[OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v5.8.0
Dear all, Today, v5.8.0 of the OpenStreetMap Carto stylesheet (the default stylesheet on the OSM website) has been released. Once changes are deployed on the openstreetmap.org it will take couple of days before all tiles show the new rendering. Changes include * Changing color of leisure=pitch to be more distinct and less similar to the water color * Fixing color of ref label for railway=subway_entrance * Fixes for highway=mini_roundabout rendering on various road types * Fixing merge error in previous change of rendering natural=bay/natural=strait * Removing point symbol rendering for golf=hole * Restoring rendering for railway=platform + covered=yes * Adding rendering of roller_coaster=track * Adding rendering of landuse=flowerbed More details on these changes with sample pictures can be found on https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/imagico/diary/402871 Thanks to all the contributors for this release, including in particular the new contributors Benjamin Schultz Larsen, dch0ph, kaneap, Matija Nalis, Mattijs Leon, Nicolas Peugnet, tjur0 For a full list of commits, see https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/compare/v5.7.0...v5.8.0 As always, we welcome any bug reports at https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues -- Christoph Hormann https://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Please review "Community attribution advice” wiki page
> Rory McCann hat am 08.12.2020 18:41 geschrieben: > > On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, at 09:43, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote: > > Can you give an example of something that would follow > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_attribution_advice > > and still would not fulfill ODBL? > > What is and isn't allowed by the ODbL can (I think) only be answered by a > court case. I take that as a no - rendering your original claim: > There are many examples of poor attribution where someone could argue that > they meet this standard. unsubstantiated. > These guidelines suffer the same mistake as the old OSMF Legal FAQ¹ of using > “should”, rather than “must”. The original formulation of the advice used 'should' exactly two times - and in a context where it means indeed 'should' as per RFC2119, that is in so far as attribution *should* be specific to what OSM data is used for in case a map uses multiple data sources. There is no community consensus that this is more than a strong recommendation. BTW - the OSMF organized editing guidelines: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines use the term 'should' 18 times. ... Wer im Glashaus sitzt, sollte nicht mit Steinen werfen. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Please review "Community attribution advice” wiki page
> Rory McCann hat am 07.12.2020 22:57 geschrieben: > > But I think this attribution is too vague. It's advice seems to restate the > relevant section from the ODbL. There are many examples of poor attribution > where someone could argue that they meet this standard. As i have already explained to you in http://blog.imagico.de/the-osmf-changes-during-the-past-year-and-what-they-mean-for-the-coming-years-part-2/#comment-141145 the opposite is the case - the advise as formulated precisely explains the criterion for valid attribution. Attribution has the purpose to be perceived by humans. To determine if a certain form of attribution is acceptable you have to look at the effect it has on human perception while interacting with the produced work. It is understandable that to people with a primarily technical background this very concept appears uncomfortable and hard to grasp and their reflex is to substitute this with something purely technical where you can essentially program a test to verify if the attribution is OK independent of the human user. That cannot work. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions
Danke, dass Du dich hier noch mal ganz eindeutig für jegliche Verantwortungs-Position in OpenStreetMap disqualifizierst. Zum Verständnis: Zunächst fällt Michal zum Thema Attribution nichts anderes ein, als mechanisch-roboterhaft die Formulierungen anderer nachzuplappern. Die Frage nach der eigenen Meinung, ob Facebook bei seiner derzeitigen Datennutzung den Anforderungen der Quellennennung von OpenStreetMap genügt, wird geflissentlich ignoriert. Eine eigene Überzeugung zum Thema ist offensichtlich nicht vorhanden. Und dann schmeißt der Kandidat zum Abschluss noch einmal wild mit Dreck um sich, wobei er sein Ziel um Meilen verfehlt und stattdessen als Kollateralschaden Mateusz und Mikel trifft - stevea hat das bereits recht gut und ausführlich erklärt. Zum Abschluss: Was mich freuen würde ist, wenn hier mal ein paar andere Mitarbeiter von Großunternehmen auftauchen würden und deutlich machten, dass das keine Haltung ist, die sie unterstützen. Wer in der OSM-Community als Angestellter von Unternehmen im OSM-Umfeld nicht nur als Vertreter seines Arbeitgebers, sondern auch als Individuum wahrgenommen werden möchte, muss zumindest gelegentlich auch deutlich machen, dass er oder sie Überzeugungen und Werte vertreten, die nicht gegenüber dem Gehalts-Scheck zurückgestellt werden. Dies wäre eine gute Gelegenheit dafür. Non-authoritive English translation from deepl: Thanks for disqualifying yourself for any position of responsibility in OpenStreetMap. For understanding: First of all, Michal can't think of anything else to say about attribution but to mechanically and robotically parrot the phrases of others. The question of his own opinion whether Facebook, with its current data usage, meets the requirements of source attribution in OpenStreetMap is deliberately ignored. There is obviously no own conviction on the subject. And then the candidate throws dirt around wildly at the end, missing his target by miles and instead hitting Mateusz and Mikel as collateral damage - stevea has already explained this quite well and in detail. At the end: What would make me happy is if a few other employees of large companies would show up here and make it clear that this is not an attitude they support. If you want to be perceived in the OSM community as an employee of companies in the OSM environment, not only as a representative of your employer, but also as an individual, you have to make it clear, at least occasionally, that he or she represents beliefs and values that are not put on the back burner compared to the paycheck. This would be a good opportunity for this. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions
> Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) hat am > 03.12.2020 12:27 geschrieben: > > [...] It means that the > attribution method you use must be reasonably calculated to ensure > that *every* person viewing will be aware that content has come from > OpenStreetMap. Nowhere does the clause allow you to only provide the > opportunity for anyone to be able to discover the source if they > decide to, or to only ensure some people are aware. Exactly. This has been identified to be the community consensus very early in the discussion on the attribution guideline and it was also quite clearly the expectation of the community when the ODbL was originally adopted in the license change process. In the Community attribution advice i formulated some time ago: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_attribution_advice I phrased it like this: "What we mean by this is that the criterion for a valid attribution is if it effectively makes the user aware that OpenStreetMap data licensed under the ODbL is used." Side note: Facebook's main business model is selling the attention of their users to paying advertisement customers. They have a huge department doing nothing but analysis of their users' behavior all day long. They know *exactly* how many (or more accurately: how few) of the users of their maps actually become aware of the origin of the data in OSM. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] reddit AMA with some OSMF Board members. 15:00Z 9 Nov
By quoting the board statement i did not really intend to argue with the authors of said document about the exegesis of it - that would be kind of pointless. What i want to express is that this is a good practical case study how much commitment the board members have in their practical communication with the OSM community to open communication channels and platforms. As (like you and Martin point out) individual board members but still in their capacity as board members and not as a group of private individuals. We have a saying in German that goes "wie man in den Wald hineinruft so schallt es heraus". So if the board boldly advertises their commitment to open communication channels and then holds an exclusive event on a proprietary platform said board will have a hard time dealing with corporations boldly communicating their commitment to OpenStreetMap, community rules, OSMF policy, the license or similar things but then practically not living up to said promises from the perspective of the board or the OSM community. Language can be a powerful tool of social interaction but your ability to use it to that effect depends on you having and maintaining the reputation to be earnest, concise, well-defined and dependable in your communication - not only from your own perspective but also from that of the recipients of the communication. If people have the impression that they cannot rely on what you say - and it does not matter if that is due to them misreading your communication or you being vague in it - you loose the ability to effectively communicate with people. As a result you would massively narrow your social horizon to those people who are culturally close and like-minded to you. Back on subject - the solution to the problem here to be able to reach out to people on reddit who are more comfortable there than on open platforms while not being exclusive in my eyes could be fairly simple - you just allow questions on both reddit and open platforms and you post answers on both equally as well. Yes, that is additional work. But commitment without inconveniences is ultimately not really commitment. We even have a practical reference for Q in the OSMF context on open platforms by the way. Before the board decided there to be a need for moderation (which was never re-evaluated afterwards by the way) in the lead-up to the board elections we had open Q on the OSM wiki with the candidates. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] reddit AMA with some OSMF Board members. 15:00Z 9 Nov
> Rory McCann hat am 29.10.2020 21:06 geschrieben: > > This just a social thing, not official announcements, so that doesn't apply. Quoting from the commitment: > For the purpose of this commitment, essential communications > include: > * Publications or consultations by the board, WGs, committees or > other Foundation bodies. > * Communications mandated by OSMF policies/guidelines/frameworks > and similar documents. > * Anything related to how the OSMF is governed, such as AGMs and > elections. So i suppose you will circumnavigate any subject related to OSMF governance or the election and that you will not refer to what is going to be said there in any future discussion of OSMF matters (because then it would need to be considered as part of a consultation by the board). > Regardless, you can read/vew it without needing to create an account, so > essentially, there will be a web page you can read. Quoting again from the commitment: > By open platforms, we mean those that are accessible through > open-source software and open protocols, and do not require an > account at a third-party service to access. (Read-only public > access is sufficient for one-way publications, but not two-way > communications.) By the way - reddit has been most notorious in making their platform essentially inaccessible to anyone who does not sign up with them - i frequently when following links from some search results to their platform have not been able to view the actual content because it was hidden by javascript nudging you to sign up. So you should not make the assumption that content on reddit is accessible to everyone (although i kind of think that in 2020 that should be common knowledge for any proprietary corporate platform - just like twitter, facebook etc.) -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] reddit AMA with some OSMF Board members. 15:00Z 9 Nov
> Rory McCann hat am 29.10.2020 20:33 geschrieben: > > Some of us on the OSM Foundation Board have agreed to do an AMA > (Ask Me Anything) on the reddit forum for OpenStreetMap > [...] > See you there. Considering i would need to agree to the terms of some amoral corporation most certainly not. I am looking forward to the practical demonstration on how the board will implement their recently made commitment to open channels with that: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2020-August/007095.html -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright
On Wednesday 23 September 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > GITNE's point was not about changeset data, it was about changeset > discussions. I agree there is no doubt that changesets are part of > the geodatabase (at least for me), but for changeset comments it > seems the situation isn't so clear, it could be seen as an edge case > (either way could be defended by arguments), athough I agree that > through linking it to the changeset_id it is within the geodatabase. I see - yes, that is slightly different in nature - though i think all of the arguments i gave in principle still apply (including in particular that the OSMF publishes the changeset discussions under ODbL as well). The main difference i think is that contributions to changeset discussions have a higher likeliness to in themselves be subject to copyright (and not just database protection). -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright
On Wednesday 23 September 2020, GITNE wrote: > [...] However, I am unsure > whether this your opinion or legal assessment? Because a legal > assessment is actually what I would like to know. You will only ever get opinions here (often colored by interests and what people want to be true) and never a binding legal assessment you can rely on. What you wrote so far has not been very convincing. That changeset data is distributed separately from other parts of our database is not an argument against it being covered by the contributor terms. Frequent discussion in the OSM community that certain information (like source tags) make more sense to be recorded in changeset tags than in individual features (and accordingly that they can still be connected to the features when recorded in that form) OTOH supports the view that changeset tags are covered by the constributor terms and that the mapper community regards them as such. In any case - the OSMF is distributing changeset data under the ODbL: https://planet.openstreetmap.org/replication/changesets/ and there are a lot of third party services that use this data in their services (like various QA tools, for example achavi) so if you have an issue with that in principle picking out Slack specifically is not really appropriate. (that is all under the assumption that Slack is using the data in compliance with the ODbL - which i don't know) -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page
On Wednesday 16 September 2020, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote: > > But if they manage to create a path as result of taking the same > route repeatedly it becomes a mappable feature. > > I feel that "permanent physical manifestations of those" includes far > too many things that are actually mappable. That is why i wrote "are not *as such* part of the verifiable geography". Practically an established (as opposed to constructed) path is usually the result of the collective activities of many individuals which does not fall under the criterion of activities of individual humans as such. To give you another example (one without any physical manifestation): If the driver of a bus routinely stops at a certain place between regular stops to let on/off a specific individual that is not a bus stop to be mapped in OSM. If however that irregular stop starts getting used by other people as well it becomes a mappable bus stop. > What about buildings? Many of them are also "physical manifestations > of those" and not visible from public land. I would still consider > them as mappable and verifiable - we can do this using aerial images > and so on. Land ownership is not a meaningful criterion - otherwise huge parts of the map would need to stay empty. Houses serving as private homes are subject to interaction with society in general on a larger scale for example: * by serving as an orientation point for navigation * by being the target of mail and package delivery * by being the target of door-to-door salespeople * by being the target of trick-or-treating * by being a place to walk up to and ring to ask for directions if you are lost or for help in case of an emergency. > I would say that if someone has a private island it is still > perfectly fine to map buildings, driveways*, garden areas there - > even if sole source of map data is an aerial image. > > *leading from private palace to a private dock, not connected to > any public road. Practically such places are usually subject to quite significant interaction with society in general - like for example staff, craftspeople, construction workers etc. As a whole and in its larger structures like you mentioned i do not see how this would typically qualify as physical manifestations of activities of *individual* humans. Just because an individual pays for larger scale activities does not necessarily make these activities those of that individual. The private island case is limited simply by basic practical verifiability. What you can see on imagery taken from outside is verifiable, everything else is not. Actual privacy issue (like someone doing detailed indoor mapping with the help of a telescope) is probably less an issue here than for an individual house. Or in other words: Rich people cannot claim a larger scope of privacy just because they can own and fence in a larger area of land. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page
On Wednesday 16 September 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > simple: Individual humans as well as their activities and social > > interactions between individual humans - including permanent > > physical manifestations of those - are not as such part of the > > verifiable geography we intend to record. > > +0.9, I'd make it more precise: "private activities and private > social interactions" No, public activities of individual humans are not as such part of the verifiable geography either. If my neighbor takes their dog for a walk on a certain route every day that is a public activity - yet does not belong in OSM. > > The private swimming pool and the private driveway become part of > > the verifiable geography because members of society on a larger > > scale (i.e. not just the personal social environment of the owner) > > interact with them on a routine basis. > > I'd question this. Noone has to show their private swimming pool or > driveway to anybody, clearly not on a "larger scale". (I am still for > mapping private swimming pools, and driveways, as long as we do not > associate an individual with it, it has nothing to do with privacy.) > > > In those cases mostly visually - but that can > > be sufficient. > > mostly you can't see private swimming pools from the street, and > according to the area, you also might not be able to see the > driveway. We might have different ideas of what a driveway is but a private driveway as i imagine it is part of the verifiable geography among other things because you have to take notice of cars coming out of private driveways as you drive along a public road. In other words: The driveway becomes part of the verifiable geography by being used as a driveway. For swimming pools that is certainly a matter of size - large swimming pools are however major constructions and major users of water supplies as well as reservoirs of water - to be used for example by firefighters in an emergency. That is where i would see the interaction on a larger scale. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page
On Wednesday 16 September 2020, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_in >formation I think while that page does not contain gross factual errors as far as i see it could be fairly misleading for people unfamiliar with OSM otherwise: * it start with "The freedom to map the world..." which implies the aim of OSM is "to map the world" - which it is not. OSM aims to collect verifiable local knowledge of the geography of the world. That is something different. * The list of things to "do not" kind of implies this is a distinct set of rules separate from and above the general goals and values of the project (i.e. verifiable local knowledge of the geography). I don't think that is the case. My own take on privacy related limitations to mapping would be much more simple: Individual humans as well as their activities and social interactions between individual humans - including permanent physical manifestations of those - are not as such part of the verifiable geography we intend to record. The private swimming pool and the private driveway become part of the verifiable geography because members of society on a larger scale (i.e. not just the personal social environment of the owner) interact with them on a routine basis. In those cases mostly visually - but that can be sufficient. I think with this clarification everything on your list of things not to map due to privacy concerns is covered by being not mappable due to not being part of the verifiable geography. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] Kostenlose OSMF-Mitgliedschaft für Aktive - Craftmapper in die OSMF ;)
On Sunday 23 August 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Gilt das dann für ein Jahr? Ja, die kostenlose Mitgliedschaft muss laut Dokumentation genau wie die bezahlte jedes Jahr erneuert werden. > Wenn man nun z.B. nach einem Jahr 41 > Mappingtage hat, fliegt man dann raus? Und wenn man dann in der Folge > wieder mappt, z.B. nach einem Monat wieder 42 Tage hat, welches Datum > gilt dann für die Feststellung ob man wahlberechtigt ist? Auch das dürfte analog zur Bezahlung laufen. Und durch die längere Vorlauf-Frist - man muss jetzt 90 Tage vor der Versammlung Mitglied geworden sein - entzerrt sich das ein bisschen. Sprich: Wenn Du dieses Jahr rechtzeitig für die Wahl (sprich: sehr bald) Mitglied wirst dann hast Du nächstes Jahr nach der Nachricht, dass Du deine Mitgliedschaft erneuern musst, gut Zeit, Dir die 42 Tage noch wieder zu erarbeiten. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Kostenlose OSMF-Mitgliedschaft für Aktive - Craftmapper in die OSMF ;)
On Thursday 20 August 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Auf jeden Fall eine super Sache, ich freue mich auf einen Ansturm von > Neumitgliedern aus der Craftmapperecke, bisher sind Leute die mit > OpenStreetMap Geld verdienen in der OpenStreetMap-Foundation gefühlt > überrepräsentiert Und im FOSSGIS übrigens auch (eventuell sogar noch deutlich stärker) - deshalb: https://www.fossgis.de/verein/mitgliedschaft/ (leider ist das nicht kostenlos für aktive Mapper und wird zusätzlich ab nächsten Jahr teurer für Normalbürger a.k.a. Erwerbstätige) Für die, die vom rein englischsprachigen Formular für die OSMF-Mitgliedschaft irritiert sind, hier - wie schon auf osmf-talk gepostet - die deutsche Übersetzung: --- https://join.osmfoundation.org/active-contributor-membership/application-form-for-active-contributor-membership-mapping/ Anmelde-Formular für die Mitgliedschaft für aktive Mapper Wir überprüfen, ob der angegebene OpenStreetMap-Account Ihrer ist und ob er in den letzten 365 Tagen 42 Mapping-Tage ausweist. Mehr Informationen finden sich [hier] (https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Membership/Active_contributor_membership). Für die Mitgliedschaft für aktive Mapper ist es ist erforderlich, dass die Mapping-Aktivitäten unbezahlt sind. Um abzuschätzen, wie viele Mapping-Tage man hat, kann man das [How did you contribute](https://hdyc.neis-one.org/)-Werkzeug verwenden. Fall Sie in anderer Art und Weise zu OpenStreetMap beigetragen haben als durch Mapping, aber in equivalentem Umfang zu den Anforderungen beim Mapping, können Sie sich auch qualifizieren, Hierfür gibt es [ein getrenntes Formular] (https://join.osmfoundation.org/application-form-for-active-contributor-membership-other) 1. Vorname (erforderlich) 2. Nachname (erforderlich) 3. Land des Wohnortes (erforderlich) 4. E-mail (erforderlich) 5. OpenStreetMap-Benutzername (erforderlich) Ihr OpenStreetMap-Benutzername wird zur Überprüfung der Anforderung von 42 Mapping-Tagen in den letzten 365 Tagen verwendet. Dazu wird eine Nachricht an den Benutzer versendet. Bitte beim Benutzernamen auf Groß- und Kleinschreibung achten. 6. Anmeldung auf der OSMF-Talk-Mailingliste (Ab- oder Anmeldung ist auch [manuell möglich](https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk)) [ ] Ich möchte angemeldet werden [Absenden] --- https://join.osmfoundation.org/active-contributor-membership/application-form-for-active-contributor-membership-other/ Anmelde-Formular für die Mitgliedschaft für aktive Beitragende in anderen Bereichen als Mapping Wir erwarten einen Beitrag zum OpenStreetMap-Projekt, welcher im Aufwand vergleichbar ist zu einem durchschnittlichen Mapper mit 42 Mapping-Tagen bei OpenStreetMap im letzten Jahr. Bitte beschreiben Sie Ihre Aktivitäten unten, der Vorstand wird auf Grundlage davon die Entscheidung zu Ihrer Anmeldung treffen. Für die Mitgliedschaft für aktive Beitragende ist es ist erforderlich, dass diese Aktivitäten unbezahlt sind. Mehr Informationen zu den Bedingungen finden sich [hier] (https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Membership/Active_contributor_membership). Falls Sie aktiver Mapper mit 42 oder mehr Mapping-Tagen in den letzten 365 Tagen sind, verwenden Sie bitte [das andere Formular für die Mitgliedschaft für aktive Mapper] (https://join.osmfoundation.org/active-contributor-membership/application-form-for-active-contributor-membership-mapping/) 1. Vorname (erforderlich) 2. Nachname (erforderlich) 3. Land des Wohnortes (erforderlich) 4. E-mail (erforderlich) 5. OpenStreetMap-Benutzername (erforderlich) Ihr OpenStreetMap-Benutzername wird zur Überprüfung Ihrer Identität verwendet. Dazu wird eine Nachricht an den Benutzer versendet. Bitte beim Benutzernamen auf Groß- und Kleinschreibung achten. 6. Anmeldung auf der OSMF-Talk-Mailingliste (Ab- oder Anmeldung ist auch [manuell möglich](https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk)) [ ] Ich möchte angemeldet werden 7. Beschreibung des Umfangs Ihrer Beiträge zu OpenStreetMap (erforderlich) Wir müssen in der Lage sein, diese Beiträge zu verifizieren. Hierfür ist es hilfreich, wenn Referenzen in Form bekannter Community-Mitglieder oder Organisationen, mit denen Sie Arbeiten angeben, welche Kenntnis von Ihren Aktivitäten haben. [Absenden] --- -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel
uld prefer incompetent candidates over competent
> candidates.
I did not make such an assumption. I pointed out that in the part about
composition of the panel the document suggests ("shall") to select by
reflection of interests but does not with a single word mention any
other qualification requirement for the panel members (beyond the
vague "background as volunteer contributors"). I do not assume
anything here, i just read the text as it is presented.
For comparison: The DWG membership policy lists fairly specific
criteria for requirements of members - both in the positive (what
qualifies people) and negative (what disqualifies people).
> I also remind you of this line in the proposal, "The
> Panel will be empowered to enlist assistance of subject-matter
> experts to study and resolve disputes, such as tagging presets." Our
> community is broad and enjoys great depth of knowledge and
> experience, and that knowledge and experience could be tapped as
> needed to fill knowledge gaps on the panel itself.
I read that with interest and my immediate reaction was: Why does the
board want such subject-matter experts to be enlisted at will by the
panel and does not strive for having them on the panel in the first
place?
> > Transparency is limited to the ultimate decisions being made public
> > (indeed important, would be interesting how this would function
> > otherwise). I guess that means both the nominations and selection
> > of panel members as well as the deliberation and consulting of the
> > panel on cases is going to happen behind closed doors.
>
> Nominations could be public, if the community wanted that. If you
> feel strongly about that, put forward a positive recommendation to
> that effect, please, and we will gauge the community reaction.
I have voiced my strong preference for transparency in OSMF work in the
past on many occasions and always received strong objection from the
board more recently. Like with conflicts of interest this is a
cultural problem. If you have the firm intention to change the OSMF
work culture to be more transparent just say so and you will get plenty
of support from me and others in the community to implement such
change. But without a clear commitment here from the board i am not
willing to yet again provide concrete suggestions and yet again receive
a 'thanks but no thanks' for that. Again the more recent track record
of the board speaks for itself. The pinnacle was the microgrants
committee where the board (the previous one of course) had implemented
policy requiring transparency and the current board failed to insist on
following that policy.
> [...] There is a reason that in court cases, juries
> deliberate in private, and not under public scrutiny;
That is an intriguing idea i think: Have the panel being put together
on a case-by-case basis randomly from a pool of volunteer jurors -
disqualifying those with a lack of impartiality on the specific case.
Have the gathering of evidence and the exchange of arguments in light
of the evidence in public but the final deliberation on arguments and
evidence in private.
--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel
On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Rory McCann wrote: > The Board hasn't decided on how the panel will be > formed/elected/appointed/choosen. Quoting from the proposal: > In appointing members of the Panel, the Board shall strive for Panel composition (membership) that reflects [...] Seems there are some eddies in the fabric of spacetime... -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel
On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Dorothea Kazazi wrote: > > The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software > dispute resolution panel: > https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispu >te-resolution-panel/ I guess i am asking too much if i envision the board creating a panel it does not control itself... For context - the DWG, which is the traditional and broadly respected entity to resolve conflicts in mapping, is not controlled in composition by the board, it decides on accepting new members themselves. See also: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Membership_Policy https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from the fact that it is not composed of political appointees. Interesting also that the composition of the panel is supposed to reflect "all interests of the OSM community" but competence of the panel members on the subject, experience with and knowledge of mapping and tagging in OSM or in other words: The competence to assess evidence on the cases they deal with and to deliberate on the matters in a qualified and knowledgable way, is not a criterion. Neither is impartiality on prominent special interests like those of corporate data users. Transparency is limited to the ultimate decisions being made public (indeed important, would be interesting how this would function otherwise). I guess that means both the nominations and selection of panel members as well as the deliberation and consulting of the panel on cases is going to happen behind closed doors. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed changes in rendering of diplomatic offices
On Friday 24 July 2020, Daniel Koc4� wrote: > > My concern is that such change would invite automated mass edits, > because half of these objects still carry the old tag, which is a lot > for such common and well known feature IMO: Small clarification here: There are currently 6152 features with tag amenity=embassy - 1541 of which already have an office=diplomatic tag in addition. That leaves 4611 features that only have the old style tagging. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] HOT Update
It is probably advisable to clarify that in OSM we do not map people. People themselves are not considered part of the world geography. OSM is about people mapping their own environment and sharing their local knowledge of the local geography - which includes human made structures of all kind but not the people creating them and living around them. You probably did not intend to imply otherwise but quite a few readers of your text not familiar with OSM, cartography and humanitarian mapping jargon might get a wrong impression about OSM from your phrasing. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution
On Saturday 02 May 2020, Simon Poole wrote: > >> 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. Yes, sorry - the contributor terms were created as part of the move from CC-BY-SA to ODbL so the license change procedure defined by them could not have been the basis of that license change obviously. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution
On Saturday 02 May 2020, Yves wrote: > > Also, what is this relicencing mentioned in the LWG minutes? This refers to the idea of initiating a license change process. The license change process is described in the contributor terms: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms It requires an OSMF members vote and a 2/3 majority support from the active OSM contributors in addition. The only time in the past this was done was with the change to the ODbL in 2012 IIRC. I won't publicly speculate on the motives of LWG members to float this idea - everyone can draw their own conclusions here... ;-) -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution
On Thursday 30 April 2020, Tobias Knerr wrote: > The most recent version of > the guidelines drafted by the LWG is almost there, but has drawn > community criticism about being too generous especially w.r.t. > initially hidden attribution. Wow, that is quite a weird statement considering how broad, deep and sustained much of the criticizm from the community has been on the direction of the LWG proposal for many months. If the board collectively has the impression they are 'almost there' you might need to prepare for the collision of that perception with reality. Unless of course you have worked on a fundamental redesign of the guideline we are not yet aware of... If you have the impression that the LWG has taken into account or has engaged in a constructive argument with the community regarding the criticizm of their draft re-reading the many discussions of the past months on that subject - and possible engaging in a discussion of the criticizm if there is need for clarification or explanation - would be highly advisable. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution
On Wednesday 29 April 2020, Kathleen Lu via talk wrote: > [...] > After researching this question, I found no commercial data provider > that required data attribution as prominently as the FAQ suggests. > Industry standard would suggest a *much* less strict interpretation > of what is "reasonable" under the ODbL. For clarity once again - although i have said this many times in the past and it is frankly annoying that i have to repeat myself this way because corporate lobbyists continue presenting/implying alternative facts. OSM data is subject to the ODbL. How it needs to be attributed is determined by the wording of the ODbL in the context of how OSM data is being produced through volunteer work (i.e. the contributor terms). Geodata used by Google, Here, TomTom etc. is distributed and used under proprietary, non-open licenses which are very different from the ODbL and do not contain attribution requirements in any way comparable to that of the ODbL. Hence attribution on use of such data sources (assuming it is actually attribution for the data source - which as Alexandre points out is not necessarily always the case) has *absolutely nothing* to do with attribution of OSM data use. What you call commercial data providers depend on the economic viability of their licenses. OSM does not. If your business model does not allow using OSM data and complying with the ODbL at the same time you cannot use OSM data. And what i have also said several times before is that the only way you can consistently interpret the ODbL attribution requirement - what Martin quoted as: „You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database,...“ is in the way that the determination if any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work becomes aware that Content was obtained from the Database from the attribution provided needs to *be based on reason*. So far no one has even attempted to explain the reasoning behind the expectation that a user of an application with hidden attribution becomes aware that Content was obtained from the Database. But even completely disregarding these points of fundamental logic - the point the OSM community primarily needs to discuss in the context of providing practical guidance on attribution is what expectations mappers have when they agree to the contributor terms regarding the attribution provided by data users. Any guidance the OSM community provides to data users regarding attribution needs to be fundamentally based on and compatible with that to have any social legitimacy. And so far i have not heard any active mapper stating they expect anything other than clearly visible (or more generally: directly perceivable) attribution. There are lots of mappers who state they don't care about attribution but not caring does not mean not expecting. When there is talk among mappers about seeing OSM data use 'in the wild' people almost always are interested in the attribution - even those who would prefer if OSM had chosen PD as license. The only defense of insufficient attribution i have heard from mappers so far is the willingness to settle for less (like because they don't care, because they would prefer a more liberal license anyway and are therefore fine with data users violating the ODbL or because they feel pity for the hardships of corporate data users in developing a business model that works while providing sufficient attribution to OSM). -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"
On Friday 17 April 2020, Simon Poole wrote: > > With the exception of imported datasources that are not > re-licensable, you do realise though that the actual licensor of the > data -is- the OSMF? And that attributing "OpenstreetMap contributors" > is at best a sentimental relict (nothing against being sentimental, > but that isn't your argument) and is, if anything, more confusing and > misleading than simply asking for an attribution string that credits > the project? I am not meaning to question the (legal) reasoning behind the suggestion to credit 'OpenStreetMap'. My consideration is purely a moral one. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"
On Friday 17 April 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > What about removing this, so that the required credit becomes "© > OpenStreetMap" (it could also be © OpenStreetMapFoundation, but maybe > "© OpenStreetMap" would be sufficient, given that OpenStreetMap is a > brand owned by the OpenStreetMapFoundation)? I think you are pointing already to the main issue with the whole idea here. The main argument brought forward by the advocates of the shortened attribution is "that OSM is its contributors" so both attributions would be functionally the same. However the reality is that the OSMF and the OSM contributors are not the same, their relationship is fairly well defined in the contributor terms. The idea of attribution in the OSM context was always towards the contributors, not to the OSMF which is only meant to serve as custodian and not as the holder of any moral rights w.r.t. the data itself. Shortening the attribution to "© OpenStreetMap" could make it ambiguous and that could serve as a beachhead to a piecemeal reinterpretation of the roles of OSM contributors and OSMF towards building up the OSMF to a holder of moral rights on its own independent of the OSM community. 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. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SotM 2020 - Move to virtual conference
On Thursday 26 March 2020, Christine Karch wrote: > > the deadline ended a month ago. At the moment it is not planned to > call for additional submissions. We will ask the speakers of > "accepted talks" first, and then see what the feedback is. If we have > too much cancellations, we would make an additional call. But this is > not planned at the moment, just a thought. As a bit of broader background: The participants of physical presence conferences like SotM - and thereby implicitly also those holding the talks at such conferences - largely belong to one of the following groups: * wealthy individuals from around the world who can afford the visit to the conference from their own pockets. * employees of companies who pay for them to visit the conference. * members of the local community from where the conference takes place. * in small numbers as scholars: Other individuals deemed worthy to be supported in visiting the conference by people with money and who are willing to ask for such support and subject themselves to scrutiny for this. One of the biggest benefits for having a virual event instead of a physical presence event would be that presenting something there would not be limited to the above mentioned groups but would be possible for a much larger range of people with much lower barriers of entry. That does not mean the idea presented by Christine as a substitute for the physical presence conference cancelled in the current situation is bad. But i would call it more a virtualized conference. It does not make full use of the potential the idea of a completely virtual event would have. I would very much like to see more bold endeavours to organize virtual conferences and other virtual social events in the OSM community that test and make use of all the potential this has. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
On Thursday 19 March 2020, Mikel Maron wrote: > Frederik, you’re crying out against phantoms, and getting stuck on > one interpretation of the word “authoritative”, and using that > misinterpretation as an excuse to beat on one of your favorite > punching bags, and try to exact radical unrational restrictions on a > piece of software. What Facebook is saying here is that RapiD can > make the technical part of the import process easier. It’s a well > done conflation process that has every single new feature > individually examined by a mapper. There is nothing here about > circumventing our well defined import guidelines, or disrespecting > our basic tenets. It’s just your imagination. I am not quite sure if you actually believe that or if this is a cold blooded (though obviously rather crude) attempt to gaslight Frederik. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
On Thursday 19 March 2020, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > I think that someone who cannot respect these basic tenets of > OpenStreetMap - that mappers on the ground have the last word on what > gets into OSM and what not - shouldn't be allowed to publish software > that interacts with our database. I think we should disallow any > contributions made with RapID/map-with-ai and friends. > > [...] While i agree on the conclusion (although i would phrase it in a different way: Such tools should be banned unless their operators/developers can demonstrate that they are predominantly used in compliance with the values of OSM) i find the idea that a coporation like Facebook would voluntarily respect the basic tenets of OpenStreetMap naive. Why should they? A company like Facebook will only value OSM in so far as it seems to promise to be profitable for them. I think I have said that in the past already: "Assume good faith" as a general principle can on OSM only work w.r.t. individuals taking full and permanant responsibility for their own actions. There cannot be an assumption of good faith for inherently amoral corporate entities or individuals making decisions on behalf of such entities. Don't be so naive to think that a company like Facebook would be guided by anything else than by what they think is profitable for them. As everyone can see they don't even comply with the OSM license if they think (a) that it is of economic advantage for them and (b) that they can get away with it. Regarding the matter itself here - i have written about this at length already more than two years ago: http://blog.imagico.de/on-imitated-problem-solving/ W.r.t. the motivation of corporate data user to push these things into OSM (in short: "to change OSM from being a map by the people for the people into a project of crowd sourced slave work for the corporate AI overlords") nothing has changed since then. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announcing Daylight Map Distribution
On Tuesday 10 March 2020, Michal Migurski wrote: > > • A PBF planet file composed of 100% OSM data, released under the > terms of the Open Database License. • Only those edits which have > been validated to contain no malicious vandalism or unintentional > errors so we can show them in our display maps Could someone maybe do an analysis of the diff regarding numbers of features removed/changed/added for various types of objects? Regarding > • A PBF planet file composed of 100% OSM data that is probably an incorrect characterization because any time you modify OSM data without uploading the results to OSM what you get is no more 100% OSM data. Thinking this further - the real question is if there is other data used in production of the maps using this that constitutes a derivative database according to the ODbL or in other words: Does Facebook claim that this is the only derivative database they are using? -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update
On Thursday 20 February 2020, Simon Poole wrote: > 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 "there is legal or safety or > > privacy information that needs to be presented with similar or > > greater prominence to attribution" - which at least in the EU is > > always the case! > > So you agree with us that this is an actual external restraint that > needs to be considered, and it is not the LWG succumbing to the > interests of big $$$? No, the ODbL does not care about outside constraints - if you want to use OSM data in a form that does not allow providing proper attribution and complying with legal requirements at the same time then you may not use OSM data at all. The formulation i cited is an explicit permission to data users to use external legal contraints as an excuse not to attribute visibly. It does not require the legal contraint to even substantially prevent proper attribution, its mere existence is declared a valid excuse to forego visible attribution. Anyway - the argument you cited was not actually about this weakening of the attribution requirement itself, it was about the fact that the guideline draft is inconsistent about this - first claiming that "Except for small maps or multiple data sources, as described below, attribution must be visible" but then declaring other exceptions from the visible attribution requirement. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update
On Thursday 20 February 2020, Simon Poole wrote: > > 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 location of your > entrance, parking lot or whatever in it, with other words, large > enough to be useful. First: This has absolutely no place in an attribution guideline, in particular since we already have a guideline specifically dealing with the subject of what is a substantial extract of OSM data. Second: You are here essentially declaring almost all indoor mapping performed within OSM (with the exception of really large structures like large airports) to be insubstantial and therefore not protected by the ODbL and free to take and use without attribution or share-alike. Given the highly variable mapping density in OSM and the fact that there is no limit in how detailed people may map things the whole idea of having a physical area limit for defining what is substantial seems inappropriate for OSM. And yes, that even more applies to the 1000 inhabitants limit which even back in 2014 when that was adopted was not appropriate. You can find areas with less than 1000 inhabitants in OSM with tens of thousands of features and many megabytes of data. Considering that insubstantial is fairly outrageous and as others have pointed out it would also not be compliant with the the obligations OSM has towards data providers who provide us data under the condition we distribute it under the ODbL, not to put it effectively in the public domain. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update
On Thursday 20 February 2020, Simon Poole wrote: > > > > So the recommendation for small devices can and should only be that > > if a data user uses OSM data under conditions where the usual > > attribution is technically not possible or economically not > > desirable they have to choose a different form that has *an equal > > or larger likeliness of making the user aware of the OSM data use*. > > The ODbL requires the attribution to be "reasonably calculated ...", > which includes, naturally, "where the user would typically expect to > find attribution". That can, and will differ based on the actual > device displaying it. There is no requirement in the ODbL that all > devices need to be treated equally or the same. Please read what i wrote carefully. I specifically pointed out that data users are free to attribute in any form they like as long as it is equivalent or better in making the user aware of the use of OSM data as the visible attribution in the corner of the map. That an attribution hidden under an 'i' visible only on user interaction does not qualify as such is self evident i think. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update
I agree that talking about specific forms of attribution is pointless here. Each corporate OSM data user has a huge department of people who every day do no other thing than thinking about new and creative ways to pry for their users' attention and use it in the company's interest. They do not need the OSMF's help with that (or if they do they have a more serious problem). 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 (based on physical size or other factors). So the recommendation for small devices can and should only be that if a data user uses OSM data under conditions where the usual attribution is technically not possible or economically not desirable they have to choose a different form that has *an equal or larger likeliness of making the user aware of the OSM data use*. If you want to give specific examples for how to do this then you should use examples that clearly meet this requirements. A hidden attribution evidently does not. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update
On Wednesday 19 February 2020, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > * "Except for small maps or multiple data sources, as described > below, attribution must be visible without requiring the user to > click on an icon or similar interaction." - Your critique focuses on > the exceptions, but saying clearly that an "(i)" is *generally* not > sufficient is a good and necessary step. That is part of what i refered to with the document containing self contradictions. It makes general statements like the one you cited but then provides specific guidance contradicting these general statements. That is strongly misleading. 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 "there is legal or safety or privacy information that needs to be presented with similar or greater prominence to attribution" - which at least in the EU is always the case! > On the whole, I find that the document does a good job at fleshing > out the "reasonably calculated to make ... aware" from the ODbL. I strongly disagree. As discussed before the "reasonably calculated" in the ODbL quite clearly refers to that the basis for the determination that the efforts to "make any Person [...] aware [...]" needs to be reason. This rules out making the required extent of attribution depend on external constraints like for example economic viability in a certain use case. The only basis for determining what level of attribution is required is reason in the assessment if said attribution makes people aware that OSM data is being use. The idea that for example in a small screen display situation people are with a less visible attribution equally likely to become aware of the source of the data is without a basis in reason. Reason dictates that in a small screen display situation *different* methods of making the user aware of the use of OSM data might be advisable - but not *less prominent ones*. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update
On Wednesday 19 February 2020, Simon Poole wrote: > > The updated document can be found here > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Draft_Attribution_Guideline I appreciate the draft document being available on the wiki - although the lack of an edit history makes this fairly pointless for the purpose of analyzing what has changed compared to previous drafts. Anyway - while i am not surprised about this it is sobering how little of the feedback provided in previous conversation - in particular from: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-August/thread.html#83068 has found a substantial reflection in the document. I am therfore reluctant to newly review the document in detail because it seems a waste of effort. The process of designing the document appears to be dominated by a negotiation of lobbying interests rather than by arguments and reasoning. I have no interest in attempting to compete in a lobbying campaign against corporate stakeholders who could easily mobilize an army of lobbyists to fight any voice of reason that stands in the way of their interests. Apart from the various specific issues and self contradictions in the document the overall most questionable thing is that it claims to present recommendations how to be on the safe side w.r.t. attribution of use of OSM data - yet the document then almost exclusively presents supposed exceptions from the attribution requirement of the ODbL. This is a fundamental design flaw of the document. I won't go into details again about why it is a bad idea to from official OSMF side poke holes into the ODbL and what the specific issues are with the specific holes created.I already discussed this at length in August/September. The funny thing is that where apparently things have been re-formulated in an attempt to dodge previous critique the new formulations are often worse than before. For example one criterion for visible attribution being required under the guideline is now if OSM is the "most significant data source". That is ridiculous. I can design any map in a way that i can argue OSM is not the most significant source. It would without doubt lead to many corporate data users *removing* existing OSM attribution from maps where they so far did not dare to do so. But that is just one of many specific issues with the various attribution exceptions being claimed. Not to mention the most blatant attempts at sneaking corporate wishlist items into the guideline are all still there - like the 1 m^2 map area limit that has been conjured out of thin air apparently and the section on machine learning models which is completely out of place in an attribution guideline and which indicates that some corporate data user wants this kind of "blank check" really badly. I can guarantee that should the OSMF adopt this it is going to blow up in their face. Trying to sneak either of these into a guideline on attribution is just reckless and in complete disregard of the reason why the ODbL has a share-alike provision. If anyone wants to make a serious attempt at actually writing a guidance document how to practically design attribution in a way that is in line with the mapper community consensus interpretation of the ODbL and its intention as well as its function in the social contract between mappers and data users i would gladly help with suggestions and feedback. But what is being presented here is something very different - it is essentially the attempt of slighting of the attribution requirement to an 'if you want you can visible attribute OSM when using its data but if you want to avoid that here are some hints how you can bury the mentioning of using OSM data where hardly anyone will see it' and we, the OSMF, promise to look the other way. Or in other words: It is the preemptive surrender of the OSMF in front of massive corporate interests. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] For the sake of peace | Re: Cease use of OpenStreetMap/Antifa logo
On Monday 17 February 2020, dcapillae wrote: > > The logo will continue on the wiki until the page is deleted. The > procedure for deleting wiki pages is describe on the wiki. [1] > > You don't have to accept the deletion if you don't agree. As I said > in my first message, the rights holder is the OSM Foundation, and > only they decide. It has been suggested that you consult with OSMF > members. [2] It could be a good way to resolve the controversy. If you want the OSMF members to start an initiative to change the OSMF trademark policy to forbid certain uses you should try to convince them to do that, not Rory. Why should Rory - who does not share that sentiment and who has unselfishly offered to remove the logo to avoid people possibly feeling offended none the less - do that? -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cease use of OpenStreetMap/Antifa logo
On Monday 10 February 2020, Midgard wrote: > > I think it's a bad idea to create material that associates > OpenStreetMap with political groups. I suspect there are also > trademark issues with the mashup. No, the trademark policy is pretty clear on that: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy in section 3.5. If the Mafia (in Germany a criminal organization under §129 StGB - something the Antifa does not qualify as) would create a remix of the OSM logo with their logo (if they had one) to promote the use of OSM in organized crime or promote the contribution of their members to OSM that would be perfectly fine as far as the OSMF trademark policy is concerned. One possible constraint for having a logo on the OSM wiki or having stickers with a certain logo handed out at SotM would be if that logo contains symbols that are forbidden under British law or under the local jurisdiction at the conference. I don't think this applies here regarding British law or any local law at any place where SotM has taken place in the past. For last year's SotM in Heidelberg that would for example have been cases under §86 StGB: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__86.html which does not apply to the logo in question. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] State of the Map in Kapstadt - Unterstützung für Reisekosten
On Wednesday 05 February 2020, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Da kann man (leider erst auf Seite zwei eines Google-Formulars, nicht > hauen, ich hab mir das nicht ausgedacht) dann eintragen, welche Art > von Unterstützung man brauchen würde, um teilzunehmen: > * Admission (freier Eintritt) > * Accommodation (Unterkunft) > * Full travel costs (komplette Reisekosten) > * Travel grant covering a portion of your costs (Zuschuss zu den > Reisekosten) Für die, die keine Katze im Sack kaufen wollen - Seite zwei den Formulars könnt ihr sehen unter http://www.imagico.de/files/sotm_scholar_application_page2.png Ob man sich da bewirbt muss jeder selbst entscheiden. Wer nach näher gelegenen Alternativen sucht, sich mal über den regionalen Stammtisch hinaus mit anderen OSM-Aktiven zu treffen - die FOSSGIS findet wie ja vielen vermutlich schon bekannt im März in Freiburg statt. Ist leider mittlerweile ausverkauft, aber es gibt eine Warteliste und möglicherweise werden da noch zusätzliche Plätze geschaffen. Und der OSM-Samstag ist in jedem Fall zugänglich: https://www.fossgis-konferenz.de/2020/ Für die, die sprachlich unternehmungslustiger sind, gibt es ebenfalls im März auch noch die SotM Baltics: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/SOTM_Baltics_2020 und im Juni die SotM France: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:State_of_the_Map_France_2020 möglicherweise gibt es auch wieder eine SotM SEE eher zum Ende des Jahres - da steht aber nich kein Termin fest: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/State_of_the_Map_Southeast_Europe -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] Deleting template parameters copied to data items
On Wednesday 15 January 2020, pang...@riseup.net wrote: > Hi Christoph > Could you please comment on the wiki instead? I could but at this point i don't think this would be very productive. You have made it clear from the very beginning that you want to decide on this within the realms of the OSM wiki itself without involving the larger OSM community. You further imply here: > I never saw you on the wiki, so I'm not surprised to see that your > opinion is not voiced there at all to my knowledge. that the right of community members to participate in this discussion is derived from activity on the wiki. Unless you revise this approach and subject your plans to an open ended critical evaluation of the wider OSM community independent of their merit within the OSM wiki as a project on its own i don't see much basis for a discussion on this. You could follow Andy's suggestion on tagging and explain the practical effects of your plan and the benefits you perceive it to have to the wider community and defend it in arguments against critical feedback (many of which have already been provided in past and current discussions). Explaining your plans in a way that can be understood by mappers without a background in the technological aspects of Mediawiki and Wikidata alone can be very helpful to understand the issues with these. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Deleting template parameters copied to data items
On Wednesday 15 January 2020, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > PangoSE started "Transition to use data items when this can be done > without loosing information" discussion at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Wiki#Transition_to_use_data_ >items_when_this_can_be_done_without_loosing_information > <https://slack-redir.net/link?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.or >g%2Fwiki%2FTalk%3AWiki%23Transition_to_use_data_items_when_this_can_be >_done_without_loosing_information=3> > > It is about whatever it is correct to delete data from the OSM Wiki > page after it was copied to data items. > > Anyone with opinion on that topic is welcomed to comment in this > discussion on the OSM Wiki. This is a move that has been a long time coming as part of a piecemeal effort by some to establish a technocratic rule on the OSM wiki by moving central content out of the control of the mappers into the domain of data items with higher hurdles of participation due to poor ergonomics (the whole concept of requiring human editors to deal with numerical IDs for features that already have a unique identifier in OSM by design never ceases to amaze me) and with an established ability of the technocrats to control the crowd sourced editing work with bots. Quite obviously that it is not a good idea. But it does not matter much because the community has plenty of options to work around this should it indeed be implemented against the interests of the mapper community. I would for example if something in the info box is wrong and this is not part of the wiki page of a tag as it should be not delve into the awkward interface of some separate database and subject my edits there to the rule of some technicrats with bots but would simply add the information to the wiki page. We could also add - in addition to the bot managed info boxes - new real human managed info boxes. All of this would be awkward of course but nothing that could not be done. The real discussion that needs to be done is how we can get to a better documentation of the actual use of tags by humans for humans. We have had some useful discussion on this at SotM last year and in a follow-up here: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-September/thread.html#83286 Continuing in that direction of a better human curated documentation of tags is the thing to pursue, not moving towards a bot managed database in replacement of or in control of human contributions. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] international project communication (was: names of international objects)
On Monday 13 January 2020, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > In particular: > > Request to render Oceans/Seas: > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2278 > > Related to Bays/Straits: > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3634 Note in particular also https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/2345 where we had much of the "what is the appropriate label language for places where few people live" more than three years ago already. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
On Monday 30 December 2019, Nuno Caldeira wrote: > here's a interested case > https://www.gislounge.com/gis-data-high-resolution-global-hydrography >-dataset/amp/ are they allowed to share this on CC4? Shouldn't it only > be ODbL? are they allowed to share only after a registration? anyone > wanna try getting a copy of the derivated work as they need to > without registration? Note this is a use case very different from the one discussed here *and* the producers of the data dual license it CC-BY-NC and ODbL. Details can be found on: http://hydro.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~yamadai/MERIT_Hydro/ This is similar in nature to a case i pointed out about two years ago: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2018-January/008648.html The question here is if something that is used in a database like fashion (i.e. that is semantically interpreted by algorithms) can be a produced work. Answering 'yes' to this question would - as i explained in the cited discussion - functionally abolish share-alike for much of the OSM data. So far LWG and OSMF board have avoided answering this question with a clear 'no' and instead tried to find a middle way between the two - see: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2019-August/008741.html -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
On Friday 20 December 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Obviously, both nodes, ways and > relations should be counted. > > Otherwise one would be able to > temporarily create one relation, > that would include all data (s)he > wish to use and export this. The "100 Features" limit as a rule of thumb for substantiality was not really well thought through. IMO a data volume limit would make more sense - which would probably make sense to position somewhere between 1kB (approximately equivalent to a hundred untagged nodes) and 5kB (addresses, buildings etc.) Talking about compact binary data representation here of course, not raw OSM XML and no lossy compression. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
On Monday 16 December 2019, matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de wrote: > > > > The usual view is that share-alike provisions do not make something > > non-free or non-open because they are meant to protect and extend > > the freedom and only constrain users of truly non-free data. But > > anyone can have a different opinion on that of course. > > Sorry to say this, but I don't feel like you want to protect your > data. It feels like you want to grab all the data, your data comes > into contact with. "Viral" is the right term here - do you know the > Borg? :-) There is a long history of discussion about the benefits of viral/share-alike licenses in the open data/free software movement. In OSM we have had this discussion extensively before the license change. I tried to provide a bit of insight about why we have share-alike but people here in general are fairly reluctant to reiterate that discussion because it rarely brings any new insights. Apart from the mentioned importance of share-alike for the social contract between mappers and data users it is also doubtful that OSM would still exist as a single homogeneous project as we know it today if in 2012 we would have chosen a non-share-alike license. It is very likely that OSM would have split off several proprietary forks with which corporate data users would have tried to distinguish themselves from the competition by creating improved versions of the OSM database adding proprietary data without feeding it back into the openly licensed public database. Please keep in mind that the image of a viral license is partly misleading because everyone has the free choice to not use the data and not 'be infected' while a biological virus does not typically give you that freedom. > > Both share-alike and attribution play an important role in OSM in > > the social contract between mappers and data users. In return for > > being able to use the results of the work of the mappers for free, > > data users are required to share improvements of the data or the > > results of producing something of additional value in combination > > with other data under open license terms. > > If attribution would pay a role, than "(c) Non-Free data, selected by > using OSM data ..." would be possible. That might be an idea for > future license drafts. The viewpoint communicated by Kathleen would mean data sets partly derived from OSM through spatial operations without containing substantial amounts of the original data in original form (that is essentially the case we are talking about here in abstract form) would require neither share-alike nor attribution since they are neither a Derivative Database, a Collective Database nor a Produced Work. So while your willingness to attribute is admirable this kind of attribution for mixed and processed data without share-alike is not something that the ODbL considers a separate scenario. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
On Monday 16 December 2019, matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de wrote: > > Okay, I'll canceld all plans to use OpenStreetMap for this task. > I've contacted several commercial data providers and hope to get > offers tomorrow. In general (not necessarily specifically in your case - i don't know enough about it to make that assessment) i think this is a good approach if you have troubles with the share-alike provisions of the ODbL. If you want or need to keep a proprietary data set proprietary it is natural that you have limitations in using it together with open data with a viral license. This is definitely a better approach than trying to find loopholes in the license with brute force and wishful thinking. Even if that is possible and you can present an interpretation of the wording of the ODbL that supports your use case without share-alike this was clearly not the intention of the OSM community when adopting the ODbL to do so. You need to be aware of course that the big corporate data users will keep looking for loopholes - real or imagined - to achieve a competitive advantage. Like in the tale of the frog and the scorpion: It is in their nature. So if you respect the spirit of share-alike in the ODbL you will always be potentially at a competitive disadvantages to the corporate data users who simply don't give a damn. The even better approach is of course to adopt the spirit of open data and use OSM data together with other data sources embracing share-alike. Unfortunately so far the OSMF has not provided much guidance on how to correctly do that, i.e. how to share share-alike data sets practically. The LWG unfortunately currently focuses on guidance on how to avoid share-alike and attribution as much as possible. > I didn't expected OpenStreetMap to be such non-free and permissive > :-( The usual view is that share-alike provisions do not make something non-free or non-open because they are meant to protect and extend the freedom and only constrain users of truly non-free data. But anyone can have a different opinion on that of course. Both share-alike and attribution play an important role in OSM in the social contract between mappers and data users. In return for being able to use the results of the work of the mappers for free, data users are required to share improvements of the data or the results of producing something of additional value in combination with other data under open license terms. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
On Saturday 14 December 2019, matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de wrote: > > existing OSMF community guidelines suggest spatial operations like > > ST_Difference() and ST_Intersection() yield Derivative Databases > > that are subject to share-alike. > > Let's take the Collective Database Guideline, you've mentioned: > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Coll >ective_Database_Guideline_Guideline > > "Technically a reference between non-OSM and OSM data can be by a > database key or any other method of identifying a specific OSM or > non-OSM element that may be used with a database join." > > So actually, I just need to create a collective database, put the > non-free data in one table and OSM data in another. For table > joining, I'm using ST_Intersects() and I'm fine? No, the quoted guideline says that share-alike does not apply if OSM data and non-OSM data *do not* reference each other and in specific other cases. None of these cases covers references through spatial relationships. The idea that your process of intersecting non-OSM data with OSM based admin polygons results in a collective database is not realistic. To me this kind of operation would be a textbook example of something generating a derivative database - you combine OSM data with non-OSM data to generate something of additional value compared to either of these data sets alone. This is exactly the kind of scenario share-alike is meant for and why it was chosen as license for OSM. But there are of course fairly strong economic interests for this not being subject to share-alike so people think of ways to interpret the ODbL accordingly. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
On Friday 13 December 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > I had until now assumed that such works would definitely fall under > the ODbL but you are right, they don't really fit the "Derivative > Database" definition. My reading of the ODbL has always been that something is either 1) the original Database (or substantial parts of it) 2) a Derivative Database 3) a Collective Database 4) a Produced Work or if something is neither of these it would be either 5) something that is not protected by law at all so free to use independent of the license terms (like insubstantial extracts of data). 6) something the ODbL does not grant any rights for and therefore cannot be legally used by the user based on the ODbL. So my question would always be if someone considers certain things not to be a Derivative Database which of the five other above cases applies instead. I would kind of assume that for case (5) there are probably already some court rulings available for to what extent EU database protection applies to set operations of different databases since this is nothing specific to spatial databases but also is relevant for many other types of data. As i already wrote in https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-November/083535.html existing OSMF community guidelines suggest spatial operations like ST_Difference() and ST_Intersection() yield Derivative Databases that are subject to share-alike. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
On Friday 15 November 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > there isn't OSM data in their dataset. > > > > And neither is there is my ocean data set - the OSM data set used > > only contains land masses, my resulting data set (D2 in Rory's > > terms) only contains oceans. So no OSM data in it. > > I doubt this cheap trick would pass when contested in a trial. Well - it is not my cheap trick, it is facebook's cheap trick. I am just following the lead here. There is no principal difference between what facebook does and what my scenario describes. > > If the question is not "addition or subtraction" consider the > > following scenario. You create a data set using some AI and big > > data process of 'potential restaurants' world wide and create a set > > intersection between those and the restuarants in OSM would the > > results be a derivative of OSM data? > > yes, if you look at the intersection (data in both sets), it would > be. If you took only what is not in OSM, I guess it wouldn't (no data > from OSM contained). So the set operation chosen (difference or intersection or any other) decides on the legal status of the resulting data set? You are aware that a difference is the same as an intersection with the complement, i.e. A \setminus B = A \cap B^c - see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complement_(set_theory) -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
On Friday 15 November 2019, Martin Trautmann wrote: > > No. Elementary logic does not apply for legal advice. Thanks for putting it so bluntly - that is indeed an impression i often get from discussions on legal matters in the OSM community. But as said that makes this kind of discussion uninteresting for the pursuit of gaining better knowledge and understanding of the objective reality. I don't want to prevent anyone of having discussions under different premises and as said from a sociological point of view this is not uninteresting. But my reply to Rory was made with the intention to look at the matter with scientific methods. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
On Friday 15 November 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > From an engineering perspective the idea that adding OSM data can > > create a derivative database but subtracting OSM data cannot does > > not hold up of course. I can create a polygon data set of the > > Earth surface (a simple rectangle in EPSG:4326) and subtract an OSM > > derived data set of the Earth land masses from that to get a data > > set of the oceans. According to the hypothesis this would not be > > subject to the ODbL. > > You are generalizing in a way that is not suitable. No, i am not, i am falsifying the hypothesis given by providing an example that contradicts the hypothesis. > [...] IMHO > there isn't OSM data in their dataset. And neither is there is my ocean data set - the OSM data set used only contains land masses, my resulting data set (D2 in Rory's terms) only contains oceans. So no OSM data in it. > The question is not "addition or subtraction", but whether there > is data from OSM in the data. No the question is if when based on the same D1 facebook generates a new D2_a using *changed* OSM data the results are *different*. If that is the case D2/D2_a is a derivative of OSM data. If the question is not "addition or subtraction" consider the following scenario. You create a data set using some AI and big data process of 'potential restaurants' world wide and create a set intersection between those and the restuarants in OSM would the results be a derivative of OSM data? This would only differ from facebooks road data in calculating an intersection rather than a difference as facebook does for the roads. Needless to say i think that if your answer is that this is not an OSM derivative that would be a recipe to de-ODBL-ify any subset of OSM data. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
(Deliberately replying to myself since this is not meant as a reply to anyone specifically) If i try for a moment to ignore the fact that this matter has significant meaning for the OSM community and its social cohesion (the social contract between mappers and data users etc.) this is actually a quite interesting sociological experiment. Because the basis of most comments made does not seem to be the desire to neutrally assess the situation Rory presents here and its implications. This would usually go by considering what if Rory is right and data productions like this would be subject to the ODbL as well as the other way round by considering what if Rory is wrong and you could distribute data sets like this under any license you want. What it seems instead happens here is that people look at the situation and develop a spontaneous reaction in terms of "should this be possible or not" and then specifically search for ways to argue in support of this opinion. This in my experience is how at least 2/3 of all discussions in OSM on legal questions happen meanwhile. This is very non-productive and annoying because it results in what is essentially a negotiation between different interests presented in the discussion instead of actual knowledge and insight into the matter (Erkenntniss in German) as it would result from the scientific approach (i.e. making a hypothesis and scrutinizing it with scepticism). I am not really interested in participating in this kind of interest negotiation - because (a) the results do not depend on who has the best arguments but on who can invest the most time and manpower into the discussion and (b) the results would not actually be an objectively better or more accurate understanding of the situation. From an engineering perspective the idea that adding OSM data can create a derivative database but subtracting OSM data cannot does not hold up of course. I can create a polygon data set of the Earth surface (a simple rectangle in EPSG:4326) and subtract an OSM derived data set of the Earth land masses from that to get a data set of the oceans. According to the hypothesis this would not be subject to the ODbL. This realization (of there being no fundamental difference between subtracting and adding) is - as Rory already explained - not dependent on specific details of the ODbL or the law but derives from elementary logic. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
On Thursday 14 November 2019, Rory McCann wrote: > > That webpage says the data is MIT licenced (_data_ under MIT is odd, > but whatever). The files are zipfiles with a licence file also saying > MIT. The description is “Country exports contain only the AI > predicted roads that are missing from OpenStreetMap”. That makes me > think this data is a dervived database of OSM, and hence should be > ODbL. I think you are correct - and the OSMF seems to share this position - see the last example of "you DO need to share" on https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Horizontal_Map_Layers_-_Guideline and the last example on https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Collective_Database_Guideline_Guideline > A Facebook employee, long time OSMer, and fellow candidate for the > OSMF board, answered the same way³. While OSMF board candidates are of course in principle free to state their opinion on any forum of their choosing candidates should realize that doing so on a venue that requires community members to disclose personal data to a third party corporation to be able to participate or even to access the record of such communication is a very strong political statement. Given that only one of this year's board candidates openly states to be working for facebook on their OSM user page - am i right to assume that the person you are talking about is Michal Migurski? -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-de] OSMF-Vorstands-Wahlen
Hallo Zusammen, ich möchte hier mal auf die bevorstehenden Vorstandswahlen der OSMF hinweisen. Tobias hat hierzu im Forum schon eine detailliertere Erläuterung geschrieben: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=67900 In kurz: * Ihr habt bis zum 09.11. Zeit, Euch als Kandidat auszustellen, * ihr habt bis zum 12.11. Zeit, Fragen an die Kandidaten zu stellen (welche vor der Weiterleitung an die Kandidaten durch Michael Collinson redigiert werden) und * ihr habt bis zum 13.11. Zeit, Mitglied der OSMF zu werden, um an den Wahlen Teil zu nehmen. Mehr Details siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM19/Election_to_Board Was ich zusätzlich wie im letzten Jahr anbieten möchte ist ein Übersetzungs-Service für Fragen. Es sind diesmal zwar auch ausdrücklich Fragen in anderen Sprachen als Englisch erlaubt, aber gleichzeitig ist auch erwünscht, Fragen in lokalen Communities zu diskutieren und zu koordinieren. Auch ist der gesamte Zeitplan relativ eng, so dass es hilfreich ist, wenn wir Fragen auf Deutsch gleich mit einer Übersetzung einbringen. Wer also Fragen hat ist eingeladen, diese hier vorzustellen und ggf. zu diskutieren und ich kann - wenn gewünscht - das Ergebnis einer solchen Diskussion auf der offiziellen Frage-Seite mit Übersetzung einreichen. Auch denjenigen, die keine Fragen stellen möchten, möchte ich - wenn Sie aktive Mapper sind oder ihnen OpenStreetMap am Herzen liegt - sehr nahe legen, bis zum 13.11. OSMF-Mitglied zu werden und an den Wahlen Teil zu nehmen (falls Ihr das noch nicht seid). Die OSMF kann sehr viel Positives für das Projekt bewirken - wenn sie denn die richtigen Entscheidungen fällt. Und das hängt maßgeblich davon ab, ob *Ihr* qualifizierte Leute in den Vorstand wählt. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Reminder: OSM Etiquette guidelines
On Monday 04 November 2019, James wrote: > Conspiracy: tagging a grassy knoll "the place JFK was shot from" > > Nitpicking: You rounded off the 16th decimal on a city's name tag, > losing a maximum on 10cm of precisionon...a...city...nametag. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostensive_definition I think Martin was asking for an intensional definition - which is much more suitable in cross cultural communication. In the context of mapping and tagging in OSM we usually focus on and require intensional definitions of tags because anything else tends to cause problems with the use of tags in different parts of the world with very different geography. Similarly relying on terms with purely ostensive definitions in social conventions causes problems with application of these conventions across different cultures and languages. The problem about "conspiracy theories" for example is that the intensional definition would be something like "an idea that is in fundamental conflict with the major consensus narrative of a society". However in a multi-cultural community like OSM the major consensus narrative varies quite strongly between different parts of the community and the claim of something being a "conspiracy theory" will often be subjective and an instrument of cultural imperialism of some dominant culture what they consider to be the acceptable range of views you can have of reality onto the rest of the community. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maintaining privacy as a casual mapper
On Sunday 03 November 2019, Philippe Latulippe wrote: > > Are there better ways to maintain some privacy while editing the map? > Are there some tools? Or is there a way to make edits in a way that > doesn't reveal my username to regular users? Your approach to this is the right one, creating and using different user accounts in rotation. I can think of three other ways for more enhanced privacy: * swap user accounts with other users occasionally. You should only do that with people who you know and trust because this means you essentially have a shared responsibility for your edits. This is also something that is not as universally accepted as having multiple user accounts individually. * you can request your account to be removed: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_Policy#Account_Removal You should not do that too often though since it is manual work for the admins. * deliberately plan and conduct your mapping activities separately from your private life. That might sound strange and inconvenient but it is not actually that different from what people do in everyday life. If you visit a public event of some sort you will conduct yourself different from when you are in your own living room. In a similar fashion it can make sense to plan and conduct mapping activities differently from when you are having a private hike or similar. With all of this however you should always keep in mind that any measures to hide your editing patterns are in an inherent conflict with a functioning social interaction within the mapper community. People tend to respect the need for privacy and tolerate measures to protect that but it can be problematic in communication with fellow mappers as well. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Governance
On Thursday 12 September 2019, Roland Olbricht wrote: > Thus the question is: are contradictions between pages a problem? If > yes then a holisitic toolset may do better, if not then the holistic > tool has no advantage in this regard. Yes they are but it is unrealistic in practical work on any text document of considerable size to keep it contradiction free at all times. For writing any larger body of text collaboratively you will need to compartmentalize to some extent and have different people focus on different parts of the whole thing and coordination between those will need to happen through human evaluation and human communication. Being able to keep an eye on the whole while working on the details is one of the core qualifications necessary for this. There are no interface specifications and unit tests in text writing. There is also usually a significant benefit in terms of clarity and readability of text if there is clear individual authorship on the level of individul sections or chapters. If you mix different styles of writing on a too fine grained level that often has a negative effect on text quality. As Frederik said the idea to approach this with "Lets use technology X in combination with technology Y and everything else is going to fall into place" is not going to work. The real hurdle here is to set up an editorial baseline of guiding principles and goals and find qualified people willing to contribute to such a project under these principles in the long term. And this is not something you can bootstrap from open community discourse and consensus because then it would be no different from what we already have on the wiki with all the cacophony of different contradicting interests and opinions. Therefore this idea of a curated body of tagging documentation can only be a contribution to open community discourse and governance on tagging, it cannot be the result of it. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Governance
On Wednesday 11 September 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Nearly 100% of my activity on wiki > is attempting to do this (documenting > tags and removal of what is in contrary to > reality). Yes, and you are not the only one who tries that. But the bottom line is that this would only work in turning the wiki into an accurate documentation of the de facto meaning of tags if the number of edits and the time spent on these by those willing and able to diligently pursue this path outnumbered edits of those who pursue other goals by a fair margin. This is not achievable i think. And even if that worked it would still not produce the compact, well condensed kind of documentation Richard has in mind of course. > > wiki has version management and > talk pages. > > editorial review equivalent is done via watchlists No, with editorial review i mean advance review before edits make it to the version that is primarily used by consumers. The function of such review would be twofold: As quality control and to shift the incentive to participate in the whole thing towards the more qualified contributors. Wikipedia has been experimenting with a system of this kind imposed on top of the Mediawiki framework - but practically this is AFAIK used for technocratic oversight to avoid vandalism and other clearly malicious changes but not for editorial review regarding content quality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reviewing_pending_changes I have not actually tried the technical implementation of this but given how it is used i doubt it would be suitable for the kind of content centered editorial review we are talking about here. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Governance
On Wednesday 11 September 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > Changing to a github-like system of version management would require > some people to serve as "maintainers" or "moderators" of the new, > curated list of Map Features / Tags, wouldn't it? While this could be > an improvement in the quality and consistency of how decisions are > made, it would also limit participation and centralize > decision-making. I think we all realize that and i am not in any way a fan of formalized power structures and hierarchies. But we also can see that the wiki does not work as a means to document the de facto meaning of tags. OpenStreetMap is a broad community of people with very different abilities and skills. Not everyone is equally capable for every task within the project and hardly anyone is able to accurately assess their level of capability on everything and selflessly act accordingly. In the field of mapping the do-ocratic approach has been relatively successful in dealing with that (as long as we were talking about independent and unpaid local mappers only of course) because it is the base level of the project and is naturally grounded in the locally observable reality. But as i pointed out in my diary entry the same approach will not work on the meta-level of tag documentation where - if the documentation serves its purpose - what is written or modified by a single contributor is multiplied in effect and read and considered by many who use the documentation. This distorts the incentives and put bluntly leads to the wrong people dominating the wiki. And this is not solved by getting more prople involved in editing it. The community as a whole tries to compensate for that by giving less weight to the wiki as a source of information on tags but as Richard mentioned this leaves a big gap in terms of accurate, clear and precise documentation. Note curated documentation based on agreed on editorial principles does not necessarily mean a top-down imposed framework. Such documentation would naturally be under an open license and therefore could be forked so if someone at some point is dissatisfied with how this works they could always initiate a competing project with a different curating team and/or principles. My concern is less that of centralized decision making and control over an important resource but that it will be difficult to find, motivate, select and retain qualified people to work on this. And documentation of the de facto meaning of tags, potentially focused on the most important ones, is of course - though evidently important - only one aspect of what Roland wants to discuss here. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abuse of natural=cliff tag
On Wednesday 11 September 2019, Vladimir Vyskocil wrote: > > I read carefully your response and looked at the picture. I didn't > travelled exactly at this place but will go there in October ! > However I've already been in Český ráj > <http://www.cesky-raj.info/en/contacts/bohemian-paradise-association/ >> that is not too far from there and where the terrain is similar in > many aspects. I still think that the usage of the tag is abused in > this area… I suggest you be more specific here and point to individual features you consider inaccurately tagged as cliff. I looked over the area and while i see some of the drawing of cliffs being a bit too slavishly drawn after the DGM there does not seem to be anything systematically wrong here. Personally i think the focus on mapping details in cliffs is so far not adequately matched by a similar level in detail in landcover mapping - there are for example many cliffs mapped within a continuous forest area without there also being a bare_rock area mapped. But it is every mapper's right to map selectively what they find interesting. The mapping of cliffs strongly tied to the DGM leads to some derivations from the reality in situations like this with vertical or even back-cut rock faces where accurately mapped cliffs would often touch, near touch or even intersect and which the DGM essentially separates into a uniform stacking. This is what you might have wrongly interpreted as contour line mapping with cliffs. But IMO that is not really wrong, that is just somewhat inprecise (and really hard to do better practically). -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Governance
On Wednesday 11 September 2019, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > The main thing we're missing is curated, simple information on the > main tags that are _used_. Indeed. And i would go even further: Any documentation of the de facto use of tags written by humans (i.e. that goes beyond automatic analysis like taginfo), written and maintained in a way that ensures it actually does document the de facto situation, would be immensely useful and important. > It needs an > editor/curator/whatever, to have clear editorial guidelines, and > probably to run on the pull request model rather than open editing. Is there any mature and writer centric software that implements this kind of model? I mean that from the perspective of a documentation author offers a wiki like functionality with decent preview and formatting but at the same time comes with a kind of version management and functions to facilitate editorial review and discussion. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Governance
Hello Roland, not sure if you have seen - i already gave my initial thoughts on this on https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/imagico/diary/390599 -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
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 things it would be perfectly all right to > >>> bury OSM attribution on the bottom of some general credits page > >>> while prominently attributing some other source because this was > >>> required while the OSMF settled for less. > >> > >> Where does the draft say that? > > > > The shoe is on the other foot - where does the guideline draft say > > that the permission to show OSM attribution only on a separate page > > under certain conditions depends on no other data source being > > attributed more prominently? > > Why should it? There is no such requirement in the ODbL. I suspect > you are confusing CC BY-SA attribution requirements with those of the > ODbL. Frankly Simon, this is now getting somewhat annoying. I have asked as cited above: > And what happens if one of the data sources has a hard visible > attribution requirement without the OSMF 'attribution light' > liberty? The correct answer would have been: It would according to the guideline in a <50 percent OSM data case be perfectly allowable to show the attribution for other sources (no matter what percentage they account for) in a form that is immediately visible without user interaction and to show OSM attribution "on a separate page that is visible after user interaction". Instead of acknowledging that you deflect by first asking "Where does it say A" and then essentially asking "Why should it say NOT(A)" and finally accusing me of not understanding what i am talking about. I don't really mind and can accept that but this is ultimately not a productive way to perform a community consultation like this. This is not the LWG explaining the guideline as a done deal to 'confused' community members like me, this is about listening and taking seriously the concerns of the community, getting a broader perspective on matters and integrating the results of the ensuing arguments into the draft. Granted i have not made this easy with my emphatic rejection of the basic premises of the document. I completely understand if you don't want to argue with me on that basis but if you do i expect to be taken seriously and my arguments being reasoned with and not being dismissed upfront as unqualified or confused. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
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 things it would be perfectly all right to > > bury OSM attribution on the bottom of some general credits page > > while prominently attributing some other source because this was > > required while the OSMF settled for less. > > Where does the draft say that? The shoe is on the other foot - where does the guideline draft say that the permission to show OSM attribution only on a separate page under certain conditions depends on no other data source being attributed more prominently? None of your two formulation drafts shown here states anything in that direction: /If OpenStreetMap data accounts for a minority (less than 50%) part of the visible map rendering, attribution with other sources on a separate page that is visible after user interaction is acceptable. / /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 interaction is acceptable./ -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
On Monday 09 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote: > 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. [...] I disagree. And in any case - it does not matter, the regional cuts were used just as an example. I could likewise have used the horizontal layers as an example in my argument. And surely you could for those equally present an interpretation of the ODbL that justifies those. My point is not that you cannot interpret the ODbL in a way that allows all this. This is what corporate lawyers do and what they are good at. My point is that within the spectrum of possible interpretations of the ODbL all of this is on the far side of leniency and the OSMF - w.r.t. share-alike - has already moved their frame of refrence of what is the appropriate/neutral interpretation very far in that direction. And i strongly advise you not to do the same for attribution because you are playing with fire here regarding the social cohesion of the project. > > [...] If you disagree please list cases where commercial OSM data > > users have published derivative databases. > > There is no requirement to publish derivative databases, only a > requirement to make them available to recipients of such databases > and Produced Works created from them. So your argument is that using derivative databases is common practice and map producers routinely make them available to the users of their maps. But none of this is visible in public because the recipients do not distribute them despite them being available under the ODbL as the license requires? I am not convinced. For clarity i repeat and clarify my statement: Share-alike is functionally dead in the world of commercial OSM map rendering. Map producers universally route around it - or at least claim to route around it and their claims are not challenged. If you disagree then show me the derivative databases. > It doesn't change the license at all, in general the guidance is more > -strict- than current practice, with the exception of the multiple > source case where there currently isn't any guidance at all. So you are essentially saying that commercial OSM data users with their blatant ignorance of the requirements of the license have successfully moved what is considered normal in the eyes of the OSMF so they have adjusted their own frame of reference for what they may expect from data users. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
On Monday 09 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote: > > Kathleen has already touched on this, but one more time. In general > the guidelines work as safe harbours, that is if somebody follows the > guidelines in good faith they can assume that they are doing > something we're reasonably happy with. I am sorry but no, that is a complete distortion of the previous discussion. I have been the one who called for guidelines which err on the side of caution and make recommendations for how data users can be sure they safely meet the license requirements. Kathleen has rejected this approach by painting in dark colors various perceived disadvantages should the guidelines suggest anything that might not absolutely be necessary from the ODbL itself. 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). They are clearly designed to err on the side of leniency for the data users. This has been largely accepted by the community because it waives rights the OSMF would have under the ODbL in cases where insisting on them would have relatively little benefit for the project itself (although you could of course still argue that there would be benefit for the open geodata community in general). But as a result today share-alike in the ODbL is essentially functionally dead. There are still cases where share-alike is clearly required but almost everyone routes around them. If you disagree please list cases where commercial OSM data users have published derivative databases. Commercial data users (and i am unfairly generalizing here of course) have been answering this extreme generosity in a "Gib jemandem den kleinen Finger und er nimmt die ganze Hand" kind of way when it comes to attribution in particular. That is to be expected from organizations whose main objective is to maximize short term profits at all costs. You can be certain that the same approach will be taken with an attribution guideline. Any loophole in the suggestions presented will be examined for the potential advantages it gives in the most excessive possible interpretation of the text. This is why i am strongly opposing the current draft because it pokes additional holes into the license while what it should do is putting a sign on aspects that might be perceived to be loopholes in the license itself with a clear message of: Here the safe terrain ends, we strongly suggest you don't go there if you don't want to get in legal trouble or potentially face the wrath of hundreds of thousands of OSM contributors and supporters. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
On Monday 09 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote: > 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). I have explained already a month ago that putting the OSM attribution requirement on the same level as other data source attributions is being fairly cavalier with the role of attribution for the social cohesion of the OSM community. Practically 8 of these 10 data sources are produced by people who are getting paid for their work. About half of them have no attribution requirement in the license and maybe 2 or 3 of them are just cheaper to license if you accept an attribution requirement - which brings the whole thing on the level of bargaining for advertisement space. And what happens if one of the data sources has a hard visible attribution requirement without the OSMF 'attribution light' liberty? As you drafted things it would be perfectly all right to bury OSM attribution on the bottom of some general credits page while prominently attributing some other source because this was required while the OSMF settled for less. And in any case there are tons of ways to present a lot of different data sources to a map user in a way that makes them aware of these sources without being misleading. Just look how the advertisement industry does it. This is not about making OSM data use possible where it would otherwise not be - this is about profit margins in the attention economy. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
On Monday 09 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote: > > > > I think any substantial use of OSM data should be attributed in a > > way that is "reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, > > views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the > > Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from" - like the > > license says. No exceptions. > > Nobody is making any exceptions. Allowing for an 'attribution light' - a concept that is not in any way supported or implied by the ODbL - under specific circumstances, is clearly an exception. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
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 the threshold for requiring full > attribution. Especially when the OSM usage may just be a basemap from > a 3rd party tile server. I think any substantial use of OSM data should be attributed in a way that is "reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from" - like the license says. No exceptions. Bargaining away this attrbution requirement because a data user has diluted OSM data with other data is just not a good idea. It complicates the whole matter, is in conflict with the letter and spirit of license and why we have the attribution requirement and as explained the dilution threshold is also practically non-quantifiable. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
On Sunday 08 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote: > > But in any case the guideline refers to the "visible map rendering". > At least in conventional use of the term, aerial imagery is not a > map, but if you so which we could surely add a definition for "map" > that makes it clear that we are referring to the rendering of map > vector data and similar and not image-like layers. I think i have made my point that your concept of quantifying data fractions is based on a very fragile understanding of the granularity of the data involved - not a good basis for any kind of universal rules. Yes, you can try patching the holes in this concept by re-defining what a map is but at the end of the day to define a relative fraction of OSM data use as a quantitative cutoff for an 'attribution light' is just a bad idea IMO. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
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 could be with appropriate processing be > turned in to data, but each image in itself is at most one datum. I see - so you want to quantify by counting 'data objects' of some sort. I assume for the OSM side you want to go with the quantification of one OSM feature equals one countable object and a large lake multipolygon for example can count a few thousand? You'd still loose by a huge margin in a map with contour line relief rendering of course. And i would still hold the bet that i would be able to get the OSM fraction of any map below 50 percent without too much effort. > Now waiting for the every image is a pixel database argument. You are aware that most satellite image layers used in visualizations are produced from hundreds of thousands or even millions of individual images, assembled pretty much in the same way as a map rendering is assembled from multiple features. It therefore seems your 'one datum' concept is somewhat fragile. I see exactly one possible quantification of data fractions in a map that could not be easily circumvented. That would be based on the number of human work hours that went into producing the data. This is a rule i could support: If more human work hours went into producing the non-OSM source data used in a map than in the OSM data used attribution that is hidden by default is acceptable. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
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 interaction is acceptable./ > > [...] For understanding the practical function of such a rule (and the efforts necessary to circumvent it of course) - how do you measure the fraction OSM accounts for as data provider for a map, especially if several different data types are involved. If you go by data volume (which can be easily changed by several orders of magnitude through geometry compression and expansion methods of course) i would probably say i have never seen a map with relief depiction (like shading or countour lines) where the majority of the data is from OSM. Any satellite image layer with annotation labels and lines (boundaries, roads etc.) from OSM would equally be exempt from visible attribution under such rule. Practically i think everyone should be aware that such rule is a clear invitation how to avoid the need for attribution for map producers. I would go as far as saying that no matter how you answer my question as to how data fractions are measured any map could be easily modified by adding sufficient other data to get the OSM fraction below the 50 percent limit and this way get off the hook. As already said i don't see how such a recommendation could in any way be considered compatible with the ODbL attribution requirements. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] Tags für brombeer sträucher
On Friday 23 August 2019, schimmer wrote: > > Ich bastel ein wenig an Bäumen/Sträuchern herum im landkreis > Hildesheim. Dabei kam die Frage auf: > wie tagge ich brombeer sträucher richtig? > Landuse scrub ist imho nicht akurat genug, und eine plantage orchad > ist auch ned ok. Für nicht als Nutzplanzen angeplanzte Brombeeren ist natural=scrub exakt richtig. Ggf. ergänzt mit genus=Rubus (gibts schon 46 mal) oder (präziser) taxon="Rubus subgenus rubus" (gibts 19 mal). -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] OSM Lizenzverstoß bei Kraichgau-Stromberg Tourismus e.V.
On Tuesday 25 June 2019, Sven Geggus wrote: > > der Nakaner hatte es schon geahnt und ich konnte es jetzt in einer > Gegend die ich maßgeblich gemappt habe problemlos verifizieren. > > Der Kraichgau-Stromberg Tourismus e.V. hat 86 öffentlich geförderte > Wandertafeln mit Openstreetmap Karten ohne Attributierung > aufgestellt! > > [...] Es gibt da wohl jetzt weitere Entwicklungen: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2019-08#Power_of_Attorney_request_from_FOSSGIS Wäre schön, wenn da jemand mal ein kurzes Update liefern könnte. Die letzten Mails hatten ja eher positiv geklungen. (Schon klar, dass wenn da jetzt Verleumdungs-Vorwürfe im Raum stehen keine Details öffentlich gemacht werden können. Aber wenn da der FOSSGIS in irgendeiner Form offiziell aktiv wird, wäre eine grundsätzliche Information drüber schon wichtig) -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?
The problem about proposal pages is that they can be infinitely theoretical, non-verifiable or outright insane. So telling a mapper who is thinking about inventing a new tag to search the proposals if there is one that already covers what they want to do is not practicable. Because even if there is a proposal that deals with the same kind of situation the mapper is confronted with that does not mean the proposal contains a practicable idea of how to tag this. The advisable approach to making tag documentation on the wiki better usable is IMO not to further blur the line between documentation of the de facto meaning of tags by humans and all the other uses of the wiki (like proposals, automatically assembled data etc.) but more strictly separating them. If you (theoretically - it would probably be a lot of work to do this practically) take all tagging documentation from the wiki no matter where it is and remove everything that is not strictly documenting the de facto meaning of tags in the OSM database the result would be a pretty compact body of documentation. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?
On Thursday 15 August 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > In contrast, the current text of the wiki page "Any tags you like > suggests creating a new tag for bird nests (as an example) with > Key:endangered_nest=Siberian_flying_squirrel - besides suggesting > using non-standard capitalization in the value, this suggests > creating a new Key: / Tag: page directly, rather than using > User:username/ or Proposed_features/. > > Is this a good idea? Occasionally new wiki pages are created in > these standard spaces for tags with only a few uses or no uses in the > database. Yes, IMO it is not only acceptable to document newly invented tags but also advisable to do so. Note however inventing tags in this context means actively using them, not theoretical inventions along the lines of "I would like mappers to tag things this way therefore i document the tag as if it was being used". Elaborate tagging schemes should be discussed before being used and not be invented ad hoc by individual mappers. The reason is - as you mentioned - the "Any tags you like" principle. It means you can and should invent new tags for *things no tag exists for so far*. To allow mappers to determine if there is already an existing tag for a certain type of feature tags have to be documented. Or looking at things the other way round: If inventing new tags is encouraged but it is discouraged to document them in a way that can be easily found by other mappers that would massively emphasize tag proliferation since mappers will repeatedly invent new and different tags for certain things because they are unaware that another mapper has already invented a tag for this. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update
On Friday 09 August 2019, Kathleen Lu wrote: > > "reasonably calculated" means "reasonable." [...] I am sorry but this is completely distorting the ODbL. "reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, ... aware" means that the calculation on what effect the specific form of attribution chosen is going to have on the awareness of the person about the data used needs to be performed in a reasonable fashion. If the attribution required to accomplish that is reasonable from the perspective of the wannabe data user for their desired use case or if it is comparable to possible attribution requirements of other geodata sources produced by people who are paid for their work has zero effect on the fulfilment of the requirements of the license. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update
On Friday 09 August 2019, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > For better understanding, you claimed "this looks pretty much like > being written by corporate representatives", and I pointed out that > one of the items in point 2 that you object to was written by me in > 2012, so not a corporate representative, and has been at > osm.org/copyright ever since. Then let me rephrase: It looks pretty much like being put together by corporate representatives. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update
On Friday 09 August 2019, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > These new guidelines say that, for 480px+ screens, hiding OSM > attribution behind a click is not acceptable. Unless "OpenStreetMap data accounts for a minority (less than 50%) part of the visible map rendering" - which is the case for almost all commercial maps. > That's unambiguous all > we need. Fussing about what other logos might be on the map is a > diversion and is not supported by the ODbL. I don't think anyone but you talked about logos here. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update
On Friday 09 August 2019, Kathleen Lu wrote: > I disagree that there is no harm. [...] Not sure if you noticed but my argument was the inherent asymmetry of the situation when creating a guideline with recommendations. If there is harm like "hurt feelings" from erring on the side of caution in a guideline is completely beside the point. The credibility point does decidedly *not* go both ways. The OSMF is not a neutral intermediary, it has the obligation to represent the interests of the project and not those of outside data users. As Nuno linked to the OSMF right now points out the reasons why we ask for attribution: "We want you to attribute OpenStreetMap, i.e. you show users and viewers of whatever you do with our data clearly where you got the data from. A lot of contributors have spent and spend a lot of time and effort adding data from virtually every country in the world. We would also like people to know about our project and perhaps use or contribute data themselves." It is completely acceptable and even expected that the OSMF asks for and encourages attribution of OSM beyond the minimum required by the license. That this would result in the loss of trust from anyone seems ridiculous. And by the way if i try to follow your line of reasoning: you interestingly did not mention the most significant harm resulting from potentially unneccessary requirements: Lost profits. Ein Schelm wer böses dabei denkt... -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update
On Friday 09 August 2019, Kathleen Lu wrote: > You are right that we hope to avoid disputes by setting out > reasonable guidelines, but if OSMF sets out guidelines that are > unreasonable and not tied to the language of the licence, then no > one, either users of the data or judges, will listen to OSMF, and, > under the law, rightly so. The key point is that it is fine if the guidelines deviate from the license on the side of caution, i.e. as Richard puts it: requiring something that is not in the license. That is possibly suboptimal but there is no serious harm to err on the side of caution. No data user could sue the OSMF for in the guidelines recommending something that is not required by the license. OTOH if the guidelines recommend something that is not allowed by the license that is a serious problem, it defeats the whole purpose of the guideline and endangers the credibility of the OSMF both with mappers and data users. In the current form i have the impression that the guideline draft tries to state the most lenient interpretation of the license w.r.t. attribution that is imaginable which is not obviously wrong (and in case of the 50 percent rule i think it goes beyond that - this is obviously not compatible with the license from my point of view). I find this kind of - well - reckless. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update
On Friday 09 August 2019, Dave F via talk wrote: > Hi > > Static Images. > > "Static images should be generally attributed the same way as dynamic > images, " I agree & a way to enable users to easily add attribution > needs to be created. The Share>Image feature on the main page should > automatically image stamp the attribution into the corner. "images of > areas less 10’000 m2or fewer than 100 features do not require > attribution." For a static image I'm struggling to see what the area > coverage or the number of items contained has to do with adding an > attribution - an image is an image, irrelevant of size. DaveF I think the idea is that if you create a map based on an insubstantial amount of OSM data no attribution is required - this derives from the "Substantial" Guideline. If you now crop from a larger map a rectangle that equally contains only an insubstantial amount of OSM data it makes sense to treat this the same way. This would only apply to individual small images though - not to pages systematically showing lots of different crops. This restriction, which would match the "Substantial" Guideline, is missing so far. I am not sure about the origin of the 10k m^2 limit - that is not in the "Substantial" Guideline at the moment. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update
On Friday 09 August 2019, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote: > I think we move in different mapper communities as "mapping for the > reward of being recognized by external data users" has never even > been on my list, or of those mappers I know, of reasons for why we > map. Please don't twist my words - i have not said mappers are "mapping for the reward of being recognized by external data users". I said "While elsewhere people generating geodata are almost always rewarded for their work also in other form (like salery) in OSM the only recognition mappers receive from external data users is the attribution required by the license". That is a huge difference. The growth of the mapper community and in particular the increase in the number of mappers who are externally motivated to map (like paid mappers or mappers in organized humanitarian mapping projects) can certainly lead to the impression that those mappers whose commitment depends on the social contract between mappers and data users being honored by the data users are not strictly needed any more for the project to survive. I would not be too sure about that though. Research on social networks in general typically shows that the function and attractiveness of a network to participants often depends on a relatively small number of participants. And in particular power mappers who might have over many years mapped a significant fraction of their home town and environment are quite likely to become demotivated when they see that data users increasingly just rip off their work and can't be bothered to even acknowledge their contribution in a very basic and collective fashion. With mapper retention over longer time being an issue in general this is a significant problem. Note that this idea of the function of attribution in OSM is not my invention, this is a matter that has been discussed plenty of times over the years with the basic point i am trying to make here being agreed on by many different people. Obviously there are also many mappers who don't care about attribution and who would be fine or would even prefer if OSM data was PD. But that is not my point here. Because also those mappers are to a large fraction fully aware that this view is not universal. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update
On Friday 09 August 2019, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > It does not in any way address the problem of second rate > > attribution (i.e. someone else - usually the service provider of > > the map service or the media outlet publishing the map) is being > > attributed more prominently than OSM. > > That is not something that the ODbL requires. There are licences with > an obnoxious advertising clause but ODbL isn't one. > > "Second rate attribution" is not a problem. [...] Just for understanding what second rate attribution is: For example the map on the bottom right of: https://www.zeit.de/politik/2019-07/strasse-von-hormus-bundesregierung-marinemission-usa-iran printing a prominent "Zeit Online" below the map (self attribution) but showing OSM attribution only on user activity. > But you can't start requiring that "the OpenStreetMap attribution > needs to be at least on the same level of > prominence and visibility as... other data providers, designers, > service providers or publicists", because that's not in the ODbL. It is a community guideline - a recommendation of the community on how to work with OSM data to comply with the license. No data user has to follow the guideline - the only binding document is the license itself. The purpose of the guideline is to give practical guidiance how to comply with the license. The Guidelines should never suggest something that would violate the license (like as mentioned the 50 percent rule) but it can of course suggest things that are not strictly required by the license. And saying "if you attribute in this way that is perfectly fine with the community" is useful even if "this way" goes beyond the minimum requirements of the license. And i also think rejecting second rate attribution is perfectly in line with and supported by the "reasonably calculated" requirement of the ODbL since with a significantly less prominent attribution of OSM compared to other attributions given this is less the case. In the case linked to above for example removing the "Zeit Online" would increase the likelihood that a page visitor - when asked - could correctly identify the map source because they would be more likely to look under the 'i' than if they have the obvious other explanation (map produced by Zeit Online out of thin air) being presented as the simplest answer. > Your point 2 is objecting to something I wrote in 2012 when I was > editing a magazine about inland waterways and has been on > osm.org/copyright ever since, so nope. :) You are free to disagree with me but i hope you do not consider this statement to be an argument on the matter. For better understanding: Point 2 refers to a certain pattern in the design of the document and lists a number of example to demonstrate that. You could argue the observation of there being such a pattern or you could argue the individual examples. You however did neither of these in your statement. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update
nt of the map users could, when asked about the origin of the map they are looking at, quickly and without much difficulty point to the attribution. But you don't say anything in that direction. Overall i think this is totally unacceptable and looks pretty much like being written by corporate representatives as how they would like attribution to be handled with very little regard to the interests of the hobby mapper community and the mission of the OSMF. I formulate this so strongly because i have on many occasions in the past pointed out that we have to formulate clear requirements to data users for what we expect from them - yet i can find hardly any of this in the draft. This is very disappointing. As i have shown above with various formulation suggestion it is not actually that difficult to put clear requirements into words which makes me think this draft explicitly did not want to do so. If the OSMF is not able to create an attribution guideline that safeguards the interests of the OSM community we will have to create our own guideline that lives up to the promise of being a real "community guideline". -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Survey on global and local communities in OpenStreetMap
On Thursday 08 August 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > By speaking directly and publishing my responses i risk being > > challenged and criticized personally. While i don't mind this > > there are definitely a lot of people who don't want or can't do > > this. And many of them probably would not mind their answers being > > published anonymously. > > So essentially all you want is a fourth option in the initial > "Permission" question that is called > > "Publicly, anonymized" ? Yes, the logical choices that can be offered in a survey like this are IMO: * only allow publication of the statistically aggregated results (what you usually have in an analysis of surveys, like percentages). For free form answers this requires subjective interpretation. * allow anonymized publication of individual answers. The anonymization happens by disconnecting the individual answers from each other so answers allowing the identification of a participants (like OSM user name) cannot be connected to other answers. In addition identifying information could also be redacted from free form answers for publication. * allow full publication of the raw data (which is not really necessary to provide as an option since this participants can easily do on their own). * optionally to either of these allow non-public dissemination of raw data to certain parties. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Survey on global and local communities in OpenStreetMap
On Thursday 08 August 2019, Mikel Maron wrote: > > My main concern is rather that there are a lot of free form > > questions yet there is no option for the participants to allow > > publication of the individual free form answers in anonymized > > form. > > Select “publicly aggregated and anonymously” as answer to the first > question and the free form answers will be published. Aggregated means exactly the opposite. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Survey on global and local communities in OpenStreetMap
On Wednesday 07 August 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > I think that part of the motivation for doing surveys is that there > was a belief that some people don't want to say something in public > e.g. on a mailing list for fear of their opinion being challenged. The question is if this fear is about them being challenged or their opinion being challenged. The idea that there might be people who have (a) an interest in their opinion being heard and at the same time (b) a fear of their opinion being challenged even in anonymity (meaning that no one except them knows it is their opinion) is intriguing. Anyway - what i would have liked to see is the survey providing *the option* for participants to allow the publication of their anonymized individual answers, not *the requirement* to allow this. > Of course, if you say your opinion through an intermediary, there is > *always* the risk of the intermediary deliberately or accidentally > misinterpreting our opinion. That's the downside, and the upside is > you get so say what you think without anyone challenging you about > it. It's a deal that you can take if you want; and if you don't want > it then you can *still* post your opinion on a mailing list or forum > or your user diary, where you can speak directly without being > interpreted by an intermediary - or even post your survey responses > publicly like you did. By speaking directly and publishing my responses i risk being challenged and criticized personally. While i don't mind this there are definitely a lot of people who don't want or can't do this. And many of them probably would not mind their answers being published anonymously. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Survey on global and local communities in OpenStreetMap
On Wednesday 07 August 2019, Simon Poole wrote: > > @the designers of the survey. The question wrt remote mapping would > seem to be designed to achieve a specific result. I can also see some expectations and assumptions being visible 'between the lines' in some questions but this looks more like projecting own preconceptions and state of mind and less like active manipulation. There seem to be overall a lot of questions where there is a high likelihood that many participants will answer a different question than what those designing the survey wanted to ask - due to unclear and vague terminology for example and due to ambiguous references. The question you referred to for example says "Do you remotely map other countries?" and it is unclear if the "other" refers to the country where you live or to "where do you map mostly". Pure armchair mappers only mapping in a single country might answer "No" to this question. My main concern is rather that there are a lot of free form questions yet there is no option for the participants to allow publication of the individual free form answers in anonymized form. This means we will - just like in the previous survey - only learn about any of these answers through the lens of the subjective interpretation of those making the aggregation. This provides a lot of room for distortion through either cultural bias or deliberate selectivity of those doing the aggregation which kind of defeats the whole idea of doing a survey to reach parts of the community that are otherwise not visible. In other words: What the survey says is you are welcome to provide your ideas through the survey but we, the creators of the survey, reserve the right to interpret your answers as we see fit and neither you nor anyone else may correct us if we do not correctly interpret what you wrote. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Survey on global and local communities in OpenStreetMap
On Wednesday 07 August 2019, Dorothea Kazazi wrote: > Hello, > > The following survey on global and local communities in OpenStreetMap > was developed by board members. The survey is not quantitative and > its aim is to stimulate discussions in local communities and at the > Local Chapters Congress at SotM. > > https://osmf.limequery.org/428835 Answer to "Check any of the following to describe your involvement in OpenStreetMap" will be different in the German and English version for anyone self-employed with OSM connections. As with the last survey i published my answers: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/imagico/diary/390441 -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing question
On Tuesday 06 August 2019, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote: > > If a user misuses a produced work, that is the fault of the user > > (and > > perhaps a breach of the license by the user), not the work producer. > I don't this is a slippery slope, but rather a principled decision. > But the guideline is what it is, and I suppose you could lobby the > Board to change it, but I personally would view such a change as > unwise. Well - to stay within the metaphor - if the downhill location is considered desirable a slippery slope might be most welcome. The ability to decide at will if share-alike applies in a certain use case or not and avoiding responsibilities as much as possible are of course generally highly desirable features for an interpretation of the ODbL from the perspective of some creators of derived works. For guarding the social contract between mappers and data users that OSM is built on and depends on however the situation looks very different. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing question
On Friday 02 August 2019, Tom Lee via legal-talk wrote: > [...] If you > replace "pixels" with "triangles", the exact same thing can be said > of the 3D objects being rendered here for use by the Flight Gear > simulator. And if you replace 'pixel' with node the exact same thing can be said about an OSM file. The idea to bind the legal concept of produced works and derivative databases to certain file formats is - though popular - not a very reasonable approach. There is no problem encoding any geometry from the OSM database in a raster image file. > The official guideline on this question can be found here: > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Prod >uced_Work_-_Guideline -- > > [...] If the published > result of your project is intended for the extraction of the original > data, then it is a database and not a Produced Work. [...] The ODbL is very interesting in so far that although the distinction between produced works and derivative databases is central to it, it does not actually explicitly define what a produced work is. It essentially just says that anything derived from ODbL data that is not a derivative/collective database is a produced work. The produced work guideline goes down the slippery slope of trying to define a produced work though the intention of the creator. This was always a highly questionable approach. Not only because intention in general is hard to determine objectively but also because the ODbL does not require the creator of a produced work to put any contraints on how the produced work is used so the intention of the creator does not have any bearing on how users actually use this work. The ODbL defines 'Database' (and thereby derivative/collective database) in the following form: "A collection of material (the Contents) arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means offered under the terms of this License" which is clearly based on the nature of the work and its suitability for access "by electronic or other means". Inversely the same applies to the nature of a produced work. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing question
To avoid you drawing the wrong conclusions based on the (rather abstract) explanations made by others - based on a quick look at the documentation on http://wiki.flightgear.org/Osm2city.py https://osm2city.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ that tool seems mainly a geometry data conversion program for OSM data - not unlike tools used routinely for cartographic applications like osm2pgsql etc. The output of this tool is in most cases likely a derivative database or a collective database depending on how much intermingling of OSM data with other data is happening. If for example extruded building geometries based on OSM polygons are textured with texture images from other sources that is quite clearly a collective database. If you generate guessed building geometries based on non-OSM landuse data as explained on: https://osm2city.readthedocs.io/en/latest/how_it_works.html#chapter-howto-generate-would-be-buildings-label (which is an interesting feature by the way) and combine this with OSM based buildings that would be a derivative database. For distinguishing between a produced work and a derivative database a useful approach is to see if the way you use the data is more in a database-like fashion or more in the form of a finished product ready for human consumption. The scene geometry for a 3d rendering is quite clearly more database-like in its use. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap
On Friday 26 July 2019, stevea wrote: > [...] > However, does that mean that "nice tech" is tech which SHOULD be > applied to OSM? Some (Frederik, others) say no, or perhaps holds his > nose as he watches it happen anyway. Others, who might make an > argument that applied AI tech has similar (economic) incentives to be > applied to OSM in the same way that companies who rely on OSM (there > are many) pay mappers to improve OSM's data for their corporate > interests, have a point. [...] > I believe we can discuss this rationally. I think none of the critics of corporate appropriation and exploitation of OSM here is opposed to rational discussion. I have had plenty of valuable discussions on use of automated techniques in geodata analysis - both in the OSM context and outside of it. But in the OSM context these never happened with corporate representatives. Why? Because corporate culture tends to set extensive taboos around all the ethical and social questions that arise from these subjects when you discuss them in the context of OSM. If anyone could point me to any communication or writing from the corporate domain about use of either automated techniques or organized/paid mapping in OSM that seriously discusses the ethical and social questions that arise from it please do so. If and when this happens then we can have a rational discussion. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap
On Friday 26 July 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > The most well-know version is from Upton Sinclair's campaign to > become governor of California in the 1930's: > > "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary > depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair - See > https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/ > > Upton Sinclair is most famous for writing "The Jungle" as a young > man. Ah, thanks - that is indeed the likely origin. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap
On Friday 26 July 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > This is probably normal for corporate PR people, but for me it's just > disgusting. And in that conflict in my eyes you can see the core of the problem. The corporate appropriation of OpenStreetMap and the OSM community has meanwhile all the characteristics of a cult. You can see in the reactions of corporate representatives here - as well as in other cases where corporate PR misrepresenting OSM is presented, see for example the comments to the Facebook diary entry that has been linked to or in the discussion with the Thailand community, that many of them are so detached from the reality of the hobby mapper community and non-corporate data users that functional communication is essentially not possible any more. I have no solution for this - at least none that works within OSM alone. But i have strong doubts meanwhile that arguing with people who are fully immersed into the belief system of corporate PR regarding OSM is of benefit in most cases. This in itself is a pretty frightening realization. There is a famous saying (not sure of its origin) - that fits pretty well here: It is hard to make people understand something if their livelihood depends on not understanding it. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Map of Population Density vs. OpenStreetMap density
On Sunday 07 July 2019, Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski wrote: > > We're using GHS population grid in Switzerland. > https://ghsl.jrc.ec.europa.eu/data.php > Methodologically, they use radar data to find "houses". It means on > their dataset people also live along roads with asphalt, and - may > happen - bare rocks are also populated. You can drop them a line on > jrc-ghsl-d...@ec.europa.eu to say thanks. I am familiar with that data - they use census based or otherwise estimated population numbers per admininstrative unit and distribute this population among areas they identified as "built-up" using rather questionable processes (what we in German tend to describe as "Kaffeesatzleserei"). There is no identification of houses - source data used is way too low resolution for that. I am not aware of any serious overall evaluation of the quality of this or any other global population density data sets. If you read literature on the matter the quality/validation part is usually just some superficial "throwing around numbers to make the results look good" without actually looking at how the data compares to the geographic reality it is meant to represent and where and how it fails to do so. I am sorry for the negativity - i just know all too well how these kind of publicly financed research projects work in Europe and how detached from reality they often become. > To fix it we can get "unpopulated areas" polygons from OSM. Not really - you would have to reproduce the population distribution process described above based on corrected data of builtup areas. If you just remove populations that are obviously wrong locally you'd underestimate the overall population. > > And i am not a fan of deliberately pixelated visualizations where > > the data is shown in a pixel grid at a coarser resolution than what > > the display offers. > > Can you point to a better visualization which we can learn from? > Map is supposed to be used on settlement level, where our grid is "4 > pixels per screen" - to highlight a settlement without trying to > predict its boundaries. You are essentially visualizing a classification map (with ten classes). The most common way to do this would be on a per pixel basis. See for example the "NLCD Land Cover" layer on https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/. If this is too noisy (which is also very much influenced by the choice of colors) you can denoise and geometrically generalize the classification for the target resolution. Just subsampling at a coarser grid does not really work for this - you just get coarser noise and less information. > We've built such map initially, and it's not significantly different > from this one in disaster mapping perspective. People don't map > physical geography far from their home much in OSM [...]. The thing is that statement is correct to very different degrees in different parts of the world. Looking selectively at the mapping of physical geography would allow evaluating those differences. Of course you are right that just counting features would not really work for analyzing that. Counting features works well for things with a fairly defined amount of information per feature (like buildings, addresses, POIs) but not for geometrically sophisticated geometries. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Map of Population Density vs. OpenStreetMap density
On Friday 05 July 2019, Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski wrote: > > http://disaster.ninja/live/ > <http://disaster.ninja/live/#overlays=alert-shape-GDACS_EQ_1183112_12 >65046,bivariate_class;id=GDACS_EQ_1183112_1265046;layer=default-style; >position=-13.88712117940031,30.076044779387132;zoom=2.4760319802318693 >> > > What do you think? Are your densities in people/object per ground square kilometers or per mercator square kilometers? (just to be sure - this is the number one mistake of any kind of density analysis in the OSM context) One warning: All global population data sets that exist are rough estimates with usually significant systematic biases and errors. For example in Switzerland the data set you used sees high population density in mountain areas with no basis in reality. And i am not a fan of deliberately pixelated visualizations where the data is shown in a pixel grid at a coarser resolution than what the display offers. Apart from that this is an interesting analysis. It would be kind of nice to also do it separately for density of features that actually correlate with population density in reality (buildings, roads, addresses, shops etc.) and physical geography, which can be mapped just as densely in areas with no population as in densely populated areas. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] iD forces mistagging again
On Saturday 29 June 2019, Tomas Straupis wrote: > > (2) I see significant benefit of natural=water + water=* > > This is your personal opinion. No, that is a statement of fact. If this is a good reason for choosing a certain tagging over another is a matter of opinion. > Opinion of OpenStreetMap community > is expressed by those who map - in the data. And it is clear from the data that both tagging schemes enjoy widespread support. The situation is actually much more balanced for reservoirs than for waterway=riverbank vs. water=river where pushing for the latter is much more questionable. In other words: You are kind of "barking up the wrong tree" here. There are many reasons why preset decisions of iD deserve a critical look. Choosing one of two widely accepted and widely used tagging schemes not exclusively based on absolute use numbers or structural conservativism (which was there first) is not one of them. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Updates to DigitalGlobe Imagery Layers
On Saturday 29 June 2019, Kevin Bullock wrote: > DigitalGlobe, now Maxar [1], is transitioning the OpenStreetMap > imagery endpoints (from “DigitalGlobe Standard” to “Maxar Standard”; > and from “DigitalGlobe Premium” to “Maxar Premium”). OSM users should > see content parity between the old and the new layers by June 30, > 2019. Starting July 1, 2019, there will be only two Maxar layers > available from within the OSM editors – labeled with Beta. My usual question: will there be image metadata available for these layers, preferably in a machine readable form that allows editors for a spatially selective suggestion of the best available imagery? > The good news: imagery will be more recent and more frequently > updated with our latest Maxar mosaic content. We hope that our > improved production processes (bundle block adjustment, atmospheric > compensation, continuous updates, etc.) will benefit OSM > contributors. A quick look at some critical areas shows that while coverage is similar or better than with the old layers there is a significant number of places where either the Standard and Premium layers now feature the same image or where a well mapping suitable image (at high latitudes usually: near snow and ice minimum) is being replaced by a less mapping suitable image: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/73.4207/54.9987 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/75.8010/-83.9056 There seem to be some rendering artefacts at the lower zoom levels: https://earthwatch.digitalglobe.com/earthservice/tmsaccess/tms/1.0.0/DigitalGlobe:ImageryTileService@EPSG:3857@jpg/11/1940/304.jpg?connectId=d9c5e3ef-6300-4cec-9562-c1f27da6b2d9 https://earthwatch.digitalglobe.com/earthservice/tmsaccess/tms/1.0.0/DigitalGlobe:ImageryTileService@EPSG:3857@jpg/13/2834/2333.jpg?connectId=d9c5e3ef-6300-4cec-9562-c1f27da6b2d9 Examples of useful improvements: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-57.1171/-26.8197 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/75.8120/137.6692 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/81.5993/-16.6763 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-77.9505/166.6831 -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
