Re: [OSM-talk] Announcing the Open Brewpub Map
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Sven Geggus li...@fuchsschwanzdomain.dewrote: It is avaliable on: http://brewpubs.openstreetmap.de/ Nice. I just added three brewpubs. How often is the map updated? - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Something that is available from an official online source but not verifiable on the ground should not - in my personal opinion - be included in OSM. No borders? No national parks? No nature reserves? No voltage on power lines? No named farms (unless the owner puts up a sign)? No names for peaks? - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: No borders? No national parks? No nature reserves? No voltage on power lines? No named farms (unless the owner puts up a sign)? No names for peaks? Except for borders, all of those things are verifiable on the ground. I think that is Frederik's point. How do you, on the ground, verify the name of a farm? How do, on the ground, you verify the name of a peak? How do you, on the ground, verify a national park or nature reserve? All of these things might be properly marked with signs where you are, but they certainly are not everywhere. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki
How do, on the ground, you verify the name of a peak? You look at the sign. Talk to the hikers you passed on the way up with your GPS. Just out of curiosity, where do you live and who is putting signs on the peaks there? - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: In the US, most of the peaks are marked at the trailhead you use to get to them. I think you will find that most of the peaks in the world are not accessible from trails. Try places like the Himalayas, Greenland, Antarctica, Northern Norway, Siberia or Sahara (and probably large parts of Alaska as well). As you pointed out, the on the ground rule, should not exclude features that are not signposted. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.comwrote: A former cafe can be helpful as a landmark as well. Especially when it's a free standing building (e.g. in a forest) near a larger city, which is not that uncommon in germany. Is it a cafe? No. Should it be tagged as a cafe? No. The disused tag can have certain uses when the object tagged does not really change if it is used or not. A power line is basically a pwoer line even if it disconnected and a cemetary is basically a cemetery even if it is no longer used. But a cafe or pub? Absolutely not. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL virality questions
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: what are your thoughts? I have a hard time seeing how any of these usecases can be anything other than insubstantial extractions. The database directive (article 15) says that Any contractual provision contrary to Articles 6 (1) and 8 shall be null and void where 8 says that extraction of insubstantial parts are allowed. Why would we want to make guidelines that are null and void in the EU? I cannot see any gain for OSM in trying to overstate our rights. - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - landuse=orchard
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.comwrote: That would mean that Mapnik needs to be checking a secondary field to determine what to display. If the renderer doesn't do that, you will end up with a map that is poorer in the end. In your case, that would mean increasing the size of the table produced by osm2pgsql by one extra column. Overall, you are increasing complexity with little or no benefits. I am not sure it makes sense in the end since were are getting exactly the same of information if you are using the tag directly in landuse. If using farm as a base tag (or forest), you will make sure that thos not interested in the details, still can use the data. To me that is a very clear advantage. You have two choices: Let those interested in detail check for details (two tags) or require everyone to check for the details. I fail to see any disadvantages of using landuse=farm + farm=orchard (or something similar). Waisting a few bits in a database is simply not a problem. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National boundary vs. territorial waters (was: Re: How *NOT* to map)
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 9:13 AM, David Paleino d.pale...@gmail.com wrote: Isn't that defined as territorial waters, different from national border? It would be better to have both drawn -- but the territorial waters marked as boundary=maritime, or the such? Some info on tagging here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Maritime_borders More information about maritime borders in general here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea Todo: Clean up to proposal and support in the most common renderers. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National boundary vs. territorial waters (was: Re: How *NOT* to map)
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 9:48 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/9/29 Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com: Todo: Clean up to proposal and support in the most common renderers. Why do you want these to render exactly? They are rendered today, but visually the same as land borders. I would prefer the territorial waters to be rendered as a blue line, as this seems to be the normal way to render maritime boundaries in most of the maps I have checked. The baseline might be of interest at high zoom levels for debugging, but the others I see no reason to render in general purpose maps. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] National boundary vs. territorial waters (was: Re: How *NOT* to map)
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:00 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/9/29 Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com: They are rendered today, but visually the same as land borders. I would Ummm they are? http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-24.622lon=153.677zoom=10 Centre of the map is where the maritime border of Australia runs and I don't see anything rendered at any zoom level. They have normally been tagged as land borders, resulting in something like this: http://osm.org/go/evC2d-- http://osm.org/go/3Tjpd- I was unable to find the way describing the territorial waters of Australia. How is it tagged? prefer the territorial waters to be rendered as a blue line, as this seems to be the normal way to render maritime boundaries in most of the maps I have checked. Most maps I've seen don't show territorial waters. Agreed, but using the suggested tagging for maritime boundaries, you would then need support in the stylesheets to _not_ render them. A proposal that would need support to explicitly render the maritime boundaries was voted against. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-it] How *NOT* to map
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: do you know which kind of grid the coordinates are in? My guess would be ED50. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fiwrote: Will all contents of OSM year 2009 database be in public domain first of January, 2025? The database directive gives 15 years of protection for a dump of a database. As long as the database is updated, the protection period will be continously renewed. - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status
2009/9/28 Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es Better? :-) :-) - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Seoul
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Andrew Errington a.erring...@lancaster.ac.uk wrote: Actually, the convention is that objects should be tagged with four names. The 'name=*' tag is Hangul followed by English in brackets. This is the most important, as it is the 'fallback' tag for rendering a name. The others are 'name:en=*' for the English name, 'name:ko=*' for the Korean name (in Hangul), and 'name:ko_rm=*' for the Romanised Korean name. How do we deal with all other languages than English that does not use Hangul characters? Do we need to tag all these place names with all language codes? - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] wikitude content
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: It isn't legal, because the locations are derived from Google Maps. This is basically a mashup based on Google Maps. I was unaware that Google have claimed any rights over POIs added in such mashups (Google My Maps or other sites). Could you provide some more details? - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] wikitude content
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Joel joelheeth...@gmail.com wrote: They do hold the rights to the location of the POIs when based on Google maps. I have tried to find something in their terms that verifies this, but have not found anything. Could you please be a bit more specific? Even if the use case is slightly different, see this post by Ed Parsons (and the comments): http://www.edparsons.com/2008/10/who-map-is-it-anyway/ - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: In the strict (German) use case, you need to distinguish between bicycle=allowed/suitable and bicycle=road sign. This is not about marking a default, this is about describing the real situation precise enough to make deductions about access rights for _other_ traffic. highway=cycleway (allowed and suitable) bicycle=dedicated (road sign) bicycle=yes = (not road sign) foot=yes/no (to make the situation clearer) highway=footway (not suitable) bicycle=yes (but allowed) bicycle=dedicated (signed) Or am I missing something? - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: highway=footway (not suitable) bicycle=yes (but allowed) bicycle=dedicated (signed) A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me. In Norway you are allowed to cycle on all footways, unless explicitly forbidden. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Those eight people can only do this if not even 0.1% of the other 1 care enough to oppose the proposal. If that's the case, then apparently the proposal isn't so bad, is it? Why didn't all those people who apparently hate path vote against it? If you look at the voting results, you will see that it was rather disputed from the start: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Path#Voting - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
2009/8/11 Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de This is a rather lenient definition that is unsuitable to depict the German use case. That is exactly the reason for the confusion we are having. If something is tagged as a cycleway and I am planning to walk on foot, I need to know whether it is an unsigned way assumed to be suitable for cycling (then I may use it as a pedestrian) or whether it is legally dedicated to cycling (then I must not use it as a pedestrian). highway=cycleway, foot=yes vs highway=cycleway, foot=no? - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural worldmapping ...
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.comwrote: Looking at the discussion Mike Harris has already suggested the tags I would suggest, but I may as well repeat them natural=woodland land covered with trees (Minimum Crown Cover = 20%) Sounds like a good idea to me. landuse=forestry I am not so sure about this. Combining landuse and natural is not normally done (?) and I think forestry can be assumed outside of conservation areas. - Gusatv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] radioactivity
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:21 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: isn't the issue here that radioactivity is like height, i.e. a smoothly-varying value that exists everywhere and is typically represented as gridded data (which gets converted to contours for display). Average yearly rainfall, air pollution, demographics,... The list goes on. with height, people said that the grid data was unsuitable for going into OSM because OSM is point/line/area, and that it would be confusing if you had huge grids of nodes for each sample of height/noise/radioactivity/ground colour. I agree. There is (currently) no usable way to store such information in the OSM database. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:40 AM, John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to clarify it's meaning to be one thing, that is it has higher volumes of traffic than residential, but not enough to be considered tertiary. Then I propose to clarify it's meaning to be one thing, that is a road equal to a residential road, but outside residential areas. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Maritime borders
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) skipp...@gimnechiske.org wrote: Ok, I am revisiting this. Both me and Gustav F (original writes of the proposal) was not satisfied with the outcome of the last vote (about 50/50), so I have rewritten the proposal based on many of the comments from the rejecting votes. In rewriting this proposal we have made some changes from the original proposal: - The territorial waters should be tagged as other national borders, with an addition tag to indicate that it is not a normal land border. - It is made clear that the territorial waters is what should be in the boundary relation for countries At the same time, the proposal provides a consistent way for tagging other UNCLOS boundaries. These changes have been made based on the criticism of the original proposal. We hope that the revised proposal will be approved. Please cast your vote at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Maritime_borders Regards, Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote: On Tuesday 21 Jul 2009 19:37:15 Gustav Foseid wrote: I would prefer a combination of natural=trees for smaller areas covered with trees, typically within urban areas, and natural=forest for larger forests or areas with forest like eco systems. Why? Because is see forests as something fundamentally different from a few trees in the corner of a park. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] keep right! and landuse=wood
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote: Of course, determining whether your average bit of woodland in the UK is landuse or natural is fun, given that pretty much all of it has been carefully managed at soem stage over the past few hundred years! Why do we care if it's mananged, and if it's a forest or wood? Knowing that would help guide which tags to use, otherwise I'm tempted to just mark everything as natural=wood and be done with it! In my mind, something like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cricketbatwillow/825730972/ is managed forest and landuse=forest But something like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sequella/425687849/in/photostream/ is mostly unmanaged and natural=wood. At least, that has been my interpretation of the wiki. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] keep right! and landuse=wood
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:41 PM, John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cricketbatwillow/825730972/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/sequella/425687849/in/photostream/ Ummm is it just me or do they both look like plantations used for logging? The only difference seems to be the age of the trees and/or type of tree. The first picture is part of a willow plantation in Australia, especially managed to make good materials for cricket bats. It is unlikely that willow would grow in this spot, and at least in such neat rows, if it had not been for this plantation. The second picture is from a pine forest in Finland, with some spruce and birch. From the picture it is hard to tell if they are planted or not, but pine would certainly be growing there even if they are not planted. Some forestry activites, like thinning, are probably done every 10-20 years and the trees will some day be harvested. I would not say that the second picture is of a plantation. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote: Surely the basic, universal need is there are some trees here, they're called Sherwood Forest? Evoke natural=wood (lakes and beaches also fall in between managed and unmanaged land but are marked as natural) Some trees here called something, does not really fit the reality in all places. Scandinavia: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8ll=60.632796,13.771362spn=1.470943,5.844727t=hz=8 Siberia: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8ll=62.277187,62.466202spn=0.174406,0.730591t=hz=11 Amazonas: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8ll=-6.20609,-62.402344spn=5.960723,11.689453t=hz=7 Kongo: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8ll=0.911827,16.798096spn=2.998546,5.844727t=hz=8 - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, David Lynch djly...@gmail.com wrote: I'm also thinking that deprecating both landuse=forest and natural=wood might be a good idea if this goes forward. Replace it with natural=trees, which is just as self-explanitory, and which (to this particular mapper) sounds like a better fit for small clumps of 10 trees than wood. What would you then use for a 200 square kilometer continous forest? - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] keepright! goes global
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Great stuff! I've been using keepright in London for a while now. The most common form of error is an almost-junction. It seems that many of these could be fixed automatically, subject to manual confirmation. Is there any tool that can do this? Or an easy shortcut in Potlatch? - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia POI import?
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: For over a hundred years, English courts have held that a significant expenditure of labour is sufficient - that's, er, Wikipedia saying that. Has there been any sweat of the brow cases after the database directive has been implemented? In the Scandinavian countries a, somewhat, similar right exists (anyone who gathers a large number of of facts). I have seen legal arguments that this is invalid after the database directive, but has not been able to find any court cases that are relevant. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] immutable=yes Fwd: DEC Lands
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote: *I* see OSM as an API for all possible geodata: everything that doesn't move, and a few things that do. There are arguably many things currently in OSM which should not be edited. For example, political boundaries at every level. Well... Many of the boundaries could very well do with some editing. I have worked with the Norwegian-Russian and Norwegian-Finnish borders. First of all, the CIA data are very inaccurate (150 meters or more in some cases). Then you have borders that are not static (the Norwegian-Russian border follows the actual thalweg in some places, and most international borders are officially surveyed every 25 years or so). Even when you have a surveyed border and access to the official documents there are inaccuracies (Norway-Finland is accurate to a few millimeters, but the conversion to WGS84 for Norway-Russia is maybe as uch as a few meters inaccurate). And finally you have OSM tagging changing. Some objects needs a lot more care when editing than others, but that is not to say that someone with the right knowledge and sources available should be unable to edit them. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] immutable=yes Fwd: DEC Lands
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:24 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: What's needed here is not an immutable=yes tag but rather a couple of tags source=DEC and accuracy=definitive which will give GPS toting mappers the information they need to know that the data in OSM is likely to be more accurate that their GPS. They can then take an informed view about whether or not to mess with it. This is how it is done for the NOFI border: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/29505551/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/325229872/history - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Post tastsic questions of my own
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 3:07 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Over IM and email I've had some really positive replies. There are a lot of you out there who personally responded that you liked my posts. You don't like the crappy negative tone of a lot of people. You think the license is a good step. You want to see my satanic portal. I have to ask you why do you do this personally? I know the answer. You have a secret and you want to keep it safe and warm and snuggly in your duvet, away from these posts. It's called sanity. I know. It's hard. But if you post here, and show the End Of The World crew that there are opinions beyond we will all be better. Really. All of you who have IM'd me or emailed with your kind words, jump in here and keep at it. We'll build a better world with unicorns and water that runs uphill. I have seen enough of you postst to feel that you have contributed to the negative tone. But can we leave the barking about who is the most negative person on the list aside for a few days? My second question goes to those who live in the various countries that aren't bankrupt... oh I mean those that aren't in the UK. Would Norway count? How is the community there? Is it bad? Is it good? Somewhere in between, I would say. How can we help. What are *you* doing to help? I have informed of the process, and think most people interested are on the international mailing list. The response seems positive. Are you stirring dissent? Are you trying to build a consensus? I have provided my view, that the idea behind the license is better than the current CC-BY-SA, but that some legal aspects needs to be sorted out. We have one person from a major Norwegian provider of online maps on the list. He seems to have the same view as the other Steve, that a change is eagerly anticipated by traditional cartographers. Do you think you're cool enough to fork or do you want to build something better? Because we love you. Please... Could you, in addition to asking others to be more positive in their communication, live up to that yourself. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22crown+copyright+and+database+right%22 Heh. My maps are too old to have this. That would be an uphill battle, but there is a chance you might win. If you have old digital map data, you might have an even better chance. Do you have the resources to start a fight with OS? Thought so... - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:38 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.comwrote: They used the map to pin the locations - the points did not come from some other map. Therefore it is derived (this is precisely the problem with pinning pictures on a Google or OSM map). So if they put the data in a database (= spreadsheet for example) before printing it, that would be derived, surely. The coordinates came from a Produced Work (some map image og paper map). As I read the license, works (or databases) based on a Produced Work is not subject to the conditions of the ODbL. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.ukwrote: If you were able to extract coordinates then this could be regarded as reverse engineering the Produced Work, in which case it's covered by 4.7 It is not done by You or on Your behalf. So you cannot make a map and then start reverse engineering, since you are bound by the license/contract, but a random user of the map can do this. I think such a clause makes a lot of sense. You cannot make a special purpose rendering, showing just the information you want to reverse engineer, and at just the right scale, to circumvent the license. On the other side, things like normal geocoding of images would be no problem. I don't think anyone see any need for users releasing their picture database. This can also, to a limited degree, be a larger loophole if large amounts of maps are distributed as SVG or other formats that are easier to reverse engineer from. I still think it is reasonable to be perfectly clear that things like geocoding images are allowed, without any need to share the result. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:13 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: except that the ODbL does represent a fundamental change in licensing of map images - previously they were sharealike, but with ODbL it will only require attribution? That is hos the license is understood by most people, yes. Some questions on the final wording are still outstanding, as you have probably seen. This could potentially alienate anyone who wonders why they are doing surveying for free so that cartographers can sell all-rights-reserved map images based on their data. It could, potentially, even if I agree with Richard. I think it is important to explain why this change is to the better in the majority of the cases. It is no longer possible to make massive amendments to the OSM data set, make a mp of this and not share the data. Previously, you had to share the map image, including design elements like pictograms, but to get the updated map data into the database again, someone would have to to georectification of the map and trace the changes. With the ODbL, the image of the map does not have to be free, but the data have to be shared. This means that the design elements are proprietary, but the data are easily available. This also opens up uses where you can combine data sources with different licenses. One example could be digital elevation models combined with data from OSM, to make a good hiking map. Two examples: I want to make a map of Copenhagen, with some good beer pubs. I am a lousy artist, and would like to grab some pictograms from istockphoto.com to make a good looking map. This is not possible today, and the map will lack good pictograms. I will also be adding some extra pubs and other information which is not in the database today. If anyone want to add this extra information to the database, so they will be available for other users, they will have to do this manually and the project gains very little. Cloudmade and Geofabrik have some nice looking stylesheets that I would like to base the above map on. Even if the map tiles are available to me, they are little of no use to me. I will need to customize some things, like rendering of pubs and restaurants, and cannot use the tiles directly. The share alike properties of these images is not worth very much to me. I think the bottom line here, is that the _data_ are very much more valuable than any image made with them. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:22 PM, wer-ist-roger juwelier-onl...@web.dewrote: The only thing I'm missing right now is a little more explenation on the wiki page. For example why needs the database a license at all? The database is nothing without the data init. So first of all why dose the database need a license and why do we need two different licenses for database and the data within? What is an appropriate wiki page? - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] compatibility with CC licenses
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: There has been some discussion of adding a tag into the planet.osm header detailing that the data is licensed. Also adding some contract text on http://planet.openstreetmap.org/ to cover our non-eu-database-right friends. Take a closer look at the use case. The two first users (the one making the derived database and the one unzipping it on a FTP server) both distributed the license. The problem here is the direct link to the modified database and the CTO never seeing the license text. The first user could of course have put some kind of notice in the header, but then again he might not. - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] compatibility with CC licenses
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Quoting 4.2 (b) [You must] Include a copy of this Licence [...] or its Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) [...] both in the Database [...] and in any relevant documentation Sorry, overlooked that. If this is in the planet.osm (or in my example planet-modified.osm), which is a machine readable file not intended for manual reading, will this be anything even close to a valid contract? - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Factual Information License and Produced Works?
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.comwrote: The ODbL says that one can release Produced Works under any license. The Factual Information License says that You must include a copy of this Licence with the Work in a location reasonably calculated to make others aware of it. The Factual information license, seems to be a bit schizophrenic. It says both that facts are free, and that these free facts cannot be used without including a license... - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] compatibility with CC licenses
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 2:10 PM, John Wilbanks wilba...@creativecommons.orgwrote: If Big Company decides to run a mechanical turk contest on Amazon to extract facts from your DB one at a time, do they violate the license without having ever signed it - can they possibly be bound by it if they haven't signed it, clicked ok on a digital box etc? And at what point does the individual person working in the turk contest infringe - 5 facts, 10 facts, 100 facts? And who would you sue in the event you wanted to take it to court? A related use case: A user in the EU downloads the database (planet.osm in OSM), modifies it (simplifies ways and merges dual carriageways, for instance) and puts this derived database (planet-modified.osm) on a FTP server, along with a readme.txt containing the license, in a zip file. Another user in the EU, downloads this copy, unzips the archive and puts all the files in the zip archive in a folder on a FTP server. A person in the USA, not related to the creation or publishing of the database, makes a web page with a direct link to just the database (planet-modified.osm). Then Small Company CTO downloads the database from this link, having never seen the license text and working in a jurisdiction without copyright protection (or related rights) for databases. Can the CTO use the database in his brand new product without any restrictions? Who, if any, can the creator of the original database take to court? A variation is if all the users are in the US, but Small Company is in the EU. The Database Directive does not give protection for database creators outside the EU/EEC (as far as I remember). Same questions. - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: incompatibility issues
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Not so, it turns out; the Produced Work freedom allows us to combine OSM data *only* with other data whose license does not prohibit the addition of constraints, because ODbL mandates that we add the reverse engineering leads to ODbL licensing rule. I do not read the ODbL this way. I read that only persons bound by the license/contract are prohibited from reverse engineering. Clarification here is needed. - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Not on the map per se, but if you use the map to re-create the original database then - at least that's what I was thinking! - you are not using your own database but you are (again) using the database compiled by the original owner, so you need his permission to use it. This is - I thought - absolutely independent of the channel through which you received the original database. Think of CC0 (waive all database rights) or WTFPL (Can I... trace from the map and sell the result?). With such licenses you can not keep any databse rights. But then again, the ODbL says [a]ny product of this type of reverse engineering activity (whether done by You or on Your behalf by a third party) is governed by this License. I fail to see how a person having access to only the Produced Work (that would be, for instance, a user of an online mapping service using OSM data), could be bound by the ODbL. As long as he or she does not reverse engineer on Your behalf, it seems such reverse engineering would be allowed. - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Me, You, the Licensor and the Contract
The Licensor (as defined below) and You (as defined below) agree as follows: reads the beginning of ODbL. The Licensor is the natural or legal person the that offers the Database under the terms of this Licence. Who will be the licensor (owner) of the database for OSM? For the factual information license, the wording is rather similar, but here the OSM user is the Licensor. Who will be You? When applying the license to a database, you do this by adding a copyright notice. In what jurisdictions will this form a legal contract? What will happen if a database is distributed without the copyright notice? - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] rights of way and designation=*
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Robert Vollmert rvollmert-li...@gmx.netwrote: I've had a look at tagwatch (unfortunately not terribly up-to-date) and documented this suggestion and current use at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation . Please flesh the page out! It'd be nice to have a list of sensible values there; also, should there be a :uk or uk: in the tag or value? I think I was one of the first to mention uk (as in uk_row for the tag). This was just to make the point that the tag could (and maybe even should) be rather UK-specific, not necessarily that uk should be part of the name. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: I think it's pretty unarguable that, in the UK, your tracing of the Peruvian lakes would merit copyright or similar protection (as sweat-of-the-brow). Both the UK sweat-of-the-brow and the Norwegian (and Dutch?) protection of a large number of facts _might_ be invalid after the database directive. I have seen legal scholars argue that the Norwegian protection of databases, are stronger than the database directive permits. This has, as far as I know, never been tested in a court case, and as such does little more than add tp the confusion surrounding database rights. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com wrote: Nick Again I find myself in almost complete agreement with you. I found highway=cycleway a particularly difficult concept given that bicycle rights are somewhat ill-defined in rights-of-way lore (notwithstanding the 1968 Countryside Act). They do, however, make pretty much sense in many other parts of the world. I see no good reason why the (very UK specific) right of way tags should not be something like uk_row:foot=, uk_row:briddleway= and so on. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Adding architect names to buildings
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.netwrote: Is the architect an attribute of the building or is the building an attribute of the architect? From a mapping perspective, I would say that the architect clearly is an attribute of the building. From an art history perspective, I would say that the building is an attribute to the architect. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] News blog link - to blogs.openstreetmap.org?
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 9:18 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Because 80n knows the answers Frederik, this is called politics. But I, and many others, don't know the answer. I was asking a question. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Maritime borders - Voting - (boundary=maritime)
After discussions on both the mailing list and the wiki we (that is myself and Skippern) have opened the proposed boundary=maritime for voting at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maritime_borders We think this is the best way suggested to tag the whole hiearchy of maritime borders, in a way that is useful for both renderers, other data consumers and taggers. The proposal takes into account various claims of sovereignty, ranging from the baseline to the EEZ. Please be aware that this is a tag that is closely related to core map features (national borders), and the result of this vote is likely to influence most maps made using OSM data. Regards Gustav and Skippern (aka Aun) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging of maritime borders
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com wrote: I would suggest that maritime borders are not tagged the same way as land borders. Should we have a new tag for maritime borders? Stop tagging them? Ignore the problem? The proposal authored by Aun (Skippern) is now open for voting at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maritime_borders - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Greenland street and aerial geodata to OSM
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:43 PM, GIS g...@asiaq.gl wrote: Asiaq Greenland Survey holds a repository of digital geodata: orthorectified imagery of towns and villages and overview maps with streets, buildings, footpaths, shoreline, lakes etc. They can be seen on http://en.nunagis.gl by choosing a town on the drop down box. Very good news :) By a donation we are able distribute data to osm, google and yahoo. Is there a license text available somwehere? How do we get further on uploading on osm? The ortophotos could probably be uploaded to OpenAerialMap. For the rest of the data, it would probably be best if someone made them available for easy download? - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] News blog link - to blogs.openstreetmap.org?
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:17 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: As you both know several years of work went in to that blog, and not just by me. Maybe you should both think twice before dismissing it all. For those of us who don't know... Who contributes to the news blog? What is the connection between OpenGeoData.org and OSM? - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com wrote: Can you show me how to make rendering rules (I am mostly interested in Mapnik, but any renderer will do as a proof of concept), which does not draw a border line along the coastline of Germany and at the territorial waters border of Germany? Sample rendering rules for proposal 3 in Kosmos are at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maritime_borders/Kosmos_3 The border between Norway and Russia is tagged according to this proposal. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org wrote: Actually the best we have is the actual tagging in the database. Works wonderfully. I disagree. Can you show me how to make rendering rules (I am mostly interested in Mapnik, but any renderer will do as a proof of concept), which does not draw a border line along the coastline of Germany and at the territorial waters border of Germany? f you look at almost any non-OSM map, that be an Atlas of the World from you bookshelf, a tourist map of Europe or most (if not all) online maps, you will not see halos around islands and coastlines. This is not because the data to make them have been unavailable for the mapmakers, but because the mapmakers have made a choice not to show these borders or show them differently (perhaps as a thin blue line). If we tag maritime borders the same way as land borders, it will be very difficult for someone using OSM data to avoid drawing halos, with todays renderers I would even call it impossible. I think we should make it easy to follow long established cartographic conventions for general purpose maps using OSM data, and at the same time making it fairly easy to make a special purpose map. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 12:07 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Tagging the appropriate parts with maritime=yes or something would add valuable semantic information about these borders. It would also then make it very easy for renderers to suppress them or render them differently. One of the suggestions on the wiki page (and the one I like best), suggest using boundary=maritime and using border_type=* for the various types of maritime borders defined in UNCLOS. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: You have probably not read the posting to which Jochen refers. It is here: Read, but not understood (even if I did try...) It distinguishes between boundary=administrative (which would denote the political boundaries, be they on water or on land), and land_area=administrative (for the land area). Other than this distinction, both are tagged the same. A landlocked country will have just one border relation that is tagged boundary=administrative AND land_area=administrative, whereas a country with maritime borders will have two relations that partly use the same ways, partly not. Crucially, the coastline ways are never tagged with any boundary tag; they are just included as-is in the land_area=administrative relation. So, a renderer will need to understand realtions to be able to render any borders? Would it not be a good idea to combine this relation with a specific set of tags for maritime borders? I still have not seen a ruleset (for any renderer) that does not render the halos around coastlines. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org wrote: Simple rendering without need for the relation has been taken care of in the comprehensive proposal by tagging the ways with admin_level. What else do you need? You have taken care of the wrong part of rendering. It is easy to render the territorial waters border, but difficult not to. I have checked some widely used online maps (didn't bother to go digging through my paper maps): Google Maps: Does not render international maritime borders Mapquest: Renders baseline/internal waters at high zoom levels, land borders only at low zoom levels. Live Maps: Renders only land borders Yahoo Maps: Renders only land borders and (at low zoom levels) internal waters border between two countries Map24.com: Internal waters and land borders? Basically, it seems that most map makers prefer to treat maritime borders and land borders differently. I think taggin in OSM should make this well established practice easy, instead of making it easy to render the territorial waters and land borders the same. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org wrote: But! There always is a but, isn't there. :-) When I look at popular maps, a very common thing is to only paint part of the map boundaries in the water. Normally only out from the coast for a few kilometers and maybe between islands or so. Does that mean we have to tag those parts differently? Look at proposal 2 on the wiki page. This was my original proposal, but I have changed my mind, as the most common ways to do this, seems to be rendering either territorial waters or baseline/internal waters with countries on both sides. OK, so proposal 3 is not perfect for all renderers, but it is a pretty good start for the most common rendering needs, and it reflects the legal situation for these borders pretty well. It also is a good starting point for fiddling in the database to get other rendering rules. I have asked if you can come up with a rendering rules for your proposal (which is still not documented in the wiki) for the most common ways to render maps. I will provide some for proposal 3 as sson as I have the time. Maybe boundary=somewhat_important? Its nice to tag things to make it easier for the renderers, but first we should tag them for what they are. And the boundary out on the water is an administrative boundary like all the others. So it should be boundary=administrative. If you want to, you can add extra tags as hints to renderers. No, they are not administrative borders like all the others. They are part of a hiearchy, where territorial waters is the most important. Please take another look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea How should internal waters, contigious zone and EEZ be tagged? They are also boundaries. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com wrote: This is not intended to solve all problems with tagging of maritime borders, just as a temporary way to tag these borders without causing bubbles around all coastlines in all general purpose renderers. Some more progess has been made on the wiki page, and I suggest everyone interested in the topic of maritime borders head over to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maritime_borders It would be nice if tagging of these borders could be solved soon. A formal proposal with wiki voting is probably the best way forward for these tags, with a page cleanup, RFC and a following vote within a couple of weeks. I am no big fan of the wiki vote procedure, but it is the best we have. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:smoothness
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 12:15 AM, Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.comwrote: I think the page needs to be put back to the regular map features standard. I disagree. There are a number of features listed as approved without being on map features. This should alse be tha case for smoothness, as long as: - It is not supported by any renderer. - Hardly used at all. - It is rather hard to understand how to use. Those who need to use map something like this, should be able to find it on the approved page, but it does not need to be on the map features page. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:smoothness
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 3:43 PM, sylvain letuffe li...@letuffe.org wrote: A tag should be IMHO on the feature page as long as it's potential use covers a lot of object in the database where a lot of mapper might be in touch with. Should we have a page detailed mapping of roads or something similar? Could be useful, imho, for traffic_calming, service, tracktype and some less used tags like bus_guideway. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki: chriscf vandalism
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Disagree strongly - it depends entirely where you're mapping. I doubt I've ever come across anywhere where smoothness= might be relevant while mapping Burton-on-Trent (well, maybe one road which the flipping Gas Board keeps digging up), a large urban area. I did some mapping in the Gambia in early January (not much of it in OSM yet, and deleting my GPS log was not a good idea). Here smoothness= could make quiet a lot of sense, as the smoothness of the road pretty much decided what kind of vehicle you had to hire and what route to follow. Of course, if you did bring a mechanic, that did influense the decision. This is not to say that I support the tag, as my vote indicates, but something similar can be useful. But around here in rural Charlbury, that kind of information is absolutely crucial when mapping bridleways. As someone on the wiki pointed out, though, the smoothness tag as currently conceived is near as dammit useless for these because it offers no chance for differentiating between winter and summer. Or dry/wet season for that matter. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] West African mangrove forests and PGS coastlines
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Erik Johansson e...@kth.se wrote: Landsat also produces images outside of the visibile light spectrum, perhaps looking at these others could help? (How to access these, and if it really works I don't know). I downloaded Landsat images of Banjul from ftp://ftp.glcf.umiacs.umd.edu/glcf/Landsat/WRS2/p205/r051/p205r051_7x20001106.ETM-EarthSat-Orthorectified/and started playing around a bit. The result ended up looking like this: http://www.foseid.no/gustav/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=1073g2_imageViewsIndex=1 Compare with how this looks in OpenStreetMap today and in OpenAerialMap (iCube Landsat): http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=13.394lon=-16.358zoom=11layers=B000FTF http://www.openaerialmap.org/?lat=13.42284lon=-16.56708zoom=11layers=BF I have not tested the same settings at other places, but it does at least indicate that automated tracing from selected Landsat data could be possible. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Ugh. Can we (ping steve8) get some way of tagging this differently so it _doesn't_ show? It looks really, really ugly. As a temporary solution, I suggest that until a proper tagging scheme for maritime borders are found, the following tagging is used for territorial waters: boundary=administrative border_type=territorial_waters Only where this is a border between two nations (that is, the territorial waters meet and there is both a left:country and right:country) is admin_level=2 added. This is not intended to solve all problems with tagging of maritime borders, just as a temporary way to tag these borders without causing bubbles around all coastlines in all general purpose renderers. Regards, Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.comwrote: In other news, I've converted the 12nm line around the UK and Ireland to be fully tagged, so it's now showing in its own bubble on the mapnik render. In my mind, these halos around al islands, are in itself a good reason to provide som kind of hints for renderers in tha tagging of maritime borders. An renderer that does not want such bubbles can probably do some kind fo magic in their copy of the database to find boundaries more or less 12 nm from a coast and not render them, but it is hardly an easy operation. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout klep...@gmail.comwrote: boundary=maritime? or something like: boundary=administrative admin_maritime=territorial ? - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 1:37 AM, Rory McCann r...@technomancy.org wrote: Some land borders, e.g. between Ireland and the UK are like that. No border control. It is not exactly the same. Anyone (say a person from Morocco or Colombia) is not allowed to walk across Ireland on his way to the UK without going through imigration, but he is allowed to sail through the Irish territorial waters on his way to the UK. The UK miltary is free to use the Irish economic zone (200 mile boundary) for military exercise and can sail through Irish territorial waters in their way there, but they are not free to march through Dublin on their way to a war game in Cork. I think maritime borders should be in OSM. I can't really think why they should be tagged differently. They are a boundary=adminitrative, and they do have an admin_level of 2 What border would you tag? The end of internal waters, the end of territorial waters or the end of the economic zone? I agree that they belong in OSM. But admin_level 2? To me, that implies that this is a boundary between two entities of level 2 (countries). The maritime borders, however, mark decreasing level of control with the same entity (country) on both sides of the border. The places where the territorial waters of two countries meet (that is, where there is less than 24 miles from shore to shore) tagging the same way as a land border makes more sense, in my opinion. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 1:26 PM, D Tucny d...@tucny.com wrote: I'm not exactly up on laws, rules, treaties and agreements etc regarding borders and controls, but, is this not about politics? If Someone from, using your example, Morocco, flies to the UK via Ireland, they also won't need to go through imigration in Ireland, as long as they are only transferring... That is up to the country you are transferring through. In the US, for instance, you need to go through imigration even when you are transferring between two international flights. The borders are real, they do exist do they not, but, isn't it up to the ruling goverment to decide how they enforce those borders, be it at land, at sea, in the air and with whom they allow free passage across those borders? I suggest the following Wikipedia article as a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea Should administative boundaries at level 2 show an area of border control only? Should the admin_level between EU member states or between schengen member states be a higher level? say 3 or 4? With an EU boundary at level 2? Or a Schengen boundary at level 2? Or overlapping schengen and EU boundaries at level 2 or 3... No, but I think admin_level should indicate that a line is a boundary between two entities of the same level. When you say that a boundary is admin_level 2, does that not indicate that you have one country on one side of the line and another country on the other side of the line? If used on maritime borders of 12 nm, it indicates that you have one country's territorial waters on one side and the contiguous zone of the same country on the other side. If used at 24 nm it indicates one contry's contiguos zone on one side and the same country's economic zone on the other side. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging of maritime borders
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 12:22 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.comwrote: Have they been tagged as national borders or just as boundary=administrative? If it's the latter why is this an inappropriate use of the boundary=administrative tag? Exclusive economic zone and territorial waters are just another type of administrative borders at the trans-national level. They have been tagged just as normal land borders, with boundary=administrative and admin_level=2. The only difference is that they (for obvious reasons) normally have only one contry name, sometimes none. Replacing admin_level with something that indicates that the boundary is not between two different administrative entities of similar level. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] google wms
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: Hard validation wasn't the point. The point was to make the user think twice, just as with Richard's comment on using GPSBabel to convert KML to GPX, then having to munge it to add timestamps. You can bypass such a check in the editor just as easily, but either method allows the editor to tell the user why there's a problem. Let us not make this a KML-problem. It is a nice format to work with, well supported and with more features than GPX. All the work I have done with the international borders of Norway, have been based around KML, for a number of reasons (the two most important, being the ability to assign colors to markers and a good client to visualize the data in). In addition, I have had a hard time finding anything in Google Earth terms that limits tracing, as opposed to Google Maps where this is stated very clearly. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of Place Names in Mapnik
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 1:37 AM, Karl Newman siliconfi...@gmail.com wrote: That's the sort of thing automated renderers have difficulty sorting out. Maybe we need a tag for cultural value :-P (I would hazard a guess that San Jose has a larger economic impact, though.) I have suggested that the number of values for the hamlet/village/town/city hiearchy is incerased. Adding major_* and minor_* for village, town and city could be one way to solve some of the problems. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of Place Names in Mapnik
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Karl Newman siliconfi...@gmail.com wrote: You're still missing the point about San Jose--it's larger in both area and population (and probably in economic activity as well), and is located within an hour's drive of San Francisco, but San Francisco is better known around the world and should arguably take priority in rendering. My idea was that major_ could be used for a city of greater importance of some kind. Someone also suggested a value metropolis for the large metropolitan areas. I do not agree that using population or area is a good way to solve this problem. Finding population data for all named places is not easy (this problem extends beyond the largest cities) and population is not necessarily a good way to find the most important place name in an area. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of Place Names in Mapnik
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Karl Newman siliconfi...@gmail.com wrote: Sure it is. If a lot of people want to live in a place, in general that should make it more notable. Besides, I was only suggesting using population as a tiebreaker for equal place key values. It's not the final answer, but it's objective and it goes a long way toward fixing the problem. I don't like your _major and _minor suffixes because they imply different population, which is not how you described it. How do you suggest we find population for places? I can tell that a town is a regional center, without having to know it's population. Maybe major/minor is not the best names, however. How many values should we have for populated places? We have 4 now (hamlet/village/town/city). Should we add more? Reduce to fewer? Maybe just one? - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of Place Names in Mapnik
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: Perhaps something could be done similar to boundary with so many admin_levels and some sort of default mapping from the existing 4 places to their new numeric equivalent (a bit like footway and some combination of tags including highway=path are equivalent as far as I can tell). This would allow areas around the world to use intermediate levels should they wish to, if their societal structure makes such use appropriate. That could be an option, but it is not backwards compatible. It would, however, make it easior to adapt to various cultures. The place name structure must work in a number of different situations, just to mention a few: - A metropolis like Tokyo or Los Angeles, often constisting of what is considered a number of smaller cities. - An island like Crete, where the mountains are literally scattered with little towns and hamlets quite close together (example from Douglas Furlong in another thread). - Norwegian rural areas, where villages are just areas where the houses are somewhat closer than outside of villages. I'd probably add suburb somewhere between town and village, and allow perhaps 2 spare levels between each of those 5 categories, and perhaps a couple either side as well, though can't imagine what gets smaller than hamlet - isolated house perhaps? Regions within a town or city is of course another problem, with only suburb available today. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] N2000 database from Statens kartverk
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Lars Aronsson l...@aronsson.se wrote: Can someone who speaks Norwegian and is familiar with the map data copyright situation in Norway please take a look at this user talk page, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jensens#Kart He claims that they are N2000 maps from Norge Digitalt and that he has access to these maps as a partner of Norge Digitalt. My employer is a Norge Digitalt partner, and I have access to these maps at work. They are *only* for internal use and is not to be used for redistribution. I am not sure of exactly when usage stops being internal (we often print Norge Digitalt maps to give as documentation to our suppliers, for instance), but I am pretty sure this is usage is not within the license. Regards, Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Who is the licensor / whose database is it?
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Iván Sánchez Ortega [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Temporary files (or information arranged in memory) in your computer are considered databases, so I'd go with option 1. To be protectec under the database directive, you need to make a significant investment for the database to be protected. You also need to be a citizen of a EU or EEA country. IANAL (could a lawyer please explain whu we keep saying this?) - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Removal of CC-SA-BY licensed data from OSM after ODbL takes effect
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Rob Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would it be possible for CC to offer a licence transition clause for large scale open geodata projects in the same way the FSF has offered an FDL - BY-SA get out for Wikipedia in the current minor FDL revision? Well... If I am not mistaken, people closely involved with CC have argued that OSM is in the public domain and only the graphical maps are creative and covered by copyright. You might call that a transition strategy, if not a transition clause. - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Removal of CC-SA-BY licensed data from OSM after ODbL takes effect
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: That would entail arguing that map data is uncopyrightable while at the same time transitioning the OSM map data to a new copyright license. It's not feasible. Database protection can exists even if copyright does not. - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Updated view of 'A year of edits on OSM' and also Santa's Routes!
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Ed Loach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know Norwegian, but the best translation of Gråsonen that I can come up with is grey zone. Gråsonen or grey zone is a disputed area between the (undisputed) exclusive economic zones of Norway and Russia. In my opinion, it makes little sense to have this area marked as a administrative boundary of level 2, as long as we do not these zones in the first place. A sketch is here: http://www.sikkerhetspolitikk.no/kart/hav/2.htm - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Hierarchy of places
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Pieren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. What I suggest is to keep the current place key as a first argument to prioritize places and use either population or admin_level as a second argument in case the first is equal. So if Paris is declared twice as a place=town in the db, the second argument can distinguish which one is the most important. I am more concerned about giving good hints for renderers than the namefinder, but I think the arguments are pretty much the same for both cases. Using other keys to give priority does not always work. Would you use the population for London metropolitan area or City of London as the London population, for instance? (I would argue that you use the metropolitan area, but you probably get the point.) I think we should have some way of saying that Boston is larger than Cambridge, Los Angeles is larger than Long Beach and Karlstad is larger than Kil. Certainly, this could be done by adding another set of tags, requiring another, potentially protected, datasource and/or more computation by data consumers. Some keys have added an enourmous number of values for things that are almost the same. I would not suggest going to any extreme, but add two or three values (one for large cities, one to differentiate between large and small towns and perhaps one for the very large metropolitan areas). - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Hierarchy of places
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Ben Laenen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a very bad idea IMHO. This is just trying to fix what's wrong with the town/city/village tags with more of the same tags. In my opinion, the main problem is that it lacks granularity. I have no way to say this town is rather large and an important commercial center for the surrounding area vs this town is a rather small town which mostly consists of suburbia. Could you please expand on what you think is wrong with town/village/hamlet? I can think of only a few European contries giving legal status as city, since they would all have to be English speaking countries. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Hierarchy of places
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Pieren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question is coming because the name finder gives the same importance to Paris, USA and Paris, France (or something like that). Instead of making more artificial granularity on the place hierarchy which is just moving the problem a bit farther not fixing it, I would suggest to use other tags like the population or the admin_level. Then it is the responsibility of the software developer to decide which one is the best for his application. Do you propose to replace place=hamlet/village/town/city with a place=populated_place (or something similar) and just use otehr metrics for rendering London more visible than Idmiston? I have a hard time seeing that village/town/city is an artificial granularity, and cannot see how adding a couple of more values makes them artifical either. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag this unknown barrier
2008/12/2 Miriam Tolke [EMAIL PROTECTED] mapping some areas here I came across some barriers in several places which in my opinion don't fit in those described in [[Map Features]]. I've uploaded a photo to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Unknown_barrier.jpg. How do you tag this? I would probably tag it as a bollard, since it allows pedestrians and bicycles to pass, but not four wheel vehicles. No, it doesn't look like a bollard, but it serves the same purpose and is after all not _that_ different from a bollard. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to tag this unknown barrier
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Miriam Tolke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tagged it as bollard before and yes, it comes near. But I think at least from the meaning of traffic_calming=chicane mentioned in the other answers it might even better. I would say that a chicane is designed to slow down traffic (much like a speed bump) and make a road less suitable for through traffic, without blocking access for any vehicles that are able to use the road on either side. This barrier is constructed to in such a way that cars which are able to use the road, are unable to pass the barrier. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Sebastian Hohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Even if the tag is horrible, it has been voted on and should thus stay on Map Features. Or should just everyone edit the wiki without regard for others. The tag is, in my opinion, very_horrible, but that is besides the point here. In my opinion the name for unclassified and parts of the places structure just as bad. We need to have a place to document the most used tags and tags that should be known, and easy to find, for newcomers as well as trained mappers. That is the Map Features page, and it should be reserved for a core set of tags, recognised by the most important renders and/or routing application. Smoothness is _not_ such a tag. The place for an approved tag which is not widely used is Approved features, not Map Features. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Ralf Zimmermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the tags that are being rendered by Mapnik or [EMAIL PROTECTED], if somebody makes a list of those I would put them on the wiki somewhere close to the renderer. This is because of two reasons: a) If a tag is not rendered on a map that is made for the general public this does not mean that this tag is not important on a specialized map - for example a map made for inline skaters. b) Remember: We are not tagging for the renderers. It is good to have the end-user in mind when you map and tag. But the renderer is not an end-user! And if they were - those would only be two flavours of a huge list of possible uses of the OSM data. We are not tagging for renderers, well it had to be mentioned, didn't it? No, that's right, we do not tag for renders, which means we do not tag something landuse=park, because we want it to be shown as green on the map, but because it is a park. The place for an approved tag which is not widely used is Approved features, not Map Features. I disagree in this point. How do we decide what is a widely used tag? And how can a new tag widely used when it is not on the Map Features wiki page? The other day I needed to tag a ski jump. That is not a widely used tag, even if each and every ski jump on the planet should be tagged with it. I would not expect a new mapper in The Gambia to be familiar with this tag, just as I would not need to know how to tag different varieties of mangrove. To me there are some core tags (highway=primary) which every mapper should be familiar with. On the other end of the scale there are things like bus guideways or ski jumps. I would consider an area fully mapped, even if a pelota field or a couple of grit bins are missing, but not if a primary highway is gone. Somewhere, there should be a more or less clear and concise list of tags that most mappers should be somewhat familiar with. I think this should be Map Features. Today, Map Features is full of almost unused tags (bus_guideway), contradictions (soccer vs football), hard to understand descriptions (no tag for this type yet, mostly out of order) and endless lists of shops and amenities. For tags of regional importance (mangrove, ski jump), we have national map features pages already. Here you can add tags which are not important everywhere, as well as national interpretations of the universal tags. One example is what link and primary should be in varying countries. If you come across something special, venture into unknown territory (I am actually going to the Gamboa soon, and need to read up on those mangrove tags), you should know where to look. This could be approved features or somewhere else. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Anyone familiar with Pulkova 1932 coordinates?
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Tim Waters (chippy) [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: This website may help? http://spatialreference.org/ref/epsg/?search=Pulkovo Thank you for the link. It seems Pulkovo 1942 variants are much more used, than 1932. The main difference seems to be that they changed from Bessel spheroid to to Krassowsky. Anyway, the file contains a number of coordinates given in Pulkovo 1932 (zone 5 and 6) as well as UTM89. Bernt found that these coordinates are enough to get a good approximation using linear regression. The border is going to be resurveyed next year, and hopefully a more modern daum will be used. I will post a link to the border as soon as I am done processing the numbers. Regards, Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over derived geographic data in the UK
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:14 PM, David Earl [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: and the letter from OS which provoked it: http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/docs/use-of-google-maps-for-display-and-promotion.pdf To me it seems that OS is broadening it's business into the seriously overstating rights trade... (Follow up should probably go to legal-talk, cc:ed) - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Anyone familiar with Pulkova 1932 coordinates?
I got the official coordinates for all the border stones and markers along the Norwegian-Russian border. The points are taken from the official protocol, and are in Pulkovo 1932 coordinate system. Does anyone have experience in working with this coordinate system or know how to transform the values to WGS84? The file is available from http://www.foseid.priv.no/gustav/2008/osm/Russkoor.xls, but all comments are in Norwegian only. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik rendering of paths + place=locality in general
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Andy Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: in that case we better find another solution which can tell what tags programs will try to support. Actually, a page like map features which documented such things would be good. But the current craze on the wiki is to ignore reality, run some voting stuff to make it look official, and then try to bend reality to fit whatever's decided by the wiki-fiddlers. I wish we could have a wiki page that describes tags which are supported by at least one of the major renderers (main mapnik, osmarender, cyclemap), routing software or widely used. Now a number of tags on map features are very rarely used or even usable (bus_guideway) or generally not rendered (path). As it is now, I think map features is confusing and often of little help when trying to find the best way to tag a feature. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A really quick poll
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:21 AM, SteveC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a) Would you like OSM to always be inferior to TeleAtlas and Navteq and probably die (PD license) b) Would you like OSM to be the best map on the planet (viral license)) c) This requires more than 90 seconds thought, please let me review the history of BSD vs. GPL I am really worried, when I see the chairman of the OSM Foundation making these kind of oversimplified statements regardig a complex issue like the OSM license. Building a community is much more important than any license, and this is not a good way to do it. - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] Lake rendering
Could someone take a look at lake Østensjøvannet near Oslo, and tell me how to fix the mulitpolygons, so both Osmarender, Mapnik and the Cycle Map understand them? http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=59.8815lon=10.8767zoom=14layers=0B00FTF http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=59.8816lon=10.8768zoom=14layers=B000FTF http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=59.8816lon=10.8768zoom=14layers=B000FTF I have made a couple of attempts, but without much luck. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lake rendering
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Bernt M. Johnsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Østensjøvannet seems ok, but Nøklevannet is missing on the Mapnik rendering. Is that the problem? Sorry, my mistake. Yes, the problem is Nøklevannet. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lake rendering
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: With two seperate relations I presume, one for the wood, one for the lake. Offhand I think osm2pgsql should get this right in slim mode (non-slim has its own problems). Do you have an example? It is reported as ticket #1308 now. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Recent changes to slippymap Mapnik rendering
Is there anywhere I can find the stylesheet used for the main Mapnik layer? - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD vs SA: The eternal battle
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 2:00 PM, bvh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apple I think we have heard enough of what Apple have done, might have done, probably would have done and have not done for a while. Could we again start focusing on a license for the OSM database? - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
