Re: [Talk-GB] Brexit and OpenStreetMap

[Simon Poole]

There are at least three areas which need looking at when considering 
moving the OSMF, only two of them are strictly BREXIT related:


- Sui generis database protection (this is one of the underlying 
principles our licence relies on).


- Data protection compliance (this is currently not an issue, but could 
become one).


- Corporate structure and the ease of enabling tax deductible donations 
to the OSMF (while there is a bit of an BREXIT angle to this, it is 
mainly a question of the lack of options for this in the UK that is an 
issue).


As already pointed out to Martin you can find numerous discussions and 
material on the subject here


https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/index.php?search=brexit=Special%3ASearch=default=1

Simon


Am 14.09.2020 um 14:51 schrieb Tony Shield:

Saw this subject in WeeklyOSM 529

 https://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/13734/
Has someone analyzed the effects of Brexit on OpenStreetMap and which 
responses could be undertaken to fix potential problems?


For example have you looked at the consequences, cost and effort of 
moving the OpenStreetMap-Foundation to a EU-country and on the 
problems of staying in the UK (e.g. database protection for new 
databases by UK citizens will not be given in the EU).


Could we keep the servers in the UK but provide services under a 
different jurisdiction (because the foundation seat is moved)?


Is it possible to move the foundation, and what are the requirements? 
Maybe we should ask the membership what they would think about such a 
move? Has the board voiced its standpoint?



If something has been written about the specific situation of 
OpenStreetMap I would be interested in a link. I would also be 
interested in learning about your thoughts wrt brexit and 
OpenStreetMap. Publicly it seems we have mostly avoided any related 
considerations, until last year many had been hoping that someone 
would still stop it, but now it will become effective in only 4 months.


Cheers Martin

I'm a OSM GB member not fully understanding the structure of OSM but 
here goes -


GB is soon to be like any non-EU country. Brexit occurred 31 January 
last and Withdrawal Agreement ends 31 December 2020.


The question becomes is the OSMF so dependent on EU laws that it 
cannot operate outside the EU. OSM is a global effort and operates in 
many places where laws are substantially different to those of GB and 
EU. Laws are also different within the EU.


By thinking of moving OSMF from UK to EU because of Brexit are you 
saying that OSMF may never be able to function outside the EU - what 
about Switzerland where many international organisations are based, or 
United States. These are respected countries which should be 
considered if relocation is deemed necessary.


With respect to data privacy what is to stop OSMF mandating in its 
contracts and operation that the relevant EU data laws are adhered to. 
Maintaining data integrity and security is a function of OSMF, these 
functions are mandated by EU law, OSMF wherever it is domiciled can 
base its operations on the implementation of EU law.


With respect to current operations where OSM/OSMF operate or 
communicate outside the EU what protections are necessary?


Regards

Tony Shield

aka TonyS999


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


OpenPGP_0x4721711092E282EA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] New Bing Imagery

[Simon Poole]

There is even a (never merged and now likely really stale) PR:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/pull/4166

SImon

PS: and an issue too

Am 19.08.2020 um 11:20 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB:
> Have you checked whatever
> there is an open issue proposing to
> support imagery offset database in iD?
>
>
> 19 Aug 2020, 11:11 by scolebou...@joda.org:
>
> So, I followed the links below and added an offset. But this simply
> isn't a viable solution to the problem because it only works for JOSM
> and not iD.
>
> I managed to convince one mapper to type in the offset manually in iD
> every time, but that is a horrible thing to ask new mappers to do,
> very offputting. And now I can see Amazon mappers using an iD variant
> that doesn't have the offset and moving all the roads as a result:
> 
> https://osmcha.org/changesets/89549551?aoi=758c7f2b-faca-44e5-acd2-0cb8c33034bd
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89549551
> This is going to keep happening so long as OSM has multiple image
> sources and multiple editors. Frankly I'm amazed that this isn't a
> solved problem.
>
> Having done some mapping across the country recently, it seems like
> Bing is offset to the previous best imagery across the country, but by
> varying amounts. Is there really no solution that can be applied to
> the source Bing layer? Or should we all just accept Bing as golden?
>
> Having added thousands of buildings and fixed roads to align to the
> previous best imagery, I don't have a good solution to the problem,
> and it is demotivating to think that others are going to come along
> and move individual roads/buildings to align without considering the
> bigger picture.
>
> The only solution I can think of is to move all nodes in the area I've
> worked on to match the new Bing (ie a mass edit). Any other
> suggestions?
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 at 23:36, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB
>  wrote:
>
>
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Imagery_Offset_Database/Quick_Start
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Imagery_Offset_Database
> (I think that nowadays it is built in - is plugin installation
> still necessary?)
>
>
> No idea about iD support -
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/search?q=imagery+offset
>
> Jul 13, 2020, 00:21 by scolebou...@joda.org:
>
> Wow, the imagery is really good. But in my area the imagery is
> about
> 3-4m east west and 3-4m north south out of alignment with Esri
> World
> Imagery (Clarity) Beta, which is what I've been using up until now
> (for thousands of buildings).
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.39886/-0.24940
>
> Is there any way to unify the alignments?
>
> Stephen
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 06:41, Gareth L  wrote:
>
>
> I’ve noticed patches of vastly improved bing imagery since
> December, but it is really patchy.
> Gareth
>
> > On 6 Jul 2020, at 23:21, Cj Malone
>  wrote:
> >
> > I was splitting houses in Portsmouth/Southsea this morning.
> The imagery
> > is great, I don't know if it was part of this update, or if
> it's been
> > like this for a while.
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Call to action: Translators needed

[Simon Poole]

On 14.07.2020 17:21, o...@poppe.dev wrote:
> ... again, your wording sounds like you don't trust the organizations further 
> that you could throw a rock and basically discard their efforts as those of 
> money-hungry, evil corporations that aren't interested in the humanitarian 
> aspect at all (Ablasshandel was a big thing in medieval times, I guess we 
> shouldn't go down that road).

I've never found the concept of trust when dealing with legal entities
of any kind useful. In any case the correct throwing distance would be
dropping the stone.

There is nothing wrong with being money hungry btw, leads to predictable
behaviour, and is less fickle than many other things.

>
> I know that I might be exaggerating, but in essence you're just lumping all 
> 20+ organizations together and ignore their individuality.

I'm just commenting on the involvement "in" OSM which is fairly uniform.
OK HOT seems to be pivoting now around globalizing its paid mapping
business, but that is maybe because they are wising up on the fact that
the ambulance chasing may have run its course as a funding mechanism.

In any case you should do your own research on the organizations, some
have very good reputation, say MSF, others less so.

>> A "Call to action" for MapSwipe translations just reiterates the same
>> concepts in the particular absurd situation were the issue  at hand
>> could have been resolved with a couple of minutes work at any time over
>> the last 5 years if the developers were even remotely interested in
>> cooperating with wider OSM instead of just sapping out some manpower.
> "Call to action" was _my wording_ and _my idea_ alone, nobody forced me to 
> word it that way, nor have I given it a second thought, so every criticism to 
> that reflects back to my action.
>
> If you think that the developing team could have just done/given thought "5 
> more minutes" (As a developer for 30+ years, I'm very sceptical of such 
> claims) to incorporate their project into the established areas, there's no 
> hinderance for you to get into contact (because you now know of the problem, 
> that's why nobody has done so earlier) with them, and provide an easy 
> solution to the absurdity of the situation that you see.

It essentially boils down to checking a couple of boxes in transifex and
sending an announcement out to the existing translators that there is a
new project available, and changing the base URL for the project in
whatever they use to automate translations now.

Numerous projects have done it in the past, really no big deal.

And I've suggested it to "Humanitarian" projects before (would have to
dig if it was specifically MapSwipe), but as with essentially all
"Humanitarian" software development there is essentially no cooperation
with any mainstream OSM work, which may have to do with funding, maybe not.

>
> You might have just had a bad day just like I had a couple of unpleasant 
> weeks, but I do not understand your reasoning for your reactions. That might 
> just be me and I might be completely in the wrong here, but I suggest we 
> leave it at that. 
>
> Kai

It is just experience vs. trust.

Simon


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Call to action: Translators needed

[Simon Poole]

I've been asked to clarify this as it might come across as a personal
attack which was not intended, sorry.

The, very well funded, organizations in OSM space that claim
"Humanitarian" for themselves, market themselves mainly by having a
never ending stream of emergencies (some real, some not, some where OSM
mapping could be useful, some not) that urgently need attention.

In exchange for allowing HOT, MM etc to monetize your participation in
"resolving" these emergencies, you get alleviated to a superior human
being, well at least for a while. Think of it as a digital Ablasshandel,
just that in the middle ages the benefits were probably more tangible.

A "Call to action" for MapSwipe translations just reiterates the same
concepts in the particular absurd situation were the issue  at hand
could have been resolved with a couple of minutes work at any time over
the last 5 years if the developers were even remotely interested in
cooperating with wider OSM instead of just sapping out some manpower.

Simon

On 13.07.2020 00:59, Simon Poole wrote:
> It's the other way around, I believe you are the victim and have been had.
>
> Am 12. Juli 2020 21:12:15 MESZ schrieb Kai Michael Poppe - OSM
> :
>
> On 12.07.2020 20:58, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> The project in question could have naturally joined the
> OpenStreetMap transifex organisation and profited from a
> couple of 100 very experienced translators, but that would be
> too simple. 
>
>
> Well, don't kill the messenger. I myself only today discovered that 
> there's a JOSM team and an OSM organization.
> It might be worth checking whether the projects could be moved to the OSM 
> org.
>
> Kai
> 
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> -- 
> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail
> gesendet.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Call to action: Translators needed

[Simon Poole]

It's the other way around, I believe you are the victim and have been had.

Am 12. Juli 2020 21:12:15 MESZ schrieb Kai Michael Poppe - OSM :
>
>On 12.07.2020 20:58, Simon Poole wrote:
>
>> The project in question could have naturally joined the OpenStreetMap
>transifex organisation and profited from a couple of 100 very
>experienced translators, but that would be too simple.
>
>Well, don't kill the messenger. I myself only today discovered that
>there's a JOSM team and an OSM organization.
>It might be worth checking whether the projects could be moved to the
>OSM org.
>
>Kai
>
>___
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Call to action: Translators needed

[Simon Poole]

The project in question could have naturally joined the OpenStreetMap transifex 
organisation and profited from a couple of 100 very experienced translators, 
but that would be too simple.

Am 12. Juli 2020 19:50:43 MESZ schrieb Kai Michael Poppe - OSM :
>Good evening list!
>
>During last week's Missing Maps London event I got to know the mobile
>App "MapSwipe". This app is used to identify Imagery Tiles with
>specific features like buildings, roads, etc. in countries with low map
>coverage (i.e. developing/least developed countries). It is a
>second-level crowdsourcing platform and it's data is used by the
>Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HotOSM.org) to feed it's taskmanager.
>From there volounteers use computer-based editors to map the tiles that
>were marked as having a mappable feature.
>
>Enough marketing talk, this is what this mail is about: The developing
>team uses Transifex
>(https://www.transifex.com/mapswipe/mapswipe-app/dashboard/) to
>translate the strings in the OpenSource-App
>(https://github.com/mapswipe/mapswipe) and is looking for people who'd
>love to contribute with more translations or finishing/reviewing the
>existing languages. Czech only needs review, but Dutch, French,
>Japanese, Nepali, Persian, Swahili, Hungarian, Indonesia, Russian and
>Spanish are still missing loads of translated strings.
>
>So, if any of you would be able to help with any of the languages
>mentioned above (you may also add any other language that you think
>should be on the app), this would be greatly appreciated!
>
>Please do not hesitate to share this mail with anyone you think could
>help or cross-post this outside this list, I haven't done so anywhere
>except the German Telegram Group t.me/OSM_de.
>
>Thank you for reading this far :)
>
>Kai
>
>___
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission to release UPRN/ UPSN identifiers under Open Government Licence

[Simon Poole]

It would seem to be "rather" unlikely that such reference ids would be
named UPRN and UPSN outside of the UK to start with, so a more generic
building_ref, street_ref or similar would be likely more sensible (if
there is any value at all in mapping these). And yes similar concepts
exist outside of the UK too, however I do not know any case of them
finding wide spread use in lieu of addresses any where.

Simon

Am 09.04.2020 um 16:08 schrieb Gareth L:
> Can’t the key location be inferred by the fact it is within a country bounds 
> rather than redundantly added?
>
> Gareth
>
>> On 9 Apr 2020, at 14:46, Tony OSM  wrote:
>>
>> That makes perfect sense to me.
>>
>> Any other views?
>>
>> Tony
>>
>>> On 09/04/2020 14:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
 On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 14:26, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
  wrote:
 On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 09:21, Tony OSM  wrote:
> If the data is to be in the public domain the next step has to be tagging.
> Do we need country specific tags for these two pieces of data?
> What should they be?
>>> [snip]
 So I'd propose that we use either ref:uprn and ref:usrn, or
 ref:UK:uprn and ref:UK:usrn. What does everyone else think?
>>> Oops. If we were to use the ISO Alpha-2 country codes, it should of
>>> course be GB rather then UK. So that would make the keys ref:GB:uprn
>>> and ref:GB:usrn .
>>>
>>> Robert.
>>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] European Water Project - Introduction

[Simon Poole]

Am 14.03.2020 um 10:16 schrieb European Water Project:
> This may come through twice...
>
>
> Hi   dzidek23,
>
> What would be the workflow for adding new establishments and their
> associated tags using onosm.org  ? 
>
onosm.org simply creates notes, so less than optimal for new
establishments.

https://osmybiz.osm.ch/ will create new objects and let people manage
them in a reasonable fashion. What needs to be done is to add the
necessary keys to the presets used by the app (in this case they are in
iD format).

Simon

>
> Maybe through on the ground observation, some of the more than
> 25.000 establishments displaying a Refill UK sticker on their door
> can start being added to OSM.  The more places people know they
> can refill their reusable water bottle and avoid single-use
> plastic the better. 
>
> We are currently helping Zero Bouteilles Plastiques in France to
> add their cafés to OSM and a mapper in Bexill-On-Sea  just added
> 50 cafés from their local  scheme.   User nigelramsay
>  is looking to see
> if Refill NZ might be willing to work with OpenStreetMap in New
> Zealand.  The refill network name should be tagged with the
> drinking_water:refill:network key.which is part of the newly
> defined key namespace. 
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:drinking_water:refill  
>
>
> For reference, here are some of the many regional refill schemes
> (from the drinking_water:refill wiki): 
>
>   * Australia – ChooseTap http://choosetap.com.au/
>   * Bulgaria – Zero Waste Sofia European Water
> Project https://europeanwaterproject.org/
>   * Cambodia – Refill Asia /
> RefillMyBottle https://refillasia.com/ https://refillmybottle.com/
>   * Canada – BlueW.org; Tap http://www.bluew.org/
>   * Chile – Refill (Santiago de Chile only)
>   * Europe - European Water Project https://europeanwaterproject.org/
>   * France – Refill / EU Touring (Paris only) /European Water
> Project https://refill.org.uk/ https://europeanwaterproject.org/
>   * Germany – Refill Deutschland
>   * Greece –Refill https://refill.org.uk/
>   * Hongkong – Water for Free https://waterforfree.org/en/
>   * India – BluHop https://www.bluhop.com/
>   * Indonesia – Refill Asia / RefillMyBottle https://refillasia.com/
>   * Ireland – Refill Ireland
>   * Italy – Refill / Refill Elba (Elba island only)
>   * Japan – MyMizu
>   * Laos – Refill Asia / RefillMyBottle https://refillasia.com/
>   * Luxemborg –Refill https://refill.org.uk/
>   * Switzerland – FILL IT
> UP 
> http://fillitup.ch/karte.html?fbclid=IwAR0LLkykOD92K24dgHllJtcBconZBYkM9CfrItwK4TLU7xDmdXJnRnlb-n8
>   * The Netherlands – Refill / Drinkwaterkaart / Publiek Water
>   * New Zealand – RefillNZ
>   * Thailand – Refill Asia / RefillMyBottle
>   * U.K. – Refill https://refill.org.uk/
>   * United States – Tap
>   * Vietnam – Refill Asia /
> RefillMyBottle https://refillasia.com/ https://refillmybottle.com/
>   * Worldwide – Closca https://closca.com/pages/closca-water-app
>   * Worldwide – European Water
> Project https://europeanwaterproject.org/
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stuart 
>
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 22:03, BD  > wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I quite like the idea of adding free water refill places to
> the OSM. One idea which could not only benefit the European
> Water Project but OSM as a whole is to add a tick box on the
> onosm.org . I could read something like "We
> do provide free water refills" - link to European Water
> Project. If we would promote the onosm.org 
> a bit more not only numbers of businesses aware of/on OSM
> would increase, + people aware of Water Project. Water Project
> volunteers (if there are any) could direct businesses to
> onosm.org  for ease of adding info, this way
> we would "kill two birds with one stone" - as we say where I
> come from.
>
> cheers,
> dzidek23
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] European Water Project - Introduction

[Simon Poole]

Peter I don't believe there is/are any active moderators at this point.
The UK community should nominate one or more, and ask the OWG to instate
them as list moderators. In any case pleading to them here will not work
(and likely wouldn't work even if there were some).

Simon

Am 13.03.2020 um 23:37 schrieb Peter Neale via Talk-GB:
> List Moderators,
>
> Please remove @Daniel Holsey from this list.  His contribution will
> not be missed.
>
> Regards,
> Peter
>


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Import UK postcode data?

[Simon Poole]

Am 07.10.2019 um 15:50 schrieb David Woolley:
> On 07/10/2019 14:23, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> The ONS website explicitly states that their postcode products are OGL
>
> The OGL only applies to the parts of the data that relevant government
> organisation has the ability to grant rights to.  It excepts "third
> party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to license;".
> As such being OGL doesn't meant that you have a right to any RM data
> it may contain.

It needs to pointed out that being sure that the dataset does not
contain 3rd party IP that can't be used on OGL terms is not just a
theoretical point, but one  that has happened in real life (for example
it is partially responsible for the failure of openaddresses.uk).

SImon

>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Import UK postcode data?

[Simon Poole]

Am 07.10.2019 um 15:50 schrieb David Woolley:
> On 07/10/2019 14:23, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> The ONS website explicitly states that their postcode products are OGL
>
> The OGL only applies to the parts of the data that relevant government
> organisation has the ability to grant rights to.  It excepts "third
> party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to license;".
> As such being OGL doesn't meant that you have a right to any RM data
> it may contain.

It needs to pointed out that being sure that the dataset does not
contain 3rd party IP that can't be used on OGL terms is not just a
theoretical point, but one  that has happened in real life (for example
it is partially responsible for the failure of openaddresses.uk).

SImon

>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Import UK postcode data?

[Simon Poole]

Am 03.10.2019 um 10:26 schrieb Mark Goodge:
>
> ONSPD solves this problem, because it includes the "large user" flag.
>
>
It's the nature of the beast that when we are discussing OGL licensed
datasets that when something turns up that was previously thought to be
part of a proprietary dataset all alarm bells go off. Do you know how
they derived that flag and if there is really no residual proprietary IP
from RM in the data?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'Sources' tags

[Simon Poole]

I don't know how iD does it, but Vespucci includes the imagery used when
you actually made an edit, potentially multiple different sources. You
should still enter a source comment, imagery_used is simply for
additional documentation purposes.

Am 07.09.2019 um 18:54 schrieb Edward Bainton:
> I've noticed the changeset data includes the aerial image used
> (presumably at the moment you hit 'save', if you've referred to several?)
>
> Does this mean I don't need to add a source=aerial_imagery tag before
> I save a changeset? iD doesn't have it available as default; you have
> to choose it under 'add field'.
>
> Thanks.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Canoeing infrastructure/river features

[Simon Poole]

None of that data is actually open, it is just somebody trying to
leverage implied association with OpenStreetMap and what people
associate with that, to further their own project.

Simon

Am 31.08.2019 um 23:33 schrieb BD:
> For some time I did wonder why this information is not available on
> OSM (or at least not complete)
>
> Have you seen this project:
> https://opencanalmap.uk/about/
>
> One thing that puzzles me is fact that this open data is merged with
> google maps. Wouldn't be easier to have it on OSM?
>
> Cheers,
> dzidek23
>
> Dnia 29 sierpnia 2019 12:02 talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org napisał(a):
>
> Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to
> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>  1. Wales Coast Path almost finished (Richard Fairhurst)
>  2. Re: Canoeing infrastructure/river features (Jez Nicholson)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 16:05:01 +0100
> From: Richard Fairhurst 
> To: "talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)" 
> Subject: [Talk-GB] Wales Coast Path almost finished
> Message-ID: <9e1d2555-65a1-9e19-3501-22a25f0f3...@systemed.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> I was in holiday in North Wales last week and mapped the biggest
> remaining gap, east from Aberdaron:
>
> https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=13!52.8079!-4.6498
>
> That leaves three smaller gaps around the central Cardigan Bay
> coastline, between Barmouth and Borth:
>
> https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=15!52.6483!-4.0907
> https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=14!52.4981!-4.0189
> https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=15!52.5799!-3.9411
>
> plus one short one in South Wales near Gowerton:
>
> https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=15!51.6472!-4.0787
>
> Fixing these will mean not only that the WCP is complete in OSM, but
> also, as far as I can tell, that we have full coverage of National
> Trails in England & Wales. So if anyone's going on holiday to West
> Wales, or the Gower, please do map the missing bits and we'll be
> complete.
>
> cheers
> Richard
>
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 09:57:35 +0100
> From: Jez Nicholson 
> To: Talk-GB 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Canoeing infrastructure/river features
> Message-ID:
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> By 'collect some relevant info' I mean 'document your findings
> from asking
> questions on Talk lists and poking round the wiki'. Before
> constructing any
> grand new project pages, I would add a section to a relevant UK
> page. This
> _could_ spin off into a new page later, or it might provoke the
> response
> of, "but this is documented here on  page", or people might
> join in.
> Either way, everyone wins.
>
> A search on
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?search=canoe and
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?search=kayak throws up some
> pages. The https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dcanoe
> caught my
> eye as I didn't know that canoe routes were signed/plotted.
>
> My best experience with the wiki comes from writing
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_Kingdom
> By writing up the situation in the UK and working-in-the-open on a
> personal
> project to locate wind farms, I have found other people who were also
> interested, and it has led (partially) to the solar quarterly project.
>
> The OSMWiki is organised in places, chaotic in other places, and
> frustrating in many.but it is *ours*. I appeal to all UK
> Mappers to
> make it a good place to be.
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 9:48 AM Jez Nicholson
> 
> wrote:
>
> Interesting. There must be some waterways fans around here
> somewhere. I
> can see some pages like
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Whitewater_Maps
> which
> focus on one aspect of canoeing, and some countries appear to
> have marked
> routes.
>
> As a UK Mapper you could add to
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_waterways
> and collect
> some info relevant to UK canoeists.
>
> - Jez
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 5:00 AM Edward Bainton
> 
> 

Re: [Talk-GB] OSMTracker for Android - detailed survey of paths & tracks layout

[Simon Poole]

The first one is the original that is no longer maintained (was
announced two years back or so). The 2nd one is a fork that seems to be
reasonably current. Technically it is not possible to replace an
existing app without access to the certificate used for signing it and
the dev account, so fixing the issue would require the original
maintainer taking the app down.

Outside of that I'm not quite sure what the issue is supposed to be. If
you get that upset about a random bit of unmaintained software, you are
going to be spending an awful lot of time being unhappy.

Simon

Am 17.08.2019 um 13:20 schrieb Rob Nickerson:
> Why on earth are there 2 versions of OSMTracker for Android on the
> Play store?! How is that in any way user friendly? Which is the right
> one and how to get an old one removed?
>
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=me.guillaumin.android.osmtracker
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.osmtracker
>
> I also find the "PDA display resolution survey" on the wiki
> incredible. Gives me the impression that this is not maintained
> software. The screenshots are massively out of date too. Anyone
> willing to do a quick update?
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSMTracker_(Android)
>
> Thanks,
> *Rob*
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Displaced nodes

[Simon Poole]

I believe the last errant changeset was just reverted.

Am 04.08.2019 um 11:37 schrieb Simon Poole:
> Seems as if the culprit is reverting the changesets themselves (not
> quite done as I write this). I do think a mandatory debrief on how they
> managed to do this without noticing is clearly in order.
>
> Nobody moves > 100'000 nodes and then uploads them without tons of
> indications that something is wrong.
>
> Simon
>
> Am 04.08.2019 um 08:32 schrieb Roland Olbricht:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> there has been a couple of probably accidential movements of thousands
>> of nodes off central London.
>>
>> The changesets in question are most likely
>>
>> 72980739
>> 72980741
>> 72980743
>> 72980748
>> 72980751
>> 72980758
>> 72980760
>> 72980761
>> 72980762
>> 72980765
>> 72980767
>>
>> I'm attempting to revert them right now. As JOSM is surpringly slow on
>> the task, I'm happy about any help.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Roland
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Displaced nodes

[Simon Poole]

Seems as if the culprit is reverting the changesets themselves (not
quite done as I write this). I do think a mandatory debrief on how they
managed to do this without noticing is clearly in order.

Nobody moves > 100'000 nodes and then uploads them without tons of
indications that something is wrong.

Simon

Am 04.08.2019 um 08:32 schrieb Roland Olbricht:
> Dear all,
>
> there has been a couple of probably accidential movements of thousands
> of nodes off central London.
>
> The changesets in question are most likely
>
> 72980739
> 72980741
> 72980743
> 72980748
> 72980751
> 72980758
> 72980760
> 72980761
> 72980762
> 72980765
> 72980767
>
> I'm attempting to revert them right now. As JOSM is surpringly slow on
> the task, I'm happy about any help.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Roland
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Greater London Authority

[Simon Poole]

The OGl doesn't make any statements on the status of third party (in
this case OSMs) content included in the published dataset.

On 13.01.2019 11:31, Brian Prangle wrote:
> Does anyone have any contacts in GLA? Came across this entry  at
> dat.gov.uk
> 
>  
> wich was entered in November 2018 so pretty recent. It's  a good write
> up of OSM and offering practical tips on how to use OSM data and also
> with some data extracts pubished under OGL ( does our licence allow this?)
>
> Rgrds
>
> Brian
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Android Auto and OSM

[Simon Poole]

Just in case it isn't clear "Waze" is not a third party developer, it is
a 100% owned google/alphabet subsidiary. So while Waze availability does
indicate that there are no technical hurdles to integrating third party
apps, it does not show that there is a way to twist the googs arm to get
them to allow OSM based apps.


Am 24.09.2018 um 08:45 schrieb Edward Catmur:
> There is more information at the OsmAnd feature request:
>
> https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand/issues/3391
>
> By my understanding, Google have blocked all navigation apps other
> than a very short whitelist (Google Maps and Waze), ostensibly over
> concern for liability for distracting drivers. Other third party
> developers (Here, Sygic) have not been able so far to get their apps
> whitelisted.
>
> It does seem that a competition complaint would be the most likely to
> get results, but who would fund it? Perhaps a petition to get
> visibility for the issue?
>
>
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2018, 01:55 Simon Poole,  <mailto:si...@poole.ch>> wrote:
>
> The question is what not "ignoring this" entails.
>
> Essentially we would need to file a complaint with the respective
> authorities which afaik even the companies that are directly
> affected by this (see for example
> 
> https://forum.xda-developers.com/android-auto/android-auto-general/maps-android-auto-t3339439)
> 
> <https://forum.xda-developers.com/android-auto/android-auto-general/maps-android-auto-t3339439%29>
> have not done.
>
> As we don't have a direct business interests in this (as in no
> revenue from such business), the OSMF would have to team up with
> market players that are actually affected by the situation. All
> possible, but rather unlikely to actually happen, not to mention
> that any result from such an action would be way down the road
> substantially after the exit plans of any likely commercial partner.
>
> Simon
>
> Am 24. September 2018 00:05:20 MESZ schrieb Rob Nickerson
> mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>>:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> No this is not that simple and (in my view) OSM shouldn't
> ignore this. It works with quite a few existing third party
> apps (list on [1], [2]) including Google competitors (e.g.
> Amazon Music) and Open Source (e.g. Signal messenger).
>
> I cannot see any OSM app in the list which is a shame as we
> could loose audience as a result.
>
> P.S. The car also had Apple's equivalent (Apple CarPlay) but I
> couldn't test this as I don't have an iOS device.
>
> P.P.S According to google: Automobile manufacturers that will
> offer Android Auto support in their cars include Abarth,
> Acura, Alfa Romeo, Audi, Bentley, Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet,
> Chrysler, Dodge, Fiat, Ford, GMC, Honda, Hyundai, Infiniti,
> Jaguar Land Rover, Jeep, Kia, Lamborghini, Lexus, Lincoln,
> Mahindra and Mahindra, Maserati, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz,
> Mitsubishi, Nissan, Opel, Peugeot, RAM, Renault, SEAT, Škoda,
> SsangYong, Subaru, Suzuki, Tata Motors Cars, Volkswagen and Volvo.
>
> [1] https://www.android.com/auto/
> [2]
> 
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/collection/promotion_3001303_android_auto_all
>
> Thanks,
>
> *Rob*
>
>
> -- 
> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten
> Mail gesendet.
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Android Auto and OSM

[Simon Poole]

The question is what not "ignoring this" entails. 

Essentially we would need to file a complaint with the respective authorities 
which afaik even the companies that are directly affected by this (see for 
example 
https://forum.xda-developers.com/android-auto/android-auto-general/maps-android-auto-t3339439)
 have not done. 

As we don't have a direct business interests in this (as in no revenue from 
such business), the OSMF would have to team up with market players that are 
actually affected by the situation. All possible, but rather unlikely to 
actually happen, not to mention that any result from such an action would be 
way down the road substantially after the exit plans of any likely commercial 
partner.

Simon

Am 24. September 2018 00:05:20 MESZ schrieb Rob Nickerson 
:
>Hi Simon,
>
>No this is not that simple and (in my view) OSM shouldn't ignore this.
>It
>works with quite a few existing third party apps (list on [1], [2])
>including Google competitors (e.g. Amazon Music) and Open Source (e.g.
>Signal messenger).
>
>I cannot see any OSM app in the list which is a shame as we could loose
>audience as a result.
>
>P.S. The car also had Apple's equivalent (Apple CarPlay) but I couldn't
>test this as I don't have an iOS device.
>
>P.P.S According to google: Automobile manufacturers that will offer
>Android
>Auto support in their cars include Abarth, Acura, Alfa Romeo, Audi,
>Bentley, Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Chrysler, Dodge, Fiat, Ford, GMC,
>Honda, Hyundai, Infiniti, Jaguar Land Rover, Jeep, Kia, Lamborghini,
>Lexus,
>Lincoln, Mahindra and Mahindra, Maserati, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz,
>Mitsubishi,
>Nissan, Opel, Peugeot, RAM, Renault, SEAT, Škoda, SsangYong, Subaru,
>Suzuki, Tata Motors Cars, Volkswagen and Volvo.
>
>[1] https://www.android.com/auto/
>[2]
>https://play.google.com/store/apps/collection/promotion_3001303_android_auto_all
>
>Thanks,
>
>*Rob*

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Android Auto and OSM

[Simon Poole]

AFAIK "Android Auto" is actually "google Auto" and simply an app that
connects to compatible screens provided by car manufacturers that are in
bed with the goog (sometimes in an open relationship complemented with
the same from the fruit company). As actually running the app requires
selling your soul to the goog I haven't really experimented a lot with
it. This is distinct from a car dock mode or similar in which you can
typically launch osmand, mapsme or whatever you want.

With other words no simple way of replacing the goog in such vehicles
(it is likely hackable, but in the same vein will probably cost you your
warranty on the car and so on, so not worth it).


Am 23.09.2018 um 14:44 schrieb Rob Nickerson:
> Hi all,
>
> I recently was on holiday and needed maps for the hire car. Usually I
> use Maps.Me as I like the fact that you can download the maps in
> advance and that they have the hotels from Booking.com (thereby
> increasing the chance that I can easily find my hotel).
>
> This time however I forgot the phone mount :-(. The car did have
> Android Auto so, due to my insistence to have visibility of a screen
> when using GPS (audio alone is not enough), we ended up using this.
> For those who don't know Android Auto it is built in to the car's
> entertainment system - you just bring along your smartphone to connect
> in. Google Maps is the default and this is what we ended up using
> (pre-downloading regions before we set off).
>
> So yeah, on this holiday Google won*. We did continue with MapsMe for
> the hiking parts as this is where OSM excelled.
>
> My question is: Are there any OSM apps that can be used with Android
> Auto? It seemed like a great in car solution and no doubt more car
> manufacturers will add this in the coming years.
>
> Thanks,
> *Rob*
>
> * P.S. We got bad driving results from both Google Maps and MapsMe
> during the holiday. MapsMe tried to route us down a private road,
> whilst Google wanted us to do a long detour because it did not know
> about a road. I think OSM can win this game but don'e want it to slip
> behind as Android Auto get's rolled out to more cars.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] un-named roads in UK

[Simon Poole]

Am 30.08.2018 um 23:26 schrieb Mark Goodge:
> ..
>
> This is actually a problem for OSM, as the address tags don't allow
> for a house number to be attached to anything other than a street
> name. But, in rural areas, it can often be a hamlet name.
>
> ...
Pointing out the obvious, that is what addr:place is for. So it isn't
actually an issue.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] un-named roads in UK

[Simon Poole]

PS: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48658548 in the example actually
does have a sign and may be an exception or simply an error on behalf of
the municipality.


Am 30.08.2018 um 11:58 schrieb Simon Poole:
>
> I can't speak specifically for the UK, but in general I would not
> consider google of any use at all for determining if a road has a name
> or not.
>
> Wit for example https://www.google.ch/maps/@46.7958402,10.2534831,18z
> Not a single of those "named-in-google" streets actually has a name.
>
> Simon
>
>
> Am 29.08.2018 um 22:21 schrieb Jubal Harpster:
>>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>>  
>>
>> Our Open Maps team (https://github.com/microsoft/open-maps) has been
>> taking a closer look at OSM in the UK.  Some of you may have seen my
>> session in Milan where we talked about Microsoft’s ongoing OSM work
>> inAustralia.
>>
>>  
>>
>> We found a few examples of roads missing names that we could use some
>> local help with. There does not appear to be an official name for the
>> examples below and we’re trying to figure out if they came from a
>> local source, ground survey or something else entirely.
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Road Name*
>>
>>  
>>
>> *OSM*
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Google*
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Bing*
>>
>> Coach road estate
>>
>>  
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/67494787
>>
>>  
>>
>> _https://goo.gl/maps/PQXATz4iNMQ2_
>>
>>  
>>
>> _https://binged.it/2o1mF1v_
>>
>> Rosneath Castle Caravan Park
>>
>>  
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/92291906
>>
>>  
>>
>> _https://goo.gl/maps/5zn1EEXwYER2_
>>
>>  
>>
>> _https://binged.it/2BCrYOr_
>>
>> Merville Garden Village
>>
>>  
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/139461452
>>
>>  
>>
>> _https://goo.gl/maps/YdH5HCvhTqK2_
>>
>>  
>>
>> _https://binged.it/2BCq9Rx_
>>
>> Stadium Mews
>>
>>  
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/260127900
>>
>>  
>>
>> https://goo.gl/maps/JJNxamCgLy12
>>
>>  
>>
>> _https://binged.it/2C0LAw1_
>>
>>  
>>
>> These are not major roads but they are associated with a large number
>> of residential addresses so any help understanding the source of the
>> road names would be helpful.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thank You
>>
>> -Jubal
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jharpster
>>
>> https://github.com/jharpster
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] un-named roads in UK

[Simon Poole]

I can't speak specifically for the UK, but in general I would not
consider google of any use at all for determining if a road has a name
or not.

Wit for example https://www.google.ch/maps/@46.7958402,10.2534831,18z
Not a single of those "named-in-google" streets actually has a name.

Simon


Am 29.08.2018 um 22:21 schrieb Jubal Harpster:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
>  
>
> Our Open Maps team (https://github.com/microsoft/open-maps) has been
> taking a closer look at OSM in the UK.  Some of you may have seen my
> session in Milan where we talked about Microsoft’s ongoing OSM work
> inAustralia.
>
>  
>
> We found a few examples of roads missing names that we could use some
> local help with. There does not appear to be an official name for the
> examples below and we’re trying to figure out if they came from a
> local source, ground survey or something else entirely.
>
>  
>
> *Road Name*
>
>   
>
> *OSM*
>
>   
>
> *Google*
>
>   
>
> *Bing*
>
> Coach road estate
>
>   
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/67494787
>
>   
>
> _https://goo.gl/maps/PQXATz4iNMQ2_
>
>   
>
> _https://binged.it/2o1mF1v_
>
> Rosneath Castle Caravan Park
>
>   
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/92291906
>
>   
>
> _https://goo.gl/maps/5zn1EEXwYER2_
>
>   
>
> _https://binged.it/2BCrYOr_
>
> Merville Garden Village
>
>   
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/139461452
>
>   
>
> _https://goo.gl/maps/YdH5HCvhTqK2_
>
>   
>
> _https://binged.it/2BCq9Rx_
>
> Stadium Mews
>
>   
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/260127900
>
>   
>
> https://goo.gl/maps/JJNxamCgLy12
>
>   
>
> _https://binged.it/2C0LAw1_
>
>  
>
> These are not major roads but they are associated with a large number
> of residential addresses so any help understanding the source of the
> road names would be helpful.
>
>  
>
> Thank You
>
> -Jubal
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jharpster
>
> https://github.com/jharpster
>
>  
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'D' class roads references.

[Simon Poole]

The background here is that the UK, AUS and NZ (these are the ones I'm
aware of, of the former UK colonies India and the US have moved away
from this but used to have similar issues) have very strong "sweat of
the brow" doctrines that essentially lead to there being no creativity
and originality requirements for obtaining copyright protection. This is
independent of sui generis database rights that are an additional angle
in the UK (at least as it maintains compatibility with EU IP regulation).

Simon

Am 06.08.2018 um 00:04 schrieb Warin:
> On 06/08/18 06:10, Martin Wynne wrote:
>>> Copyright doesn't work like that.
>>
>> But you can't copyright names, addresses and similar material.
>>
>> Road names and numbers would surely fall within that.
>>
>> I'm not suggesting copying the document and posting it verbatim.
>
> There was a long and costly court case in Australia where a firm had
> used the information in  phone books to make their own data base.
>
> Facts cannot be copyrighted in Australian Law. but any skill etc can
> be copyrighted.
> The case was fought.
> The legal niceties are above me, but the phone book people won ... so
> even though the facts in the phone book are not copyright, practically
> you cannot copy them into your own data base.
> Ridiculous but true.
> I'd think similar legal arguments could be made in a British court.
>
> Be carefull.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Has someone just given us (the start of) access to the crown jewels?

[Simon Poole]

Most of the time such much applauded changes in policy work mainly for
the big guys (aka the goog, here and tomtom), by lowering the costs to
have similar level of non-automotive related detail as the national
mapping agencies and OSM. I don't quite see and haven't seen in other
countries, even in theory, how "small businesses" profit from this at all.

Simon


Am 13.06.2018 um 16:16 schrieb SK53:
> There's a transaction threshold, so not fully opendata: although I'm
> sure it could be gamed by a crowd!
>
> Before getting overly excited, take a look at the (poorly attributed)
> sample 1km sq in Exeter. Volume of data is very large with (just)
> buildings, road & pavement edges, property boundaries etc. Ask what
> will it improve in OSM other than precision: I suspect negligible
> impact on most routing applications (as OSM uses a centre-line model,
> which AFAIK is in the TIN layer of MM), mapping footpaths. On the
> (plus?) side lots of very detailed buildings (but not necessarily
> changes from extensions), property outlines (and perhaps this will
> change the status of the LR Inspire data).
>
> For me the single most valuable aspect will not be MM data at all, but
> the removal of licence doubts/issues about other datasets: notably
> those of Natural England, SNH and NRW, but also various PRoW data
> collected by Barry Cornelius.
>
> Jerry
>
> On 13 June 2018 at 14:56, Jon Stockill  > wrote:
>
> It looks like bits of OS MasterMap are being released under OGL.
>
> 
> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/716023/OSMM_narrative.pdf
> 
> 
>
> This could be interesting!
>
> -- 
> Jon Stockill
> li...@stockill.net 
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Petrol stations again

[Simon Poole]

Different area naturally, but at least here the newly created stations
in the list seem to have a roughly 50% error/something weird rate,
naturally I haven't looked at a very large sample yet and it could well
be that it is a specific problem with conflation in CH, but it clearly
is far to high for the "s**w validation just dump it in to OSM" approach
Ilya is suggesting.

The other problem that I've seen, is that Ilya is using different
capitalisation in the brand values as both presets and common use in OSM
have used up to now (for example AVIA vs. Avia), just as a general
principle is so many objects are being changed it would seem to be a
good idea to at least adjust the presets.

Simon


Am 09.03.2018 um 03:33 schrieb Paul Norman:
> On 3/8/2018 1:28 PM, SK53 wrote:
>> Remarks about individual items to be added which I have examined
>> (mainly, I thin, for Ilya's benefit):
>
> Were the 8 errors from the full set of 400, or a subsample of them?
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Licensing compatibility

[Simon Poole]

Its my personal opinion (which I believe is clear from the text), but
given that the attribution terms are essentially the same as for the
ODbL, a licence we just happen to have a lot of experience with :-), it
is fairly clear that we would be contradicting our stance on acceptable
attribution of OSM if the LWG came to a different formal conclusion.

But I can naturally table a formal compatibility determination, I just
can't guarantee that it will be available quickly given that we are
rather busy with GDPR related work.

Simon


Am 15.02.2018 um 12:06 schrieb Brian Prangle:
> Thanks for that Simon - is that just your personal opinion? Should I
> contact LWG for an official OSMF position?
>
> On 15 February 2018 at 09:03, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch
> <mailto:si...@poole.ch>> wrote:
>
> AFAIK we've not had any data licensed on ODC-BY 1.0 imported, at
> least not on a larger scale.
>
> The ODC-BY licence was supposed to be compatible with distribution
> on ODBL terms just as CC BY should be with CC BY-SA (I would
> however argue that both do not actually meet that goal), so most
> terms are similar to the ODBL. I do believe that we would at least
> need a statement that central attribution as we provide it is OK
> with the data source as the ODC-BY terms do not seem to cater for
> this.
>
> Simon
>
>
> Am 14.02.2018 um 17:44 schrieb Brian Prangle:
>> Hi
>>
>> Following my blog criticising BT
>> <http://www.mappa-mercia.org/2018/01/the-streets-they-are-changing.html>
>> for not releasing data,  Inlink UK <http://www.inlinkuk.com/>
>> have been in touch saying they'd be only too glad to release
>> their data so we can use it in OSM. They've asked the following
>> question which floors me.Can anyone help? I don't think this one
>> was on the list of compatible licences on the wiki
>>
>> To assist with this are you able to indicate whether you
>> currently use any data provided under the ODC Attribution License
>> (ODC-BY 1.0) or similar licenses providing data attribution and,
>> if so, how they interact with the information you release under
>> ODC-ODBL 1.0?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Licensing compatibility

[Simon Poole]

AFAIK we've not had any data licensed on ODC-BY 1.0 imported, at least
not on a larger scale.

The ODC-BY licence was supposed to be compatible with distribution on
ODBL terms just as CC BY should be with CC BY-SA (I would however argue
that both do not actually meet that goal), so most terms are similar to
the ODBL. I do believe that we would at least need a statement that
central attribution as we provide it is OK with the data source as the
ODC-BY terms do not seem to cater for this.

Simon


Am 14.02.2018 um 17:44 schrieb Brian Prangle:
> Hi
>
> Following my blog criticising BT
> 
> for not releasing data,  Inlink UK  have
> been in touch saying they'd be only too glad to release their data so
> we can use it in OSM. They've asked the following question which
> floors me.Can anyone help? I don't think this one was on the list of
> compatible licences on the wiki
>
> To assist with this are you able to indicate whether you currently use
> any data provided under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0) or
> similar licenses providing data attribution and, if so, how they
> interact with the information you release under ODC-ODBL 1.0?
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission

[Simon Poole]

A note on the side (and maybe an angle to divert some of those funds to
something really useful): what has always struck me very weird about
open geo data in the UK, compared to practically every other Western
European country (even those with far, far less open data), is the, in
general, dismal aerial imagery quality. It is not unusual to have at
least nominal resolution 25cm/px imagery if not 10cm and better in lots
of places for larger areas.

In my experience (which is fairly extensive in this regard) freeing up
imagery is much easier than actual datasets and our use case is rather
exotic in any case so typically not seen as a competitive danger.

Simon


Am 24.11.2017 um 12:22 schrieb Andy Robinson:
>
> Indeed Bob’s may be the best case scenario and I note perhaps the more
> cynical view taken by the likes of Ed Parkes.
>
>  
>
> I let out a little wee in my pants when I heard the budget
> announcement. Geospatial doesn’t get mentioned much on the floor of
> the house! So it’s an encouraging further nipping at the heels of the
> giant.
>
>  
>
> Each time I hear a welcome apparently positive announcement like this
> it makes me pause and wonder whether the tail is wagging the dog. The
> chancellor might be making funds available but the campaigning to get
> it is not done by the politicians but by those who feel it’s a
> worthwhile cause, they needed to sell it. So what influences drives
> like this? It’s easy to dismiss the role of OSM, in fact OSM may have
> never figured in the discussion about this new money, however I like
> to think we have influenced the marketplace for geospatial data in the
> UK and will continue to think we are (in our little world) the tail.
>
>  
>
> So that brings me on to the what next for OSM. Could it indeed have
> the potential to be the end of contribution to OSM in the UK?
>  Fortunately I think not. We are unique in the marketplace that we can
> react to new cheap technology much quicker than the giants like the
> OS. Around the corner is the prospect of the L1/L5 GNSS dual frequency
> exploitation to bring us sub metre positional accuracy with a standard
> smart phone. While the claimed 300mm accuracy is still a long way
> short of the OS’s 30mm surveying target for MasterMap products its
> getting us closer to being able to verify the near precise position of
> objects, better local rectification of the imagery we trace from and
> I’m sure lots of other things I’m just not thinking of right now. If
> we combine this with where technology is leading us – driverless
> devices, autonomous drones, improved remote sensing from satellites
> etc – we can expect the tools we use today to add to and maintain OSM
> in the UK to be every improving.
>
>  
>
> I believe there is another important point too. MasterMap may be a
> great product today but I’m not convinced its fit for even the next 10
> years. Some of the industries that uses MasterMap in the UK,
> engineering and the building industry to name just two, are rapidly
> moving to a 3 & 4 dimensional BIM approach. The 2D MasterMap looks
> more like an NPE sheet in the BIM field.
>
>  
>
> But, I hear you say, OSM is mostly a 2D product! Right! While we may
> be winning the battle on getting the OS to open up its data we may be
> losing the war if OSM doesn’t react to the future direction of
> geospatial data. In an increasingly 3D and 4D geospatial world OSM is
> starting to look like a rather clunky model. If a new Steve Coast
> starts a 4D mapping project and it gains initial traction would we
> jump ship?
>
>  
>
> I’ll leave that one with you for the weekend J
>
>  
>
> Cheers
>
> Andy
>
>  
>
> *From:*SK53 [mailto:sk53@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 23 November 2017 19:14
> *To:* Gervase Markham
> *Cc:* Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission
>
>  
>
> The twitterverse has been talking of nothing else.
>
> Personally, I will be very cautiously optimistic.
>
> The best case scenario is one suggested by Bob Barr:
>
>   * OSGB changes it's business model from pay-to-use to transaction
> based (a la Land Registry).
>   * The £80 million (2 years at £40 million) is used to cushion
> revenue & staff implications
>   * Master Map is then released under OGL going on
>
> Perhaps more likely is a special free service agreement for restricted
> classes of businesses (SMEs) along the lines of PSMA (I blagged this
> point from someone else).
>
> Even if MM is all under OGL I suspect OSGB would not acquiesce to the
> current form of attribution on OSM.
>
> Owen Boswarva's asks if this would
> mean the
> end of OSM mapping in UK. A provocative thought.
>
> Jerry
>
>  
>
> On 23 November 2017 at 15:56, Gervase Markham  > wrote:
>
> This sounds... vaguely positive?
> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chancellor-to-unlock-hidden-value-of-government-data
>
> Gerv
>
>
> 

Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission

[Simon Poole]

Am 23.11.2017 um 20:13 schrieb SK53:
> ...
>
> Owen Boswarva's asks if this would
> mean the
> end of OSM mapping in UK. A provocative thought.
>
> ...
Well Owen is not exactly known as a big friend of OSM to start with.

But in any case OSM has survived easily in lots of different scenarios
with plenty of government open data (or what is more likely in this
scenario some kind of open access), so I would remain rather un-fazed by
the announcement of the intent to do something more or less unspecified
to opening up some use to SMEs.

Simon

PS: I believe one of the open questions is if it is actually £80m more
spending on OS than the what I believe current £40m, or if that is the
total.





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OpenStreetCam or Mapillary?

[Simon Poole]

While we would probably all love to be able to our hands on some
Hollywood magic (I just have s many photos that are just a tiny bit
too blurry to decipher  :-)) I suspect Marc was referring to reverting
back to the original non-blurred images, removing blurs added for
privacy reasons,

Simon


Am 22.09.2017 um 10:50 schrieb David Woolley:
> On 22/09/17 08:26, Marc Gemis wrote:
>
>> OSC's unblurring
>> functionality still does not work. So some signs might be unreadable
>> due to that
>
> De-convolution is only a miracle technology in TV forensics fiction.
> Whilst, with a carefully chosen scene and a very circular lens
> aperture it can make big improvements, you should still aim to take
> photographs that don't need it.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OpenStreetCam or Mapillary?

[Simon Poole]

Not commenting directly on the pros and cons, but through their
cooperation with Here using mapillary for this would make the material
directly available to a competitor too. Now you can consider this a good
thing or bad, but in any case it needs to be considered.

Slightly OT;

while I don't have any first hand knowledge specifically about the UK, 
but continental Europe has a largish number of companies that do that
kind of photographic asset management professionally (and which seem to
have an at least half working business model because they still exist).
The results of the surveys they do tend to not be open to the general
public for privacy reasons and so on, but getting our hands on that kind
of material would be great. Naturally these kind of things tend to be
"slightly" more expensive than using a smart phone camera.

Simon


Am 21.09.2017 um 20:09 schrieb Brian Prangle:
> Hi everyone
>
> I'm in discussions with Transport for West Midlands to use their
> inspection teams'  time on the street to assist us by taking photos
> with smartphones, which will also help them with their asset
> management and not have to rely on outdated data from Google StreetView.
>
> Which one of the above is better for us? Or just plain better?
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] [Osmf-talk] Live OSM discussion in ~45 minutes (7.30pm UK time)

[Simon Poole]

The thread was mainly about bad science and how it effects the
perception of OSM in the public, including that it doesn't help in
addressing real issues.

Normally I would expect the moderators to suggest starting a new thread
if you want to discuss the issues around diversity and how to address
them instead of hijacking a thread with a different topic, but they seem
to be strangely absent

Simon

On 27.07.2017 14:41, Mikel Maron wrote:
> Takeaways
> * Everyone understands gender diversity is a problem
> * Some of us think it's very important to address, others think other
> issues are more important at this moment
> * The dudes arguing here among themselves about what's more important
> and dissecting arguments are not doing much to address the issue. 
> * The volume of discussion and overly sensitive responses to details,
> beating drums about our pet peeves, only shows that the key issue of
> gender diversity is not something some of us want to put energy into.
> * The discussion here doesn't matter. If we want to work on gender
> diversity, let's go away from here and support the women and men who
> have started good work on strategies at last year's SotM.
>  
> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>
>
> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 7:54 AM, Frederik Ramm
>  wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> On 26.07.2017 23:58, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> > While I was dismissive of her arguments four years ago, now I see that
> > all of her points were valid, and are still valid.
>
> I think that it is possible for an insider of OpenStreetMap to look at
> Monica's work and see some valid points in there. But try to switch off
> your background knowledge and look at her work. What sticks with you is
> something like (quoting from a 3rd party web site that introduces the
> talk):
>
> "She looks specifically at the case of how "childcare" was not approved
> as map category within OpenStreetMap."
>
> This comes from her work massively exaggerating the issue for effect,
> and being extremely sloppy with OSM background research.
>
> Reviewing her talk, the OSM part begins with her showing group photos of
> past SotM conferences claiming "these are all men". Which clearly isn't
> true (you just have to zoom in on the picture). Maybe I'm putting the
> bar to high by measuring this with the "science" yardstick, but it feels
> wrong to me. Do you want future scientific papers to quote "according to
> , no women have attended large OSM gatherings before 2013"?
> Because that's what she says.
>
> She then goes on to equate the number of different values in the
> "amenity" key space with the importance of something (arguing that
> because you have different amenity values for bars and pubs it is clear
> that this is an important distinction); this is not tenable as just
> slightly more research would have shown, there is no correlation between
> the importance of something and the number of different key values in
> the amenity space.
>
> She then claims that "amenity=swingerclub" was the (1) most recently (2)
> accepted (3) voted on (4) approved amenity - not a single one of the
> numbered points is correct as far as I can see from the Wiki history
> (but I invite readers to double check, I might have missed some page
> renamings?).
>
> Going forward, she gives listeners the impression that a successful tag
> proposal was a requirement for being able to tag features, which is
> plain wrong. At the very least, a non-misleading, non-sensationalist
> presentation would have to mention that
>
> (a) anyone can tag anything they find important,
> (b) this *may* be influenced by editor presets (which didn't feature
> swingerclubs at the time and don't now)
> (c) what appears on the *map* is a different issue again, and
> swingerclubs weren't on the map then and aren't now.
>
> (As a tiny nod towards the actual subject of this thread, point "b" was
> addressed in Andrew Hall'S "Wikimedia Research Showcase" presentation.)
>
> She then goes on to discuss the amenity=childcare proposal, which had
> been voted down in 2011. As you can see from
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/childcare=789581
> the proposal itself had been framed sloppily; it claimed to be
> applicable to all age groups ("Example: 0-6") but didn't explain in how
> far it was meant to replace the existing amenity=kindergarten or just be
> for after-school/after-kindergarten care. A total of 9 people voted
> against the proposal; most because of this technicality, and two because
> they would have preferred amenity=social_facility.
>
> Did those 9 people vote because they "were ignorant" or "didn't care"?
> Maybe, but in my eyes the fault lies just as much with the proposal
> itself; the confusion with "kindergarten" and the question of whether
> "social_facility" would not be better didn't come from nowhere and they
> should have been addressed, the proposal refined, and brought to vote in
> a better shape.
>
> Do voters have a 

Re: [Talk-GB] [Osmf-talk] Live OSM discussion in ~45 minutes (7.30pm UK time)

[Simon Poole]

Am 27.07.2017 um 12:02 schrieb Ilya Zverev:
> I do not have numbers for how many people in OSM are interested in which 
> facilities. If I had, that would be a great research subject, or at least a 
> topic for an interesting SotM presentation.
>
> This sub-thread, of course, is an extra illustration to the issues in our 
> community. Only numbers matter, samples are good only if they represent the 
> bias in our community, no issues here, move along.
Well I would simply rather work on addressing real issues than spending
time on invented ones. That kind of implies that you need facts, not
fairy tales.

Low gender diversity among OSM contributors is reasonably well
established, if it actually biases what is and how it is mapped, is not
(that for example would be a good research topic).

And yes it is undoubtedly true that having a childcare preset in JOSM
(as the only editor with larger use without one) would be nice, but that
is the decision of a single developer not a bias of the whole community
(naturally most JOSM users are capable of typing the tag in without a
preset in any case). The delineation issues are naturally not resolved
by having a preset, that is however a problem of the subject matter, not
a question of lack of interest.

Simon
 
>
> Ilya
>
>> 27 июля 2017 г., в 10:57, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> написал(а):
>>
>> You claimed that a minority of OSM contributors were interested in
>> childcare facilities and, implied that a majority is interested in
>> brothels.
>>
>> Again: numbers please.
>>
>> PS: you do illustrate an interesting point wrt the research we are
>> discussing here, one would expect an unbiased sample of OSM contributors
>> of size 15 to contain zero non-male and zero HOT members obviously the
>> composition of the interviewees was rather different.
>>
>>
>> Am 27.07.2017 um 08:37 schrieb Ilya Zverev:
>>> On SotM 2016 8 of 45 talks (18%) were given by women. Srravya C in her
>>> talk at that SotM shows that only 7% posts in talk@ were posted by
>>> women, and just around 2% — in the tagging@ mailing list. She gives a
>>> few good ideas about increasing the participation of women, by the way:
>>>
>>> http://2016.stateofthemap.org/2016/is-she-a-part-of-your-community/
>>>
>>> As a member of the Russian community, I can confirm we have ZERO
>>> active female members.
>>>
>>> Ilya
>>>
>>> 27.07.2017 03:14, Simon Poole пишет:
>>>>
>>>> On 26.07.2017 23:58, Ilya Zverev wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> but these people are a minority in OSM,
>>>> Numbers please.
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] [Osmf-talk] Live OSM discussion in ~45 minutes (7.30pm UK time)

[Simon Poole]

The Wikipedia article on the topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_sampling

It would just seem to be far too easy for advocacy groups to hijack even
a well intentioned selection, which is what I suspect we are seeing
here. Instead of getting a diversity of viewpoints we are simply getting
one, that will then in turn be referenced by the same groups as a result
of "research".

Simon


On 27.07.2017 10:06, Dan S wrote:
> 2017-07-27 8:57 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch>:
>> PS: you do illustrate an interesting point wrt the research we are
>> discussing here, one would expect an unbiased sample of OSM contributors
>> of size 15 to contain zero non-male and zero HOT members obviously the
>> composition of the interviewees was rather different.
> A uniform random sample is not really relevant in small-numbers
> sociological research. This is "snowball sampling" which is a very
> problematic form of sampling, but one thing it definitely does not
> claim is to be a balanced random sample. A social researcher using
> snowball sampling to find a small number of interviewees knows full
> well they aren't gathering a statistically random sample, and one
> hopes that this researcher tried to find a diversity of viewpoints for
> his interviews (I don't know). He could, for example, have
> deliberately designed his sample to have almost-equal numbers of men
> and women.
>
> Best
> Dan


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] [Osmf-talk] Live OSM discussion in ~45 minutes (7.30pm UK time)

[Simon Poole]

On 26.07.2017 23:58, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> 
> but these people are a minority in OSM,
Numbers please.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Relation: Street

[Simon Poole]

Brian was referring to "street" relations, not "associatedStreet" which
is something very different.

In any case, I believe the support for street relations approaches
roughly zero, and that really the repeated street names is something the
renderer needs to fix (and it can be done).

Simon


Am 21.11.2016 um 21:02 schrieb Marc Gemis:
> An associatedStreet has no impact at all on the renderer.
> Nominated uses it to a certain degree to match houses with streets (in
> case the addr:street does not match the name of a street in the
> proximity).
> There are some tools from the French community that uses this relation
> as well. The French typically place some reference information into
> the relation.
>
> I think the street relation is used / supported even less.
>
> regards
>
> m
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Brian Prangle  wrote:
>> Hi everyone
>>
>> Road ways are becoming increasingly chopped up into smaller pieces as more
>> data is added ( speedlimits, bus routes, cycle routes, lane counts,  lane
>> types and  lane turns; restrictions etc.) and the name becomes similarly
>> repeated.
>>
>> I'm hesitant to use the relation street and shift the name  to the relation
>> as the wiki says this relation is not supported and I'm also not sure how it
>> will render, but it does seem as it would cure the problem. (Does anyone
>> else actually see it as a problem?)
>>
>> Has anyone used this relation successfully?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb