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

Am 12.04.2019 um 08:26 schrieb Maarten Deen: > > Does the determination in java follow the same rules (or even the same > library) as file(1)? In its manpage it says >> file tests each argument in an attempt to classify it. There are >> three sets of tests, performed in this order: filesystem

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

https://github.com/openstreetmap/osmosis/pull/50 Am 12.04.2019 um 10:16 schrieb Maarten Deen: > On 2019-04-12 09:52, Simon Poole wrote: >> Am 12.04.2019 um 08:26 schrieb Maarten Deen: >>> >>> Does the determination in java follow the same rules (or even the same >

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

the patch applied so the fix is simply to remove the explicit dependency which wasn't needed with modern JDKs in any case. Simon Am 12.04.2019 um 11:03 schrieb Simon Poole: > https://github.com/openstreetmap/osmosis/pull/50 > > Am 12.04.2019 um 10:16 schrieb Maarten Deen: >> On 2

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

Am 11.04.2019 um 22:40 schrieb mmd: > > Too bad osmosis is still unmaintained... "still"? afaik nobody has even lifted a finger to find a new maintainer, so somehow I wouldn't expect a solution to the issue barring magic, unicorns and so on. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital

Re: [OSM-talk] mass iD validation arrives in NYC

The times in the changeset do not reflect the length of the associated editing session except if the changeset was opened on purpose at the beginning which IMHO no editor does. Am 28. Mai 2019 19:53:22 MESZ schrieb Dave F via talk : >I notice these changesets were completed in 30/60 seconds

Re: [OSM-talk] How to Translate Strings in OSM to other languages

Hi Shrini Before getting in to any of the details my first question would be: why are you "translating" to Tamil, shouldn't the objects in question already have a name (as in a name used by the local population in Tamil) that can simply be used in OSM? Or is this more a question of using the

Re: [OSM-talk] Documenting controversial iD decisions

I don't think any level of whataboutism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism) will change that the default editor on osm.org has a special (and very coveted) position. So while I agree that in principle we should expect the same level of care from all apps that edit OSM data via the API,

Re: [OSM-talk] mass iD validation arrives in NYC

Am 28. Mai 2019 17:44:25 MESZ schrieb Simon Poole : >1st thing to do is to ask the napper to slow ... mapper :-) -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org ht

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

Am 27.05.2019 um 12:58 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > .. > I think this is a too limited view of the options the OSM community has. I don't think I claimed to explore every possible sub-variant. > I in particular see: > > * a wide range of possibilities to offer iD on osm.org but not exactly >

Re: [OSM-talk] mass iD validation arrives in NYC

1st thing to do is to ask the napper to slow down in a change set comment. Am 28. Mai 2019 17:13:49 MESZ schrieb Jmapb : >See yesterday's changesets: > >https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70676813 ( >https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=70676813 )

Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform

The problem with this (and the longer thread on tagging), that it has had exactly 0 effect. As I see it we can choose between - doing nothing (seems to be most popular currently) - wage an edit war by reverting any edits that clearly do not correspond to best practices (not good) - put in

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

Am 10.06.2019 um 21:05 schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier: > On 6/10/19 5:28 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 4:47 PM Yves > > wrote: >> >> I think a small '(c)OSM' for small screen web or app could be >> suggested as OK, what do you think? >> >>

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM user diary etiquette

There is a very big difference between "lively debate", and hurling insults at individuals. Being of a different opinion than our system administrators and expressing that, if very long in the tooth and annoying in its repetitiveness is quite OK, and like most I simply switched to ignoring the

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL (Andy Mabbett )

The ODbL (like for example the CC licences too) does not allow sub-licencing and stipulates that every licensee is licensed directly by the OSMF. Am 13.06.2019 um 19:10 schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 6:17 PM Nuno Caldeira > mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>> > wrote: >

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed mechanical edit - remove blatant duplicates (sustenance=fast_food on amenity=fast_food, atm=yes on amenity=atm etc.)

Please no. Essentially you are saying that all attribute tags that indicate that a specific facility is present should be duplicated on the standalone objects of the same type. bin=yes on amenity=waste_basket, bench=yes on amenity=bench and so on. Am 14.06.2019 um 09:27 schrieb Johnparis: > For

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

Am 09.05.2019 um 23:14 schrieb Mikel Maron: > > What do you think? Should the next version of iD be deployed on > www.openstreetmap.org? > > Absolutely. My understanding is this feature will greatly improve data > quality in OSM. I think it's fair to validate squareness of existing > buildings.

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

Just a general remark on the technical issue that sparked of this discussion:  squaring buildings is not primarily about improving data quality. Non-square buildings are simply visually annoying when rendered, so much that I support squaring them "as a rule" too when it can reasonably be assumed

Re: [OSM-talk] We're erasing our history in wiki

The last functional addition to the editing API was just over a year ago, in March 2018. Implying for rhetorical purposes that "nothing has changed" is rather disingenuous. Simon Am 22.04.2019 um 11:59 schrieb Ilya Zverev: > This attitude: “to do well we would need people responsible and there

Re: [OSM-talk] We're erasing our history in wiki

See https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/disingenuous Am 22.04.2019 um 20:40 schrieb mmd: > Am 22.04.19 um 12:37 schrieb Simon Poole: >> The last functional addition to the editing API was just over a year >> ago, in March 2018. >> >> Implying for rhetorical

Re: [OSM-talk] We're erasing our history in wiki

Am 22.04.2019 um 18:46 schrieb Dave F via talk: > Was this new/improvement additions or bug/maintenance fix? As said, it was an addition. Simon > > DaveF > > On 22/04/2019 11:37, Simon Poole wrote: >> The last functional addition to the editing API was just over a year

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Thanks to Christine and the SotM-WG we've been allocated a slot and a room in Heidelberg see https://2019.stateofthemap.org/sessions/AV9NWC/ Simon Am 09.08.2019 um 09:41 schrieb Simon Poole: > As we've mentioned multiple times over the last months, the LWG decided > last year to consolida

Re: [OSM-talk] Comparing INSPIRE and OpenStreetMap data conference paper

Got to the 1st line of 2nd page and found the 1st error (as papers on OSM go that is not bad). Am 28. August 2019 15:05:09 MESZ schrieb "François Lacombe" : >Hi all, > >Noticed this content today, I don't think this has already been posted >here. If not, sorry for noise. > >People of JRC (Joint

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

d or not. I should note that this is a hypothetical, Facebook doesn't display a logo on the small inset maps nor on the larger popup maps on their website. Simon > > - Joseph Eisenberg > > On 9/9/19, Simon Poole wrote: >> To illustrate where this discussion has gone awry please consi

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Am 09.09.2019 um 12:08 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > > Existing guidelines allow a lot of things that are clearly not allowed > by the ODbL itself in terms of share-alike (like the regional cuts > concept for example). That statement is completely wrong. What is correct is that the limitation

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Just as a general comment and data point on the "the OSMF is scumbling to commercial interests and throwing the licence out of the window" narrative. Ever noticed that while there are lots and lots of sites of all kinds that use OSM derived base maps and the road network for routing, there is

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

with the ODbL), and last, but not least, that the attribution guideline when it is finalised is clearer than the current guidance  and helps us massively reduce unattributed use of OSM data. Simon Am 09.09.2019 um 14:14 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > On Monday 09 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote: &g

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Am 09.09.2019 um 14:16 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > On Monday 09 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote: >>> And what happens if one of the data sources has a hard visible >>> attribution requirement without the OSMF 'attribution light' >>> liberty? As you drafted th

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Governance

Roland I can't help noticing that you are tiptoeing a bit around the actual issue which started the whole discussion: unilateral changes by the iD maintainers (everybody else doesn't have enough leverage to enforce their position, so it is not me specifically picking on them, it is simply a

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Governance

Thanks. BTW I'm not saying that it is always clear when a "good idea" is actually controversial or that you and Quincy are not subject to multiple forces pulling or pushing in opposite directions, but the only solution can be to escalate such issues to a wider audience before implementation, when

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Governance

around your behaviour which is what in the end is causing the high tension. Simon > > Bryan > > > >> On Sep 10, 2019, at 9:55 AM, Simon Poole wrote: >> >> Roland >> >> I can't help noticing that you are tiptoeing a bit around the actual >> issu

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Am 08.09.2019 um 23:52 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > On Sunday 08 September 2019, Clifford Snow wrote: >> Christoph, >> What would you recommend and how can it be implemented and tested to >> insure compliance with the license? How does the user of OSM data >> figure out what data is counted in

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Nobody is even remotely suggesting that use OpenStreetMap data can be used without attribution (claims that that is the case lead me to believe that some haven't actually read the document in question). The discussion is solely about the practicalities  of where to put the attribution when

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

To illustrate where this discussion has gone awry please consider a rendering using 10 data sources all licensed on ODbL terms (in real life it is not uncommon to have multiple dozens of different sources, so 10 is not a high number).  The ODbL does not, nor does any other open licence, intend for

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

of all sources used does not do that. Simon > -Joseph Eisenberg > > (Disclosure: Just a volunteer contributor as a mapper and at > Openstreetmap-carto, I don't have any financial interest in this > project, nor will the copyright policy directly affect me, except when > I print out m

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

text which however applies to the suggested 50% rule too. Simon Am 08.09.2019 um 16:38 schrieb Simon Poole: > > I don't quite follow your argument here. According to the draft > guideline if a majority of the data displayed is derived from OSM, > then attribution needs to be display

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

lying with ODbL by not showing > the license. > Seen multiple maps by their clients and they show data "copyright l.map" > > I have confirmed with multiple contributors that largely the data used > is OSM and it's around a year old dump of the planet. > > Simon Poole m

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Am 08.09.2019 um 19:39 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > On Sunday 08 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote: >> /If OpenStreetMap is not the largest data provider for the visible >> map rendering, attribution with other sources on a separate page that >> is visible after user inte

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Am 08.09.2019 um 20:37 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > On Sunday 08 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote: >> I think you are confusing potentially extractable information with >> actual data. For example satellite imagery may have a potentially >> high information content that coul

Re: [OSM-talk] Survey on global and local communities in OpenStreetMap

Hi Dorothea There's a typo in the section on communication channels, the first occurrence of "other mailing lists" is mangled. @the designers of the survey. The question wrt remote mapping would seem to be designed to achieve a specific result. While a truthful answer on my behalf would require

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

Am 26.07.2019 um 19:30 schrieb Naveen Francis: > Including my ₹ 0.10 (Indian ten paisa) >   > Echoes same thoughts of Brazilian Real.  > > AI-assisted human mapping tools will be a good aid for the OSM community. > > "Map faster, Map better".  > > 40,00,000 kms to be mapped in India.  > 15 years

[OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

As we've mentioned multiple times over the last months, the LWG decided last year to consolidate all attribution guidance in to one document and address some of the use cases that have become common over the last 7 years that previously had none. Particularly in the light of the parallel

Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey OpenData

There is no conflict. The specific OS version of the OGL was/is incompatible, data released on generic OGL terms including such by OS is (compatible). Am 23.07.2019 um 16:37 schrieb Colin Smale: > > > On 2019-07-23 16:05, Alessandro Sarretta wrote: > >> Just be careful that it seems that the OS

Re: [OSM-talk] Addressing SIG

The issue with addresses is definitely not due to a lack of tools for OSM contributors. For example https://regio-osm.de/hausnummerauswertung/anzeige_dynamisch.html?land=Schweiz=8.71423=47.05777=8=B which covers essentially all the analytics needed for comparison with open data datasets and

Re: [OSM-talk] Maintaining privacy as a casual mapper

The clause is mainly a consequence of the relevant GDPR rules and at the time (not sure why we are having this discussion after the fact) we spent a lot of time investigating what potential routes there could be to working around this, but nobody came up with a workable solution. Simon  Am

Re: [OSM-talk] Addressing SIG

Just as a further data point for the discussion: we are currently adding roughly 10'000'000 addresses per year relatively constant since 2013, with some exceptions due to imports (mainly NL in 2014 I believe). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[OSM-talk] vespucci crashes since yesterday

Due to a change in the data format provided by the Osmose API, if you have Osmose enabled (the default), you will experience a crash when trying to download an area since yesterday. While I've built a new version that handles the issue (this is simply a crash avoidance measure, but doesn't

Re: [OSM-talk] Addressing SIG

Am 08.11.2019 um 13:19 schrieb marc marc: > Hello, > > Simon Poole : >> The issue with addresses is definitely not due to a lack of tools >> for OSM contributors. For example >> https://regio-osm.de/hausnummerauswertung/anzeige_dynamisch.html?land=Schweiz=8.71423=47.05

Re: [OSM-talk] Maintaining privacy as a casual mapper

Am 03.11.2019 um 23:08 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > ... > it depends from whom you hide, but generally you should not use a traceable > email account if you want to remain anonymous. Using Google would seem like a > total no-go (they are even reserving the right to read your emails). Use a >

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

The problem with this thread is that it is conflating different (but a bit related) things. - missing or less than perfect attribution, - corporate messaging about OpenStreetMap (or more the lack of it). As to the first point in general we are just arguing about the form, not the principle. We

Re: [OSM-talk] Maintaining privacy as a casual mapper

Am 04.11.2019 um 10:03 schrieb Maarten Deen: > On 2019-11-04 09:28, Simon Poole wrote: >> Am 03.11.2019 um 23:08 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: >>> ... >>> it depends from whom you hide, but generally you should not use a >>> traceable email account if you want t

Re: [OSM-talk] Maintaining privacy as a casual mapper

Am 04.11.2019 um 12:57 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > Am Mo., 4. Nov. 2019 um 12:20 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole <mailto:si...@poole.ch>>: > > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#II._Privacy requires > you to keep your contact information (which is

Re: [OSM-talk] What does WGS84 mean for openstreetmap these days?

Thus is a slightly tricky subject and it is not going away. For another aspect of it see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/StephaneP/diary/390290 Essentially in some cases we are using imagery that isn't actually using WGS84 as if it was (fsvo of WGS84 as you correctly point out) and we

Re: [OSM-talk] What does WGS84 mean for openstreetmap these days?

It's not quite the same thing as uncertainty in the datum itself. Crust movements simply lead to things being somewhere else relative to a global datum (aka they have moved), so a new measurement of the position for the same object would return the correct current position and theoretically if

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #497 2020-01-21-2020-01-27

We are talking literally about a one command "pipeline" that already does everything right and consumes 1% of the volume of a weekly download of the planet. Not to mention that you get a daily (or whatever you want) updated planet out of it that contains a defined set of diffs (contrary to

Re: [OSM-talk] For the sake of peace | Re: Cease use of OpenStreetMap/Antifa logo

In no particular role, specifically no official OSMF one: Can't we resolve this by moving the logo and potentially other ones to an explicit category: "Fun, parody and other, not totally serious, remixes of the OSM logo, not endorsed by anybody" With a different hat on: it would be really nice

Re: [OSM-talk] For the sake of peace | Re: Cease use of OpenStreetMap/Antifa logo

Am 17.02.2020 um 23:42 schrieb Yves: > .. > ... or worse, not using the brand at all on their maps for the same goal! > Yves > Actually no, and I'm fairly sure that is the "BIG MISUNDERSTANDING". If somebody doesn't provide sufficient attribution that doesn't run away, and we can, for all

[OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

The LWG has now integrated feedback from the initial airing in August last year, from a total of three sessions at SOTM-US and SOTM in Heidelberg, feedback from the OSMF board and from the wider OSM community. Barring any major late developing issues, we intend to forward this to the OSMF board

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

Am 19.02.2020 um 14:40 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg: >> IMHO attribution should always be required 1. on the map 2. in high contrast > Agreed. > > The main problem is that mobile devices, which are by far the most > common ways of accessing maps around the world, are only required to > provide

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

Am 19.02.2020 um 15:59 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > .. > Imho we should not differentiate between mobile and desktop devices: > either there is sufficient space and attribution should be permanent, > or there isn’t and it is ok you have to click somewhere to see it. The > constraints/conditions

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

Am 19.02.2020 um 13:50 schrieb Frederik Ramm: > ... > I acknowledge Kathleen Lu's recent remark about the ODbL being very > clear on a derived product having to "contain" OSM in some way which > would not be the case here; but I think this calls for working on ODbL > 1.1 to rectify the issue,

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

Am 19.02.2020 um 15:02 schrieb Frederik Ramm: > > In my mind I always ask the question: How essential was OSM for what is > being done? How much of your hike remains if you remove OSM from the > picture? How much of a trained AI remains if you remove OSM from the > picture? Assuming "essential"

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

icle is unintelligible to me. Too many jargon terms. But I > will note that "Slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, whether you use > it to argue for stronger or weaker license enforcement and terms. > https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope > > - Joseph Eise

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

Am 19.02.2020 um 14:24 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > In this case the statement that "small maps or multiple data sources" > are the only cases where the document does not require visible > attribution is wrong. For example it is later stated that visible > attribution is not required if

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

Am 19.02.2020 um 20:17 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk: > 19 Feb 2020, 17:22 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > But I stick to the comment that 500px are far too many (=1000 > actual retina pixels or 1500 px on a retina@3).  > > Yes, you may easily fit at least "© OSM" > with link in such

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

I believe there is actually a small issue with the definition here, as there are two conflicting DIP definitions in use (one pixel on mobile devices ~160 DPI vs one pixel for CSS 96 DPI), we need to state what we are using. Simon Am 19.02.2020 um 17:22 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > sent from

Re: [OSM-talk] Is there some existing detailed tutorial directed at complete newbies? Describing how to add various features?

From a pedagogic point of view I would consider that suboptimal, no to mention that it would be endless. For anybody that is going to contribute more than once (and iDs tutorial does a good job of guiding through that), we want them to learn the basic concepts of OSM and enable them to extend

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

Folks, I was being a bit tongue in cheek, obviously the point didn't get across. I apologize and re-state: For many legal and marketing reasons providing attribution to "OSM" is not something that is likely ever going to be supported or recommended by the OSMF as sufficient. This is nothing new

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

Am 20.02.2020 um 11:34 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > What you don't seem to understand is that there is nothing in the ODbL > that allows the conclusion that for OSM data use on certain devices > there is a *lesser* requirement for making the user aware of the use of > OSM data than on others

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

Am 20.02.2020 um 11:19 schrieb Christian Quest: > > - the 10.000m2 limit, this is completely artificial > > Artificial "yes", but the main thing is that it is small enough to ensure that it will essentially never be a substantial extract, on the other hand large enough that you can cover the

Re: [OSM-talk] is OSM a fake map.

A couple of general points first: - nobody "owns" their OSM data in any larger OSM community your data will be changed by other mappers, and sometimes they will be wrong and sometimes you, - good comments and source tags are your friend, indicating how the data was sourced is key to enabling

Re: [OSM-talk] #AttributionIsNotOptional experiment on OSM France tile servers

Am 12.03.2020 um 10:58 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > Am Mi., 11. März 2020 um 17:21 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole <mailto:si...@poole.ch>>: > > I would be very very wary of doing anything that deliberately > defaces a web site without consulting with a local (to the count

Re: [OSM-talk] #AttributionIsNotOptional experiment on OSM France tile servers

he ToU's could be lacking in detail, couldn't we simply > change them? The final section talks about changes, which we seem to > be able to just do when we want to. > > I would think the biggest challenge on OSMF side would be the workload > for OWG/sysadmins. > > Best, > J

Re: [OSM-talk] #AttributionIsNotOptional experiment on OSM France tile servers

Am 11.03.2020 um 15:48 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk: > Mar 11, 2020, 15:37 by si...@poole.ch: > > As I wrote (conveniently ignored in the noise of the vigilante > rampage): " > > I guess that people were irritated by describing gentle reminder about > license requirements > using

Re: [OSM-talk] #AttributionIsNotOptional experiment on OSM France tile servers

to utilize the  whatever tools are provided by the legal system, totally regardless off how upset they are and how righteous they might feel about their actions. Simon Am 12.03.2020 um 15:09 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > Am Do., 12. März 2020 um 11:50 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole <mailto:si...@po

Re: [OSM-talk] #AttributionIsNotOptional experiment on OSM France tile servers

Am 12.03.2020 um 16:06 schrieb THEVENON Julien: > Le jeudi 12 mars 2020 à 15:43:17 UTC+1, Simon Poole a écrit > : > >> To use a completely different example: assume that you purchase a TV set >> paid by monthly instalments and you default on them. In civilised countries

Re: [OSM-talk] #AttributionIsNotOptional experiment on OSM France tile servers

Am 12.03.2020 um 15:56 schrieb Pierre Béland: > Mar. 12 2020 10 h 43 min  UTC−4, Simon Poole wrote : > > > To use a completely different example: assume that you purchase > a TV set paid by monthly instalments and you default on them. In > civilised countries that doesn

Re: [OSM-talk] #AttributionIsNotOptional experiment on OSM France tile servers

ad to a liability claim than just a blacked out map, but I > would not mind at all to be enlightened. > > Joost > > Op wo 11 mrt. 2020 om 15:39 schreef Simon Poole <mailto:si...@poole.ch>>: > > As I wrote (conveniently ignored in the noise of the vigilante > r

Re: [OSM-talk] Replication errors

Sarah has already given the answer, but a small remark anyway: I would suggest following the operations twitter account https://twitter.com/OSM_Tech as that is the place you are most likely to see short term notices about these kind of things. Simon Am 16.04.2020 um 08:10 schrieb Andrzej Kępys:

Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"

Am 17.04.2020 um 13:20 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > ... > Independent of what the OSMF suggests in the future - i would probably > continue attributing "OpenStreetMap contributors" where feasible to > clarify that i am crediting the contributors and not the OSMF. With the exception of imported

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

Am 2. Mai 2020 15:44:33 MESZ schrieb Christoph Hormann : > >> The only time in the past this >was done was with the change to the ODbL in 2012 IIRC. That is not correct, the licence change process has never been invoked. -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

Am 27.04.2020 um 19:49 schrieb Alexandre Oliveira: > Hello! > > I'll try to be brief and explain the main problems that exist with > OSM's way of handling lack of (proper) attribution. > There was just a (nearly 100 messages) long thread on the subject here  not to mention a longish consultation

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

Am 12.05.2020 um 23:03 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk: > > > > May 12, 2020, 05:48 by rockyt...@gmail.com: > > > As Joseph said: > > The attribution goes on the map. > This is not a difficult requirement to meet. > > > The most recent version of the guidelines >

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

Am 13.05.2020 um 13:46 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk: ... > And, no, a typical user will not click on a hidden button or check > deeply in settings. > ... Nobody ever even remotely indicated that attribution via a "hidden button" or deep in any settings was sufficient, in fact the draft

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets

Am 20.03.2020 um 20:00 schrieb Mikel Maron: >>   But this thread is from Facebook trying to change that. To side step >> imports. > No they're not. It's a couple sections in a blog post that is being wildly > misinterpreted. Today's blog posts are the press releases of past years. It would

Re: [OSM-talk] healthsites.io breaks OSM data, do not use

We currently are lacking a simple lightweight way of blocking write access to the API, but it is being looked at. This would normally be the ultima ratio as it essentially means all work already done before an upload is lost, but in the case of a 1 change per changeset app as healthsite.io it

Re: [OSM-talk] #AttributionIsNotOptional experiment on OSM France tile servers

Just for the record: Enforcing attribution for services that you are providing directly (aka tiles in some form) only has a small overlap with the goals of the attribution guideline, and the avenues open to you depend on your ToUs / contracts with your users and the legal situation in the

Re: [OSM-talk] our Q site help.openstreetmap.org is dying

Am 20.05.2020 um 15:45 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk: > Well, if nobody will volunteer to fix it then we will need to select > between > stack exchange migration and simply killing the QA site. We could simply pay for the migration (and if necessary for some support going forward), the

Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 189, Issue 24

ecific >> than "Re: Contents of talk digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >>1. Re: our Q site help.openstreetmap.org is dying >> (Mateusz Konieczny) >>2. Re: our Q site help.openstreetmap.org is dying (Tom Hughes) >>

Re: [OSM-talk] Face and license blurring (GDPR territories)

Am 07.10.2020 um 01:13 schrieb Niels Elgaard Larsen: ... You will probably have to let users add and remove blurs. That is what Mapillary do. They do not, they stopped providing that facility literally years ago, and they've gone as far as no longer storing unblurred images even for a

Re: [OSM-talk] Face and license blurring (GDPR territories)

Am 07.10.2020 um 10:25 schrieb Christian Quest: We have tested blurring using image segmentation which allows to blur full parts of pictures like people and cars, not only faces and license plates. Here is the result: https://takeitout.cquest.org/photo/cquest/blurred/ The code used is

Re: [OSM-talk] Doocracy | Re: Idea for improving mapping system

Am 18.10.2020 um 16:49 schrieb Colin Smale: On 2020-10-18 15:04, Simon Poole wrote: Am 18.10.2020 um 11:07 schrieb Rory McCann: Like mnany things in OSM, the reason it hasn't been done is because no-one has actually done it  yet. It looks like other people find your idea of "l

Re: [OSM-talk] Doocracy | Re: Idea for improving mapping system

Am 18.10.2020 um 11:07 schrieb Rory McCann: Like mnany things in OSM, the reason it hasn't been done is because no-one has actually done it yet. It looks like other people find your idea of "levels" and "badges" interesting, so you should try attempt it yourself. Like many things in OSM,

Re: [OSM-talk] Use of OSM data without attribution

To add to what Andy has already said, complaints about people using private paths etc are relatively common, not a large number in absolute terms, but there tend to be a couple each month which either land with the DWG, or LWG, or naturally with the local community (I've handled a couple of them

Re: [OSM-talk] New API suggestion: Allowing contributors to easily track their OSM-objects over time

As, independent of any other concerns, a matter of good form, I would want to point out that there is no such thing as ownership of OSM-objects, and discussing a concept of "their OSM-objects" is starting the discussion on the wrong foot. Am 22.08.2020 um 11:08 schrieb pangoSE: > Hi > > I would

Re: [OSM-talk] Cannot find address ringvegen 45 Sørkjosen in nominatim

Nominatim tries to build correct address hierarchies from the data, in particular it suspects a matching street (name) in the vicinity if an addr:street tag is specified. While it will match a wide range on name tags on streets (see

Re: [OSM-talk] Search results quality (and some testing on Elasticsearch)

Hi Jose Maybe you should have a look at  https://github.com/komoot/photon which is the go to ES based solution for OSM data (I'm not quite sure how you missed it with the large amount of research you did, but anyway). The other bit to understand is that the design goals of Nominatim, at least

Re: [OSM-talk] User deleting many roads in Brazil

You need to take this up with the DWG (d...@osmfoundation.org) once direct contact with the mapper in question has failed. Posting to this and the tagging list is not going to achieve anything except that you will receive pointers to the DWG. Simon Am 24.10.2020 um 17:54 schrieb Erick de

Re: [OSM-talk] id Editor auto-converts split polygons into MP relation

Its done that essentially since day one. As Bryce points out doing so keeps the object a valid "area" (and iD makes a valiant effort to stop you from breaking that). It is also one of my favourite examples in talks why trying to keep things simple for the user is very difficult and some times

Re: [OSM-talk] Funding of three infrastructure projects : Nominatim, osm2pgsql, Potlatch 2

That was a good decade ago, nothing that would factor in to a decision now (because Linux could not be a target platform to start with).  Am 01.08.2020 um 10:16 schrieb Sören Reinecke via talk: > So far as I understood Adobe dropped Linux support for its AIR > plattform. If that is right, then I

Re: [OSM-talk] Funding of three infrastructure projects : Nominatim, osm2pgsql, Potlatch 2

Am 04.08.2020 um 17:05 schrieb Alexandre Oliveira: >> At this time nobody is proposing anything more than giving P2 a bit more >> life for a small sum of money > And as myself and others have brought up, it's not a good idea to > spend money to port P2 from a dead technology to another dead >

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