[Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Kai Krueger]

Hello everyone,

I would like to suggest as a sort of "Project of the week" for the UK 
for people to pick a random town or village somewhere in the UK that so 
far has poor coverage and trace it's roads from OS OpenData StreetView.

Despite the various claims over the years that the UK road will be "road 
complete" by the "end of the year", the UK is still a far distance off 
of that target. I have heard the numbers that so far we have on the 
order of 50% of named roads (people who are working on OS - OSM 
comparisons please correct me if I am wrong). Which is by no means a 
small feat of achieving, but also not as high as one would like it to be.

So let us try and accelerate this a bit by everyone picking a small 
random town or village somewhere in the UK and trace the roads from 
StreetView. It probably only takes about 10 - 20 minutes for a small 
village and even a small town isn't too bad to do (if the weather is bad 
and you can't go out). So with the help of OS data, we can get a big 
step closer to where we would like to be and use it as a basis to 
continue to improve beyond the quality of OS data or any other 
commercial map provider.

(If you are convinced already, then no need to read the rest of the email)

I know that many people are opposed to "armchair mapping" or imports 
(and btw I am not proposing a full scale import here, but manual tracing 
instead) and so I'd like to counter some of the arguments most likely 
going to  be brought up against this sort of non local tracing:

1) OS data might have mistakes, be outdated and generally not as good as 
what OSM aims for: Yes, no doubt OS has errors and can be outdated in 
many places by a couple of years ( I have found more than enough of 
those myself). Furthermore, all of the OS products released lack many of 
the properties we are interested in like one way roads, turn and other 
restrictions, POIs, foot and cycle ways and all the other things that 
make OSM data such a rich and valuable dataset. So yes, the OS data will 
clearly not replace any of the "traditional" OSM surveying techniques or 
be the end of things. But it can be a great basis to build upon.
As a comparison, have a look (assuming you have a timecapsal ;-)) at 
what the data of e.g. central London looked like in 2007. It already had 
surprisingly many roads, but hardly any POIs or other properties that we 
aim for now. Most of that came later in many iterations of improvement.
A single pass of "OSM" surveying is not any better than the OS data per 
se. Also given that the errors introduced by tracing OS data are exactly 
the same type of errors introduced by manual "OSM" surveying, i.e. 
misspellings in roads, missing roads, outdated roads, ... We need to 
have the tools to deal with this kind of maintenance anyway.  It is the 
iterations that make OSM data what it is, not the "first pass ground 
survey".
Creating a blanket base layer from OS data allows us to much better 
focus on the aspects that do distinguish us from every other map data 
provider with having to "waste" as little as possible resources on the 
"stuff everyone else has" too.

2) large scale imports and tracing hinders community growth: This 
perhaps is the more important of the two arguments, as indeed what 
distinguishes us from everyone else is the community and without the 
community and its constant iterations  and improvements, OSM data will 
"bit rot" just as much as all other data. However I don't think there is 
any clear evidence either way of what non local mapping does to 
communities and it remains hotly debated. The negative effects claimed 
are usually of the form a) The area looks complete, there is nothing 
more to do, so why bother. Or, it isn't as much fun to add a POI than a 
whole new village on a blank canvas. b) I put in all this effort into 
mapping an area and along comes an import and steam rollers all this 
into a mess, I am leaving. c) imports introduce a new class of bugs, 
e.g. duplicate nodes or broken connectivity that OSM mappers wouldn't so 
we don't have the tools to deal with these sort of errors correctly.
b) and c) are specific to imports and thus manual tracing shouldn't 
suffer the same issues. a) may be the case, but it is clearly a case 
that we need to be able to deal with anyway, as more and more areas 
become "complete" by "them selves". And looking at the better mapped 
areas, like Germany or some of the UK cities, I don't think there is any 
evidence that you can't attract new comers into already mapped areas. It 
is potentially also offset by all those people who simple want to use 
the data for something like embed a map into their blog or use OSM data 
on their Garmin, their phone, their game, their ... and will fix the odd 
bug they discover while doing so, but can't really as it simply isn't 
complete enough yet.

Other examples of remote mapping have also been fairly successful. The 
most obvious one was Haiti. It's initial phase was entirely arm ch

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Graham Jones]

Kai,
I think this is a good idea, and a very well presented argument - a push to
get UK OSM coverage up would make the uk dataset more useful (more chance of
being able to search for an address etc.).

I think it would be worth treating a 'blind' tracing (as opposed to tracing
an area that you know, but have not surveyed) a bit like an import and
adding a 'verified=no' tag.   Then when someone on the ground visits the
area they can update the 'verified' tag - we could even create a map overlay
to highlight the unverified areas to encourage 'on the ground' surveys to
add the extra detail that makes OSM maps more interesting than others.

Regards


Graham.

On 6 June 2010 12:07, Kai Krueger  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> I would like to suggest as a sort of "Project of the week" for the UK
> for people to pick a random town or village somewhere in the UK that so
> far has poor coverage and trace it's roads from OS OpenData StreetView.
>
> Despite the various claims over the years that the UK road will be "road
> complete" by the "end of the year", the UK is still a far distance off
> of that target. I have heard the numbers that so far we have on the
> order of 50% of named roads (people who are working on OS - OSM
> comparisons please correct me if I am wrong). Which is by no means a
> small feat of achieving, but also not as high as one would like it to be.
>
> So let us try and accelerate this a bit by everyone picking a small
> random town or village somewhere in the UK and trace the roads from
> StreetView. It probably only takes about 10 - 20 minutes for a small
> village and even a small town isn't too bad to do (if the weather is bad
> and you can't go out). So with the help of OS data, we can get a big
> step closer to where we would like to be and use it as a basis to
> continue to improve beyond the quality of OS data or any other
> commercial map provider.
>
> (If you are convinced already, then no need to read the rest of the email)
>
> I know that many people are opposed to "armchair mapping" or imports
> (and btw I am not proposing a full scale import here, but manual tracing
> instead) and so I'd like to counter some of the arguments most likely
> going to  be brought up against this sort of non local tracing:
>
> 1) OS data might have mistakes, be outdated and generally not as good as
> what OSM aims for: Yes, no doubt OS has errors and can be outdated in
> many places by a couple of years ( I have found more than enough of
> those myself). Furthermore, all of the OS products released lack many of
> the properties we are interested in like one way roads, turn and other
> restrictions, POIs, foot and cycle ways and all the other things that
> make OSM data such a rich and valuable dataset. So yes, the OS data will
> clearly not replace any of the "traditional" OSM surveying techniques or
> be the end of things. But it can be a great basis to build upon.
> As a comparison, have a look (assuming you have a timecapsal ;-)) at
> what the data of e.g. central London looked like in 2007. It already had
> surprisingly many roads, but hardly any POIs or other properties that we
> aim for now. Most of that came later in many iterations of improvement.
> A single pass of "OSM" surveying is not any better than the OS data per
> se. Also given that the errors introduced by tracing OS data are exactly
> the same type of errors introduced by manual "OSM" surveying, i.e.
> misspellings in roads, missing roads, outdated roads, ... We need to
> have the tools to deal with this kind of maintenance anyway.  It is the
> iterations that make OSM data what it is, not the "first pass ground
> survey".
> Creating a blanket base layer from OS data allows us to much better
> focus on the aspects that do distinguish us from every other map data
> provider with having to "waste" as little as possible resources on the
> "stuff everyone else has" too.
>
> 2) large scale imports and tracing hinders community growth: This
> perhaps is the more important of the two arguments, as indeed what
> distinguishes us from everyone else is the community and without the
> community and its constant iterations  and improvements, OSM data will
> "bit rot" just as much as all other data. However I don't think there is
> any clear evidence either way of what non local mapping does to
> communities and it remains hotly debated. The negative effects claimed
> are usually of the form a) The area looks complete, there is nothing
> more to do, so why bother. Or, it isn't as much fun to add a POI than a
> whole new village on a blank canvas. b) I put in all this effort into
> mapping an area and along comes an import and steam rollers all this
> into a mess, I am leaving. c) imports introduce a new class of bugs,
> e.g. duplicate nodes or broken connectivity that OSM mappers wouldn't so
> we don't have the tools to deal with these sort of errors correctly.
> b) and c) are specific to imports and thus manual tracing shouldn't
> suffer the same i

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Tim François]

If you are tracing from StreetView please, please, please properly source your 
ways:

source=OS_OpenData_StreetView

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Attributing_OS

Tim

--- On Sun, 6/6/10, Kai Krueger  wrote:

From: Kai Krueger 
Subject: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
To: "'talk-gb'" 
Date: Sunday, 6 June, 2010, 12:07

Hello everyone,

I would like to suggest as a sort of "Project of the week" for the UK 
for people to pick a random town or village somewhere in the UK that so 
far has poor coverage and trace it's roads from OS OpenData StreetView.

Despite the various claims over the years that the UK road will be "road 
complete" by the "end of the year", the UK is still a far distance off 
of that target. I have heard the numbers that so far we have on the 
order of 50% of named roads (people who are working on OS - OSM 
comparisons please correct me if I am wrong). Which is by no means a 
small feat of achieving, but also not as high as one would like it to be.

So let us try and accelerate this a bit by everyone picking a small 
random town or village somewhere in the UK and trace the roads from 
StreetView. It probably only takes about 10 - 20 minutes for a small 
village and even a small town isn't too bad to do (if the weather is bad 
and you can't go out). So with the help of OS data, we can get a big 
step closer to where we would like to be and use it as a basis to 
continue to improve beyond the quality of OS data or any other 
commercial map provider.

(If you are convinced already, then no need to read the rest of the email)

I know that many people are opposed to "armchair mapping" or imports 
(and btw I am not proposing a full scale import here, but manual tracing 
instead) and so I'd like to counter some of the arguments most likely 
going to  be brought up against this sort of non local tracing:

1) OS data might have mistakes, be outdated and generally not as good as 
what OSM aims for: Yes, no doubt OS has errors and can be outdated in 
many places by a couple of years ( I have found more than enough of 
those myself). Furthermore, all of the OS products released lack many of 
the properties we are interested in like one way roads, turn and other 
restrictions, POIs, foot and cycle ways and all the other things that 
make OSM data such a rich and valuable dataset. So yes, the OS data will 
clearly not replace any of the "traditional" OSM surveying techniques or 
be the end of things. But it can be a great basis to build upon.
As a comparison, have a look (assuming you have a timecapsal ;-)) at 
what the data of e.g. central London looked like in 2007. It already had 
surprisingly many roads, but hardly any POIs or other properties that we 
aim for now. Most of that came later in many iterations of improvement.
A single pass of "OSM" surveying is not any better than the OS data per 
se. Also given that the errors introduced by tracing OS data are exactly 
the same type of errors introduced by manual "OSM" surveying, i.e. 
misspellings in roads, missing roads, outdated roads, ... We need to 
have the tools to deal with this kind of maintenance anyway.  It is the 
iterations that make OSM data what it is, not the "first pass ground 
survey".
Creating a blanket base layer from OS data allows us to much better 
focus on the aspects that do distinguish us from every other map data 
provider with having to "waste" as little as possible resources on the 
"stuff everyone else has" too.

2) large scale imports and tracing hinders community growth: This 
perhaps is the more important of the two arguments, as indeed what 
distinguishes us from everyone else is the community and without the 
community and its constant iterations  and improvements, OSM data will 
"bit rot" just as much as all other data. However I don't think there is 
any clear evidence either way of what non local mapping does to 
communities and it remains hotly debated. The negative effects claimed 
are usually of the form a) The area looks complete, there is nothing 
more to do, so why bother. Or, it isn't as much fun to add a POI than a 
whole new village on a blank canvas. b) I put in all this effort into 
mapping an area and along comes an import and steam rollers all this 
into a mess, I am leaving. c) imports introduce a new class of bugs, 
e.g. duplicate nodes or broken connectivity that OSM mappers wouldn't so 
we don't have the tools to deal with these sort of errors correctly.
b) and c) are specific to imports and thus manual tracing shouldn't 
suffer the same issues. a) may be the case, but it is clearly a case 
that we need to be able to deal with anyway, as more and more areas 
become "complete" by "them selves". And looking at the better mapped 
areas, like Ger

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Chris Hill]

Tim François wrote:
> If you are tracing from StreetView please, please, please properly 
> source your ways:
>
> source=OS_OpenData_StreetView
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Attributing_OS
>
> Tim
>
+1

I'd go further, if you find something obviously traced from OS with no 
source tag, please contact the author and gently remind them about 
source tags -  they might not subscribe to these lists.

Cheers, Chris


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Craig Loftus]

I support the main idea of the thread and the need for good
sourcing... I think if the source tag is provided the verified=no tag
is redundant? Isn't the source tag sufficient indication of the
credibility of the way?

I've found the combination of StreetView and OS Locator can result in
good named road coverage for 'armchair mapping'. I often end up with
ways tagged:

source=OS_OpenData_StreetView
source:name=OS_OpenData_OSLocator

Craig

On 6 June 2010 12:40, Chris Hill  wrote:
> Tim François wrote:
>> If you are tracing from StreetView please, please, please properly
>> source your ways:
>>
>> source=OS_OpenData_StreetView
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Attributing_OS
>>
>> Tim
>>
> +1
>
> I'd go further, if you find something obviously traced from OS with no
> source tag, please contact the author and gently remind them about
> source tags -  they might not subscribe to these lists.
>
> Cheers, Chris
>
>
> ___
> 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] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Ed Avis]

We've never bothered adding verified=no for tracing from Yahoo maps with
Potlatch, or adding new roads in the city with only very rough GPS accuracy,
or any of the other sources of OSM data, many of which are often worse in 
quality
than the Ordnance Survey data (which, from all I've seen, is really very good).
So we need not worry too much about marking objects as 'unclean' just because
they were traced from OS.  They are no more likely to need re-surveying than
anything else on the map.

However, where the OS data is conflicting with data already on the map, of 
course
it makes sense to tag FIXME or similar to solve the puzzle on the ground.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Jason Cunningham]

I've support this 'project of the week' and I've already tested the idea in
a small area.
If you look around the web for critical views on Openstreetmap it does look
like the big chunks of missing streets puts people off.

A few opinions to add.
1. If you know how to convert the shapefile, use Vector Map District instead
of Streetview. [Link to Converting
Guide
]
2. Use the newly created 'Ito _ OS locator layer' to get street names. Do
this for areas that appear to have been completely 'street mapped'. [link to
using Ito layer ]
3. Use the streetview layer as final comparison

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[SomeoneElse]

Kai Krueger wrote:
> So let us try and accelerate this a bit by everyone picking a small 
> random town or village somewhere in the UK and trace the roads from 
> StreetView. 
How about concentrating on the stuff that you can't get from a ground 
survey?  Woodland, most waterways, that sort of thing...  Also, while 
the offset
in the StreetView data is tiny compared to e.g. NPE, I'd suggest picking 
areas where it's possible to check the alignment of the background 
(perhaps from a couple of perpendicular major roads with lots of traces on).


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

I like the idea for a project of the week using OS OpenData StreetView, but 
would suggest that before we  add lots of new roads we work hard to get roads 
which are already in OSM properly named. Firstly it is improving data which is 
already there, secondly it using a second, independent, data source. Not a 
patch on ground survey, but at least it means that editors of the data have to 
engage with the data sources and their discrepancies. I would not be happy at 
OSM becoming a largely a subset of Ordnance Survey data without more thought 
(but also see below).

As for the status of noname roads, I have named perhaps 2000 or so in West 
London and Merseyside in the past few weeks. There are still substantial parts 
of the South East and North West with many unnamed roads. I have not estimated 
the number, but its still in the thousands. Unfortunately the noname map layer 
on the website has not been updated (along with other Cloudmade maps), so I'd 
suggest using beta.letuffe.org which has a noname overlay (link is to Wigan 
area).

It is important not to forget that a mass import of the VectorMap District 
roads named from Locator will become possible within the next six months. I'm 
sure several people are looking at a) how to accurately name the VMD roads from 
Locator ; and b) how to find only those roads which are not already in OSM 
(e.g., by using the techniques of the French CORINE project). Once viable 
technical solutions to these issues are available we will be able to import ALL 
the missing roads SHOULD we wish to. Manual tracing of StreetView data should 
be considered in this context.

Personally, I don't think mass imports of VectorMap District road data should 
be 
contemplated, at least for 6 months or so, for all the usual reasons (Pottery, 
Imports and the Community). However, availability outwith the planet database 
of those roads in 
VectorMap District and not in OSM could be used to enhance downstream 
applications, such as Garmin extracts, and specific map renders. In other words 
we should be able to generate GB road-complete products without risking some of 
the known effects on community building of armchair mapping. 

I think there is plenty of scope to think of other 'added-value' projects with 
the StreetView data, these are some off the top of my head:

* Getting all schools in to coincide with publication of league tables 
(its another data source to cross-check)
* Mapping all professional football grounds (see for instance Blundell 
Park)
* Ditto for other sports (e.g., crags used for climbing, horse 
racecourses, ...).
* Mapping landuse=residential for areas without streets (shapes can be 
used as a guide to poorly mapped areas)
* Get all churches tagged with man_made=tower or man_made=spire if 
applicable so that we can do OSGB like renders 
* Get all bridges tagged and marked for major waterways. Bridges across 
large rivers are surprisingly poorly mapped. It ought to be possible to 
identify these and make our existing data better.
* Replace larger expanses of water mapped from NPE or Yahoo with OSSV 
or OS VDM.I hope these thoughts are not too controversial. I must add that I am 
not a zealot for the "no import" cause, but I do recognise that there is a 
reasonable case for it.

Regards,

Jerry Clough





From: Kai Krueger 
To: talk-gb 
Sent: Sun, 6 June, 2010 12:07:33
Subject: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

Hello everyone,

I would like to suggest as a sort of "Project of the week" for the UK 
for people to pick a random town or village somewhere in the UK that so 
far has poor coverage and trace it's roads from OS OpenData StreetView.

Despite the various claims over the years that the UK road will be "road 
complete" by the "end of the year", the UK is still a far distance off 
of that target. I have heard the numbers that so far we have on the 
order of 50% of named roads (people who are working on OS - OSM 
comparisons please correct me if I am wrong). Which is by no means a 
small feat of achieving, but also not as high as one would like it to be.

So let us try and accelerate this a bit by everyone picking a small 
random town or village somewhere in the UK and trace the roads from 
StreetView. It probably only takes about 10 - 20 minutes for a small 
village and even a small town isn't too bad to do (if the weather is bad 
and you can't go out). So with the help of OS data, we can get a big 
step closer to where we would like to be and use it as a basis to 
continue to improve beyond the quality of OS data or any other 
commercial map provider.

(If you are convinced already, then no need to read the rest of the email)

I know that many people are opposed to "armchair mapping" or imports 
(and btw I am not proposing a full scale import here,

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Kai Krueger wrote:
> I would like to suggest as a sort of "Project of the week" for the UK 
> for people to pick a random town or village somewhere in the UK that so 
> far has poor coverage and trace it's roads from OS OpenData StreetView.

Is anybody sure that the OS's attribution requirements are adequately 
addressed by current practice, and when moving to ODbL later?

Under ODbL it will be possible to use non-substantial amounts of data 
from OSM without any attribution (this is not disputed), and furthermore 
(this is disputed and the following is only the opinion of myself plus 
at least one member of the licensing working group) it will be possible 
to create a produced work from OSM data and license that under a license 
that does not require attribution, so attribution can become lost "down 
the line".

Before anyone starts massively using OS data for anything else than a 
comparison, I strongly suggest to get a very clear view of this, either 
by having the OS say "yes ok" or at least getting a statement from our 
own licensing working group.

Because doing large-scale tracing and later having to remove it all sucks.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Ed Avis]

Frederik Ramm  writes:

>Is anybody sure that the OS's attribution requirements are adequately 
>addressed by current practice, and when moving to ODbL later?
>
>Under ODbL it will be possible to use non-substantial amounts of data 
>from OSM without any attribution (this is not disputed), and furthermore 
>(this is disputed and the following is only the opinion of myself plus 
>at least one member of the licensing working group) it will be possible 
>to create a produced work from OSM data and license that under a license 
>that does not require attribution, so attribution can become lost "down 
>the line".

I don't think this matters; if someone else infringes the attribution
requirement isn't that between them and OS?  We have done our part.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Ed Avis]

Jerry Clough - OSM  writes:

>I like the idea for a project of the week using OS OpenData StreetView, but
>would suggest that before we  add lots of new roads we work hard to get roads
>which are already in OSM properly named.

>Unfortunately the noname map layer on the website has not been updated (along
>with other Cloudmade maps), so I'd suggest using beta.letuffe.org which has a
>noname overlay

That is a useful site.  I'd also like to mention the Locator missing-name tiles

for those who missed the earlier message to this list.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Peter Miller]

On 7 Jun 2010, at 13:08, Ed Avis wrote:

> Frederik Ramm  writes:
>
>> Is anybody sure that the OS's attribution requirements are adequately
>> addressed by current practice, and when moving to ODbL later?
>>
>> Under ODbL it will be possible to use non-substantial amounts of data
>> from OSM without any attribution (this is not disputed), and  
>> furthermore
>> (this is disputed and the following is only the opinion of myself  
>> plus
>> at least one member of the licensing working group) it will be  
>> possible
>> to create a produced work from OSM data and license that under a  
>> license
>> that does not require attribution, so attribution can become lost  
>> "down
>> the line".
>
> I don't think this matters; if someone else infringes the attribution
> requirement isn't that between them and OS?  We have done our part.

Fear is an amazing thing. Two Prime Minister's have provided their  
total support to opening up this data (and much more). I can see no  
circumstances where the Minister in charge of the OS would attack  
OpenStreetMap with a legal case based on a technicality. For sure,  
lets include the source tag, but one should always ask who will sue  
and why and what gain they would achieve. There are indeed  
organisations which mught gain from suing but the OS is not one of them.


Regards,


Peter



>
> -- 
> Ed Avis 
>
>
> ___
> 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] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Frederik Ramm]

Peter,

Peter Miller wrote:
> Fear is an amazing thing. Two Prime Minister's have provided their  
> total support to opening up this data (and much more). 

"Opening up" is not a legal term, and can mean anything. I have even 
heard people speaking of "opening up" data when they meant to release it 
under a NC license.

> I can see no  
> circumstances where the Minister in charge of the OS would attack  
> OpenStreetMap with a legal case based on a technicality. 

The thing is, OSM doesn't (usually) fight legal cases. So it would not 
need a legal case here, just a letter from whoever the boss of the OS is 
at the moment, saying "please stop using our data because your platform 
does not fulfil our attribution requirement". I'm not familiar with how 
things work in the UK but I doubt such a letter would even require 
approval on the ministerial level.

I'm just thinking: Either attribution matters to them, then they would 
dislike our dispensing their data in a way that makes attribution 
optional; or attribution doesn't matter to them then why do they ask for 
it in the first place?

But enough of my meddling in UK affairs; I guess you all know what 
you're doing. And anyway I'm just envious ;)

Bye
Frederik


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Robert Whittaker (OSM)]

On 7 June 2010 13:08, Ed Avis  wrote:
> Frederik Ramm  writes:
>
>>Is anybody sure that the OS's attribution requirements are adequately
>>addressed by current practice, and when moving to ODbL later?
>>
>>Under ODbL it will be possible to use non-substantial amounts of data
>>from OSM without any attribution (this is not disputed), and furthermore
>>(this is disputed and the following is only the opinion of myself plus
>>at least one member of the licensing working group) it will be possible
>>to create a produced work from OSM data and license that under a license
>>that does not require attribution, so attribution can become lost "down
>>the line".
>
> I don't think this matters; if someone else infringes the attribution
> requirement isn't that between them and OS?  We have done our part.

I think this matters very much. If OSM is providing data under ODbL,
it's asserting that the data can be used under ODbL without any
further restrictions / requirements. You couldn't take a CC-By-SA
work, combine it with some of your own stuff, and then offer at
formally as CC-SA with an expectation that users would spot the "By"
bit in some of your source data and voluntarily add the appropriate
attribution. In the same way, we couldn't take OS OpenData and then
offer our derived work under ODbL which has weaker attribution
requirements in some circumstances. It's not a question of whether we
(or any of our downstream users) might get sued by OS, it's a question
of whether we can legally offer stuff that's derived from OS OpenData
under ODbL.

Moreover, it appears that the new contributor terms require
contributors (or their data sources) to grant OSMF some sort of
licence to enable OSM to be more easliy relicenced under a similar
share-alike licence at a future date. Even if there's a way round the
ODbL compatibility issue (maybe by OS agreeing to license their data
under ODbL), I can't see OS agreeing to cede these additional rights
to OSMF. Therefore as things stand at the moment with the license
change plans, I think we'd need to remove anything that's been derived
from OS OpenData products.

Before we get too encumbered with OS OpenData, we *really* need a
legal expert from OSMF and/or OpenDataCommons to look in to these
issues, and let us know where we stand. Useful as they might be, maybe
OSMF needs to rethink the additional grant of rights to OSMF by
contributors.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[David Ellams]

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:05:22 +0200, Frederik Ramm 
wrote:



> Before anyone starts massively using OS data for anything else than a 
> comparison, I strongly suggest to get a very clear view of this, either 
> by having the OS say "yes ok" or at least getting a statement from our 
> own licensing working group.

+1 

I for one have still yet to trace anything from OSSV, even though I am
desperate to do the local watercourses, because I am still unclear on
this point. I am only a relatively minor contributor, but I want to be
able to accept the contributor terms, should that ever time come,
without hestiation and without deleting any of my work first. Perhaps I
am overcautious and may eventually succumb to temptation on a bit of
local tracing (where I am happy I could accept deletion if necessary),
but I am mildly alarmed at the prospect of large-scale use of this data
without a bit more clarity regarding the compatibility of ODBL.

David (davespod)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Peter Miller]

On 7 Jun 2010, at 14:12, David Ellams wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:05:22 +0200, Frederik Ramm  


wrote:




Before anyone starts massively using OS data for anything else than a
comparison, I strongly suggest to get a very clear view of this,  
either
by having the OS say "yes ok" or at least getting a statement from  
our

own licensing working group.


+1

I for one have still yet to trace anything from OSSV, even though I am
desperate to do the local watercourses, because I am still unclear on
this point. I am only a relatively minor contributor, but I want to be
able to accept the contributor terms, should that ever time come,
without hestiation and without deleting any of my work first.  
Perhaps I

am overcautious and may eventually succumb to temptation on a bit of
local tracing (where I am happy I could accept deletion if necessary),
but I am mildly alarmed at the prospect of large-scale use of this  
data

without a bit more clarity regarding the compatibility of ODBL.



The OS page on the wiki it has the following simple statement  
regarding the license with no caveats which sounds fine
'According to the OpenData License Terms and Conditions, all data can  
be safely assumed to be under a CC-by 3.0 license - the T&C Explicitly  
say so.'

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata

However. on the 'Closed issues' section of the ODBL license is  
states that ODBL may be incompatible with data supplied as CCBYSA and  
states that contributors using such resources 'should get the  
permission of the original data provider to relicense it to ODbL'.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Closed_Issues

I note that the OS data is CCBY not CCBYSA which may be relevant to  
the issue, I don't know. I have also noted that the government clearly  
wants the data to be used and is unlikely to sue, however the  
Foundation have stated that they will remove all data that is derived  
from CCBYSA (and CCBY?) !


Are the license working group or the foundation researching this for  
us? The question is simple. Is the OS Open data compatible with ODBL  
and if not then are they following it up and how are the discussions  
going?


Incidentally I see nothing about it in the license working group  
minutes relating to the OS data since it was released on 1 April.




Regards,


Peter Miller







David (davespod)


___
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] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Peter Miller wrote:
> I note that the OS data is CCBY not CCBYSA which may be relevant to
> the issue, I don't know. I have also noted that the government
> clearly wants the data to be used and is unlikely to sue, however the
> Foundation have stated that they will remove all data that is
> derived from CCBYSA (and CCBY?) !

As usual with licence debates this is rapidly descending into 
more-heat-than-light territory.

There are two issues which people have identified with including data 
derived from OS OpenData within an ODbL-licensed OSM.


Firstly, the proposed Contributor Terms (which are _not_ the ODbL, they 
are OSMF's own contractual Terms & Conditions) require that "You agree 
to only add Contents for which You are the copyright holder".

Clearly Bob Mapper is not the copyright holder of OS data. OS is. OSMF 
may therefore need to enhance the Contributor Terms to permit Bob Mapper 
to add such data. I suggest this should be done by a list of 
"easements", i.e. permitted exceptions to the "you are the copyright 
holder" rule. This would also have the advantage that OSMF could review 
imports before they happen. For anyone who feels this is important, you 
should raise this directly with OSMF rather than relying on them to read 
every single interminable debate on every single mailing list.


Secondly, some people (e.g. Frederik) have raised a concern that it 
might be possible to create Produced Works without the attribution that 
Ordnance Survey requires, by licensing the Produced Work as public 
domain - which would not require recipients of the Produced Work to 
reproduce any attribution.

I think this is entirely mistaken. 4.3 in ODbL says "if you Publicly Use 
a Produced Work, You must include a notice... reasonably calculated to 
make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is 
otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained 
from the Database".

Note that this is "any Person that is exposed to" in perpetuity, not 
"any person who you distribute it to". If you give it to Bill and Bill 
gives it to Jim, Jim is still "exposed to" the work.

Therefore distributing a Produced Work as public domain, with no 
attribution requirement, does _not_ fulfil your obligation to "include a 
notice... reasonably calculated to make any Person... aware". So you 
can't do it. The most permissive licence which may be used for a 
Produced Work is attribution-only (as it should be), and that fulfils 
the OS's attribution requirements.

cheers
Richard

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Frederik Ramm]

Richard,

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Secondly, some people (e.g. Frederik) have raised a concern that it 
> might be possible to create Produced Works without the attribution that 
> Ordnance Survey requires, by licensing the Produced Work as public 
> domain - which would not require recipients of the Produced Work to 
> reproduce any attribution.
> 
> I think this is entirely mistaken. 

[...]

Even if that were the case as you say, OSM users under ODbL would still 
be granted permission to extract a non-substantial amount of data and 
use that without attribution. Does the OS's attribution requirement also 
make an exemption for non-substantial amounts, or do we simply assume 
that they wouldn't care because it is, well, non-substantial?

Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Even if that were the case as you say, OSM users under ODbL would still
> be granted permission to extract a non-substantial amount of data and
> use that without attribution. Does the OS's attribution requirement also
> make an exemption for non-substantial amounts, or do we simply assume
> that they wouldn't care because it is, well, non-substantial?

The OS OpenData licence is a copyright and database right licence, so 
the provisions in statute law for insubstantial use still apply - in 
fact, the licence explicitly says "This licence does not affect... 
copyright or database right exceptions and limitations".

cheers
Richard

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Robert Whittaker (OSM)]

On 7 June 2010 16:39, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Richard,
>
> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> Secondly, some people (e.g. Frederik) have raised a concern that it
>> might be possible to create Produced Works without the attribution that
>> Ordnance Survey requires, by licensing the Produced Work as public
>> domain - which would not require recipients of the Produced Work to
>> reproduce any attribution.
>>
>> I think this is entirely mistaken.

It's not. The ODbL requirement on produced works only requires a
statement along the lines of "Image derived from OpenStreetMap, which
is available under ODbL" to accompany the produced work. It does not
require the author to place any additional attribution to OS, or AFAIK
any restrictions on the image's use by third parties.

OS's current license requires this attribution on all works derived
from their data. You can comply fully with the ODbL terms without
doing this, hence the current OS license is not compatible with
including their data in an ODbL licensed database. The point of ODbL
is to have a single set of license terms that keeps you legal if you
comply with them. We can't say "you must comply with ODbL, and also
check for any other restrictions that may apply to some of our source
data."

(You may argue that the link back to OSM in the ODbL statement is
sufficient attribution, as OSM would include an attribution to OS in
their sources page. But I think that's debatable, and is certainly
something we should check with OS on. Moreover, is the ODbL statement
on produced works necessarily viral -- does it need to be added to
works derived from ODbL-produced works?)

The "insubstantial extraction" allowance in ODbL essentially relies on
individual items not being restricted by copyright -- a fact enforced
by requiring contributors to license them under DbCL. This is another
issue that I don't think OS will be happy with. (You might argue that
the individual items aren't copyrightable anyway, but that's not a
risk that OSM should be prepared to take.)

In conclusion, I think we have the following potential problems
if/when we more to the new license / contributor terms:

* Current OS license most likely incompatible with ODbL
* Current OS license most likely incompatible with DbCL
* OS unlikely to agree to granting OSMF additional rights in the
contributor terms

The first two may well be solved by persuading OS to agree to dual
license their data, though DbCL requires them to essentially give up
copyright on individual items. The last one will probably need a
change of policy by OSMF.

I asked OS informally about the produced works issue some time ago and
had the following in reply:

> You're quite correct about the attribution requirements not applying
> under the ODBL where a 'Produced Work' is created.
>
> As you'll have noticed, the ODBL relies heavily on some quite imprecise
> definitions and is not the easiest licence to work with. An important
> aim for the OS OpenData licence was simplicity, so we did not want to
> spell out the kind of complex exceptions for derivative uses of the data
> that appear in the ODBL. We're looking into how we might resolve the
> areas of incompatibility between the two.

I doubt this represents a complete analysis of the license conditions,
but it shows that they (a) regard the produced works attribution as an
issue, and (b) would like to resolve it somehow.

We can argue about these all we like here, but we really need an OSMF
legal expert to investigate, and it would be sensible to get OS's
official views on these issues too. Maybe we should also start a
campaign to ask them to dual license under ODbL+DbCL as well as
CC-By...

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Andy Allan]

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
 wrote:

[...snip...]

> Maybe we should also start a
> campaign to ask them to dual license under ODbL+DbCL as well as
> CC-By...

Right, there's no way we can ever discuss this licensing without
getting one thing clear. The OS OpenData license is not CC-By 3.0 .
It's not any kind of creative commons license. I would advise anyone
who (mistakenly) thinks it is CC-BY to read the following licenses:

http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/licence/docs/licence.pdf
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode

Notice how they involve different words in a different order. Notice
also that one contains the phrase "database rights" and the other does
not. The differences are significant in our context.

So please, if anyone is going to make any comment on whether or not we
can use data licensed under the OS OpenData license lets please have
an accurate discussion based on the actual OS OpenData license.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Ian Spencer]

>
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
>   wrote:
>
> [...snip...]
>
>
>> Maybe we should also start a
>> campaign to ask them to dual license under ODbL+DbCL as well as
>> CC-By...
>>  
> Right, there's no way we can ever discuss this licensing without
> getting one thing clear. The OS OpenData license is not CC-By 3.0 .
> It's not any kind of creative commons license. I would advise anyone
> who (mistakenly) thinks it is CC-BY to read the following licenses:
>
> http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/licence/docs/licence.pdf
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
>
> Notice how they involve different words in a different order. Notice
> also that one contains the phrase "database rights" and the other does
> not. The differences are significant in our context.
>
> So please, if anyone is going to make any comment on whether or not we
> can use data licensed under the OS OpenData license lets please have
> an accurate discussion based on the actual OS OpenData license.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
...and what is interesting about the actual OS licence is that it is an 
open and generous licence in simple terms. It apparently only puts a 
single burden on the licensee, that is to properly acknowledge OS as a 
source in this and derived works. As a seperate issue, it also asserts 
that if you comply with their licence, then you have something that is 
aligned with CC-By 3.0. However, the terms of the OS are not bound to 
CC-By 3.0, so CC-By 3.0 licensing is a non-issue. Specifically, it is 
saying that as long as the OSM licence gives attribution to OS (and 
potentially the Royal Mail) and the OSM licence insists on that 
attibution to OS being maintained in derived works then there is not an 
issue. I struggle to see what is so difficult about the licensing.

It seems to my naive view, that for the sake of a blanket attribution to 
OS in OSM licence, there is not a problem. If the OSM project cannot 
meet this simple requirement - a single line of text, then it should not 
be using OS derived work in any form because it is not arguing from a 
legal standpoint, but some other ideological view of information rights. 
This has the potential to effectively claim the work as wholly its own 
when in fact contributors have relied on the work of others. It may be a 
small point, but it seems to me that OSM should have no problem with 
being honest and open about its origins and should not be claiming OSM 
is the work of its contributors when this is not really the case.

Spenny



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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Ed Avis]

On the contrary, OS have given explicit permission to distribute their data
under CC-BY.  I quote:

>This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed
>content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under any Creative
>Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence.

This seems pretty unambiguous to me?

It's true that they have their own licence, the OS OpenData licence, which is
not the same as CC.  (Of course it's different - it even has a different name!)
But that licence gives you the option to distribute derived works under CC-BY.
This is just as good as if OS had picked CC-BY directly.

Is there some point that I and others are missing?

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Ian Spencer]

>
> On the contrary, OS have given explicit permission to distribute their data
> under CC-BY.  I quote:
>
>
>> This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed
>> content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under any 
>> Creative
>> Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence.
>>  
> This seems pretty unambiguous to me?
>
> It's true that they have their own licence, the OS OpenData licence, which is
> not the same as CC.  (Of course it's different - it even has a different 
> name!)
> But that licence gives you the option to distribute derived works under CC-BY.
> This is just as good as if OS had picked CC-BY directly.
>
> Is there some point that I and others are missing?
>
>
It doesn't give explicit permission to distribute under CC-BY, (it 
actually gives much wider permission), it simply notes that using a 
CC-BY licence properly works for them. As far as I can see there is only 
one real condition in the licence - do what you want with the 
information, but you must give attribution to OS (by a single line of 
text), and insist that any derived works also give that attribution 
without misleading people that the work is endorsed by the OS.

Simply put, if OSM puts a line in the relevant places that OSM:

Contains Ordnance Survey Data (c) Crown Copyright and database right 2010

then there is no need to worry. The very clear and explicit wording of 
the OS licence leaves very little to be concerned about with that line 
in the appropriate places. Without that line, OSM should nto be using OS 
data in any way.

Spenny

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Ian Spencer]

>
>>
>> On the contrary, OS have given explicit permission to distribute
>> their data
>> under CC-BY. I quote:
>>
>>> This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons
>>> licensed
>>> content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under
>>> any Creative
>>> Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence.
>> This seems pretty unambiguous to me?
>>
>> It's true that they have their own licence, the OS OpenData licence,
>> which is
>> not the same as CC. (Of course it's different - it even has a
>> different name!)
>> But that licence gives you the option to distribute derived works
>> under CC-BY.
>> This is just as good as if OS had picked CC-BY directly.
>>
>> Is there some point that I and others are missing?
>>
> It doesn't give explicit permission to distribute under CC-BY, (it
> actually gives much wider permission), it simply notes that using a
> CC-BY licence properly works for them. As far as I can see there is
> only one real condition in the licence - do what you want with the
> information, but you must give attribution to OS (by a single line of
> text), and insist that any derived works also give that attribution
> without misleading people that the work is endorsed by the OS.
>
> Simply put, if OSM puts a line in the relevant places that OSM:
>
> Contains Ordnance Survey Data (c) Crown Copyright and database right 2010
>
> then there is no need to worry. The very clear and explicit wording of
> the OS licence leaves very little to be concerned about with that line
> in the appropriate places. Without that line, OSM should nto be using
> OS data in any way.
>
> Spenny

As an adendum to that, I think the wording on the mian OSM page is 
incorrect. It contains the attribution, but the words here:

Our CC-BY-SA licence requires you to “give the Original Author credit 
reasonable to the medium or means You are utilising”. Individual OSM 
mappers do not request a credit over and above that to “OpenStreetMap 
contributors”, but where data from a national mapping agency or other 
major source has been included in OpenStreetMap, ***it may be reasonable 
to credit them*** by directly reproducing their credit or by linking to 
it on this page.

are not appropriate as they do not insist on the OS credit being 
retained in derived works.

Spenny

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Ed Avis]

Ian Spencer  writes:

>>>This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed
>>>content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under any
>>>Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence.

>It doesn't give explicit permission to distribute under CC-BY, (it 
>actually gives much wider permission), it simply notes that using a 
>CC-BY licence properly works for them.

I think it certainly does give permission.  See the bit with 'you may...'
If they had written 'This means that you may turn up at Ordnance Survey
headquarters with a can of spraypaint and write FREE DATA NOW on the door',
well in that case, it would be giving permission to do that.

If they say 'this means that you can do X', then they are giving you
permission to do X!

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Ian Spencer]

..."Ed Avis wrote on 08/06/2010 12:40:
> Ian Spencer  writes:
>
>
 This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed
 content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under any
 Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence.
  
>
>> It doesn't give explicit permission to distribute under CC-BY, (it
>> actually gives much wider permission), it simply notes that using a
>> CC-BY licence properly works for them.
>>  
> I think it certainly does give permission.  See the bit with 'you may...'
> If they had written 'This means that you may turn up at Ordnance Survey
> headquarters with a can of spraypaint and write FREE DATA NOW on the door',
> well in that case, it would be giving permission to do that.
>
> If they say 'this means that you can do X', then they are giving you
> permission to do X!
>
>
Sorry I was being annoyingly pedantic, in the sense that the permission 
was granted in the sense that it had already granted wider permissions 
than CC-BY, and that the CC-BY clause was a helpful footnote ("This 
means that..." is a lead into an explanation rather than the actual 
permission which was granted).

The point I was making was that there is no need for dual licensing the 
terms of the licence are extremely broad and go far wider than CC-BY so 
it is pointless to be concerned to much about CC-BY. OSM already 
acknowledges the copyright source, but is ambiguous in the text. CC-BY 
2.0 clearly states that:

" If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly 
digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, 
You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work..."

While it is implicit that the copyright notices should be maintained by 
the CC-BY text, the OSM licence text on the main page does not reflect 
that mandatory requirement, it appears to confuse copyright with 
attribution.

Spenny

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Andy Allan]

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Ed Avis  wrote:
> On the contrary, OS have given explicit permission to distribute their data
> under CC-BY.  I quote:
>
>>This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed
>>content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under any Creative
>>Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence.
>
> This seems pretty unambiguous to me?

So? Who[1] cares if the OS licence is compatible with CC-BY? If they
said it was compatible with the GFDL, the MIT licence or the XYZ
licence that would all be fine and dandy but totally irrelevant to
OpenStreetMap too. We don't use CC-BY. We aren't going to either.

> It's true that they have their own licence, the OS OpenData licence, which is
> not the same as CC.  (Of course it's different - it even has a different 
> name!)
> But that licence gives you the option to distribute derived works under CC-BY.
> This is just as good as if OS had picked CC-BY directly.

Absolutely, 100% not. If they had picked CC-BY directly then there
would be a list of additional terms required to be followed,
especially around the form of attribution and statement of (and
hyperlinking to) the licence. See 4.a in the CC-BY license,
specifically sentences 2 and 4. These restrictions aren't part of the
OS licence.

Of course, if the only thing we were interested in was using the OS
data under CC-BY then we wouldn't care about the difference between
the situations of being released directly under CC-BY or being
released under something that states compatibility with it. But that's
not the position that we're in.

> Is there some point that I and others are missing?

* We don't use CC-BY.
* The OS data is released under a different license.
* The OS Opendata licence is more permissive than CC-BY.
* So discussing CC-BY doesn't help resolve any issues people may have
with the OS Opendata license and the contributor terms / ODbL.

I don't see why we'd need to discuss things in the context of CC-BY.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Russ Phillips]

On 7 June 2010 15:52, Peter Miller  wrote:

> Are the license working group or the foundation researching this for us?

They are now. I took the time to e-mail the Licence Working Group
about this. Part of the initial response was:

"However, we'll individually read the documents during this week and
try and get something drafted at our next meeting.  Matt will also ask
our legal counsel if they can give some general opinion/guidance about
CC-BY (only) licenses and compatibilty with ODbL ... that may take
longer."

Russ

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Therefore distributing a Produced Work as public domain, with no 
attribution requirement, does _not_ fulfil your obligation to "include a 
notice... reasonably calculated to make any Person... aware". So you 
can't do it. The most permissive licence which may be used for a 
Produced Work is attribution-only [...]


Those still interested in this after nearly six weeks might want to 
compare Richard's above statement with Rufus Pollock's here:


http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2010-July/000277.html

("However, you are not required to impose any kind of licensing 
condition on the produced work (that's up to *You*) [...] So, for 
example, a rendered map from OSM could be incorporated into

wikipedia (or anywhere else for that matter) without any problem -- or
any need to even think about the ODbL -- as the ODbL does not impose
any restrictions on the Produced Work.")

I conclude that the situation is inconclusive.

Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?, (Kai Krueger)

[Phil James]

At risk of being a fly in the ointment, judging by the largely 
favourable responses to this idea, I for one would like to register 
myself as
-1.
 Please don't map an area if you are not familiar with it. I have 
done some armchair mapping, but only where I am familiar with the area, 
and feel I can add value to the data I am entering. If you are that 
desperate for a 'complete' map, go out and do more surveying, or just 
use OS or other commercially available products.  I just feel that 
blatant, blind copying of OS data is prostituting what I thought Open 
Street Map was meant to be about.
OK, I've got my tin hat on: standing by for incoming... ;-)

Phil.


talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 12:07:33 +0100
> From: Kai Krueger 
> Subject: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of
>   OSSV?
> To: 'talk-gb' 
> Message-ID: <4c0b8175.30...@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I would like to suggest as a sort of "Project of the week" for the UK 
> for people to pick a random town or village somewhere in the UK that so 
> far has poor coverage and trace it's roads from OS OpenData StreetView.
>
> Despite the various claims over the years that the UK road will be "road 
> complete" by the "end of the year", the UK is still a far distance off 
> of that target. I have heard the numbers that so far we have on the 
> order of 50% of named roads (people who are working on OS - OSM 
> comparisons please correct me if I am wrong). Which is by no means a 
> small feat of achieving, but also not as high as one would like it to be.
>
> So let us try and accelerate this a bit by everyone picking a small 
> random town or village somewhere in the UK and trace the roads from 
> StreetView. It probably only takes about 10 - 20 minutes for a small 
> village and even a small town isn't too bad to do (if the weather is bad 
> and you can't go out). So with the help of OS data, we can get a big 
> step closer to where we would like to be and use it as a basis to 
> continue to improve beyond the quality of OS data or any other 
> commercial map provider.
>
> (If you are convinced already, then no need to read the rest of the email)
>
> I know that many people are opposed to "armchair mapping" or imports 
> (and btw I am not proposing a full scale import here, but manual tracing 
> instead) and so I'd like to counter some of the arguments most likely 
> going to  be brought up against this sort of non local tracing:
>
> 1) OS data might have mistakes, be outdated and generally not as good as 
> what OSM aims for: Yes, no doubt OS has errors and can be outdated in 
> many places by a couple of years ( I have found more than enough of 
> those myself). Furthermore, all of the OS products released lack many of 
> the properties we are interested in like one way roads, turn and other 
> restrictions, POIs, foot and cycle ways and all the other things that 
> make OSM data such a rich and valuable dataset. So yes, the OS data will 
> clearly not replace any of the "traditional" OSM surveying techniques or 
> be the end of things. But it can be a great basis to build upon.
> As a comparison, have a look (assuming you have a timecapsal ;-)) at 
> what the data of e.g. central London looked like in 2007. It already had 
> surprisingly many roads, but hardly any POIs or other properties that we 
> aim for now. Most of that came later in many iterations of improvement.
> A single pass of "OSM" surveying is not any better than the OS data per 
> se. Also given that the errors introduced by tracing OS data are exactly 
> the same type of errors introduced by manual "OSM" surveying, i.e. 
> misspellings in roads, missing roads, outdated roads, ... We need to 
> have the tools to deal with this kind of maintenance anyway.  It is the 
> iterations that make OSM data what it is, not the "first pass ground 
> survey".
> Creating a blanket base layer from OS data allows us to much better 
> focus on the aspects that do distinguish us from every other map data 
> provider with having to "waste" as little as possible resources on the 
> "stuff everyone else has" too.
>
> 2) large scale imports and tracing hinders community growth: This 
> perhaps is the more important of the two arguments, as indeed what 
> distinguishes us from everyone else is the community and without the 
> community and its constant iterations  and improvements, OSM data will 
> "bit rot" just as much as all

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?, (Kai Krueger)

[Matt Amos]

+1... or -1 as well? not sure how the arithmetic of these is supposed
to work. anyway, i agree with phil.

cheers,

matt

On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Phil James  wrote:
> At risk of being a fly in the ointment, judging by the largely
> favourable responses to this idea, I for one would like to register
> myself as
> -1.
>  Please don't map an area if you are not familiar with it. I have
> done some armchair mapping, but only where I am familiar with the area,
> and feel I can add value to the data I am entering. If you are that
> desperate for a 'complete' map, go out and do more surveying, or just
> use OS or other commercially available products.  I just feel that
> blatant, blind copying of OS data is prostituting what I thought Open
> Street Map was meant to be about.
> OK, I've got my tin hat on: standing by for incoming... ;-)
>
> Phil.
>
>
> talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 12:07:33 +0100
>> From: Kai Krueger 
>> Subject: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of
>>       OSSV?
>> To: 'talk-gb' 
>> Message-ID: <4c0b8175.30...@gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I would like to suggest as a sort of "Project of the week" for the UK
>> for people to pick a random town or village somewhere in the UK that so
>> far has poor coverage and trace it's roads from OS OpenData StreetView.
>>
>> Despite the various claims over the years that the UK road will be "road
>> complete" by the "end of the year", the UK is still a far distance off
>> of that target. I have heard the numbers that so far we have on the
>> order of 50% of named roads (people who are working on OS - OSM
>> comparisons please correct me if I am wrong). Which is by no means a
>> small feat of achieving, but also not as high as one would like it to be.
>>
>> So let us try and accelerate this a bit by everyone picking a small
>> random town or village somewhere in the UK and trace the roads from
>> StreetView. It probably only takes about 10 - 20 minutes for a small
>> village and even a small town isn't too bad to do (if the weather is bad
>> and you can't go out). So with the help of OS data, we can get a big
>> step closer to where we would like to be and use it as a basis to
>> continue to improve beyond the quality of OS data or any other
>> commercial map provider.
>>
>> (If you are convinced already, then no need to read the rest of the email)
>>
>> I know that many people are opposed to "armchair mapping" or imports
>> (and btw I am not proposing a full scale import here, but manual tracing
>> instead) and so I'd like to counter some of the arguments most likely
>> going to  be brought up against this sort of non local tracing:
>>
>> 1) OS data might have mistakes, be outdated and generally not as good as
>> what OSM aims for: Yes, no doubt OS has errors and can be outdated in
>> many places by a couple of years ( I have found more than enough of
>> those myself). Furthermore, all of the OS products released lack many of
>> the properties we are interested in like one way roads, turn and other
>> restrictions, POIs, foot and cycle ways and all the other things that
>> make OSM data such a rich and valuable dataset. So yes, the OS data will
>> clearly not replace any of the "traditional" OSM surveying techniques or
>> be the end of things. But it can be a great basis to build upon.
>> As a comparison, have a look (assuming you have a timecapsal ;-)) at
>> what the data of e.g. central London looked like in 2007. It already had
>> surprisingly many roads, but hardly any POIs or other properties that we
>> aim for now. Most of that came later in many iterations of improvement.
>> A single pass of "OSM" surveying is not any better than the OS data per
>> se. Also given that the errors introduced by tracing OS data are exactly
>> the same type of errors introduced by manual "OSM" surveying, i.e.
>> misspellings in roads, missing roads, outdated roads, ... We need to
>> have the tools to deal with this kind of maintenance anyway.  It is the
>> iterations that make OSM data what it is, not the "first pass ground
>> survey".
>> Creating a blanket base layer from OS data allows us to much better
>> focus on the aspects that do distinguish us from every other map data
>> provid

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?, (Kai Krueger)

[Jason Cunningham]

On 6 June 2010 22:13, Phil James  wrote:

> ...I just feel that blatant, blind copying of OS data is
> prostituting what I thought Open
> Street Map was meant to be about.
> OK, I've got my tin hat on: standing by for incoming... ;-)
>
> Phil.
>

I've got a lot of sympathy for that view. The UK map owes a huge amount to
individuals trudging along the streets and footpaths/paths/etc of Britain.
Mapping Parties have created community, and were responsible for the
detailed mapping of many areas.

But. OpenStreetMap is a project to create and provide free geographic
data, such as streets maps, to anyone who wants them. That is why I
contribute. "Blatant, blind, copying of OS Data" allows us to provide more
detailed geographic data which satisfies the aim of the project. The OS data
is been treated as a replacement and hard work isnt being deleted. The OS
data is only being used to add data that is not currently present, or to
mark up blunders.

 I have no emotional attachment to the data gathering process, whether it be
Mapping Parties, Yahoo tracing, or imports. They are simply a means to an
end, to be discarded if a better method comes along.

The big question is whether importing OS Data means we'll never see the
addition of data normally providing by OpenStreetMap streetwalkers. I'd like
to think that an almost complete Streetmap will mean a massive increase in
use of OpenStreetMap and those new users will add the missing POI.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?, (Kai Krueger)

[Jason Cunningham]

On 7 June 2010 05:18, Jason Cunningham  wrote:

>  The OS data is been treated as a replacement and hard work isnt being
> deleted. The OS data is only being used to add data that is not currently
> present, or to mark up blunders.


Oops, That should have read "The OS data is not being treated as a
replacement."

Thats what happens if you been up all night looking for bats! I'm now now
off to get a good days sleep.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?, (Kai Krueger)

[Peter Miller]

On 6 Jun 2010, at 22:31, Matt Amos wrote:

> +1... or -1 as well? not sure how the arithmetic of these is supposed
> to work. anyway, i agree with phil.
>
> cheers,
>
> matt
>
> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Phil James  
>  wrote:
>> At risk of being a fly in the ointment, judging by the largely
>> favourable responses to this idea, I for one would like to register
>> myself as
>> -1.
>>  Please don't map an area if you are not familiar with it. I  
>> have
>> done some armchair mapping, but only where I am familiar with the  
>> area,
>> and feel I can add value to the data I am entering. If you are that
>> desperate for a 'complete' map, go out and do more surveying, or just
>> use OS or other commercially available products.  I just feel that
>> blatant, blind copying of OS data is prostituting what I thought Open
>> Street Map was meant to be about.
>> OK, I've got my tin hat on: standing by for incoming... ;-)

My strategy is to pick on an area (the four more easterly Suffolk  
districts initially in my case) and first ensure that all the roads  
from OS Streetview and OS Locator are included by tracing (I am a good  
way through that work now). When I have all of the OS road data into  
OSM I will then promote it within the local papers, both to let people  
know that it is there and to encourage people to use it, but also to  
encourage people to fill in the details.  I will then fill in the  
pedestrian and cycling routes for individual places opportunistically  
when I get the chance to visit the place with a cycle and will be able  
to add this additional data in a single trip.

Personally I think we will get a much better and more complete map  
faster by using all available resources; when people start using it  
then their will be increasing interest in fixing any omissions.

So.. I think my recommendation is 'stick to your local area but  
greatly increase your definition of what is local to encompass at  
least one district or borough, and yes, do use the OS data that is  
available and then supplement it with the odd day-out to fill in more  
detail'. When you have completed your local districts then consider  
adopting a further one but preferably one that you know to some extent.

As a company, ITO is very keen indeed to get full UK coverage of the  
road, pedestrian, cycle networks and schools etc into OSM, in  
particular for urban areas. We will be producing more tools over the  
coming weeks to help identify the level of completeness for different  
places, trends in completeness and others to help increase completeness.


Regards,



Peter Miller





>>
>> Phil.
>>
>>
>> talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
>>> ----------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 12:07:33 +0100
>>> From: Kai Krueger 
>>> Subject: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of
>>>   OSSV?
>>> To: 'talk-gb' 
>>> Message-ID: <4c0b8175.30...@gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> I would like to suggest as a sort of "Project of the week" for the  
>>> UK
>>> for people to pick a random town or village somewhere in the UK  
>>> that so
>>> far has poor coverage and trace it's roads from OS OpenData  
>>> StreetView.
>>>
>>> Despite the various claims over the years that the UK road will be  
>>> "road
>>> complete" by the "end of the year", the UK is still a far distance  
>>> off
>>> of that target. I have heard the numbers that so far we have on the
>>> order of 50% of named roads (people who are working on OS - OSM
>>> comparisons please correct me if I am wrong). Which is by no means a
>>> small feat of achieving, but also not as high as one would like it  
>>> to be.
>>>
>>> So let us try and accelerate this a bit by everyone picking a small
>>> random town or village somewhere in the UK and trace the roads from
>>> StreetView. It probably only takes about 10 - 20 minutes for a small
>>> village and even a small town isn't too bad to do (if the weather  
>>> is bad
>>> and you can't go out). So with the help of OS data, we can get a big
>>> step closer to where we would like to be and use it as a basis to
>>> continue to improve beyond the quality of OS data or any other
>>> commercial map provider.
>>>
>>> (If you are convinced already, then no need