[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Coverage as at end 2009
Hu everyone Happy New Year - thought you might like to look at this extract for the West Mids from Peter Reed's latest published data for the UK comparing DfT stats on total road Kms compared to OSM's Regards Brian Name Area km2 DfT total OSM total Coverage Birmingham City Council 267.8 2,627.30 2,690.80 102.40% Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council 178.3 919.4 893.4 97.20% Coventry City Council 98.6 906.2 830.6 91.70% Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council 85.6 941.4 862.2 91.60% Warwickshire County Council 1,975.00 4,356.50 3,427.60 78.70% Shropshire Council 3,197.00 5,256.30 3,827.40 72.80% Worcestershire County Council 1,741.00 4,315.40 3,113.50 72.10% Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council 104 885.8 596.7 67.40% Staffordshire County Council 2,620.00 6,549.80 4,312.30 65.80% Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council 98 1,048.50 606.1 57.80% Stoke-on-Trent City Council 93.4 895 490.1 54.80% Borough of Telford Wrekin 290.3 1,060.80 571 53.80% as at end 2009 source: Peter Reed ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
[Talk-GB] 200,060
We are now over the 200,000 mark http://www.openstreetmap.org/stats/data_stats.html happy new year Bob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Kent County Council Highways Gazetteer
Colin Smale wrote: Would it be OK to derive tagging in this way? Should we get explicit permission from KCC first? Anyone got any experience with this, or example emails for this kind of request? I'd certainly ask permission first. The document will be copyright even if it doesn't bear a copyright statement, so you need written permission to use it - an email is fine. You can then post a copy of their email into the Wiki. I have sent emails to my local council using their general contact address from their web site and got fairly quick, useful answers from the right person. It is a good opportunity to spread the message about OSM, don't forget to send a link to the Kent area of the map. Cheers, Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: I think it's high time this was done. IMO, OCM should be removed from the main map options asked persuasively to rename themselves as they're not really open, are they? I'll ask you for one favour - when you are talking about me, please call me Andy and not some facessless entity. Not only is it polite, but it also makes things seem less hostile. As for the name, it was originally The OpenStreetMap Cycle Map and I pondered long and hard on the use of the word The in the title since that sounded a bit exclusive. Eventually I gave up worrying about it since there actually only *was* one OpenStreetMap-based cycling map and there's more important things in life to get on with. Then I wanted to move it out of my personal domain and the host I'd just signed up to gave me a free domain name with the package, so I tried www.ocm.org (as in the _OpenStreetMap _Cycle _Map) but of course it was taken so I setted for www.opencyclemap.org instead. It's a nice title for what it always has been, a cycle map based on OpenStreetMap data, and a daft play on the title of OpenStreetMap itself. And I started a trend, since many other projects based on OpenStreetMap data have since called themselves OpenWhateverMap too, and it's a shorthand for showing that these projects are based on OpenStreetMap in a geeky in-joke kind of way. But in the recent discussions on these lists nobody has actually enquired as to the meaning behind the name - nobody has asked me anything about it. Instead, people have invented their own false meanings behind it (that it's claiming to be open-source when it isn't), and then used those false meanings to go as far as petition me to change the name of my project, purely because they think it means something that it doesn't and they don't like it!? Unbelievable. Please, discussions should be as factual as we can make them, not based on rumours and myths. And I'm here and willing to answer questions *when asked*. On the subject of whether it's on the front-page of osm.org or not, again I think people who don't know the reasons behind it have invented their own (well, certainly nobody asked me for the truth). I agreed that it could be added, and that I would find a way to cover the costs (considerably more now than when I agreed to it), because it was a great example of the possibilities of OpenStreetMap data. It's not there to promote opencyclemap.org, as others have suggested - if it was, then wouldn't that theory be more plausible if there was a link, or even the name of the layer was opencyclemap? Sheesh. It's there to show off Open*Street*Map, to inspire people as to the possibilities of single-purpose custom renderings, and to show that OSM can be used with height data (an unsurprisingly common question). If you were to *ask me* about the front page, I'd want to see other layers being added - öpvnkarte for starters - but there are still few people willing/able to make global layers and find the (financial) resources to make them available. Calling on removing the cycle map layer - not because it sucks, not because it brings the project into disrepute, not because it can't handle the load, but instead purely because you have a difference of opinion on how important it is to have access to the stylesheets - well, that's the biggest case of cutting your nose off to spite your face that I've seen in a long while. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: As for the name, it was originally The OpenStreetMap Cycle Map and I pondered long and hard on the use of the word The in the title since that sounded a bit exclusive. Eventually I gave up worrying about it since there actually only *was* one OpenStreetMap-based cycling map and there's more important things in life to get on with. Then I wanted to move it out of my personal domain and the host I'd just signed up to gave me a free domain name with the package, so I tried www.ocm.org (as in the _OpenStreetMap _Cycle _Map) but of course it was taken so I setted for www.opencyclemap.org instead. It's a nice title for what it always has been, a cycle map based on OpenStreetMap data, and a daft play on the title of OpenStreetMap itself. And I started a trend, since many other projects based on OpenStreetMap data have since called themselves OpenWhateverMap too, and it's a shorthand for showing that these projects are based on OpenStreetMap in a geeky in-joke kind of way. Right, while I've got the soapbox out, (and while I'm not feeling as ill as I was over the last few days), let me do a bit more explaining about OpenCycleMap and its openness. I make the styles for OpenCycleMap. Just me. Dave helps out with the backend stuff that makes it all work, but I can point to the cartography and say I did that. And I like the fact that the colours are all mine, and so on, and I get enjoyment from it. It's my little project and my little claim to fame. I'm happy to listen to people who have suggestions for changes, but I don't want to disappoint people if they work on a patch and I don't want to accept it. And most of all, I don't want someone to make something that looks just like opencyclemap but with one or two changes and call it their own, or anyone to think that project B is mine when it isn't. Now people often come asking questions about how I made the cyclemap, and how I react depends on what they are doing. I've given people the stylesheets for the cyclemap before, so long as they aren't trying to make a rip-off. When people making other projects have asked how the transparency works, or how to do contours, or whatnot, I've explained how, and given them code if it helps them. So it's not like I'm figuring all this out and not giving back to the community - but I do it in a way that I'm happy with. And almost all of the cyclemap is in fact completely open-source - it's only really the choice of colours that isn't, and the void-filling code that isn't even mine to open-source. There was a topic recently about reverse-engineering the OpenCycleMap style. Please don't. We're standing on a great plain, 10,000km wide, of possibilities of using OpenStreetMap data. If I've cordoned off 5 square metres of that plain and I'm happy building sandcastles on my own then leave me in peace. If you have your own ideas about a cycling map based on OSM data, then I'd encourage you to make it; everything you need is available. And it's pretty easy to make another style that's better than OCM, or that takes a different approach, rather than simply deciding to copy my ideas. (As for the carefully-worded comment made in another thread that implied I would change the license of OCM, that's simply FUD. It'll stay CC-BY-SA even if OSM changes to ODbL.) I realise that for some people, this explanation will hold no water, and their righteous fury will still be burning. So what steps could you take to resolve the situation? You could ask for my reasons for keeping things under my hat (nobody did, but I've now told you anyway) and figure out if there is common ground - maybe some way of giving us both what we want. You could find out what is already open source - the osmosis tagtransform rules for OCM are PD, btw - not that anyone was asking. You could try to encourage or persuade me to change my mind - explain what would be the advantages from my side? Or you could cast scorn and hatred, righteous indignation and the like, spreading false rumours on the mailing lists and all that jazz, and make me feel like an outcast. I don't think that would be constructive, but who am I to say? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] 200,060
Bob Kerr wrote: We are now over the 200,000 mark http://www.openstreetmap.org/stats/data_stats.html happy new year Bob Thanks Bob A couple of questions: You posted to talk-GB but I assume this is world wide stats, yes? 200,000 sounds good but how many of these are active users? Disappointingly many users in my vicinity sign up, log on, add a couple of POI's (often in the incorrect place) the never return. Is there a way to discern which of the prolific editors of script bots which are manual? I notice the 'Number of users editing over the past...' section but the data says GPX files not number of users. Is there a way to find the number of consistent editors say over the past month or so? This would give a clearer understanding of who's using OSM. Cheers Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Hi, Andy Allan wrote: And most of all, I don't want someone to make something that looks just like opencyclemap but with one or two changes and call it their own But isn't that what is bound to happen? (At least if a fraction of the unhappiness about OCM translates in coding traction...) When people making other projects have asked how the transparency works, or how to do contours, or whatnot, I've explained how, and given them code if it helps them. So it's not like I'm figuring all this out and not giving back to the community - but I do it in a way that I'm happy with. That's about how I deal with my own proprietary things as well. And it's pretty easy to make another style that's better than OCM, or that takes a different approach, rather than simply deciding to copy my ideas. Well Richard F. tends to express things differently - at least he makes it sound as if creating a map (quote) as cartographically impressive, as technologically capable, and as downright _useful_ as OpenCycleMap is quite a feat. Small wonder that people think you must be hiding great secrets from them when you have such a wonderful product, and start talking about reverse engineering the stuff ;-) I have the lurking impression that some who call for OCM openness indeed are not so much after your methods and styles, but rather they want to have a say in how things get rendered (maybe force you to adhere to some Wiki vote!). That is, of course, out of the question and something we don't have on any OSM map - but somehow people seem to be able to work with it; I've never seen much scorn poured on the makers of the main Mapnik map even though they wouldn't accept any random patch either. (It would be interesting to set up a mechanism that allows a group of people to modify a Mapnik stylesheet, automatically, by votes, but not for the purpose of creating a good map.) explain what would be the advantages from my side? I think you probably have release more than enough open stuff to know about the motivations of doing so ;-) But I agree that once people start to *demand* you release something, that motivation tends to shrivel. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
