answers from) you the hard questions that have been asked numerous times and no-one has been in a position to ask? Or are you just another 'volunteer' who will pass the questions off to some hidden mailing list somewhere? > The LWG is well aware of the NearMap licensing issue and we are trying > to get it resolved as soon as we can but we are an all volunteer team > with day jobs. I think youre looking at the problem too narrowly. Yes, the NearMap issue is a significant one to Australians, but it is only one of many numerous sources that all share the same common licence. The 'nearmap issue' is an issue affecting data from many sources, some private stakeholders and some government stakeholders. Are the efforts to 'resolve' the 'issues' looking at all Australian (and similarly NZ) data sources, or are efforts simply being used to sort out specifics with NearMap? > The Contributor Terms v1.2.4 reduces the project's > freedoms in an attempt to appease NearMap. Kind of like stabbing someone with a dagger, then pulling it out half-way and telling them they should be happy you even did that? > Unfortunately there are some very vocal (anonymous) members of the > Australian community who seem intent on creating a virtual "Us vs > Them" conflict in the community with exaggerated claims and mistruths. > We are one project and on the same team. I believe we all value the > amazing project we have collaboratively built. Did you seriously write that with a straight face? Lets address the points.. There has been vocal opposition to the change to a licence incompatible with our data. This has come from government departments, businesses and educated users, not 'anonymous members'. The problem with the mistruths and claims, is that most people simply dont know, and in Australia if someone asks you a question, its generally polite to at least offer some advice rather than rudely ignore whoever is asking. There are people who are seeking to split the community, you are correct. These people are the ones who are bringing in a licence change and preventing those who dont agree from participating any longer in this 'amazing project we have *ALL* collaboratively built'. If youd followed discussions here from the past couple of days, youd see people actively encouraging the use of OSM services (in favour of forks) until the time at which we are permanently blocked from the collaborative project. > The much-maligned OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSM-F, OSMF) is a > not-for-profit company registered in England & Wales as a legal entity > to represent the project. The OSMF is not some nefarious entity out to > steal all our precious geodata ZOMG. A non-for-profit company? It barely even legally qualifies as a non-for-profit (dis)organisation. Maybe youve also missed the detailed criticisms of the foundation from members here, who ARE involved with non-profits, things such as poor minute keeping and basic accountability. Your contempt for the citizens of this country and this region, while talking as a representative of a legal entity is part in parcel of what we are becoming used to. It is sad that people (or even entire committees) seem happy enough to tear this project apart from the inside, simply to achieve some goal which it seems even they cant quite decide upon. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] How many NearMap users do you think have accepted the new CTs and ODbL?
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:24 AM, David Murn wrote: > > I was wondering this question tonight. [ ... ] > This only shows where there is clear evidence of licence violations > without having to look past the data's tags. [ ... ] > Food for thought "Junk food" at best. ;-) OSM is currently published under CC-By-SA. There is no current "violation", even if what you suggest would be considered a "violation". We already know that some contributors have changesets that they wish to have removed before ODbL publication. That can't be done until Phase 4. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Reassurance and Licensing
Hi Talk-au, I am a volunteer member (like all the members) of the Licensing Working Group (LWG), OSM Sysadmin Team along with a few other OpenStreetMap groups. The LWG is well aware of the NearMap licensing issue and we are trying to get it resolved as soon as we can but we are an all volunteer team with day jobs. The Contributor Terms v1.2.4 reduces the project's freedoms in an attempt to appease NearMap. NearMap Pty Ltd is a company owned by Ipernica. NearMap is an awesome company for allowing us to use their aerial imagery. Unfortunately there are some very vocal (anonymous) members of the Australian community who seem intent on creating a virtual "Us vs Them" conflict in the community with exaggerated claims and mistruths. We are one project and on the same team. I believe we all value the amazing project we have collaboratively built. The licensing debate has unfortunately been going on for many years now. For a laugh, listen to the licensing debate from the OpenStreetMap "State of the Map" 2007 conference: http://www.archive.org/details/Sotm07PanelDebate-LicensingOsmData The Open Database License (ODbL) was created by the Open Data Commons with OpenStreetMap specifically in mind. The License is specifically created to address the peculiarities of globally licensing a libré (open) and gratis (free of cost) database. The license is modelled as closely as practical to the GPL / LGPL software license. The ODbL summary: http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ , the license introduces some new initially confusing terms like "Produced Work". (Creative Commons created terms like "Share-Alike"). The independent New York Law School paper "Facilitating Collaboration On Geospatial Data Using Social and Legal Norms" explains the rational for the license change much better than I could hope to. http://www.nyls.edu/user_files/1/3/4/30/58/1134/DatabaseLicensing_110207.pdf The much-maligned OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSM-F, OSMF) is a not-for-profit company registered in England & Wales as a legal entity to represent the project. The OSMF is not some nefarious entity out to steal all our precious geodata ZOMG. Humbly, Grant Slater aka Firefishy Not a pommy. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] How many NearMap users do you think have accepted the new CTs and ODbL?
I was wondering this question tonight. How many OSM users have accepted the new terms, without fully understanding that sources they have used in the past prohibit them from doing so. So, I wrote a little script to find out and the numbers are surprising. Using my australian test extract from 21/03/2011, I found that 3390 users have made edits in the area of interest (the Australian extract available on osmaustralia.org). Of these 3390 users, 536 have used the tag source=nearmap at least once. Of these 536 users, 134 have agreed to the ODbL+CTs. So, approximately 25% of users who have attributed nearmap (and to be fair, a lot more data has probably used nearmap without proper attribution), have agreed to have their edits released under the new terms. Of 3390 total users in our region, 487 have agreed to the terms. Interesting numbers that show that a lot of users have been mislead or misunderstand the consequences of accepting the changes. If anyone is interested, I can provide the simple C code I used to generate these numbers and/or a list of usernames/uids that are involved. This only shows where there is clear evidence of licence violations without having to look past the data's tags. Im sure if similar figures were generated based on users in nearmap coverage areas, the numbers would be similar. These numbers were also generated from an extract, and not a full history dump, so there may well be cases where tags have changed and would not be counted here. Food for thought David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] navit and bays/coastline around Sydney
[snip] > > I've been aiming to tag bays as areas rather than just a node in the > centre. As a consequence my initial thought was to tag the area as > natural=bay. Traditionally most renderers didn't render this as water. > the OSM Mapnik style now does, but many others still don't. The > problem was I couldn't tag as both natural=water to get the rendering > and natural=bay to indicate the type of feature. Yes agreed, tagging the bay area seems like the right sort of thing to do. I've had the problem with mulitvalued tags before - the ';' approach seems rather hacky to me so I can understand why went for bay. > > I've since realised that tagging as natural=water, water=bay could be > a solution to use, but as natural=bay already had widespread use with > nodes, I wanted to keep consistency. > > As Markus_g mentioned you could try to edit Navits stylesheets so it > renders natural=bay areas as water (some times as a multipolygon), > although... Yep - I will look in to that but from looking in to the code it looks hard(ish) as I don't see a generic approach for dealing with ways that are concatenated to form closed way. > > I'm not opposed to your suggestion of keeping a kind of coastline tag, > I'm just not sure the best way to implement it, please discuss it if > you like. > > * Perhaps the coastline tag should be reserved for the ocean facing > coast. If we want to tag anything say inside a bay or harbour maybe we > could use a shoreline tag. Yes, this where the definitions aren't entirely clear to me. At some points we can say it's clearly coastline, at some points it's clearly riverbank, but the transition is not so clear. I suspect that the ways that make up a bay should be tagged with something, they mark a transition between water and not-water and the bay is the area inside these. The relation does this nicely. > * A problem with tagging the area of a bay is that while the shoreline > is mostly well defined, the other edge is fuzzy. A possible solution > is to use a multi polygon relation to tag just the non-shoreline > segments of the bay outline as fuzzy=*. I suppose that using a > multipolygon relation you can keep jest the shoreline segments > together in another relation for say a larger harbour or river Yes, there is an examples of this across Port Hacking with a coastline tag runnnig across open water. Conceptually wrong I think, but needed in practice fro rendering to have any chance. Not that it helps, but it occurs to me that the rendering model may be inverted. If the default was everywhere is water and then we have closed areas of land then things may go smoother - but tool late now ;-) Because of the way coastline rendering works I can't see a way to make things render correctly without having at least one hack (i.e the fake coastline boundary). The least hacky approach that I can see if for the water/non-water transition to be tagged coastline or riverbank (and shoreline if we can define it sensibly). At the point of transition there will need to be some tagging-for-the-rendere, but that's unavoidable. cheers > -- Franc ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] China now has a hotline to dob in non-licensed mappers...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/26/china_street_view_licences/ ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tragedy of the commons...
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 11:33 +0100, 80n wrote: > There's no tileserver yet, that's a priority, there's no gratification > if things are rendered. Is it possible to setup some sort of tiles@home-like system for fosm? That could be a way to reduce your load. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] navit and bays/coastline around Sydney
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Franc Carter wrote: > Hi, > > I remember there was a discussion a while ago tagging of bays - which > I didn;t pay much attention too ;-( > > They now seem to be in a relation for each Bay, which is nice for > defining the area of the bay. However there are no tags on the ways > themselves and as a result Navit does nto render them as water, which > makes the map on Navit significantly less easy to use. > > My thought would be to put the coastline tag back on the ways and keep > the relations - any thoughts or suggestions on how to recover Navit > goodness ? I've been aiming to tag bays as areas rather than just a node in the centre. As a consequence my initial thought was to tag the area as natural=bay. Traditionally most renderers didn't render this as water. the OSM Mapnik style now does, but many others still don't. The problem was I couldn't tag as both natural=water to get the rendering and natural=bay to indicate the type of feature. I've since realised that tagging as natural=water, water=bay could be a solution to use, but as natural=bay already had widespread use with nodes, I wanted to keep consistency. As Markus_g mentioned you could try to edit Navits stylesheets so it renders natural=bay areas as water (some times as a multipolygon), although... I'm not opposed to your suggestion of keeping a kind of coastline tag, I'm just not sure the best way to implement it, please discuss it if you like. * Perhaps the coastline tag should be reserved for the ocean facing coast. If we want to tag anything say inside a bay or harbour maybe we could use a shoreline tag. * A problem with tagging the area of a bay is that while the shoreline is mostly well defined, the other edge is fuzzy. A possible solution is to use a multi polygon relation to tag just the non-shoreline segments of the bay outline as fuzzy=*. I suppose that using a multipolygon relation you can keep jest the shoreline segments together in another relation for say a larger harbour or river ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tragedy of the commons...
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:11:29 +0100 Grant Slater wrote: > > FOSM.org is hosted on a virtual machine of hypercube provided for > XAPI. Without any explanation I was banned from the FOSM when I stated > this. > > Regards > Grant > OSM Sysadmin team. > Banned from the mailing list for OSM_Fork. If there was no explanation you may rationalise that there was cause and effect. They may simply be concomitant. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tragedy of the commons...
On 25 April 2011 09:41, Mike Dupont wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir > wrote: >> >> >> fosm.org looks pretty good with potlatch2. Just need a tile server or >> to setup my own again - how does one get a big fat planet.osm? >> > I think you can use toolserver from wikipedia or even the > hypercube.telascience.org for hosting and rendering tiles, wikipedia should > even prefer creative commons data over incomprensible new licensed data. > FOSM.org is hosted on a virtual machine of hypercube provided for XAPI. Without any explanation I was banned from the FOSM when I stated this. Regards Grant OSM Sysadmin team. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] navit and bays/coastline around Sydney
Hi Franc, I had a look and Navit doesn't have natural=bay as a supported tag even though it is a supported tag in OSM. It might be worth contacting the developers of Navit and ask them to include the tag natural=bay from a relation to render as water. Regards, Markus -Original Message- From: Franc Carter [mailto:franc.car...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, 26 April 2011 7:59 PM To: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: [talk-au] navit and bays/coastline around Sydney Hi, I remember there was a discussion a while ago tagging of bays - which I didn;t pay much attention too ;-( They now seem to be in a relation for each Bay, which is nice for defining the area of the bay. However there are no tags on the ways themselves and as a result Navit does nto render them as water, which makes the map on Navit significantly less easy to use. My thought would be to put the coastline tag back on the ways and keep the relations - any thoughts or suggestions on how to recover Navit goodness ? cheers -- Franc ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tragedy of the commons...
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 8:49 AM, 4x4falcon wrote: > On 24/04/11 19:54, John Smith wrote: > >> Once upon a time it used to be almost a race to map out new areas from >> Nearmap coverage, now whole areas of coverage go untouched for months >> or longer... >> > > Even from bing there is not much activity. > > > What was once a source of pride in the community can now only be >> described as a 'tragedy of the commons' now that the death knell is >> being tolled on the OSM-F... >> >> I have restarted mapping in earnest, but uploading to fosm.org, I'd >> forgotten how enjoyable it was just to get on and map large areas that >> are blank and to make the map slightly more complete, knowing that I >> wasn't wasting my time to only have my edits reverted later. >> >> I've taken the opposite approach, I'm still adding to osm from nearmap, > gps and bing as those edits will go into fosm.org as fosm is doing > minutely updates from osm. > > When we are locked out completely and all my edits are removed from osm > they will still be in fosm without duplication and I will they start adding > to fosm then. > > This is a very sensible approach and one that I would expect most people to follow. That said, I do need people to use fosm and give me feedback if they encounter any issues. There's no tileserver yet, that's a priority, there's no gratification if things are rendered. After that there are all the window dressing bits on the fosm.org website, although I'm not intending to implement any user diaries, GPX uploads or other peripheral functionality at the moment. That will come later if there's sufficient demand. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] navit and bays/coastline around Sydney
Hi, I remember there was a discussion a while ago tagging of bays - which I didn;t pay much attention too ;-( They now seem to be in a relation for each Bay, which is nice for defining the area of the bay. However there are no tags on the ways themselves and as a result Navit does nto render them as water, which makes the map on Navit significantly less easy to use. My thought would be to put the coastline tag back on the ways and keep the relations - any thoughts or suggestions on how to recover Navit goodness ? cheers -- Franc ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
