Re: [Talk-ca] Gouvernement ouvert , Gatineau
I agree that advocacy with all levels of government is important. They seem in general to be interested, and to listen politely, but often to not understand that creating a new license is poison to open data. So it is important to keep talking with them, more and more of them, until they comprehend. Data law is relatively new, in terms of law. Data law is applied unevenly by countries. The very nature of data demands mixing with other data sets. This means that explicit and careful drafting of a license is required so that it will work everywhere without accidentally discriminating against a potential user. I disagree that ODbL is the right license for municipalities or other governments. ODbL is absolutely the right license for OSMF and the OSM community. OSMF must serve the OSM community of mappers, and the share alike provision is important to a substantial portion of the mapping community. ODbL deliberately discriminates against those who would take ODbL data, improve it, and not share the improvements. That is an important and deliberate feature of the ODbL license Governments must serve all of their citizens, even those who would not choose to share. The ODbL share alike provision is not suitable for government publishers who mush serve both their sharing and non-sharing constituents. I recommend that governments publish their open data under ODC PDDL. PDDL allows use, not just in OSM, but in any open data project. PDDL allows use, not just in open data projects, but in closed commercial projects that chose not to share at all. PDDL allows use in all jurisdictions with established data law, but also in jurisdictions where data law is not recognized and copyright law is used to fill the gaps. Governments must serve a broader audience than the OSMF must serve. OpenDataCommons recognize that one Open Data license is not sufficient, and have drafted a suite of licenses. Their licenses are drafted to be compatible, so that PDDL data can be included in ODbL data sets. Advocating that governments publish open data under PDDL _should_ be easier than advocating for ODbL because publishing under PDDL is good for OSM, but also good for any other potential use of the data. So, those advocates should be seen as not simply advocating something for the benefit of their own pet project, OSM, but for the benefit of all potential open data users. To advocate that governments support only one specific open data project, even a project as wonderful as OpenStreetMap, could be seen as mere self-interest, rather than enlightened advocacy. Best regards, Richard [1] ODC - OpenDataCommons.org - the same publisher of the ODbL license. [2] PDDL - Public Domain Dedication and License ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Sidewalks
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:08 PM, nicholas ingalls nicholas.inga...@gmail.com wrote: My personal preference is to enable the JOSM sidewalk style and then use the sidewalk:right sidewalk:left, sidewalk:both, or sidewalk:none tags on the actual street. The footpaths are just about useless (as in the example above) as they are not related to the street in anyway. So the routing engine couldn't say turn left onto Maple Street. It could only say turn left. If the tags are on the actual street and not separately mapped, it is much easier for a routing engine. I think Bernie has raised an interesting question with a complicated group of replies. I don't think that we will find One Universally True Answer. As a mapper, I don't always add ordinary sidewalks where I see them. Initially, I thought, I have roads and other things to map, I'll worry about sidewalks later. It was the early days of OSM. Available aerial imagery was much more limited and much lower resolution. When higher resolution aerial imagery became available to us, I had a bit of a freak out. Oh my!!! Look at all the PIXELS!!! I can map sidewalks, and, and, and, and, everything!!! And so I did. I added sidewalks in some of the places that already had roads and schools and parks and rivers, etc. Now, I'm not as consistent, I guess. I'll add interesting walkways that aren't simply parallel to a street. I think adding a pedestrian path between neighbourhoods, and adjacent, non-adjoining streets is worthwhile. As a pedestrian, I use those paths to cut the walking distance to the store, or school. But I generally don't add the ordinary sidewalks. Except when I do add them. The points raised by Gordon and Harald, above, are important. There are routing services for pedestrians and cyclists and they can use separately-drawn sidewalks in ways that they can not extract data from road centerline parameters. I make an effort to properly connect new objects that I map with existing sidewalks, even if I'm not planning to map more sidewalks immediately. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Gouvernement ouvert , Gatineau
Thanks Richard, I better understand the difference between the two licenses. Pierre De : Richard Weait rich...@weait.com À : Talk-CA OpenStreetMap talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Envoyé le : Samedi 2 février 2013 4h26 Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] Gouvernement ouvert , Gatineau I agree that advocacy with all levels of government is important. They seem in general to be interested, and to listen politely, but often to not understand that creating a new license is poison to open data. So it is important to keep talking with them, more and more of them, until they comprehend. Data law is relatively new, in terms of law. Data law is applied unevenly by countries. The very nature of data demands mixing with other data sets. This means that explicit and careful drafting of a license is required so that it will work everywhere without accidentally discriminating against a potential user. I disagree that ODbL is the right license for municipalities or other governments. ODbL is absolutely the right license for OSMF and the OSM community. OSMF must serve the OSM community of mappers, and the share alike provision is important to a substantial portion of the mapping community. ODbL deliberately discriminates against those who would take ODbL data, improve it, and not share the improvements. That is an important and deliberate feature of the ODbL license Governments must serve all of their citizens, even those who would not choose to share. The ODbL share alike provision is not suitable for government publishers who mush serve both their sharing and non-sharing constituents. I recommend that governments publish their open data under ODC PDDL. PDDL allows use, not just in OSM, but in any open data project. PDDL allows use, not just in open data projects, but in closed commercial projects that chose not to share at all. PDDL allows use in all jurisdictions with established data law, but also in jurisdictions where data law is not recognized and copyright law is used to fill the gaps. Governments must serve a broader audience than the OSMF must serve. OpenDataCommons recognize that one Open Data license is not sufficient, and have drafted a suite of licenses. Their licenses are drafted to be compatible, so that PDDL data can be included in ODbL data sets. Advocating that governments publish open data under PDDL _should_ be easier than advocating for ODbL because publishing under PDDL is good for OSM, but also good for any other potential use of the data. So, those advocates should be seen as not simply advocating something for the benefit of their own pet project, OSM, but for the benefit of all potential open data users. To advocate that governments support only one specific open data project, even a project as wonderful as OpenStreetMap, could be seen as mere self-interest, rather than enlightened advocacy. Best regards, Richard [1] ODC - OpenDataCommons.org - the same publisher of the ODbL license. [2] PDDL - Public Domain Dedication and License ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Sidewalks
Bonjour all To add my comments on this topic, I never add ordinary sidewalks except if they are physically separated from the street (not adjacent to). If I had to map them, I would use sidewalk:* tags. I still think as Richard wrote: I have roads and other things to map; I'll worry about sidewalks later. However, having this sidewalk wonderings only means is that the map is really getting detailed! Cheers, Daniel From: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com] Sent: February-02-13 06:15 To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Sidewalks On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:08 PM, nicholas ingalls nicholas.inga...@gmail.com wrote: My personal preference is to enable the JOSM sidewalk style and then use the sidewalk:right sidewalk:left, sidewalk:both, or sidewalk:none tags on the actual street. The footpaths are just about useless (as in the example above) as they are not related to the street in anyway. So the routing engine couldn't say turn left onto Maple Street. It could only say turn left. If the tags are on the actual street and not separately mapped, it is much easier for a routing engine. I think Bernie has raised an interesting question with a complicated group of replies. I don't think that we will find One Universally True Answer. As a mapper, I don't always add ordinary sidewalks where I see them. Initially, I thought, I have roads and other things to map, I'll worry about sidewalks later. It was the early days of OSM. Available aerial imagery was much more limited and much lower resolution. When higher resolution aerial imagery became available to us, I had a bit of a freak out. Oh my!!! Look at all the PIXELS!!! I can map sidewalks, and, and, and, and, everything!!! And so I did. I added sidewalks in some of the places that already had roads and schools and parks and rivers, etc. Now, I'm not as consistent, I guess. I'll add interesting walkways that aren't simply parallel to a street. I think adding a pedestrian path between neighbourhoods, and adjacent, non-adjoining streets is worthwhile. As a pedestrian, I use those paths to cut the walking distance to the store, or school. But I generally don't add the ordinary sidewalks. Except when I do add them. The points raised by Gordon and Harald, above, are important. There are routing services for pedestrians and cyclists and they can use separately-drawn sidewalks in ways that they can not extract data from road centerline parameters. I make an effort to properly connect new objects that I map with existing sidewalks, even if I'm not planning to map more sidewalks immediately. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
