Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

Am 14.03.2018 um 13:06 schrieb Jonathon Rossi: > ... > > Could you please point me to a good resource that explains why CC BY > 2.5 and 3.0 don't have the same problem with "technical protection > measures" that we've got in the waivers because I'm obviously missing > something. I've read the

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

To give a bit more context and perhaps point out a way to resolve this without every thing blowing up: At the time the permission from data.gov.au was obtained, OSM was in the final stages of the licence change. Normally the LWG wouldn't have become directly involved at all in the matter of

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

On 12.03.2018 21:28, Andrew Davidson wrote: > On 12/03/18 22:57, Simon Poole wrote: >> >> - has the DNRM explicitly made a statement on the validity of the >> explicit permission from data.gov.au back then?  > > All you need is a basic understanding of the Austra

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

d, for the equivalent terms in older CC licenses to be waived too. We've however not asked anybody to go back to CC BY 2.X sources from which we have received permission in the past and assume that such permission continues to be valid for the datasets it was given at the time. Simon  > On Mo

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

Am 12.03.2018 um 11:13 schrieb Simon Poole: > > > Making clear that we don't the validity of the permission granted for > the CC BY 2.5 datasets, but don't extend it to covering the current > ones and avoid speculating on internal government arrangements way back. > Tha

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

Please folks, don't try to a) make this more complicated than it already is, b) try to undo stuff that is long done. I would consider the wording change on the contributors page to be not a good idea (or even factual), and would suggest that  it be changed from "The explicit permission granted

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Brazilian postal code database patent application in Germany apparently rejected

IANAL It seems as if whatever they tried to patent in Germany was actually definitely rejected. Notes: - this does not imply that they failed elsewhere, YWHTPM to find that out. - while patents can apply to the processing and use of OSM data and potentially (by a long stretch of imagination)

Re: [Talk-de] Go Map!! Fehler beim Hochladen

Am 10.03.2018 um 19:15 schrieb mmd: > >> Ich geb zu, dass ich das nicht explizit getestet habe, aber mindestens die >> Doku zu if-unused hat keinen Bezug zu bereits gelöschten Objekten. >> > Auch richtig, die Doku ist da nicht ganz präzise, aber die > Implementierung ignoriert bereits

Re: [Talk-de] Go Map!! Fehler beim Hochladen

Am 10. März 2018 18:21:56 MEZ schrieb mmd <mmd@gmail.com>: >Am 10.03.2018 um 14:07 schrieb Simon Poole: >> Zuerst einmal: keine Panik! Leere Aenderungsätze sind unschön aber >kein >> Beinbruch. > >und obendrin ein bekanntes Problem: >https://github.com/bryc

Re: [Talk-de] Go Map!! Fehler beim Hochladen

Zuerst einmal: keine Panik! Leere Aenderungsätze sind unschön aber kein Beinbruch. Was auffällt ist das die Nodes 4281597139 und 3314390157 schon gelöscht sind. Kannst du Daten am entsprechenden Ort nochmals herunterladen, oder sonst den Datenbestand in der App zurücksetzten? Simon PS: Go

Re: [Talk-GB] Petrol stations again

Different area naturally, but at least here the newly created stations in the list seem to have a roughly 50% error/something weird rate, naturally I haven't looked at a very large sample yet and it could well be that it is a specific problem with conflation in CH, but it clearly is far to high

Re: [Talk-us] Help fight advertising

While I don't think supporting specific, rather questionable business models, is something we should expend a lot of effort on, improving the tooling for individual businesses to maintain an entry in OSM is (and a serious SEO shop could easily use such tools). Some may have already had a look at

Re: [Talk-de] OSMF sucht Rechenzentrum

c im Medium Am 20.02.2018 um 09:49 schrieb Sven Geggus: > Frederik Ramm wrote: > >> Die OWG sucht daher ein Rechenzentrum in der Europäischen Union, dessen >> Netzwerklatenz zu den bisherigen Standorten idealerweise unter 20 ms >> beträgt. Gesucht wird ein Rack für die

Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

I replied to joosts mail here https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2018-February/005082.html Am 20.02.2018 um 08:57 schrieb joost schouppe: > This discussion shows once again how great we are at generating smart > ideas. That definitely is not our problem. But all ideas are equal

[OSM-talk] Migrating help.openstreetmap.org

While we have everybody burning to help with technical issues... We have the rather mundane problem that the underlying software for help.openstreetmap.org has not only been unmaintained for many years, it has a number of defects that range from just annoying (edited comments can't be

Re: [OSM-talk] Nominatim on the main page / Serges blog post

Maybe it would be a good idea for everybody to take a deep breath and count to 10? For those relatively new to the project you should know that Serge has been going on about these "issues" for years, some since I first had the pleasure of  meeting him. That doesn't  mean that his points are more

Re: [Talk-GB] Licensing compatibility

nks for that Simon - is that just your personal opinion? Should I > contact LWG for an official OSMF position? > > On 15 February 2018 at 09:03, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch > <mailto:si...@poole.ch>> wrote: > > AFAIK we've not had any data licensed on ODC-BY 1.0 importe

Re: [Talk-GB] Licensing compatibility

AFAIK we've not had any data licensed on ODC-BY 1.0 imported, at least not on a larger scale. The ODC-BY licence was supposed to be compatible with distribution on ODBL terms just as CC BY should be with CC BY-SA (I would however argue that both do not actually meet that goal), so most terms are

Re: [Talk-us] Looking for GPS with voice annotation?

As has already been suggested you can do this with OSMTracker, however (and I used it a lot for gathering house numbers) IMHO voice annotations are really too easy to get wrong in one way or the other and just tend to turn in to a rather stressful experience. If you have a reasonably regular

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

Looks good to me. Simon Am 01.02.2018 um 12:08 schrieb Joel H.: > > Hi All! I have made a response to DNRM, regarding the licensing for > locality boarders. Please give a critique before I send! > > > /Hello [NAME],// > // > //Thank you for your time and consideration regarding the approval for

Re: [talk-au] Help with licensing

ight owner to waive their rights > to this clause to allow downstream users of the collective OSM data so > that for example it could be put on a Bluray disc. Their data would > still be CCBY licensed, and the OSM data would be a mix of ODbL and > CCBY licensed data? > > /cc S

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright vs Contributors pages

The split is simply historic, there is a low priority plan to merge both lists, but it is one of the things that keeps on getting pushed back. Simon Am 08.01.2018 um 11:00 schrieb Javier Sánchez Portero: > Hello > > I have a doubt about the existence of two levels of attribution in OSM: > > The

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM tagging validation lib

esn't really work IMHO (as lots of the errors FvGordon is fixing show). Simon > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/FvGordon/history > >   > > Actually, an analysis of all these changesets might produce some > interesting insights into "frequently made errors". > > //c

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM tagging validation lib

We already have validation tools in many forms for post-editing validation and already know how difficult they are to get "right" (see OSMOSE complaining about P+R facilities for a trivial example). I don't quite see why there is a need to create yet another one/system. On the other hand

Re: [OSM-talk] GPS Watch

On 24.12.2017 00:05, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > I'm always wondering why people would wear a GNSS logger on the wrist, > where the 70% water mass of the wearer's body is always shielding half > of the satellites. > > On top of the head would be a much better position for the receiver, > at least for the

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM tagging validation lib

On the one hand lots of the in principle useful information in the wiki is not really easily extractable and on the other hand it is prone to manipulation in more than one way (current fad is to add big warnings about tagging errors what are not). IMHO addressing the first issue would likely be

Re: [OSM-talk] Questions about levels and fractional levels as well as how to handle them.

Hi John IMHO (but others disagree), the model in SIT is simply to number the levels sequentially , starting with 0 (where ever the appropriate ground floor is) and leave everything else to labelling/naming of levels. But as already said, others disagree and we even already make a bit of an

Re: [OSM-talk] Support OSM communities and disaster response this holiday season (by 31 Dec)

I don't think that it is really any of our business what HOT does with its funds. I do consider it slightly ironical that HOT is approaching non-HOT OSM for funds to distribute to what are in the end OSM groups though, surely we can do that ourselves if it should be done at all.  Wouldn't we

Re: [OSM-talk] Street names QA

The server crashed this morning, but is back now. Unluckily it seems as if the new machine is not quite as stable as its predecessor. Simon On 13.12.2017 17:59, Javier Sánchez Portero wrote: > Hello > > I can't access to qa.poole.ch [1]. Is temporary > down? If permanently

Re: [Talk-de] Der FOSSGIS e.V. ist jetzt OSMF Local Chapter

Die SOSM gratuliert der FOSSGIS natürlich auch, und freuen uns darauf auch in Zukunft mit euch zusammenzuarbeiten. Simon Am 12.12.2017 um 09:29 schrieb Frederik Ramm: > Hallo, > > (Achtung Crosspost in zwei Listen, ggf. bei Reply anpassen) > > Der OSMF-Vorstand hat am 4.12. die Local

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Permission letter template

That is IMHO, not a particularly good template, and is a classical example of a page that should have been deleted instead of leaving it around to confuse. The examples on  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/GettingPermission are a bit better (the page is badly named that is why it is not

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM data - Legal question about license agreement

Hi Mike You need to get your lawyer to look at http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence in particular http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines I'm afraid nobody can offer case by case vetting of specific business cases, at best we can point you to general guidance, and

Re: [Talk-us] Willoughby, Ohio

The street in question is Stevens Boulevard http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/41.64710/-81.42325 it seems that there is an issue mainly with trucks and speeding, seems like a  classical rat run. There seems to be a "no trucks" restriction and potentially lower max speed on the road itself

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] wikidata cc0 <> odbl

Well IMHO none of this is relevant, as we do not claim any rights in individual elements in our database. As a result every single operation for itself is completely OK. The issues start when you (and I include any method of work splitting in that) do any of them systematically in a way that is

[Talk-us] Willoughby, Ohio

We've (data & legal) received a request to remove a street in Willoughby, Ohio for safety reasons. It does seem as if a couple of things are rather under mapped there (speed limits, access and so on, not to mention POIs, but that's a different story). Anybody on the list in the vicinity that could

Re: [OSM-talk] Spam/Report user

I suspect he was just being nice and overcommitting in the process . (as you can see that was a long time back). My edit was based on asking the admins when I made the change (current and not dreamt up). Am 27.11.2017 um 00:13 schrieb Matthijs Melissen: > On 26 November 2017 at 20:26, Si

Re: [OSM-talk] Spam/Report user

mments of changesets. > > On 2017년 11월 26일 21:30, Simon Poole wrote: >> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Spam >> >> >> Am 26.11.2017 um 21:00 schrieb Max: >>> Oh, and where is the page to report/block/ban spammers in the wiki >>> (not OSM

Re: [OSM-talk] Spam/Report user

; On 2017년 11월 26일 20:26, Simon Poole wrote: >> Exactly the other way around: people love to create wiki pages and put >> some outlandish claims on them that have nothing to do with reality, >> leading to people that actually believe the nonsense to be frustrated >>

Re: [OSM-talk] Spam/Report user

Exactly the other way around: people love to create wiki pages and put some outlandish claims on them that have nothing to do with reality, leading to people that actually believe the nonsense to be frustrated (in this case people believing that the page in question was set up and is read by the

Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission

A note on the side (and maybe an angle to divert some of those funds to something really useful): what has always struck me very weird about open geo data in the UK, compared to practically every other Western European country (even those with far, far less open data), is the, in general, dismal

Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission

Am 23.11.2017 um 20:13 schrieb SK53: > ... > > Owen Boswarva's asks if this would > mean the > end of OSM mapping in UK. A provocative thought. > > ... Well Owen is not exactly known as a big friend of OSM to start with. But in any

Re: [OSM-talk] How to map alleys in African cities?

This is an oldie but goldie. North American use of the term "alley" is in practical terms very different than the rest of the world. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alley The tagging in OSM (highway=service, service=alley) tends to correspond more to the NA usage than to that elsewhere (which

Re: [Talk-de] Bemerkenswerte Relation

Am 10.11.2017 um 17:58 schrieb Tom Pfeifer: > On 10.11.2017 17:51, Simon Poole wrote: >> Am 10.11.2017 um 17:34 schrieb Tom Pfeifer: >>> Die Rollen "level_N" sind seit dem 14 March 2015 in type=building >>> dokumentiert [3] >>> >> Das war zu de

Re: [Talk-de] Bemerkenswerte Relation

Am 10.11.2017 um 17:34 schrieb Tom Pfeifer: > > > Die Rollen "level_N" sind seit dem 14 March 2015 in type=building > dokumentiert [3] > Das war zu dem Zeitpunkt schon veraltet und wenn ich nicht wüsste wer es da reingeschrieben hat, würde ich mich wundern. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP

Re: [Talk-de] Bemerkenswerte Relation

Das ist ein Gebäude das nach dem veralteten IndoorOSM Schema erfasst wurde, es ist gar keine Spekulation also über den Hintergrund nötig. Eine der Gründe wieso wir das SIT Schema http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_Indoor_Tagging entwickelt haben war, dass IndoorOSM sehr grosszügig mit

Re: [Talk-us] Potential vandalism or very misguided edits near Madison

ood reason/explanation for those > deletions. Looks like a clear case for a revert. I'm not confident > enough in my revert abilities, though. >  Harald, Madison (WI) > > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:09 PM Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch > <mailto:si...@poole.ch>> wrote: >

[Talk-us] Potential vandalism or very misguided edits near Madison

See at least the last 5 or so changesets here https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/JuggernautMapper/history Walter has already commented on one of the changesets but maybe somebody local should have a look at the edits and potentially revert. Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital

Re: [OSM-talk] CC0 in UK, CC0 in USA, sui generis database right and Wikidata

Maybe I need to expand a bit, this was discussed early on when WD first became available, and is just a rehash of that. Essentially it boils down to - the WMF only licences ".. all of Affirmer's Copyright and Related Rights and..." on CC0 terms (CC0 2.), in other words their rights - and

Re: [OSM-talk] CC0 in UK, CC0 in USA, sui generis database right and Wikidata

Am 05.11.2017 um 19:28 schrieb Mark Wagner: > > Not an issue. The CC0 license explicitly calls out database rights as > being released to the greatest extent possible. From the text of the > license (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode) > Yes, if it is the rights holder

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

Slightly on topic http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/sanatorien-aus-der-sowjetzeit-urlaub-in-der-vergangenheit-a-1173776.html is an article on Sowjet "sanatoriums" (sorry German only). Which explains why our colleagues want to change the tagging, but  it just as clearly shows that such

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #379 2017-10-17-2017-10-23

Blake I don't think this discussion is about if verdy_p's edits are right or wrong, expert or novice, large or small, helpful or destructive, but more that he completely fails to achieve any consensus, or even just issue a heads up a reasonable time in advance, before making large scale changes

Re: [OSM-talk] Misrepresentation of OSM by HOT?

Am 23.10.2017 um 15:06 schrieb David Groom: > How about > 1) Change "OpenStreetmap Collaborative Mapping" to "OpenStreetmap > Distaster Mapping" Use of the trademarks shouldn't imply endorsement  and/or affiliation and in the end exclusivity in any form. "A tool to support mapping of disaster

Re: [OSM-talk] Misrepresentation of OSM by HOT?

I suspect Christophs issue is more that HOT seems to be claiming ownership of "OpenStreetMap collaborative mapping". Though I would argue that the rest of OSM has always been about collaborative mapping and it is exactly what HOT doesn't do, but I digress. In any case HOT is clearly not the only

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

My major issue with this: you don't actually "confirm" that something is a good edit or not. You only have the choice of making an edit or leaving it to others to do. This is substantially different to maproulette, osmose, keepright and so on. This makes the whole thing entirely equivalent to a

Re: [OSM-talk] Scientific paper on "Information Seeding"

Am 10.10.2017 um 00:07 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > The analysis and the observations coming from it look pretty solid. I > am not fully convinced by the interpretation of the reasons lying > largely in contributors taking 'ownership' of the data they contribute. > This would in my eyes -

Re: [talk-au] Qld topo map usable?

Hi all I was on the road the last two weeks so didn't see this thread, sorry. (Un-)luckily the situation is completely clear, we need the waiver as provided here https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3PN5zfbzThqeTdWR1l3SzJVcTg/view to be able to use the data in OSM.  Even better: you don't even need

Re: [OSM-talk] Signup page: Public Doman "what-this?" button broken

As has been pointed out many times the whole thing is meaningless for a multitude of reasons and simply should be removed (checkbox and text). Simon Am 08.10.2017 um 11:54 schrieb Sebastian Kürten: > Hi, > > During sign up for an OSM account, the user is presented with the > Contributor terms

Re: [OSM-talk] A thought on bot edits

I would suggest simply adapting my old suggestion (for imports) that as long as you fix the same number of elements from a broken import you can bot edit/import to your hearts desire. Totally serious :-) Simon On 2. Oktober 2017 16:58:02 MESZ, Christoph Hormann wrote: >On

Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping brands (was "Fixing wiki* -> brand:wiki*")

Am 27.09.2017 um 20:47 schrieb Marc Gemis: >> Can anyone think of an example where two unrelated brands share the same >> name and category of business in the same geographical area? > Is "the same geographical area" relevant ? Why should a data consumer > use a separate datebase to identify the

Re: [OSM-talk] Fixing wiki* -> brand:wiki*

Am 27.09.2017 um 15:00 schrieb Andy Mabbett: > ... >> Why would that matter to OSM? > It may not, It certainly matters to OSM's users. > > Tim Berners Lee coined the "Five Stars of Open Data" > > http://5stardata.info/en/ > > defining best practice in publishing open data. OSM already meets

Re: [OSM-talk] Fixing wiki* -> brand:wiki*

Am 27.09.2017 um 13:30 schrieb Andy Mabbett: > > For example, until the UK version went titsup a few years back, there > were chains of stores in the UK and in Australia, each called > "Woolworths". Though they had common roots, they were not the same. > > Why would that matter to OSM? Given

Re: [OSM-talk] Fixing wiki* -> brand:wiki*

While I can understand adding WP and WD tags to objects of note, why on earth would we want to add all this redundancy to OSM objects at all? Particularly given that object type + brand(s) should essentially always be unique, anybody that wants to look up WD keys could do so via a simple external

Re: [Talk-GB] OpenStreetCam or Mapillary?

While we would probably all love to be able to our hands on some Hollywood magic (I just have s many photos that are just a tiny bit too blurry to decipher  :-)) I suspect Marc was referring to reverting back to the original non-blurred images, removing blurs added for privacy reasons, Simon

Re: [Talk-GB] OpenStreetCam or Mapillary?

Not commenting directly on the pros and cons, but through their cooperation with Here using mapillary for this would make the material directly available to a competitor too. Now you can consider this a good thing or bad, but in any case it needs to be considered. Slightly OT; while I don't have

Re: [OSM-talk] WhatOSM, a guide for contribution tools

They are a) not copyrighted b the TM policy will allow certain community use of the trademarks that previously was not clearly permitted and defines going forward what is acceptable and what not. That said, for the reasons mentioned in the policy, you should avoid *OSM* names. Not to mention

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

OSM contributors to a third party to fix "its" core data. Simon PS: the good thing about this discussion is that it has reminded me to submit a PR that removes the PD checkbox from the UI and the corresponding data from the database. > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Simon Poole

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[turning on broken record mode :-)] On 20.09.2017 17:54, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > > > * Oleksiy, OSM can use any data from Wikidata because of the public > domain dedication While the WMF does not claim any rights in wikidata contents, it does not make any representations (one way or the other) as

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

are not renamed. Wikidata item tag is > only 7 characters, while wikipedia or wikimedia link could be dozens > of characters. So it takes less space in the database, it is easy to > export, etc. > > Best regards, > Oleksiy > > On 9/20/2017 2:31 PM, Simon Poole wrote: >>

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

You raise an important point. I've commented before, years back in the mean time, on the push to move information out of OSM in to a third party product over which have no control and which, if we are not careful, could impact the value of what we in OSM are doing and distributing (just see MBs

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Am 18.09.2017 um 11:47 schrieb Stephan Knauss: > Hello Simon, > > On 18.09.2017 10:17, Simon Poole wrote: >> Depending on the territory you can have rights in marks that you have >> not registered and it is probably completely undisputed that OSM is >> associated a

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

is. Just ask Richard about OsmAnd. Simon PS: there is a list on the wiki of our successfully registered trademarks that we keep reasonably up to date. Am 18.09.2017 um 09:12 schrieb Stephan Knauss: > Hello Simon, > > On 08.09.2017 20:02, Simon Poole wrote: >> Further we've added

Re: [OSM-talk] Name challenge - what to call the new OSM+Wikidata service?

I believe there is a slight misunderstanding, while remixing OpenStreetMap/OSM/etc in various ways may result in cutesy copycat domain names they simply do not jibe well with reality. Not only does every single one of them weaken the standing of the marks themselves and make is increasingly

Re: [OSM-talk] Transferring OSMTracker for Android development to the OpenStreetMap organization

Hi Nicolas I suspect that the dev mailing list would have been better, but that isn't the key issue, finding a) somebody to look after the project and b) when that is done, migrating the users in a reasonable way to a new version/release, are the bigger questions. I haven't really even started

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

As promised we discussed the feedback so far at the LWG meeting yesterday. We've added a clause 3.3.6. that clarifies that the use in repos, libraries, software projects and so on is normally considered nominative/referential use. Further we've added a clarification to the FAQ wrt use of remixes

Re: [OSM-talk] An import in New Zealand, assistance requested

Am 31.08.2017 um 20:56 schrieb Éric Gillet: > 2017-08-31 16:55 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch > <mailto:si...@poole.ch>>: > > Sorry for responding to this late. > > Just because a specific source has been legally "OK"ed doesn't imply &

Re: [OSM-talk] An import in New Zealand, assistance requested

Sorry for responding to this late. Just because a specific source has been legally "OK"ed doesn't imply that an import of all the data from a specific source is warranted and  should continue on for all times. The import guidelines are silent on this, but I would suggest that revisiting and

[OSM-talk] Geocoding guideline

I'm happy to announce that the geocoding guideline was endorsed by the OSMF board at its last meeting and is now published on the OSMF website https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline This hopefully addresses and clarifies a long time, sometimes

Re: [OSM-talk] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr

Am 28.08.2017 um 14:43 schrieb Pierre Béland: > Simon Poole wrote > > PS: naturally simply assuming that all name expansions are > legit is a bit iffy, consider Circle vs. Circuit  and other > expansions that you often can't decide without external >

Re: [OSM-talk] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr

ting time on something that is essentially a non-problem (revert the name to the original and re-expand it using current TIGER if possible). > > On Aug 28, 2017 6:05 AM, "joost schouppe" <joost.schou...@gmail.com > <mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr

What surprises me most about the discussion up to now that it is centered around the impact on the US and Canada were the removals are rather small both relatively and absolute*, actually are more at the nuisance level than anything else, and can easily be added back, likely in a couple of days

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Talk-ie Digest, Vol 99, Issue 7

Am 14.08.2017 um 17:48 schrieb Ciarán Staunton: > ... > > I think Martín's comment is a good concern to have. However, I believe that > OSMF wants local chapters formally set up, composed of responsible groups > in each country to make accountable decisions about how the maps of each > country

Re: [Talk-us] anyone know what software is generating these Q/A Notes?

We've been having issues on and off for a while now (now and then with a lot longer delays than 2 hours), as I understand from Tom this is due to a large number of bogus spammy subscription requests. Simon On 12 August 2017 02:03:03 CEST, Rihards wrote: >On 2017.08.12.

Re: [OSM-talk] European Data Portal declares the CC-BY 4.0 and ODbL 1.0 compatible

I've got a response from the the EDP and they agree that labelling the licences in question as "compatible" could be misleading, they have indicated that they will change the wording going forward. Simon Am 03.08.2017 um 22:50 schrieb Simon Poole: > > Currently outgoing mail

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Am 06.08.2017 um 23:21 schrieb molto...@gmail.com: > > If I'm reading the various opinions correctly, one seed for disagreement is > how much of a deterrent the requirement to ask for permission to use the > trademark actually is. Some see it as too high and want to make it unecessary > in

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Am 06.08.2017 um 19:37 schrieb Jochen Topf: > ... > I don't understand why the "OpenSomethingMap" issue has you so spooked. I'm not spooked, it just nicely illustrates the issues, I don't think I ever even remotely commented on if OpenWeatherMap is particularly confusable with OSM, it is a

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Am 06.08.2017 um 14:20 schrieb Rory McCann: > ... > I filed an issue asking for "Open[THING]Map" to be explicitly allowed > (with conditions): https://github.com/tieguy/OSM-collabmark.org/issues/32 Luis currently doesn't have the time to actively work on this, you should move the issue to my

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Am 05.08.2017 um 12:04 schrieb Yves: > " How you formulate a policy that permits osmosis and osmium but not > OsmAnd, > though, I have no idea" > > > How you formulate a policy that deals with the name of established > projects, I have no idea. But should you? Maybe a far softer > grandfathering

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Am 05.08.2017 um 09:15 schrieb Jochen Topf: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 07:07:47PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote: >> Sorry but that is hyperbole, after the 13 years of OSM the number of >> domains affected amounts to something between 30 and 40., not 100s. The >> policy is

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Christoph There are definitely points that can be addressed and improved (always) and I already agreed that we should include one of the points you touched on in the FAQ, the problem with some of the items you raise is that they essentially boil down to no management of domain names that use

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

On 04.08.2017 17:59, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > Note the idea to ask for permission - apart from being inconvenient - > comes with two significant problems: > > * doing so removes the option to use a name without permission. This in > particular applies for the OpenXMap things. When using

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

On 04.08.2017 18:07, Jochen Topf wrote: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:37:23PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote: > >> Yes and this is one of the big sore points, but we are not asking most >> of them to change there name, just to get licensed/permission in some >> form.

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Am 04.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Jochen Topf: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:07:44PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote: >> The LWG would like to start a period of public review and consultation >> on our draft trademark policy, that we intend to bring forward to the >> OSMF board for

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

.. Am 04.08.2017 um 14:08 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > > Furthermore IMO it is not really in the interest of OpenStreetMap to > discourage use of the name in names of products that are based on > OpenStreetMap data. Naturally having to ask for permission "discourages" such use, which as I

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Am 04.08.2017 um 13:53 schrieb Matthijs Melissen: > On 3 August 2017 at 23:07, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote: >> The LWG would like to start a period of public review and consultation on >> our draft trademark policy, that we intend to bring forward to the OSMF

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Am 04.08.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Frederik Ramm: > > remely unwieldy product names that just cause trouble" :-)). > I've always thought that using this name would the honest approach, > rather than selling a product called "Geofabrik's cool Geodata" > something or other, where the fact that it's

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Am 04.08.2017 um 12:29 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > > Nominative/referential use and including 'OpenStreetMap' in the name of > a product are not mutually exclusive. > > Geofabrik for example offers a product called "OpenStreetMap Data in > Layered GIS Format" [1] - that is certainly a

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

For reference a couple of trademark policies from similar organisations: * WMF (starting from the same text, and no we are not going to spend what was likely equivalent to our yearly budget on making out version so flashy :-)) https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Am 04.08.2017 um 11:39 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > On Thursday 03 August 2017, Simon Poole wrote: >> Dear all >> >> The LWG would like to start a period of public review and >> consultation on our draft trademark policy, that we intend to bring >> forwa

[OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Dear all The LWG would like to start a period of public review and consultation on our draft trademark policy, that we intend to bring forward to the OSMF board for adoption as a formal policy, please see the text here:

Re: [OSM-talk] European Data Portal declares the CC-BY 4.0 and ODbL 1.0 compatible

, but with a large number of the licenses listed as compatible on that page. Simon Am 03.08.2017 um 15:16 schrieb Simon Poole: > Hi Maurizio > > Thank you for the pointer. > > I believe the error is really that they overlooked some of the finer > points of the CC licences, but I'll see

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >