Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 59, Issue 20
William Morris writes:
> Third local mapper chimes in: As weird as the cartography will look (and
> I've seen it appear as such on OSM in other U.S. cities), Route 7 through
> Burlington has no business being listed as primary. I can hit a maximum of
> 25mph on the sections between stop signs, and by character that street is
> more of a Residential Road.
I agree. Same for US 2. Neither one is, within the city, a primary
route. They are, however, still numbered 7 and 2 regardless of the
character of the streets, so it will look at little odd when they
disappear as primaries. Still, they are what they are, which are
highway=residential / ref={2,7}
--
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] press from SOTM US
Thanks for kicking over to legal list. Responses inline.
On Oct 22, 2012, at 6:34 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 22.10.2012 22:12, Alex Barth wrote:
>> I do hope to come to an agreement within OSM along the lines you just
>> hashed out, Frederik (while not quite advocating for it):
>
> This really ought to be discussed on legal-talk where there are many people
> with a year-long involvement into the finer details of the license -
> Cc+Followup there.
>
>> Right now we largely don't have functioning municipal
>> boundaries in OSM. Obviously, any data that is mixed into OSM data
>> for _powering_ the geocoder would fall under share alike
>> stipulations.
>
> I'm not sure about this "obviously".
>
> I can imagine situations where someone collects geocoding queries and OSM's
> answers and perhaps even records which of the results the user clicked on
> afterwards, giving them a distinct advantage over other OSM users who don't
> have all that extra data. IIRC, geocoder.ca has proven that they can build a
> valuable geocoding database with such techniques. If we were to make a
> blanket declaration that geocoding doesn't trigger share-alike, we'd give
> that away, we'd allow people to build their own "improved upon OSM" geocoding
> databases and sell them on. If we allow it, then it *will* happen, because
> there's a commercial gain to be had.
I think a blanket declaration on geocoding isn't quite necessary. It's about
clarifying what happens to the dataset that is being geocoded (a user database,
a picture database, etc.).
Say we clarified that geocoding a dataset with an OSM powered geocoder (e. g.
Nominatim) does not extend the ODbL license to such a dataset. This
clarification would not apply to the dataset that actually powered the geo
coder. So if I went and gathered improvement suggestions of my users ("move the
marker to the right position on the map") and I added them into that OSM
dataset that powers the geocoder, this OSM dataset would still constitute a
derivative DB.
More below...
> We would even open the door to services where someone geocodes with OSM and
> then says "wrong result? just move the marker to the right position on this
> map", and keeps the corrections to himself, in a separate "corrections"
> database.
>
> I haven't thought this through enough to actually say which of the "unwanted
> use cases" are indeed possible even with the current "substantial" guidelines
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline)
> and which additional "unwanted use cases" would be possible with a weakened
> form of those.
>
> We should perhaps not only make a list of "what people would like to do with
> geocoding", but a second list of "what we don't want people to do" (things
> like I sketched above - build improved database on top of OSM and market
> that), then we can maybe check any guidelines we draft against these points.
>
>> You bring up the important problem of properly bounding the geocoding
>> case. I'm thinking if all that can be extracted from OSM's database
>> are names and addresses for lat/lon pairs or lat/lon pairs for names
>> or addresses, it would be arguably impossible or at least
>> impractically hard to recreate a functioning street network from it
>> and the extracted data would be a narrow subset of OSM no matter how
>> many locations are being geocoded. Thoughts?
>
> I'm not sure that "a functioning street network" is the bit that share-alike
> intends to protect and the rest is not: This whole discussion arose from the
> fact that there is heightened commercial interest in OSM-based geocoding -
> that there even seem to be people who are not interested in a functioning
> road network at all but who would be prepared to invest quite a bit of money
> to "switch2osm" their geocoding. So it seems that maybe address data is as
> valuable as the street network and should have the same level of protection?
Fair point. Still - I would ask what is the purpose of this protection and how
does it benefit OSM on this particular level? OSM clearly benefits of being
used. The usage of OSM data in maps has been clarified, I believe the ability
to unencumberedly leverage OSM data to create produced works is a huge benefit
for OpenStreetMap as a whole as it creates more versatile map styles, (and yes,
abilities to monetize them) and in turn have more map users and thousands of
micro incentives of improving our common map. Important similar incentives are
routing or geo coding. The latter is where I think the shoe starts to hurt. In
my mind there's much to be gained by giving better incentives to contribute to
OSM by clarifying the geocoding situation and little to be lost by allowing
narrow extracts of OSM. I believe we can do this within the letter of the ODbL
and within the spirit of why the ODbL was adopted.
BTW, I don't want to know how many people out there have used Nominatim for
geocodi
Re: [Talk-us] press from SOTM US
Hi, On 22.10.2012 22:12, Alex Barth wrote: I do hope to come to an agreement within OSM along the lines you just hashed out, Frederik (while not quite advocating for it): This really ought to be discussed on legal-talk where there are many people with a year-long involvement into the finer details of the license - Cc+Followup there. Right now we largely don't have functioning municipal boundaries in OSM. Obviously, any data that is mixed into OSM data for _powering_ the geocoder would fall under share alike stipulations. I'm not sure about this "obviously". I can imagine situations where someone collects geocoding queries and OSM's answers and perhaps even records which of the results the user clicked on afterwards, giving them a distinct advantage over other OSM users who don't have all that extra data. IIRC, geocoder.ca has proven that they can build a valuable geocoding database with such techniques. If we were to make a blanket declaration that geocoding doesn't trigger share-alike, we'd give that away, we'd allow people to build their own "improved upon OSM" geocoding databases and sell them on. If we allow it, then it *will* happen, because there's a commercial gain to be had. We would even open the door to services where someone geocodes with OSM and then says "wrong result? just move the marker to the right position on this map", and keeps the corrections to himself, in a separate "corrections" database. I haven't thought this through enough to actually say which of the "unwanted use cases" are indeed possible even with the current "substantial" guidelines (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline) and which additional "unwanted use cases" would be possible with a weakened form of those. We should perhaps not only make a list of "what people would like to do with geocoding", but a second list of "what we don't want people to do" (things like I sketched above - build improved database on top of OSM and market that), then we can maybe check any guidelines we draft against these points. You bring up the important problem of properly bounding the geocoding case. I'm thinking if all that can be extracted from OSM's database are names and addresses for lat/lon pairs or lat/lon pairs for names or addresses, it would be arguably impossible or at least impractically hard to recreate a functioning street network from it and the extracted data would be a narrow subset of OSM no matter how many locations are being geocoded. Thoughts? I'm not sure that "a functioning street network" is the bit that share-alike intends to protect and the rest is not: This whole discussion arose from the fact that there is heightened commercial interest in OSM-based geocoding - that there even seem to be people who are not interested in a functioning road network at all but who would be prepared to invest quite a bit of money to "switch2osm" their geocoding. So it seems that maybe address data is as valuable as the street network and should have the same level of protection? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2012-10-21
These are based off of Lambertus's work here: http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl If you have questions or comments about these maps, please feel free to ask. However, please do not send me private mail. The odds are, someone else will have the same questions, and by asking on the talk-us@ list, others can benefit. Downloads: http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2012-10-21 Map to visualize what each file contains: http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2012-10-21/kml/kml.html FAQ Why did you do this? I wrote scripts to joined them myself to lessen the impact of doing a large join on Lambertus's server. I've also cut them in large longitude swaths that should fit conveniently on removable media. http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2012-10-21 Can or should I seed the torrents? Yes!! If you use the .torrent files, please seed. That web server is in the UK, and it helps to have some peers on this side of the Atlantic. Why is my map missing small rectangular areas? There have been some missing tiles from Lambertus's map (the red rectangles), I don't see any at the moment, so you may want to update if you had issues with the last set. Why can I not copy the large files to my new SD card? If you buy a new card (especially SDHC), some are FAT16 from the factory. I had to reformat it to let me create a >2GB file. Does your map cover Mexico/Canada? Yes!! I have, for the purposes of this map, annexed Ontario in to the USA. Some areas of North America that are close to the US also just happen to get pulled in to these maps. This might not happen forever, and if you would like your non-US area to get included, let me know. -- Dave ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Scrubbing route relations
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:57 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > > Did they switch from one term to the other at some point? If so, the mix > of signs on the same route might be because some of the signs have been > replaced as they rusted out and/or got used for target practice. > Not that I'm aware of, though the RANCH ROAD signs tend to be in areas where livestock ranching is more prevalent as opposed to crop farming, where the FARM ROAD signs are more prevalent, it's more trying to match the network name as posted to the adjacent landuse and only having a moderate rate of success. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Scrubbing route relations
Paul Johnson wrote: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Alexander Jones > wrote: > > > Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > > On Oct 22, 2012 9:57 AM, "Alexander Jones" > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Paul Johnson wrote: > > >> > > >> > FM and RM are the same network...seems odd for them to show up > twice > > >> > here... > > >> > > >> I could've sworn that the general consensus from a previous > argument was > > >> "one network per shield type." > > > > > > They use the same shield, and even TXDOT signs Farm Road and Ranch > Road > > > interchangeably. They're definitely the same network. > > > > Same style of shield, yes. I live in Texas, and I know that although > they > > are, in effect, the same network, they are most definitely signed > > differently. > > > Not consistently. Trailblazer shields (the all-white rectangles) > almost > always use "FM," and (at least along route 66), TxDOT regularly uses > both > RANCH ROAD and FARM ROAD on the signage for the same route. Following > the > historic route of US 66 will yield dozens of examples of this > inconsistency. > > > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us Did they switch from one term to the other at some point? If so, the mix of signs on the same route might be because some of the signs have been replaced as they rusted out and/or got used for target practice. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] US chapter board meeting
The newly elected US Chapter board will have its first official meeting tonight at 5PM PDT / 8PM EDT. We're going to try a Google Hangout. Everyone is welcome to listen in! https://plus.google.com/events/c91rctgp4ia8cq3ffqo914lvvus -- martijn van exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Scrubbing route relations
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Alexander Jones wrote: > Paul Johnson wrote: > > > On Oct 22, 2012 9:57 AM, "Alexander Jones" > > wrote: > >> > >> Paul Johnson wrote: > >> > >> > FM and RM are the same network...seems odd for them to show up twice > >> > here... > >> > >> I could've sworn that the general consensus from a previous argument was > >> "one network per shield type." > > > > They use the same shield, and even TXDOT signs Farm Road and Ranch Road > > interchangeably. They're definitely the same network. > > Same style of shield, yes. I live in Texas, and I know that although they > are, in effect, the same network, they are most definitely signed > differently. Not consistently. Trailblazer shields (the all-white rectangles) almost always use "FM," and (at least along route 66), TxDOT regularly uses both RANCH ROAD and FARM ROAD on the signage for the same route. Following the historic route of US 66 will yield dozens of examples of this inconsistency. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] press from SOTM US
On Oct 22, 2012, at 1:12 PM, Alex Barth wrote: > The data extracted by geocoding should just not lead to a substantial extract > of the database, hence not producing a derivative database in the sense of > the ODbL. I feel this would be within the spirit of why the ODbL was adopted > (to encourage contribution) while clarifying an important use of OSM data > that would create a huge incentive to improve data. Right now we largely > don't have functioning municipal boundaries in OSM. Obviously, any data that > is mixed into OSM data for _powering_ the geocoder would fall under share > alike stipulations. MySociety is working on derived municipal boundaries from OSM data: http://global.mapit.mysociety.org/ E.g.: http://global.mapit.mysociety.org/area/168844.html There's data in there, and code out there that you could build on. The MapIt service itself is non-commercial, but the code that drives it is freely-available. http://code.mapit.mysociety.org/ > You bring up the important problem of properly bounding the geocoding case. > I'm thinking if all that can be extracted from OSM's database are names and > addresses for lat/lon pairs or lat/lon pairs for names or addresses, it would > be arguably impossible or at least impractically hard to recreate a > functioning street network from it and the extracted data would be a narrow > subset of OSM no matter how many locations are being geocoded. Thoughts? This seems to match the spirit of the license as far as I understand it. -mike. michal migurski- m...@stamen.com 415.558.1610 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Scrubbing route relations
Paul Johnson wrote: > On Oct 22, 2012 9:57 AM, "Alexander Jones" > wrote: >> >> Paul Johnson wrote: >> >> > FM and RM are the same network...seems odd for them to show up twice >> > here... >> >> I could've sworn that the general consensus from a previous argument was >> "one network per shield type." > > They use the same shield, and even TXDOT signs Farm Road and Ranch Road > interchangeably. They're definitely the same network. Same style of shield, yes. I live in Texas, and I know that although they are, in effect, the same network, they are most definitely signed differently. Alexander ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] press from SOTM US
I do hope to come to an agreement within OSM along the lines you just hashed out, Frederik (while not quite advocating for it): The data extracted by geocoding should just not lead to a substantial extract of the database, hence not producing a derivative database in the sense of the ODbL. I feel this would be within the spirit of why the ODbL was adopted (to encourage contribution) while clarifying an important use of OSM data that would create a huge incentive to improve data. Right now we largely don't have functioning municipal boundaries in OSM. Obviously, any data that is mixed into OSM data for _powering_ the geocoder would fall under share alike stipulations. You bring up the important problem of properly bounding the geocoding case. I'm thinking if all that can be extracted from OSM's database are names and addresses for lat/lon pairs or lat/lon pairs for names or addresses, it would be arguably impossible or at least impractically hard to recreate a functioning street network from it and the extracted data would be a narrow subset of OSM no matter how many locations are being geocoded. Thoughts? On Oct 20, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/20/2012 09:59 AM, Toby Murray wrote: >> The discussion was about the fact that some companies are very afraid >> of share-alike licenses and it is preventing them from using our data >> to its fullest potential. > > There are several sides to this. > > Of course the share-alike license prevents companies from using our data to > the same potential as a hypothetical PD counterpart (or a licensed-for-money > competitor); excluding some kinds of use-without-sharing-back is the reason > for a share-alike license and was desired by a large majority of the > stakeholders. > > On the other hand, the license does not have to be feared, and some users > might actually let their fear of share-alike shy away from some totally legal > uses of OSM. > >> There is some uncertainty about when exactly >> the share-alike clause is activated. One specific example that was >> mentioned: If you use OSM data to geocode a user's address, does the >> user database then have to be shared? > > No, but the database of locations, which might let others guess who your > users are. > >> That's apparently how the >> lawyers tend to read it but in my mind this would be silly. We have no >> use for a company's user database even if it were possible to release >> it without breaking every privacy law on the books. > > I agree that we have little use for that database of locations but I think > that it is crystal clear this is a "derived" database. The only way to not > require share-alike for that would be - as Richard has recently mentioned on > legal-talk, where this discussion should be held -, to define any amount of > geocoded locations to be "insubstantial". However that would raise the > question - could you not, by mass-geocoding every single address on every > single street - re-create our whole street network? That could hardly be > insubstantial then. > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us Alex Barth http://twitter.com/lxbarth tel (+1) 202 250 3633 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Scrubbing route relations
On Oct 22, 2012, at 8:00 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Oct 22, 2012 9:57 AM, "Alexander Jones" wrote: > > > > Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > > FM and RM are the same network...seems odd for them to show up twice > > > here... > > > > I could've sworn that the general consensus from a previous argument was > > "one network per shield type." > > They use the same shield, and even TXDOT signs Farm Road and Ranch Road > interchangeably. They're definitely the same network. Should they both be classified under the ":FM" network, if that's the case? -mike. michal migurski- m...@stamen.com 415.558.1610 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Scrubbing route relations
On Oct 22, 2012 9:57 AM, "Alexander Jones" wrote: > > Paul Johnson wrote: > > > FM and RM are the same network...seems odd for them to show up twice > > here... > > I could've sworn that the general consensus from a previous argument was > "one network per shield type." They use the same shield, and even TXDOT signs Farm Road and Ranch Road interchangeably. They're definitely the same network. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Scrubbing route relations
Paul Johnson wrote: > FM and RM are the same network...seems odd for them to show up twice > here... I could've sworn that the general consensus from a previous argument was "one network per shield type." Alexander ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Scrubbing route relations
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Chris Lawrence wrote: > I think there is still some misunderstanding. > > One of the transforms is: > 1704295,road,US:TX:Spur,601,,US:TX,601,Spur,happy5214,5 > > Spur in Texas is not a modifier; it's a distinct type of route that is > numbered separately from the "main" state highway system. Same deal > with Loop, etc. > http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/supported.html#US-TX gives a > pretty comprehensive list. > > FM and RM are the same network...seems odd for them to show up twice here... ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
