[talk-au] A gradual transition to ODbL over on legal-talk

[El Segundo Can't win]

I know mapper FK270673 caused some fuss in Australia back in November, and I 
can’t say I endorse his recent actions here, but over on the OSM-legal-talk 
list FK270673 has made what I consider is a very sensible license change 
proposal. 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-December/006789.html
I don’t know if it will gain traction, but it beats losing an easy quarter of 
Australian content on 1 April.
(If the changeover happened right now we would lose 35%, source: 
http://odbl.poole.ch/; 
http://odbl.poole.ch/australia-20110919-20111212-poly.html)(I’vebeen keeping a 
time series track of this, and from early October to mid December the CT 
compliant proportion has only improved by a couple of % over that time)
This wouldn’t be a nice neat loss of non-acceptor data either, it would lose, 
for example, where an acceptor added street names to streets traced by a 
non-acceptor.___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] [sharedmapau] Re: Re-entering data to avoid licensing failure

[Richard Weait]

On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Andrew Laughton
 wrote:
> I must be missing something here, I thought the whole point of the licence
> change was to allow commercial companies to take advantage of the
> communities data.
> Specifically Microsoft & Bing.

[from a reply I posted on talk@ the other day. It covers the state of
play with CCv4 and motivation behind the license upgrade.]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Eric Marsden  wrote:
> Creative Commons recently confirmed that the next version of its
> licences will attempt to cover sui generis database rights. Version 4.0
> is planned to be available at the end of 2012. This was previously
> mentioned here as a possible alternative to the destructive ODbL
> process.
>
> I don't see any discussion of this in recent LWG minutes. Has
> it been considered?

This is a question that has been around for a while and deserves a
reply with some context.

Creative Commons told us that we shouldn't use their license for data.
 That started this process years ago.  OSM approached CC about
drafting a data license as we thought that was the best way to
proceed.  Some initial work on what became ODbL was with CC involved,
but then CC stepped aside as data was not their core interest.

Open Data Commons became part of the Open Knowledge Foundation and
development of ODbL continued, was drafted and revised in consultation
with the OSM community and others interested in open data.

Now CC are talking about v4 and data.  CC are also in touch with the
OSM community at large; we see posts from folks there on osm lists
periodically.  And two folks from CC spoke with LWG on conference
calls this year.  They invited the OSM community to participate in the
drafting of v4, and we should.

They also said that their last revision took two years.

If CCv4 ends up being better than ODbL, and agreeable to the osm
community at large, we could certainly transition to it. The new CTs
would make that transition relatively smooth.  We can make that call
when it's ready.

Best regards,
Richard (from my recollection of discussions at LWG)

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

Re: [talk-au] I deleted a few locality boundaries...

[Ross Scanlon]

On 19/12/11 08:38, Ben Kelley wrote:

What happens where the current boundaries have been edited since the
initial import?

e.g. Where the boundary follows some geographical feature that is
difficult to survey, like a river.

Often the river tags have been added to the ABS data way. Removing the
boundary removes the river. I have seen rail lines like this as well.

   - Ben.



Guess what.  It's going to be deleted too.

As I said and it's been said many times before other items should not be 
attached to boundaries.


There is details on the wiki about separating the rivers etc from the 
boundaries.  Look under Australian Tagging Guidelines.


Cheers
Ross

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

Re: [talk-au] I deleted a few locality boundaries...

[Ben Kelley]

What happens where the current boundaries have been edited since the
initial import?

e.g. Where the boundary follows some geographical feature that is difficult
to survey, like a river.

Often the river tags have been added to the ABS data way. Removing the
boundary removes the river. I have seen rail lines like this as well.

  - Ben.

Ben Kelley
On Dec 19, 2011 11:26 AM, "Ross Scanlon"  wrote:

> Yep, quite true.
>>
>> That said, given the complete failure of the most other government
>> agencies to release the real gazetted boundaries under a free license,
>> having the ABS data I think is better than nothing, unless you can
>> obtain more fine grain data from on the ground surveys.
>>
>> Licensing aside (as that has been discussed in length in other
>> threads), is anyone planning to mass import the ABS 2011
>> suburb/postcode boundaries?
>>
>
> Not that I'm aware of.
>
> I'd also suggest this needs to be done only after all current
> suburb/postcode boundaries have been removed.
>
> Something for after 1 April.
>
> Cheers
> Ross
>
> __**_
> 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] I deleted a few locality boundaries...

[Ross Scanlon]

Yep, quite true.

That said, given the complete failure of the most other government
agencies to release the real gazetted boundaries under a free license,
having the ABS data I think is better than nothing, unless you can
obtain more fine grain data from on the ground surveys.

Licensing aside (as that has been discussed in length in other
threads), is anyone planning to mass import the ABS 2011
suburb/postcode boundaries?


Not that I'm aware of.

I'd also suggest this needs to be done only after all current 
suburb/postcode boundaries have been removed.


Something for after 1 April.

Cheers
Ross

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

Re: [talk-au] I deleted a few locality boundaries...

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Vernon Tang  wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Ross Scanlon  wrote:
>>
>> On 18/12/11 16:43, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>>>
>>> Where do these "official gazetted boundaries" come from?
>>
>> Australian Bureau of Statistics
>
> No they don't. They come from the various states' geographical names
> boards. Unfortunately, none of them appear to have released their
> geodata, except via PSMA ($$$).
>
> The current ABS suburb data are based on "mesh blocks" from the ASGS,
> which are their smallest dividing buckets for census data. (The
> pre-2011 ASGC suburb boundaries were made using a similar process.)
> This means that their boundaries can deviate from the official state
> boundaries, especially in sparsely populated or non-residential areas
> where whole localities can even be missing altogether from the ABS
> data.
>

Yep, quite true.

That said, given the complete failure of the most other government
agencies to release the real gazetted boundaries under a free license,
having the ABS data I think is better than nothing, unless you can
obtain more fine grain data from on the ground surveys.

Licensing aside (as that has been discussed in length in other
threads), is anyone planning to mass import the ABS 2011
suburb/postcode boundaries?

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

Re: [talk-au] I deleted a few locality boundaries...

[Richard Weait]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 12:43 AM, El Segundo Can't win
 wrote:
> I deleted a few locality boundaries in my local area, because they were
> irritating me and getting in the way of re-mapping all the tainted ways and
> nodes.
>
> I thought I would rebuild them using actual streets and other physical
> boundaries (this is my local area, I know where they are), rather than the
> under and in the way thing that most locality boundaries are, plus they'd be
> CT compliant to boot.

The discussion on attaching boundaries to physical objects appears on
other local lists and talk@ and dev@ at various times. Lots of
opinions. :-)  And quite some variation in personal mapping styles.

> but then I thought, maybe I should take the big picture and wait for a new
> import, maybe even an official gazetted locality dataset. It would certainly
> save me time right now. If I do that though, the plain deletion could be
> seen as vandalism.

I think combining the boundary deletion with remapping is
not-vandalism.  Cleanup by a local mapper, while attending to the data
is much better than purging by a script, in my opinion.

> I don't think doing both is a great idea, because any boundaries I build
> will just be an annoyance when/if an import is done.
>
> Are there any opinions on the matter, strong or not?

I'd like to see "somebody" document a quick and easy way to access
official boundary data outside the OSM DB.  Mapnik could display the
boundaries as a layer when desired by the consumer.  Nominatim can
search w.r.t. external sources.  $something is used to make your local
postgis queries do the right thing.

This sounds harder than just putting the boundary data in the OSM DB.
But keeping a local OSM DB up to date also sounded hard until minutely
mapnik and replication diffs were created.  Suddenly it doesn't seem
so hard.

Best regards,
Richard

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

Re: [talk-au] Re-entering data to avoid licensing failure

[Leon Kernan]

For those interested in when and how the maxspeed change was done, here's a
couple of changesets to start looking at (and i'm sure there are others
around the same time)

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/chang
eset/5167338 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5170986


On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Ben Kelley  wrote:

> The maxspeed change was applied to all highway=residential ways with no
> maxspeed afaik.
>
> It was not done with a not account.
>
> This was some months ago now.
>
>   - Ben.
>
> Ben Kelley
> On Dec 18, 2011 1:48 PM, "Richard Weait"  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Sam Wilson  wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks Richard and Steve for your ideas.  I've started using the licence
>> > check plugin... and now getting disheartened at the extent of the
>> > non-agreeing data!  :-(
>> >
>> > Ah well.  I rather want to keep mapping, and not wait till this is all
>> > resolved... so I think I shall just fix (as in, recreate) those ways
>> with a
>> > v1 decliner, and ignore the rest for the time being.  Seems silly to be
>> > manually removing every "maxspeed=50" anyway; that's the sort of thing
>> the
>> > machine will do when the time comes.
>>
>> Did the maxspeed bot use a bot account, or the bot tag on changesets?
>>
>> Do you (collectively or individually) have an analysis of the maxspeed
>> bot changes?  Are those the only aspects tainting a large number of
>> objects?
>>
>> How would you feel about running a repair bot?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Richard
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] I deleted a few locality boundaries...

[Vernon Tang]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Ross Scanlon  wrote:
>
> On 18/12/11 16:43, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>>
>> Where do these "official gazetted boundaries" come from?
>
> Australian Bureau of Statistics

No they don't. They come from the various states' geographical names
boards. Unfortunately, none of them appear to have released their
geodata, except via PSMA ($$$).

The current ABS suburb data are based on "mesh blocks" from the ASGS,
which are their smallest dividing buckets for census data. (The
pre-2011 ASGC suburb boundaries were made using a similar process.)
This means that their boundaries can deviate from the official state
boundaries, especially in sparsely populated or non-residential areas
where whole localities can even be missing altogether from the ABS
data.


On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Ross Scanlon  wrote:
> On 18/12/11 17:07, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I've often wondered the same: if they're officially defined as
>> following particular roads etc. and then those roads move, do the
>> boundaries move also?
>
> No.  Do a search through the archives of the list and you'll find this
> somewhere.

But they usually realign the boundaries when things like this happen.

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

Re: [talk-au] I deleted a few locality boundaries...

[Ross Scanlon]

On 18/12/11 17:07, Sam Wilson wrote:

Yes, I've often wondered the same: if they're officially defined as
following particular roads etc. and then those roads move, do the
boundaries move also?


No.  Do a search through the archives of the list and you'll find this 
somewhere.



Also, there seem to be some situations in which boundaries do not
actually match the locations of the roads (etc.) that they're ostensibly
following. I mean, not way off, but 10m or what have you, and not
consistently either -- there's some (although, I can't find one this
afternoon; I saw a couple last week out in the WA wheatbelt somewhere)
that cross over the road and then back again (which matches aerial
photography and GPS traces!). Do roads really move all that often, and
by not much?


Probably the original gazetted road could not be built where it was 
layed out on a blank sheet of paper and when it came to building the 
road they had to deviate around something.



I always have all administrative boundaries turned off (greyed-out) in
JOSM, because they're all a bit confusing. And not staying after the
licence change, it would seem!


That's correct as the original importer has declined the CT's.  Which 
throws up the problem of if you attach it to a road, river, railway, etc 
then that road, river, railway is also going to be deleted.


Cheers
Ross

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

Re: [talk-au] I deleted a few locality boundaries...

[Sam Wilson]

Yes, I've often wondered the same: if they're officially defined as 
following particular roads etc. and then those roads move, do the 
boundaries move also?


Also, there seem to be some situations in which boundaries do not 
actually match the locations of the roads (etc.) that they're ostensibly 
following.  I mean, not way off, but 10m or what have you, and not 
consistently either -- there's some (although, I can't find one this 
afternoon; I saw a couple last week out in the WA wheatbelt somewhere) 
that cross over the road and then back again (which matches aerial 
photography and GPS traces!).  Do roads really move all that often, and 
by not much?


I always have all administrative boundaries turned off (greyed-out) in 
JOSM, because they're all a bit confusing.  And not staying after the 
licence change, it would seem!


- Sam.

On 2011-12-18 4:43PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:

Where do these "official gazetted boundaries" come from?

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Ross Scanlon  wrote:

Wait for an import of the oficial gazetted boundaries.


___
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] I deleted a few locality boundaries...

[Ross Scanlon]

On 18/12/11 16:43, Andrew Harvey wrote:

Where do these "official gazetted boundaries" come from?

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Ross Scanlon  wrote:

Wait for an import of the oficial gazetted boundaries.


Australian Bureau of Statistics

Cheers
Ross

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

Re: [talk-au] I deleted a few locality boundaries...

[Andrew Harvey]

Where do these "official gazetted boundaries" come from?

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Ross Scanlon  wrote:
> Wait for an import of the oficial gazetted boundaries.

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

Re: [talk-au] I deleted a few locality boundaries...

[Ross Scanlon]

Wait for an import of the oficial gazetted boundaries.

There's been many a discussion of this over the years and boundaries 
should not be attached to roads etc as these can change and the 
boundaries do not necessarily change.


Cheers
Ross


On 18/12/11 13:43, El Segundo Can't win wrote:

I deleted a few locality boundaries in my local area, because they were
irritating me and getting in the way of re-mapping all the tainted ways
and nodes.

I thought I would rebuild them using actual streets and other physical
boundaries (this is my local area, I know where they are), rather than
the under and in the way thing that most locality boundaries are, plus
they'd be CT compliant to boot.

but then I thought, maybe I should take the big picture and wait for a
new import, maybe even an official gazetted locality dataset. It would
certainly save me time right now. If I do that though, the plain
deletion could be seen as vandalism.

I don't think doing both is a great idea, because any boundaries I build
will just be an annoyance when/if an import is done.

Are there any opinions on the matter, strong or not?



___
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