Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees
I almost hesitate to jump in, but I'd like to give the perspective from Cloudmade that I think is probably mirrored in skobbler. In Cloudmade staff are passionate about OSM and mapping. Many of the staff wanted to join OSMF 2 years ago and we encouraged that. And we got the same reaction from some parts of the community. However, I can clearly state that my team (and most of them were my team) would have told me to f#%k off if I even tried to tell them how to map, hack or vote. The employees of Cloudmade are as diverse a set of mappers as any other group of OSM members and it was down right rude at that time to view them as corporate surrogates being directed to some sinister goal. They may share some common concerns but so do lots of other collections of people in OSM. In short I think the same thing is happening to the individuals at skobbler who are probably wondering now (like my guys did in the past) why the hell did I bother getting involved? My $0.02 only. Jim Brown CTO - CloudMade j...@cloudmade.com Sent from my iPad On 25 Aug 2011, at 05:34, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 August 2011 22:26, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com writes: This was completely easy in the past, but is it realistic to keep OSMF relatively unimportant if it is rights holder for all the data? It might be better to spin off a separate organization which is the rights holder, separate from the less contentious OSMF functions like providing funding to keep the servers running or organizing SoTM. Wouldn't spreading resources thinner only make it easier for someone with enough money and other resources to game the system? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees
Sure... They were passionate prior to that of course. Look at the evolution of the kyiv map over time. It's also really telling that so many have left Cloudmade and still are part of the community, these are individual mappers your are talking about. People who give a damn about OSM, They just started talking and asking about getting into OSMF, which they needed help doing as you probably recall I think. It used to be much harder to join. So we decided to help, and so they joined. I'm doubly surprised that you still think that was some evil plan. Nothing particularly evil came from it as I recall. But if you do still think there was bad intent, it is obviously pointless to try and change your mind. I'm just glad most of the community seems to be over it. Ciao, Jim On 25 Aug 2011, at 08:17, 80n 80n...@gmail.commailto:80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Jim Brown mailto:j...@cloudmade.comj...@cloudmade.commailto:j...@cloudmade.com wrote: I almost hesitate to jump in, but I'd like to give the perspective from Cloudmade that I think is probably mirrored in skobbler. In Cloudmade staff are passionate about OSM and mapping. Many of the staff wanted to join OSMF 2 years ago and we encouraged that. And we got the same reaction from some parts of the community. Jim My recollection was that they all got passionate about OSM on the same day, just one day before the close of email voting for that year's election. Care to comment on that? 80n However, I can clearly state that my team (and most of them were my team) would have told me to f#%k off if I even tried to tell them how to map, hack or vote. The employees of Cloudmade are as diverse a set of mappers as any other group of OSM members and it was down right rude at that time to view them as corporate surrogates being directed to some sinister goal. They may share some common concerns but so do lots of other collections of people in OSM. In short I think the same thing is happening to the individuals at skobbler who are probably wondering now (like my guys did in the past) why the hell did I bother getting involved? My $0.02 only. Jim Brown CTO - CloudMade mailto:j...@cloudmade.comj...@cloudmade.commailto:j...@cloudmade.com Sent from my iPad On 25 Aug 2011, at 05:34, John Smith mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.commailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 August 2011 22:26, Ed Avis mailto:e...@waniasset.come...@waniasset.commailto:e...@waniasset.com wrote: Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at http://gmail.com gmail.comhttp://gmail.com writes: This was completely easy in the past, but is it realistic to keep OSMF relatively unimportant if it is rights holder for all the data? It might be better to spin off a separate organization which is the rights holder, separate from the less contentious OSMF functions like providing funding to keep the servers running or organizing SoTM. Wouldn't spreading resources thinner only make it easier for someone with enough money and other resources to game the system? ___ talk mailing list mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org talk@openstreetmap.orgmailto:talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list mailto:talk@openstreetmap.orgtalk@openstreetmap.orgmailto:talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Private negotiations
Let's be clear that Cloudmade have not been in any private discussions, nor made any demands of OSMF or the lwg. We support odbl and I think most (if not all) of us have accepted the new cts. I'd be curious where this came from. Jim Brown -CTO CloudMade (Sent from my iPhone) +44 7595 367 664 On 8 Jun 2011, at 10:49, Quintin Driver quentindrive...@gmail.com wrote: Richard, have you or any of the LWG members done any work for MapQuest, Skobbler and / or Cloudmade ? -- I'm led to believe that people have been issuing LWG with private lists of demands that they want met before they will consent to ODbL+CT. Could I ask that said people have the courtesy to post their demands here, too? It would be a shame if the suspicion arose that the process is being swayed by closed demands. LWG does of course publish minutes, as is right and proper, but there is currently no requirement for those writing to it to disclose their own demands. cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License graph
nice j -Original Message- From: Toby Murray [mailto:toby.mur...@gmail.com] Sent: 16 April 2011 10:01 To: OSM Talk Subject: [OSM-talk] License graph Not sure if anyone else is already doing this but two days ago I thought it would be fun (maybe even useful) to graph the number of users who have accepted/declined the new license/CT in anticipation of the next phase going into effect on Sunday. I hacked together a quick dirty script to use as a data source in the Zabbix instance I have set up at home. Zabbix is geared towards system monitoring so it is a little odd to graph something completely unrelated but it was available and easy to do and at the end of the day, a graph is a graph. Anyway, I didn't feel like sending out the URL to my private zabbix instance at home to the mailing list so I set up a cron job to periodically refresh a static image on a more legitimate server. It can be seen here: http://ni.kwsn.net/~toby/OSM/license_count.html Enjoy, Toby ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM data and Google Maps
I strongly agree... Most errors are honest mistakes and we should always start with the presumption of innocence. Jim Brown (Sent from my iPhone) On 3 Nov 2010, at 09:35, Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi wrote: Martijn van Exel m at rtijn.org writes: Ed - Big thumbs up for the quick response to this. Makes one wonder though - how much OSM data lives in Google Maps without us / you knowing about it, and what measures can you take / are in place to prevent and detect this? I am pretty sure that we also have data which are derived or even directly imported from Google Maps and other non-free datasets inside OSM even we shouldn't. We have removed such data in the past and we will need to do the same in the future. What is important is that misuse will be corrected when discovered. I do not like very much the Hall of shame list about misuse of OSM data without having another list about our own faults. Google removed the data very fast and apologized just like we did with the Latvian case. Or at least we removed the data, not sure if we apologized. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Sock puppetry is not welcome here
++ jim From: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Emilie Laffray Sent: 01 September 2010 10:39 To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Sock puppetry is not welcome here On 1 September 2010 10:36, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.commailto:gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29 A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. The rash of posts by Jane Smith and 80 m are examples sockpuppetry at its worst. If you care for this kind of thing, take it elsewhere. It's not big, it's not clever, it's not funny, and most of all, it's not something we accept here. For the avoidance of doubt, there's a difference between sockpuppetry and pseudonyms. And if you disagree with the use of pseudonyms within our community, then take the matter up directly, rather than with such stupid mailing list posts as we've seen over the last few days. Let me remind you that legal-talk, like our other mailing lists, is here for constructive, positive discussion (and positive, constructive disagreement too), not for sending anonymous abusive emails to and/or regarding other people in the community. Comment greatly appreciated. Emilie Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [Talk-us] Changing the account that uploaded the TIGER data
Hi Dave, I think it a really good practice to use a specific account for either a big upload or a set of uploads... Glad to see this. As for your road, I can tell you that we (cloudmade) have used both that user id and the last edit date to decide if something is unedited tiger. So my guess is that you edited it during the upload time frame prior to Feb 28, 2008... touching the way now with that same id would change the date and our systems would treat it as having been edited (as the date would be later). Its all approximation in any case... many tiger roads will be looked at, determined to be fine and probably never edited which we have no way to detect eaisly either... So, the unedited Tiger incidation on the sandbox is really about helping people figure out what may need to be looked at. We also try to determin batch and bot activity internally by looking at extreamly high levels of activity on a single account in a single day... If it os over a threashold we flag it internally as bot/batch for our reference. We could probably surface these flags as well as they may help mappers. I'd think both in the sandbox maps we do (like matt's) and possibly in the mapzen editor as well to help people figure out what might need to be reviewed... Anyway, great move on setting the new account... that really helps keep things clear. Jim Brown -Original Message- From: talk-us-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-us-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: 15 October 2009 00:37 To: Talk Openstreetmap Cc: Talk Openstreetmap Subject: [Talk-us] Changing the account that uploaded the TIGER data So, I just noticed that this map: http://matt.sandbox.cloudmade.com/?lat=45.528599lng=-122.885771zoom=15layer=2 has my own street listed as unedited TIGER data. I think someone is just using user==DaveHansen as a test for edited vs. uneditied TIGER data. So, I changed the display name. It is now DaveHansenTiger, with an email of osm-ti...@sr71.net. I created a new account 'DaveHansen' with my regular d...@sr71.net email. I promise not to use DaveHansenTiger any more. If I do a new upload, I'll use DaveHansenTiger2009 or something. Cool? -- Dave ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Changing the account that uploaded the TIGER data
Hmmm, I like the version = 1 as well Richard... good test. j -Original Message- From: talk-us-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-us-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fairhurst Sent: 15 October 2009 11:45 To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Changing the account that uploaded the TIGER data Dave Hansen wrote: I think someone is just using user==DaveHansen as a test for edited vs. uneditied TIGER data. FWIW, Potlatch uses: - last editor was user 7168 _and_ - way is version 1 _and_ - way has a tiger:tlid tag to highlight unedited ways (if the user has turned that option on). cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Changing-the-account-that-uploaded-the-TIGER-data-tp25900938p25906438.html Sent from the Talk-US mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tiger US address importing
I think getting the address interpolation lines in from 2008 (rather than 2009) makes sense because it will match the geometry of unchanged lines currently in the DB (about 89% of the Tiger road data has not been edited as of now, it was 95% about 6 months ago)... We could take the lines from 2009, but then matching the roads they go with could be more difficult... as a background to work on the 2008 might be better and eaiser to match up. Unless we are thinking of doing a full road update, then I think we should view this as completing the import of 2008 by getting the addressing interpolation lines in where possible. If we associate the interpolation lines with the roads they apply to, then when they are then edited in the future the addressing data is updated. This is particularly important because we see a lot of arial imagry editing of Tiger data (lots of people fixing roads and connecting the disconnected tiger road segments). If this is how people are editing areas then it is very difficult for them to get address data with it. So it would be cool to get the address lines in with the data so its geometry is corrected along with the roads geometry. As for detecting which roads to import, one approach is: 1. Look at the last edit data and user id of the osm data, if they are all still from the import then they are original and are eligible for importing interpolation lines around.We could then filter furhter out any lines that have addressing data on them already, or meet other criteria (road type, proximity to well edited areas etc). We should be as cautious as possible here and I think we will still hit most of the 89% yet to be edited. 2. On these eligible lines, If the tiger tags are still present, then we can use them to fetch the interpolation lines from Tiger. However, if they are not present for a significnat portion of the eligible roads then we can do a geometry match (we have planet line tables at CloudMade in our data warehouse so we could do this...). If we are going to match on geometry however, we might just want to do this from the start against a load of the interpolation lines to see which are valid and skip step 1 (not sure)... 3. In the end we produce the list of interpolation lines to import and associate. I think the idea here is exactly the same as the Tiger import It would be to give a back ground data set for people to work against and as the tiger roads are fixed, the addressing data would be fixed at the same time... We would also have a useful set of US addresses in OSM to work with that would match the Tiger data and evolve with the Tiger data. As we know, showing data like addressing in routing, maps and geocoding will encourage people to get in and fix it :) ... As for your point about county data, I agree completely... we should also be importing county data sources as they come available and can be validated. Tools that help do this are important. I think that the tiger data is a valuable backdrop to do this against. Jim Aschiell wrote From: Apollinaris Schoell [mailto:ascho...@gmail.com] Sent: 17 September 2009 19:26 To: Jim Brown Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org; tb...@libero.it; Matt Amos Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Tiger US address importing definitely something which should be continued. but it's not trivial. some considerations - 2009 update for tiger date should come soon. and hopefully it has less errors. makes sense to wait for it - in areas where data hasn't been touched it's also very likely the areas which are of bad tiger data. adding more broken data doesn't help osm at all. - areas which haven't been touched are most likely areas no one is interested in. why clutter the database with more broken data. - how do you check that tiger data was not changed? You can't take the version of a way and assume there was no change in geometry there is an ongoing discussion about deep history and this is a non trivial problem. since all tiger nodes are cleaned of their obsolete tags any tiger node will be pushed to version 2 or more. You can not rely on version number. you must verify the position itself against an old history dump. From: Apollinaris Schoell [mailto:ascho...@gmail.com] Sent: 17 September 2009 21:04 To: Richard Shank Cc: Jim Brown; tb...@libero.it; Matt Amos; talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Tiger US address importing I know user nmixter has started to to compile a list for california for free county gis data. Can't connect to the wiki right now. But easy to find from the California page. On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Richard Shank deve...@zestic.commailto:deve...@zestic.com wrote: Apollinaris Schoell wrote: - more and more counties make their data available for the public. I hope such data is authoritative and much more useful. wherever possible this should be used instead. Is there a complied list of these counties? Since everything is handled
Re: [Talk-GB] Progress on estimating UK coverage
Peter, Very interesting work you have done here, the CSVs are particularly interesting. Where did you source the Dept of Transportation data ? We (CloudMade) look at similar stats on a county level in the USA - and at a full country level in Europe and the rest of the world, taking a check point each week so we can look at trends. I'd certainly be interested in what you are doing, and helping with any challenges you have. All the best, Jim Jim Brown - CTO CloudMade From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Tristan Thomas Sent: 27 July 2009 22:23 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Progress on estimating UK coverage I'm new so haven't seen that before, but that's really good. Now all you need to do is split it up even more! On 27/07/2009 22:13, Peter Reed wrote: Last week I posted a note about my efforts to compare actual road lengths (or at least Department for Transport statistics) against the lengths of road that are now in the map for each local authority area in England. This is a quick follow-up on the discussion that resulted, and an update on progress since. Thanks to all the useful suggestions, I've now managed to find and fix a number of areas where my analysis was double counting. I've also improved the way different highway tags are translated so that I match the DfT statistics more accurately. I've discovered and cleared a few problems with the process that resulted in data getting lost along the way, so my figures are now more complete. However, I still haven't managed to pick up all the admin boundaries that I should be getting, and I'm still using some ceremonial boundaries in place of the administrative ones. That skews the results in places like Buckinghamshire and Kent, where roads within a unitary authority are still counted inside the neighbouring county. Alongside fixing things, I've tried to tidy up my extract and load so that they are more robust and easier to manage (my steep learning curve on Postgresql and Postgis continues). There is a first crude attempt at plotting it all here - http://www.reedhome.org.uk/Documents/OSMCover.png This isn't a definitive result, of course - or even close to one. There are still gaps that shouldn't be there, and more checking to do. Meanwhile, thanks for the encouragement, Pete ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.orgmailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
