Re: [Talk-GB] SOTM 2013 - Final programme and end of mates rates
Working for me now Windows 7 Chrome Didn't load first 10 times i tried to view it, i was receiving malicious iframe warnings until i signed into google. From: Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com To: OpenStreetMap t...@openstreetmap.org; Talk-GB talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 23:38 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] SOTM 2013 - Final programme and end of mates rates Confirmed the programme worked on: Linux: Chrome (incognito mode so logged out) and Firefox. The box does flicker with some message (loading Google Drive I think) first though. It looks like Friday's schedule has been added to Lanyrd already, check back in another day or two and the guys might have got added the rest of the schedule added. http://lanyrd.com/2013/sotm/ On 29 August 2013 23:17, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm, that's odd as I seem to see it fine with and without my google account. Anyone else able to confirm this for me please? The programme will be making it's way onto Lanyrd soon so you should be able to view it there. Lanyrd has a great website designed for mobile devices (and a dedicated app) so this will be ideal for conference delegates wanting to check the schedule. Regards, Rob On 29 August 2013 18:36, Sam Larsen samlars...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Rob, This only seems to load if you are signed into Google. I try my best not to be signed in these days ;) You might want to look into that. Sam ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] SOTM 2013 - Final programme and end of mates rates
Rob, This only seems to load if you are signed into Google. I try my best not to be signed in these days ;) You might want to look into that. Sam From: Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com To: OpenStreetMap t...@openstreetmap.org; Talk-GB talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2013, 23:52 Subject: [Talk-GB] SOTM 2013 - Final programme and end of mates rates Hi All, == SOTM Final Programme == After a lot of hard work and many long hours the final programme for State of the Map 2013 is now available to view at http://2013.stateofthemap.org/info/programme/ This will also be copied over to Lanyrd in the coming days and the preceding text updated on the page above to provide a link. == Mates Rates tickets == Due to high demand we are getting close to being full. As such, we will be closing the mates rates discounted tickets at 12 noon BST this Friday. Be quick if you want to get the cheaper entry rates! Looking forward to seeing many of you at State of the Map 2013, Rob stateofthemap.org ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Find My Nearest Cash Machine
I don't really see the point of this thread. UK cash machine data is fairly dense in OSM, i very rarely find any that aren't already mapped. Can't we just extract OSM cash machines? This will spur us on to map them better in OSM in areas that are lacking, which will lead to a better OSM dataset anyway. Sam Larsen From: Derick Rethans o...@derickrethans.nl To: Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, 21 August 2012, 14:00 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Find My Nearest Cash Machine On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Shaun McDonald wrote: On 20 Aug 2012, at 13:15, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 12:33 +0100, Brian Prangle wrote: Impressive! Shame about the data. Just done a quick look around Acocks Green - ATMs missing and some are up to 30m away from their actual location. I would estimate about 95% accuracy. Anyone else had a look? Too small an area that I am not familiar with for me to make any meaningful comment. A different colour for the machines which charge would be useful, to allow these to be ignored. The ones that I've looked at had a faded balloon for the ATMs that are charged for. Yeah, and the top right has a checkbox Free only... cheers, Derick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-de] Reise im Februar nach England? [auf Englisch]
Hi, I am looking for someone to carry two GPS devices from Germany to London in Februray. If someone is travelling to London in Februray please contact me and we can organise the devices to be posted to you. The GPS devices are for use with http://mapsforall.org - we will be sending them to northern Ghana for a mapping project. Vielen Dank, Sam ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-GB] Please do not use Code-Point Open, (postcode) data in OSM
Does this mean that the fantastic postcode mapping by blackadder is now going to be removed: http://blog.mappa-mercia.org/2011/02/whats-in-postcode.html Or has he done enough to create a derived work which is exempt from the licence? Sam From: Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Cc: Andrew andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk Sent: Thursday, 12 January 2012, 13:57 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Please do not use Code-Point Open, (postcode) data in OSM On 12/01/2012 13:41, Andrew wrote: Michael Collinsonmike@... writes: I regretfully have to relay that while the Ordnance Survey has no objections to geodata derived in part from OS OpenData being released under the Open Database License 1.0, this has to permanently exclude Code-Point Open, (postcode) data. Could you check http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue and make sure the information there is correct as you understand it? Thanks Andrew. It was out of date. I have updated it and added to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#License Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap in schools
Hi all, I recently made a visit to a school as part of the Royal Geographic Society (UK) Geography Ambassadors scheme where i spoke to kids (15/16 yr olds) about geography in the real world. We then had an OSM editing session which was surprisingly successful. The kids were really interested in the concept of 'participation in real-world geography'. I'm not trying to indoctrinate youths into OSM, just showing them how easy it now is to participate in making maps compared to when i was at school. On the whole it was a very positive experience with many valid edits made. You can check out the session editing highlights and some lessons for newbie editing in Potlatch2 here: http://geoxchange.esriuk.com/journal/2011/11/17/the-next-geographers.html Sam Larsen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Potlatch 2 tutorial videos. (Was: Re: Adding a further 250, 000 UK roads quickly using a Bot?)
Not a video - but webpage walkthrough for adding your address (detatched house) using Potlatch2 Bing: http://osmarex.com/Add%20your%20address%20to%20OSM%20using%20Bing%20and%20Potlatch2 - Original Message From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Fri, 4 February, 2011 16:01:44 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Potlatch 2 tutorial videos. (Was: Re: Adding a further 250, 000 UK roads quickly using a Bot?) davespod wrote: I’ve created a first attempt at a short tutorial video for adding POIs using Potlatch 2. That is absolutely _brilliant_! My faith in human nature is restored. :) Do you have a file you could e-mail me? If so I'll embed it into P2 this weekend. Now off to look at Tom's video... cheers Richard P.S. you lot is a term of endearment. Sometimes. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Adding-a-further-250-000-UK-roads-quickly-using-a-Bot-tp5986539p5992996.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license
- Original Message From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thu, 2 December, 2010 19:02:55 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license Richard Fairhurst wrote: I believe there'll be a Bing Maps blog post going up soon on the same topic. http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx x you cannot create permanent, offline copies of the imagery Isn't this why we couldn't use SPOT imagery for HOT in Pakistan using Potlatch - we were only able to use JOSM ( others) due to local caching of tiles in Potlatch. Is this an issue? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/2010_07_Pakistan_Floods/Imagery_and_data_sources#SPOT_.282008.29 Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-some-interesting-points-from-the-bing-license-tp5790772p5797213.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Question
Do you [Kevin] want your data to be usable without restriction, or are you trying to restrict it? We want the data to be available without restriction. Do you want to be able to extract data from OSM and combine it with your data? Possibly... Let me give you some examples; Our data relates to the location and capabilities of electric vehicle charging locations (charge points). Imagine a scenario where we have added details of the charge point that located in a parking lot that already recorded in OSM. Then, a third party extracts the charge point data AND the parking lot data. Presumably, the parking lot data is covered by the OSM license and not our license (i.e. the third party cannot use it without restriction). In another scenario, imagine an OSM contributor adds the charge point data to OSM. Presumably, this data is covered by the OSM license not ours. The fundamental issue for us is that we are trying to encourage the charge point industry to abandon the 20+ proprietary and closed databases that exist today and support a single open database. As far as I can see, the OSM licenses are unsuitable for this. The OSM license in the current state is probably not what you are looking for. However, there have been many public domain datasets added to OSM, when this happens, the person/account which adds the data agrees to license the data under the OSM license. You can still hold a different copy of your data as public domain for people to download, but if a user wants to download the data directly from OSM ( associated features) that data is then under the OSM license. Alternatively, you could just keep your data seperate as public domain and overlay the data on OSM (mashup style). But then you would lose the connectivity between your data and the OSM street/parking data network. It would also require you to build the mashup. Personally, if i were looking for an open license to use for this dataset, although CC-BY-SA is not perfect ( probably ODbL) they still IMO adhere to the spirit of an open license and the benefits of having the data connected to associated OSM features (rendered by OSM, downloadable with OSM, routeable with OSM, searchable via OSM/nominatum, updated by contributors of OSM etc...) outweighs the small number of restrictions in the OSM license. Sam ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [Talk-GB] - Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
- Original Message From: Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com To: Sam Larsen samlars...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wed, 2 June, 2010 18:00:47 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] - Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO ... We're now able to get a lot of data for free from OS, I don't think it's unreasonable to report the odd error back to them so they can improve their map. +1 +1 Just to say that I was in discussion with the research guys at the OS about this last week and the status reports which we hope to have online next week will include a section of 'not:name's for each district which they have expressed interest in reviewing. The only small issue could be over licencing, however I don't believe that they would ever want to act on a report in OSM without checking it first on the ground so it will purely be treated as a clue for their purposes. Peter, Having used the data in a number of vastly different areas in terms of completion, i have noticed that as a measure of completeness there are a few flaws. I have done name updates in remote Scotland Wales where the OS Locator missing names tiles provide an incredibly valuable resource - mapping to the same extent as a huge number of nonamed roads. However, when attempting to get Cambridgeshire up to the top of the list for this measure of completion, i have noticed a large amount of really tricky difficult to diagnose OS Locator noname extents. In areas where there has been a huge amount of pedal power mapping by some very enthusiastic mappers in the Fens north of Cambridge, the data in OSM here is generally of a very high quality, for this reason i would dispute many of the OS Locator missing name polygons. I would assume that a number of these are down to the 'historical' nature of OS data place names. There are a number of local names for stretches of A B roads, which i would think are probably not signposted or have not even used in the locality for a long time - these may be covered by historical name tag (which i think does exist in places). For that reason i would be hesitant to put too much faith in the level of accuracy using this measure when completeness becomes something like 90 - 95%. I still think that for the majority of places which have huge swathes of noname roads we have a very useful resource here when used with a bit of common sense and I think you have provided a valuable resource/workflow for those who are always on the lookout for measures of OSM completeness (in the UK). Another point - has anyone made moves to compare the data in the other direction i.e. comparing OSM roads names with OS Locator - i have come across a number of 'new villages' (new roads within the last year or two) which i would assume are not in the OS Locator dataset. I guess this ties in with the feeding back of data to the OS - maybe they should run this using their budget to help guide their surveyors. Sam ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] - Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
From: Andrew Ainsworth andrew.ainswo...@gmail.com To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wed, 2 June, 2010 16:57:48 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] - Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO Could I just make a silly suggestion that no one seems to have talked about yet. If we find an error in OS Open Data, rather than tag our own data to say someone else has got it wrong, why not just report it to OS. After examining the postcode data for my area recently I found a couple of errors, reported them to OS who have replied saying there is indeed an error and they will send someone out to re-survey the street. We're now able to get a lot of data for free from OS, I don't think it's unreasonable to report the odd error back to them so they can improve their map. +1 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proper attribution
Nick, Personally i think your attribution is fine. I was even pointing people to your map attribution methods to use as an case study until i found them in the list here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution That's where all the confusion has come in, and personally i don't think this impractical attribution problem will be solved until ODbL is introduced (hopefully). I guess until that time people will have different views on what is 'proper' and what is not. Sam From: Nick Black nickbla...@gmail.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, 22 October, 2009 13:24:20 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proper attribution Hi Sam and list, Could you point out where CloudMade is not attributing OSM properly and we'll fix it right away. Our maps API puts: © 2009 CloudMade - Map data CCBYSA 2009 OpenStreetMap.org contributors Our FAQ says: If you use our maps via the Web Maps Lite API a copyright and attribution notice will appear in the bottom right hand corner of the window which says © 2009 CloudMade - Map data CCBYSA 2009 OpenStreetMap.org contributors - Terms of Use. You must show this attribution whenever you access our map tiles. For mobile use: You should include the following information somewhere in the application where it can be easily accessed, such as a Help or About screen or on a splash screen: © 2009 CloudMade - Map data CCBYSA 2009 OpenStreetMap.org contributors - Terms of Use. http://cloudmade.com/faq#license Our contacts page does not include attribution on the map, but has it under the maps, as we judged them too small to be attributed: http://cloudmade.com/contact The OSM wiki says that CloudMade are violating because our client sites and our own site says:: Whitehouse site says Data (c) OpenStreetMap, rendering (c) CloudMade. CloudMade site says both Map data (c) OpenStreetMap contributors and separately Map data CCBYSA OpenStreetMap contributors. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution But the OSM wiki also says that the correct attribution is: If you are using OpenStreetMap data only, we request that your credit reads at least Map data (c) OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F Depending how precise you want to be, we say Data rather than Map Data. I think the Foundation need to publish some clear guidelines about this. From the point of view of a company who is trying very hard to get it right and to make it easy for people building on our platform to get it right, I can vouch that attribution issues are confusing. We want to do the right thing and we're even happy to help define what the right thing is, but there needs to be more clarity. -- Nick n...@cloudmade.com On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Sam Larsen samlars...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Hi all, I am looking into the proper attribution of OSM in a tiled web mapping scenario. I know the guidelines on attribution can be found on the wiki - and i have read them. There is also the list of non-conforming sites: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution Does anyone think, we should have a list of 'conforming' sites - as the CloudMade maps and even the main www.openstreetmap.org are listed as not having proper attribution. I think it would be useful to have at least one example of conforming attribution (even though i know the attribution will change in the near future anyway) for people to use as a case study / reference. Of course if people were to be referencing this website, it would have to be absolutely correct and stay unchanged while it is used as a reference. Maybe a site could be mocked-up within the wiki somewhere? I haven't contributed to the wiki before - maybe this could be my calling - if anyone thinks it is needed. Sam Larsen Web GIS Specialist York St, Cambridge, UK, CB1 2PY M: +44 (0)794 433 7455 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- -- Nick Black twitter.com/nick_b ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proper attribution
- Original Message From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-t...@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, 20 October, 2009 13:13:31 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proper attribution Hi, Tom Hughes wrote: The main issue of debate surrounds exactly what forms of attribution are/are not valid. And this is not made easier by the fact that what is valid and what not is not the community's decision but (within the confines of the license text) that of the individual contributor. Assuming for a moment that my contributions to OSM are copyrightable and the CC-BY-SA license is valid, then if I license my data CC-BY-SA I have the right to request anyone using my data, or building or using derived versions thereof, to provide attribution in the form I believe is required, and I can drag them to court if they don't. So it seems I have stumbled back on to the license debate. So even if the attribution you provide looks ok to the majority of the community, it only needs one especially vociferous individual who has contributed to the data you are using to cause you trouble. I guess this will only be resolved / improved by ODbL. Until that time, i guess the more attribution the better and following the guidelines on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ will suffice. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
