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*

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] 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] 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] 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: [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: [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] 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: [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] 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] 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] Using Wikipedia to add names in other languages

Am 05.05.2018 um 14:51 schrieb Maurizio Napolitano: >> Unfortunately, Wikipedia is licensed under CC-BY-SA what is incompatible > with ODBL. > > Finally someone who remembers it > > IMHO: > The quick solution can be to ask the producer the permission to add > the data inserted from wikipedia to

Re: [OSM-talk] Using Wikipedia to add names in other languages

Am 05.05.2018 um 15:58 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > Arguing about licenses and their compatibility does not really help in > this context since having formally compatible license (or the related > argument that Wikidata is CC0 and therefore by definition the license > is a non-issue) would

Re: [OSM-talk] Local language help

Am 09.05.2018 um 07:46 schrieb Jo: > > > I expect the same goes for Switzerland (whole country 3-4 official > languages, but at the next geographic level it is clear which language > is spoken/official for which region). > This not correct, while there are regions (as this is not

Re: [OSM-talk] Local language help

Am 10. Mai 2018 18:58:04 MESZ schrieb Oleksiy Muzalyev : >On 5/10/2018 5:43 PM, Jo wrote: ... > >Indeed, Swiss German pronunciation differs from the Standard German >significantly, but it is written practically the same as the Standard >German. Just to add a bit

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM based mobile app that allows additional vector data to be loaded

17.03.2018 um 14:01 schrieb Simon Poole: > > > Naturally you can load gps files (with way points) in Vespucci too, > but probably more relevant to the question: you can load custom task > files a simplified OSMOSE format. Low priority I've been thinking of > adding a "GIS data&q

[OSM-talk] 1st version GDPR orientated privacy policy

I've just updated the OSMF privacy policy to a version that takes the GDPR  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation in to account and that was approved by circular by the OSMF board. This is still a work in progress and we know that there are a couple of points that need

Re: [OSM-talk] Remote Sensing / DOP / DIY people

Am 02.06.2018 um 00:45 schrieb James: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kite_aerial_photography#Picavet_suspension > > When I was looking at RC planes, the one that could hold a quality > camera+fly for for a relatively long time is the skywalker X8(~200$ > USD) + batteries, controllers and

Re: [OSM-talk] Remote Sensing / DOP / DIY people

Am 03.06.2018 um 12:14 schrieb Florian Lohoff: > On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 12:03:04PM -0400, john whelan wrote: >> I think one problem with drones is they need special permission or there >> are rules about who and where they can be operated in many parts of the >> world. Some are capable of cm

Re: [OSM-talk] WMF: "Interactive maps, now in your language"

01.07.2018 um 17:17 schrieb Christian Rogel: > > >> Le 30 juin 2018 à 11:56, Simon Poole > <mailto:si...@poole.ch>> a écrit : >> >> As already has been pointed out nobody is even remotely proposing to >> limit adding actual real names, quite the contrary. >

Re: [OSM-talk] WMF: "Interactive maps, now in your language"

abbett > *Sent:* 29 June 2018 12:21:06 > *To:* OSM talk mailing list > *Subject:* Re: [OSM-talk] WMF: "Interactive maps, now in your language" >   > On 29 June 2018 at 11:57, Simon Poole wrote: > > >> On 29.06.2018 12:18, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > >>> Ne

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] 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] "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

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

[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] 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] 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] 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

[OSM-talk] Draft Terms of use for the OSM website, API and other services

Hi all Thanks to work by Kathleen Lu we have a draft Terms of Use document. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xtPjrTj09vQLloKmzyf-H-5mKtqh-vbPjsxE-5YRF5g/edit?usp=sharing This is a first for

Re: [OSM-talk] "Nearby features" does no longer work:

This is already being taken care of (the operator of the Overpass API is aware of the problem). Simon Am 05.08.2018 um 10:18 schrieb Rainer Bielefeld: > Hello, > > known problem? > > Tryin go use [?] - feature I get "Error contacting > https://overpass-api.de/api/interpreter: " > >

Re: [OSM-talk] Is it technically and legally possible to add the Open Location Code to the OSM search?

Am 10.08.2018 um 22:18 schrieb Oleksiy Muzalyev: > ... > > The OLC is Open Source with the Apache 2.0 license. I have a doubt > though, - cannot Google in couple of years say: "We change the license > and not one has to pay for the OLC usage?" I am not a lawyer and I do > not know such

Re: [OSM-talk] Is it technically and legally possible to add the Open Location Code to the OSM search?

Am 10.08.2018 um 22:14 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM: > ... > Our community should have a say in what wins, we can try them both, > but here is a local group asking us to try plus codes and there is a > lot of momentum behind it. In the case of w3w one can actually make a technical case for

Re: [OSM-talk] Is it technically and legally possible to add the Open Location Code to the OSM search?

While the goals sound worthy, it is unclear if any of the grid systems (w3w, plus codes and so on) deliver on their promises and have any traction outside of people in countries with established addressing systems trying to push them as solutions for countries without. As I've pointed out

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Draft Terms of use for the OSM website, API and other services

Am 08.08.2018 um 19:14 schrieb Michael Reichert: > .. > I read the draft and I think that is far too long. It does not invited > to be read by the users. This can lead to following issues: Just to be clear, we (the LWG) would prefer that it be shorter too, it is just the amount of territory that

Re: [OSM-talk] Is it technically and legally possible to add the Open Location Code to the OSM search?

Am 11.08.2018 um 01:19 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > While it is true that both parties have economic interest in this, plus codes > are both, free to use and open source, unlike their 3 words competitor. Even > if w3w „wins“ we would likely not be interested in promoting them on OSMF >

Re: [OSM-talk] Is it technically and legally possible to add the Open Location Code to the OSM search?

Am 10.08.2018 um 23:25 schrieb Blake Girardot: > Is that not the reason OSM was started in the first place? :) It is slightly different in more than one way for a monopoly owner to pre-emptively create and promote a free system  to stop a competitor from gaining a foothold in a potential new

Re: [OSM-talk] Generic Tasking Manager instances

The instance I ran for many years has been replaced by http://tasks.osm.ch/ that I suspect will again be available for many years to come  (note that the main problem in the past has been that there was typically no way to migrate to newer version which led to people being stuck on old,

Re: [OSM-talk] Is it technically and legally possible to add the Open Location Code to the OSM search?

Am 11.08.2018 um 16:39 schrieb Richard Fairhurst: >  is a good idea, > apart from Simon, and even Homer nods sometimes. > > Note my opposition, notwithstanding my general concerns about fiddling with the markets, is founded in that plus codes are just simply not very good/fit for purpose.

Re: [OSM-talk] Is it technically and legally possible to add the Open Location Code to the OSM search?

Simon > > Thanks John > > On 11 August 2018 at 19:04, Simon Poole <mailto:si...@poole.ch>> wrote: > > > > Am 11.08.2018 um 16:39 schrieb Richard Fairhurst: > >  is a good idea, > > apart from Simon, and even Homer nods sometimes. >

Re: [OSM-talk] Is it technically and legally possible to add the Open Location Code to the OSM search?

uld Nomination, Osmand or OSM be liable if we > implement it? > > -- > Andrew > ---- > *From:* Simon Poole > *Sent:* 11 August 2018 09:43 > *To:* Blake Girardot > *Cc:* OpenStreetMap > *Subject:* Re: [OSM-ta

Re: [OSM-talk] Is it technically and legally possible to add the Open Location Code to the OSM search?

Am 13.08.2018 um 18:46 schrieb Daniel Koć: > W dniu 13.08.2018 o 18:37, Jo pisze: > >> I also don't see a reason to add the OLC codes in tags in the >> database, even if marked on a building. > Since buildings are not guaranteed to fit into OLC rectangles and they > not 1:1 compatible, this

Re: [OSM-talk] Community Data License Agreement – Permissive and ODbL?

as really having the same mission as OSM at all. > > > >> On Aug 22, 2018, at 2:08 PM, Simon Poole > <mailto:si...@poole.ch>> wrote: >> >> WOF as a OSM compeitor. >> >> >> Am 22.08.2018 um 20:06 schrieb Kathleen Lu: >>> >>>

Re: [OSM-talk] Community Data License Agreement – Permissive and ODbL?

Hi Maurizio If the context is actually using data from whosonfirst, I don't believe that this is actually a sensible question. Any data source used by wof that actually has a licence that is suitable for use in OSM could be used directly without the added complication of the linux foundations

Re: [OSM-talk] Community Data License Agreement – Permissive and ODbL?

Am 22.08.2018 um 19:17 schrieb Simon Poole: > .. but I > wouldn't be surprised if they still had CC BY sources, which as we all > know are not suitable for use in OSM . See https://github.com/whosonfirst/whosonfirst-sources/blob/master/sources/README.md for a long list of sources ,

Re: [OSM-talk] Community Data License Agreement – Permissive and ODbL?

WOF as a OSM compeitor. Am 22.08.2018 um 20:06 schrieb Kathleen Lu: > > > PS: long diatribe on why on earth the linux foundation is > supporting an > > OSM competitor not included. > > mmm... this is not good. > Do you know the reasons? > > > Simon - did you mean an OSM

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] ODbL text

Currently I'm pointing to http://web.archive.org/web/20180317184051/https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ however as the opendatacommons.org links are all over the place that isn't really a solution. OKI seems to be aware of the issue, but that is about all what we know (they seem to be

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] ODbL text

ird party publish the text is in principle a good idea for such reasons).   Simon PS: that doesn't mean that having our own clean copy as a backup wouldn't be a good idea, but IMHO the pointer to archive.org is probably the best of all bad solutions right now. > > On Sun, Apr 8, 2018, 5:46

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] ODbL text

Am 09.04.2018 um 00:30 schrieb Michael Kugelmann: > On 08.04.2018 at 14:12 Simon Poole wrote: >> PS: that doesn't mean that having our own clean copy as a backup >> wouldn't be a good idea, > I very much encourage the OSMF to host a copy of the license as the > OSMF d

Re: [OSM-talk] GDPR introduction

Am 17.04.2018 um 14:14 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > On Tuesday 17 April 2018, Simon Poole wrote: > >> LWG GDPR Position Paper >> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:GDPR_Position_Paper.pdf> >> >> Please feel free to discuss on the talk page >> <

[OSM-talk] GDPR introduction

On the 25th of May 2018 the *General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) * will enter in to force, this will likely result in some changes in how OpenStreetMap operates and distributes its data. The LWG has prepared a position paper

Re: [OSM-talk] External contact channels and GDPR

Isn't this a bit a "what if"? Definitely the OSMF is not requiring or asking anybody to discuss topics on media that are not operated by the foundation and as you know provides a variety of options (changeset comments, diaries, mailing lists and forums) that can be used without involving third

Re: [OSM-talk] GDPR introduction

Am 17.04.2018 um 19:37 schrieb Michael Reichert: > > *Controller vs. processor* > > Chapter "Recommendations", section 3 (page 10) writes: >> Using the data for user and contribution profiling will either require a data >> processing agreement (and a similar agreement for research) or the

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM based mobile app that allows additional vector data to be loaded

Naturally you can load gps files (with way points) in Vespucci too, but probably more relevant to the question: you can load custom task files a simplified OSMOSE format. Low priority I've been thinking of adding a "GIS data" layer support, I'm just not quite sure the use case really exists.

Re: [OSM-talk] [Diversity-talk] How do you mapping gender neutral toilets? What should the unisex tag mean?

Somehow I don't see anything on the wiki page that supports this lengthy thread. The issue may be that there are (at least) two ways to map a toilet facility: - rough, one node or area for the whole thing, indicating that unisex, female and male apply to the options available within, making it

Re: [OSM-talk] WMF: "Interactive maps, now in your language"

Am 29.06.2018 um 13:21 schrieb Andy Mabbett: > ... > Nor are they. > > I expected some negativity in response to this remarkable good news; > but this hyperbolic response is beyond acceptable. So you are denying that they are asking their users to add names to OSM so that their application looks

Re: [OSM-talk] WMF: "Interactive maps, now in your language"

Not only that. It confuses "translations" with "names commonly in use for the place in your language" we only want the later in OSM. If the WMF wants the former in WD that is their call (the rather small place (3'000 pop)I live in has name entries in 30 languages, even though there are at most 2

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #431 2018-10-16-2018-10-22

The point mentioning my pull request https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/2028 is a bit misleading: the PR doesn't just add links, it integrates accepting the ToU in to the signup process. That said, feedback is welcome, best on the PR. Simon Am 27.10.2018 um 16:19

Re: [OSM-talk] "Travel like a KLocal" series of printed maps

Am 09.10.2018 um 16:48 schrieb Frederik Ramm: > .. > Is this a new phenomenon? Nope, variants of these scams have been around for ages on amazon (for ages==since you can self publish via amazon). Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [OSM-talk] United Nations World Geospatial Information Congres (UN-GGIM)

Would anybody with connections to OSM be foolhardy enough to participate without a safe passage guarantee or personal diplomatic immunity? Simon Am 21.09.2018 um 13:09 schrieb Frederik Ramm: > Hi, > > On 09/21/18 10:37, Naveen Francis wrote: >> Any participation from openstreetmap community

Re: [OSM-talk] Grab using OSM Data for route preview

Just to explain what we are planning: the current attribution guidance on the OSMF website and on openstreetmap.org mostly goes back to before 2012 and there have only been some tweaks to the texts since them. This on the one hand makes it difficult to find statements that we have made on aspects

Re: [OSM-talk] Grab using OSM Data for route preview

Am 26.12.2018 um 11:46 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > It seems more straightforward to fix this upstream rather than asking a > myriad of downstream users to patch it. As it is with one of our most > prominent users, maybe this specific issue should be discussed on the board? > This is not the

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

As Frederik pointed out a bit back, this is just kicking the can down the road. We will still have to make choices and even if that is just to declare that a boundary is disputed (which for example is definitely not something RU agrees with in the case of Crimea) and those choices will be

Re: [OSM-talk] Grab using OSM Data for route preview

On 22.12.2018 12:44, Christoph Hormann wrote: > .. > Yes, but second rate attribution is such a clear cut case that it could > and should be covered. .. I'm not quite sure what your point is, we've made it clear in the past that click to show attribution is not acceptable outside of a

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

not being airports because they hadn't designated them as such. Am 11.12.2018 um 14:11 schrieb Colin Smale: > > On 2018-12-11 13:53, Simon Poole wrote: > >> As Frederik pointed out a bit back, this is just kicking the can down >> the road. >> >> We will stil

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

I've not been involved in this discussion at all, so it wasn't my decision. But as we've repeated time and time again on many occasions, the default borders in OSM are those of de facto control and recording the fact of which country has control has nothing to do if we think that is legit,

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Alexa Traffic Rank

Am 10.01.2019 um 12:11 schrieb Sérgio V.: > Ah ok, thank you for both tips. Fortunately I was not phished to > install anything from that site. > Anyway, even if it could be an aleatory coincidence, it seems there's > actually some decrease in editons in recent months,  > according to 

Re: [OSM-talk] Can we use PLOS materials?

Please see https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ And really, besides all the other problems with the wiki, deducing anything from the membership of an article in one of the multiple 10'000 essentially random categories is not a good idea. Simon Am 11.01.2019 um 12:01

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Alexa Traffic Rank

Am 09.01.2019 um 21:47 schrieb Sérgio V.: > According to "Alexa Traffic Rank":  > "The rank [of openstreetmap.org] declined 517 positions versus the > previous 3 months". > Global Rank: 7,069 > https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/openstreetmap.org > ("The rank is calculated using a combination of

Re: [OSM-talk] What use is OpenStreetMap?

I understood John's question very differently. Essentially as "what are the benefits to our municipality of being present in detail on OSM" not using the data or even contributing to it, just as they are not likely to contemplate that for the goog or Here. My short take on it would be: "because

Re: [OSM-talk] Grab using OSM Data for route preview

ent from a phone > >> On 19. Dec 2018, at 10:42, Simon Poole wrote: >> >> A seat on the advisory board requires at least a "gold" level membership >> which costs EUR 1 per year. > ___ > talk mailing list &g

Re: [OSM-talk] Grab using OSM Data for route preview

The LWG has added a work item for 2019 to update the guidance on attribution. The major part of the existing texts were written in the ramp up to the licence change in 2012 and are now over 6 years old.  Lots of things have changed massively since then, be it the scope of OSM usage, to what kind

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed mechanical edit - elimination of osmarender:nameDirection - blatant tagging for the renderer

; The other way around you mean. Simon > If it improves database quality, then go for it. > > DaveF > > > On 15/03/2019 20:13, Simon Poole wrote: >> Why would we want to create new versions of objects just to remove a tag >> that is not hurting anybody in any wa

Re: [OSM-talk] iD influencing tagging

Am 07.04.2019 um 18:12 schrieb Clifford Snow: >  The original post on talk-de really seemed to be complaining that the > development staff is paid. Maybe what we should be asking is "Should > OSMF fund development of tools?"  I think that isn't really a correct interpretation of the original

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed mechanical edit - elimination of osmarender:nameDirection - blatant tagging for the renderer

Am 23.03.2019 um 13:28 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > > > > Mar 23, 2019, 1:04 PM by ajt1...@gmail.com: > > > On 3/23/19 11:46 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> >> >> >> Mar 23, 2019, 9:59 AM by si...@poole.ch : >> >> ...  Producing false updates (aka no real

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Just a couple of general comments on this. - The LWG is undertaking an effort to sure up our attribution guidance this year see https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2019-01-10 - I would have preferred that the discussion take place when we've actually written

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 10:48 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: . > c) I recommend doing this, I tried mailing Mapbox about their > license-breaking > hiding attribution but at first their responded claiming that OSBL > allows that, > after quoting that part of them they went back to not responding > > d)

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 01:12 schrieb Andy Mabbett: > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 22:35, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > >> "We require that you use the credit “© OpenStreetMap contributors”... >> For a browsable electronic map, the credit should appear in the corner >> of the map." > 28 characters. There are

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 12:01 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > > > > Mar 1, 2019, 11:25 AM by si...@poole.ch: > > And specifically on the issue with Mapbox customers, one of the > results of the 2014 discussions was this statement by Mapbox >

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 20:20 schrieb Andy Mabbett: > ... > The words you quote don't mean what you seem to think they do; they > certainly do not authorise the OSMF to act as my agent in pursuing > claims with regard to /my/ rights. > ... This is were you are confusing things: while it is true that

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 23:29 schrieb Stefan Keller: > I applaud that the LWG is undertaking an effort to sure up our > attribution guidance. > > IMO the sentence in question MUST be changed from "should" to MUST! The, rather old, issue with that, is that it stops people from providing better

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 14:57 schrieb Florian Lohoff: > ... > So please either enforce the ODbL or relicense to CC0. > > ... It is not a surprise that you are asking that, but just consider what the world would be like if we only had laws that could guaranteed to be 100% enforced. The good news is

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 02.03.2019 um 17:09 schrieb Ineiev: > Why OSMF? the copyright holders are still the individual mappers---unless > their copyright is transferred to someone else specifically. > Any rights that you might have in your contributions remain yours and there is no copyright assignment, as you may

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 02.03.2019 um 14:05 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > Mar 2, 2019, 12:19 PM by f...@zz.de: > > Yes - we talk nicely - but in > the end nobody is willing to drag them to court. And THAT was the > first > question i had when we talked about relicensing. > > There is a big gap between

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 02.03.2019 um 16:13 schrieb Florian Lohoff: > > In most jurisdications licensing and trade marks will only hold up > when defended or enforced in court. Once you stop doing so you > might loose your protection. This is nonsense as Mateusz has already pointed out and is not even true for

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 03.03.2019 um 12:54 schrieb Ineiev: > ... > So, when someone violates that license when using the work of > those contributors, any of them may sue the violator, mayn't they? As the user is operating on a licence from the OSMF, the foundation would have to make the determination that the

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Hi Benoît My expectation was and is that we are not going to fundamentally change the requirements, but simply be more prescriptive for more use cases. just as you outline. The only case where I currently think it might be necessary to find something "new" are static (aka non-panable and

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 12:49 schrieb Andy Mabbett: > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 11:05, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > >> Additional question - who can file DMCA. AFAIK only OSMF can do that and >> individual >> mappers are unable to do it, right? > I am the copyright owner of my edits. You are the owner of

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 12:51 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > ... > What OSMF activity since the license change on this front, in particular > with the community guidelines, has tried to do is to pave over this > conflict by interpreting the ODbL as leniently as possible without this > resulting in

Re: [OSM-talk] Your thoughts on osm.org

Am 12.03.2019 um 17:58 schrieb Martijn van Exel: > Hi all, > > Here’s something I ask myself from time to time and would like to hear other > people’s thoughts about. How many times have we had this discussion in the last 15 years? And it will go absolutely no where just as all the previous

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed mechanical edit - elimination of osmarender:nameDirection - blatant tagging for the renderer

Why would we want to create new versions of objects just to remove a tag that is not hurting anybody in any way? The correct way to handle this is to add the tag to the list of deprecated tags that should be automatically removed (essentially iD has a list and JOSM has one too), when and if the

[OSM-talk] Licence compatibility information

The LWG has recently added a section on licence compatibility to the OSMF website. https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility We hope that this will make it easier for community members to determine which licences could potentially be compatible and to provide centralised

Re: [OSM-talk] problems with differential update?

It's diff 634 but the line number seems to be off, investigating. Am 11.04.2019 um 11:31 schrieb Hartmut Holzgraefe: > On 11.04.19 10:35, wambac...@posteo.de wrote: >> Hi, >> >> the differential update from planet.osm.org is making problems. >> > [...] >>

Re: [OSM-talk] problems with differential update?

Unzipping and re-zipping helps so it is not actually an error in the OSM data. AFAIK both sys admins are currently unavailable so it will take a while to fix. Simon Am 11.04.2019 um 16:17 schrieb Simon Poole: > Sorry 643 > > Am 11.04.2019 um 16:15 schrieb Simon Poole: >>

Re: [OSM-talk] problems with differential update?

Am 11.04.2019 um 21:26 schrieb Roland Olbricht: > > Could it have been that the file triggered an arcane bug in a gz library > from the Java universe? > > ... I decompressed the failing file using the same method as osmosis without issue, so it must be fairly subtle whatever the issue is.

Re: [OSM-talk] problems with differential update?

Should be fixed now, thanks to Grant. Am 11.04.2019 um 16:30 schrieb Simon Poole: > Unzipping and re-zipping helps so it is not actually an error in the OSM > data. AFAIK both sys admins are currently unavailable so it will take a > while to fix. > > Simon > > Am 11.04.2019 u

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