Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

2011/12/21 Dirk-Lüder Kreie : > Am 13.12.2011 23:24, schrieb 80n: >> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Frederik Ramm > > wrote: >> >> >>>     It is important to note that the OSM Inspector view is not the final >>>     word - not even an "official word" - on the question

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

Am 13.12.2011 23:24, schrieb 80n: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Frederik Ramm > wrote: > > >> It is important to note that the OSM Inspector view is not the final >> word - not even an "official word" - on the question of what gets >> deleted. It is j

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

I put up a video where I do some remapping. I'd like to hear whether I can add this to the wiki as a good way to go about it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaJ3DAFTjX8 Polyglot 2011/12/13 Frederik Ramm > Hi, > > apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have > posted

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

Frederik Ramm remote.org> writes: > > Hi, > > apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have > posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs > could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience. > > I have added a world-wide lice

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Adam Hoyle wrote: > Is there any tool out there that can highlight the red users in a given > area? In JOSM, use select-all (crtl-a) then look at the list of authors in the author panel (alt-b). This will give you a list of accounts that were the most-recent to

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

Nathan Edgars II writes: > I have done many edits of this sort over the years. It has been standard > practice for a long time. Any tainting has already happened. I agee with Nathan. I do this all the time. Mostly it's to GNIS POIs, but the principle remains: some "tainting" of information cann

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

Hi John, fyi, you can also create a new (empty) layer with ctrl+n. cheers, Martin 2011/12/13 john whelan : > What you can do is create an osm file on your local hard drive, in JOSM > download a very small area with nothing in it.  New download the area you > have made edits in as a separate down

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

On 13 Dec 2011, at 21:59, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > I can't emphasise enough the importance of contacting people and asking them > to agree. It really works. Is there any tool out there that can highlight the red users in a given area? Fredrick, is that at all possible to add to your excellent

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

On Tuesday, December 13, 2011 12:34:34 PM UTC-6, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > Adam Hoyle wrote: > > For example (there are a lot more examples): > > > http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-0.81228&lat=51.72366&zoom=17 > > shows a path with red nodes, but I added that and no-one else has e

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

Hi, On 12/13/2011 11:20 PM, Pieren wrote: Could someone explain why the way_id 4776297 is reported as "created by non-agreers" on osmi: [...] we can see that version 1 has been created by user_7568 (user_id=7568): http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/user_7568 which is reported as "accepted CT

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > It is important to note that the OSM Inspector view is not the final word > - not even an "official word" - on the question of what gets deleted. It is > just my interpretation of the current situation. > > Frederik, If the OSM Inspector v

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Could someone explain why the way_id 4776297 is reported as "created by non-agreers" on osmi: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=5.98159&lat=45.34536&zoom=17&overlays=wtfe_line_created Current version is 21: http://www.openstreetm

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

On 13 December 2011 22:46, Peter Wendorff wrote: > Am 13.12.2011 20:59, schrieb Nathan Edgars II: >> There is no difference in terms of acceptability under the ODBL+CT. Such >> copying is either OK or not. > > Even in law exists the distinction between crimes done willingly and those > done unwill

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

On 12/13/2011 5:03 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: No. The only thing I was talking about was that if you should have the audacity to publicly proclaim "loopholes" in the process and that you intend to use them, I will block your account. I have already used them many times as part of normal editing,

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

Hi, On 12/13/2011 10:52 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: We're not talking about crimes here, but about copyright status. No. The only thing I was talking about was that if you should have the audacity to publicly proclaim "loopholes" in the process and that you intend to use them, I will block y

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

Adam Hoyle wrote: > Oh wow - I must have been on some long gone map > style, it's all looking very different now I've changed > the map style (and looking good too). Am I right in > saying that purple outlines mean things are part of > a hiking route, and green outline means foot route right?

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

On 13 Dec 2011, at 21:34, Frederik Ramm wrote: > On 12/13/2011 09:39 PM, Adam Hoyle wrote: >> Is the process for deciding whether or not to delete a node set in >> stone? I am fairly sure that I have moved the majority of those nodes >> from where they were originally (I am fairly sure because th

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

On 12/13/2011 4:46 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote: Even in law exists the distinction between crimes done willingly and those done unwillingly or without knowledge. You don't get necessarily out of the case without any harm if you didn't know or didn't want it, but often you have to do/pay/be imprisone

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

On 13 December 2011 22:03, Graham Jones wrote: > I agree, it sounds mad, and I find it hard to believe that 'we' would do > this.   Surely we need to apply a bit of pragmatism to  this and think about > 'reasonableness'? > > I can see that it is reasonable to delete the contributions from someone

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

Am 13.12.2011 20:59, schrieb Nathan Edgars II: On 12/13/2011 2:57 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 12/13/2011 08:47 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: I have done many edits of this sort over the years. It has been standard practice for a long time. Any tainting has already happened. I am not talki

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

On 13 December 2011 22:30, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 12/13/2011 4:25 PM, john whelan wrote: >> >> The intentions don't matter here, its to be able to defend the new >> licensing / copyright in court you need to show all the content has come >> from people who have accepted the new license. > >

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

On 13 Dec 2011, at 21:20, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Adam Hoyle wrote: >> is there something else I need to do? > > It'll only work in the default, 'Potlatch' map style (not 'Network' or > 'Wireframe' or others - I need to fix that!) but apart from that, yes, that > should be all you need to do.

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

On 13 December 2011 21:25, john whelan wrote: > The intentions don't matter here, its to be able to defend the new > licensing / copyright in court you need to show all the content has come > from people who have accepted the new license. > It will only come to court if someone sues, and in the

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

and do those, and the other examples mentioned before show up in the inspector as problematic? i think they should. gr, floris On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > How does the OSMF plan to handle split or combined ways? > > ___

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

Adam, On 12/13/2011 09:39 PM, Adam Hoyle wrote: Is the process for deciding whether or not to delete a node set in stone? I am fairly sure that I have moved the majority of those nodes from where they were originally (I am fairly sure because there was originally only 1 path on OSM going up the

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

On 12/13/2011 4:25 PM, john whelan wrote: The intentions don't matter here, its to be able to defend the new licensing / copyright in court you need to show all the content has come from people who have accepted the new license. Which is impossible because of the common practice of copying tags

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

How does the OSMF plan to handle split or combined ways? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

The intentions don't matter here, its to be able to defend the new licensing / copyright in court you need to show all the content has come from people who have accepted the new license. Its a lawyer thing and I'm not even sure that in the US OSM has a solid case anyway. Street names are facts fo

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

What you can do is create an osm file on your local hard drive, in JOSM download a very small area with nothing in it. New download the area you have made edits in as a separate download. Select on username so user:xyz Merge the selection onto your empty map and save it locally. Then after the

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

Adam Hoyle wrote: > is there something else I need to do? It'll only work in the default, 'Potlatch' map style (not 'Network' or 'Wireframe' or others - I need to fix that!) but apart from that, yes, that should be all you need to do. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Graham Jones wrote: > I agree, it sounds mad, and I find it hard to believe that 'we' would do > this.   Surely we need to apply a bit of pragmatism to  this and think about > 'reasonableness'? > > I can see that it is reasonable to delete the contributions from s

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

Hi Richard, On 13 Dec 2011, at 18:34, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > In this case, opening the area in Potlatch 2 shows those nodes highlighted > in orange, which P2 uses to mean "someone who edited this way hasn't > responded to the CTs yet". You can click on any of these nodes and then, > using the

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

On 12/13/2011 4:03 PM, Graham Jones wrote: I see there are three potential reasons for someone neither accepting nor declining the terms: * They really do not agree with them, but for some reason that I can not think of they decide not to click the 'decline' button - These are an awkwa

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

> > > Is the process for deciding whether or not to delete a node set in stone? > I am fairly sure that I have moved the majority of those nodes from where > they were originally (I am fairly sure because there was originally only 1 > path on OSM going up the hill when there are 2 different paths o

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

Thank you all - I was looking at the Way, not the individual points, and it was obviously one that was there before I started mapping that I then edited. Is the process for deciding whether or not to delete a node set in stone? I am fairly sure that I have moved the majority of those nodes from

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

It would be useful to have an idea of how many objects have been edited by a red user *and then edited by someone else*. These are the biggest problem in terms of damage. It's also important to keep in mind that relations are the most vulnerable of all, and do not show up on this view.

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > I have done many edits of this sort over the years. It has been standard > practice for a long time. Any tainting has already happened. Yeah expanding nodes into buildings is pretty standard practice for me whenever I'm touching an area,

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

On 12/13/2011 2:57 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 12/13/2011 08:47 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: I have done many edits of this sort over the years. It has been standard practice for a long time. Any tainting has already happened. I am not talking about any tainting that has happened in the pa

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

Hi, On 12/13/2011 08:47 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: I have done many edits of this sort over the years. It has been standard practice for a long time. Any tainting has already happened. I am not talking about any tainting that has happened in the past without people having thought about it. I

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:30 PM, john whelan wrote: > Fascinating, I was always taught that reliability was the most important > thing to end users. > > In Ottawa it looks like many footpaths, steps etc will be the big losers. > The imported road network looks fine. > > So it looks like the tools

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

On 12/13/2011 2:30 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 12/13/2011 08:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Presumably nothing will happen, since there is no easy way of identifying these. So this is an easy loophole - if you see any red nodes that represent points of interest, replace them with building p

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

Fascinating, I was always taught that reliability was the most important thing to end users. In Ottawa it looks like many footpaths, steps etc will be the big losers. The imported road network looks fine. So it looks like the tools and specialist maps for the disabled, ones that make use of detai

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

Hi, On 12/13/2011 08:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Presumably nothing will happen, since there is no easy way of identifying these. So this is an easy loophole - if you see any red nodes that represent points of interest, replace them with building polygons and copy the tags. Anyone who is ca

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

On 12/13/2011 11:57 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: What will happen to buildings that were drawn by a CT-agreeing mapper but with tags copied from a red node? Presumably nothing will happen, since there is no easy way of identifying these. So this is an easy loophole - if you see any red nodes t

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

Hi Adam, Yes, you have definitely accepted the new terms. You can check the UK list at http://odbl.de/great_britain.html I opened the same location with the on-line Potlatch editor http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=51.723507&lon=-0.812403&zoom=18 It looks like the way itself is yours (N

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

There's no bug there If you examine more closely you'll notice that those 7 nodes were added by user 'ngent'. You're probably listed as the only contributor to the path because it was part of a longer path which was cut in 2 by you (when you cut up ways you get listed as original author of one

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

Adam Hoyle wrote: > For example (there are a lot more examples): > http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-0.81228&lat=51.72366&zoom=17 > shows a path with red nodes, but I added that and no-one else has edited If you look at the history of each node, you can see who's edited it. In this c

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

On 13 December 2011 11:52, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > "Remapping means 'replacing with new content'. It does not mean simply > copying the old content - that might infringe the original mapper's rights." Is that statement even correct? If editing old content after May 12 doesn't infringe rights

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

Wow, that's scary, most of the major towns around where I live are going to cease to be. Actually, I've just looked in more detail at some of the areas I've been editing, and think there is a bug somewhere. For example (there are a lot more examples): http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

What will happen to buildings that were drawn by a CT-agreeing mapper but with tags copied from a red node? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

I just think it's unclear... deleting and recreating is probably not considered copying by some people. greets, floris On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Floris Looijesteijn wrote: >> I think that should be made more clear on the remapping page. > > You mean the fact t

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

Floris Looijesteijn wrote: > I think that should be made more clear on the remapping page. You mean the fact that the _very_ _first_ _sentence_ of the main page content is "Remapping means 'replacing with new content'. It does not mean simply copying the old content - that might infringe the orig

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

Oh course, that's right. I was talking about single nodes, not part of a way. I've added a little note to the wiki. Greets, Floris Looijesteijn On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Floris Looijesteijn wrote: >> >>    Most nodes ('information type' nodes like POI) ca

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

Hi, Floris Looijesteijn wrote: Most nodes ('information type' nodes like POI) can not be easily verified by another source except for resurveying. It is true that "information type" nodes will require re-surveying or good knowledge. It is however not true that these make up "most n

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

Go ahead, it's a wiki. I found a way to make screencasts. Would it be useful to create a screencast of an editing session with JOSM, while I'm resolving license issues? Jo 2011/12/13 Floris Looijesteijn > That's exactly why I'm asking. > > Most nodes ('information type' nodes like POI) can no

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

That's exactly why I'm asking. Most nodes ('information type' nodes like POI) can not be easily verified by another source except for resurveying. I think that should be made more clear on the remapping page. Or am I being paranoid? :) Greets, Floris On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Thomas Da

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

If the coordinates of the new node are based on an independant source, like Bing and if care is taken to remove tags contributed by decliners/inaccessibles, why wouldn't it be? Also I don't know about you, but I've been remapping ever since the license change plugin first came out, as I resent to

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

The key is to have your own valid source for the information. If your can source the data in a license compatible way and recreate the node yourself without the use of the old node, then it's all good. if (*ra4 != 0xffc78948) { return false; } On 13 Dec 2011, at 09:29, Floris Looijesteijn wrote

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

So now we're remapping??? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping states you can just delete a node and add a new one to resolve a license issue. I can hardly imagine that is legally right. Greets, Floris Looijesteijn On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > >   apolog

[OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

Hi, apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience. I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector: http://tools.geofa