Re: [talk-au] Plea to Australian decliners
On 31 March 2012 01:54, Grant Slater wrote: > Australian Decliners, > > As a mapper, contributor and member of the project's sysadmin team I > kindly ask you to please reconsider your declined status. Time is > about to run out. You and others didn't care about us, told us to go away as we were insignificant and our issue were unimportant and now you come begging for us to reconsider. Perhaps the whole license issue should be reconsidered, after all you are the one throwing out the baby with the bath water, you are choosing to do this, not us, perhaps you should choose to call the whole thing off. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On 31 October 2011 14:44, Richard Weait wrote: > 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? A non-trivial amount of data is listed as crown copyright or proprietary licensed, neither of which is compatible with the ODBL or the CT even if you do attribute. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On 31 October 2011 13:10, Richard Weait wrote: > And still, they'd know what they may and may not permit. You haven't dealt with government plebs much have you? They are one of the most unpleasant races in the galaxy. Not actually evil, but bad-tempered, bureaucratic, officious, and callous. They wouldn't even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from the ravenous Bug-Blatter Beast of Traal without orders signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, lost, found, queried, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighter. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On 31 October 2011 12:30, Richard Weait wrote: > I think that data.gov.au can be taken at their word and that they have > a clear understanding of which rights they may or may not grant. They're a clearing house, nothing more, and don't own any of the content. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On 31 October 2011 11:19, Richard Weait wrote: > 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. Since they don't own the datasets I fail to see how this would be sufficient for anyone concerned. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] What to tag a fire-fighting water tank?
On 30 October 2011 16:24, John Henderson wrote: > As far as capacity is concerned, I'd opt for the standard unit for measuring > large water volumes - megalitres (ML). Might be commonly used in Australia but the SI unit is actually cubic metres. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On 25 September 2011 15:58, Ian Sergeant wrote: > Secondly, With the greatest respect to the user concerned, who has been a > great contributor to OSM, I don't think we need necessarily respect his > wishes. We need to look a bit more carefully at this area to see if > anything has happened between the data source and OSM which could possibly > be considered creative or original, or if it is just a pure data > translation. The data imported was cc-by-sa at the time, you can't just strip that license condition out, you'd have to reimport otherwise you'd be in breach of the original condition placed on the person importing. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On 24 September 2011 00:30, Richard Weait wrote: > even though the data is unencumbered. I couldn't possibly comment on > why a particular user might continue to decline CT/ODbL with their > import account for a particular data set, when that dataset is > suitable and permitted for inclusion under CT/ODbL. It's a bit late in the game to be playing dumb, for the longest time we Aussies were told how insignificant and unimportant our data was and how much better it was for OSM to have the freedom to relicense in the future, now all of a sudden it seems our concerns are suddenly important enough to be addressed. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 8 September 2011 10:48, Mark Pulley wrote: > Quoting Ian Sergeant : > >> I'm sure we are interested in the history of the development of the >> road network, but I'm not sure our database is the place for the >> information right now. > > For those interested, a partial history of the development of Highway 1 is > at Ozroads: > > http://www.ozroads.com.au/NationalSystem/highway1.htm Ian seems to have a particular liking for the Princes Highway... http://www.ozroads.com.au/NSW/Highways/Princes/princes.htm ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Charleville, Qld survey suggestions sought
On 7 September 2011 13:09, Christopher Barham wrote: > Hi, > I'm in Charleville, Qld for a couple of days with an iPhone, a garmin oregon > GPS and, from tomorrow, a vehicle. > The place is pretty much unsurveyed, but the DCDB has been used to add > streets so the road geometry is ok. > Will do what I can (street names etc) , but I wondered if there is anything > you guys could suggest would benefit from a survey around and about... maybe > further out from the town itself? If memory serves correctly there is a weather museum/attraction at Charleville, at a guess it'd be near the airport. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 7 September 2011 15:19, Ian Sergeant wrote: > Nah, that is all good to me. I've got nothing against relations. Nothing > against routes. Nothing against multiple relations and multiple routes. In > fact, I'd have nothing against a parent relation that linked the sections of > the National Route 1 and the diversionary highway routes, like State Highway > 60 - at least that is well defined. > > I just have something against this relation, because it is arbitrary and > confusing. So your entire argument is that we should delete the whole route because it isn't contiguous? Most, if not all routes won't be contiguous, Ross pointed this out the other day but there is often on/off ramps, roads going from dual to single carriage way and back again, then you also have roundabouts, there is all sorts of reasons why gaps exists, but that is even more reason to have routes for them, so that the bits that are named Princess Highway can be tagged as such, and if bits are included that shouldn't be then remove the bits not the entire route. > I really think verifiability is the key for routes, if we start adding stuff > to the map that isn't on the ground or can't be verified... That may be a goal, but it doesn't mean it should be the only one, the process of mapping is one of going from some information to better information, and this is a continual process as things change over time, not just the fact that better sources of data can be mapped from. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 7 September 2011 15:49, Ian Sergeant wrote: > I write " I just have something against this relation, because it is > arbitrary and confusing" > > and you write "So your entire argument is that we should delete the whole > route because it isn't contiguous?" Most routes are arbitrary and confusing, you only have to look at rural/regional highways going through medium sized towns, this goes doubly so for tourism routes and is again a very good reason for having routes, rather than removing them. > If that was my entire argument, I'd just say that, but instead of that I > said that it is arbitrary and confusing. Arbitrary because there is no > touchstone of verifiability, it is just each person opinion. Confusing, The problem usually stems from differences at how the way is gazetted to how the way is actually built, and for what ever reason the gazetted version then isn't updated is another argument altogether. > because it is both a road name and a route, and it is impossible for them > both to align. If this gets into a satnav which recommends you continue on > the Princes Highway route, while actually turning off the Princes Highway > road - what a mess. Why do we seek this? Way names are supposed to have preference, and if you are talking about local routes that differ in name this shouldn't be an issue and is one of the reasons to put highway names into routes. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 7 September 2011 16:31, Ian Sergeant 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. It's still a series of non-contiguous sections that is named, these sections belong as part of a route. > 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. The majority of the route, distance wise, would still exist as it has for a long time. > As I said, I'll leave it be, but the chance that this will be developed into > something meaningful, is zip. That's a very subjective thing to say, you claim it has no value, others have obviously disagreed, the main thing to take into account is what actual harm does it do to the map to exist as a relation, I say none, so far your suggested examples of harm are imho wrong also since the way should take precedence over any relation, this way you can give streets local names and the route sharing the same physical way can be shown where there no longer is a local route needing to be shown. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 7 September 2011 12:27, Ian Sergeant wrote: >> Princes Highway is part of route 1. > > This isn't helpful. National Route 1 and the Princes Hwy diverge at many > points. National Route 1 follows the Southern Freeway south from Sydney for > a start. So what, how does that make routes less useful, if anything that makes them more useful since you can follow the route instead of particular highways. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 6 September 2011 07:13, Ben Kelley wrote: > In general I think it is common that a highway has a different name when it > goes through a town. Here the route continues, and will often be signposted > with the route number. > > I'm not sure if that is the case for every road in this relation though. In the case of the princess highway it's also highway number one which circumnavigates Australia and changes name as it goes. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 6 September 2011 12:20, Steve Bennett wrote: > According to Wikipedia, it should extend all the way from Adelaide to Sydney: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_Highway If memory serves correctly, it changes name through Melbourne. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 6 September 2011 12:50, Ian Sergeant wrote: > This document tells which roads are RTA funded, and which are local roads, > and does have a Princes Hwy route for the purposes of funding. However, I > really believe we should stick to mapping what is on the ground, else we are > going to run into trouble. Noting as well, that the document doesn't > accurately define the route any more than the suburbs it runs through. You better start deleting the routes in the US as well then, because they often have 2 routes for each interstate per state... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Contribution review??
On 6 September 2011 13:26, Ian Sergeant wrote: > Nearmap is no longer an acceptable source for OSM, since they do not allow > traces from their imagery to be re-licensed. I notice at least one of your > edits sourced nearmap, and that isn't allowed any more. If you were using > Potlatch, perhaps you were using bing and didn't notice it? If you think Nearmap is a valuable resource for mapping from, you are still welcome to use it when contributing to fosm.org, as Nearmap didn't change the license, OSM did. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 20:53, James Livingston wrote: > On 11/07/2011, at 8:47 PM, John Smith wrote: >> Then why was there such a big fuss made over Haiti edits should be PD >> so that the UN could mix the data with other datasets... > > Because they were mixing the datasets. If you do something like render tiles > within the .au boundaries from one database, and render tiles from outside > the boundaries from a different dataset, then it's fine. > > Most useful things you can do with the data can be split up like this, > besides producing a combined database. Routing? There aren't any roads > between us and other countries, and so on. One of the advantages of being a > island :) But will the ODBL actual make the situation better or worst? It seems to make everything more complicated, not better. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 20:05, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir wrote: > What he's saying is there is no requirement under Australian Copyright > law (or CC licence) for a whole compilation/database/document to have > the same licence. It's the same way the Government can use Creative > Commons for official documents but they exempt the Coat of Arms from > that licence (because under Australian law, only officers of the > Commonwealth can use the Coat of Arms and they use it to signify > official documents/property). > > The CC licence calls a compilation of things a Collective Work and > "this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself > to be made subject to the terms of this Licence." > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/au/legalcode > > Collective Works are not Derivative Works so this is okay! Then why was there such a big fuss made over Haiti edits should be PD so that the UN could mix the data with other datasets... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bing
On 11 July 2011 19:55, Andrew Harvey wrote: > It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM "yes you can > upload to OSM". All we have is SteveC's word that this is what happened, to the best of my knowledge Bing themselves near released anything definitive on their own website. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 19:29, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > It's not using it under a licence other than CC-BY-SA. A "Collective > Database" or "Collective Work" means that the ODbL part of it is under ODbL > and the CC-BY-SA part is under CC-BY-SA. This is the very first clause (1a) > of CC-BY-SA. > > In Australian legal terms, the two databases are "underlying works" and so > retain their own rights. The two together are a "compilation" (albeit one > that is so simple it doesn't attract any additional copyright in itself), > and therefore users need permission of the rights-holders in the underlying > works. This permission has already been granted in the two open content > licences used: the "Collective Work" permission of CC-BY-SA and the > "Collective Database" permission of ODbL. It's my understanding that CC-by-SA is only compatible with itself, and it's definitely not compatible with the ODBL because the ODBL doesn't require any sort of minimum attribution or share a like clause on produced works. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 19:04, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > they don't have to be the same licence. That unambiguously works with ODbL > (4.5a): whether it works with CC is a moot point because CC is unclear for > data licensing, but it's likely that it does (after all, there are Well if you attempt to use data I've created under any license other than cc-by-sa I'd be happy to to file an injunction to finally answer how much copyright extends to map content creation. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 15:19, John Smith wrote: > That takes care of ways, but what about the 1.7million nodes attributed to me? Sorry, that was total objects, only a pitiful 437k nodes. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 15:09, Nick Hocking wrote: > Mark wrote > > "Out of interest - the greatest contributor to Australia-Oceania > according to http://odbl.de/australia-oceania.html is the accound used > for the suburb boundary / postcode boundary import. Once this is > excluded, does the figure for Australia improve a lot or only > marginally? (Is there even an easy way to find out?)" > > Hi Mark, > > Yes if we were to revert out the non compliant imports, the bot that just > added the maxspeed tag on a HUGE number of ways, > and also the maxspeed:source tag, and also revert out the bot that modified > that last tag to be source:maxspeed, then > the numbers may be completly different. That takes care of ways, but what about the 1.7million nodes attributed to me? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 14:53, Mike Dupont wrote: > Can we make a list of real issues to be resolved and stick with them. There > are some issues that wont be resolved, such as hurt feelings and lost trust. > But we dont need to have a fight to the death over them. I'd like to know if OSM-F are planning to take the moral high ground or not, that is will they respect the wishes of content authors or not. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 12:42, Steve Coast wrote: > > On Jul 10, 2011, at 7:34 PM, John Smith wrote: > >> On 11 July 2011 12:30, Steve Coast wrote: >>> It's not worth my time responding to messages like this. >>> >>> I wrote a completely rational, neutral and open email outlining the things >>> we've tried and asking for ideas of how to make it better. >> >> Yes and didn't respond to a single query, but of course politicans do >> the same thing, they change the question into something they can >> answer. > > I didn't, you are correct. I said I would however, if it was an email > assuming good faith and free of personal attacks. This is common is western > societies. Or at least polite societies :-) So you decide to make radical changes to the OSM community and then refuse to answer questions cause it upsets your delicate nature? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 12:30, Steve Coast wrote: > It's not worth my time responding to messages like this. > > I wrote a completely rational, neutral and open email outlining the things > we've tried and asking for ideas of how to make it better. Yes and didn't respond to a single query, but of course politicans do the same thing, they change the question into something they can answer. > If you write back that I'm just arrogant and put my head in the sand, even if > you're right, all you're doing is making an ad hominem attack that's not > worth responding to. Commenting on your perceived lack of action isn't an attack on you personally or your mother etc, no matter how much you'd like it to be, and you just confirmed my observations. > [*] - With the caveat that because there are so many pseudonyms being used, > it would both be helpful, pragmatic and a sign of respect if you guys would > start to identify yourselves. Unfortunately it's become known that some are > puppet accounts and we don't know which is which and who's just doing this > for fun. For all you know every person on this list is using a pen name, it doesn't mean there is a person posting under multiple names although you wish someone ways so you could use it. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 11:55, Steve Coast wrote: > We looked around for all the people claiming that we've been ignoring them > and can't actually find any posts by them on the legal lists or to the LWG > for many of the people involved. Of course, with so many fake names being > used it's hard to be sure they weren't raised under a different pseudonym. > From what I've seen, the LWG took all of the concerns very seriously and > spent an awful lot of time, on an individual basis, trying to resolve them. > Nearmap of course being a good example. Nearmap is about the only example I can think of that was actually even attempted to be addressed, everyone else just got told to pester what ever government department to relicense under odbl, but even if we had that wouldn't have been compatible with the CTs. What difference does it make who the concerns come from if they are valid, this is your posts the other day all over again, you find something difficult to answer so you try to find ways to weasel out of answering them, which pretty much sums up most of the other concerns you've dismissed out of hand. > I urge you to contrast and compare that with other countries/communities who > also have derived from CC data or have imports that need relicensing and so > on. Most of them have worked it out. What we're scratching our heads about is > how -au is different. I think we've been thinking pretty hard and not come up > with anything other than trolls taking over the sentiment of the community. You mean most of them have ended up agreeing to the changes regardless if they were able to or not, there is several imports that people went ahead with in good faith, such as QldProtectedAreas, that were given the impression that it was ok, however without major changes to the CTs this data isn't allowed to be imported unless you are planning to stay under a CC-by or CC-by-SA license. > We could work on this imported data issue. Well, we have. We've asked > multiple times for outlines of where the data is, who imported it and so on. > To the best of my knowledge nobody has raised this substantially with the > LWG, please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't attend every single meeting. > > We could work on making the LWG meetings more accessible to people in the -au > timezone. Well, we have. Several times we've shifted the meeting hours (for > example to speak with nearmap) and tried other ways to engage. or you could do better at dealing with them, rather than saying you will do something and hope people go away so you can quietly drop them later. > We could spend time meeting in person. Well, we've tried a bit there though > of course it's expensive and hard. The threat of violence hasn't made me want > to come to -au despite having the means to do so, and we've made attempts to > get people to come to SOTM. I must have missed the threats to you or anyone else involved, because the only previous mention was you expression concern over your safety, what changed in the last 3 days? > We could work on making the mailing lists a better place to be. Well, we > have. In fact we've approached people about moderating this list but one of > them won't do it because - get this - the person fears for his job. They're > worried that if they moderate this list the trolls will start phoning their > employer. That's quite something. Clearly, things are very unhealthy. If > you'd like to help moderate, please get in touch. We don't think an outsider > should do it, or anyone who operates under a pseudonym or has been moderated > off another list. Perhaps you should have better rules for everyone, because I have been threated to be dobbed into my employer to the point that I actually brought him up to speed on all the nonsense going on, and he turned round and asked me if I thought it was worth airing to newspapers but I felt it was a matter to be dealt with internally. Frankly Steve you really need to try harder on implying pen names mean something nefarious is going on other than openly outing your BS. > Of course we're not perfect. But I think we can say we're trying, even with > people who traditionally we no longer have time for or who have been > moderated off the main lists. You can jump in and say what we should have > done in 2009 or something, and I'm sure we made mistakes. But without being > personal, and understanding that everyone is a volunteer, what would you do > in my position that's reasonable to change things? I'm sure if it was > rational we'd attempt it. You keep making the same mistakes, and of course nothing is being resolved because you stick your head in the sand and try and pretend it will just magically take care of itself, all you are achieving lately is showing how arrogant you can be and how poorly you can spin things. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 08:16, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Can we not - both sides - agree to work on building up our own projects, and > making them as attractive as possible to users old and new, rather than > knocking the other one? But my comment before sets the scene for how OSM-F will look to future users, they will be seen as devious in the methods employed, rather than being seen as sticking to their moral guns. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 07:54, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Indeed, I was concentrating on the big guys. Albania isn't a big guy. Not > sure what your point is about imports but neither GB nor Germany have > particularly significant numbers of imports - the only major import we've > ever had in Britain is a few counties' worth of bus-stops! It was my understanding people were importing OS data into GB? > No matter what point I might make, you're going to read the From: line, see > that "it's from one of the ODbL guys", and argue against it. And yes, I'm > sure some of us are guilty of that too. This is one of the points most people have continued to miss time and time again no matter how often I've said it, it's the methods being employed to try and get people to change is what I hate the most, lying by omission is very common, people aren't being given all the pertinent facts on the matter to make an actual judgment. I've spoken to one person since they've agreed and gave some of the cons and they were upset that they weren't informed better about the situation, they felt some what cheated how they were corralled into accepting, others have made similar comments in the last few days about their own experiences. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 00:02, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >Germany 90.1% >Great Britain 89.1% >France 96.8% >North America 96.4% >Russia 97.2% >Australia 48.4% You didn't show Albania which has an even low acceptance rate, nor did you comment on the fact that several import accounts of large amounts of data are included in those numbers. Also the Australia figure is lower than that, the QldProtectedAreas should never have been imported with an account that had agreed with the CT. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] missing messages
On 8 July 2011 16:18, Steve Coast wrote: > It's been pointed out that I'm not replying to hundreds of messages from > John Smith, Anthony and friends. > > I don't see them as they're automatically deleted. I find life is better > without having the trolls fill my inbox. > > However, if I have missed any reasonable points in there then feel free to > repost them, just don't put those guys email addresses in the to/from/cc > fields... As usual, tuck your tail between your legs and run off, unwilling or unable to justify position, this is partially the reason for no faith in OSM-F, it has nothing to do with planes or time zones, not to mention all the BS we're currently being fed by out PM, I doubt even the OSM-F could even compete with her. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 14:06, SteveC wrote: > As for this 'uk mob' thing, that too is unreasonable. As a democratically > elected board, we have members from many countries and you are invited to get > involved or run for election. Is it true that you had to do a lot of rule fiddling so you didn't have to retire to give others a chance on the board? > Its certainly difficult to integrate the eu, us and au communities when the > timezones are so hard to overlap. I am all ears on how we could fix that. It > would be wonderful if someone from au could make it to SOTM. In fact they are > running a video competition to pay for the costs of someone to attend. Especially so when you don't bother to listen to any feed back. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 14:06, SteveC wrote: > Actually, the license process has been known about for a long, long time so > it's not this new turnaround you cast it as. In addition, everyone else > (bing, ordnance survey...) has worked with us very reasonably. In fact it's > hard to say near map have been unreasonable, just that they were not quite as > happy as all our other contributors of similar data. Was the OS given all pertinent facts about ODBL and how it doesn't require a minimum level of attribution on produced works? AFAIK OS requires attribution and ODBL doesn't require it down stream. This is a big show stopped for most government agencies I've heard about in Australia. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 13:54, SteveC wrote: > I would phrase it that the vast majority aren't lawyers and don't want to > become one, therefore don't know the implications of the problems with cc. It's a false assumption, the only way it would be geo factual data is if you copied 1:1 from raster imagery, making maps is a creative enterprise, regardless if it's stored in a database or not, just like wikipedia content is copyrightable even though it's stored in a database. I believe CC has since changed their stance, possibly due to all the discussion over it. > The next step is to switch, and then if and when CC 4 comes out and is > applicable to data then it's a simple process to change to that. Of course, > in theory its a simple to change to switch from our current cc to the future > one, but then we have this big gap where it doesn't apply. AFAIK all you have to do is use a european ported license to cover database rights and there is no issue with upgrades since all CC licenses I've read include an upgrade clause. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 13:26, SteveC wrote: > The vast majority of people are happy with where we are at What about the 50 odd percent of people that haven't responded? > I don't see how it's reasonable to throw everything away for one guy who > doesn't like his countries laws. So you're planning to hold onto as much data as possible regardless of copyright laws and respecting content authors wishes? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 06:46, John Henderson wrote: > What particularly turns me off fosm.org is that I am unable to see a map > when I go to the site. Using Firefox on Linux, I click on "Maps" and get FOSM based tiles are being uploaded to archive.org: http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2 Although I'm still working to get expired tiles re-rendered in near real time. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 00:55, Steve Coast wrote: > We've gone to insanely long lengths to make that the case, including getting > clarifications from Ordnance Survey, Nearmap and many others. As far as I'm > aware there are no remaining issues as to why you can't click 'accept'. He said he wanted to keep using Nearmap, Nearmap have said you can't... What clarification did you get from OS? I've not see anything definite posted... > Not being a shareholder I can't influence them directly. As far as I'm > aware, their issue is that they don't like the fact that we can change > license later even though it's restricted to a free and open license. For What does free mean? What does open mean? > all practical purposes I doubt we will ever change again unless and until CC > release 4.0 which is mooted that it will contain provisions for data > licensing. It's a simple balance between making sure the data remains open > but also not going through this horrific license process again in the future > if, for example, CC is suddenly better in 3-5 years time. What specifically does CC need to change in their current licenses to be more useful? It's my understanding that ODBL doesn't require produced work be attributed which makes all CC licenses (except CC0) incompatible as you would be breaking the chain of attribution. > We could have drawn that line a bit more to one side and defined the license > or we could have drawn it a bit the other way and said that every single > contributor has to accept again. Either way there will be detractors. The > LWG is a bunch of volunteers and they spent a ton of time making that > judgement and whatever they chose it would be imperfect. The problem isn't just the new license or the CTs for that matter, it's how this were carried out, how our concerns were dismissed out of hand. > I prefer the LWG making a careful decision to the opposite extreme of "do > whatever nearmap says" (not that they ever made demands to my knowledge) as > it would be short sighted to deflect the project for one company. Nearmap was merely a sign of bigger issues and problems that the LWG or anyone else pushing for change didn't deal with properly and still haven't otherwise you wouldn't be trying to claim to be the victim here. > If you look at Bing on the other hand, I believe we're entirely happy giving > imagery derivation rights under the future direction outlined above. So, I Some doubt your claims since Bing hasn't official published anything on one of their websites, others are worried the use of Bing imagery will cause grief for OSM-F later. > believe we should spend energy enlightening aerial providers (or wait for > them to catch up) given Bing's enlightened example rather than bowing to > their short-term goals. Even Ordnance Survey have been great to work with > through these issues. Even OS! So things are great as long as you get your way? > So while no doubt nearmap is a great resource and it's a shame they no > longer want to be involved, it's clear that the majority do - even large > sclerotic government institutions are being agile and helpful about this. > The door, as ever, is open should nearmap every change their minds. They didn't decide to change things, you did so at least man up and take responsibility for your actions instead of trying to blame others. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 7 July 2011 07:54, Mark Pulley wrote: > How could I add CC-BY-SA derived data if I use GPS traces, audio recordings > of names, or imagery like Yahoo or Bing? The only way I could see this > happening would be if I was to deliberately go out of my way to add a Actually it's potentially trivial to use CC-by-SA data, since anyone that supplied contributions under cc-by-sa are still in the database and you only have to modify previous data to then have data derived from cc-by-sa ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 6 July 2011 22:35, Chris Barham wrote: > I'd like to think all this rather dull licence bickering will play out > and OSM will continue and strengthen. It's sad that people with > agendas are talking up the 'possible' deletion of data, and rushing > off to fork. That energy could have been used towards working on ways Are ya really going to play OSM-F as a victim card here, for the longest time no one seemed to give a hoot about us aussies and the large amounts of CC licensed data we stood to loose, and now in the 11th hour you and SteveC suddenly want to care about the community in Australia? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-legal-talk] Multiple license declaration
-- Forwarded message -- From: TimSC Date: 27 June 2011 01:38 Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Multiple license declaration To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." Hi all, I wanted to create a way for individual users to relicense their data under difference licenses. Since OSM and derivatives are OAuth capable, it is possible to authenticate a user and get them to agree to a license. This can be stored in a machine readable format. I hope this will be useful in transferring data between forks, particularly if a significant number of people chose permissive licenses. From what I can tell, most mappers pretty much agree to any license they are presented with. :) http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/ At this stage, I was hoping for ideas for improvements of the legal issues. Any thoughts? TimSC ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Fwd: Yahoo aerials will not be available after September 13, 2011
-- Forwarded message -- From: Nathan Edgars II Date: 26 June 2011 00:22 Subject: [OSM-talk] Yahoo aerials will not be available after September 13, 2011 To: Grant Slater Cc: t...@openstreetmap.org, annou...@openstreetmap.org On 6/25/2011 10:05 AM, Grant Slater wrote: > > On 25 June 2011 15:00, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> >> On 6/25/2011 9:59 AM, Grant Slater wrote: >>> >>> On 25 June 2011 14:56, Nathan Edgars IIwrote: Andrew-2 wrote: > > It says Yahoo is the main imagery source but it isn’t beginners’ level > material any more and soon won’t be available at all. First I've heard of this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Aerial_Imagery >>> >>> The aerial imagery being available or that Yahoo is retiring their >>> aerial imagery service/API? >> >> The latter. I would have expected something on the talk list. >> > > Yes makes sense. Go ahead. I would also recommend CC'ing announce@. > You know as much as I do. But read the linked: > http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2011/06/yahoo-maps-apis-service-closure-announcement-new-maps-offerings-coming-soon/ > > / Grant > Done, though I'm not subscribed to announce so it may not go through. ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] New Nearmap imagery
Dunno if the Nearmap OSM wikipage will get any more updates, but I've spent a bit of time updating the Nearmap information on the SharedMap wiki... http://wiki.sharedmap.org/wiki/NearMap_PhotoMaps There is quiet a bit of new coverage in Tasmania, South and Central Qld and Western Vic... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] "JohnSmith" edits on 19 June 2011
On 20 June 2011 14:49, Mark Pulley wrote: > Maybe Richard should have asked him privately first - I was mainly > responding to John's attitude that it didn't matter. Well, what does it matter now that they're going to start deleting non-CT data? > Obviously there had to be some sort of source - the question is, what is it? > Did he go there (quite possible, as I know John does go to that part of the > country). A couple of the changes were from past surveys, but I just don't take as much pride or put as much effort in these days because community no longer seems to matter so why should I bother putting in extra effort? > The possible contamination could be if he copied it from a copyright map. I > am hoping that he didn't do this, but as his initial response to Richard's > question was "what does it matter", I thought that needed clarification. To the best of my knowledge, I've only used sources compatible with CC-by-SA. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
On 20 June 2011 03:12, Grant Slater wrote: > I am sure theortical (and legally risky) loopholes could be found for > example as you describe above. We could have contructed painfully A simple admission that the previous email is a valid argument would have sufficed > We have people subverting our CC-BY-SA license right now!!1! *zomg* > And they wouldn't be abusing our ODbL license in future. > Case: UN: http://www.unitar.org/unosat-releases-new-maps-over-haiti Nice spin on things, except they need to adhere to copyright like everyone else, however what I've pointed out is completely legit and has no recourse. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] "JohnSmith" edits on 19 June 2011
What does it matter since I'm never going to agree to the CT... On 20 June 2011 02:11, Richard Weait wrote: > "JohnSmith" your four changesets today are missing descriptive > changeset comments. > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/JohnSmith/edits > > The barrier here http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8480159 > does not advise of the source you used. The connected way claims > yahoo as source, but that seems unlikely at the Yahoo resolution > there. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/35893671 > > The Warialda Creek edits > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8480260 also claim Yahoo > as the source. > > Please clarify for us the sources of these edits? > > ___ > 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] ODBL and real life...
On 20 June 2011 00:55, Grant Slater wrote: > If however on the other hand if someone created an SVG file specially > for the purpose of extracted OSM data and tags, it would be extremely > difficult for them to argue that is a produced work and not a > database. That's assuming a single party acting on bad faith, 2 independent parties operating independently would be able to claim otherwise. > There is a simple guideline on the wiki: (from 2009) > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline > >> In other words CC-by-SA protects data better than ODBL. >> > > No. See above. You are assuming that a single party or both parties involved are operating under bad faith, in all likelihood there could be a range of places to source data from, even OSM.org for that matter, with a secondary party operating in the US. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
Forgot to mention that SVG files are most likely produced works, even those they aren't raster images, so converting to SVG and then back to map data would potentially be pretty trivial. In other words CC-by-SA protects data better than ODBL. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 19 June 2011 19:32, Mark Pulley wrote: > Some of these boundaries have been edited to include highway=* and > waterway=* tags (mainly in areas with (at the time) no good imagery). How > easy is it to get a list of these ways? Now that better imagery is > available, now would be a good time to move these tags onto new, more > accurate ways, using imagery, prior to the boundaries disappearing (with the > loss of other information e.g. names). (Even if the boundaries weren't > disappearing, it would still be good to create new ways, as the boundaries > often aren't accurate.) Assuming that the source tag was left it would be very trivial, you could use the XAPI to pull these. However, it's my experience a lot of these ways have been realigned to aerial imagery, which is what tends to break these boundaries so much. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] ODBL and real life...
For the longest time it was claimed ODBL would better protect data than CC-by-SA in some jurisdictions, with the US being one of those. However the opposite seems true, since the above claim was based on the premise that creating maps wasn't a creative enterprise. The ODBL doesn't place a limit on what license produced works can be licensed as, they can be published as PD/CC0. In any case unless the copyright license contains no derivative clauses people are then able to derive data from produced works and that derived data can be used to build a vectorised database. There is one clause here where countries with database rights, when the data re-enters those countries the database right might re-apply, but this doesn't apply for countries like the US (or Australia for that matter). Although I'm told that the above section of Database Directive in EU is untested in court, and I think some CC licenses already waive database rights and going into the future I believe creative commons plan to include this in more licenses. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 17 June 2011 18:38, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:42 AM, David Murn wrote: >> That is the reason why very little effort has been expended mapping >> Australia lately, until we know what skeleton of data we'll have left to >> work with after the changeover. >> >> If you want to map for OSM at the moment, your best bet is to map >> offline using something like JOSM, then save all your edits to be >> uploaded when the licence issue has been sorted out, otherwise you might >> find youre spending hours fixing up the map only to find all your work >> removed or broken when other users data is removed. > > So is there some sort of secret Australian cabal that I should know > about? Do you guys have a mailing list? I sure don't see much of this > kind of discussion on this list... It's hardly a secret, in fact one of the guiding emphasises is on transparency. http://groups.google.com/group/osm-fork?pli=1 Although I disagree with mapping offline, that would seem to be the most likely approach to people duplicating effort. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities
-- Forwarded message -- From: Steve Coast Date: 17 June 2011 07:09 Subject: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities To: t...@openstreetmap.org Hi I'm speaking personally and there are no guarantees here but I'd like to get input on what areas you would like Bing to prioritise for aerial and/or satellite imagery in the coming year. Please mail sco...@microsoft.com with the area in question (I'd love to accept bounding boxes but don't really have the time so cities/countries are the best). I will pass this on to the right people and we may or may not be able to help. Thanks Steve ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 16 June 2011 15:01, Gary Gallagher wrote: > Thanks for all the comments, I think I'll hold off. It does seem > unfortunate that there is no basic work-flow to convert a boundary into > a relation containing the ways that make it up. From what you've said > Nick merging nodes still keeps them as separate ways just stacked on top > of each other - which is what I'm trying to avoid. The boundaries should already be relations, but people tend to break them frequently. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 15 June 2011 12:16, Gary Gallagher wrote: > I've been working on my suburb (Brunswick East), and keep coming across > tangled messes of ways caused by the boundary data effectively floating > above different ways. Roads are being connected to the boundary instead > of the the road. The road or other way has been moved to create a clear > path for the boundary and vice-a-versa. I presume the overlapping > sections of the boundary could be merged with the underlying way. Has > anybody had any experience doing this and what are the potential > pitfalls? The current boundaries will be removed in the near future, so if I were you I wouldn't spend to much time fussing over them. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-legal-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
-- Forwarded message -- From: Michael Collinson Date: 15 June 2011 06:30 Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will mean that anyone who has explictly declined the new contributor terms will no longer be able to edit, (unless they decide to accept). This currently numbers 406 in total compared to over 191,000 who now contribute under the new terms. They or our forking folks may wish to grab a planet dump now and another one just before the phase 5 cut-over to ODbL. Planet dumps are generally made every Wednesday as of 11:01 UK time and become available 3 days later. Next week's version will probably be made on Tuesday due to the coming UCL shutdown. I would emphasise there is currently no need to remove data from the live database since the license is still CC-BY-SA. I believe there is no urgency to do so until acceptances have been maximised, local issues that have a near term solution have been addressed and there is a sense of community consensus that it is time. The License Working Group will continue listening to all feedback. Regards, Mike License Working Group [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Free ebooks
Earlier this week 4000 academic books were released for free, apparently there is quite a lot of GIS books in the mix: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/slashgeo/~3/j318KMk-yGU/Hundreds-Free-Geospatial-PDF-Books-National-Academies-Press ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Redistricting 2.0: Cloud Lets Voters Take Part
CWmike writes "As the 2010 U.S. census results arrived, Los Angeles County's politicians started ramping up for redistricting — the once-a-decade, computing-intensive, often contentious process of geographically carving up the populace into discrete parcels of voters. In the past, such decisions were made by politicians using expensive computer systems and software. Participation in the process was limited to an elite few who could afford experts who understood redistricting's arcane rules and GIS technology well enough to game them. This year, however, it won't just be the politicians and special interest groups poring over the data and tweaking boundary lines. All 4.5 million registered voters in LA County have access to a cloud-based redistricting application called the Public Access Plan that lets voters view and modify existing maps and boundaries, submit comments, and even create and submit their own plans from scratch. LA County is among the first government entities to consider providing Web-based tools that allow for direct public participation. 'This notion of public access has changed quite dramatically,' says Tim Storey, a senior fellow at the National Conference of State Legislatures. 'Throwing that wide open is a big step.' The big question now is whether the public will use it." http://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/05/25/1719206/Redistricting-20-Cloud-Lets-Voters-Take-Part?utm_source=rss1.0&utm_medium=feed Ok, not about Australian political boundaries, but why shouldn't our politicians be held to the same accountability. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Fwd: [Aust-NZ] Open public sector information principles launched [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
-- Forwarded message -- From: Bruce Bannerman Date: 26 May 2011 15:26 Subject: [Aust-NZ] Open public sector information principles launched [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] To: OSGeo NZ/AU Fyi http://www.cio.com.au/article/387826/open_public_sector_information_principl es_launched/?eid=-601&uid=111064 An extract: == "The Australian Information Commissioner, John McMillan, has launched the government's eight Principles on open public sector information. According to McMillan, the principles < which have been developed by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) through a process of public consultation < recognise government information as a national resource that should be published for community access and use. "These Principles set out the central values of open public sector information that it be freely available, easily discoverable, understandable, machine-readable and reusable," McMillan said in a statement." === Bruce ___ Aust-NZ mailing list aust...@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/aust-nz ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Kempsey, NSW
There is Bing imagery covering Kempsey, but a distinct lack of mapping, or was before I started adding them, but still plenty to do. I mentioned Tamworth a few weeks ago and within a day or so it had been mapped out extensively from Bing imagery. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Rendering your own maps
Over the past few days I've been documenting the exact steps needed to setup, run and maintain your own map rendering system. If the area is small enough you can even do it in a virtual machine, and a vmware image will be published at some point so all you need to do is download, run and tell it the area of the planet you are actually interested in. http://wiki.sharedmap.org/wiki/Rendering_At_Home We have been given permission from Archive.org to store map tiles on their systems, however scripts are still being tweaked to make this as simple and straight forward that anyone with a little technical experience would have no problems using. Some details about the current thoughts on how to best to achieve this based on a few limitations: http://wiki.sharedmap.org/wiki/ArchiveOrg This should make it possible and easy for anyone that wants tiles for a custom style sheet. We have a proof of concept map page running: http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html While there is tiles for most of the planet up to z6, as a test we published some z21 tiles for Sydney, only to find out the default style sheet does very poorly beyond about z18 with roads disappearing and all sorts of weird things, the only thing that still looked ok was polygons that get rendered. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] 3D Aerial Photos For the Common Man
An anonymous reader writes "So you have a RC model aircraft snapping digital photos from the air, but how do you organize them all? This cheap cloud service from a European research giant will upload your photos and automatically convert them into 3D models you can navigate like a video game. And if you don't have a model aircraft, they got those on-the-cheap too. Let the overhead droning begin!" http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/05/22/1820200/3D-Aerial-Photos-For-the-Common-Man?utm_source=rss1.0&utm_medium=feed ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] A modest proposal fo OSM mailing list reform
On 21 May 2011 16:11, John Smith wrote: > If people want to use a forum like interface, gmane.org does that I believe. Actually gmane.org does a few different options, include a blog like interface... http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.region.au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] A modest proposal fo OSM mailing list reform
On 21 May 2011 16:08, Sam Couter wrote: > John Smith wrote: >> On 21 May 2011 13:52, Nick Hocking wrote: >> > Forums (IMO) are much superior to mailing lists for one simple reason >> > If the forum software is a threaded one then it is really easy to avoid >> > reading any drivel from the trolls. You just ignore the whole thread if the >> > troll starts it or just ignore any parts of an otherwise useful thread if >> > it >> > becomes troll infested. > >> While not a forum, you do realise you can do the same thing with a >> newsgroup interface? > > Any decent mail client will offer the same feature. > > Forums suck hardcore. They all have different feature sets, differently > disabled UIs, they encourage terrible posting styles, and worst of all I > have to go to them (and register separately at each one, log in each > time I visit, manage yet another user profile, remember a whole new set of > user identities for those I interact with, etc) if I want to read the > content. > > With mailing lists on the other hand, the content conveniently comes > direct to me, I get to choose what software has the interface I like, and > it is impossible for censors to delete stuff before I get to see it. All > that, and I still have a delete button for stuff I don't want to see. I was trying to avoid the discussion/flame war over mailing lists v forums v whatever. This is a very subjective thing, possibly due to when you started to use the internet and your personality/preferences etc etc etc If people want to use a forum like interface, gmane.org does that I believe. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] A modest proposal fo OSM mailing list reform
On 21 May 2011 13:52, Nick Hocking wrote: > Forums (IMO) are much superior to mailing lists for one simple reason > If the forum software is a threaded one then it is really easy to avoid > reading any drivel from the trolls. You just ignore the whole thread if the > troll starts it or just ignore any parts of an otherwise useful thread if it > becomes troll infested. > > With mailing lists it is easy to just not open a post from a troll but if > someone else directly quotes a troll then it is a bit tricky to "stop > reading instantly". > > The trick is that the forum must be threaded. Of course the desperate trolls > will then start to put their poison in the subject line and to increase > their use of sock puppets so as to try to trick us into reading their > garbage. At this point there, unfortunately, needs to be some form of > moderation/banning (or CENSORSHIP as the trolls will bleat). While not a forum, you do realise you can do the same thing with a newsgroup interface? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mailing_lists#Reading_mailing_lists_via_newsgroup_interface ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wiki censorship
On 18 May 2011 23:12, Grant Slater wrote: > On 18 May 2011 14:02, John Smith wrote: >> On 18 May 2011 22:56, Grant Slater wrote: >>>> Grant has absolutely no respect for user wishes, he's defaced my own >>>> wiki page, which I can no longer edit, after I left a note asking >>>> people not to edit my wiki page. >>>> >>> >>> What bollocks. I added a notice to the *discussion page* with evidence >> >> Yes and since it usually takes 2 to tango, so what actions were taken >> against others? >> > > Please supply evidence. > I have listed the people who have been complaining about you and you > removing their complains from the discussion page. How about you start with the first person (Nop), he reverted it without any discussion, and you are the biggest hypocrite of them all, you seem to show no bounds when it comes to forcing your opinions of how people should communicate on others. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wiki censorship
On 18 May 2011 22:56, Grant Slater wrote: >> Grant has absolutely no respect for user wishes, he's defaced my own >> wiki page, which I can no longer edit, after I left a note asking >> people not to edit my wiki page. >> > > What bollocks. I added a notice to the *discussion page* with evidence Yes and since it usually takes 2 to tango, so what actions were taken against others? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wiki censorship
On 18 May 2011 17:56, Tim Challis wrote: > Frankly I'd think twice about using the OSM messaging system, as I note > your (new!) sharedmap wiki page recommends... At this stage I'm playing about with options and most likely will not be making many changes initially to the information that will appear there... The wikia.com option has to many annoying flash based ads for my liking, and the sharedmap wiki config is still being tweaked to be useful... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wiki censorship
On 18 May 2011 06:38, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > Set of rules made by one group, complaints handled by same group, > prosecution handled by same group, judgement made by same group, > punishment handled by same group. Grant has absolutely no respect for user wishes, he's defaced my own wiki page, which I can no longer edit, after I left a note asking people not to edit my wiki page. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wiki censorship
Sugar coat it all you want, but what action did you take against anyone else involved? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Wiki censorship
It seems if you are on the wining side of an argument you end up blocked, so I'm most likely going to start an aussie wiki and not care about the "official" wiki ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Nearmap badly out of date
On 13 May 2011 15:38, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:24 PM, John Smith wrote: >> That's before you consider the resolution, it's so high that railway >> lines and switching tracks are mapped so accurately people were >> suggesting to those that make train games they could use OSM data as >> the basis of their track data for more realistic simulations. > > Yeah, I've wondered for a while if people couldn't make interesting > RTS type games using OSM data. Would be pretty cool to do a > military/economic simulation on an area that you know... I think at least 1 flight sim already uses OSM data. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Nearmap badly out of date
On 13 May 2011 13:14, Steve Bennett wrote: > You're not serious. Nearmap is the best resource OSM has ever had in > Australia. For every kilometre of road where Nearmap shows something > contradicted by more recent surveys, there are probably 100+ > kilometres of roads that no one could ever have been bothered > surveying. That's before you consider the resolution, it's so high that railway lines and switching tracks are mapped so accurately people were suggesting to those that make train games they could use OSM data as the basis of their track data for more realistic simulations. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Queensland border and the MacIntyre River...
On 9 May 2011 20:39, Tim Challis wrote: > To save you ploughing through it, the lightning summary seems to be > since 1946 the mid-line of the river is the answer you want. (If you > want to get technical, it should be the median line of the riverbanks as > they existed in 1859... the big catch is, they were not actually > surveyed then, so the dispute had to be resettled in 1946, and confirmed > in 1993, and reconfirmed in 2008 I was hoping someone might know due to work or what not, but thanks for looking it up :D ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Canberra Mapping - out of date
On 8 May 2011 17:47, John Smith wrote: > On 5 May 2011 10:33, David Murn wrote: >> On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 21:22 +1000, Nick Hocking wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately this has meant that Canberra OSM data is now badly out >>> of date. I have recently heard of a situation where up-to-date >>> Canberra data could have been *extremely* usefull to somebody. > > What's more of a shame is the fact existing roads are being remapped > when there is tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of > rural roads that could be mapped from Bing that isn't already mapped. > Oh and if anyone is looking to redo vector data from Bing, Tamworth, NSW has a lot of poorly aligned roads based on survey data. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Canberra mapping - nearly up-to-date.
On 9 May 2011 01:28, David Murn wrote:
> These current edits are of value to OSM, newly developed roads in
> developing suburbs ('some of which already have people living on them').
How can newly developed roads be mapped from Bing?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Tom Tom selling customer data to the police in .au as well
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/08/tom_tom_oz_data_to_cops/ ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Queensland border and the MacIntyre River...
On 9 May 2011 13:39, 4x4falcon wrote: > I'd say the centre of the main channel as the only sign I've ever seen there > is half way across a bridge. The bridge at Texas has the sign on the southern side of the bridge, but the 'Welcome to Qld/NSW' sign is on the northern side. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Queensland border and the MacIntyre River...
The south bank of the main stream of the Murray River is the NSW/Vic border, but does anyone know where the NSW border lies with respect the MacIntyre River? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Canberra mapping - nearly up-to-date.
On 8 May 2011 21:41, Nick Hocking wrote: > As usual - non trolls are welcome to let me know if I've missed anything (or > made some mistakes). So people asking difficult, but honest questions are labelled trolls so you don't have to answer? All this looks like is vandalism and half baked edits that should be reverted as you aren't adding value to the map, if you continue to do so any one of several of us will start reverting all your change sets. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Canberra Mapping - out of date
On 5 May 2011 10:33, David Murn wrote: > On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 21:22 +1000, Nick Hocking wrote: > >> Unfortunately this has meant that Canberra OSM data is now badly out >> of date. I have recently heard of a situation where up-to-date >> Canberra data could have been *extremely* usefull to somebody. What's more of a shame is the fact existing roads are being remapped when there is tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of rural roads that could be mapped from Bing that isn't already mapped. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Canberra Mapping - out of date
On 6 May 2011 10:47, David Murn wrote: > This could almost be considered vandalism, what you are doing to the > quality of the map data available for Canberra. Please dont touch any > of my 'out-of-date' edits from the past 6 months to realign them with 10 > year old aerial imagery. You mentioned previously that Bing was out of alinement by up to 100m, if this is the case it is a clear case of vandalism since he should be at the vest least realigning Bing imagery to GPS traces. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Fwd: [Aust-NZ] LINZ survey
-- Forwarded message -- From: Alister Hood Date: 5 May 2011 11:58 Subject: [Aust-NZ] LINZ survey To: OSGeo NZ/AU , nzopen...@googlegroups.com Hi everyone, First, apologies if you get this twice because you’re on both lists. I don’t think anyone has mentioned yet: if anyone is interested, LINZ is conducting “an online survey about the geospatial industry in New Zealand”, to “help inform LINZ's future geospatial product and service strategies”. The survey closes at midnight on 10th May. https://surveys.researchnz.com/RegisterLINZGeospatial Regards, Alister ___ Aust-NZ mailing list aust...@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/aust-nz ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Reassurance and Licensing
It's such a shame that your high regard for diverse opinions only seem to matter if they match yours. On 5/4/11, Ian Sergeant wrote: > On 4 May 2011 20:40, Tim Challis wrote: > >> Sarcasm aside. I am quite happy to go along with Liz' pronunciations to >> date. If she starts going mad with power and saying something in my >> name I am not happy with, I think I will let her know then. > > She said something in mine I wasn't happy with, and I did. Seems we > are in much the same boat. > > But equally seriously, unless there is some kind of organisational > structure in Australia, I don't think anybody should attempt to speak > on behalf of the Australian community. While you might agree with > Liz's pronoucement to date, I'm confident there is some diversity of > opinion out there, and everybody is entitled to put their views as > they see them. > > Ian. > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > -- Sent from my mobile device ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] OSM CTs
On 2 May 2011 22:03, Ian Callahan wrote: >> Those pushing for changes might have expected things to result in a >> fork as a result of what's happened but that isn't what has happened, >> instead the OSM community are on the verge of splintering into many >> various projects > > Precisely. In all probability none of them will be viable. Time will tell on this, but already you have some serious efforts, such as CommonMap, to a lesser extent FOSM, and even just people doing their own little maps and not sharing with anyone else which is the worst possible outcome, especially if the areas mapped is done multiple times. > My point is that those agitating for change should go off and start their > own project, not hijack ours. > > They are welcome to use _our_ data providing they comply with the CTs under > which it was originally contributed, or as much of it as is compatible with > their view of propriety. But please don't destroy what so many have worked > for. You aren't the first to express this opinion, I doubt you'll be the last. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] OSM CTs
On 2 May 2011 20:55, Ian Callahan wrote: > I realise that if OSM is to continue in its previous guise, then the time > and effort expended on projects like FreeOSM will be wasted. But isn't that > the best outcome? Those pushing for changes might have expected things to result in a fork as a result of what's happened but that isn't what has happened, instead the OSM community are on the verge of splintering into many various projects because while people were able to go with the flow in the past there is no reason that is even a good idea in future based on all good will being blown up. So while it might be possible to salvage a status quo section of the community, everyone else is planning their next move at this point as it seems obvious that OSM-F is determined to continue ripping the community apart. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] NSW Dept of Lands aerial imagery...
The NSW Dept of Lands seems to have quite a lot of aerial imagery (http://lite.maps.nsw.gov.au/), in their terms of use all copyrightable material is for personal or non-comercial use only, but doesn't seem to cover deriving data from their imagery, and what can be done with it afterwards. Does anyone have any thoughts on if they'd be favourable to allowing the community to derive map data at all? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Trolls
On 30 April 2011 20:09, Nick Hocking wrote: > PS - tomorrow I will find out all the ways in Canberra that I had to fix > using nearmap, and replace them using compliant Bing imagery" So you wiped out perfectly good map data for sub-standard data? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] What to map a site of historical significants...
On 23 April 2011 19:43, John Smith wrote: > any one have any thoughts on what to tag a location famous for 2 > reasons, first it was a spot cobb & co got held up by thunderbolt, > secondly because someone did a painting of the event: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailed_Up > > As there is no marker or anything else to identify the site, the only > thing I can think of is something like historic=historical_site, but > that seems a bit redundant... > For the benefit of those not on the tagging list, Martin came up with a reasonable suggestion: historic=event historic:event=* ___ 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 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 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] 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...
In the last few days people have posted numerous diary entries about being unaware about the up coming changes. I am only surprised about how poorly things have been communicated with mappers, the replies to the posts are typical responses that try to confuse the issue. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/cainmark/diary/13601 http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/netman55/diary/13603 http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mce/diary/13656 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tragedy of the commons...
Same thing in the UK with OS data, it becomes free but requires attribution and OSM-F turns round and says that's great and all, but we want it with no strings now. On 4/25/11, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: >> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:18:41 +1000 >> "Alex (Maxious) Sadleir" wrote: >> >>> Also, I hear that Kiwi OSM surveyors are having just as much trouble >>> convincing OSM-F that their government too has done the due diligence >>> on Creative Commons for geodata: >>> http://brainoff.com/weblog/2011/04/11/1635#comment-222869 >> >> the comments are now error 403 > " Gavin Treadgold said, > April 11, 2011 @ 11:09 pm > > We’ve just got the Govt here in NZ to agree and started releasing lots > of data in CC-BY (through NZ GOAL), and now OSM is moving the > goalposts, making us look like fools with our cap in hand asking ‘Can > we please have some more?’" > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > -- Sent from my mobile device ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Does FOSM really work?
On 25 April 2011 08:09, Kevin Sheather wrote: > I have tried to use FOSM but with no success. I have opened an account and > logged in but none of the links seem to work with the exception of the > Attribution link that takes me back to an OSM Wiki page. The Potlatch link > produces a mostly blank page with not a map in sight. Is it designed to > operate on Windows Explorer 9? I've only used FOSM with JOSM, I've found it a little slow in downloading data, but it does work for me. Although it doesn't seem to have the same 0.25 of a degree limit when downloading, so in rural areas it actually makes life easier. ___ 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 08:26, Andrew Harvey wrote: > Once fosm gets a tile server (even a third party one) I'll probably > switch. In the meantime I thought osm edits were mirrored across to > fosm (though the more fosm gets edited, there will be merge edits, > which I'm not sure how fosm will handle.) That is my understanding as well, and for a while I kept uploading map data to OSM-F's DB, but I became increasingly unmotivated from doing this because of emails about immoral ways to get people to accept the new CTs regardless of if it taints OSM-F's data or not. > Agreed. http://planet.fosm.org/planet/ just seems to have diffs since > nov, but no sign of the planet.osm that one starts with before > applying these diffs. I've cc'd 80n on this email, he's involved with fosm.org, hopefully he can give a time line if nothing exists yet... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tragedy of the commons...
On 24 April 2011 22:48, Richard Weait wrote: > No. It's much closer to a Wikipedia transition from GNU FDL to > CC-By-SA. OpenStreetMap is moving to a license that is much better > suited to data, while maintaining the Share Alike and Attribution > aspects. As those in the UK would say... 'Bollocks'... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tragedy of the commons...
On 24 April 2011 22:18, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir wrote: > As was said on talk, it seems pretty absurd to be moving an open > mapping project in 2011 such that it is shutting out Ordinance Survey > and NearMap when all they ask for is attribution. It's a GPL v BSD type issue, some people want share a like, others think a BSD/PD style license is the way to go, which would be fine if they started up their own project, but instead they're trying to hijack a share a like project with a substantial amount of data, and some are getting pretty desperate about it judging by their emails to some of the other mailing lists. > 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'm not sure, at this stage I've just been uploading my edits, but I should look into this as well so I can have my edits start rendering, although I'm mostly just interested in the aussie data. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Tragedy of the commons...
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... 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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons On a more amusing note, I'm sure there is a spoof song in 'What a crying shame' http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/the-mavericks/what-a-crying-shame-14529.html Anyone know where to email Weird Al? :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
