date:20100812

- Original Message - 
From: Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org; 
David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net

Cc: OSMF License Working Group le...@osmfoundation.org
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions on the Contributors Term

At 12:02 PM 11/08/2010, David Groom wrote:
2) Where does PD data (mainly TIGER, NHS, NPS, NAIP imagery, USGS 
imagery) fall with regards to contributor terms, specifically You have 
**explicit** permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents 
and grant the licence below?'

The general answer is that PD licenses, and
specifically the terms under which US government
releases data, allow any use. That gives you
explicit permission to submit the data.

Not in my opinion it doesn't.  In my opinion it gives you **permission**, 
or it gives you **implicit** permission, but it does not give you 
**explicit** permission

I raised this point on this list on 20 July 2010 and got no answer, so 
last week I emailed the Licence Working Group to raise this point with 
them.

David

David,

Sorry if I have not answered you, it must have been someone else with the 
same question.

Please would someone else from the License Working Group verify my memory 
as it is an important point:

We made the same question as you to our legal counsel when we reviewed his 
initial draft and asked if we could change/remove it, particularly as, 
like you, we felt it confusing.  Our understanding was that it would be a 
very bad idea. The realm of implicit permission being unclear and falling 
into the realm of Well, you did not say I couldn't kill you.

As I recall, the rationale is:

If a license allows anyone any use, that is explicit permission -- 
Anyone is a set including  You --  You have explicit permission.

I also have to draft a question on OS StreetView to our legal counsel, and 
will be happy to include this for double verification.

Mike

Mike

Thank you for your reply.

The CT terms state You represent and warrant that You have explicit 
permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents and grant the 
license below.

To my mind explicit permission would require both that :

a) the permission was explicitly given to me;
b) that the permission given explicitly mentioned the ability to submit the 
Contents [to OSM] and grant the license below.

Given that the sort of instances I have been talking about, such as PD data, 
or data with general CC-BY-SA clauses do not cover points (a) or (b) above 
you may see why I have difficulty in thinking I can agree to the CT terms.

If there is legal opinion on this it would be helpful if it were published 
so that it would help those like me who have concerns about our ability to 
agree to the CT as currently worded.

David

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM-legal-talk] Contributor terms (was : decision removing data:

2010-08-12 Per discussione Liz

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Mike Collinson wrote:
 At 02:58 PM 12/08/2010, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
 PS: I'd be interested to know if the current CTs have had any legal
 review from OSMF's lawyers...
 
 Yes. Our initial desire was to have something very short, more in-line with
 what is now the summary [1]  but they were re-written professionally ...
 and came back, well, much longer.  We then worked compressing it to the
 minimum and had each small change explicitly reviewed. A number of changes
 were also proposed by kind folks on this list and were subjected to the
 same review.
 
 Mike
 
 [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary
 

the output you get from a lawyer is dependent on the input
so you ask a question and the lawyer answers that question.

we can't decide anything  about the lawyer's contributions unless we know what 
the original questions were.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:

 Yahoo aerial imagery is supplied under some terms (sorry too lazy to look them
 up right now). Sometime in the past someone(s) from within the OSM project
 asked them if tracing from those images to make a map was possible within
 those terms. They answered: Yes, this is possible.
 
 Now can somebody explain to me why this would not be explicit permission?

I think you could find your answer on the wiki :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Yahoo#Legalities

Here, in France, one of the admin office that handle cadastre give
OSM-Fr the right to use they map layer the same way and it's legal and
got an explicit permission too :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Cadastre_Français/Condit
ions_d%27utilisation
(sorry, only in french)

-- 
Pierre-Alain Dorange


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] ODBL vote (was Re: Enough is enough: d isinfecting OSM from poisonous people)

2010-08-12 Per discussione Jukka Rahkonen

Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatrails at gmail.com writes:

 
 hi,
 after checking the 'in addition make pd' box, is there a way to
 'uncheck' that box if we change are mind at a later date? say, if i
 discover more information that would make me change my mind.
 
 (i can with google photos, as an example)
 
 thanks,
 sam

Does the phrase you consider your edits to be in the Public Domain has any
real meaning? Can somebody download data which are only edited by PD minded
people from the main OSM database and use those for any purpose?

If the answer is yes then changing your mind should only be possible for new
edits and by creating a new user account. Somebody may already believed you and
started to use data as PD. However, I suppose that checking the PD box is only a
declaration and will not really allow anybody to use parts of the OSM database
as PD. Thus it would not harm anybody if you could change your PD considerations
whenever you want.





___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Contributor Terms

2010-08-12 Per discussione Martin Fossdal Guttesen


i followed  the link under my settings

Contributor Terms: You have not yet agreed to the new Contributor Terms.
Please follow this link at your convenience to review and accept the new 
Contributor Terms.


in the top paragraph there is this section

“Please read the following terms and conditions carefully and click either 
the 'Accept' or 'Decline' button at the bottom to continue.”


i can’t find either a “Accept” or “Decline” button, just a “Agree” button

what to do ?

/Martin F. G. 



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

2010-08-12 Per discussione Mike Collinson

As promised, and long awaited, the next phase of the OSM License Upgrade has
arrived. Phase 2 - Existing Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing [1] has begun,
and you may indicate your acceptance of the new Contributor Terms for your
existing OSM API account. To accept the terms visit
http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms, (you may be asked to login first), or your
user settings page.

There is no decline button, and no obligation to answer yet. Existing
Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing is for those who wish to accept the terms
and get on with mapping.

We'll be publishing which users have accepted so that we can all see the
progress in terms of users and re-licensed data.

We hope that you will accept the new Contributor Terms [2] and ODbL for each of
your user accounts if you have more than one.

** Why are we doing it like this? **

** Some supporting notes: **

() The key thing is that there are about 12,500 contributors who have
contributed over 98% of the pre-May data.

() The License Working Group will ask the OSMF board to issue a similar
statement.

() A final vote on whether to switch or not remains an option. But let us see
first if data loss really is an issue and what the specific problems might be.

Regards to all,
Mike
License Working Group

[1]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan#PHASE_2_-_Existing_Contributor_Voluntary_Re-licensing_.28started_10th_August_2010.29

[2] The new Contributor Terms:

http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary - Summary

http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms - Full text and
links to translations

[3] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_76gwvhpcx3 License Working Group
minutes, see Item 7 ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributor Terms

2010-08-12 Per discussione Peter Körner


Am 12.08.2010 10:18, schrieb Martin Fossdal Guttesen:

i followed  the link under my settings

i can’t find either a “Accept” or “Decline” button, just a “Agree” button

what to do ?

Leave it unchecked, close the browser page or go one page back.

Peter

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation

2010-08-12 Per discussione TimSC

On 11/08/10 21:56, Liz wrote:

There are a list of questions which have not been answered whether on osmf-
talk or legal-talk or talk.

I also find that is a problem with the mailing list, and when I contact
the working groups. No definitive answer is provided, usually the
discussion gets distracted to a side issue. Some answers are simply
delayed because they depend on future events, and are not anyones fault.
But for questions which have been addressed, I hope people will begin to
reference the appropriate archived discussion to reduce repetition. This
seemed to be a key point on that google talk on youtube that SteveC
referenced [2].

Fortunately, the principle of assume good faith has appeared in the
draft code of conduct. If someone raises a repeatedly raises a question,
please assume they are sincere until they have been directed to the
appropriate place in the archives.

I am now considering OSMF as an annoying third party which has interspersed
itself between myself and OSM. I have no original contract of any form between
myself and OSMF.

In the Subversion project (to use the google talk's example [2]),
discussions may begin privately and are then moved to the public forum.
Decisions are taken by consensus of all contributors in the public
forum. This is different from OSMF's approach, particularly with respect
to relicensing [3]. OSMF's committee approach is appropriate for very
complex issues, but as much as possible should be done in a broader
forum (if necessary, lead by respected community members). I think OSMF
and the LWG are working with good intentions, I just don't agree with
their methods on occasion.

But the role of OSMF is to support OSM [1]. By moderating the forums
within well defined guidelines, I think they are fulfilling that role. I
am not sure why the title Benevolent Dictator For Life is needed to
moderate the forums. I would appreciate knowing what are the limits of
this power? I expect it doesn't include the ability to override
established OSM procedure. Perhaps the title OSM discussion moderator
might be more appropriate, and enables SteveC to pass it along if necessary.

TimSC

[1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Main_Page
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE
[3]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Questions_to_LWG_on_ODbL#Response_from_Mike_Collinson_on_ODbL_Adoption

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributor Terms

2010-08-12 Per discussione Tom Hughes


On 12/08/10 09:18, Martin Fossdal Guttesen wrote:


in the top paragraph there is this section

“Please read the following terms and conditions carefully and click
either the 'Accept' or 'Decline' button at the bottom to continue.”

i can’t find either a “Accept” or “Decline” button, just a “Agree” button


Sorry, that's an artefact from the page being used for new users as well.

The decline button is not there for existing users because there is no 
point in it being there - at the moment agreeing to the terms is 
entirely voluntary for existing users so there is nothing to decline as 
you just don't go to the page and agree if you don't want to sign up.


I'll see what I can do about getting the text changed...

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation

Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:

  So the newbies have chosen to join this mailing list, so they at least have
  seen the list of mailinglists. Why didn't they join legal? or dev= because
  they're not interested in those topics, they have enough to do with mapping
  their village.
 
 Perhaps they don't realize the legal discussions have a good change of
 resulting in some of the data from their village disappearing. I know
 I didn't.

How data in my village disappeared ?
We've used totally legal sources compatible with OSM.
I'm one of the most quantity data creator (in my town) and i realesed
all my adds/modification as PD...

-- 
Pierre-Alain Dorange


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

On 12 August 2010 09:18, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
As promised, and long awaited, the next phase of the OSM License Upgrade has
arrived. Phase 2 - Existing Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing [1] has
begun, and you may indicate your acceptance of the new Contributor Terms for
your existing OSM API account. To accept the terms visit
http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms, (you may be asked to login first), or
your user settings page.

There is no decline button, and no obligation to answer yet. Existing
Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing is for those who wish to accept the terms
and get on with mapping.

We'll be publishing which users have accepted so that we can all see the
progress in terms of users and re-licensed data.

We hope that you will accept the new Contributor Terms [2] and ODbL for each
of your user accounts if you have more than one.

** Why are we doing it like this? **

What ifs, what ifs. The key is clearly to reduce these. Those that simply
want to get on mapping and accept that we won't doing anything daft, can
sign up. Those that are worried about data loss and that the OSMF will
make a stupid decision, can wait and see. We'll show how much of the
database is potentially covered by the ODbL. We've got some help on
modelling that, and we'll aim for at least a weekly update if not daily.
We'll also make all the data available needed to calculate that, so if you
want to try a different metric or just see what is happening in your local
area, everything will be transparent.

If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new
Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike
license written especially for databases. If you are a Public Domain
license supporter, we are divided as a community on which is best and I do
urge you to give this one a good try. The Contributor Terms are expressly
written to allow us to come back in future years and see what is best
without all this fuss about procedure. And if you'd just really like all
this hoo-haa to go away and get back to mapping, well, please say yes.

** Some supporting notes: **

() The key thing is that there are about 12,500 contributors who have
contributed over 98% of the pre-May data.

() I personally really, really want to get a coherent license in place so
that my mapping efforts are more widely used. I also really, really don't
want us as a community to shoot ourselves in the head and divide. I pledge
to continue working with *both* objectives in mind.

() The License Working Group will not recommend switching over the license
if data loss is unreasonable [3]. We will issue a formal statement to that
effect and are attempting to define better what unreasonable means. A
totally quantitative criteria is extremely difficult to define ahead of
actually seeing what specific problems may arise. But I understand the
concern that we are tempted to do something wild.

() The License Working Group will ask the OSMF board to issue a similar
statement.

() We are working to create a process whereby we can model on a regular
basis how much of the OSM database is covered by ODbL and how much not. We
will make all the data needed to do that public so that anyone can analyse
using their own metrics. Work on this is active and being discussed on the
dev mailing list. You will need:

() A final vote on whether to switch or not remains an option. But let us
see first if data loss really is an issue and what the specific problems
might be.

Regards to all,
Mike
License Working Group

[1]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan#PHASE_2_-_Existing_Contributor_Voluntary_Re-licensing_.28started_10th_August_2010.29

[2] The new Contributor Terms:

It's great that this is being put to a vote so that those of us who
really are happy with the re-licensing can make that clear.

The following link (to the contributor terms summary) doesn't seem to
work. I'd like to be able to read a nice human-readable version to
clear up some questions I have.

http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary -
Summary

http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms - Full text and
links to translations

[3] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_76gwvhpcx3 License Working
Group minutes, see

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

On 12 August 2010 11:01, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote:
On 12 August 2010 09:18, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
As promised, and long awaited, the next phase of the OSM License Upgrade has
arrived. Phase 2 - Existing Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing [1] has
begun, and you may indicate your acceptance of the new Contributor Terms for
your existing OSM API account. To accept the terms visit
http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms, (you may be asked to login first), or
your user settings page.

There is no decline button, and no obligation to answer yet. Existing
Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing is for those who wish to accept the terms
and get on with mapping.

We'll be publishing which users have accepted so that we can all see the
progress in terms of users and re-licensed data.

We hope that you will accept the new Contributor Terms [2] and ODbL for each
of your user accounts if you have more than one.

** Why are we doing it like this? **

What ifs, what ifs. The key is clearly to reduce these. Those that simply
want to get on mapping and accept that we won't doing anything daft, can
sign up. Those that are worried about data loss and that the OSMF will
make a stupid decision, can wait and see. We'll show how much of the
database is potentially covered by the ODbL. We've got some help on
modelling that, and we'll aim for at least a weekly update if not daily.
We'll also make all the data available needed to calculate that, so if you
want to try a different metric or just see what is happening in your local
area, everything will be transparent.

If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new
Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike
license written especially for databases. If you are a Public Domain
license supporter, we are divided as a community on which is best and I do
urge you to give this one a good try. The Contributor Terms are expressly
written to allow us to come back in future years and see what is best
without all this fuss about procedure. And if you'd just really like all
this hoo-haa to go away and get back to mapping, well, please say yes.

** Some supporting notes: **

() The key thing is that there are about 12,500 contributors who have
contributed over 98% of the pre-May data.

() I personally really, really want to get a coherent license in place so
that my mapping efforts are more widely used. I also really, really don't
want us as a community to shoot ourselves in the head and divide. I pledge
to continue working with *both* objectives in mind.

() The License Working Group will not recommend switching over the license
if data loss is unreasonable [3]. We will issue a formal statement to that
effect and are attempting to define better what unreasonable means. A
totally quantitative criteria is extremely difficult to define ahead of
actually seeing what specific problems may arise. But I understand the
concern that we are tempted to do something wild.

() The License Working Group will ask the OSMF board to issue a similar
statement.

() We are working to create a process whereby we can model on a regular
basis how much of the OSM database is covered by ODbL and how much not. We
will make all the data needed to do that public so that anyone can analyse
using their own metrics. Work on this is active and being discussed on the
dev mailing list. You will need:

() A final vote on whether to switch or not remains an option. But let us
see first if data loss really is an issue and what the specific problems
might be.

Regards to all,
Mike
License Working Group

[1]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan#PHASE_2_-_Existing_Contributor_Voluntary_Re-licensing_.28started_10th_August_2010.29

[2] The new Contributor Terms:

It's great that this is being put to a vote so that those of us who
really are happy with the re-licensing can make that clear.

The following link (to the contributor terms summary) doesn't seem to
work. I'd like to be able to read a nice human-readable version to
clear up some questions I have.

http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary -
Summary

http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms - Full text and
links to translations

[3]

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

2010-08-12 Per discussione Peteris Krisjanis

What can I do I agree to relicense my stuff under ODbL, but I can't
agree with CT Section 3? I hoped LWG will think about removing it, but
it seems that relicensing is already started without investigating
complain about section 3.

Cheers,
Peter.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

On 12 August 2010 11:18, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
 What can I do I agree to relicense my stuff under ODbL, but I can't
 agree with CT Section 3? I hoped LWG will think about removing it, but
 it seems that relicensing is already started without investigating
 complain about section 3.

I assume you're worried about the the potential license
incompatibility caused _if_ the OSMF (along with a 2/3 majority of
contributors) decided to change the license to a non-SA license when
your data (perhaps from imports) has an SA requirement? If so then I
guess that it simply means that since there is an incompatibility then
the non-SA license cannot be used (i.e. it _can't/won't_ be voted in)
or the incompatible data will be removed.

No-one is going to violate any licenses (if that's what the supplies
of the imported data are worried about) since legally we _can't_. That
clause is simply there so that we have flexibility in the future to
re-license without so much of a hoo-ha as this time :)

-- 
Matt Williams
http://milliams.com

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] ODBL vote (was Re: Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people)

2010-08-12 Per discussione Sam Vekemans

Thanks,
So we have clarified my question. (2 responses on the main talk list
and some IRC chat), but because of the bulk messages, it might have
gotten lost)

It is clear that there are 2 separate questions being asked.

The 1st part is a 'yes i agree' only answer  ... which is fine.   In
order to keep working on OSM, it's what has to be done.  ('accept' or
'decline', where 'decline' would ask the question again)

The 2nd is a choice of preference with a check box.   So it's is
wonderful that im given a choice on weather or no to check that box
(thank you).   So my question is weather or not, at a later date,  I
can change my choice (based on new information which would want me to
change my mind).?

Hopefully, the answer is yes.  I can change my choice at a later date.
  Although the preference is still not binding, the choice can be
changed, as it is a 'preference', and therefore, should not not be
part of the contributor terms page.   As the Contributor terms is the
single document that everyone needs to agree to.

And here's the specific recommendation.

Remove (or copy) the question, and place it in the user preferences.

In the user preferences, currently it states.

Preferred Languages:en-US,en   (was my choice)
Public editing:  Enabled. Not anonymous and can edit data. (what is 
this?)
Contributor Terms:  You have not yet agreed to the new Contributor 
Terms.(link)

Having the 2nd and 3rd line switched with the change to

Preferred Languages:en-US,en   (was my choice)
Contributor Terms:  Thank you.  You have agreed to the Contributor 
Terms.(link)
License preference for user contributions : (note: checking the
PD box is only a declaration and will not really allow anybody to use
parts of the OSM database as PD)
A - ODBL - (Open Database License - as currently in place)
B - CC-BY  - whatever that is.
C - PD - Public domain (could apply only to original/non modified
edits or other PD edits in a complete PD database)
D - Unsure of License Preference
E - Other license: user defined:   (where the user can type in
the preference)

This way, it will both help the foundation with receiving a constant
survey of what the contributors would 'prefer' if given the choice at
a later date, as well as help the contributor in knowing that the
foundation is aware of what their preference is, as well as help other
users know what preferences others made.

Obviously, the actual choices could be simplified to just moving the
statement into this preference section as it's already stated.
In addition to ODbl i declare my contributions Public Domain (check)

So in sum, I cant agree to the terms, because i need to make that
unrelated decision (which appears to be currently non-changeable)...
where i am unsure if i should change the PD decision at a later date.

 Thanks,
Sam

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

2010-08-12 Per discussione Dave F.


 On 12/08/2010 09:18, Mike Collinson wrote:
As promised, and long awaited, the next phase of the OSM License 
Upgrade has arrived. Phase 2...


Am I going blind? I can see no 'decline' button, only 'accept'.

Obviously users can just close the page, but that doesn't give a clear 
representation on how people vote.


Dave F.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] ODBL vote (was Re: Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people)

2010-08-12 Per discussione Richard Fairhurst


[Apologies for continuing cross-post, please follow-up to OSM legal-talk.]

Sam Vekemans wrote:


So my question is weather or not, at a later date,  I
can change my choice (based on new information which would want me to
change my mind).?


As a general point, if you declare that something is public domain  
(say, by a CC0 declaration), you can't reverse it  
_for_that_particular_work_. You have already granted rights for people  
to distribute it without infringing.


You can, of course, declare that your future works will be licensed  
differently.


In the specific case of the OSM database, if you wanted to start doing  
this, you would probably need to establish a per-object licensing  
flag. This would require significant code changes and I assume you're  
not volunteering to do that.


I would suggest therefore that the best way to do that is for you to  
maintain two accounts, one PD and one not. Certainly this is what I  
intend to do, so that I can use the latter for any future substantial  
mapping from attribution-required sources (e.g. OS OpenData). That  
said, substantial mapping if you haven't been there is bad anyway. ;)


cheers
Richard (official OSM PITAFL)


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

On 12 August 2010 11:39, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
  On 12/08/2010 09:18, Mike Collinson wrote:

 As promised, and long awaited, the next phase of the OSM License Upgrade
 has arrived. Phase 2...

 Am I going blind? I can see no 'decline' button, only 'accept'.

 Obviously users can just close the page, but that doesn't give a clear
 representation on how people vote.

As Mike said, There is no decline button, and no obligation to answer
yet.  Existing Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing is for those who
wish to accept the terms and get on with mapping. Also there is a
discussion of this going on in the ODbL Vote thread.

-- 
Matt Williams
http://milliams.com

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begin

2010-08-12 Per discussione Markus

On 12 August 2010 11:18, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:

 What can I do I agree to relicense my stuff under ODbL, but I can't

 agree with CT Section 3? I hoped LWG will think about removing it, but

 it seems that relicensing is already started without investigating

 complain about section 3.

 

I assume you're worried about the the potential license

incompatibility caused _if_ the OSMF (along with a 2/3 majority of

contributors) decided to change the license to a non-SA license when

your data (perhaps from imports) has an SA requirement? If so then I

guess that it simply means that since there is an incompatibility then

the non-SA license cannot be used (i.e. it _can't/won't_ be voted in)

or the incompatible data will be removed.

 

No-one is going to violate any licenses (if that's what the supplies

of the imported data are worried about) since legally we _can't_. That

clause is simply there so that we have flexibility in the future to

re-license without so much of a hoo-ha as this time :)

 

 

Why couldn't this be added to CT Section 3 saying.

 

 

If the OSMF does decide to change the licence, any existing data that may
then not be compatible will need to be removed.

 

Markus_g

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begin

On 12 August 2010 11:58, Markus marku...@bigpond.com wrote:
 On 12 August 2010 11:18, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:

 What can I do I agree to relicense my stuff under ODbL, but I can't

 agree with CT Section 3? I hoped LWG will think about removing it, but

 it seems that relicensing is already started without investigating

 complain about section 3.



 I assume you're worried about the the potential license

 incompatibility caused _if_ the OSMF (along with a 2/3 majority of

 contributors) decided to change the license to a non-SA license when

 your data (perhaps from imports) has an SA requirement? If so then I

 guess that it simply means that since there is an incompatibility then

 the non-SA license cannot be used (i.e. it _can't/won't_ be voted in)

 or the incompatible data will be removed.



 No-one is going to violate any licenses (if that's what the supplies

 of the imported data are worried about) since legally we _can't_. That

 clause is simply there so that we have flexibility in the future to

 re-license without so much of a hoo-ha as this time :)





 Why couldn’t this be added to CT Section 3 saying.

 If the OSMF does decide to change the licence, any existing data that may
 then not be compatible will need to be removed.

Perhaps you're right. However, I would recommend that if you have any
suggestions of improvements to the CTs then you bring them up on
legal-t...@osm.org or contact the LWG (whichever is best for them).

-- 
Matt Williams
http://milliams.com

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] ODBL vote (was Re: Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people)

2010-08-12 Per discussione Sam Vekemans

Thread closed:

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 [Apologies for continuing cross-post, please follow-up to OSM legal-talk.]

 Sam Vekemans wrote:

 So my question is weather or not, at a later date,  I
 can change my choice (based on new information which would want me to
 change my mind).?

 As a general point, if you declare that something is public domain (say,
 by a CC0 declaration), you can't reverse it _for_that_particular_work_. You
 have already granted rights for people to distribute it without infringing.

 You can, of course, declare that your future works will be licensed
 differently.

 In the specific case of the OSM database, if you wanted to start doing this,
 you would probably need to establish a per-object licensing flag. This would
 require significant code changes and I assume you're not volunteering to do
 that.

 I would suggest therefore that the best way to do that is for you to
 maintain two accounts, one PD and one not. Certainly this is what I intend
 to do, so that I can use the latter for any future substantial mapping from
 attribution-required sources (e.g. OS OpenData). That said, substantial
 mapping if you haven't been there is bad anyway. ;)

 cheers
 Richard (official OSM PITAFL)



Thanks, I have 2 accounts and can easily make the preference clear in
my user profile description.

So this solves the issue,

Thanks,
Sam

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins


To all contributors.

I'm sorry to have to urge you to not agree to the CT terms, but please 
consider the points below.  Please note that this is not a question of 
whether ODBL is the right way to proceed, but is merely comments on the 
current contributor terms which you are being asked to agree to.


1)   The last sentence of clause (1) of the contributor terms requires YOU 
to have EXPLICIT permission from the rights holder.  Please consider if you 
have this EXPLICIT permission, if you do not have it then  you CAN NOT agree 
to the contributor terms


2) There is a large amount of contributors who have traced imagery from 
sources such as Yahoo, NearMap, or who have used data sources which requires 
CC-BY-SA  .  If you have used any of these sources , and you have not had 
express permission from the rights holder to re-licence under the current 
terms of the Contributor Terms, then you CAN NOT agree to the contributor 
terms


Regards

David Groom

- Original Message - 
From: Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz

To: OpenStreetMap Talk talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 9:18 AM
Subject: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins


As promised, and long awaited, the next phase of the OSM License Upgrade 
has arrived. Phase 2 - Existing Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing  [1] 
has begun, and you may indicate your acceptance of the new Contributor 
Terms for your existing OSM API account.  To accept the terms visit 
http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms, (you may be asked to login first), 
or your user settings page.


Please note that OpenStreetMap is not changing the license on any 
published data at this point.  Existing contributors are being asked to 
permit re-licensing of their data in the future when it makes sense to do 
so.


There is no decline button, and no obligation to answer yet.  Existing 
Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing is for those who wish to accept the 
terms and get on with mapping.


We'll be publishing which users have accepted so that we can all see the 
progress in terms of users and re-licensed data.


We hope that you will accept the new Contributor Terms [2] and ODbL for 
each of your user accounts if you have more than one.




** Why are we doing it like this? **


What ifs, what ifs. The key is clearly to reduce these. Those that simply 
want to get on mapping and accept that we won't doing anything daft, can 
sign up.Those that are worried about data loss and that the OSMF will 
make a stupid decision,  can wait and see.  We'll show how much of the 
database is potentially covered by the ODbL. We've got some help on 
modelling that, and we'll aim for at least a weekly update if not daily. 
We'll also make all the data available needed to calculate that, so if 
you want to try a different metric or just see what is happening in your 
local area, everything will be transparent.


If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new 
Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike 
license written especially for databases.  If you are a Public Domain 
license supporter, we are divided as a community on which is best and I 
do urge you to give this one a good try.  The Contributor Terms are 
expressly written to allow us to come back in future years and see what 
is best without all this fuss about procedure.  And if you'd just really 
like all this hoo-haa to go away and get back to mapping, well, please 
say yes.




** Some supporting notes:  **


() The key thing is that there are about 12,500 contributors who have 
contributed over 98% of the pre-May data.


() I personally really, really want to get a coherent license in place so 
that my mapping efforts are more widely used. I also really, really don't 
want us as a community to shoot ourselves in the head and divide.  I 
pledge to continue working with *both* objectives in mind.


() The License Working Group will not recommend switching over the 
license if data loss is unreasonable [3]. We will issue a formal 
statement to that effect and are attempting to define better what 
unreasonable means. A totally quantitative criteria is extremely 
difficult to define ahead of actually seeing what specific problems may 
arise. But I understand the concern that we are tempted to do something 
wild.


() The License Working Group will ask the OSMF board to issue a similar 
statement.


() We are working to create a process whereby we can model on a regular 
basis how much of the OSM database is covered by ODbL and how much not. 
We will make all the data needed to do that public so that anyone can 
analyse using their own metrics. Work on this is active and being 
discussed on the dev mailing list. You will need:


- An ordinary planet dump.
- Access to history data. A public 18GB history dump is available 
http://planet.openstreetmap.org/full-experimental/full-planet-100801.osm.bz2. 
The intent is to make this available on a regular basis with difffs. A

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

2010-08-12 Per discussione Brian Quinion

 I really want to be able to click 'Agree' and 'make it PD' but section
 1 worries me as it states that I agree to only add Contents for which
 [I am] the copyright holder. This seems to preclude me being able to
 add any data I've imported from an outside source (like tracing from
 OS Street View) since, while the license is compatible (given OS
 attribution), I am not the copyright holder. Am I just
 misunderstanding the legal talk in the CTs or is this sort of
 importing currently unacceptable under the CTs?

 Never mind. It appears that I somehow managed to miss the bit that
 said If You are not the copyright holder of the Contents, You
 represent and warrant that You have explicit permission from the
 rights holder to submit the Contents and grant the license below.

Could you point to the document from OS that gives explicit
permission?  I would love to find such a document.

As far as I'm concerned at the moment:

I am not the copyright holder.
I do not have explicit permission (implicit permission is not the same)

So I can't sign up - and I don't think legally you were able to either :(

There is some possibility that traces are deriving data from OS
StreetView do not contain any copyrightable elements, again I'm
waiting for a written document confirming this from either OSMF (which
would accept any future liability if it turned out to be wrong) or
from the OS.

 No-one is going to violate any licenses (if that's what the supplies
 of the imported data are worried about) since legally we _can't_. That
 clause is simply there so that we have flexibility in the future to
 re-license without so much of a hoo-ha as this time :)

There is no restriction in the CT (that I can see) in terms of them
not being able to switch to a PD license.  And my reading is that as a
result of signing up to the terms you have effectually indemnified
OSMF against any consequences and agreed that you are liable if they
do.

I would be VERY happy to be wrong about any of this.
--
 Brian

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] ODBL vote (was Re: Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people)

2010-08-12 Per discussione MP

  In the specific case of the OSM database, if you wanted to start doing
 this, you would probably need to establish a per-object licensing flag. This
 would require significant code changes and I assume you're not volunteering
 to do that.

We can assume that user won't change his/her mind too often, so for
each user we need just maintain a list like:

edits from 1. 1. 2004 to 10. 12. 2008 are PD
edits from 10.12.2008 to 7. 11. 2009 are only Odbl
edits from 7. 11. 2009 to now are PD

... we get few lines in DB for this variable licensing, and not
license tag for each of user's object in database (which could be
thousands, perhaps even millions of edited primitives for very active
users)

... it is then problem of whoever wants to extract PD subset from the
data to parse this information and extract really only the PD data ...

Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] ODBL vote (was Re: Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people)

On 12 August 2010 21:06, Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com wrote:
 Thanks, I have 2 accounts and can easily make the preference clear in
 my user profile description.

Will there be a process to transfer ownership of a changeset between
accounts if data is submitted under the wrong account?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] ODBL vote (was Re: Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people)

On 12 August 2010 21:52, MP singular...@gmail.com wrote:
  In the specific case of the OSM database, if you wanted to start doing
 this, you would probably need to establish a per-object licensing flag. This
 would require significant code changes and I assume you're not volunteering
 to do that.

 We can assume that user won't change his/her mind too often, so for
 each user we need just maintain a list like:

 edits from 1. 1. 2004 to 10. 12. 2008 are PD
 edits from 10.12.2008 to 7. 11. 2009 are only Odbl
 edits from 7. 11. 2009 to now are PD

Wouldn't it be better to just add a single tag about license to the
changeset only if it differs from the users default setting?

That way people wouldn't need to change back and forth for a single
changeset every now and then.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] Deletion of Australian data

2010-08-12 Per discussione Liz

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Nick Hocking wrote:
 It seems as though if someone ran a bot to add just one tag to most of the
 streets in (say) Canberra


On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Grant Slater wrote:
 There is also a plan of action if people are found to be making these
 sorts of abusive edits.

I can immediately think of an edit which could fall into the above category, 
and it would not be classified as abusive because it did add additional 
information to the tags.

so why is such an edit assumed to be abusive
when there are clear calls for assuming that people act in good faith?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributor Terms

2010-08-12 Per discussione Julio Costa Zambelli

Peter,

Do you know what will happen if I do not agree with the CT permanently?

Cheers,

Julio Costa

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
 Am 12.08.2010 10:18, schrieb Martin Fossdal Guttesen:

 i followed  the link under my settings

 i can’t find either a “Accept” or “Decline” button, just a “Agree” button

 what to do ?

 Leave it unchecked, close the browser page or go one page back.

 Peter

 ___
 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-legal-talk] OSM-legal-talk] Contributo terms (was : decision removing data:

2010-08-12 Per discussione Tom Hughes


On 12/08/10 13:58, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:


PS: I'd be interested to know if the current CTs have had any legal
review from OSMF's lawyers...


Who do you think wrote them?!? Normal humans don't write like that!

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributor Terms

2010-08-12 Per discussione Frederik Ramm


Julio,

Julio Costa Zambelli wrote:

Do you know what will happen if I do not agree with the CT permanently?


In the long run there will be generally no room in OSM for data which 
has not been added under CT.


It is possible for OSMF to make exceptions for individual cases, e.g. if 
you have used your account to import a lot of data which comes under a 
license that is ODbL compatible but not CT compatible then it is 
possible that OSMF makes a special deal with you.


OSMF will be interested in keeping the number of such special deals 
low for two reasons:


1. Every one creates a lot of work to negotiate and set up.

2. Data which is in OSM based on such deals is a liability if OSMF 
ever wanted to do another license change. If that happens, data under 
such deals would have to be individually re-negotiated, again causing 
a lot of work, and there would be a potential data loss in the future.


I'm not saying it can't be done; I am pretty sure it will be done for 2 
or 3 or 10 cases worldwide.


Bye
Frederik

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

2010-08-12 Per discussione Tom Hughes


On 12/08/10 12:51, Brian Quinion wrote:


Could you point to the document from OS that gives explicit
permission?  I would love to find such a document.


It's here:


http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/licence/docs/licence.pdf

Unfortunately it does not, as far as I can see, allow anybody who has 
used, or plans to use, OS OpenData to sign the CTs as things stand 
because it requires:


 You must:

 *  acknowledge the copyright and the source of the Data by including any
attribution statement specified by the Data Provider. If no specific
statement is provided please use the following:

Contains [insert name of Data Provider] data © Crown copyright and
database right

 *  include the same acknowledgment requirement in any sub-licences of 
the Data
that you grant, and a requirement that any further sub-licences do 
the same;


Which is clearly in conflict with the CTs which require you to grant 
OSMF a license to sublicense any data you upload under a license of 
their choosing subject only to a constraint that the license they choose 
is open and free which clearly does not restrict their choice to 
licenses that would pass on the attribution requirement.


Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

2010-08-12 Per discussione Brian Quinion

On 12 August 2010 14:37, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
 On 12/08/10 12:51, Brian Quinion wrote:

 Could you point to the document from OS that gives explicit
 permission?  I would love to find such a document.

 It's here:

 http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/licence/docs/licence.pdf

 Unfortunately it does not, as far as I can see, allow anybody who has used,
 or plans to use, OS OpenData to sign the CTs as things stand because it
 requires:

 You must:

 *  acknowledge the copyright and the source of the Data by including any
    attribution statement specified by the Data Provider. If no specific
    statement is provided please use the following:

    Contains [insert name of Data Provider] data Š Crown copyright and
    database right

 *  include the same acknowledgment requirement in any sub-licences of the
 Data
    that you grant, and a requirement that any further sub-licences do the
 same;

 Which is clearly in conflict with the CTs which require you to grant OSMF a
 license to sublicense any data you upload under a license of their choosing
 subject only to a constraint that the license they choose is open and free
 which clearly does not restrict their choice to licenses that would pass on
 the attribution requirement.

Yes this was exactly the issue I was referring to, the compatibility
between the OS OpenData License and the Contributor Terms.

Thanks for clarify this rather better than I did!

Cheers,
--
 Brian

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

2010-08-12 Per discussione Richard Fairhurst


Tom Hughes wrote:
 Which is clearly in conflict with the CTs which require you to 
 grant OSMF a license to sublicense any data you upload under 
 a license of their choosing subject only to a constraint that 
 the license they choose is open and free which clearly does 
 not restrict their choice to licenses that would pass on the 
 attribution requirement.

Indeed.

New BDFL guidelines prevent me from restating what I've said before, i.e.
that this would be fixed by replacing the unlimited licence upgrade clause
(3) with a CC-BY-SA or ODbL only clause. So I won't. :)

I understand from LWG minutes that LWG has unfortunately chosen not to take
this suggestion up.

However, it is still open to LWG to qualify free and open with with an
attribution requirement (perhaps subject to such attribution requirement
being approved by OSMF on a case-by-case basis). It's been suggested that
LWG is considering this, although it hasn't made it into the minutes.

Mike, could you:

- clarify whether or not LWG is considering this;
- and consider this e-mail as a request to add such a qualification, as
quickly as possible.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Voluntary-re-licensing-begins-tp5415293p5416193.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributor Terms

2010-08-12 Per discussione Julio Costa Zambelli

Thank you Frederik.

That is our exact case. All of the suburban highways data was imported
with two personal accounts (long time ago, with no knowledge of the
best practices for those kind of processes).

Do you know who will be managing this inside the Foundation?

Best Regards,

Julio Costa

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Julio,

 Julio Costa Zambelli wrote:

 Do you know what will happen if I do not agree with the CT permanently?

 In the long run there will be generally no room in OSM for data which has
 not been added under CT.

 It is possible for OSMF to make exceptions for individual cases, e.g. if you
 have used your account to import a lot of data which comes under a license
 that is ODbL compatible but not CT compatible then it is possible that OSMF
 makes a special deal with you.

 OSMF will be interested in keeping the number of such special deals low
 for two reasons:

 1. Every one creates a lot of work to negotiate and set up.

 2. Data which is in OSM based on such deals is a liability if OSMF ever
 wanted to do another license change. If that happens, data under such
 deals would have to be individually re-negotiated, again causing a lot of
 work, and there would be a potential data loss in the future.

 I'm not saying it can't be done; I am pretty sure it will be done for 2 or 3
 or 10 cases worldwide.

 Bye
 Frederik


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation

2010-08-12 Per discussione Nathan Edgars II



Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
 
 How data in my village disappeared ?
 We've used totally legal sources compatible with OSM.
 I'm one of the most quantity data creator (in my town) and i realesed
 all my adds/modification as PD...
 
If any of the other people who mapped your village don't agree to the terms,
their data will disappear. That includes any data of theirs that you
modified.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/BDFL-Moderation-tp5413369p5416449.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Replication stopped

2010-08-12 Per discussione Toby Murray

I was just trying to figure out why a lake I traced last night hadn't
been rendered yet. After double checking tagging, relationing, etc I
finally looked at munin[1] and noticed that yevaud stopped getting
diffs almost 10 hours ago. Also, looking at the OWL status page[2], it
isn't getting diffs either. I don't see any notices on the platform
status wiki page. Anyone know what's up (or down...)?

[1] 
http://munin.openstreetmap.org/openstreetmap/yevaud.openstreetmap/replication_delay2.html
[2] http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/owl_viewer/

Toby

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Replication stopped

2010-08-12 Per discussione Shalabh

Not sure whats wrong but a couple of streams I mapped 4-5 hours ago
are not rendering as yet.

Shalabh

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
 I was just trying to figure out why a lake I traced last night hadn't
 been rendered yet. After double checking tagging, relationing, etc I
 finally looked at munin[1] and noticed that yevaud stopped getting
 diffs almost 10 hours ago. Also, looking at the OWL status page[2], it
 isn't getting diffs either. I don't see any notices on the platform
 status wiki page. Anyone know what's up (or down...)?

 [1] 
 http://munin.openstreetmap.org/openstreetmap/yevaud.openstreetmap/replication_delay2.html
 [2] http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/owl_viewer/

 Toby

 ___
 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] Voluntary re-licensing begins

2010-08-12 Per discussione Cartinus

On Thursday 12 August 2010 13:45:49 David Groom wrote:
 1)   The last sentence of clause (1) of the contributor terms requires YOU
 to have EXPLICIT permission from the rights holder.  Please consider if you
 have this EXPLICIT permission, if you do not have it then  you CAN NOT
 agree to the contributor terms

 2) There is a large amount of contributors who have traced imagery from
 sources such as Yahoo

Yahoo aerial imagery is supplied under some terms (sorry too lazy to look them 
up right now). Sometime in the past someone(s) from within the OSM project 
asked them if tracing from those images to make a map was possible within 
those terms. They answered: Yes, this is possible.

Now can somebody explain to me why this would not be explicit permission?

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

P.S. English is not my native language and legal English, legal German, etc is 
like Chinese to me.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Replication stopped

2010-08-12 Per discussione Grant Slater

On 12 August 2010 17:29, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
 I was just trying to figure out why a lake I traced last night hadn't
 been rendered yet. After double checking tagging, relationing, etc I
 finally looked at munin[1] and noticed that yevaud stopped getting
 diffs almost 10 hours ago. Also, looking at the OWL status page[2], it
 isn't getting diffs either. I don't see any notices on the platform
 status wiki page. Anyone know what's up (or down...)?


Yevaud (tile.openstreetmap.org) problem has now been fixed and should
start catching up. OWL should start shortly too.

There were networking problem around 8:45am (BST) with planet.osm.org,
this seems to have cause osmosis --read-replication-interval to
lock.

Regards
 Grant

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Replication stopped

2010-08-12 Per discussione Toby Murray

Yes, nothing mapped within the last 10 hours has been rendered.
Although the munin graph just started taking a nosedive so someone
must have kicked something just now. I'm guessing it will take an hour
or two more for everything to catch up though.

Toby


On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Shalabh shalab...@gmail.com wrote:
 Not sure whats wrong but a couple of streams I mapped 4-5 hours ago
 are not rendering as yet.

 Shalabh

 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
 I was just trying to figure out why a lake I traced last night hadn't
 been rendered yet. After double checking tagging, relationing, etc I
 finally looked at munin[1] and noticed that yevaud stopped getting
 diffs almost 10 hours ago. Also, looking at the OWL status page[2], it
 isn't getting diffs either. I don't see any notices on the platform
 status wiki page. Anyone know what's up (or down...)?

 [1] 
 http://munin.openstreetmap.org/openstreetmap/yevaud.openstreetmap/replication_delay2.html
 [2] http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/owl_viewer/

 Toby

 ___
 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] Replication stopped

2010-08-12 Per discussione Toby Murray

Yay! My lake is in the process of being rendered right now. Thanks for
greasing the gears!

Toby

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
 On 12 August 2010 17:29, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
 I was just trying to figure out why a lake I traced last night hadn't
 been rendered yet. After double checking tagging, relationing, etc I
 finally looked at munin[1] and noticed that yevaud stopped getting
 diffs almost 10 hours ago. Also, looking at the OWL status page[2], it
 isn't getting diffs either. I don't see any notices on the platform
 status wiki page. Anyone know what's up (or down...)?


 Yevaud (tile.openstreetmap.org) problem has now been fixed and should
 start catching up. OWL should start shortly too.

 There were networking problem around 8:45am (BST) with planet.osm.org,
 this seems to have cause osmosis --read-replication-interval to
 lock.

 Regards
  Grant


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Replication stopped

2010-08-12 Per discussione Shalabh

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
 Yay! My lake is in the process of being rendered right now. Thanks for
 greasing the gears!

 Toby

Lucky you, I cant see the fruit of my labours yet. Patience is the
greatest virtue!

Shalabh


 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Grant Slater
 openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
 On 12 August 2010 17:29, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
 I was just trying to figure out why a lake I traced last night hadn't
 been rendered yet. After double checking tagging, relationing, etc I
 finally looked at munin[1] and noticed that yevaud stopped getting
 diffs almost 10 hours ago. Also, looking at the OWL status page[2], it
 isn't getting diffs either. I don't see any notices on the platform
 status wiki page. Anyone know what's up (or down...)?


 Yevaud (tile.openstreetmap.org) problem has now been fixed and should
 start catching up. OWL should start shortly too.

 There were networking problem around 8:45am (BST) with planet.osm.org,
 this seems to have cause osmosis --read-replication-interval to
 lock.

 Regards
  Grant


 ___
 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] Voluntary re-licensing begins

Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:

 Yahoo aerial imagery is supplied under some terms (sorry too lazy to look them
 up right now). Sometime in the past someone(s) from within the OSM project
 asked them if tracing from those images to make a map was possible within
 those terms. They answered: Yes, this is possible.
 
 Now can somebody explain to me why this would not be explicit permission?

I think you could find your answer on the wiki :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Yahoo#Legalities

Here, in France, one of the admin office that handle cadastre give
OSM-Fr the right to use they map layer the same way and it's legal and
got an explicit permission too :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Cadastre_Français/Condit
ions_d%27utilisation
(sorry, only in french)

-- 
Pierre-Alain Dorange


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributor Terms

2010-08-12 Per discussione 80n

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:

 Julio,


 Julio Costa Zambelli wrote:

 Do you know what will happen if I do not agree with the CT permanently?


 In the long run there will be generally no room in OSM for data which has
 not been added under CT.

 This is not true.

The decision has not yet been made.  If the uptake of CT is sufficient, only
then will there be a switch to ODbL.  The outcome in the long run is unknown
at the moment.

That said, the strategy adopted by OSFM is one that is calculated to load
the bases in favour of enabling them to switch to ODbL eventually.  They do
not intend to ask the whole community to vote on whether there should be a
switch.  This is a sign of their attitude towards the community they
control.

80n





 It is possible for OSMF to make exceptions for individual cases, e.g. if
 you have used your account to import a lot of data which comes under a
 license that is ODbL compatible but not CT compatible then it is possible
 that OSMF makes a special deal with you.

 OSMF will be interested in keeping the number of such special deals low
 for two reasons:

 1. Every one creates a lot of work to negotiate and set up.

 2. Data which is in OSM based on such deals is a liability if OSMF ever
 wanted to do another license change. If that happens, data under such
 deals would have to be individually re-negotiated, again causing a lot of
 work, and there would be a potential data loss in the future.

 I'm not saying it can't be done; I am pretty sure it will be done for 2 or
 3 or 10 cases worldwide.

 Bye
 Frederik


 ___
 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] Contributor Terms

80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:

 [...]
 That said, the strategy adopted by OSFM is one that is calculated to load
 the bases in favour of enabling them to switch to ODbL eventually.  They do
 not intend to ask the whole community to vote on whether there should be a
 switch.  This is a sign of their attitude towards the community they
 control.

Seriously, you believe in that ?
What is the plan ? Why such an evil plan ? What is the conspiracy ?
They want to control the world ?

-- 
Pierre-Alain Dorange


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

2010-08-12 Per discussione Milo van der Linden

Please, if there's anything that you don't like, just ignore it, take your
 GPS  go for walk/ride/journey.

 It really is that simple.

 Dave F.


 +1
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributor Terms

2010-08-12 Per discussione Liz

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
  [...]
  That said, the strategy adopted by OSFM is one that is calculated to load
  the bases in favour of enabling them to switch to ODbL eventually.  They
  do not intend to ask the whole community to vote on whether there should
  be a switch.  This is a sign of their attitude towards the community
  they control.
 
 Seriously, you believe in that ?
 What is the plan ? Why such an evil plan ? What is the conspiracy ?
 They want to control the world ?

Think carefully
80n has been on 'the inside' and listened to discussion, been party to 
discussion.
If such a person has made a statement their knowledge of the matter(s) must be 
greater than yours or mine.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributor Terms

2010-08-12 Per discussione Ulf Lamping


Am 12.08.2010 22:17, schrieb Pierre-Alain Dorange:

80n80n...@gmail.com  wrote:


[...]
That said, the strategy adopted by OSFM is one that is calculated to load
the bases in favour of enabling them to switch to ODbL eventually.  They do
not intend to ask the whole community to vote on whether there should be a
switch.  This is a sign of their attitude towards the community they
control.


Seriously, you believe in that ?
What is the plan ? Why such an evil plan ? What is the conspiracy ?
They want to control the world ?


An attitude to control someone does not need to have an evil plan. It's 
often done with the very best intentions.


Parents are doing it regularly while educating their children. Problem 
here: That doesn't necessarily mean they are doing it well ...


Regards, ULFL

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

- Original Message - 
From: Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl

To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Cc: legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

On Thursday 12 August 2010 13:45:49 David Groom wrote:

1) The last sentence of clause (1) of the contributor terms requires YOU
to have EXPLICIT permission from the rights holder. Please consider if 
you

have this EXPLICIT permission, if you do not have it then you CAN NOT
agree to the contributor terms

2) There is a large amount of contributors who have traced imagery from
sources such as Yahoo

Yahoo aerial imagery is supplied under some terms (sorry too lazy to look 
them

up right now). Sometime in the past someone(s) from within the OSM project
asked them if tracing from those images to make a map was possible within
those terms. They answered: Yes, this is possible.

Now can somebody explain to me why this would not be explicit permission?

Firstly,  as you say sometime in the past.  So Yahoo gave permission when 
the project has a CC-BY-SA licence.  The contributor terms allow the 
switching of the licence to a non-CC-BY-SA licence.  So how can I possibly 
say that on the basis of an agreement made some time ago Yahoo now agree to 
contributors agreeing to the CT terms.

Secondly, the real point I was making was that the CT terms state ... You 
represent and warrant that You have explicit permission from the rights 
holder to submit the Contents and grant the license below   And I 
simply do not have explicit permission.  I don't have explicit permission 
because:

a) The permission was not made to me, but to a more general body of people; 
so the permission I have is IMPLICIT.
b) Ignoring the Yahoo data, but taking any data that may have had a PD or 
CC-BY-SA clause that has be used in import, since these are general 
permissions given and they do not explicitly mention granting rights to use 
in OSM, I cant possible agree that I have EXPLICIT permission to use them. 
I have permission by virtue of they are PD or CC-BY-SA, but not EXPLICIT 
permission to do so.

David

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Replication stopped

2010-08-12 Per discussione Stephan Knauss


Grant Slater wrote:

There were networking problem around 8:45am (BST) with planet.osm.org,
this seems to have cause osmosis --read-replication-interval to
lock.


My replication script got also stuck. I wish someone could implement a 
timeout so after receiving no data for a certain time it returns with an 
error.


To my understanding the download is done in BaseReplicationDownloader 
using a InputStream.

Is it correct that an input stream can not be interrupted?

So it might be better rewritten to a way it can be interrupted. I never 
worked with java.nio.channels, but the description sounds like this is 
what's needed there.



Stephan

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

2010-08-12 Per discussione Simon Biber

On 13/08/2010, at 8:17, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
 
 
 Firstly,  as you say sometime in the past.  So Yahoo gave permission when 
 the project has a CC-BY-SA licence.  The contributor terms allow the 
 switching of the licence to a non-CC-BY-SA licence.  So how can I possibly 
 say that on the basis of an agreement made some time ago Yahoo now agree to 
 contributors agreeing to the CT terms.

Yahoo disclaimed copyright in information that is derived from their aerial 
photography. So, this permission is not limited to any particular license.

 Secondly, the real point I was making was that the CT terms state ... You 
 represent and warrant that You have explicit permission from the rights 
 holder to submit the Contents and grant the license below   And I simply 
 do not have explicit permission.  I don't have explicit permission because:
 
 a) The permission was not made to me, but to a more general body of people; 
 so the permission I have is IMPLICIT.

That is not the correct meaning of explicit. Explicit means expressed, by 
means of a statement, whether verbally or in writing. As opposed to implicit, 
which means assumed in the absence of a statement.

If the rights holder makes a statement that permission is granted to any 
person, then it _is_ explicit permission for you, since you are a member of 
the set any person.

Explicit does not mean specific.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

- Original Message - 
From: Simon Biber simonbi...@yahoo.com.au

To: David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

On 13/08/2010, at 8:17, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:

Firstly,  as you say sometime in the past.  So Yahoo gave permission 
when the project has a CC-BY-SA licence.  The contributor terms allow the 
switching of the licence to a non-CC-BY-SA licence.  So how can I 
possibly say that on the basis of an agreement made some time ago Yahoo 
now agree to contributors agreeing to the CT terms.

Yahoo disclaimed copyright in information that is derived from their 
aerial photography. So, this permission is not limited to any particular 
license.

From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Yahoo

The agreement allows us to derive our vector-based map data from the aerial 
photos owned by Yahoo! and to release these derived works with our open 
content license  - and that licence is currently CC-BY-SA.

and from later in that page  We don't have a written agreement explaining 
exactly what is permitted. It seems to be more a case of agreeing an 
interpretation of their Terms of Use. 

So if there is some documentation which shows that Yahoo agrees to users 
tracing data which is subject to the CT terms then please could someone put 
a reference to it on the wiki, this would be quite helpful in allevaiting 
some of my concerns

Secondly, the real point I was making was that the CT terms state ... 
You represent and warrant that You have explicit permission from the 
rights holder to submit the Contents and grant the license below  
And I simply do not have explicit permission.  I don't have explicit 
permission because:

a) The permission was not made to me, but to a more general body of 
people; so the permission I have is IMPLICIT.

That is not the correct meaning of explicit. Explicit means expressed,

Not just expressed, but precisely and clearly expressed  [1]

by means of a statement, whether verbally or in writing. As opposed to 
implicit, which means assumed in the absence of a statement.

If the rights holder makes a statement that permission is granted to any 
person, then it _is_ explicit permission for you, since you are a member 
of the set any person.

Explicit does not mean specific.

139 Moby Thesaurus words for explicit: .specific .[2]

David

[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=explicit
[2] http://www.dictionary.net/explicit 

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

Hi,
  I'll be brief:

1) License change good. Me happy with license change.
2) Check box (In addition to the above agreement, I consider my
contributions to be in the Public Domain) bad. Easy to tick without
reading. Looks like standard I have read, I agree.

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] OpenCycleMap updating?

Hi all,
  Wondering if anyone knows the current status of OpenCycleMap tile
generation. Any idea when I could expect an update in my neck of the
woods (Melbourne, Australia)?

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenCycleMap updating?

2010-08-12 Per discussione Adam Killian

On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 11:47 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
 Hi all,
   Wondering if anyone knows the current status of OpenCycleMap tile
 generation. Any idea when I could expect an update in my neck of the
 woods (Melbourne, Australia)?
 
 Steve


Andy tweeted yesterday that his new server just started generating
tiles, so I would think they'd start showing up soon.

http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23opencyclemap


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenCycleMap updating?

Great, I'll keep an eye out.

Steve

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Adam Killian vi...@bonius.com wrote:
 On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 11:47 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
 Hi all,
   Wondering if anyone knows the current status of OpenCycleMap tile
 generation. Any idea when I could expect an update in my neck of the
 woods (Melbourne, Australia)?

 Steve


 Andy tweeted yesterday that his new server just started generating
 tiles, so I would think they'd start showing up soon.

 http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23opencyclemap



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

Great post, and excellent honeytrap: all the poisonous people flocked
immediately to this thread and started debating it furiously.

Some points:
- verbosity/spamminess *is* disruptive. It takes a lot of time to
read, and invariably someone will respond, causing more posts. Worse,
it causes sensible people to tune out entirely, meaning threads
consist of little more than spammy bastards rehashing old arguments.
If you don't like it, don't read it is not a solution.
- Let's not tar all Australians with the same brush. Some of us are
supportive of the license changes, and pulling our heads in and just
mapping quietly.
- A moderator for the key mailing lists would be a very sensible step.
I have volunteered in the past. No one should have the right to post
whatever and as much as they like with no accountability.

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] overzichtspagina LF routes

2010-08-12 Per discussione Freek

On Wednesday 11 August 2010 09:45:54 Foppe Benedictus wrote:
 Oi oi,
 
 mag ik dan ook wensen dat er een pagina komt voor de wandelnetwerken? Ik
 weet eigenlijk niet hoeveel daarvan is, maar in Twente hebben we er 1 in
 ieder geval ;), deze hebben neem ik aan dezelfde tagging schema als de
 fietsroutes.

Zie
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Nederland_Wandelroutes#Tagging
en
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Nederland_Wandelroutes#KnooppuntNetwerken

En ken je openwandelkaart.nl? Zo te zien is er al een begin gemaakt in Twente:
http://openwandelkaart.nl/?zoom=12lat=52.22056lon=6.8673layers=B000FTFTTF
(De stijl van de icoontjes is overgenomen van de netwerken in Noord 
Brabant...)

Natuurlijk zou het mooi zijn als er ook een automatisch-gegenereerde 
overzichtspagina komt :-)

-- 
Freek

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] overzichtspagina LF routes

2010-08-12 Per discussione Wimmel

2010/8/11 Lennardl...@xs4all.nl:
 even iets anders; zullen we de knooppuntennetwerken qua naam op lijn
 zetten? Op dit moment zijn er grofweg 4 vormen: FRN, Fietsroutenetwerk,


 Wat mij betreft doen we alleen de naam, zonder al die voorvoegsels. De
 tagging geeft al aan wat het is, en zelf heb ik ook al note=Cycle node
 network erbij gezet, zodat er helemaal geen twijfel kan zijn.

2010/8/11 Foppe Benedictus foppe.benedic...@knkv.net:
 Ik ben al zo bijdehand geweest om de namen te wijzigen.

Nog even hierop terug komend.
Het netwerk van de Stadsregio Arnhem Nijmegen strekt zich ook uit tot
in Duitsland.

Het heet ook daar Fietsroutenetwerk Stadsregio Arnhem Nijmegen [1]
en niet Knotenpunktnetzwerk Stadsregio Arnhem Nijmegen
en ook niet Knotenpunktnetzwerk Städteregio Arnheim Nimwegen

Een knooppunt heet daar wel knotenpunkt [2].
Het is voor de knooppunten in Duitsland niet logisch ter veronderstellen dat ze
tot een Fietsroutenetwerk behoren. Maar die naam staat wel in koeieletters
op de borden [1].

Ik wil dus voor dat netwerk het voorvoegsel Fietsroutenetwerk weer
gaan toevoegen.
Een aparte relatie voor het Duitse deel vind ik niet logisch.

Wim

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/a/a0/Emmerich_knotenpunkt_3_info.JPG
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/a/a9/Emmerich_knotenpunkt_3a.JPG

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] overzichtspagina LF routes

2010-08-12 Per discussione Foppe Benedictus


On 12-08-10 08:18, Freek wrote:

On Wednesday 11 August 2010 09:45:54 Foppe Benedictus wrote:
   

Oi oi,

mag ik dan ook wensen dat er een pagina komt voor de wandelnetwerken? Ik
weet eigenlijk niet hoeveel daarvan is, maar in Twente hebben we er 1 in
ieder geval ;), deze hebben neem ik aan dezelfde tagging schema als de
fietsroutes.
 

Zie
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Nederland_Wandelroutes#Tagging
en
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Nederland_Wandelroutes#KnooppuntNetwerken

En ken je openwandelkaart.nl? Zo te zien is er al een begin gemaakt in Twente:
http://openwandelkaart.nl/?zoom=12lat=52.22056lon=6.8673layers=B000FTFTTF
(De stijl van de icoontjes is overgenomen van de netwerken in Noord
Brabant...)
   
Ja deze ken ik, dat er een begin gemaakt is weet ik ook, daar heb ik een 
hand in gehad. In Twente hebben we kleurtjes erbij, maar dat renderen 
werkt weer niet met de kleuren die er al zijn. Ben jij (Freek) degene 
die deze kaart onderhoud?

Ik zal de wiki eens bijwerken met Twente data (foto, etc).

Natuurlijk zou het mooi zijn als er ook een automatisch-gegenereerde
overzichtspagina komt :-)

   


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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] overzichtspagina LF routes

2010-08-12 Per discussione Foppe Benedictus


Excuus dat ik niet in 1 keer volledig kan reageren

On 12-08-10 08:18, Freek wrote:

On Wednesday 11 August 2010 09:45:54 Foppe Benedictus wrote:
   

Oi oi,

mag ik dan ook wensen dat er een pagina komt voor de wandelnetwerken? Ik
weet eigenlijk niet hoeveel daarvan is, maar in Twente hebben we er 1 in
ieder geval ;), deze hebben neem ik aan dezelfde tagging schema als de
fietsroutes.
 

Zie
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Nederland_Wandelroutes#Tagging
   
Ik zie dat het tagging schema anders is, lijkt me ongewenst. Ik heb in 
Twente wel het schema van de fietsnetwerken als leidraad genomen, deze 
lijkt mij voordelen te hebben boven het oude.

en
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Nederland_Wandelroutes#KnooppuntNetwerken

En ken je openwandelkaart.nl? Zo te zien is er al een begin gemaakt in Twente:
http://openwandelkaart.nl/?zoom=12lat=52.22056lon=6.8673layers=B000FTFTTF
(De stijl van de icoontjes is overgenomen van de netwerken in Noord
Brabant...)

Natuurlijk zou het mooi zijn als er ook een automatisch-gegenereerde
overzichtspagina komt :-)

   


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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] overzichtspagina LF routes

 Ik zie dat het tagging schema anders is, lijkt me ongewenst. Ik heb in
 Twente wel het schema van de fietsnetwerken als leidraad genomen, deze
 lijkt mij voordelen te hebben boven het oude.

Wat je daar ziet is het oude taggingschema, zoals het eerst ook voor de
fietsknooppunten was. Het nieuwe fietsknooppuntentaggingschema is
uiteraard ook toepasbaar op wandelknooppuntennetwerken.

-- 
Lennard


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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] overzichtspagina LF routes

2010-08-12 Per discussione Foppe Benedictus


On 12-08-10 09:36, Lennard wrote:

Ik zie dat het tagging schema anders is, lijkt me ongewenst. Ik heb in
Twente wel het schema van de fietsnetwerken als leidraad genomen, deze
lijkt mij voordelen te hebben boven het oude.
 

Wat je daar ziet is het oude taggingschema, zoals het eerst ook voor de
fietsknooppunten was. Het nieuwe fietsknooppuntentaggingschema is
uiteraard ook toepasbaar op wandelknooppuntennetwerken.
   

Tijd voor een wiki update dus :)

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] overzichtspagina LF routes

 En nu dus ook in Rotterdam !! Name = Rotterdam RCN 33

Zo je mijn hint in een vorig bericht nog niet begrepen had: waarom
hiervoor geen note=* gebruiken? Dat zou in 1 klap deze hele discussie
overbodig kunnen maken. Zeker als die fix in JOSM die ik eerder liet zien,
geïmplementeerd zou zijn.

 Staat in koeieletters op het bord. Bord is fysiek, en heeft een
 geofunctie.

Het bord is een verwijzing naar het netwerk. De aanloopborden hebben ook
die naamsvermelding, maar die mappen we ook niet, hoewel sommigen dat ook
zouden willen. Op de knooppunten zelf staat in NL meestal geen bord met
het nummer van het knooppunt, of zelfs nooit? Dus in jouw theorie zou je
dat nummer ook niet kunnen mappen in een samengestelde name=* ? :-)

 Haal de network naam maar uit de ways, en de nodes, en creeer
 je redundante ordening maar met de PC (of API, of SCRIPT, i dont care).

Ik snap dat je gefrustreerd raakt van deze ´perikelen´; veranderingen zijn
niet altijd te begrijpen of te accepteren, denk ik.

PS: Zou je dan tenminste wel een poging willen doen om goed te quoten? In
je laatste reacties is het lastig, zo niet onmogelijk zonder de voorgaande
berichten te kennen, om jouw reacties van het originele bericht te
onderscheiden.

-- 
Lennard


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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] overzichtspagina LF routes

2010-08-12 Per discussione ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen

 On 12-08-10 09:36, Lennard wrote:

 Tijd voor een wiki update dus :)

De twee redenen dat ik het zelf nog niet gedaan had, hebben te maken met
de acceptatie van het schema voor fietsknooppuntennetwerken ten eerste, en
de iets afwijkende situatie in Twente als tweede. Hoe kunnen we die
variant (met kleuren?) goed erin verwerken?

-- 
Lennard


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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] overzichtspagina LF routes


Op de knooppunten zelf staat in NL meestal geen bord met het nummer van het 
knooppunt, of zelfs nooit? Dus in jouw theorie zou je dat nummer ook niet 
kunnen mappen in een samengestelde name=* ? :-)

Hoeveel fotos met nummer wil je ? Ik hel elk knooppunt gefotografeerd.
In haaglanden, Rotterdam en Midden-Delfland hebben ze allemaal een eigen nummer 
erop.


Ik leg me erbij neer als JOSM geupdated
wordt, tot die tijd steek ik geen moeite meer
in de relaties, ik wil mappen, niet klooien in de editor.

En doe eens svp een poging om waar mogelijk de relaties automatisch te
extracten uit het netwerk zelf. 

Ik stel voor dat je Midden delfland als eerste neemt.
Ik heb dat (in 2007!) gemapped, en alleen
de ways zijn aan de relaties toegevoegd, niet de knooppunten, en ook
de netwerk relatie is er niet.

Uit de way data kan je met een scriptje de relaties compleet maken,
en vervolgens OOK de hele netwerkrelatie samenstellen.



Regards,
 Gert Gremmen





-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: talk-nl-boun...@openstreetmap.org 
[mailto:talk-nl-boun...@openstreetmap.org] Namens Lennard
Verzonden: Thursday, August 12, 2010 9:57 AM
Aan: OpenStreetMap NL discussion list
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] overzichtspagina LF routes

 En nu dus ook in Rotterdam !! Name = Rotterdam RCN 33

Zo je mijn hint in een vorig bericht nog niet begrepen had: waarom
hiervoor geen note=* gebruiken? Dat zou in 1 klap deze hele discussie
overbodig kunnen maken. Zeker als die fix in JOSM die ik eerder liet zien,
geïmplementeerd zou zijn.

 Staat in koeieletters op het bord. Bord is fysiek, en heeft een
 geofunctie.

Het bord is een verwijzing naar het netwerk. De aanloopborden hebben ook
die naamsvermelding, maar die mappen we ook niet, hoewel sommigen dat ook
zouden willen. Op de knooppunten zelf staat in NL meestal geen bord met
het nummer van het knooppunt, of zelfs nooit? Dus in jouw theorie zou je
dat nummer ook niet kunnen mappen in een samengestelde name=* ? :-)

 Haal de network naam maar uit de ways, en de nodes, en creeer
 je redundante ordening maar met de PC (of API, of SCRIPT, i dont care).

Ik snap dat je gefrustreerd raakt van deze ´perikelen´; veranderingen zijn
niet altijd te begrijpen of te accepteren, denk ik.

PS: Zou je dan tenminste wel een poging willen doen om goed te quoten? In
je laatste reacties is het lastig, zo niet onmogelijk zonder de voorgaande
berichten te kennen, om jouw reacties van het originele bericht te
onderscheiden.

-- 
Lennard


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

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] overzichtspagina LF routes

2010-08-12 Per discussione Cartinus

On Thursday 12 August 2010 05:39:04 ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert 
Gremmen wrote:
 Staat in koeieletters op het bord. Bord is fysiek, en heeft een
 geofunctie.

 En een naam.

Ga jij ook al die blauwe borden aan het begin van de bebouwde kom mappen met 
place=... en name=Roterdam/Delft/... ?

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] overzichtspagina LF routes

2010-08-12 Per discussione Maarten Deen


 zouden willen. Op de knooppunten zelf staat in NL meestal geen bord met
 het nummer van het knooppunt, of zelfs nooit? Dus in jouw theorie zou je
 dat nummer ook niet kunnen mappen in een samengestelde name=* ? :-)

In mijn ervaring in Limburg staan die borden er (op een hoogst enkele
uitzondering na) altijd.

Overigens ben ik er ook niet voor om te veel tags zomaar te wissen. Ik
ben ook een heel aantal relaties tegengekomen waar de naam van het
netwerk in staat. In het verleden heb ik die ook wel weggehaald, maar
dat doe ik niet meer.
Ten eerste omdat die naam (vooral als de relatie nog niet in een
routerelatie zit) duidelijk maakt waar de relatie toe hoort, en ten
tweede omdat ik die tag niet heb aangemaakt en ik ook niet weet of
degene die die tag wel heeft gemaakt er misschien iets mee wil doen.

Het moet niet zo worden dat OSM een ping-pong spel wordt van gebruiker
A zet een tag, gebruiker B wist die tag, gebruiker A zet die tag
opnieuw.

Maarten


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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] overzichtspagina LF routes

2010-08-12 Per discussione ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen

 Hoeveel fotos met nummer wil je ? Ik hel elk knooppunt gefotografeerd.
 In haaglanden, Rotterdam en Midden-Delfland hebben ze allemaal een eigen
 nummer erop.

Dan zwak ik mijn bewering af. In mijn omgeving hebben de knooppunten zelf
alleen maar de nummers van de te bereiken punten erop, maar niet van het
knooppunt zelf. Helaas.

 Ik leg me erbij neer als JOSM geupdated
 wordt, tot die tijd steek ik geen moeite meer
 in de relaties, ik wil mappen, niet klooien in de editor.

Er is natuurlijk geen echt probleem als je doorgaat zoals je deed, dus de
routerelaties onderhouden, zelfs als je daar de nodes niet in opneemt.
Iemand anders kan wel langskomen en dat alsnog doen. Zoals je zegt: OSM is
een open systeem, en uiteindelijk verplicht niemand je om het op een
bepaalde manier te doen, maar daarbij moet je ook niet raar opkijken als
iemand anders dan 'jouw' data alsnog aanpast.

 Uit de way data kan je met een scriptje de relaties compleet maken,
 en vervolgens OOK de hele netwerkrelatie samenstellen.

De knooppuntnodes zou je op deze manier kunnen toevoegen aan de
routerelatie. Routerelaties uit het hart van het netwerk zou je op de gok
kunnen toevoegen aan de netwerkrelatie, maar aan de rand van het netwerk
is dat allemaal niet zo simpel als het lijkt. Zit Midden-Delfland ook zo
raar verweven in Den Haag, zonder duidelijke grens?

-- 
Lennard



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

[OSM-talk-nl] Borden mappen

Goed idee, stond al op de agenda.
Ik dacht ook aan een verkeersbordenproject, een lantaarnpalen project
en een rioolputdekselproject. Kunnen we koppelen aan de
openrioolkaart.nl



Regards,

Gert Gremmen





-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: talk-nl-boun...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-nl-boun...@openstreetmap.org] Namens Cartinus
Verzonden: Thursday, August 12, 2010 10:47 AM
Aan: talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] overzichtspagina LF routes

On Thursday 12 August 2010 05:39:04 ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert

Gremmen wrote:
 Staat in koeieletters op het bord. Bord is fysiek, en heeft een
 geofunctie.

 En een naam.

Ga jij ook al die blauwe borden aan het begin van de bebouwde kom mappen
met 
place=... en name=Roterdam/Delft/... ?

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] overzichtspagina LF routes

2010-08-12 Per discussione ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen

De knooppuntnodes zou je op deze manier kunnen toevoegen aan de
routerelatie. Routerelaties uit het hart van het netwerk zou je op de gok
kunnen toevoegen aan de netwerkrelatie, maar aan de rand van het netwerk
is dat allemaal niet zo simpel als het lijkt. Zit Midden-Delfland ook zo
raar verweven in Den Haag, zonder duidelijke grens?

ja, bovendien zijn een flink aantal knooppunten van eigenaar veranderd..
Gelukkig zaten ze nog niet in een relatie ;).

Graag voortaan mijn tags (maar ook die van anderen)
alleen direct wissen als ze evident fout zijn, hinderen
of andere ongewenste resultaten geven.
En anders even een paar dagen wachten op het einde
van de discussie. Ter voorkoming van edit-wars.

Gert


 Before printing, think about the environment. 



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: talk-nl-boun...@openstreetmap.org 
[mailto:talk-nl-boun...@openstreetmap.org] Namens Lennard
Verzonden: Thursday, August 12, 2010 11:29 AM
Aan: OpenStreetMap NL discussion list
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] overzichtspagina LF routes

 Hoeveel fotos met nummer wil je ? Ik hel elk knooppunt gefotografeerd.
 In haaglanden, Rotterdam en Midden-Delfland hebben ze allemaal een eigen
 nummer erop.

Dan zwak ik mijn bewering af. In mijn omgeving hebben de knooppunten zelf
alleen maar de nummers van de te bereiken punten erop, maar niet van het
knooppunt zelf. Helaas.

 Ik leg me erbij neer als JOSM geupdated
 wordt, tot die tijd steek ik geen moeite meer
 in de relaties, ik wil mappen, niet klooien in de editor.

Er is natuurlijk geen echt probleem als je doorgaat zoals je deed, dus de
routerelaties onderhouden, zelfs als je daar de nodes niet in opneemt.
Iemand anders kan wel langskomen en dat alsnog doen. Zoals je zegt: OSM is
een open systeem, en uiteindelijk verplicht niemand je om het op een
bepaalde manier te doen, maar daarbij moet je ook niet raar opkijken als
iemand anders dan 'jouw' data alsnog aanpast.

 Uit de way data kan je met een scriptje de relaties compleet maken,
 en vervolgens OOK de hele netwerkrelatie samenstellen.

De knooppuntnodes zou je op deze manier kunnen toevoegen aan de
routerelatie. Routerelaties uit het hart van het netwerk zou je op de gok
kunnen toevoegen aan de netwerkrelatie, maar aan de rand van het netwerk
is dat allemaal niet zo simpel als het lijkt. Zit Midden-Delfland ook zo
raar verweven in Den Haag, zonder duidelijke grens?

-- 
Lennard



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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] overzichtspagina LF routes

 ja, bovendien zijn een flink aantal knooppunten van eigenaar veranderd..
 Gelukkig zaten ze nog niet in een relatie ;).

Het geeft je weer wat te doen. Wat is de reden van de overdracht? Kunnen
de betrokken organisatie geen bruikbaar overzicht leveren aan
geïnteresseerde, hergebruikende burgers? ;-)

 En anders even een paar dagen wachten op het einde
 van de discussie. Ter voorkoming van edit-wars.

Had hier iemand dan gesteld dat jouw tags per direct en wel nu gelijk,
maar liefst gisteren al, gewist zouden moeten worden?

-- 
Lennard



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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Borden mappen

2010-08-12 Per discussione Rob

Ah gelukkig ben ik niet de enige die putdeksels boeiend vind ;)

Rob

Op 12 augustus 2010 12:35 heeft ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl het volgende geschreven:
 Goed idee, stond al op de agenda.
 Ik dacht ook aan een verkeersbordenproject, een lantaarnpalen project
 en een rioolputdekselproject. Kunnen we koppelen aan de
 openrioolkaart.nl



 Regards,

 Gert Gremmen





 -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
 Van: talk-nl-boun...@openstreetmap.org
 [mailto:talk-nl-boun...@openstreetmap.org] Namens Cartinus
 Verzonden: Thursday, August 12, 2010 10:47 AM
 Aan: talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
 Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] overzichtspagina LF routes

 On Thursday 12 August 2010 05:39:04 ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert

 Gremmen wrote:
 Staat in koeieletters op het bord. Bord is fysiek, en heeft een
 geofunctie.

 En een naam.

 Ga jij ook al die blauwe borden aan het begin van de bebouwde kom mappen
 met
 place=... en name=Roterdam/Delft/... ?

 --
 m.v.g.,
 Cartinus

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

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


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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Borden mappen

2010-08-12 Per discussione Stefan de Konink


On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Rob wrote:


Ah gelukkig ben ik niet de enige die putdeksels boeiend vind ;)


Ik snap niet dat jullie beide bij commerciele instellingen werken ;) 
ambtenarij had echt wat voor jullie kunnen zijn ;)



Stefan

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

[OSM-talk-nl] Vrijwillige aanmelding voor nieuwe licentie

2010-08-12 Per discussione Henk Hoff

Beste mensen,

Aangezien Nederlanders in de regel wel Engelse tekst kunnen lezen, heb
ik me even de moeite bespaard om bijgaande tekst te vertalen ;-)

Het komt erop neer: Iedereen kan nu zijn akkoord geven voor de nieuwe
gebruikersovereenkomst (Contributor Terms) mbt de OpenStreetMap
database. Dit is op vrijwillige basis. Ben je niet akkoord of weet je
het nog niet, wacht dan nog even...

Om akkoord te gaan ga naar http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms, (je
wordt mogelijk eerst gevraagd in te loggen), of ga naar de
instellingen-pagina bij je profiel.

met vriendelijke groet,

Henk Hoff
OSMF License Working Group

---BeginMessage---
As promised, and long awaited, the next phase of the OSM License Upgrade has
arrived. Phase 2 - Existing Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing [1] has begun,
and you may indicate your acceptance of the new Contributor Terms for your
existing OSM API account. To accept the terms visit
http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms, (you may be asked to login first), or your
user settings page.

There is no decline button, and no obligation to answer yet. Existing
Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing is for those who wish to accept the terms
and get on with mapping.

We'll be publishing which users have accepted so that we can all see the
progress in terms of users and re-licensed data.

We hope that you will accept the new Contributor Terms [2] and ODbL for each of
your user accounts if you have more than one.

** Why are we doing it like this? **

** Some supporting notes: **

() The key thing is that there are about 12,500 contributors who have
contributed over 98% of the pre-May data.

() The License Working Group will ask the OSMF board to issue a similar
statement.

() A final vote on whether to switch or not remains an option. But let us see
first if data loss really is an issue and what the specific problems might be.

Regards to all,
Mike
License Working Group

[1]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan#PHASE_2_-_Existing_Contributor_Voluntary_Re-licensing_.28started_10th_August_2010.29

[2] The new Contributor Terms:

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Vrijwillige aanmelding voor nieuwe licentie


On 12-8-2010 20:43, Henk Hoff wrote:

Beste mensen,

Aangezien Nederlanders in de regel wel Engelse tekst kunnen lezen, heb
ik me even de moeite bespaard om bijgaande tekst te vertalen ;-)

Het komt erop neer: Iedereen kan nu zijn akkoord geven voor de nieuwe
gebruikersovereenkomst (Contributor Terms) mbt de OpenStreetMap
database. Dit is op vrijwillige basis. Ben je niet akkoord of weet je
het nog niet, wacht dan nog even...

Om akkoord te gaan ga naar http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms, (je
wordt mogelijk eerst gevraagd in te loggen), of ga naar de
instellingen-pagina bij je profiel.


Voor de degenen onder ons die met data van derden in de weer zijn 
geweest: wees heel voorzichting en lees de CT goed door voordat je 
eventueel je goedkeuring geeft. Er is nog een niet opgelost probleem met 
het feit dat je de OSMF een goedkeuring geeft om je data in de toekomst 
eventueel onder een andere licentie te brengen, en dat kan ook een 
licentie zonder SA-bepaling zijn. Dat kan botsen met de 
licentiebepalingen van data van derdern, die op dit moment wel 
rechtmatig in de db zit, dat onder ODbL ook zou zitten, maar na zo'n 
hypothetische licentie-aanpassing niet meer.


CT = Contributor Terms

--
Lennard

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

[talk-au] License Upgrade - Stage Two Begins

2010-08-12 Per discussione Richard Weait

News today from Mike Collinson, Chair of the OSMF License Working Group:

As promised, and long awaited, the next phase of the OSM License
Upgrade has arrived. Phase 2 - Existing Contributor Voluntary
Re-licensing [1] has begun, and you may indicate your acceptance of
the new Contributor Terms for your existing OSM API account. To
accept the terms visit http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms, (you may
be asked to login first), or your user settings page.

Please note that OpenStreetMap is not changing the license on any
published data at this point. Existing contributors are being asked
to permit re-licensing of their data in the future when it makes sense
to do so.

There is no decline button, and no obligation to answer yet. Existing
Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing is for those who wish to accept the
terms and get on with mapping.

We'll be publishing which users have accepted so that we can all see
the progress in terms of users and re-licensed data.

We hope that you will accept the new Contributor Terms [2] and ODbL
for each of your user accounts if you have more than one.

** Why are we doing it like this? **

What ifs, what ifs. The key is clearly to reduce these. Those that
simply want to get on mapping and accept that we won't doing anything
daft, can sign up.Those that are worried about data loss and that
the OSMF will make a stupid decision, can wait and see. We'll show
how much of the database is potentially covered by the ODbL. We've got
some help on modelling that, and we'll aim for at least a weekly
update if not daily. We'll also make all the data available needed to
calculate that, so if you want to try a different metric or just see
what is happening in your local area, everything will be transparent.

If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new
Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution,
Share-Alike license written especially for databases. If you are a
Public Domain license supporter, we are divided as a community on
which is best and I do urge you to give this one a good try. The
Contributor Terms are expressly written to allow us to come back in
future years and see what is best without all this fuss about
procedure. And if you'd just really like all this hoo-haa to go away
and get back to mapping, well, please say yes.

** Some supporting notes: **

() The key thing is that there are about 12,500 contributors who have
contributed over 98% of the pre-May data.

() I personally really, really want to get a coherent license in place
so that my mapping efforts are more widely used. I also really, really
don't want us as a community to shoot ourselves in the head and
divide. I pledge to continue working with *both* objectives in mind.

() The License Working Group will not recommend switching over the
license if data loss is unreasonable [3]. We will issue a formal
statement to that effect and are attempting to define better what
unreasonable means. A totally quantitative criteria is extremely
difficult to define ahead of actually seeing what specific problems
may arise. But I understand the concern that we are tempted to do
something wild.

() The License Working Group will ask the OSMF board to issue a
similar statement.

() We are working to create a process whereby we can model on a
regular basis how much of the OSM database is covered by ODbL and how
much not. We will make all the data needed to do that public so that
anyone can analyse using their own metrics. Work on this is active and
being discussed on the dev mailing list. You will need:

- An ordinary planet dump.
- Access to history data. A public 18GB history dump is available
http://planet.openstreetmap.org/full-experimental/full-planet-100801.osm.bz2.
The intent is to make this available on a regular basis with difffs. A
full re-generation takes several days.
- A list of userids of who has and has not accepted the license. Work
in progress.

() A final vote on whether to switch or not remains an option. But let
us see first if data loss really is an issue and what the specific
problems might be.

Regards to all,
Mike
License Working Group

[1]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan#PHASE_2_-_Existing_Contributor_Voluntary_Re-licensing_.28started_10th_August_2010.29

[2] The new Contributor Terms:

http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary - Summary

http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms - Full
text and links to translations

[3] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_76gwvhpcx3 License
Working Group minutes, see Item 7

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

[talk-au] Deletion of Australian data

2010-08-12 Per discussione Nick Hocking

I haven't read all the posts regarding this matter so maybe I have missed
some clarifications but

It seems as though if someone ran a bot to add just one tag to most of the
streets in (say) Canberra and then failed to
agree to a re-licence, then all those streets in Canberra would be thrown
away in their entirety (or hidden from publication).

Have I got this right or am I worrying too much?

Nick
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] License Upgrade - Stage Two Begins

Its really disappointing that the introductory paragraph which says Please 
read the agreement below and press the agree button to confirm that you accept 
the terms of this agreement for your existing and future contributions. does 
not containing any warning that if you have used any source which requires 
CC-BY-SA , that you are unable to agree to the CT terms.

Not only does this show disrespect to the members who have raised this point in 
the past, but If I were one of those sources who had agreed to use my data 
under CC-BY-SA I would think this showed bad faith on behalf of OSM.

David
 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Richard Weait 
  To: OSM Australian Talk List 
  Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 12:13 PM
  Subject: [talk-au] License Upgrade - Stage Two Begins



  News today from Mike Collinson, Chair of the OSMF License Working Group:

  As promised, and long awaited, the next phase of the OSM License
  Upgrade has arrived. Phase 2 - Existing Contributor Voluntary
  Re-licensing  [1]  has begun, and you may indicate your acceptance of
  the new Contributor Terms for your existing OSM API account.  To
  accept the terms visit http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms, (you may
  be asked to login first), or your user settings page.

  Please note that OpenStreetMap is not changing the license on any
  published data at this point.  Existing contributors are being asked
  to permit re-licensing of their data in the future when it makes sense
  to do so.

  There is no decline button, and no obligation to answer yet.  Existing
  Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing is for those who wish to accept the
  terms and get on with mapping.

  We'll be publishing which users have accepted so that we can all see
  the progress in terms of users and re-licensed data.

  We hope that you will accept the new Contributor Terms [2] and ODbL
  for each of your user accounts if you have more than one.



  ** Why are we doing it like this? **


  What ifs, what ifs. The key is clearly to reduce these. Those that
  simply want to get on mapping and accept that we won't doing anything
  daft, can sign up.Those that are worried about data loss and that
  the OSMF will make a stupid decision,  can wait and see.  We'll show
  how much of the database is potentially covered by the ODbL. We've got
  some help on modelling that, and we'll aim for at least a weekly
  update if not daily. We'll also make all the data available needed to
  calculate that, so if you want to try a different metric or just see
  what is happening in your local area, everything will be transparent.

  If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new
  Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution,
  Share-Alike license written especially for databases.  If you are a
  Public Domain license supporter, we are divided as a community on
  which is best and I do urge you to give this one a good try.  The
  Contributor Terms are expressly written to allow us to come back in
  future years and see what is best  without all this fuss about
  procedure.  And if you'd just really like all this hoo-haa to go away
  and get back to mapping, well, please say yes.



  ** Some supporting notes:  **


  () The key thing is that there are about 12,500 contributors who have
  contributed over 98% of the pre-May data.

  () I personally really, really want to get a coherent license in place
  so that my mapping efforts are more widely used. I also really, really
  don't want us as a community to shoot ourselves in the head and
  divide.  I pledge to continue working with *both* objectives in mind.

  () The License Working Group will not recommend switching over the
  license if data loss is unreasonable [3]. We will issue a formal
  statement to that effect and are attempting to define better what
  unreasonable means. A totally quantitative criteria is extremely
  difficult to define ahead of actually seeing what specific problems
  may arise. But I understand the concern that we are tempted to do
  something wild.

  () The License Working Group will ask the OSMF board to issue a
  similar statement.

  () We are working to create a process whereby we can model on a
  regular basis how much of the OSM database is covered by ODbL and how
  much not.  We will make all the data needed to do that public so that
  anyone can analyse using their own metrics. Work on this is active and
  being discussed on the dev mailing list. You will need:

  - An ordinary planet dump.
  - Access to history data. A public 18GB history dump is available
  http://planet.openstreetmap.org/full-experimental/full-planet-100801.osm.bz2.
  The intent is to make this available on a regular basis with difffs. A
  full re-generation takes several days.
  - A list of userids of who has and has not accepted the license. Work
  in progress.

  () A final vote on whether to switch or not remains an option. But let
  us see first if data loss really is an

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of Australian data

2010-08-12 Per discussione Grant Slater

On 12 August 2010 12:28, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:

 It seems as though if someone ran a bot to add just one tag to most of the
 streets in (say) Canberra and then failed to
 agree to a re-licence, then all those streets in Canberra would be thrown
 away in their entirety (or hidden from publication).

 Have I got this right or am I worrying too much?


Thankfully worrying too much.

We have the full history of all changes, his edits would not be
carried across (unwound) but the existing data if approved for ODbL
would be carried across.
There is also a plan of action if people are found to be making these
sorts of abusive edits.

There is a full document coming out in a few days (initially) on the
dev list detailing this.

Regards
 Grant

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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of Australian data

On 12 August 2010 21:28, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:
 Have I got this right or am I worrying too much?

It's unclear what will happen at this point, since no one has the
chance to actually disagree any more, although there was a thread
about what to do about people that aren't contactable.

The outcome was that it would be underhanded or shady to include their
data unless specific approval was given, regardless of the actual
legal options. Wikimedia relicensed their data in a shady legal tactic
and many seem to be still upset about it.

As for removing data, it wouldn't be that simple, you would have to
follow the historical changesets until you hit an editor that hasn't
agreed, at which point you can no longer update that particular data
any further.

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

[talk-au] Deletion of Australian data

2010-08-12 Per discussione Nick Hocking

Thankfully worrying too much.

We have the full history of all changes, his edits would not be
carried across (unwound) but the existing data if approved for ODbL
would be carried across.
There is also a plan of action if people are found to be making these
sorts of abusive edits.

There is a full document coming out in a few days (initially) on the
dev list detailing this.

Regards
Grant

Thanks Grant,

Ok - just to clarify.

If I've edited a road then the bot does it's thing and then I make further
improvements,
the bots effect can be automatically  removed without losing either of my
edits.

Cheers
Nick
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of Australian data

2010-08-12 Per discussione Grant Slater

On 12 August 2010 13:05, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:
 Ok - just to clarify.

 If I've edited a road then the bot does it's thing and then I make further
 improvements,
 the bots effect can be automatically  removed without losing either of my
 edits.


I don't know the details yet, but the document does cover this scenario.

Ah, actually discussion has been started here:
[OSM-dev] Measuring the current state of play wrt new contributor terms
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2010-August/020124.html

Regards
 Grant

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

Re: [talk-au] License Upgrade - Stage Two Begins