[OSM-fi] Looking for participants to test OSM-based audio street maps
Dear all Apologies for cross-posting. As part of my Master's project at Queen Mary, University of London, I'm looking for participants to take part in a game centred on wayfinding challenges in urban audio maps. The game should take no longer than 20 minutes to complete and there will be a prize draw with a total of ten £10 Amazon vouchers (or the international equivalent) to be won. To play the game, please download the installer from: https://sourceforge.net/projects/team/ It should install without problems on Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7 (32-bit and 64-bit). After you have installed and started TEAM, press Ctrl+Enter to play. For a screenshot and further information, see the project website, http://team.sourceforge.net. The game has been designed with accessibility in mind, so blind and partially sighted participants are very much encouraged to take part. I'd be delighted if you'd be happy to play the game. If you have any questions about the game or the research on which it is based, please don't hesitate to contact me. With kind regards, Esther ___ talk-fi mailing list talk-fi@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fi
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 20/07/2010, at 9:10 AM, Emilie Laffray wrote: To the best of my knowledge, violating a contract and making the data available doesn't make the data public domain. Indeed. The relevant question is then Is hosting a copy of ODbL licensed material (e.g. a planet dump) on your website without requiring people to agree to a contract a violation of the ODbL?. If you aren't violating the ODbL by hosting the data without requiring contract agreement, then that is a easy way to get around the license if copyright and database right don't apply or exist. Richard Fairhurst pointed out some legal issues about this. To quote him from higher up in the thread: Under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, a person who is not a party to a contract (a 'third party') may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if... the term purports to confer a benefit on him. It's already been discussed way back on legal-talk, but not having a choice of law clause in the ODbL (with good reason) makes enforcing the contract part of it more interesting. I don't know how you'd go trying to use that to enforce the ODbL if the neither of the first nor second parties are in England. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Query about existing users agreeing to the contributor terms
At some time in the future existing contributors will be asked to agree to the contributor terms. The tense of some of those terms concerns me: From the introductory paragraph ...rights in any Contents that You choose to submit... From paragraph 1 You agree to only add The tense of both these relates to current and future edits, so I presume these contributor terms are not intended to cover my existing edits. Can that be confirmed? David ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Query over contributor terms
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 5:26 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.netwrote: Apologies if this has been brought up before. The last line of para 1 of the contributors terms states You have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents. Given the scope of the contributor terms I think this really does need to say explict here. You are giving OSMF permission to potentially change the license of any data you submit to any other free and open source license. Unless the original rights holder has placed the material in the public domain (or CC0 or whatever) then you probably wouldn't have the rights to agree to the contributor terms. It's certainly my understanding that CC-BY does not convey the rights to re-publish under any old free and open source license. However I believe LWG are currently seeking legal guidance on this point. The use of the word explicit worries me. To me that would indicate that the rights holder would have to sate something along the lines of I give David Groom permission to incorporate my data into OpenSteetMap , though possibly a more vague permission such as I give anyone permission to incorporate my data into OpenSteetMap, might be OK, thought arguably this is not explicit permission. Lets say I got hold of some CC-BY data, I could not incorporate that into OSM, unless I approached the author and got specific explicit permission to do so, since the permission given by CC-BY is implicit and not explicit . What worries me is the amount of data sources where permission is implicit, but not explicit David ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Query over contributor terms
- Original Message - From: 80n 80n...@gmail.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:43 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Query over contributor terms On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 5:26 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.netwrote: Apologies if this has been brought up before. The last line of para 1 of the contributors terms states You have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents. Given the scope of the contributor terms I think this really does need to say explict here. You are giving OSMF permission to potentially change the license of any data you submit to any other free and open source license. Unless the original rights holder has placed the material in the public domain (or CC0 or whatever) then you probably wouldn't have the rights to agree to the contributor terms. It's certainly my understanding that CC-BY does not convey the rights to re-publish under any old free and open source license. However I believe LWG are currently seeking legal guidance on this point. But my point remains, let say that the LWG do obtain legal guidance that CC-BY does convey the rights to re-publish under any old free and open source licence. My point is the contributor terms require me to get explicit permission, so even if the LWG says its Ok, I still have to go back to the original rights holder to get that permission. David The use of the word explicit worries me. To me that would indicate that the rights holder would have to sate something along the lines of I give David Groom permission to incorporate my data into OpenSteetMap , though possibly a more vague permission such as I give anyone permission to incorporate my data into OpenSteetMap, might be OK, thought arguably this is not explicit permission. Lets say I got hold of some CC-BY data, I could not incorporate that into OSM, unless I approached the author and got specific explicit permission to do so, since the permission given by CC-BY is implicit and not explicit . What worries me is the amount of data sources where permission is implicit, but not explicit David ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] new OSM, supposed ODbL, will be still CC-BY-SA ?!
Frederik Ramm schrieb: here's an interesting one. May I add another one? ;-) Suppose OSM has just changed its license to ODbL. A final CC-BY-SA planet has been released, non-relicensed data has been removed from the servers, and the project is again humming along nicely (relief!). In the german forum someone just found 7.b in CC-by-sa: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). And he had the opinion, that such date will never can change the licence. I answered: obey the next sentence: Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms So the way proposed would be Mapper M created a way W, gave W to project P-C under licence CC-by-sa C P-C has the right to publish it for ever, but only under C ... but P-C must not do it, P-C may die ... Mapper M may gave W also to project P-O under licence ODBL/DBCL O P-O has the right to publish it for ever, but only under O ... (or combine to other products under licences X, Y, Z, ...) that's the way proposed: P-C will die officially (OSM under CC-by-sa), might be a last-CC-planet.osm exist, but also this is not necessary to fullfill CC-by-sa ... a new P-O will be opened officially (OSM under ODBL/DBCL, casually on the same hardware as P-C ...) with all M's which agree licence O So I anwered him that there is no problem ... Mmmmh ... Really no problem? That is the state at the beginning: M1 - W1 - P-C M2 - W2 - P-C M3 - W3 - P-C just now you may say, that: M4 - W4 - P-C/P-O M5 - W5 - P-C/P-O CC-by-sa says, that there is no problem with: M2 - W2 - P-O M3 - W3 - P-O M4 - W4 - P-O M5 - W5 - P-O (assuming M1 don't want to give his data under O) But how to do this technically? W2, W3, W4, W5 mostly only exists in P-C, because a mapper seldomly saves all his ways locally ... So the technical onliest possible way is P-C - W2 - P-O P-C - W3 - P-O P-C - W4 - P-O P-C - W5 - P-O but P-C has licence C (not only for old date, for new ones double licenced, too, because infected) and all data extracted from P-C also must have licence C so P-O is still under licence C (which don't allow another licence?) so skipping licence C in P-O failed ... If I write a book and gave it under CC-by-sa to the publishing house A, than I may give it also to publishing house B under licence XY. The processs proposed now for OSM translated to books: Sorry, I don't have anymore a CD containing my book, hey B, please scan the book from A and republish it unter XY instead of CC then XY fails ... Mh... Do we have any problem? (Besides lot of other problems ...) If we state, that we can't trace data from last-CC-planet.osm to ODBL-OSM, we also cannot copy digitally from it for ODBL-OSM, because this data is CC-infected for ever ... And the mapper cannot change this by only saying yes ... We not only have to ask the mapper, if he give us a second licence, HE also has to give us HIS way and only HIS data without edits ... and so on ... I fear, that only throwing away data from mappers, who say no or nothing, is no way to skip CC ... ??? P-O is still a derivative Work of P-C under CC only!? Mueck ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On 20 Jul 2010, at 01:20, Liz wrote: On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, SteveC wrote: From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on with the license. quash all discussion, move it out of sight, and proceed? If you want to talk about the license legal-talk is that way --- That way you only need to be one list if you want to talk about the license rather than annoying people like myself. I would prefer to get on with other things that will progress OSM more in my very limited spare time, since I have nothing that I'll be able to contribute to the license discussion since I'm a coder and mapper and not a lawyer and trust that the people dealing with it will do it right. Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
Hi, Simon Ward wrote: For my part, I don’t fully agree with the contributor terms, and I suggest we start there because they are also what I’ve seen other people voice their dissent about. As I said, if you intend to further restrict possible future license changes via the contributor terms to something more narrow than free and open, you should be prepared to offer more license choices now, rather than just the yay or nay to ODbL. The contributor terms are linked to the license change question and cannot be viewed in isolation. I would also like to draw attention to the fact that OSMF members - among them, I believe, yourself - have approved the process, including the current version of the contributor terms, with a 89% majority in December last year. You weren't vocal on the contributor terms in the months before so I am somewhat surprised that you're starting to voice your disagreement half a year after the vote. Of course anyone can have second thoughts - but remember that any change to the contributor terms would require repeating that OSMF member vote. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On 20 July 2010 16:55, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: The contributor terms are linked to the license change question and cannot be viewed in isolation. Why not? It seems like a fairly arbitrary decision to force them to be linked... I would also like to draw attention to the fact that OSMF members - among them, I believe, yourself - have approved the process, including the current version of the contributor terms, with a 89% majority in December last year. I believe this is the point Steve keeps pointing out, there was no direct consequences at the time, and people were assuming there is still outs later if problems were discovered and up until that point the emphasis was strongly on the new license, I don't recall much being said about the new terms until recently, at which point people were concluding that the new CTs were not going to be compatible with data imports already in the system let alone new imports. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 08:55:17AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: I would also like to draw attention to the fact that OSMF members - among them, I believe, yourself - have approved the process, including the current version of the contributor terms, with a 89% majority in December last year. You weren't vocal on the contributor terms in the months before so I am somewhat surprised that you're starting to voice your disagreement half a year after the vote. Of course anyone can have second thoughts - but remember that any change to the contributor terms would require repeating that OSMF member vote. I approved the process for the license change and somehow managed to miss the contributor terms. I wasn’t aware of them when I voted, my mistake, although may be I could have been made more aware—someone else appeared to think the CTs “snuck” in quietly too. I took a look in the December archives for osmf-talk: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000670.html On legal-talk some days before, I said I had already responded to the polls: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-December/003029.html I’m quite surprised how much I have *not* changed my opinions. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
John, John Smith wrote: The contributor terms are linked to the license change question and cannot be viewed in isolation. Why not? It seems like a fairly arbitrary decision to force them to be linked... Please read and understand: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-July/051997.html Bye Frederik Note to those who may read this post in the list archive later: The list archive is known not to always retain article numbering. The above link should point to an article written by myself 9 hours ago. If it doesn't, disregard it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
Frederik, I'm sorry, but idea that PD fans holds all license question hostage and therefore CT is needed is stupidest thing I ever heard during my entire life. PD guys need to understand that this project might *never* submit to PD. As much as I like PD as concept, it is unreal to implement it in global scale. If they don't like it - fine, they don't contribute to OSM, but OSM can still use their data anyway. Also creating license AND then creating CT which practically destroys idea of license just because there part of community which disagrees is stupid, plain and simple. You have to draw line somewhere. Make your choice - is it SA/Attribution, or it is PD then. You can't have both, period. Even more - having so much problem with this change, do you really expect to change license *again* in the future? For what cause? All this CT farce comes from having unrealistic expectations about future - and for that you are ready to loose quite significant amount of data. Cheers, Peter. p.s. I still want to hear official word from Steve or anyone about CT Section 3, even if it is no. But please without PD crowd is mighty crap ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announcing the Open Brewpub Map
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Sven Geggus li...@fuchsschwanzdomain.de wrote: Tagging is easy. Just add microbrewery=yes to the node or building area object of your local brewpub. Whee. Now, please define microbrewery and brewpub. Is this a microbrewery: http://www.jamessquirebrewhouse.net/melbourne/index.php yes. The huge hint is the text Upstairs, our working micro-brewery produces only the finest of local hand-crafted beers. :D k. -- http://blogs.linux.ie/kenguest/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
That's really for the LWG to answer... On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:55 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: 2010/7/19 SteveC st...@asklater.com: Can you restate the question as I don't have mail archives etc here (on my phone) Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause as requirement for any new open and free license in CT point 3. It would help to ease problems with big data contributors which could agree with ODBL (as it still have SA and Attribution), but are uneasy about clarification of point 3 in CT. Already thanks for answer, cheers, Peter. Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announcing the Open Brewpub Map
Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Whee. Now, please define microbrewery and brewpub. Is this a microbrewery: http://www.jamessquirebrewhouse.net/melbourne/index.php It probably is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbrewery If beer is available in supermarkets nationwide I would say no and yes otherwise. I knew that there will be some corner cases especially in northern bavaria where some brewpubs exist for more than 100 years. Sven -- Ich fürchte mich nicht vor der Rückkehr der Faschisten in der Maske der Faschisten, sondern vor der Rückkehr der Faschisten in der Maske der Demokraten (Theodor W. Adorno) /me is gig...@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On 20 July 2010 18:17, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: p.s. I still want to hear official word from Steve or anyone about CT Section 3, even if it is no. But please without PD crowd is mighty crap Hmmm so it seems that Fredrick thinks it's ok to loose people as long as they aren't from the pro-PD crowd... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
Hi, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: I'm sorry, but idea that PD fans holds all license question hostage and therefore CT is needed is stupidest thing I ever heard during my entire life. Nobody said anything about holding anything hostage. There's lots of parties to this agreement and everyone has to give something away for this to work. This is about finding a way forward together, not against each other. There are many people who have one problem or another with the license change. There are some who say I will say no if there is the danger of even one node being lost in the process!. There are some who say I will say no unless produced works are made share-alike!. There are some who say I will say no if there is any chance that the project ever goes PD even if the vast majority of contributors want it!. There are some who say I will say no if the PD option is not properly considered! You might like to put all these people in one room and have them battle it out, and whoever wins is right and all the others are stupid. But this is not how things work; we're trying to build a consensus here where we get *all* these people to say: Ok, this new license is perhaps not 100% what I wanted but it is the right way forward. This is not about one side winning and one side losing. Also creating license AND then creating CT which practically destroys idea of license just because there part of community which disagrees I think you should read my message(s) again. Nobody said that the CT were created just because some people didn't like the license. (In fact I have yet to meet someone who says he *likes* the license - wouldn't we all be happy if we could spend our time with other things?) Make your choice - is it SA/Attribution, or it is PD then. You can't have both, period. First of all, this is not generally true because the idea of dual licensing does exist. We have chosen not to investigate this further at this time, and we are preparing to change to a license that is SA/Attribution for data. This move has my support. Still that does in no way mean that you should not create an environment were future license changes, if deemed necessary by a vast majority of the community, are less painful than what we have today. Even more - having so much problem with this change, do you really expect to change license *again* in the future? Exactly. There is never going to be another license change like the one we are seeing now, where every contributor has to be asked individually. The only viable future path for license changes is via the CT. All this CT farce comes from having unrealistic expectations about future - and for that you are ready to loose quite significant amount of data. I think you are getting all worked up because you have misunderstood the situation. ODbL is a completely new license which has never been used on a grand scale. It would be utterly negligent to *not* have a safeguard in place that lets us move away from ODbL without having to go through all this again. p.s. I still want to hear official word from Steve or anyone about CT Section 3, even if it is no. But please without PD crowd is mighty crap You have used stupid twice in this post, and now crap. Please mind your language or find someone else to discuss your ideas with. Also, I think that you have already been told - yesterday, by Andy Allan - that the License Working Group is quite busy and may take several weeks to respond. However I should not be surprised if the answer you receive from them will also tell you about the need to find solutions that the whole community can work with; if you discount this idea as crap beforehand then there might not be much sense in answering at all. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
John, John Smith wrote: Hmmm so it seems that Fredrick thinks it's ok to loose people as long as they aren't from the pro-PD crowd... The idea is to try and lose the smallest number of people in the process while doing what is necessary. This requires that everyone is paid respect. Telling people that they are stupid and their ideas crap is not a good way to move forward. Obviously, we'd lose the smallest number of people if we'd just abandon license change and continue with CC-BY-SA; however I am firmly with the LWG on that this endangers the project's success in several ways and should not be attempted. I realize that there are others who believe that the lawyers advising OSMF are wrong, and that CC-BY-SA could indeed be used further. I have doubts about this and would like the proponents of that idea put forward concrete plans about how to implement CC-BY-SA in an internationally balanced way (so that e.g. users in the US do not have more rights than users in Europe or Australia), and also how to handle attribution. These things are currently broken with CC-BY-SA and if someone wants to retain that license he should demonstrate how they can be fixed. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
I realize that there are others who believe that the lawyers advising OSMF are wrong, and that CC-BY-SA could indeed be used further. I have doubts about this and would like the proponents of that idea put forward concrete plans about how to implement CC-BY-SA in an internationally balanced way (so that e.g. users in the US do not have more rights than users in Europe or Australia), and also how to handle attribution. These things are currently broken with CC-BY-SA and if someone wants to retain that license he should demonstrate how they can be fixed. Frederik, again you mix it all up. I said i'm fine with ODBL (and so far everyone who rants about CT says nothing bad about ODBL). I truely respect huge work putted into it. What I don't like is that CT section 3 practically strips all this good work away, with having vague definition of new and open license. If this can be clarified with SA and Attribution clauses, then everything is very very ok. Cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On 20 July 2010 18:59, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: Frederik, again you mix it all up. I said i'm fine with ODBL (and so far everyone who rants about CT says nothing bad about ODBL). I truely respect huge work putted into it. What I don't like is that CT section 3 practically strips all this good work away, with having vague definition of new and open license. If this can be clarified with SA and Attribution clauses, then everything is very very ok. I'm starting to wonder if this is intentional misdirection to keep confusing the issue of a relicensing with whole sale update of contributor terms. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
Hi, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: What I don't like is that CT section 3 practically strips all this good work away, with having vague definition of new and open license. Free and open. And personally, I think that's just about ok - OSM is about creating a free map of the world, not a share-alike map of the world. If any any future time OSM thinks that a non-share-alike license would be best - why should we, today, try to dictate our wish to them? I don't share your sentiment that providing a license change path for the future actually throws away any good work. If the new license works well for everybody, there will be no reason to change it, and the good work will be with us forever. If this can be clarified with SA and Attribution clauses, then everything is very very ok. Not for me; I think it is beyond our mandate add this restriction. It is also far from clarifying, indeed it adds more problems. If you look at CC-BY-SA vs. ODbL, you see that while both are essentially share-alike, the SA provision extends to slightly different things with ODbL than with CC-BY-SA. Some things are share-alike under CC-BY-SA but not under ODbL, and vice versa. The same could happen with any future license; it might still be essentially a share-alike license but it might free some things from the share-alike requirement, or add others to it. If the CT now demanded the new license be share-alike, who would have the power to decide whether it is share-alike enough? Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
John, John Smith wrote: I'm starting to wonder if this is intentional misdirection I'm unwilling to continue the discussion on this level. Have a good time. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Ulf Möller o...@ulfm.de wrote: Am 17.07.2010 05:07, schrieb Michael Barabanov: 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone. The OSMF has a contractual relationship with its contributors. So if there is no copyright protection on the CC-BY-SA licensed dataset that does not mean the OSMF can do anything it wants with the data. There is no contract between OSMF and most contributors (excepting newbies who have signed up to the Contributor Terms).. Not all members of OSMF are contributors. Not many contributors are members of OSMF. Moral issues aside... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On 20 July 2010 18:50, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: The idea is to try and lose the smallest number of people in the process while doing what is necessary. This requires that everyone is paid respect. Telling people that they are stupid and their ideas crap is not a good way to move forward. I don't recall saying anyone was stupid, in fact I've tried to refrain from bothering with the personal attacks, perhaps you are confusing me with SteveC, that is unless someone is spoofing his email address, but I'll leave that as an exercise for another day. Obviously, we'd lose the smallest number of people if we'd just abandon license change and continue with CC-BY-SA; however I am firmly with the LWG on that this endangers the project's success in several ways and should not be attempted. On one hand you are avidly promoting things should be allowed to go to PD, on the other hand you keep saying CC-by-SA isn't good enough and frankly I can't see this logic, either you want PD and in which case CC-by-SA may be for all intents and purposes offer just that, or you want protection for the database, please take one stance and stop flip flopping, you aren't doing yourself or anyone else any favours... I realize that there are others who believe that the lawyers advising OSMF are wrong, and that CC-BY-SA could indeed be used further. I have doubts I didn't say they were wrong, I just question if the benefits really do outweigh the drawbacks. Australia), and also how to handle attribution. These things are currently broken with CC-BY-SA and if someone wants to retain that license he should demonstrate how they can be fixed. Why do you keep confusing ODBL with arguments against an ambiguous CT? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On 20 July 2010 19:09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I'm unwilling to continue the discussion on this level. Have a good time. Sounds like par of the course, you refuse to even think about being more flexible for current contributors, at least you aren't throwing personal insults yet. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 20 July 2010 19:11, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: There is no contract between OSMF and most contributors (excepting newbies who have signed up to the Contributor Terms).. Erm since OSM-F does run OSM.org the old contributor agreement saying you agree to license your work under cc-by-sa would be a contract, wouldn't it? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:05 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 July 2010 18:59, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: Frederik, again you mix it all up. I said i'm fine with ODBL (and so far everyone who rants about CT says nothing bad about ODBL). I truely respect huge work putted into it. What I don't like is that CT section 3 practically strips all this good work away, with having vague definition of new and open license. If this can be clarified with SA and Attribution clauses, then everything is very very ok. I'm starting to wonder if this is intentional misdirection to keep confusing the issue of a relicensing with whole sale update of contributor terms. I'm starting to wonder if this whole mailing list is part of an extraterrestrial plan to take over the world. If you think about it carefully the only reason anyone would go over the same exact point 280 times a day is if they were under some form of mind control. Of course I may be getting the wrong end of the stick. It's entirely possible to aliens have put a bunch of people under mind control, and those people in a desperate bid to free themselves have gone into overdrive mode in an attempt to overload the alien probes. In which case, given the advanced state of ET technology, it's quite possible this thread, and others like it, will need to go on forever. At least it's giving the rest of us fair warning of the coming apocalypse though. And at least I'm not sharing batty ideas with the entire planet for no apparent constructive reason. Oh... shit. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] josm not downloading
hi, I have been trying to download the latest josm for the whole day today - but I do not even get the 'save or open' dialog box. Is it me? or is there some problem -- Regards Kenneth Gonsalves Senior Associate NRC-FOSS at AU-KBC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On 20.07.2010 11:12, John Smith wrote: On one hand you are avidly promoting things should be allowed to go to PD, on the other hand you keep saying CC-by-SA isn't good enough and frankly I can't see this logic, either you want PD and in which case CC-by-SA may be for all intents and purposes offer just that, or you want protection for the database, please take one stance and stop flip flopping, you aren't doing yourself or anyone else any favours... A broken CC-by-SA can be seen as combining the disadvantages of PD (allows malicious users to use the data in undesirable ways) with those of working SA (limits what benevolent users can do with the data). It's entirely consistent to believe that CC-by-SA is therefore worse than both PD and working SA. Holding this opinion is compatible with both prefering PD over working SA and prefering working SA over PD. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] josm not downloading
- Original Message - From: Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org To: OSM Talk talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:27 AM Subject: [OSM-talk] josm not downloading hi, I have been trying to download the latest josm for the whole day today - but I do not even get the 'save or open' dialog box. Is it me? or is there some problem I'm able to get it. David -- Regards Kenneth Gonsalves Senior Associate NRC-FOSS at AU-KBC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Tuesday 20 July 2010 09:10:29 John Smith wrote: I believe this is the point Steve keeps pointing out, there was no direct consequences at the time, and people were assuming there is still outs later if problems were discovered and up until that point the emphasis was strongly on the new license, I don't recall much being said about the new terms until recently, at which point people were concluding that the new CTs were not going to be compatible with data imports already in the system let alone new imports. If you are trying to win an argument, please stay with the facts. Don't put all this spin on it. The OSMF vote started december 5th. On december 6th PeterIto and 80n discussed exactly this point on the wiki. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#OSM.27s_Contributor_Terms_are_not_compatible_with_ODbL This was in response of this very same subject being discussed on the mailing lists a few days before that. That was one of two reasons I voted against the licence change process. The other reason was there was nothing in the implementation plan to consult the contributors before the gun against their head final voting that should start shortly. In the license change proposal the CT's are explained before the ODbL itself. The ODbL is then followed in that document by a provisional implementation plan, that provides no reasonable outs after the OSMF vote. If people really didn't now about the CT's and thought there were reasonable outs later in the process, then they were not paying attention. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Now even though I think the whole process is broken: Can we please move forward as fast as possible. This endless messing around with the license is doing far more damage than any data loss or contributor loss due to the license change will ever do. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I realize that there are others who believe that the lawyers advising OSMF are wrong, and that CC-BY-SA could indeed be used further. I have doubts about this and would like the proponents of that idea put forward concrete plans about how to implement CC-BY-SA in an internationally balanced way (so that e.g. users in the US do not have more rights than users in Europe or Australia), and also how to handle attribution. These things are currently broken with CC-BY-SA and if someone wants to retain that license he should demonstrate how they can be fixed. Wasn't it you who said that the only way to get consistent treatment over OSM internationally is to make it PD? If it wasn't you then I hope you'll think about it and realize that it's true. ODBL is not internationally balanced. Users in the US still have more rights than users in Europe or Australia. By the way, I have no idea if the lawyers advising OSMF are wrong. I haven't had a chance to interview them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Hi, On 19 July 2010 23:16, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:04:55PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote: This is the same about anything using contract law. Someone breaking the contract and redistributing it doesn't remove the contract that is given with the data. They are still obliged to follow the contract even if they didn't sign for it. I would be amazed that such a loophole exists in the first place. To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case. I don't think you can make a contract that obliges everyone in the world (everyone who may ride a bus) to do something. You can have a contract where the party is responsible for any damage you suffer from them not adhering to the contract (e.g. leaving the planet on the bus). If you find a planet on a bus there's no contract you may be affected by. There may be copyright, which may protect the content. If there's nothing written on it then you basically have to assume All rights reserved, provided there's any originality, creativity etc. in that planet dump which is not confirmed. I don't know what database rights directive says about such cases. The only way you could be bound by some kind of contract is if the planet dump was made in such a way that you'd have to push some button or click through something or visit a website to make use of it, for example because it was encrypted. But then if someone decides to not adhere to the license and leave the planet on the bus they may just as well strip all this information. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] renaming rendering layers
Should we continue to name the osm.org tile layers by the renderers they use? Is overloading the terms mapnik and osmarender as both a tile layer, style file and rendering library confusing? The German OSM site refers to the layers as Standard and Alternative, which removes the confusion but is perhaps not as inspirational? Cycle Map and NoName are better as functional descriptions, so we can probably leave them alone. I think we need better names for the current mapnik and osmarender layers on OSM.org. How about naming them after well-mapped, foundational places in OSM? London-style, Berlin-style or Karsruhe-style? Or how about CodeName styles, like Burrowing Badger or Fleeting Glimpse? While these have nothing to do with the two general purpose styles currently on osm.org at least they are not names of related projects that lead to potential parsing problems. Thoughts? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] State of the Map US Schedule
Hey All, It was mentioned to me that I didn't post this to the main talk list. We are having a SotM for the U.S. in August. The schedule for SOTM US is up. http://www.sotm.us/?page_id=2 We have all sorts of exciting things planned. There are talks on everything from OSM in Government to Education, technical talks like MongOSM and community talks such as How to Run a Large Scale Mapping Party. I'm also excited to report that Steve Coast is going to kick things off as our keynote. Check it out and hope to see you there! -Kate ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Query over contributor terms
Apologies if this has been brought up before. The last line of para 1 of the contributors terms states You have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents. The use of the word explicit worries me. To me that would indicate that the rights holder would have to sate something along the lines of I give David Groom permission to incorporate my data into OpenSteetMap , though possibly a more vague permission such as I give anyone permission to incorporate my data into OpenSteetMap, might be OK, thought arguably this is not explicit permission. Lets say I got hold of some CC-BY data, I could not incorporate that into OSM, unless I approached the author and got specific explicit permission to do so, since the permission given by CC-BY is implicit and not explicit . What worries me is the amount of data sources where permission is implicit, but not explicit David ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] renaming rendering layers
On 7/20/10, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Should we continue to name the osm.org tile layers by the renderers they use? [...] I think we need better names for the current mapnik and osmarender layers on OSM.org.[...] What about descriptive names like General, Driving or Default for mapnik and Full-featured, Developement or just Alternative for osmarender? -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' homepage: http://www.trueelena.org email: elena.valha...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
John Smith schrieb: On 20 July 2010 19:11, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: There is no contract between OSMF and most contributors (excepting newbies who have signed up to the Contributor Terms).. Erm since OSM-F does run OSM.org the old contributor agreement saying you agree to license your work under cc-by-sa would be a contract, wouldn't it? Is there any official archive of all contributors agreements yet used in OSM? Mueck ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] (no subject)
talk@openstreetmap.org, ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
Hi, On 20 July 2010 01:32, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: The proposed license change makes two concessions to the PD advocates. One is that you get a (symbolic) chance of officially declaring your contribution PD. This does not have legal relevance, as you cannot extract PD data from an ODbL protected database without triggering ODbL's share-alike, but at least the PD faction can make their voices heard. The other is that the contributor agreement does not completely rule out moving to PD at a later time, if a large enough majority of OSM contributors should favour that. These two concessions are really minor and are a long way from actually making anything in OSM PD. They are certainly not a victory for the PD faction, but they are a token of respect towards them, and they will make many a PD advocate accept the new license. These concessions are about building consensus, they are the result of people sitting around a (virtual) table and trying to find a way forward together that can be carried by everyone. Letting some mappers choose to only release their data under ODbL does not have to eliminate the other mappers' ability to choose PD and make their voice heard. So I think there's a way to retain the first concession and make the I can only license my edits under a share-alike license that I have read and want to be contacted if you need my data under any other license people happy too. The second concession seems a little more than many mappers can be asked. It reminds me very much of the Facebook / Myspace / whatever terms of service where the company wants to have the copyright of everything you create and has about 15 excuses in their FAQ to justify that (we need to protect the body of our users' creations and need the ability to sue people who misuse it) Cheers (FWIW I pledge that if I can have a no-CT account (ODbL only), I will register a second account to make a percentage of my edits in PD, especially those modifying objects created by others) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, andrzej zaborowski wrote: (FWIW I pledge that if I can have a no-CT account (ODbL only), I will register a second account to make a percentage of my edits in PD, especially those modifying objects created by others) Best idea I read so far :) Stefan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On 20 July 2010 11:07, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: If any any future time OSM thinks that a non-share-alike license would be best - why should we, today, try to dictate our wish to them? Because each of us is an author of a little chunk of data and want to have a say in how that chunk is released? (For example as a share-alike fan I want my own personal mapping to influence those who derive from it to release more data so we can all benefit) Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
Frederik Ramm wrote: The proposed license change makes two concessions to the PD advocates. One is that you get a (symbolic) chance of officially declaring your contribution PD. This does not have legal relevance, as you cannot extract PD data from an ODbL protected database without triggering ODbL's share-alike, but at least the PD faction can make their voices heard. The other is that the contributor agreement does not completely rule out moving to PD at a later time, if a large enough majority of OSM contributors should favour that. These two concessions are really minor and are a long way from actually making anything in OSM PD. Unfortunately I don't think the CT one is minor in anyway. What it appears to be doing is trade off a potential, move to PD, that currently is completely uncertain if it will or will not ever gain acceptance, with a definite large loss of data now. At least in Australia and the UK (http://www.maps.webhop.net/osm_opendata/ gives a rough (over) estimate of the scale of Data effected in the UK from OS OpenData that is CC-BY compatibly licensed), but looking at the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog many other countries are (potentially) effected on a large scale too. Also the combination of a SA license ODbL and the potential PD element in the CT appear to have constructed a situation, where OSM becomes incompatible in one way or another with everything including itself. It is not possible to mutually exchange data with PD sources, as ODbL prevents giving back. However, it is also not possible to incorporate any datasources such as e.g. OSM that are compatible with ODbL, as the CT prevent that as it may move to PD. Therefore to me it appears as if OSM is thus moving itself into isolation and with respect to the point of sharing data has chosen the worst of both PD and SA worlds. So with respect to concessions to the PD crowd, I think this is unacceptable, as it destroys a large part of what OSM is today. Therefore I would much rather see as a consession a strengthening of the first point, i.e. the I consider my data to PD actually mean something and that one can somehow extract clean PD data (however you end up technically and legally defining clean) indeed as PD data. I also don't see a legal reason why it couldn't mean something. Apart from the definition of clean, you as a contributor give the the data in an unencumbered way to OSMF, so it could decide to also publish it as PD without wrapping it into the ODbL. This would then allow for the potential of a much more organic PD fork off of OSM. Now I really wouldn't wont to see a fork and we should all try and prevent that, but as you say, there are many competing views on licensing currently in the project and one has to compromise to achieve a community so giving the PD crowd an easy way to split off may turn out to be the least problematic option. However, I do think the onus of forking has to be on the people wanting to change the nature of the license, not those who want to keep it. However, I am not sure that the term in the CT was originally meant as a way to switch to PD or change the nature of the license in any other way. At least that was not the way it was originally marketed during the OSMF vote. Instead, the argument was that despite all the diligence put into the new ODbL and therefore all the likelihood of it being better than CC-BY-SA, it is unfortunately a yet unproven license and so god forbid, it may turn out to have fatal flaws that can't be fixed with the upgrade clause to an ODbL 1.1. That's why we need an extra backup in the CT, as indeed a second switch of license as we have now can be for all intents and purposes be said to be impossible. That line of argument is imho very reasonable and one therefore well worth having, but somehow we also need to find a way to make it more compatible with more free and open licenses such as the rather liberally licensed Ordanance Survey data, or the Australian CC-BY. This brings us back to the originally question of this topic. Will (or can) adding a Attribution Clause in the CT make the construct of ODbL and CT compatible with more free and open licenses such as CC-BY and thus allow us to retain more data? With that, the original intent of a backup for should ODbL turn out to fail would still be met, yet it would endanger the project currently less. I am not sure a SA clause would help here, as moving to a different SA license would still make it incompatible, so you would still not be able to agree to the CT for a SA licensed source, but I would hope that situation looks a little more promising for attribution only licenses. Now the LWG has repeatedly said it is looking into the compatibility to CC-BY, so hopefully some of these considerations will be taken into account and we will soon have a clearer picture how they are intending to solve this issue. Frederik Ramm wrote: If NearMap imagery is so important
Re: [OSM-talk] Announcing the Open Brewpub Map
Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Whee. Now, please define microbrewery and brewpub. It's an if it quacks like a duck question, isn't it? Most English* breweries (large and small) have historically had a brewery tap adjacent to the brewery, owned by the brewery which sells that brewery's beer. At the smaller end (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/304814504) it'd qualify as a microbrewery, even though the beer's also available elsewhere, but at the larger (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/403137224) it certainly wouldn't. *and quite possible elsewhere too of course. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discu ssion more inclusive?
Ulf Möller osm at ulfm.de writes: 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone. The OSMF has a contractual relationship with its contributors. So if there is no copyright protection on the CC-BY-SA licensed dataset that does not mean the OSMF can do anything it wants with the data. Sure, but anyone could set up a new legal entity and clone the data. That would certainly be less disruptive than asking everyone for permission and deleting those who refuse. (And morally, I don't think there is that much to choose between the two options either - deleting people's contributions which they made in good faith in the expectation of helping create a free, CC-licensed map seems pretty unpleasant too.) So again, either CC-BY-SA 'protects' the data or it does not. And if it does not, why the need for all the fuss? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
Hi, Kai Krueger wrote: However, it is also not possible to incorporate any datasources such as e.g. OSM that are compatible with ODbL, as the CT prevent that as it may move to PD. I think we have already agreed on having to have exceptions for large imports, i.e. there will be some data in OSM for which the CT are not valid. This will be required whatever wording you choose for the license upgrade path because some data donors do not want to sign up to the unknown. So with respect to concessions to the PD crowd, I think this is unacceptable, as it destroys a large part of what OSM is today. If at any time a large part of what OSM is today is imported data please let me know as I'd like to quit then. OSM is about people and community, not about megabytes! Therefore I would much rather see as a consession a strengthening of the first point, i.e. the I consider my data to PD actually mean something and that one can somehow extract clean PD data (however you end up technically and legally defining clean) indeed as PD data. That would be most welcome. However, I am not sure that the term in the CT was originally meant as a way to switch to PD or change the nature of the license in any other way. I think it was meant to basically keep your options open should ODbL turn out to be bad, or should the environment (or the project) change in a way that ODbL was deemed no longer suitable. Any requirement we put in the CT is very likely to stick with us forever so it case to be very thoroughly evaluated. 10 years from now, OSM will still be bound by what we put in there (if OSM still exists then). That line of argument is imho very reasonable and one therefore well worth having, but somehow we also need to find a way to make it more compatible with more free and open licenses such as the rather liberally licensed Ordanance Survey data, or the Australian CC-BY. Would not trying to become compatible with a license that *we* think doesn't work for OSM incur all sorts of trouble? This brings us back to the originally question of this topic. Will (or can) adding a Attribution Clause in the CT make the construct of ODbL and CT compatible with more free and open licenses such as CC-BY and thus allow us to retain more data? The original question of this topic, as mentioned in the subject, was not adding an attribution clause in the CT, but adding a share-alike clause, which is a whole different ball game. I am not sure a SA clause would help here, as moving to a different SA license would still make it incompatible, so you would still not be able to agree to the CT for a SA licensed source, but I would hope that situation looks a little more promising for attribution only licenses. I think adding something about attribution, if properly marketed towards what you call the PD crowd, could be acceptable. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 18:32, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote: John Smith schrieb: On 20 July 2010 19:11, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: There is no contract between OSMF and most contributors (excepting newbies who have signed up to the Contributor Terms).. Erm since OSM-F does run OSM.org the old contributor agreement saying you agree to license your work under cc-by-sa would be a contract, wouldn't it? Is there any official archive of all contributors agreements yet used in OSM? This, I think: http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=License/Contributor_Termsaction=history ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason schrieb: Is there any official archive of all contributors agreements yet used in OSM? This, I think: http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=License/Contributor_Termsaction=history I meant ALL of them including this one the very first mapper no. 1 has signed ... ;-) ... not only the history of the CT proposed ... Mueck ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: So again, either CC-BY-SA 'protects' the data or it does not. Or it protects the data sometimes, in some jurisdictions, possibly, depending on who you ask. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announcing the Open Brewpub Map
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Ken Guest k...@linux.ie wrote: The huge hint is the text Upstairs, our working micro-brewery produces only the finest of local hand-crafted beers. :D Sven said it well: If beer is available in supermarkets nationwide I would say no and yes otherwise. James Squire was once a microbrewery but is now well and truly a mass-market commercial beer. It's obviously still promoting itself as a microbrewery, but according to its website, there are 18 places in Victoria starting with A that sell it. I think maybe that working microbrewery they're referring to is making special brews, not their main line. So maybe it is actually a microbrewery/brewpub after all...although I was originally thinking otherwise. Could legiitmately be a commercial brewer operating microbreweries, under the same brand. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: So again, either CC-BY-SA 'protects' the data or it does not. Or it protects the data sometimes, in some jurisdictions, possibly, depending on who you ask. On second though, put the quotes around it too, since the purpose of CC-BY-SA is more to selectively unprotect the work than to protect it. Copyright law is what protects the work. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
Am 20.07.2010 22:06, schrieb andrzej zaborowski: On 20 July 2010 11:07, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: If any any future time OSM thinks that a non-share-alike license would be best - why should we, today, try to dictate our wish to them? Because each of us is an author of a little chunk of data and want to have a say in how that chunk is released? (For example as a share-alike fan I want my own personal mapping to influence those who derive from it to release more data so we can all benefit) Well you'll get a say with or without the SA-Clause in the CT, provided you stay interested enough to keep actively mapping to be eligible to vote on future changes to another free and open license. I fail to see your problem. There will always be the safeguard of active member vote plus the limit of free and open, which, both combined provide a nice safeguard against evil stuff. -- Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
Am 19.07.2010 16:26, schrieb Peteris Krisjanis: Ok, Frederik, I understand (but don't accept) your arguments here, but to push discussion in more practical way: what to do with data providers like Nearmap? How to convince them? Easy. Keep on mapping and be the bigger fish in a couple years. -- Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk-nl] Microbrewery
Har! Ik heb vanmorgen de eerste Microbrewery in Nederland toegevoegd: http://brewpubs.openstreetmap.de/?zoom=7lat=52.04094lon=5.67328layers=BT Dus ken je ook een kroeg die naast de standaard biertjes ook z'n eigen bier serveert voeg een microbrewery=yes toe en je komt op deze kaart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbrewery Groet, Floris ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Microbrewery
Tof, maar De Bekeerde Suster is toch met een S? Op 20 juli 2010 17:01 schreef Floris Looijesteijn o...@floris.nu het volgende: Har! Ik heb vanmorgen de eerste Microbrewery in Nederland toegevoegd: http://brewpubs.openstreetmap.de/?zoom=7lat=52.04094lon=5.67328layers=BT Dus ken je ook een kroeg die naast de standaard biertjes ook z'n eigen bier serveert voeg een microbrewery=yes toe en je komt op deze kaart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbrewery Groet, Floris ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl -- Groet, Paul L. Smits ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [talk-au] Sydney-Canberra trip
Why not use: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noname Steve On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: I can check Yass on Friday, as the Department of Health and Ageing is paying me to drive that way again. Thanks Liz, that'd be great. I'll bet a virtual $5.00 that there will still be no signposts but maybe you can find some corroborating evidence that I've missed. For some reason the two down near the river ( maybe-Warrambaluah and maybe-riley) have always irked me to be still unamed in OSM. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sydney-Canberra trip
On 20 July 2010 16:10, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Why not use: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noname I was told in the UK they have streets that aren't named, where as in Australia all streets do have names, I sent an email to this list some time ago asking for suggestions on what to do in the situation of a lack of street signs... Still waiting on some discussion, in the end I just updated the Aussie tagging guidelines based on what some other mappers were doing: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#How_can_I_tag_streets_with_missing_signs.2Fno_names.3F ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Mapping a blank spot
Dear Liz, You said in a recent post to a list that you had mapped what was once a blank spot on the map. Have you seen the OSM History animations from GeoFabrik? http://www.geofabrik.de/gallery/history/index.html If the area that you mapped is not in a current animation, you might ask them to add it. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sydney-Canberra trip
On 20 July 2010 22:57, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Asking a local is one option. I go with, I'm so lost. Can you tell me what street this is? That only works if there is someone to ask... Visiting a business and asking for a business card is another option. Business cards generally include addresses. The only places I've seen signs vandalised are usually in residential locations, Hoylen and myself spotted one the other day during the mapping party... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Looking for participants to test OSM-based audio street maps
Dear all Apologies for cross-posting. As part of my Master's project at Queen Mary, University of London, I'm looking for participants to take part in a game centred on wayfinding challenges in urban audio maps. The game should take no longer than 20 minutes to complete and there will be a prize draw with a total of ten £10 Amazon vouchers (or the international equivalent) to be won. To play the game, please download the installer from: https://sourceforge.net/projects/team/ It should install without problems on Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7 (32-bit and 64-bit). After you have installed and started TEAM, press Ctrl+Enter to play. For a screenshot and further information, see the project website, http://team.sourceforge.net. The game has been designed with accessibility in mind, so blind and partially sighted participants are very much encouraged to take part. I'd be delighted if you'd be happy to play the game. If you have any questions about the game or the research on which it is based, please don't hesitate to contact me. With kind regards, Esther ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sydney-Canberra trip
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, John Smith wrote: The only places I've seen signs vandalised are usually in residential locations, Hoylen and myself spotted one the other day during the mapping party... Because our Council uses surnames of people to name the roads, others with the same surname steal them. My road has no roadsigns at present - all disappeared the same night. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping a blank spot
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Richard Weait wrote: Dear Liz, You said in a recent post to a list that you had mapped what was once a blank spot on the map. Have you seen the OSM History animations from GeoFabrik? http://www.geofabrik.de/gallery/history/index.html If the area that you mapped is not in a current animation, you might ask them to add it. I made an animation a couple of years ago, and probably still have a copy. What is now needed pictorially is the difference with and without my edits. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping a blank spot
On 21 July 2010 07:08, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: I made an animation a couple of years ago, and probably still have a copy. What is now needed pictorially is the difference with and without my edits. To do this properly, you need a complete copy of the DB dump which included all history made last year, and then you need to basically parse that file to make sure to only include data prior to the step before you made changes, or just to exclude it entirely if you made the first edit. Not something for the faint of heart... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
If only public domain was accepted then all of the government's CC imports would not be possible. On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Christoph Donges cdon...@gmail.com wrote: Things would have been so much simpler if they had gone with pd from the start. Personally I consider all my edits (not that there are that many) to be pd and I don't care what anybody, including osm do with them. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] New Wagga Wagga + Albury Nearmap coverage
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NearMap_PhotoMaps#New_South_Wales.2FVictoria ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 21 July 2010 14:27, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: If only public domain was accepted then all of the government's CC imports would not be possible. I'm not sure how complete it is, but there is a list of data sets and the licenses: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [Talk-de] Schreckgespenst Datenverlust
Am Dienstag 20 Juli 2010, 07:23:44 schrieb Jens Frank: Am 19. Juli 2010 17:02 schrieb Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de: Weiter wird dann sogar sowas verblödetes wie ein Fork in die Diskussion eingebracht. Statt die Arbeit dann in die osm zu stecken und an EINER freien Weltkarte zu schrauben würde dann an anderer Stelle neu angefangen. Noch viel sinnloser und Resourcenverschwendung im Quadrat. _Eine_ Freie Weltkarte wuerde bedeuten das wir unter bedingungen Arbeiten die fuer alle Akzeptabel ist. Die CC-BY-SA war fuer alle Akzeptabel die bisher daran teilgenommen haben. Sie war deshalb akzeptabel (zumindest fuer mich), weil es schwierig ist, was vergleichbares neu aufzuziehen und die Ressourcen dafuer bereitzustellen. Ich hatte durchaus mal darueber nachgedacht. Ich finde aber, es spricht nichts dagegen, beim Lizenzwechsel auch eine zweite CC0-Version zu erstellen. Man wird ja dann sehen, welche sich besser entwickelt... Das Problem ist nur, dass man dann auch die Infrastruktur zweimal braucht... Nein. Die CC-BY-SA ist nur deshalb scheinbar akzeptabel, weil sich bisher keiner dran hält. Nicht eine Webseite, die OSM-Karten benutzt, erfüllt die CC-BY-SA. Sie müssten nämlich nicht nur by openstreetmap.org sagen, sondern alle Autoren des jeweiligen Kartenausschnitts aufführen. Falsch! Zitat CC-BY-SA-Lzenz: ...and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable,... Jeden Autor direkt anzugeben ist nicht wirklich praktikabel. Soweit ich weiss, war es Konsens, dass der Hinweis auf das OSM-Projekt ausreichend ist. Und damit ist der Lizenz genuege getan. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Behindertenparkplatz-Die Lösung
Am Dienstag 20 Juli 2010, 01:50:27 schrieb Thomas Ineichen: Und wer bringt das alles den Rolli-Fahrern bei, die eigentlich nur ein paar Behinderten-Parkplätze einzeichnen möchten? ein entsprechendes Preset im Editor? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Behindertenparkplatz-Die Lösung
Moin, On 20.07.2010 01:50, Thomas Ineichen wrote: Hallo ihr, highway=residental parking:lane:right=inline capacity:standard=3 capacity:disabled=1 parking:condition:right=residents parking:condition:right:residents=G bzw. highway=residental parking:lane:right=inline capacity:disabled=1 bzw. parking:lane:right:capacity:disabled=1 bzw. parking:condition:right=disabled Und wer bringt das alles den Rolli-Fahrern bei, die eigentlich nur ein paar Behinderten-Parkplätze einzeichnen möchten? Gruss, Thomas Ich wage mal zu behaupten, dass jeder, der einen Parkplatz einzeichnen und korrekt taggen kann, auch in der Lage ist, umfangreichere tags anzuwenden, wenn er nur um diese weiß. Wie bei jedem komplexen tagging-Schema empfiehlt sich natürlich josm-presets zu nutzen [1], auch das roadsigns-plugin könnte man sicher für diesen Fall gebrauchen. Ansonsten ist's halt wie mit allem anderen auch, wenn der mapper nicht sicher weiß, was er machen kann/darf/soll/muss, setzt er eben fixme oder nutzt osb. Im proposal wird auf disabled nur bedingt eingegangen, disabled_spaces wird erwähnt, disabled=yes und parking:condition:side=disabled werden angedacht, eine Diskussion dazu gibt es aber auf der entsprechenden Seite nicht. Das Ganze wird niemals alle Fälle abdecken können, Behindertenparkstände zu integrieren sollte aber problemlos möglich sein, man müsste sich eben nur auf ein einheitliches und sinnvolles tagging verständigen und dieses konsequent anwenden. Wenn aber niemand die Bedenken dazu äußert, wird es auch nicht in den Fokus rücken und wohl bei zitiertem Schema bleiben. Grüße, yzemaze [1] http://osm.sebastian-klemm.eu/josm/josm-preset_parkinglane.xml (disabled fehlt komplett) ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Fehler in mapgen.pl 1.05?
hi, habe es herausgefunden, woran es liegt. steigt die horizontale distanz auf über 180 grad, so gibt geo proj4 bei der transformation der koordinaten negative werte für maxlon zurück. daraus ergibt sich ein falsches verhältnis von höhe zu breite, also ein negatives. so wie es im augenblick aussieht, kann ich dazu keine lösung anbieten... mir fehlt schlicht die idee. evtl. kannst du zwei karten produzieren und sie dann aneinanderreihen? ciao gerhard On Sat, 2010-07-17 at 21:55 +0200, Carsten Gerlach wrote: Hallo, ich habe gerade mit mapgen.pl (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapgen.pl) experimentiert und dabei festgestellt, daß eine negative Höhe des Bildes berechnet wird, wenn die horizontale Ausdehnung der Karte größergleich 180° ist. Bei geringerer Ausdehnung ist alles in Ordnung. Die SVG enthält auch im fehlerhaften Fall alle Elemente, nur alles ganz unglücklich verschoben und verdreht. Am besten mal mit den zwei Beispieldateien probieren (der Unterschied ist nur in der lon-Koordinate von Punkt 1): ==in_ordnung.osm== ?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'? osm version='0.6' generator='JOSM' node id='1' visible='true' version='1' lat='50' lon='99' / node id='2' visible='true' version='1' lat='-50' lon='-80' / way id='1' visible='true' version='1' nd ref='1' / nd ref='2' / tag k='highway' v='primary' / tag k='name' v='In Orndung' / /way /osm ==fehlerhaft.osm== ?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'? osm version='0.6' generator='JOSM' node id='1' visible='true' version='1' lat='50' lon='100' / node id='2' visible='true' version='1' lat='-50' lon='-80' / way id='1' visible='true' version='1' nd ref='1' / nd ref='2' / tag k='highway' v='primary' / tag k='name' v='Fehlerhaft' / /way /osm Leider hab ich noch nicht nachvollziehen können, an welcher Stelle die Höhe berechnet wird, sonst hätte ich mich selbst an einen Patch gewagt. Somit bin ich für jede Hilfe dankbar. :-) Gruß, Carsten ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Fehler in mapgen.pl 1.05?
mir ist noch was eingefallen. evtl. kann man den nullmeridian der projektion auf einen anderen wert setzen. im augenblick steht da (in mapgen.pm) my $l0 = int($l) - 1 ; der liegt also außerhalb des zu zeichnenden bereichs vielleicht kann man den so verwursten my $l0 = int($r+$l) / 2 ; so läge er in der mitte des zu zeichnenden bereichs müsste man mal für diverse karten probieren, ob dann noch alles geht... ich könnte es mir vorstellen. aber manchmal steckt der teufel im detail! ciao gerhard On Sat, 2010-07-17 at 21:55 +0200, Carsten Gerlach wrote: Hallo, ich habe gerade mit mapgen.pl (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapgen.pl) experimentiert und dabei festgestellt, daß eine negative Höhe des Bildes berechnet wird, wenn die horizontale Ausdehnung der Karte größergleich 180° ist. Bei geringerer Ausdehnung ist alles in Ordnung. Die SVG enthält auch im fehlerhaften Fall alle Elemente, nur alles ganz unglücklich verschoben und verdreht. Am besten mal mit den zwei Beispieldateien probieren (der Unterschied ist nur in der lon-Koordinate von Punkt 1): ==in_ordnung.osm== ?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'? osm version='0.6' generator='JOSM' node id='1' visible='true' version='1' lat='50' lon='99' / node id='2' visible='true' version='1' lat='-50' lon='-80' / way id='1' visible='true' version='1' nd ref='1' / nd ref='2' / tag k='highway' v='primary' / tag k='name' v='In Orndung' / /way /osm ==fehlerhaft.osm== ?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'? osm version='0.6' generator='JOSM' node id='1' visible='true' version='1' lat='50' lon='100' / node id='2' visible='true' version='1' lat='-50' lon='-80' / way id='1' visible='true' version='1' nd ref='1' / nd ref='2' / tag k='highway' v='primary' / tag k='name' v='Fehlerhaft' / /way /osm Leider hab ich noch nicht nachvollziehen können, an welcher Stelle die Höhe berechnet wird, sonst hätte ich mich selbst an einen Patch gewagt. Somit bin ich für jede Hilfe dankbar. :-) Gruß, Carsten ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] SOTM 2010 - feedback
Hallo,
leider hatte es auf der SOTM 2010 nicht mit dem Feedback geklappt -
kleine organisatorische Panne...
Deswegen gibt es einen Aufruf in den News mit der Bitte um Teilnahme:
http://stateofthemap.org/feedback-please/
Dort sind sowohl die Teilnehmer als auch die Nicht-Teilnehmer
aufgerufen ein Feedback zu geben. Wenn ich es richtig sehe, hat noch
niemand hier den Aufruf weitergegeben.
Feedback please!
We, the organizing committee, are looking back on a great conference. Of
course, we are also a bit prejudiced… That’s why we also like to hear
feedback from you.
Did you attend SotM10? Please go to this feedback form.
[http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dGFUc1c5UjFaOFphbXVWbTZYVmJjNHc6MQ]
{Teilnehmer}
Did you not attend SotM10? We also have some questions for you. Please
go to this feedback form.
[http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dEFCYWR4d3JSbXJnQWV3LVBmUWhoanc6MQ]
{Nicht-Teilnehmer}
Thanks for taking the effort to complete the feedback form.
Grüße,
Michael.
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Radweg oder nicht Radweg?
heiko.jac...@gmx.de (Heiko Jacobs) am 20.07.10: Rainer Knaepper schrieb: Da müssen Fußgänger, Rollifahrer und Radler durch, weil die benachbarte Hochstraße für selbige verboten ist. Nö, ist nicht verboten laut OSM! ;-) Kraftfahrstraßenschild? -- motorroad=yes explizite Verbotsschilder für Fuß/Rad? -- foot=no, bicycle=no Wenn beides nicht: erlaubt Da gibt es afaik sowas, aber ich werde da noch mal zwecks Dokumentation hinfahren müssen, bislang habe ich die Situation ausschließlich aus Autofahrersicht betrachtet. Zuständigen Planer teeren + federn und so auf dem Rad da durch jagen ;-) Die dürften im Ruhestand sein, die Anlage ist afaik über 20 Jahre alt. Sollte jemand auf die Idee kommen, da was korrekt als Gehweg auszuschildern, würde ich das beim Radverkehrsnetz NRW petzen, wie man eine überörtliche Radverbindung so kastrieren kann mit Hinweis, dass es auch behinderte Radfahrer gibt, die keine Möglichkeit hätten, ihr Rad zu schieben. Oder sowieso dort mal fragen, wie sowas enges und gefährliches sein kann auf einer überörtlichen Route ... mir kam auch der Gedanke, wie jemand auf einem Liegerad wohl da durchkommen soll. Auch die Kurven sind sehr eng :-) Abgesehen davon, daß zwei abgesessene Radler wohl erst recht nicht aneinander vorbeikommen: Wie taggt man sowas? So wie's aussieht, ist's schon recht getaggt... Kleine Inkonsistenz zwischen bicycle=designated und bicycle=yes, würde ich auf letzteres vereinheitlichen. wie geschrieben, ich schaue es mir nochmal genau an. Rainer -- ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Radweg oder nicht Radweg?
sh...@nurfuerspam.de (Fabian) am 20.07.10: schonmal die kleinigkeit das garkeine fussgaenger hinkommen weil nur cycleways hinfuehren. Dieses radfahrerzentrierte Tagging gibt es hier überall, an allen Ecken und Enden und auch noch uneinheitlich. Und nein, das stammt nicht von mir, ich bin eher selten mit dem Rad unterwegs und halte mich bei Radwegen an sich raus. Die Radwege, die ich hier in der Gegend persönlich kenne, sind allesamt auch für Fußgänger erlaubt, warum das mal auf die eine, mal auf die andre Art getaggt ist, entzieht sich meiner Kenntnis. Was ich selber anlege, tagge ich idR als Fußweg mit bicycle=yes. Ausnahme sind die ehemaligen (Zechen-)Bahntrassen, die zu Radwegen umgebaut wurden, das sind dann eben Radwege mit Foot=yes. Auch sehe ich nicht wie man von level 0 auf -1 kommt bei den radwegen. irgenwo sollte da noch ein ramp hin IMHO ramp kannte ich nicht. Ist das ein eingeführtes tag? wuerde aber auch sagen alles was nciht als radweg ausgeschilder ist wird als fussweg angenommen. radfahrer muessten also untendurch sowieso schieben. am besten wuerden die traffic_sign=DE:xxx hier weiterhelfen. nachdem was du geschrieben hast muesste da eh ein [1] irgnwo stehen [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_260.svg.pn g Ich werde da wohl noch mal hinfahren, und die ganze absurde Konstruktion mal fotografisch dokumentieren müssen. Rainer -- ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] SOTM 2010 - feedback
Hallo Michael, gibt es denn schon Erfahrungs- und Erlebnisberichte? (in Deutsch) Gab es Mitschnitte von Veranstaltungen? Wo kann man sich diese anschauen/hören? Gruss, Markus ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Radweg oder nicht Radweg?
Am 20. Juli 2010 00:36 schrieb Fabian sh...@nurfuerspam.de: schonmal die kleinigkeit das garkeine fussgaenger hinkommen weil nur cycleways hinfuehren. Auch sehe ich nicht wie man von level 0 auf -1 kommt bei den radwegen. irgenwo sollte da noch ein ramp hin IMHO Moin! Das ist kein Problem. Da layer=* nur die relative Lage sich kreuzender Objekte auf der z-Achse zueinander angibt, muß es kein Gefälle geben, um von 1 auf -1 zu kommen. Das besagt nur, daß der Tunnel unterhalb der Bahnlinie liegt wie weit die Bahnlinie dafür angehoben oder der Fußweg abgesenkt wird, geht daraus nicht hervor. (viele implizieren auch layer=-1 bei Tunneln) Gruß, Martin ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Behindertenparkplatz-Die Lösung
Am 19. Juli 2010 14:08 schrieb steffterra steffte...@me.com: Nach so einer Lösung hattest Du doch gesucht, oder? Für den einzeln stehenden Behinderten-stand- aus Deinem Themenstart wäre es dann das: highway=residental parking:lane:right=inline capacity:disabled=1 Dein Anliegen war ja genau das. . Saubere Lösung. - Also kein neuer amenity-Tag (da aus Proposal genommen) nötig und Lösung in bestehendem Proposal gefunden. Das ist doch gut für Deine Behindertenkarte, oder? (welche ich sehr begrüße!) Hallo! Ich glaube du antwortest eher Thomas, der hatte das Thema ja losgetreten und baut auch die Karte. Für mich ists auch ok, ich hätte abe auch nichts gegen ein tag für einzelne Parkstände als node einzuwenden, wenn es nicht amenity=parking heißt. ;-) Gruß, Martin ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Announce: Die Hausbrauereikarte - Open Brewpub Map
Bernd Wurst be...@bwurst.org wrote: Bei der Karte habe ich einen drastischen Versatz von Maus-Cursor und Maus- Aktion (z.B. beim zoom via Shift+Ziehen). Das habe ich bei anderen OL-Karten früher schonmal gesehen, weiß aber nicht mehr ob es ein Client- oder ein Server-Problem war. Hab ich auch schon bemerkt. Eventuell mal das Openlayers austauschen. Sven -- In my opinion MS is a lot better at making money than it is at making good operating systems (Linus Torvalds, August 1997) /me is gig...@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Announce: Die Hausbrauereikarte - Open Brewpub Map
bundesrainer o...@bundesrainer.de wrote: Mal eine Frage zur Definition von Hausbrauerei: Sind damit Gaststätten, Restaurants u.ä. gemeint, die selbst brauen und dieses Bier nur direkt vor Ort verkaufen? Die Grenze ist denke ich erreicht wenn das Bier Bundesweit erhältlich ist. Mir ist schon klar, dass es da im fränkischen Bierland Grenzfälle geben wird. Gruss Sven -- Das ist halt der Unterschied: Unix ist ein Betriebssystem mit Tradition, die anderen sind einfach von sich aus unlogisch. (Anselm Lingnau in de.comp.os.unix.discussion) /me ist gig...@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ im WWW ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Announce: Die Hausbrauereikarte - Open Brewpub Map
Rainer Knaepper rain...@smial.prima.de wrote: Für welche Bildschirmauflösung ist das gedacht? *urgs* ich gebs zu ich hätte das mit dem Netbook testen sollen. Mal schaun ob ich die Tage dazukomme das zu fixen. Ist statischer HTML Code, ich nehme gerne patches :) Sven -- Das allgemeine Persönlichkeitsrecht (Art. 2 Abs.1 i.V.m. Art.1 Abs. 1GG) umfasst das Grundrecht auf Gewährleistung der Vertraulichkeit und Integrität informationstechnischer Systeme. (BVerfG, 1BvR 370/07) /me is gig...@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreckgespenst Datenverlust
Am 20.07.2010 01:39, schrieb Frederik Ramm: Stimmt. Deswegen bleibt die alte Datenbank auf ewig als CC-BY-SA erhalten. Wird man in der odbl-DB die durch Nicht-Übernahme entstandenen Lücken durch abmalen von einem Old-Mapnik-WMS-Layer beheben dürfen ? Was ist mit den GPX-Tracks? Wird es dort auch eine Trennung geben in darf und darf-nicht weiterverwendet werden ? Chris ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreckgespenst Datenverlust
Hallo, Chris66 wrote: Stimmt. Deswegen bleibt die alte Datenbank auf ewig als CC-BY-SA erhalten. Wird man in der odbl-DB die durch Nicht-Übernahme entstandenen Lücken durch abmalen von einem Old-Mapnik-WMS-Layer beheben dürfen ? Nein. Aber man kann sicherlich gewisse automatische Analysen mit den alten Daten machen, a la hier muss mal jemand hin und diese Gegend vervollstaendigen, da fehlen 4 Strassen oder sowas. Angucken darf man die alten Daten ja schon noch, bloss halt genau so, wie man heute eine Google-Karten angucken darf. Abmalen geht nicht. Was ist mit den GPX-Tracks? Wird es dort auch eine Trennung geben in darf und darf-nicht weiterverwendet werden ? Ehrlich gesagt, weiss ich gar nicht, was da der Stand ist, da hab ich mich nie mit beschaeftigt. Vielleicht kann Ulf M. dazu was sagen. Bye Frederik ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreckgespenst Datenverlust
Am 20.07.2010 10:49, schrieb Chris66: Am 20.07.2010 01:39, schrieb Frederik Ramm: Stimmt. Deswegen bleibt die alte Datenbank auf ewig als CC-BY-SA erhalten. Wird man in der odbl-DB die durch Nicht-Übernahme entstandenen Lücken durch abmalen von einem Old-Mapnik-WMS-Layer beheben dürfen ? Nein, das ist die gleiche Situation als wenn du von Google abmalst - die Lizenz ist nicht kompatibel. Ich gehe davon aus, das ein WMS (o.ä.) mit den alten Daten zur Verfügung stehen wird. Du kannst die alten Daten dann wohl dazu verwenden, zu schauen wo Sachen fehlen und dort vor Ort nachzuarbeiten. Abmalen ist aber - wie auch von Google o.ä. - nicht möglich. Was ist mit den GPX-Tracks? Wird es dort auch eine Trennung geben in darf und darf-nicht weiterverwendet werden ? Wahrscheinlich ja. Gruß, ULFL ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Verlauf der B 311 in Ulm.
Am 13.07.2010 09:32, schrieb fly: Kann jemand mal den Verlauf der B 311 in Ulm überprüfen ? Unter wikipedia steht nicht viel und die TMC-Daten gehen bis weit in die Stadt (sind leider häufig auch nicht richtig oder Musik aus der Zukunft). Was die Beschilderung anbelangt, so habe ich heute morgen mal die in OSM der B311 zugeordnete Strecke abgefahren und dort nirgends ein Schild B311 oder eine entsprechende Beschriftung auf einer Richtungstafel gefunden. Gruß Rainer ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] Lizenz - warum nicht individuell?
Hallo Liste, bei uns in Dresden auf dem Stammtisch gab es viel Zustimmung für eine PD Lizenz. Wurde denn hier mal ernsthaft über PD diskutiert und das als Möglichkeit gesehen? PD bietet maximale Rechtssicherheit, maximale Freiheit und kommt damit meiner Intention bei OSM mitzumachen am nächsten. Natürlich wird es schwierig mit Datenspenden, Lizenzumstellung etc. Da es offenbar doch genug Gründe für ODbl gibt, kam mir eine weitere Idee. Warum müssen eigentlich alle Mapper mit der selben Lizenz beitragen? Sagen wir mal die Datenbank an sich ist unter der restriktivsten Lizenz, die sich die Leute hier wünschen - ich sag jetzt einfach mal das ist ODbl. Wenn jetzt jeder individuell die Möglichkeit hat seinen Lizenzregler so einzustellen wie er das für richtig hält und die Lizenzen abwärtskompatibel sind, dann könnte man doch so einen Zwischenweg gehen oder? Mal angenommen, dem nächsten ist nur Namensnennung wichtig und der nächste möchte nur PD oder so. Das wäre ja alles ODbl kompatibel und könnte somit auch unter dieser Lizenz ausgeliefert werden. Sind halt Daten mit unterschiedlicher Freiheit in der DB. Wenn jetzt alle ihren Lizenzregler auf PD stellen und der Großteil der Daten vielleicht irgendwann wirklich frei ist, kann man über ne Lizenzumstellung noch mal ganz anders nachdenken. Man könnte dann vielleicht auch einen PD-Auszug der OSM-Daten generieren etc. Grüße Christoph signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenz - warum nicht individuell?
Christoph Wagner wrote: Wurde denn hier mal ernsthaft über PD diskutiert und das als Möglichkeit gesehen? *POPCORN!* Mal die letzten Threads gelesen? Man kann sich natürlich auch ewig im Kreis drehen. Warum nicht einfach mit ODbL abfinden? PD bietet maximale Rechtssicherheit, maximale Freiheit und kommt damit meiner Intention bei OSM mitzumachen am nächsten. Natürlich wird es schwierig mit Datenspenden, Lizenzumstellung etc. Beim Switch zu ODbL geht es von einer Share-Alike-Lizenz zu einer eben solchen und bereits bei einer solchen eher geringfügigen Änderung gibt es Bedenken wegen zu großem Datenverlust. Eben dieser Datenverlust wäre bei einer erheblich krasseren Änderung der Lizenz noch viel extremer! Wobei maximale Rechtssicherheit wohl nur für den Nutzer der Daten gilt, da der Autor so gut wie alle seine Rechte aufgibt. Vom Urheberrecht abgesehen, das in Deutschland niemals weitergegeben werden kann. Warum müssen eigentlich alle Mapper mit der selben Lizenz beitragen? Sagen wir mal die Datenbank an sich ist unter der restriktivsten Lizenz, die sich die Leute hier wünschen - ich sag jetzt einfach mal das ist ODbl. Wenn jetzt jeder individuell die Möglichkeit hat seinen Lizenzregler so einzustellen wie er das für richtig hält und die Lizenzen abwärtskompatibel sind, dann könnte man doch so einen Zwischenweg gehen oder? Mal angenommen, dem nächsten ist nur Namensnennung wichtig und der nächste möchte nur PD oder so. Das wäre ja alles ODbl kompatibel und könnte somit auch unter dieser Lizenz ausgeliefert werden. Sind halt Daten mit unterschiedlicher Freiheit in der DB. Wenn jetzt alle ihren Lizenzregler auf PD stellen und der Großteil der Daten vielleicht irgendwann wirklich frei ist, kann man über ne Lizenzumstellung noch mal ganz anders nachdenken. Man könnte dann vielleicht auch einen PD-Auszug der OSM-Daten generieren etc. Was, wenn sich der entsprechende Mapper z.B. an Luftbildern bedient, die eben nicht PD sind? Dazu kommt, dass ein Element, das von einem PD-Benutzer erstellt wurde, durch die erste Änderung eines ODbL-Benutzers direkt zu ODbL wird. Alle nicht-PD-Änderungen automagisch wieder von diesem Objekt zu bekommen, halte ich für nicht ganz trivial. Gruß Manuel ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Radweg oder nicht Radweg?
Heiko Jacobs wrote: So wie's aussieht, ist's schon recht getaggt... Kleine Inkonsistenz zwischen bicycle=designated und bicycle=yes, würde ich auf letzteres vereinheitlichen. Da wäre ich vorsichtig! Zumindest bicycle=designated heißt in Deutschland wohl Benutzungspflichtiger Radweg und der liegt hier wohl eher nicht vor. bicycle=yes ist dann wohl sowas wie Radfahrer frei. Also nicht benutzungspflichtig. Da man hier mit Schildern Radfahrer aber eher warnen will, ist das wohl auch nicht Radfahrer frei. In meiner Umgebung habe ich da selber schon Radwege umgebaut, um die Benutzungspflicht, wo nicht gegeben, entsprechend rauszunehmen. Als Radfahrer sind oft gerade solche Bereiche interessant, da man da je nach Route entscheiden kann, ob man den nicht benutzungspflichten Radweg nutzen will oder nicht. Laut http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access wäre wohl bicycle=unknown denkbar. Ich würde für die fragliche Stelle das bicycle-Tag ganz löschen. Was nicht explizit verboten ist, kann jeder vor Ort für sich entscheiden, ob er es für machbar hält. Ich habe in meinem Gebiet auch fast alle bicycle=no gelöscht, da diese Wege nicht direkt für Fahrräder verboten und mit dem Mountainbike durchaus passierbar waren. Hier und da habe ich stattdessen mtb:scale nachgetragen. Gruß Manuel ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] SOTM 2010 - feedback
Markus wrote: gibt es denn schon Erfahrungs- und Erlebnisberichte? (in Deutsch) Gab es Mitschnitte von Veranstaltungen? Wo kann man sich diese anschauen/hören? Schließe mich der Frage an. Interessant wären auch eventuell gezeigte Präsentationen zum Nachlesen. Gruß Manuel ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] SOTM 2010 - feedback
Hallo, Manuel Reimer wrote: Gab es Mitschnitte von Veranstaltungen? Wo kann man sich diese anschauen/hören? Die Mitschnitte sind noch nicht veroeffentlicht, das soll aber bald kommen. Schließe mich der Frage an. Interessant wären auch eventuell gezeigte Präsentationen zum Nachlesen. Einige Praesentationen sind bereits hier verlinkt: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/State_Of_The_Map_2010 Bye Frederik ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Radweg oder nicht Radweg?
Am 20. Juli 2010 09:29 schrieb Rainer Knaepper rain...@smial.prima.de: sh...@nurfuerspam.de (Fabian) am 20.07.10: schonmal die kleinigkeit das garkeine fussgaenger hinkommen weil nur cycleways hinfuehren. Fußgänger dürfen auf highway=cycleway durchaus gehen, nur nicht auf deutschen Radwegen (die daher m.E. foot=no benötigen). Dieses radfahrerzentrierte Tagging gibt es hier überall, an allen Ecken und Enden und auch noch uneinheitlich. Was ich selber anlege, tagge ich idR als Fußweg mit bicycle=yes. Ausnahme sind die ehemaligen (Zechen-)Bahntrassen, die zu Radwegen umgebaut wurden, das sind dann eben Radwege mit Foot=yes. Allgemein gilt (bzw. galt?) die Regel, dass das höhere Fahrzeug die Wegklasse bestimmt, also in Fällen von Radwegen mit Fußgänger frei (oder auch kombinierten Fuss-Radwegen nach altem Schema ohne path) cycleway und foot=yes, und nur für Fußwege mit Fahrräder frei footway und bicycle=yes, wobei mit path (bzw. designated/official?) ja eine Variante zur Verfügung steht, die das genauer abbilden kann, und daher verwendet werden sollte. Gruß Martin ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] Datenverlust
Für eine sinnvolle Diskussion und als Basis für eine verantwortliche Entscheidung braucht man möglichst valide Daten. Deahalb habe ich mal ein paar konkrete Idee zusammengefasst: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Datenverlust_bei_Lizenzwechsel Basis für solche Analysen sind konkrete Fallbeispiele. Einige habe ich in Bezug auf kaskadische Wirkungen von Datenverlust fomuliert und meine (laienhafte) Vermutung angefügt. (bitte ergänzen) Vielleicht können die Profis uns ja zeigen, welche Folgen ein Lizenzwechsel bezüglich Datenverlust hat. Gruss, Markus ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Zum 1000. mal - Hausnummern und Stra ßennamen?
Am 20.07.2010 06:20, schrieb Bernd Wurst: Am Montag 19 Juli 2010, 23:48:30 schrieb Ulf Lamping: Das hat dann dazu geführt, daß ich nichts kaputt machen wollte und die angedachten Änderungen nicht hochgeladen und JOSM schlicht zugemacht habe. Meine Mutter hätte vermutlich genau so reagiert. JOSM kann mittlerweile ziemlich gut mit Relationen und ich weiß nicht wieso hier immer noch so viele Leute sich gegenseitig die Angst hoch schaukeln. Wer es noch nichtmal probiert ist selbst schuld. Man muss halt evtl vorher schauen *was* für ne Relation ist das und danach schauen ob sie noch Sinn macht. In der Regel sind es ja Routen-Relationen und da ist das Einfügen beider Wegteile (nach dem Split-Way) ja das einzig sinnvolle und das macht JOSM auch. Klar, ich kann darauf vertrauen das JOSM dafür zuständig ist das die Relationen beim editieren schon nicht kaputt gehen und es ist ja nicht mein Problem wenn Busrouten (oder was auch immer) danach nicht mehr stimmen. Ich kann auch ignorieren das es noch andere Editoren gibt, die sowas wohl noch viel eher kaputt machen. Ist nur nicht meine Art fahrlässig anderer Leute Arbeit kaputt zu machen. Ich habe hier nicht von hätte, könnte oder wollte gesprochen. Ich habe von einem konkreten (negativen) Effekt der Relationen gesprochen, die mir auch schon von anderen Mappern so berichtet wurde. Wenn da vor Ort nur eine (Art von) Relation vorhanden ist, kann man sich das schnell noch mal genauer anschauen. Wenn da aber mehrere Relationstypen und dutzende von Relationen im Spiel sind (Nürnberg), vergeht einem schnell die Lust sich durch den Wust zu arbeiten. Die (gefühlte) Wahrscheinlichkeit dabei was kaputt zu machen geht auch beim JOSM dann so gegen 100%. Ich habe keine Angst vor Relationen und selber auch schon eine Reihe davon angelegt. Mir ist aber bewußt, daß Relationen (inherent) eine zusätzliche Komplexität aufbauen, die man nur dann aufbauen sollte, wenn es *wirklich* notwendig ist (also z.B. eine Abbildung über Tags noch komplexer wäre). Gruß, ULFL P.S: Ja, die Editoren können hier sicher noch besser werden um die Komplexität zu vertuschen, aber ich finde es besser von vornherein Komplexität nur da aufzubauen wo sie unbedingt notwendig ist. KISS ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenz - warum nicht individuell?
Am 20.07.2010 12:21, schrieb Manuel Reimer: Christoph Wagner wrote: Wurde denn hier mal ernsthaft über PD diskutiert und das als Möglichkeit gesehen? *POPCORN!* Mal die letzten Threads gelesen? Ja so grob schon. Ich meine gibts Umfrageergebnisse oder sowas? Ich meine mich mal an sowas beteiligt zu haben. Will jetzt hier auch keine neue Diskussion anstacheln - gibt ja schon genug. Man kann sich natürlich auch ewig im Kreis drehen. Warum nicht einfach mit ODbL abfinden? Würd ich auch machen - klar. Was, wenn sich der entsprechende Mapper z.B. an Luftbildern bedient, die eben nicht PD sind? Klar - das geht dann eben nicht, dafür wäre das Ergebnis wirklich frei. Dazu kommt, dass ein Element, das von einem PD-Benutzer erstellt wurde, durch die erste Änderung eines ODbL-Benutzers direkt zu ODbL wird. Alle nicht-PD-Änderungen automagisch wieder von diesem Objekt zu bekommen, halte ich für nicht ganz trivial. Stimmt, kommt genau die Problematik raus wie die jetzige Diskussion um den Urheber eines Objektes. Ich seh schon ein, dass die Idee etwas dumm war. Hab nur laut gedacht ;) Sorry Christoph signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] SOTM 2010 - feedback
Hier hat Holger Dieterich von http://wheelmap.org/ eine Zusammenfassung seiner Eindrücke von der SOTM auf Deutsch geschrieben: http://holgerd.posterous.com/ Bei der Geofabrik gibt es ebenfalls einen (sehr kurzen) Bericht: http://blog.geofabrik.de/de/?p=42 -Jonas Am 20.07.2010 um 10:06 schrieb Markus: Hallo Michael, gibt es denn schon Erfahrungs- und Erlebnisberichte? (in Deutsch) Gab es Mitschnitte von Veranstaltungen? Wo kann man sich diese anschauen/hören? Gruss, Markus ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenz - warum nicht individuell?
Hallo, Christoph Wagner wrote: Wurde denn hier mal ernsthaft über PD diskutiert und das als Möglichkeit gesehen? PD bietet maximale Rechtssicherheit, maximale Freiheit und kommt damit meiner Intention bei OSM mitzumachen am nächsten. Ja, deswegen finden PD auch viele Leute gut. Unter anderem die halbe Mannschaft der License Working Group, nachdem sie sich jetzt lang genug mit den Alternativen herumschlagen durften. Der Trend ist etwa so: Jeder, der sich nicht richtig damit beschaeftigt hat, ist fuer Share-Alike, weil das auf dem Papier gut klingt (Stichwort man will sich ja nicht ausbeuten lassen usw.). Je mehr er sich mit Einzelfaellen beschaeftigt (ist dies und das jetzt noch erlaubt oder schon nicht mehr, was genau muss man tun um jenes zu erreichen, was passiert, wenn jemand in den USA dies macht und die Daten dann jemandem in Korea gibt, der dann eine Diskette in der Bahn liegen laesst und jemand anders findet sie...), ist er geneigt, zu sagen: Leute, lasst uns einfach PD machen und gut is'. Warum müssen eigentlich alle Mapper mit der selben Lizenz beitragen? Grundsaetzlich ist dual licensing keine schlechte Idee, das wird auch andernorts oft gemacht. Bei uns ist es natuerlich eine grosse technische Herausforderung, weil Objekte so stark voneinander abhaengen. Wenn jemand eine Strasse als Public Domain anlegt und ein anderer sie als ODbL weiterbearbeitet, dann muesste jemand, der eine Public Domain-Karte anfordert, praktisch die alte Version der Strasse sehen, die dann vielleicht nicht zu anderen Dingen passt, usw. Ich wuerde das aber auch begruessen, wenn es moeglich waere, praktisch eine Public Domain-Sicht auf die Karte zu haben, in der alles ausgeblendet wird, was mit Restriktionen belegt ist. Allerdings ist das derzeit nicht vorgesehen. Die ODbL schuetzt auch ungeschuetzte Elemente in der Datenbank, also hilft es niemandem was, wenn ich sage mein Beitrag ist PD - als Teil der Datenbank ist er trotzdem von der ODbL abgedeckt. Bye Frederik ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Behindertenparkplatz
Hallo Liste, hallo Thomas, hallo Dietmar! Wie sollen diese Parkplätze getagged werden? Gegen amenity=parking capacity=1 capacity:disabled=1 sprechen meiner Meinung nach vorallem zwei Dinge: - Häufig stehen diese Parkplätze einzeln, z.B. direkt neben einem Eingang. Laut Wiki sollen mit amenity=parking aber nur grössere Parkplätze gekennzeichnet werden und nicht einzelne. - Auch wenn es nirgends explizit festgehalten ist, so verstehen sowohl die Renderer als auch die Router unter 'amenity=parking' einen Park- platz für 'normale' Autos. Ein Parkplatz für Fahrräder wird daher auch nicht mit als 'parking' mit 'capacity:bicycle=*' getagged sondern als 'amenity=bicycle_parking'. Hier ist die Lösung, die sauber funktioniert: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/More_Parking_Spaces Es wird getaggt: amenity=parking capacity=1 capacity:disabled=1 und optional: capacity:standard=0 So funktioniert es sauber und widerspruchsfrei. Daher: Irgendwelche Einwände gegen amenity=disabled_parking capacity=1 Ja. Mit dem bestehenden Tagging ist alles möglich, was Du machen willst. Ja, da hab ich auch was dagegen. Tipp: Immer erst mal im Wiki nachlesen, was es schon gibt. Die Sachen sind da schon diskutiert. Gruß Lulu-Ann -- GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01 ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreckgespenst Datenverlust
Am 20.07.2010 10:53, schrieb Frederik Ramm: Wird man in der odbl-DB die durch Nicht-Übernahme entstandenen Lücken durch abmalen von einem Old-Mapnik-WMS-Layer beheben dürfen ? Nein. Hmmm, OSM-neu wird also nicht von OSM-alt (der freien Weltkarte) abmalen dürfen lustich. Gibt es denn schon Aussagen zur Schmerzgrenze, also wieviel Prozent Datenverlust ist man bereit zu akzeptieren? Chris ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Zum 1000. mal - Hausnummern und Stra ßennamen?
Am Dienstag 20 Juli 2010, 13:48:50 schrieb Ulf Lamping: Mir ist aber bewußt, daß Relationen (inherent) eine zusätzliche Komplexität aufbauen, die man nur dann aufbauen sollte, wenn es wirklich notwendig ist (also z.B. eine Abbildung über Tags noch komplexer wäre). Wo ist es denn deiner Meinung nach zu viel des Guten? Ich bin noch unschlüssig, wie ich die Routen-Relationen a la B 123 finde, aber alle anderen Routen-Typen die ich hier bei mir bisher gesehen habe finde ich sinnvoll (z.B. Buslinien, Grenzen, Multipolygone) und schwer bis gar nicht durch reines Tagging ersetzbar. Abbiegerelationen sind meiner Meinung nach ohne Relationen auch nicht zu machen aber für den aktuellen Zweck sind sie zu fragil definiert, da stimme ich dir zu. Werden aber auch nicht wirklich so sehr häufig benutzt, ich hab noch nie eine gesehen. Da eine größere Straße in einer größeren Stadt mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit einer Busroute, einer Rad-Route oder ähnlichem angehört, kommt man nicht drum herum, irgendwelchen Relationen zu begegnen. Wenn man aber sagt: Wenn ich eine Straße auftrenne, die vorher Teil einer Route war, dann sind nachher eben beide Teile in der Route, dann ist das so trivial, dass JOSM das richtig macht und es ist so trivial, dass man das verstehen kann. Leider kommt vor dem nüchternen Betrachten und ach, so kompliziert ist das ja gar nicht hier zu oft das kollektive Anti-Relationen-FUD und plötzlich denken alle, Relationen wären etwas komplexes. Gruß, Bernd -- Homer Simpson: Jetzt sei doch nicht so betrübt über Krustys Tod. Tagtäglich sterben viele Menschen. Das ist doch ganz normal. Vielleicht wachst auch Du morgen früh tot auf. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreckgespenst Datenverlust
Am Dienstag 20 Juli 2010, 14:38:11 schrieb Chris66: Hmmm, OSM-neu wird also nicht von OSM-alt (der freien Weltkarte) abmalen dürfen lustich. Findest du es genau so lustig, dass TeleAtlas und Navteq nicht bei uns abmalen dürfen? Sind ja auch nur Kartendienste mit anderer Lizenz. Gruß, Bernd -- Hoffnung ist nur ein Mangel an Information. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Radweg oder nicht Radweg?
Am Dienstag 20 Juli 2010, 13:26:36 schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: wobei mit path (bzw. designated/official?) ja eine Variante zur Verfügung steht, die das genauer abbilden kann, und daher verwendet werden sollte. Ich will keine neue Diskussion darüber anfangen sondern frage ganz nüchtern: Wie taggst du einen Radweg mit Fußgänger frei und wie einen Fußweg mit Radfahrer frei unter verwendung von path und welches ist der Mehrwert zu dem von dir schon gut beschriebenen alten Tagging? Gruß, Bernd -- Zuviel Freizeit kann dazu führen, daß die Menschen in Zukunft dazu übergehen, das zu tun, was sie schon immer gern getan haben, nämlich sich gegenseitig umzubringen. - Alexander Mitscherlich (dt. Psychoanalytiker und Sozialpsychologe) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
