Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
On 20 June 2011 16:44, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: On 6/19/2011 1:16 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: I still take the view that *as the CTs are written* clause 2 would apply to all contributions, which makes me uncomfortable signing them. However, since the CTs represent a contract between myself and OSMF, if it can be confirmed (eg by a statement from the OSMF chairman) that your statement about the CTs is the official policy of OSMF, then I'd be prepared to sign them based on that assurance. I can't make a statement for the OSMF without going to the board, but that's my understanding, Mike is correct. As I've said to you off-list, since LWG's interpretation of the CTs results in such a significant difference from what I'd consider to be the literal meaning, I'd appreciated it if you could check with the other OSMF board members, so you then can make an official statement about Michael's post. If you can confirm Michael's post does indeed represent OSMF's views, then I can agree the CTs on that basis. Thanks, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] ITO OSM Analysis not updating?
On 21 June 2011 22:02, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: On 21 June 2011 21:32, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote: At the moment I can't get into ITO OSM Analysis at all. If I enter the URL http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main?showMinor=true it is immediately replaced by http://www.itoworld.com/main. I've tried both in Firefox and IE. Something does seem to be wrong. It may be tomorrow morning before we get it fixed now. Sorry about that. Apologies about the continued unreliability of OSM Analysis. We have evidently introduced a problem with a recent code update which we are now trying to resolve. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd Regards, Peter Miller Steve On 21/06/2011 12:31, Shane Reynolds wrote: Hi Graham. Sorry we have had a few problems with our importer over the weekend. However it is now working again and I hope that OSM analysis should have data up to the 19th in a few hours (OSM Mapper and ITO Map have just been updated to the 19th) - things should then also be back to normal from tomorrow (where we usually update sometime early afternoon for data from the previous day) Kind Regards, Shane On 21 June 2011 12:05, Graham Stewart gra...@dalmuti.net wrote: Hi Peter (et al), Last update of the http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main is currently reporting as 16/06/2011 (today is the 21st) Has it just fallen over, or is there anything that the community can help with to get this valuable tool running again? Cheers, GrahamS ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: I'd appreciated it if you could check with the other OSMF board members, so you then can make an official statement about Michael's post. I'm sure you're doing this for the right reasons, but there's something faintly amusing about the appeals to an ever-increasing authority. First you asked for a statement from LWG, and Mike duly obliged. Then you decided you needed one from the OSMF Chairman, and Steve duly obliged. Now you're asking for one from the whole OSMF Board. I'm sure this will all be sorted out happily in the end, but please, could you reassure the rest of us that this isn't going to drag on until you've got a signed statement from the Pope?[1] cheers Richard [1] Or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or Fake SteveC, depending on your particular affiliation. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-accepting-the-new-contributor-terms-tp6483857p6503476.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
I think it'll probably require divine revelation ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
On 22 June 2011 09:55, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: I'd appreciated it if you could check with the other OSMF board members, so you then can make an official statement about Michael's post. I'm sure you're doing this for the right reasons, but there's something faintly amusing about the appeals to an ever-increasing authority. First you asked for a statement from LWG, and Mike duly obliged. Then you decided you needed one from the OSMF Chairman, and Steve duly obliged. Now you're asking for one from the whole OSMF Board. I think that's a somewhat unfair summary of events. I wanted clarification from LWG as to whether they thought OS OpenData is compatible with the CTs. Given they are asking individual mappers to sign these, that's not an unreasonable position to take. And their response was a long time coming. They first ignored several emails I sent, then only dealt with half of the question. Finally, it turned out the difference of opinion was caused by a completely different interpretation of what clause 2 applied to. Given the CTs are contract is with OSMF and not LWG, and this interpretation differs from that assumed by the only lawyers I know of who've commented publicly on the CTs, then I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for an official statement from OSMF as to their interpretation. So that's what I asked for (suggesting it might come from the chairman). Steve C said he was unable to give such an official statement without checking with the board -- which is therefore what I have asked him to do. That's hardly going to a higher authority when I'm only repeating a previous unfulfilled request. As you can see, I have made a commitment to agreeing to the CTs if OSMF can officially confirm that their interpretation of the CTs is what Mike wrote at http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-June/011931.html . I would not have made such a commitment if I didn't fully intent to honour it. You'll also notice that I (deliberately) did not make such a commitment previously when asking for clarification -- as it was unclear exactly what form that clarification would take and what the consequences would be. That's my position and you can take it or leave it. I really don't see how flaming me in this list is helpful to the community. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
Robert Whittaker wrote: That's my position and you can take it or leave it. I really don't see how flaming me in this list is helpful to the community. Blimey. It was meant as a good-natured jokey e-mail, a gentle dig at best. But if it helps, the Archbishop of Canterbury's house in Charlbury is mapped in OSM if you _do_ want to take it further. ;) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-accepting-the-new-contributor-terms-tp6483857p6503623.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Video tutorials (was: OSM Analysis New Data and bot)
Ed Avis wrote: Note that David Ellams is one step ahead and has already created some video tutorials on how to use Potlatch 2. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Video_tutorials That's only one piece of the puzzle. Agreed. Not everyone likes watching videos, nor are they very easy to go back to as a reference. We need some proper user documentation for (non-geek) absolute beginners. I think video would be even better integrated into this. My two-penn’orth… A prolific OSM contributor gave me some really interesting and helpful feedback by email after I put up the first video. He felt that even five minutes might be too long and that the stuff about getting acquainted with Potlatch, zooming in and out, etc., should be split off into a separate video – keep the number of messages per video as small as possible. This has got me thinking about how breaking videos down into shorter snippets might work. I think integrating them into user documentation would be the answer. I envisage a Quick Start Guide, with headings covering: • Starting editing • Parts of the screen • Moving around the editor • Editing existing POIs • Adding a POI • Tracing a road • Etc (but not many more headings – no bells and whistles, just enough to have a go). Under each have very simple step-by-step instructions. Under some of the sets of instructions, include a link to a video snippet to demonstrate the instructions. That way if a user is happy enough with the instructions, they can skip that video, but if they are not sure they can go ahead and click. It would work best using software that would allow the video to be embedded in a hidden panel that can be opened if the user chooses to click. However, not sure this is vital; it could probably work well enough as a wiki page with links to video snippets (the important thing would be making sure that a beginner would easily find the page without having to wade through oodles of wiki treacle). I’d love to do this myself, but I am afraid I am going to shirk responsibility. I will shortly be taking at least a six-month sabbatical from OSM for family reasons. However, if someone does come up with such a guide I might be able to find the odd moment to help snip up the videos (or you could do it yourself – happy to send the OpenShot project files if it makes it easier). Anyhow, a Quick Start Guide would be darn useful even without integrated video. The Potlatch developers did an amazing job getting P2 ready for the road. However, it is really down to the rest of us to sort out the user documentation. Cheers David P.S. If anyone wants to take this on, a look at Tom Chance's guide on openecomaps.org or the guide on cyclestreets.net for inspiration. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-Analysis-New-Data-and-bot-tp6455312p6504016.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] speed limits, speed limit enforcement and speed limit fixme mapping
We have created a new speed limit layer which renders both mph and
km/h speed limits on the same map. In addition to showing speed limits
it also shows sections of speed limit enforced using average speed
camera as a black border to the road (using either
enforcement:maxspeed=average). There are only two sections in the UK
so far, one on the A14 near Cambridge and the other on the A77 north
up near Preswick. In time it will also show fixed speed camera
locations but we are waiting for a new big hairy server to arrive
before we can deploy that functionality.
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=124
There is also a new speed limits fixme layer which highlights normal
mph speed limits in light blue, normal km/h speed limits in light
green, limits that are applicable to both places in grey ('signals' is
the only current value there); understood but non numeric values in
orange, 'national' in dark red and other values in bright red.
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=125
In the UK we need to check for green (which are in km/h), red (which
are not recognised as either km/h or mph) and arguably also dark red
and orange.
Regards,
Peter
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] ITO OSM Analysis not updating?
We believe that OSM Analysis is now fixed and up to date. Apologies for the inconvenience and do of course let us know if we are wrong about that! Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd On 22 June 2011 09:35, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: On 21 June 2011 22:02, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: On 21 June 2011 21:32, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote: At the moment I can't get into ITO OSM Analysis at all. If I enter the URL http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main?showMinor=true it is immediately replaced by http://www.itoworld.com/main. I've tried both in Firefox and IE. Something does seem to be wrong. It may be tomorrow morning before we get it fixed now. Sorry about that. Apologies about the continued unreliability of OSM Analysis. We have evidently introduced a problem with a recent code update which we are now trying to resolve. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd Regards, Peter Miller Steve On 21/06/2011 12:31, Shane Reynolds wrote: Hi Graham. Sorry we have had a few problems with our importer over the weekend. However it is now working again and I hope that OSM analysis should have data up to the 19th in a few hours (OSM Mapper and ITO Map have just been updated to the 19th) - things should then also be back to normal from tomorrow (where we usually update sometime early afternoon for data from the previous day) Kind Regards, Shane On 21 June 2011 12:05, Graham Stewart gra...@dalmuti.net wrote: Hi Peter (et al), Last update of the http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main is currently reporting as 16/06/2011 (today is the 21st) Has it just fallen over, or is there anything that the community can help with to get this valuable tool running again? Cheers, GrahamS ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: I'd appreciated it if you could check with the other OSMF board members, so you then can make an official statement about Michael's post. I'm sure you're doing this for the right reasons, but there's something faintly amusing about the appeals to an ever-increasing authority. First you asked for a statement from LWG, and Mike duly obliged. Then you decided you needed one from the OSMF Chairman, and Steve duly obliged. Now you're asking for one from the whole OSMF Board. Well, the best reassurance would be to update the actual Contributor Terms and to refine the wording of clause 1 and 2 that they become clear even to a reasonably intelligent layman. This confusion is a major aspect of the CT and has profound influences on both current mappers of what they are allowed to add and future mappers when they decide on the consequences of triggering the license clause. So being absolutely clear on what clause 1 and 2 mean for data to which the OSM mappers does not have the rights, but contributes it by the virtue of a sub-license, warrants some effort from all involved sides. At the moment it seems not even the intent of those clauses were clear, let alone how and if the legal text expresses that intent. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion over and over for a long time now. As Andrzej has said on legal-talk ( http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-June/006187.html ) I believe there have been conflicting (private) statements from member of the LWG and OSMF Board, as to what the intent of clause 1 and 2 are and the views seem to change over time. So the statements of Michael and Steve are an important step forward in getting this ambiguity resolved, but I am not sure how much value they would have in front of court, given that both emails explicitly said they were not representing the official view. So this is not a appeals to an ever-increasing authority but simply a wish from the community to get a clear and official statement of how this part of the legal contract is intended to work. Therefore, imho updating the CT to clarify them would be the correct and unambiguous thing to do. Second best to that would be an official and quotable statement by the OSMF (i.e. the contract party) as to what their intent with respect to this issue is. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-accepting-the-new-contributor-terms-tp6483857p6505718.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
