Re: [OSM-talk-be] Introduction

2011-04-16 Thread Marc Gemis
Hi all, Now, I really understand why I was hesitating to start adding roads. ;-) Anyhow, I'll change it to 'track'. Here's the sign that you can find at the ends of Voetwegen and Burrtwegen in Rumst (incl. Terhaghe, Reet) and Boom

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Introduction

2011-04-16 Thread Karel Adams
On 04/16/2011 10:33 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: It is still unclear to me which name I should use. I'm in favor of BW23, since that is on the sign. Het uiteindelijke antwoord moet van de bevoegde overheid komen, in dit geval het gemeentebestuur veronderstel ik. Eens navragen bij het kadaster? Of

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Introduction

2011-04-16 Thread Ben Laenen
Karel Adams wrote: On 04/16/2011 10:33 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: It is still unclear to me which name I should use. I'm in favor of BW23, since that is on the sign. Het uiteindelijke antwoord moet van de bevoegde overheid komen, in dit geval het gemeentebestuur veronderstel ik. Eens navragen

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Introduction

2011-04-16 Thread Ben Laenen
Marc Gemis wrote: Now for the surface. Do I have to split the road each time the surface changes ? Between paved and unpaved: yes, since that changes the road classification. Between different surfaces: not if you don't want to. I just use surface=unpaved and be done with it. First it is

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Elizabeth Dodd
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:29:29 +0100 Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: This licence change now gives every mapper the means of undermining the map through withholding of their own data, once freely given and now very likely a foundation of data created by other mappers, also in good

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Russ Nelson
Mike N writes: Even a proper reversion script will cause much collateral damage for the cases I'm aware of. The whole point behind having a license is to be able to sue people who violate it. We have a license which allows us to do that now. Is anybody suing the copyright infringers? No,

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Russ Nelson
Frederik Ramm writes: We're not sacrificing countries. We saw that we have built our project on (legal) sand, Nonsense. Your choice of what to tag and how to tag it is a creative choice. You own that expression of the idea of a map. There is no reason for you to wait to sue somebody for

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread David Murn
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 17:09 -0700, Kai Krueger wrote: Dermot McNally wrote: FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can see as an outsider. No, the vote part really isn't that difficult.

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Mike Dupont
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 9:18 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: I never followed the wikipedia change, but did they create a new untested licence? Did they ask users to agree to the licence over a 12 month period? How many changes/revisions did their licence undergo between being

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Russ Nelson
Dermot McNally writes: But mappers who just plain _won't_ agree to leave their data in, even though there is no legal obstacle to it, should strongly consider whether they are being true to the community they claim to be a part of. In every schism, it's not clear who is splitting from

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Dermot McNally
On 16 April 2011 07:00, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: Why does the ODbL faction not start with a fork of ODbL compliant data? Why do they need to force a split of the existing CC-by-SA data? A lot of the differences of opinion on this matter are finding expression in the words people

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Dermot McNally
On 16 April 2011 08:28, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: In every schism, it's not clear who is splitting from whom. Don't presume an answer without first asking the question. Actually, I have thought widely on this. My slightly earlier email this morning outlines my thought on what

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Elizabeth Dodd
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:11:11 +0200 Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, David Murn wrote: Out of interest Grant, what

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Elizabeth Dodd
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:34:20 +1000 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 20:10 +0100, Grant Slater wrote: I am sure there are going to be a few cases where difficult decisions are going to have to be made. We will not have been the only open source project to

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Dermot McNally
On 16 April 2011 08:31, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: So has anyone asked the FOSS gurus of licensing? I have never seen it mentioned while I was subscribed to legal-talk. I am quite prepared to start writing emails (phrased neutrally) requesting an opinion if these people have not

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread John Smith
On 16 April 2011 17:37, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: OpenOffice.org has had a major fork just recently. The LibreOffice fork has chosen different licensing arrangements, including the contributors retaining their own copyright. http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread John Smith
On 16 April 2011 17:42, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: wouldn't have sought it at a much earlier stage than this. Normally abject opposition should come after, not before, neutral appraisal of the proposal, shouldn't it? There has been so many issues with the new license, the new

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Lester Caine
John Smith wrote: On 16 April 2011 17:37, Elizabeth Dodded...@billiau.net wrote: OpenOffice.org has had a major fork just recently. The LibreOffice fork has chosen different licensing arrangements, including the contributors retaining their own copyright.

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Mike Dupont
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: if it isn't about time to readdress the area of merging data from different sources? Rather than throwing everything in the one pot and mangling it, creating a more open data interface so that third parties can supply

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Elizabeth Dodd
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:42:00 +0100 Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 April 2011 08:31, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: So has anyone asked the FOSS gurus of licensing? I have never seen it mentioned while I was subscribed to legal-talk. I am quite prepared to start

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread John Smith
On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing 'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even the UK government have now accepted that we should have free access to this sort of data, so my own

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Frederik Ramm
On 04/16/2011 02:05 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote: On 16 April 2011 01:29, Dermot McNallyderm...@gmail.com wrote: This licence change now gives every mapper the means of undermining the map through withholding of their own data, once freely given and now very likely a foundation of data created

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, On 04/16/2011 10:29 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: We simply draw up a document that is basically a modified version of the current contributor terms, which says I am willing to make the following contract with OSMF on the additional condition of OSMF holding the 2/3 vote as described below

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, On 04/16/2011 01:29 AM, Dermot McNally wrote: FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel consulted about the change. On the other,

[OSM-talk] License graph

2011-04-16 Thread Toby Murray
Not sure if anyone else is already doing this but two days ago I thought it would be fun (maybe even useful) to graph the number of users who have accepted/declined the new license/CT in anticipation of the next phase going into effect on Sunday. I hacked together a quick dirty script to use as a

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Lester Caine
John Smith wrote: On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote: The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing 'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even the UK government have now accepted that we should have free access to this sort of

Re: [OSM-talk] License graph

2011-04-16 Thread Jim Brown
nice j -Original Message- From: Toby Murray [mailto:toby.mur...@gmail.com] Sent: 16 April 2011 10:01 To: OSM Talk Subject: [OSM-talk] License graph Not sure if anyone else is already doing this but two days ago I thought it would be fun (maybe even useful) to graph the number of

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread John Smith
On 16 April 2011 19:04, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: John Smith wrote: On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote: The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing 'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even the UK government

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Lester Caine
John Smith wrote: On 16 April 2011 19:04, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote: John Smith wrote: On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote: The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing 'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread John Smith
On 16 April 2011 19:49, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: No I said 'free access to this sort of data'. But I don't see that having the courtesy to recognise where data can from should be any sort of a problem. 'Requiring it' just acknowledges that some people do not extend that common

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Ian Dees
Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for that. I have been beaten into submission. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian Dees

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread John Smith
On 16 April 2011 22:10, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of the desire

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Frederik Ramm
Ian, On 04/16/2011 02:10 PM, Ian Dees wrote: Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it doesn't look like I will. You asked when the community of OpenStreetMap was asked about the license change. ... No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Russ Nelson
I think Frederick gave you the best answer possible. It's not that the community was *asked* by some overarching committee, but instead that it just floated up. Like a turd in the toilet. Frankly, I never thought it would come to actually deleting data. I always thought that that was OBVIOUSLY so

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Graham Jones
My thinking on this is very similar. I have no particular objection to the new licence and contributor terms - I don't really care which licence my contributions are governed by. I am very surprised at the apparent tolerance to loss of data from the map for the sake of transferring to a more

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, On 04/16/2011 05:40 PM, Graham Jones wrote: I am also surprised that we are going to the compulsory re-licensing when there are still (as far as I can tell without looking too closely) doubts over the compatibility of significant datasources with the new licence or contributor terms - From

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, On 04/16/2011 04:13 PM, Ian Dees wrote: But, as you said, that poll was unofficial, only included 500 people, and if I remember correctly had some very confusing options at first. My guess is that more than 10.000 people have been informed of the poll (via the lists I mentioned). The

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Richard Bullock
I am also surprised that we are going to the compulsory re-licensing when there are still (as far as I can tell without looking too closely) doubts over the compatibility of significant datasources with the new licence or contributor terms - From what I can tell from a few wiki pages, it is not

Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?

2011-04-16 Thread Ed Avis
Michael Collinson mike at ayeltd.biz writes: In addition to Dermot's comments, we initially considered dual-licensing CC-BY-SA but, yes, regretfully rejected it as it undermines a major objective of the license change which is to provide the strongest protection of OSM geodata in as many

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Ed Avis
Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes: much less be asked: Do you think the house is on fire yes/no? Please point to some real flames. In all the time the licence discussions have been happening, nobody has mentioned *one* *single* *case* where the licence of the map isn't respected and

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread 80n
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: We have a situation where those who have spent time with it, and talked to lawyers and all, are positively sure that we do not have a working status quo. Doing nothing is not an option. And yet we've been doing nothing

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Kevin Peat
On 16 April 2011 17:00, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Isn't it funny how, just over a year ago, we couldn't care less about anything the Ordnace Survey did, and suddenly we are a project that must choose their license according to what is compatible with OS? ... I say to you the

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
2011/4/16 Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.com: ... all those people currently tracing thousands of roads a week in the UK might as well take a break and get some fresh air. fresh air is not the worst ingredient to OSMapping. cheers, Martin ___ talk

Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?

2011-04-16 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
2011/4/16 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com: By excluding contributors who don't agree with the new scheme you are wielding a very sharp stick  It would not be a good idea to set a precedent that the OSMF should simply push through the 'best' answer and exclude dissenters.  One day, you might

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, On 04/16/2011 07:47 PM, Kevin Peat wrote: Such as is it the LWG's intention to make the license/ct's compatible with OS Opendata? If it isn't then all those people currently tracing thousands of roads a week in the UK might as well take a break and get some fresh air. If people are indeed

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Frederik Ramm
Ed, On 04/16/2011 06:58 PM, Ed Avis wrote: Since the situation is so serious, there should surely be plenty of examples by now. It only takes *one* example to take all our data and feed it into some proprietary giant's database. Would you prefer to wait? Or even: If you were a member of the

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Russ Nelson
Frederik Ramm writes: It only takes *one* example to take all our data and feed it into some proprietary giant's database. Worry about the license less and map more. The more we map, the more value there is in participating in the community as a peer rather than a parasite. -- --my blog is

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Kevin Peat
On 16 April 2011 19:42, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: If people are indeed doing that then I would *definitely* suggest the fresh air option, no matter what we intend to do license-wise; see recent imports discussion on talk-gb (Adding a further 250,000 roads quickly using a Bot).

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread andrzej zaborowski
Hi, On 16 April 2011 10:29, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On 04/16/2011 02:05 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote: At this point it's only known that there's an unspecified non-zero part of the community which wants OSM to switch license.  Not everyone needs to be true to that part of the

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Graham Jones
So hard to know which message to reply to in this very long chain. I'll try to pick out the main points in response to my message: *Ordnance Survey Open Data*: As far as I am aware our current licence etc is compatible with the OS licence, so by changing ours, we are making a conscious

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Ed Avis
Frederik, do you mean to say that after all these years of the project you haven't seen a single example of any company - large or small - taking the OSM data and being legally untouchable? Might it not be possible, given that there are many firms with more than capable legal departments, who are

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Ed Avis
Sorry my last message was a bit intemperate. What I should have asked was this: if you still believe that some big firm can 'rip off' the OSM map data with impunity, despite the fact that this conspicuously has not happened (the opposite in fact - our licence is universally respected among large

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Ed Avis
Kevin Peat kevin at kevinpeat.com writes: My first impression is how can a process with so many grey areas possibly result in a cleanly licensed dataset? I doubt that it can. This is one additional reason to continue offering the old licence as a dual-licence option. Those users of the map

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Tobias Knerr
Ed Avis wrote: Might it not be possible, given that there are many firms with more than capable legal departments, who are more than capable of taking advantage of such a loophole, that there is slightly more to it than the simple mantra of 'our licence does not apply'? Yes, there is more

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, On 04/16/2011 09:21 PM, Kevin Peat wrote: Thanks for your thoughtful answer. It is certainly a lot more detailed than anything I have read before. My first impression is how can a process with so many grey areas possibly result in a cleanly licensed dataset? I assume that decisions will

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, On 04/16/2011 10:35 PM, Ed Avis wrote: what, exactly, would persuade you that this isn't a realistic possibility? I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a city only, incorporating

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Ed Avis
Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes: I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a city only, incorporating it into their data set in way that it either obvious (i.e. we can easily

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Tom Hughes
On 16/04/11 22:37, Ed Avis wrote: Hmm... so the fact that such grabbing of data has never occurred does not count as evidence for you. This is problematic, since in general things only go to court if the legal status is questionable. If it's reasonably certain, the side that's in the wrong

Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?

2011-04-16 Thread 80n
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 7:35 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: As far as I understand this, we would then have all the cons of cc-by-sa (e.g. that some mayor mapping company could rip us off) Show us the evidence to back up this assertion please.

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread andrzej zaborowski
On 16 April 2011 23:37, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes: I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a city only, incorporating it into their data

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread 80n
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Ed, On 04/16/2011 06:58 PM, Ed Avis wrote: Since the situation is so serious, there should surely be plenty of examples by now. It only takes *one* example to take all our data and feed it into some proprietary

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread 80n
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a city only, incorporating it into their data set in way that it either

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Russ Nelson
Frederik Ramm writes: On 04/16/2011 10:35 PM, Ed Avis wrote: what, exactly, would persuade you that this isn't a realistic possibility? I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, I

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Russ Nelson
80n writes: The only thing that has happened so far is that the license change process has been so protracted that it has damaged OSM much more than any imagined threat could possibly have done. Here, here! If anybody is SO bored that fiddling with the license seems like fun, come edit

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Grant Slater
On 16 April 2011 23:36, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a city only,

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Elizabeth Dodd
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 18:02:16 +0200 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: We have a situation where those who have spent time with it, and talked to lawyers and all, are positively sure that we do not have a working status quo. Doing nothing is not an option. In licensing terms, this house

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Elizabeth Dodd
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:20:27 -0400 Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: I think Frederick gave you the best answer possible. It's not that the community was *asked* by some overarching committee, but instead that it just floated up. Like a turd in the toilet. Frankly, I never thought it would

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Elizabeth Dodd
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 23:50:03 +0100 Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: If this is what you have been complaining about then you have half missed the point. There are people who have chosen NOT TO USE OSM because of legal ambigutity and points in the CC-BY-SA license which we

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Tobias Knerr
Russ Nelson wrote: Unless somebody has a theory under which there will be more mappers suing more users, the only rational conclusion can be that the license change will hurt OSM, and not help it at all. I wonder why you believe that the only way a license change can possibly help OSM is by

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread David Murn
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 18:00 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 04/16/2011 05:40 PM, Graham Jones wrote: ... it is not clear whether OS Opendata in the UK, or Nearmap in Austrailia is compatible. I would have expected these issues to be resolved before forcing people to re-licence.

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread andrzej zaborowski
Hi, On 17 April 2011 01:22, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Personally, I don't want to sue anyone. However, I want to unambiguously have the right to publish an OSM based map that doesn't provide attribution for every single mapper. I also consider improved compatibility with other

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Anthony
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Mike N writes:      Even a proper reversion script will cause much collateral damage for   the cases I'm aware of. The whole point behind having a license is to be able to sue people who violate it. You've got it exactly

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Anthony
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: The CT contain this clause whereby it becomes impossible to do what Dermot writes above - if 2/3 of mappers agree to use another free and open license, then that is the new license and everyone's data is changed to that

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Anthony
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 6:36 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a city only,

Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?

2011-04-16 Thread Anthony
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 6:10 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 7:35 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: As far as I understand this, we would then have all the cons of cc-by-sa (e.g. that some mayor mapping company could rip us off) Show us the

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Russ Nelson
Tobias Knerr writes: Russ Nelson wrote: Unless somebody has a theory under which there will be more mappers suing more users, the only rational conclusion can be that the license change will hurt OSM, and not help it at all. I wonder why you believe that the only way a license

Re: [OSM-talk] License graph

2011-04-16 Thread Eugene Alvin Villar
Could you create a graph that shows the graph since you started collecting data in addition to or instead of just the last 48 hours? :-) This graph is very informative. On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure if anyone else is already doing this but

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Anthony
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Tobias Knerr writes:   Russ Nelson wrote:   Unless somebody has a theory under which there will be more mappers   suing more users, the only rational conclusion can be that the license   change will hurt OSM, and not

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread andrzej zaborowski
On 17 April 2011 01:53, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 23:36 +0100, 80n wrote: Do you think that Google haven't considered the possibilty of incorporating OSM data into their MapMaker database?  Why do you think they haven't?  Perhaps our data is not good

Re: [OSM-talk] License graph

2011-04-16 Thread Eugene Alvin Villar
Thanks! It would be interesting to observe how the response goes once Phase 3 kicks in. On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote: I was actually thinking about doing that but went to bed last night after getting the first one up. At that point the point I

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

2011-04-16 Thread Anthony
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:13 AM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 April 2011 01:53, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 23:36 +0100, 80n wrote: Do you think that Google haven't considered the possibilty of incorporating OSM data into their MapMaker

Re: [Talk-in] Kerala LSG map

2011-04-16 Thread Arun Ganesh
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Naveen Francis navee...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Is there way to mark LSG, assembly constituency and lokshaba constituency in OSM ? This is map created for LSG by Kerala govt http://itmission.kerala.gov.in/igsg.html Data:-

Re: [Talk-in] Kerala LSG map

2011-04-16 Thread Arun Ganesh
I'm not sure if its a very good idea to have constituency boundaries in osm. They change often with each delimitation and overlap over district/subdistrict borders which in my opinion are a lot more important. If we do get the shapefiles, we can atleast upload it to

Re: [Talk-it] [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: Hoping you can point me in the right direction.

2011-04-16 Thread David Paleino
Per riassumere, visto che c'ho messo un pochino a capirlo: On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:48:02 -0700, Steve Coast wrote: Hi Steve, My name is Robert Lynch and I am the owner of a few small transport companies in Australia. Over the past 12 months I have been building a new transport,

Re: [Talk-it] mapping party montagna

2011-04-16 Thread giampiero riva
Ciao Luca, Un'ottima idea...lancio una localita' non tanto conosciuta Forni Sopra, che e' in Friuli dopo Lorenzago di Cadore e fa parte del Parco delle Dolomiti Friulane. Si puo- provare ad approfondire il discorso in quanto vado ogni anno in montagna e qualche contatto lo ho. Ci sentiamo.

[Talk-it] MAPPING PARTY ALBERONI DOMENICA 17 APRILE

2011-04-16 Thread giampiero riva
Ciao a tutti, Tutto confermato.Il programma della giornata e' il seguente. Un primo appuntamento e' alle ore 10.00 davanti al ponte di Calatrava a Piazzale Roma, dove ci sara' una persona, la Sonia, che seguira' questo appuntamento e verrete insieme con lei agli Alberoni, cosi chi vine da

[Talk-it] Cambio licenza: la fase 3 inizia domenica 17 aprile

2011-04-16 Thread Stefano Pallicca
Buongiorno a tutti! Non mi pare sia passato questo topic in lista, quindi lo riporto, come richiesto nella ML inglese: Domenica 17 inizia la terza fase del cambio di licenza. Più informazioni (in inglese) qui [1] Questa fase interessa solo coloro che non hanno ancora accettato la odbl. In pratica

Re: [Talk-it] Simone Cortesi (news)

2011-04-16 Thread Alessandro Rubini
I meant as in yes please find him not yes we have found him I found him: living nearby I looked for his place and found his family. They made me talk with him at the phone: he had some health issues that he wants to keep private, but he's well and will be back soon. /alessandro

[Talk-it] WMS Toscana

2011-04-16 Thread alberto bonati
Salve a tutti. Non riesco più a visualizzare su JOSM il WMS della Regione Toscana, Il servizio funziona benissimo su altri GIS e funzionava tempo fa anche su JOSM ma ora mi continua a dare errore. Ho aggiornato JOSM ma nulla da fare Qualcuno ne sa qualcosa? Ciao Alberto

Re: [Talk-it] WMS Toscana

2011-04-16 Thread Stefano Pallicca
Il 16/04/2011 14:23, alberto bonati ha scritto: Salve a tutti. Non riesco più a visualizzare su JOSM il WMS della Regione Toscana, Il servizio funziona benissimo su altri GIS e funzionava tempo fa anche su JOSM ma ora mi continua a dare errore. Ho provato ora e a me funziona, ho inserito

Re: [Talk-it] WMS Toscana

2011-04-16 Thread alberto bonati
Il 16/04/2011 14.50, Stefano Pallicca ha scritto: Il 16/04/2011 14:23, alberto bonati ha scritto: Salve a tutti. Non riesco più a visualizzare su JOSM il WMS della Regione Toscana, Il servizio funziona benissimo su altri GIS e funzionava tempo fa anche su JOSM ma ora mi continua a dare errore.

Re: [Talk-it] mapping party montagna

2011-04-16 Thread Federico Cozzi
2011/4/15 Fabri erfab...@gmail.com: Per i mappatori del centro italia, sarebbe bello farne uno in Abruzzo, ci sono zone ancora mappate scarsamente. Ad esempio al parco Silente-Velino, i cui confini sono ancora da disegnare su osm. Si potrebbe anche tentare di fare due mapping party

[Talk-it] Votazione New proposal: water=*

2011-04-16 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
Inoltro la votazione per acqua: Since there were no comments for the last week, I've initiated a voting on the water=* proposal. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details IZ ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-it] mapping party montagna

2011-04-16 Thread Francesco Ferri
Il 16/04/2011 18:32, Federico Cozzi ha scritto: 2011/4/15 Fabrierfab...@gmail.com: Per i mappatori del centro italia, sarebbe bello farne uno in Abruzzo, ci sono zone ancora mappate scarsamente. Ad esempio al parco Silente-Velino, i cui confini sono ancora da disegnare su osm. Si potrebbe

Re: [Talk-at] landuse-pletschn über linz

2011-04-16 Thread wolfbert
Boris Cornet borisC@... writes: Braucht man bei zweiterem area=yes? Und was sagen dann die dogmatiker, die landuse + area als schlimmsten anzunehmenden Fehler ansehen? Ich vermute mal, dass sich das auf mich bezieht... Was Dogmatiker angeht, das können wir in einem anderen Thread

Re: [Talk-at] landuse-pletschn über linz

2011-04-16 Thread Andreas Labres
On 16.04.11 12:03, wolfbert wrote: - lt. Wiki (ich weiss, ich wiederhole mich) ist place=suburb auch für Flächen gedacht (ist ja naheliegend), area=yes daher IMHO redundant. Theoretisch könnte man vielleicht drauf verzichten, praktisch isses wichtig, bei place=* (also für alles, das osm2pgsql

Re: [Talk-at] landuse-pletschn über linz

2011-04-16 Thread Paul K.
Hallo! Da kann man keine genaue Grenze angeben zwischen Breitensee und Hütteldorf oder zwischen Hadersdorf und Mariabrunn und Weidlingau, man kann keine Gebietsfläche zeichnen, das wäre immer Phantasie... Doch, das kann (könnte) man - zumindest kannst du auf

Re: [Talk-at] landuse-pletschn über linz

2011-04-16 Thread Andreas Labres
On 16.04.11 12:40, Paul K. wrote: Doch, das kann (könnte) man - zumindest kannst du auf http://www.wien.gv.at/flaechenwidmung/public/ die Grenzen zwischen den Katastralgemeinden einblenden! Ok, die Katastralgemeinden könnte man abbilden. Da ist dann halt Mariabrunn bei Hadersdorf dabei.

Re: [Talk-at] landuse-pletschn über linz

2011-04-16 Thread Andreas Labres
und etwas hatte ich vorhin grade übersehen: Katastralgemeinden sind ja eine administrative Einteilung, sowas gehört wieder als boundary=administrative abgebildet, finde ich (und das reicht dann beschriftungstechnisch ja auch). Servus, Andreas -- SotM-EU 15.-17. Juli 2011 in Wien:

Re: [Talk-at] landuse-pletschn über linz

2011-04-16 Thread Andreas Labres
Hallo Wolfbert! Das ist das grundsätzliche Problem, daß ein Wiki eben ein Wiki ist, da stehen halt (allzu oft) Wunschvorstellungen drin. Drum ist es eben nicht zu empfehlen, das Wiki als Dogma zu nehmen... ;) OSM beinhaltet immer Redundanz, das ist nie schlecht. Grade bei Beschriftungen sind

  1   2   >