Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
I tend to be very conservative, there shouldn't be any problems but some data I have a verbal OK for CC-by-SA but CC-by-ODBL was not understood. Cheerio John On 8 June 2011 11:49, Gordon Dewis wrote: > No problem... I don't have any qualms about the data vis-a-vis the various > licensing agreements. If there are any problems for the features in question > I'll step forward. > > Incidentally, if anyone's feeling particularly grateful, I'm steering a > team in the Ottawa Dragonboat Festival in just over a week and can be > sponsored at http://dew.is/sponsorme (it's a short link to a much uglier > link). ;) > > Cheers! > > --G (Keeper of Maps) > > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Richard Weait wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Gordon Dewis wrote: >> > And it is done. >> >> Thank you, Gordon. >> >> ___ >> 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 > > ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
No problem... I don't have any qualms about the data vis-a-vis the various licensing agreements. If there are any problems for the features in question I'll step forward. Incidentally, if anyone's feeling particularly grateful, I'm steering a team in the Ottawa Dragonboat Festival in just over a week and can be sponsored at http://dew.is/sponsorme (it's a short link to a much uglier link). ;) Cheers! --G (Keeper of Maps) On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Richard Weait wrote: > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Gordon Dewis wrote: > > And it is done. > > Thank you, Gordon. > > ___ > 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] Ping John Whelan?
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Gordon Dewis wrote: > And it is done. Thank you, Gordon. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
And it is done. I have reverted all his changesets from June 5th and 6th, so the great swaths of Ottawa that were removed should be back. The revert changesets clearly indicate the changeset being reverted and the reason for the reversion. (You can find the list on my edits page at http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Keeper%20of%20Maps/edits) Now to bed... --G On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Gordon Dewis wrote: > I will do that this evening. > > --G > -Original Message- > From: Jonathan Crowe > Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:03:41 > To: > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan? > > John is missing the point, perhaps deliberately. He hasn't listened to > a thing we've said. He's just justifying and rationalizing his > original decision. > > There's no point in discussing this any further. He doesn't get it and > he never will. We're wasting time here. Treat his edits as vandalism > and proceed accordingly. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Change_rollback > > > -- > Jonathan Crowe > The Map Room: A Weblog About Maps > http://www.maproomblog.com > > ___ > 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] Ping John Whelan?
A bug in JOSM? It's a fair chunk of code that has been added to over the years so practically no one person really fully understands the code any more. Bit like the old IBM operating systems on average they used to add a bug practically every time they updated to take a bug out. The selection used was user:Johnwhelan within an area. I have noticed that the author field doesn't appear to be 100% accurate always and the editing process isn't absolutely solid. By the time one has created on none ECC memory and sent a file across an internet connection its a sort of works most of the time thing rather than bullet proof. I have ECC memory on the machine I use for editing so a memory glitch shouldn't have happened. Cheerio John On 7 June 2011 18:33, Gordon Dewis wrote: > I am surprised that you removed a feature that was 100% not connected with > you in any way. > -- > *From: * john whelan > *Date: *Tue, 7 Jun 2011 18:32:11 -0400 > *To: * > *Cc: *Samuel Longiaru; > *Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan? > > > some of them only list him in the history when he deleted them. > > But why would that surprise you? The objective was to remove dubious data > from the database not to delete anything else. > > Cheerio John > > On 7 June 2011 17:37, Gordon Dewis wrote: > >> The reverting has already begun. I have looked at some of the features >> deleted and some of them only list him in the history when he deleted them. >> -Original Message----- >> From: Samuel Longiaru >> Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:34:44 >> To: >> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan? >> >> ___ >> 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 >> > > ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
I am surprised that you removed a feature that was 100% not connected with you in any way. -Original Message- From: john whelan Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 18:32:11 To: Cc: Samuel Longiaru; Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan? > some of them only list him in the history when he deleted them. But why would that surprise you? The objective was to remove dubious data from the database not to delete anything else. Cheerio John On 7 June 2011 17:37, Gordon Dewis wrote: > The reverting has already begun. I have looked at some of the features > deleted and some of them only list him in the history when he deleted them. > -Original Message- > From: Samuel Longiaru > Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:34:44 > To: > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan? > > ___ > 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 > ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
> some of them only list him in the history when he deleted them. But why would that surprise you? The objective was to remove dubious data from the database not to delete anything else. Cheerio John On 7 June 2011 17:37, Gordon Dewis wrote: > The reverting has already begun. I have looked at some of the features > deleted and some of them only list him in the history when he deleted them. > -Original Message- > From: Samuel Longiaru > Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:34:44 > To: > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan? > > ___ > 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 > ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
I think I'm reasonably happy at the moment. I have indicated I have some concerns about some of my sources meeting the ODBL license requirements and I have some concerns about importing data under the new CT. I have taken reasonable steps to protect the integrity of the OSM database. It sounds as if Gordon Dewis has taken it upon himself to have the data brought back into OSM and thus as far as I am concerned accepts the responsibility that all my data meets the OSM current and future license requirements. I think I'm absolved of any responsibility for the quality of the sources. Any future data I add to the project will meet the new CT, ie not be imported and only from direct observation. > There has to some kind of reasonable solution here. Not necessarily things, are not done by consensus in OSM there are too many different view points. Cheerio John On 7 June 2011 17:34, Samuel Longiaru wrote: > > Hate to jump in where it's not wanted but... > > Just wondering if there is some kind of middle ground solution here. John > clearly does not feel comfortable with having his imports in the database > and so has removed them. Not something we would like to see happen too > often, but it has happened. > > Is it possible to restore his original imports and the subsequent edits by > others, but do so using another account name so that John's is not > associated with the data? I would think that this should meet John's desire > to have his name removed from the data, and from our perspective, could > constitute a "new" import. In this case, I would think that John could take > some comfort in knowing that he did what he felt he needed to do... namely > remove the data that he did not feel comfortable with anymore... for > whatever reason. We could then restore the data without having to do > through the painstaking process of reimporting from a CanVec source and > re-edit. It would simply be an import under another account. > > Changing the licensing mid-stream is bound to cause some issues many of > which will be totally unforeseen. There has to some kind of reasonable > solution here. > > Thanks, > > Sam > > > > -Original Message----- > *From*: john whelan > > > > *To*: Richard Weait > > > > *Cc*: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap > > > > *Subject*: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan? > *Date*: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:12:24 -0400 > > To recap: > > The objective of moving to ODBL is to give a stronger legal position for > the database. This position can be undermined if any included data has not > been directly created by a mapper in the field. > > In my edits I have included at least one bus stop from GTFS data, I don't > have the rights to license it under CC-by-ODBL. At the time it was done my > expectation was that this information would become available under CC-by-SA > in the short term this has not happened. > > I have included information from a source that had other information on > it. Not a major crime but it is technically a breach of copyright. > > The two paragraphs above basically undermine any legal case that OSM would > have concerning Ottawa data unless the data is removed when brought to your > attention which is why I haven't specifically mentioned them before. Note > it has now been brought to your attention and the responsibility for the > integrity of the database is now yours if you choose not to accept the > deletions. There are probably a few other instances in there somewhere. > > I have requested that my CT status be reverted. I have tried to request > that my change sets / data be removed and I have manually deleted the > suspect data which I think is all I can reasonably do. If you revert the > deleting edits then you undermine the legal case for protecting the OSM > database. > > If my CT status was reverted then the older data would be deleted in time > by OSM. I saw a post to that effect recently from Frederick in a reply to > some one who mentioned they couldn't accept the new CT. That and Fredrick's > comment that people were deleting data that wasn't added under the new CT > triggered the decision to remove the data I had added to the project. > Basically the sooner its done the less impact it will have. Leave it around > and others will edit it so their edits get lost as well. > > There has been some discussion that I think you are aware of within OSM > about imports. Basically the new CT is not import friendly. As a > contributor you are responsible for the data you add to the project. This > includes ensuring that only data that meets the licensing can be included. > I don't think anyone can say what the license in future will be ch
Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
The reverting has already begun. I have looked at some of the features deleted and some of them only list him in the history when he deleted them. -Original Message- From: Samuel Longiaru Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:34:44 To: Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan? ___ 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] Ping John Whelan?
Hate to jump in where it's not wanted but... Just wondering if there is some kind of middle ground solution here. John clearly does not feel comfortable with having his imports in the database and so has removed them. Not something we would like to see happen too often, but it has happened. Is it possible to restore his original imports and the subsequent edits by others, but do so using another account name so that John's is not associated with the data? I would think that this should meet John's desire to have his name removed from the data, and from our perspective, could constitute a "new" import. In this case, I would think that John could take some comfort in knowing that he did what he felt he needed to do... namely remove the data that he did not feel comfortable with anymore... for whatever reason. We could then restore the data without having to do through the painstaking process of reimporting from a CanVec source and re-edit. It would simply be an import under another account. Changing the licensing mid-stream is bound to cause some issues many of which will be totally unforeseen. There has to some kind of reasonable solution here. Thanks, Sam -Original Message- From: john whelan To: Richard Weait Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan? Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:12:24 -0400 To recap: The objective of moving to ODBL is to give a stronger legal position for the database. This position can be undermined if any included data has not been directly created by a mapper in the field. In my edits I have included at least one bus stop from GTFS data, I don't have the rights to license it under CC-by-ODBL. At the time it was done my expectation was that this information would become available under CC-by-SA in the short term this has not happened. I have included information from a source that had other information on it. Not a major crime but it is technically a breach of copyright. The two paragraphs above basically undermine any legal case that OSM would have concerning Ottawa data unless the data is removed when brought to your attention which is why I haven't specifically mentioned them before. Note it has now been brought to your attention and the responsibility for the integrity of the database is now yours if you choose not to accept the deletions. There are probably a few other instances in there somewhere. I have requested that my CT status be reverted. I have tried to request that my change sets / data be removed and I have manually deleted the suspect data which I think is all I can reasonably do. If you revert the deleting edits then you undermine the legal case for protecting the OSM database. If my CT status was reverted then the older data would be deleted in time by OSM. I saw a post to that effect recently from Frederick in a reply to some one who mentioned they couldn't accept the new CT. That and Fredrick's comment that people were deleting data that wasn't added under the new CT triggered the decision to remove the data I had added to the project. Basically the sooner its done the less impact it will have. Leave it around and others will edit it so their edits get lost as well. There has been some discussion that I think you are aware of within OSM about imports. Basically the new CT is not import friendly. As a contributor you are responsible for the data you add to the project. This includes ensuring that only data that meets the licensing can be included. I don't think anyone can say what the license in future will be changed to or even if it will be changed. Essentially this means I cannot give an undertaking to CANVEC that OSM license will be compatible and acceptable in the future when I don't know what that license will be. OSM I think is changing to be a map that is done by people on the ground with GPS devices. That's fine, I have surveyed and added a number of footpaths and I'm more than happy to add them to the project. I think if you look at Google you'll see imported bus stops. I don't think OSM will ever be reliable enough for people to use it for bus stops unless they are imported. In North America today I think regretfully Google and Bing have essentially won when we look at what people use. OSM is a very niche product. It happens to be one I personally like very much. The Ottawa map I have hosted in Google documents using Maperitive is still the only one I know of where you can find WLAN locations that are wheelchair accessible and the data is searchable. To protect the OSM database I think you have to remove my edits. I'll add the footpaths etc that have been manually surveyed back in later. Thanks Cheerio John On 7 June 2011 13:24, Richard Weait wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:24 PM, john whelan wrote: > I would be extremely happy to see all my edits
Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
> In my edits I have included at least one bus stop from GTFS data, I > don't have the rights to license it under CC-by-ODBL. At the time it > was done my expectation was that this information would become > available under CC-by-SA in the short term this has not happened. > > I have included information from a source that had other information on > it. Not a major crime but it is technically a breach of copyright. If you had just deleted a small handful of bus stops and other nodes with a comment "deleting 4 bus stops, and 2 roads since the data was based on a source that turned out to not be OSM license compatible" we wouldn't be have accepted that as a reasonable edit and thought little of it. Instead you deleted massive amounts of data, much of it that has no apparent licensing conflict with OSM. > > The two paragraphs above basically undermine any legal case that OSM > would have concerning Ottawa data unless the data is removed when > brought to your attention which is why I haven't specifically mentioned > them before. Note it has now been brought to your attention and the > responsibility for the integrity of the database is now yours if you > choose not to accept the deletions. There are probably a few other > instances in there somewhere. You haven't yet told us which bus stops or change sets have copied data. It is almost like me saying 'someone somewhere in the world has copied streetnames from google maps. I'll just go and delete all the roads from OSM to be safe'. Much of the data you deleted is clearly from Canvec and presents no licensing issues yet you deleted it. > > I have requested that my CT status be reverted. I have tried to > request that my change sets / data be removed and I have manually > deleted the suspect data which I think is all I can reasonably do. If > you revert the deleting edits then you undermine the legal case for > protecting the OSM database. Life would be nice you could agree to terms&conditions and then withdraw your agreement retroactively. Just think, I could get a credit card agree to the two pages of T&C's and buy lots of cool stuff. Then I could say to the credit card company 'I revoke the agreement, I'm not going to pay your all this stuff I bought because I can't afford your interest rates'. > > There has been some discussion that I think you are aware of within OSM > about imports. Basically the new CT is not import friendly. As a > contributor you are responsible for the data you add to the project. > This includes ensuring that only data that meets the licensing can be > included. I don't think anyone can say what the license in future will > be changed to or even if it will be changed. Essentially this means I > cannot give an undertaking to CANVEC that OSM license will be > compatible and acceptable in the future when I don't know what that > license will be. Both NRCan and the license working group have said that the CANVEC license is compatible with the OSM contributor terms. > > ___ 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] Ping John Whelan?
To recap: The objective of moving to ODBL is to give a stronger legal position for the database. This position can be undermined if any included data has not been directly created by a mapper in the field. In my edits I have included at least one bus stop from GTFS data, I don't have the rights to license it under CC-by-ODBL. At the time it was done my expectation was that this information would become available under CC-by-SA in the short term this has not happened. I have included information from a source that had other information on it. Not a major crime but it is technically a breach of copyright. The two paragraphs above basically undermine any legal case that OSM would have concerning Ottawa data unless the data is removed when brought to your attention which is why I haven't specifically mentioned them before. Note it has now been brought to your attention and the responsibility for the integrity of the database is now yours if you choose not to accept the deletions. There are probably a few other instances in there somewhere. I have requested that my CT status be reverted. I have tried to request that my change sets / data be removed and I have manually deleted the suspect data which I think is all I can reasonably do. If you revert the deleting edits then you undermine the legal case for protecting the OSM database. If my CT status was reverted then the older data would be deleted in time by OSM. I saw a post to that effect recently from Frederick in a reply to some one who mentioned they couldn't accept the new CT. That and Fredrick's comment that people were deleting data that wasn't added under the new CT triggered the decision to remove the data I had added to the project. Basically the sooner its done the less impact it will have. Leave it around and others will edit it so their edits get lost as well. There has been some discussion that I think you are aware of within OSM about imports. Basically the new CT is not import friendly. As a contributor you are responsible for the data you add to the project. This includes ensuring that only data that meets the licensing can be included. I don't think anyone can say what the license in future will be changed to or even if it will be changed. Essentially this means I cannot give an undertaking to CANVEC that OSM license will be compatible and acceptable in the future when I don't know what that license will be. OSM I think is changing to be a map that is done by people on the ground with GPS devices. That's fine, I have surveyed and added a number of footpaths and I'm more than happy to add them to the project. I think if you look at Google you'll see imported bus stops. I don't think OSM will ever be reliable enough for people to use it for bus stops unless they are imported. In North America today I think regretfully Google and Bing have essentially won when we look at what people use. OSM is a very niche product. It happens to be one I personally like very much. The Ottawa map I have hosted in Google documents using Maperitive is still the only one I know of where you can find WLAN locations that are wheelchair accessible and the data is searchable. To protect the OSM database I think you have to remove my edits. I'll add the footpaths etc that have been manually surveyed back in later. Thanks Cheerio John On 7 June 2011 13:24, Richard Weait wrote: > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:24 PM, john whelan > wrote: > > I would be extremely happy to see all my edits removed. > > Earlier you said that you were happy to have your surveyed data > included in OSM under CT/ODbL, but you wanted Canvec data you uploaded > removed. > > Now you say, "I would be extremely happy to see all my edits removed. " > > Which is it? > > ___ > 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] Ping John Whelan?
OK curiosity is getting the better of me. What's the issue? Why the sudden panic attack to remove data? (I must probably missed that part :) What's wrong with CT/ODbL? On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:24 PM, john whelan > wrote: > > I would be extremely happy to see all my edits removed. > > Earlier you said that you were happy to have your surveyed data > included in OSM under CT/ODbL, but you wanted Canvec data you uploaded > removed. > > Now you say, "I would be extremely happy to see all my edits removed. " > > Which is it? > > ___ > 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] Ping John Whelan?
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:24 PM, john whelan wrote: > I would be extremely happy to see all my edits removed. Earlier you said that you were happy to have your surveyed data included in OSM under CT/ODbL, but you wanted Canvec data you uploaded removed. Now you say, "I would be extremely happy to see all my edits removed. " Which is it? ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
On 11-06-07 06:31 PM, Richard Weait wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:24 PM, john whelan wrote: I would be extremely happy to see all my edits removed. So you are happy to be known as a vandal, in order to ... Why? That seems odd. He wants his data removed, and he doesn't care how. It's clear he doesn't care about OSM anymore. The internet will be happy to remember him as an untrustworthy person in eternity... Anyways, it's pretty evident he can't be reasoned with, so I hope the DWG will take the right actions soon. Frank ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:24 PM, john whelan wrote: > Earlier, Jonathan Crowe said, but JW messed up the attribution: > > Treat his edits as vandalism and proceed accordingly. > I would be extremely happy to see all my edits removed. So you are happy to be known as a vandal, in order to ... Why? That seems odd. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
Treat his edits as vandalism and proceed accordingly. "Virtual ban When a contributor is subject to a 'virtual ban' (see notes above) then all their past work may be removed and all new work will be reverted without review until they possibly contact the Data Working Group and request a review of their status." I would be extremely happy to see all my edits removed. Thanks Cheerio John On 7 June 2011 10:03, Jonathan Crowe wrote: > John is missing the point, perhaps deliberately. He hasn't listened to > a thing we've said. He's just justifying and rationalizing his > original decision. > > There's no point in discussing this any further. He doesn't get it and > he never will. We're wasting time here. Treat his edits as vandalism > and proceed accordingly. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Change_rollback > > > -- > Jonathan Crowe > The Map Room: A Weblog About Maps > http://www.maproomblog.com > > ___ > 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] Ping John Whelan?
I will do that this evening. --G -Original Message- From: Jonathan Crowe Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:03:41 To: Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan? John is missing the point, perhaps deliberately. He hasn't listened to a thing we've said. He's just justifying and rationalizing his original decision. There's no point in discussing this any further. He doesn't get it and he never will. We're wasting time here. Treat his edits as vandalism and proceed accordingly. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Change_rollback -- Jonathan Crowe The Map Room: A Weblog About Maps http://www.maproomblog.com ___ 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] Ping John Whelan?
John is missing the point, perhaps deliberately. He hasn't listened to a thing we've said. He's just justifying and rationalizing his original decision. There's no point in discussing this any further. He doesn't get it and he never will. We're wasting time here. Treat his edits as vandalism and proceed accordingly. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Change_rollback -- Jonathan Crowe The Map Room: A Weblog About Maps http://www.maproomblog.com ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
If the data had been left tagged as not CT then OSM would have deleted it in 2012. The only difference would be that any edits you made from now to then would also be deleted. Your concerns should be brought to OSM's attention. If they have a way of deleting my edits that doesn't impact your work I'm happy to make the changes in that way. Cheerio John On 6 June 2011 21:08, Gordon Dewis wrote: > Well, not sure what to say, John. You've deleted stuff that I've worked on > without my consent, so there's a problem. If the features you had deleted > were still v1 that you had added, I could see an argument in support of what > you've done, but many of the features appear to be >v1 with more than just > your name attached to them, so you're unilaterally deleting features that > are no longer purely yours. As one of the people affected by this, I do not > give you this consent. > > --G > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:50 PM, john whelan wrote: > >> No at the time the data was added there wasn't a problem. The problem >> arose when the new CT retroactively changed the previously inserted data. >> >> Cheerio John >> >> >> On 6 June 2011 18:30, Gordon Dewis wrote: >> >>> "What should John do?" >>> >>> John should accept the fact that the data he has added were added under >>> the terms he agreed to and retroactively changing his mind and deleting >>> everything is not an acceptable option. Your unilateral actions have >>> impacted more than just "your" data. >>> >>> That is what John should do. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:21 PM, john whelan wrote: >>> My preference would have been to have my CT put back to none acceptance. This has been requested in OSM Talk but I've been told this was not possible. My next preference would be to have all my edits rolled back, again this request has been ignored more than once. I don't feel at all comfortable with the new CT for all the work I've done. I've used CANVEC as an example, its not so much the .odbl as the open endedness of the CT. I can work with the new CT by restricting my sources to ones that I have complete license control over which basically means carrying the GPS than working from the traces but no imports. I agree selecting and deleting manually is not nice but once its done the the community can repair the damage fairly quickly and it does remove the problem data. as Richard says "Question open to the room. What now? What should John do? What should we do?" I'm open to suggestions either of the first two would be more than acceptable. Thanks Cheerio John On 6 June 2011 18:10, Gordon Dewis wrote: > All... > > I just took a look at the damage that's been done and I have to say > that I am extremely unhappy. I spent quite a bit of time a few months back > cleaning up many of the streets that are he has removed from the OSM. I > would respectfully ask John that he rollback the changesets in question. > > Once someone else has modified something added by someone else I think > you've given up your rights to it. In this case I touched virtually every > street in Westboro and Hintonburg and now I find that my work has been > removed, too. > > --Gordon (Keeper of Maps) > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, john whelan >> wrote: >> > Acting on your advice I accepted the new CT. >> >> If I recall discussion you asked what the license was all about and >> why was there so much chatter about it? And if I recall my reply, it >> was something along the lines of, you could read it all and make up >> your mind, or you can accept that I think the new license is a big >> improvement for OSM. Is that about right? >> >> > On looking more deeply into >> > the subject I note that I have retrospectively allowed OSM to >> license >> > anything I have ever added to the map in any way they wish. >> Currently it is >> > odbl but the CT allows anything, the license seems to be an ever >> changing >> > document. >> >> You appear not to have looked deeply enough. The CTs allow additional >> license changes ONLY, to another "Free and Open" license, and ONLY by >> approval of a 2/3 majority of the current OSM contributors at the >> time. [well, 2/3 of those who reply to their OSM registered email >> within three weeks.] So a new license has to be Free and Open and >> approved by the community. Or perhaps you've just changed your mind. >> >> > Looking at my data I have a couple of footpaths that were entered >> from a GPS >> > track and one or two other items these I'm happy to have under the >> new CT >> > but very little else. >> > >> > I
Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:10 PM, john whelan wrote: > According to the new CT terms OSM can change the license to anything. Dear John, Your interpretation of the contributor terms is incorrect. See §3 http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms "... or such other free and open licence (for example, http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/) as may from time to time be chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors. " ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
Well, not sure what to say, John. You've deleted stuff that I've worked on without my consent, so there's a problem. If the features you had deleted were still v1 that you had added, I could see an argument in support of what you've done, but many of the features appear to be >v1 with more than just your name attached to them, so you're unilaterally deleting features that are no longer purely yours. As one of the people affected by this, I do not give you this consent. --G On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:50 PM, john whelan wrote: > No at the time the data was added there wasn't a problem. The problem > arose when the new CT retroactively changed the previously inserted data. > > Cheerio John > > > On 6 June 2011 18:30, Gordon Dewis wrote: > >> "What should John do?" >> >> John should accept the fact that the data he has added were added under >> the terms he agreed to and retroactively changing his mind and deleting >> everything is not an acceptable option. Your unilateral actions have >> impacted more than just "your" data. >> >> That is what John should do. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:21 PM, john whelan wrote: >> >>> My preference would have been to have my CT put back to none acceptance. >>> This has been requested in OSM Talk but I've been told this was not >>> possible. >>> >>> My next preference would be to have all my edits rolled back, again this >>> request has been ignored more than once. >>> >>> I don't feel at all comfortable with the new CT for all the work I've >>> done. I've used CANVEC as an example, its not so much the .odbl as the open >>> endedness of the CT. I can work with the new CT by restricting my sources >>> to ones that I have complete license control over which basically means >>> carrying the GPS than working from the traces but no imports. >>> >>> I agree selecting and deleting manually is not nice but once its done the >>> the community can repair the damage fairly quickly and it does remove the >>> problem data. >>> >>> as Richard says "Question open to the room. What now? What should John >>> do? What should we do?" >>> >>> I'm open to suggestions either of the first two would be more than >>> acceptable. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Cheerio John >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6 June 2011 18:10, Gordon Dewis wrote: >>> All... I just took a look at the damage that's been done and I have to say that I am extremely unhappy. I spent quite a bit of time a few months back cleaning up many of the streets that are he has removed from the OSM. I would respectfully ask John that he rollback the changesets in question. Once someone else has modified something added by someone else I think you've given up your rights to it. In this case I touched virtually every street in Westboro and Hintonburg and now I find that my work has been removed, too. --Gordon (Keeper of Maps) On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, john whelan > wrote: > > Acting on your advice I accepted the new CT. > > If I recall discussion you asked what the license was all about and > why was there so much chatter about it? And if I recall my reply, it > was something along the lines of, you could read it all and make up > your mind, or you can accept that I think the new license is a big > improvement for OSM. Is that about right? > > > On looking more deeply into > > the subject I note that I have retrospectively allowed OSM to license > > anything I have ever added to the map in any way they wish. > Currently it is > > odbl but the CT allows anything, the license seems to be an ever > changing > > document. > > You appear not to have looked deeply enough. The CTs allow additional > license changes ONLY, to another "Free and Open" license, and ONLY by > approval of a 2/3 majority of the current OSM contributors at the > time. [well, 2/3 of those who reply to their OSM registered email > within three weeks.] So a new license has to be Free and Open and > approved by the community. Or perhaps you've just changed your mind. > > > Looking at my data I have a couple of footpaths that were entered > from a GPS > > track and one or two other items these I'm happy to have under the > new CT > > but very little else. > > > > I find it is not possible to retract my acceptance. > > > > I have made three separate inquiries on how to get all my edits > removed but > > all have been ignored. > > > > So I can see no other option than to remove them all manually. > > Your premise is flawed. It's not "your" data once you contribute to a > collective project like OpenStreetMap, the data belongs to all of us. > It's not your well if you help the village dig it. You can't decide > you would rather use it as a latrine. That's a
Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
No at the time the data was added there wasn't a problem. The problem arose when the new CT retroactively changed the previously inserted data. Cheerio John On 6 June 2011 18:30, Gordon Dewis wrote: > "What should John do?" > > John should accept the fact that the data he has added were added under the > terms he agreed to and retroactively changing his mind and deleting > everything is not an acceptable option. Your unilateral actions have > impacted more than just "your" data. > > That is what John should do. > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:21 PM, john whelan wrote: > >> My preference would have been to have my CT put back to none acceptance. >> This has been requested in OSM Talk but I've been told this was not >> possible. >> >> My next preference would be to have all my edits rolled back, again this >> request has been ignored more than once. >> >> I don't feel at all comfortable with the new CT for all the work I've >> done. I've used CANVEC as an example, its not so much the .odbl as the open >> endedness of the CT. I can work with the new CT by restricting my sources >> to ones that I have complete license control over which basically means >> carrying the GPS than working from the traces but no imports. >> >> I agree selecting and deleting manually is not nice but once its done the >> the community can repair the damage fairly quickly and it does remove the >> problem data. >> >> as Richard says "Question open to the room. What now? What should John >> do? What should we do?" >> >> I'm open to suggestions either of the first two would be more than >> acceptable. >> >> Thanks >> >> Cheerio John >> >> >> >> On 6 June 2011 18:10, Gordon Dewis wrote: >> >>> All... >>> >>> I just took a look at the damage that's been done and I have to say that >>> I am extremely unhappy. I spent quite a bit of time a few months back >>> cleaning up many of the streets that are he has removed from the OSM. I >>> would respectfully ask John that he rollback the changesets in question. >>> >>> Once someone else has modified something added by someone else I think >>> you've given up your rights to it. In this case I touched virtually every >>> street in Westboro and Hintonburg and now I find that my work has been >>> removed, too. >>> >>> --Gordon (Keeper of Maps) >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Richard Weait wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, john whelan wrote: > Acting on your advice I accepted the new CT. If I recall discussion you asked what the license was all about and why was there so much chatter about it? And if I recall my reply, it was something along the lines of, you could read it all and make up your mind, or you can accept that I think the new license is a big improvement for OSM. Is that about right? > On looking more deeply into > the subject I note that I have retrospectively allowed OSM to license > anything I have ever added to the map in any way they wish. Currently it is > odbl but the CT allows anything, the license seems to be an ever changing > document. You appear not to have looked deeply enough. The CTs allow additional license changes ONLY, to another "Free and Open" license, and ONLY by approval of a 2/3 majority of the current OSM contributors at the time. [well, 2/3 of those who reply to their OSM registered email within three weeks.] So a new license has to be Free and Open and approved by the community. Or perhaps you've just changed your mind. > Looking at my data I have a couple of footpaths that were entered from a GPS > track and one or two other items these I'm happy to have under the new CT > but very little else. > > I find it is not possible to retract my acceptance. > > I have made three separate inquiries on how to get all my edits removed but > all have been ignored. > > So I can see no other option than to remove them all manually. Your premise is flawed. It's not "your" data once you contribute to a collective project like OpenStreetMap, the data belongs to all of us. It's not your well if you help the village dig it. You can't decide you would rather use it as a latrine. That's a decision the village has to take together. The license change is an exceptional situation, in which we are offering each contributor the option to have their contributions removed, granting far more control of their contributed data than would be expected. It is an exceptionally cautious approach by the OpenStreetMap Foundation and generous to a fault to those with qualms about the license. > If someone else wishes to do an import from CANVEC most can be replaced > quite quickly, however I do not want to take the responsibility that OSM in > its wisdom will change the lic
Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
Revert, revert, revert. You can't decide, once the house is built, that you're taking back the bricks you contributed to it. Reimporting CanVec atop existing edits would cause all sorts of trouble. The remaining, undeleted edits would be superimposed. I would have thought John would know that by now, considering what happened last February when he deleted my edits in Gatineau in favour of his CanVec imports. We've already have double or even triple layers of CanVec data in the Ottawa area because of previous bad imports. -- Jonathan Crowe The Map Room: A Weblog About Maps http://www.maproomblog.com ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
"What should John do?" John should accept the fact that the data he has added were added under the terms he agreed to and retroactively changing his mind and deleting everything is not an acceptable option. Your unilateral actions have impacted more than just "your" data. That is what John should do. On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:21 PM, john whelan wrote: > My preference would have been to have my CT put back to none acceptance. > This has been requested in OSM Talk but I've been told this was not > possible. > > My next preference would be to have all my edits rolled back, again this > request has been ignored more than once. > > I don't feel at all comfortable with the new CT for all the work I've > done. I've used CANVEC as an example, its not so much the .odbl as the open > endedness of the CT. I can work with the new CT by restricting my sources > to ones that I have complete license control over which basically means > carrying the GPS than working from the traces but no imports. > > I agree selecting and deleting manually is not nice but once its done the > the community can repair the damage fairly quickly and it does remove the > problem data. > > as Richard says "Question open to the room. What now? What should John > do? What should we do?" > > I'm open to suggestions either of the first two would be more than > acceptable. > > Thanks > > Cheerio John > > > > On 6 June 2011 18:10, Gordon Dewis wrote: > >> All... >> >> I just took a look at the damage that's been done and I have to say that I >> am extremely unhappy. I spent quite a bit of time a few months back cleaning >> up many of the streets that are he has removed from the OSM. I would >> respectfully ask John that he rollback the changesets in question. >> >> Once someone else has modified something added by someone else I think >> you've given up your rights to it. In this case I touched virtually every >> street in Westboro and Hintonburg and now I find that my work has been >> removed, too. >> >> --Gordon (Keeper of Maps) >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Richard Weait wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, john whelan >>> wrote: >>> > Acting on your advice I accepted the new CT. >>> >>> If I recall discussion you asked what the license was all about and >>> why was there so much chatter about it? And if I recall my reply, it >>> was something along the lines of, you could read it all and make up >>> your mind, or you can accept that I think the new license is a big >>> improvement for OSM. Is that about right? >>> >>> > On looking more deeply into >>> > the subject I note that I have retrospectively allowed OSM to license >>> > anything I have ever added to the map in any way they wish. Currently >>> it is >>> > odbl but the CT allows anything, the license seems to be an ever >>> changing >>> > document. >>> >>> You appear not to have looked deeply enough. The CTs allow additional >>> license changes ONLY, to another "Free and Open" license, and ONLY by >>> approval of a 2/3 majority of the current OSM contributors at the >>> time. [well, 2/3 of those who reply to their OSM registered email >>> within three weeks.] So a new license has to be Free and Open and >>> approved by the community. Or perhaps you've just changed your mind. >>> >>> > Looking at my data I have a couple of footpaths that were entered from >>> a GPS >>> > track and one or two other items these I'm happy to have under the new >>> CT >>> > but very little else. >>> > >>> > I find it is not possible to retract my acceptance. >>> > >>> > I have made three separate inquiries on how to get all my edits removed >>> but >>> > all have been ignored. >>> > >>> > So I can see no other option than to remove them all manually. >>> >>> Your premise is flawed. It's not "your" data once you contribute to a >>> collective project like OpenStreetMap, the data belongs to all of us. >>> It's not your well if you help the village dig it. You can't decide >>> you would rather use it as a latrine. That's a decision the village >>> has to take together. >>> >>> The license change is an exceptional situation, in which we are >>> offering each contributor the option to have their contributions >>> removed, granting far more control of their contributed data than >>> would be expected. It is an exceptionally cautious approach by the >>> OpenStreetMap Foundation and generous to a fault to those with qualms >>> about the license. >>> >>> > If someone else wishes to do an import from CANVEC most can be replaced >>> > quite quickly, however I do not want to take the responsibility that >>> OSM in >>> > its wisdom will change the license yet again to something that is not >>> > acceptable to CANVEC. >>> >>> Canvec and GeoBase data are already approved for CT/ODbL. I think >>> those were announced here many months ago. >>> >>> So, you are happy with CT/ODbL with the data you mentioned above. So >>> you don't have an objection to CT/ODbL. Canvec and GeoBase da
Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
My preference would have been to have my CT put back to none acceptance. This has been requested in OSM Talk but I've been told this was not possible. My next preference would be to have all my edits rolled back, again this request has been ignored more than once. I don't feel at all comfortable with the new CT for all the work I've done. I've used CANVEC as an example, its not so much the .odbl as the open endedness of the CT. I can work with the new CT by restricting my sources to ones that I have complete license control over which basically means carrying the GPS than working from the traces but no imports. I agree selecting and deleting manually is not nice but once its done the the community can repair the damage fairly quickly and it does remove the problem data. as Richard says "Question open to the room. What now? What should John do? What should we do?" I'm open to suggestions either of the first two would be more than acceptable. Thanks Cheerio John On 6 June 2011 18:10, Gordon Dewis wrote: > All... > > I just took a look at the damage that's been done and I have to say that I > am extremely unhappy. I spent quite a bit of time a few months back cleaning > up many of the streets that are he has removed from the OSM. I would > respectfully ask John that he rollback the changesets in question. > > Once someone else has modified something added by someone else I think > you've given up your rights to it. In this case I touched virtually every > street in Westboro and Hintonburg and now I find that my work has been > removed, too. > > --Gordon (Keeper of Maps) > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, john whelan >> wrote: >> > Acting on your advice I accepted the new CT. >> >> If I recall discussion you asked what the license was all about and >> why was there so much chatter about it? And if I recall my reply, it >> was something along the lines of, you could read it all and make up >> your mind, or you can accept that I think the new license is a big >> improvement for OSM. Is that about right? >> >> > On looking more deeply into >> > the subject I note that I have retrospectively allowed OSM to license >> > anything I have ever added to the map in any way they wish. Currently >> it is >> > odbl but the CT allows anything, the license seems to be an ever >> changing >> > document. >> >> You appear not to have looked deeply enough. The CTs allow additional >> license changes ONLY, to another "Free and Open" license, and ONLY by >> approval of a 2/3 majority of the current OSM contributors at the >> time. [well, 2/3 of those who reply to their OSM registered email >> within three weeks.] So a new license has to be Free and Open and >> approved by the community. Or perhaps you've just changed your mind. >> >> > Looking at my data I have a couple of footpaths that were entered from a >> GPS >> > track and one or two other items these I'm happy to have under the new >> CT >> > but very little else. >> > >> > I find it is not possible to retract my acceptance. >> > >> > I have made three separate inquiries on how to get all my edits removed >> but >> > all have been ignored. >> > >> > So I can see no other option than to remove them all manually. >> >> Your premise is flawed. It's not "your" data once you contribute to a >> collective project like OpenStreetMap, the data belongs to all of us. >> It's not your well if you help the village dig it. You can't decide >> you would rather use it as a latrine. That's a decision the village >> has to take together. >> >> The license change is an exceptional situation, in which we are >> offering each contributor the option to have their contributions >> removed, granting far more control of their contributed data than >> would be expected. It is an exceptionally cautious approach by the >> OpenStreetMap Foundation and generous to a fault to those with qualms >> about the license. >> >> > If someone else wishes to do an import from CANVEC most can be replaced >> > quite quickly, however I do not want to take the responsibility that OSM >> in >> > its wisdom will change the license yet again to something that is not >> > acceptable to CANVEC. >> >> Canvec and GeoBase data are already approved for CT/ODbL. I think >> those were announced here many months ago. >> >> So, you are happy with CT/ODbL with the data you mentioned above. So >> you don't have an objection to CT/ODbL. Canvec and GeoBase data are >> already compatible with CT/ODbL, so there is no need for you (or >> anybody else) to remove that data based on CT/ODbL. Is that correct? >> >> > I also note that according to Fredrick some mappers have already been >> > deleting entries for people who have not accepted the CT so it seemed to >> be >> > an appropriate time to start deleting. >> >> You mean here? In ¶4 ? >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-June/006044.html >> >> Frederik's email counsels
Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
According to the new CT terms OSM can change the license to anything. If I import data to OSM then I am responsible for ensuring I respect the CANVEC licensing for any imports done in my name. If someone else feels comfortable importing under the new CT terms fine but I do not. Cheerio John On 6 June 2011 16:28, Bégin, Daniel wrote: > John wrote: ... I do not want to take the responsibility that OSM in its > wisdom will change the license yet again to something that is not acceptable > to CANVEC. > > John, what do you mean? What could happen that would make you responsible > of a change in the licence? > > Daniel > > > > -- > *From:* john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* June 6, 2011 16:17 > *To:* Richard Weait > *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap > *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan? > > Acting on your advice I accepted the new CT. On looking more deeply into > the subject I note that I have retrospectively allowed OSM to license > anything I have ever added to the map in any way they wish. Currently it is > odbl but the CT allows anything, the license seems to be an ever changing > document. > > Looking at my data I have a couple of footpaths that were entered from a > GPS track and one or two other items these I'm happy to have under the new > CT but very little else. > > I find it is not possible to retract my acceptance. > > I have made three separate inquiries on how to get all my edits removed but > all have been ignored. > > * > So I can see no other option than to remove them all manually. * > > > If someone else wishes to do an import from CANVEC most can be replaced > quite quickly, however I do not want to take the responsibility that OSM in > its wisdom will change the license yet again to something that is not > acceptable to CANVEC. > > I also note that according to Fredrick some mappers have already been > deleting entries for people who have not accepted the CT so it seemed to be > an appropriate time to start deleting. > > Sorry for any inconvenience. > > Cheerio John > > On 6 June 2011 15:28, Richard Weait wrote: > >> Dear John, >> >> Your edit today http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8355694 >> deleted thousands of nodes and ways, with a comment of "bixi >> bike_rental" but in fact deleted large portions of Leslie park. >> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.8392303&minlat=45.3141652&maxlon=-75.7587115&maxlat=45.3763387&box=yes >> >> You seem to have accidentally made the same mistake yesterday, with >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8355396 and several >> other changesets which delete thousands of nodes and ways, removing >> large portions of the map in Lincoln heights, Bel-air hieghts, >> Ottawa, etc. >> >> What's going on, John? >> >> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.7155206&minlat=45.3971371&maxlon=-75.6772372&maxlat=45.4266653&box=yes >> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.7155206&minlat=45.3971371&maxlon=-75.6772372&maxlat=45.4266653&box=yes >> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.7847794&minlat=45.338809&maxlon=-75.705353&maxlat=45.3970339&box=yes >> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.8392303&minlat=45.3141652&maxlon=-75.7587115&maxlat=45.3763387&box=yes >> > > ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
All... I just took a look at the damage that's been done and I have to say that I am extremely unhappy. I spent quite a bit of time a few months back cleaning up many of the streets that are he has removed from the OSM. I would respectfully ask John that he rollback the changesets in question. Once someone else has modified something added by someone else I think you've given up your rights to it. In this case I touched virtually every street in Westboro and Hintonburg and now I find that my work has been removed, too. --Gordon (Keeper of Maps) On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, john whelan wrote: > > Acting on your advice I accepted the new CT. > > If I recall discussion you asked what the license was all about and > why was there so much chatter about it? And if I recall my reply, it > was something along the lines of, you could read it all and make up > your mind, or you can accept that I think the new license is a big > improvement for OSM. Is that about right? > > > On looking more deeply into > > the subject I note that I have retrospectively allowed OSM to license > > anything I have ever added to the map in any way they wish. Currently it > is > > odbl but the CT allows anything, the license seems to be an ever changing > > document. > > You appear not to have looked deeply enough. The CTs allow additional > license changes ONLY, to another "Free and Open" license, and ONLY by > approval of a 2/3 majority of the current OSM contributors at the > time. [well, 2/3 of those who reply to their OSM registered email > within three weeks.] So a new license has to be Free and Open and > approved by the community. Or perhaps you've just changed your mind. > > > Looking at my data I have a couple of footpaths that were entered from a > GPS > > track and one or two other items these I'm happy to have under the new CT > > but very little else. > > > > I find it is not possible to retract my acceptance. > > > > I have made three separate inquiries on how to get all my edits removed > but > > all have been ignored. > > > > So I can see no other option than to remove them all manually. > > Your premise is flawed. It's not "your" data once you contribute to a > collective project like OpenStreetMap, the data belongs to all of us. > It's not your well if you help the village dig it. You can't decide > you would rather use it as a latrine. That's a decision the village > has to take together. > > The license change is an exceptional situation, in which we are > offering each contributor the option to have their contributions > removed, granting far more control of their contributed data than > would be expected. It is an exceptionally cautious approach by the > OpenStreetMap Foundation and generous to a fault to those with qualms > about the license. > > > If someone else wishes to do an import from CANVEC most can be replaced > > quite quickly, however I do not want to take the responsibility that OSM > in > > its wisdom will change the license yet again to something that is not > > acceptable to CANVEC. > > Canvec and GeoBase data are already approved for CT/ODbL. I think > those were announced here many months ago. > > So, you are happy with CT/ODbL with the data you mentioned above. So > you don't have an objection to CT/ODbL. Canvec and GeoBase data are > already compatible with CT/ODbL, so there is no need for you (or > anybody else) to remove that data based on CT/ODbL. Is that correct? > > > I also note that according to Fredrick some mappers have already been > > deleting entries for people who have not accepted the CT so it seemed to > be > > an appropriate time to start deleting. > > You mean here? In ¶4 ? > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-June/006044.html > > Frederik's email counsels against exactly what you think that you've > done. He says that prematurely deleting data of license decliners > would be inappropriate and cause unneeded community tension. But you > went ahead and deleted stuff. And Frederik's email has nothing to do > with this situation. You've accepted CT/ODbL. > > > Sorry for any inconvenience. > > Question open to the room. What now? What should John do? What should we > do? > > ___ > 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] Ping John Whelan?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, john whelan wrote: > Acting on your advice I accepted the new CT. If I recall discussion you asked what the license was all about and why was there so much chatter about it? And if I recall my reply, it was something along the lines of, you could read it all and make up your mind, or you can accept that I think the new license is a big improvement for OSM. Is that about right? > On looking more deeply into > the subject I note that I have retrospectively allowed OSM to license > anything I have ever added to the map in any way they wish. Currently it is > odbl but the CT allows anything, the license seems to be an ever changing > document. You appear not to have looked deeply enough. The CTs allow additional license changes ONLY, to another "Free and Open" license, and ONLY by approval of a 2/3 majority of the current OSM contributors at the time. [well, 2/3 of those who reply to their OSM registered email within three weeks.] So a new license has to be Free and Open and approved by the community. Or perhaps you've just changed your mind. > Looking at my data I have a couple of footpaths that were entered from a GPS > track and one or two other items these I'm happy to have under the new CT > but very little else. > > I find it is not possible to retract my acceptance. > > I have made three separate inquiries on how to get all my edits removed but > all have been ignored. > > So I can see no other option than to remove them all manually. Your premise is flawed. It's not "your" data once you contribute to a collective project like OpenStreetMap, the data belongs to all of us. It's not your well if you help the village dig it. You can't decide you would rather use it as a latrine. That's a decision the village has to take together. The license change is an exceptional situation, in which we are offering each contributor the option to have their contributions removed, granting far more control of their contributed data than would be expected. It is an exceptionally cautious approach by the OpenStreetMap Foundation and generous to a fault to those with qualms about the license. > If someone else wishes to do an import from CANVEC most can be replaced > quite quickly, however I do not want to take the responsibility that OSM in > its wisdom will change the license yet again to something that is not > acceptable to CANVEC. Canvec and GeoBase data are already approved for CT/ODbL. I think those were announced here many months ago. So, you are happy with CT/ODbL with the data you mentioned above. So you don't have an objection to CT/ODbL. Canvec and GeoBase data are already compatible with CT/ODbL, so there is no need for you (or anybody else) to remove that data based on CT/ODbL. Is that correct? > I also note that according to Fredrick some mappers have already been > deleting entries for people who have not accepted the CT so it seemed to be > an appropriate time to start deleting. You mean here? In ¶4 ? http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-June/006044.html Frederik's email counsels against exactly what you think that you've done. He says that prematurely deleting data of license decliners would be inappropriate and cause unneeded community tension. But you went ahead and deleted stuff. And Frederik's email has nothing to do with this situation. You've accepted CT/ODbL. > Sorry for any inconvenience. Question open to the room. What now? What should John do? What should we do? ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
It's not up to John to determine, privately and unilaterally, what is and isn't acceptable vis-à-vis CanVec and OSM. If he has a legitimate concern, he should bring that concern to the attention of the OSM community and have it thoroughly discussed -- and, you know, maybe WARN US that he's going to be doing this -- rather than deciding to take it upon himself to delete a substantial portion of the map of Canada's capital city. This is vandalism, pure and simple. As if the Ottawa OSM map wasn't already in bad enough shape. -- Jonathan Crowe The Map Room: A Weblog About Maps http://www.maproomblog.com ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
1. deleting the data for the reasons you've stated with the comment "bicycle_rental bixi" is anti-social and deceptive. At least put a comment in saying what your doing. 2. People should NOT be pre-maturely deleting their own non ct-terms data from the map. Some day in the future OSM will delete the data from the map of people who did not accept the license. Immediately before then OSM is supposed to release a final CCBYSA planet.osm dump. Some people might want to take that planet file and use it as the basis for another project or map. If you care about open-data then you should want that dump to be as complete as possible for the benefit of anyone planning on doing stuff with it. By deleting your data now you remove that opportunity. 4. It is my understanding that NRCan has given OSM specific permission to incorporate the canvec data into OSM under the new CT terms. If you decide that you don't want the data mapped from the GPS traces to be under the new CT terms then that is your right, but it is a bit unfair to say it is because your afraid of the CANVEC license terms. Steve - Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 16:17:27 -0400 From: jwhelan0...@gmail.com To: rich...@weait.com CC: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan? Acting on your advice I accepted the new CT. On looking more deeply into the subject I note that I have retrospectively allowed OSM to license anything I have ever added to the map in any way they wish. Currently it is odbl but the CT allows anything, the license seems to be an ever changing document. Looking at my data I have a couple of footpaths that were entered from a GPS track and one or two other items these I'm happy to have under the new CT but very little else. I find it is not possible to retract my acceptance. I have made three separate inquiries on how to get all my edits removed but all have been ignored. So I can see no other option than to remove them all manually. If someone else wishes to do an import from CANVEC most can be replaced quite quickly, however I do not want to take the responsibility that OSM in its wisdom will change the license yet again to something that is not acceptable to CANVEC. I also note that according to Fredrick some mappers have already been deleting entries for people who have not accepted the CT so it seemed to be an appropriate time to start deleting. Sorry for any inconvenience. Cheerio John On 6 June 2011 15:28, Richard Weait wrote: Dear John, Your edit today http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8355694 deleted thousands of nodes and ways, with a comment of "bixi bike_rental" but in fact deleted large portions of Leslie park. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.8392303&minlat=45.3141652&maxlon=-75.7587115&maxlat=45.3763387&box=yes You seem to have accidentally made the same mistake yesterday, with http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8355396 and several other changesets which delete thousands of nodes and ways, removing large portions of the map in Lincoln heights, Bel-air hieghts, Ottawa, etc. What's going on, John? http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.7155206&minlat=45.3971371&maxlon=-75.6772372&maxlat=45.4266653&box=yes http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.7155206&minlat=45.3971371&maxlon=-75.6772372&maxlat=45.4266653&box=yes http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.7847794&minlat=45.338809&maxlon=-75.705353&maxlat=45.3970339&box=yes http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.8392303&minlat=45.3141652&maxlon=-75.7587115&maxlat=45.3763387&box=yes ___ 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] Ping John Whelan?
John wrote: ... I do not want to take the responsibility that OSM in its wisdom will change the license yet again to something that is not acceptable to CANVEC. John, what do you mean? What could happen that would make you responsible of a change in the licence? Daniel From: john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com] Sent: June 6, 2011 16:17 To: Richard Weait Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan? Acting on your advice I accepted the new CT. On looking more deeply into the subject I note that I have retrospectively allowed OSM to license anything I have ever added to the map in any way they wish. Currently it is odbl but the CT allows anything, the license seems to be an ever changing document. Looking at my data I have a couple of footpaths that were entered from a GPS track and one or two other items these I'm happy to have under the new CT but very little else. I find it is not possible to retract my acceptance. I have made three separate inquiries on how to get all my edits removed but all have been ignored. So I can see no other option than to remove them all manually. If someone else wishes to do an import from CANVEC most can be replaced quite quickly, however I do not want to take the responsibility that OSM in its wisdom will change the license yet again to something that is not acceptable to CANVEC. I also note that according to Fredrick some mappers have already been deleting entries for people who have not accepted the CT so it seemed to be an appropriate time to start deleting. Sorry for any inconvenience. Cheerio John On 6 June 2011 15:28, Richard Weait wrote: Dear John, Your edit today http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8355694 deleted thousands of nodes and ways, with a comment of "bixi bike_rental" but in fact deleted large portions of Leslie park. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.8392303&minlat=45.3141652&maxlon=-75.7587115&maxlat=45.3763387&box=yes You seem to have accidentally made the same mistake yesterday, with http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8355396 and several other changesets which delete thousands of nodes and ways, removing large portions of the map in Lincoln heights, Bel-air hieghts, Ottawa, etc. What's going on, John? http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.7155206&minlat=45.3971371&maxlon=-75.6772372&maxlat=45.4266653&box=yes http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.7155206&minlat=45.3971371&maxlon=-75.6772372&maxlat=45.4266653&box=yes http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.7847794&minlat=45.338809&maxlon=-75.705353&maxlat=45.3970339&box=yes http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.8392303&minlat=45.3141652&maxlon=-75.7587115&maxlat=45.3763387&box=yes ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
Acting on your advice I accepted the new CT. On looking more deeply into the subject I note that I have retrospectively allowed OSM to license anything I have ever added to the map in any way they wish. Currently it is odbl but the CT allows anything, the license seems to be an ever changing document. Looking at my data I have a couple of footpaths that were entered from a GPS track and one or two other items these I'm happy to have under the new CT but very little else. I find it is not possible to retract my acceptance. I have made three separate inquiries on how to get all my edits removed but all have been ignored. * So I can see no other option than to remove them all manually. * If someone else wishes to do an import from CANVEC most can be replaced quite quickly, however I do not want to take the responsibility that OSM in its wisdom will change the license yet again to something that is not acceptable to CANVEC. I also note that according to Fredrick some mappers have already been deleting entries for people who have not accepted the CT so it seemed to be an appropriate time to start deleting. Sorry for any inconvenience. Cheerio John On 6 June 2011 15:28, Richard Weait wrote: > Dear John, > > Your edit today http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8355694 > deleted thousands of nodes and ways, with a comment of "bixi > bike_rental" but in fact deleted large portions of Leslie park. > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.8392303&minlat=45.3141652&maxlon=-75.7587115&maxlat=45.3763387&box=yes > > You seem to have accidentally made the same mistake yesterday, with > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8355396 and several > other changesets which delete thousands of nodes and ways, removing > large portions of the map in Lincoln heights, Bel-air hieghts, > Ottawa, etc. > > What's going on, John? > > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.7155206&minlat=45.3971371&maxlon=-75.6772372&maxlat=45.4266653&box=yes > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.7155206&minlat=45.3971371&maxlon=-75.6772372&maxlat=45.4266653&box=yes > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.7847794&minlat=45.338809&maxlon=-75.705353&maxlat=45.3970339&box=yes > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.8392303&minlat=45.3141652&maxlon=-75.7587115&maxlat=45.3763387&box=yes > ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
Dear John, Your edit today http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8355694 deleted thousands of nodes and ways, with a comment of "bixi bike_rental" but in fact deleted large portions of Leslie park. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.8392303&minlat=45.3141652&maxlon=-75.7587115&maxlat=45.3763387&box=yes You seem to have accidentally made the same mistake yesterday, with http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8355396 and several other changesets which delete thousands of nodes and ways, removing large portions of the map in Lincoln heights, Bel-air hieghts, Ottawa, etc. What's going on, John? http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.7155206&minlat=45.3971371&maxlon=-75.6772372&maxlat=45.4266653&box=yes http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.7155206&minlat=45.3971371&maxlon=-75.6772372&maxlat=45.4266653&box=yes http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.7847794&minlat=45.338809&maxlon=-75.705353&maxlat=45.3970339&box=yes http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.8392303&minlat=45.3141652&maxlon=-75.7587115&maxlat=45.3763387&box=yes ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
