Re: [Talk-us] Requesting to remove stoplines in San Jose

2017-09-20 Thread Vivek Bansal 
Hey Peter,

I'd like to first say I didn't really know what your account was doing when
I saw those stop_lines, but I certainly see some value in them now.  I hope
your company stays engaged and keeps contributing to OpenStreetMap!

I think there is more value in having the ways re-tagged than having them
deleted.  I think one of the important things is that the road_marking ways
should be joined to any relevant intersecting ways (probably highways) with
a node (utilsplugin2 should help).

-Vivek



On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:12 AM peter flier  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> This being my first post to this list, I hope it has gotten through. As
> Vivek has mentioned, we have a productive discussion about how best to
> address the digitization of stoplines and the havoc my approach has wrought
> upon all of you.
>
> First, let me say I am sorry that my initial incursion into the new
> feature type was so categorically disruptive to people's workflows. I had
> attempted to propose this feature as a free to the public service my
> company was going to be providing as a secondary result of our work. I
> scoured OSM for a proper feature type that could be used for this purpose
> and found nothing that quite lined up (pun intended!), so I proposed my own
> and moved forward with it. It was only afterwards that I was informed of
> the experimental road_marking feature type which would encompass nearly all
> of the stop lines I would be adding.
>
> If there are no objections to the re-tagging of these ways, I will move
> things over in bulk through JOSM and add future stop lines under the
> "road_marking= solid_stop_line" pairing.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Uploading sidewalks in San Jose, California, US

2017-09-20 Thread Vivek Bansal 
Stevea,

Thanks for the comments.  I don't think i'll ever be able to say the word
"license" again.

-Vivek

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:18 AM Minh Nguyen 
wrote:

> On 19/09/2017 23:44, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
> > Vivek Bansal <3viv...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> We are using the San Jose data which has an ODbL compliant license (and
> any government data in California has the same).
> >
> > I'm following the San José discussion and don't wish to get too
> technically legal:  I am not an attorney, though I have paid attention to
> the legal situation with state (of California) produced geo data and how
> our state "Open Data/Open Records" laws plus two fairly recent California
> Supreme Court decisions make state-published data roughly if not
> essentially equivalent to public domain.  These legal circumstances taken
> together with OSM's ODBL result in "be free to use the data, OSM, they are
> ODbL compliant."  It isn't exactly correct to use the word "license" in how
> California publishes geo data.  It IS correct that such data are "ODBL
> compliant."  It isn't a license that grants this, it is case law or stare
> decisis (Latin for "let the decision stand") which confirm such data
> published by the state comply with both statutory law (California Public
> Records Act, CPRA) and California's state constitution.  The bottom line is
> "the data are ODbL compliant" though it isn't via "license."
>
> Yes, we're aware of County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment
> Coalition as it relates to the CPRA. The wiki page describing the import
> [1] currently states the source data's _copyright status_ as being in
> the public domain, steering clear of the term "license". Hopefully
> that'll be clear enough for the purposes of this import project.
>
> > From an OSM perspective, I suppose it can be said we are fortunate to
> have as much state (of California) published geo data available to us as we
> do; I certainly am grateful for these circumstances!
>
> Well said -- as someone who also maps in states with more restrictive
> copyright laws, it's been refreshing to be able to say "public domain",
> end of story.
>
> [1]
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County,_California/San_Jose_Sidewalk_Import
>
> --
> m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Gathering opinions on organized editing

2017-09-20 Thread Martijn van Exel 
Hi US / CA mappers, 

The OSMF Data Working Group is currently conducting a community survey on 
‘organized editing’. It would be great if as many of you as possible could give 
them feedback. You can find the full post and a discussion thread here: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2017-September/078726.html 


The survey is here:
https://osm-dwg.limequery.org/741554 

I hope you can all take the time to help the DWG and OSMF out; the results will 
guide a future OSMF policy on this topic. You are also more than welcome to 
join the discussion on talk@ or here. 

Best,
Martijn___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Requesting to remove stoplines in San Jose

2017-09-20 Thread peter flier 
Hello everyone,

This being my first post to this list, I hope it has gotten through. As
Vivek has mentioned, we have a productive discussion about how best to
address the digitization of stoplines and the havoc my approach has wrought
upon all of you.

First, let me say I am sorry that my initial incursion into the new feature
type was so categorically disruptive to people's workflows. I had attempted
to propose this feature as a free to the public service my company was
going to be providing as a secondary result of our work. I scoured OSM for
a proper feature type that could be used for this purpose and found nothing
that quite lined up (pun intended!), so I proposed my own and moved forward
with it. It was only afterwards that I was informed of the experimental
road_marking feature type which would encompass nearly all of the stop
lines I would be adding.

If there are no objections to the re-tagging of these ways, I will move
things over in bulk through JOSM and add future stop lines under the
"road_marking= solid_stop_line" pairing.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Uploading sidewalks in San Jose, California, US

2017-09-20 Thread Minh Nguyen 

On 19/09/2017 23:44, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

Vivek Bansal <3viv...@gmail.com> writes:

We are using the San Jose data which has an ODbL compliant license (and any 
government data in California has the same).


I'm following the San José discussion and don't wish to get too technically legal:  I am not an attorney, though I have paid attention to the legal 
situation with state (of California) produced geo data and how our state "Open Data/Open Records" laws plus two fairly recent California 
Supreme Court decisions make state-published data roughly if not essentially equivalent to public domain.  These legal circumstances taken together 
with OSM's ODBL result in "be free to use the data, OSM, they are ODbL compliant."  It isn't exactly correct to use the word 
"license" in how California publishes geo data.  It IS correct that such data are "ODBL compliant."  It isn't a license that 
grants this, it is case law or stare decisis (Latin for "let the decision stand") which confirm such data published by the state comply 
with both statutory law (California Public Records Act, CPRA) and California's state constitution.  The bottom line is "the data are ODbL 
compliant" though it isn't via "license."


Yes, we're aware of County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment 
Coalition as it relates to the CPRA. The wiki page describing the import 
[1] currently states the source data's _copyright status_ as being in 
the public domain, steering clear of the term "license". Hopefully 
that'll be clear enough for the purposes of this import project.



From an OSM perspective, I suppose it can be said we are fortunate to have as 
much state (of California) published geo data available to us as we do; I 
certainly am grateful for these circumstances!


Well said -- as someone who also maps in states with more restrictive 
copyright laws, it's been refreshing to be able to say "public domain", 
end of story.


[1] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County,_California/San_Jose_Sidewalk_Import


--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Uploading sidewalks in San Jose, California, US

2017-09-20 Thread OSM Volunteer stevea 
Vivek Bansal <3viv...@gmail.com> writes:
> We are using the San Jose data which has an ODbL compliant license (and any 
> government data in California has the same).

I'm following the San José discussion and don't wish to get too technically 
legal:  I am not an attorney, though I have paid attention to the legal 
situation with state (of California) produced geo data and how our state "Open 
Data/Open Records" laws plus two fairly recent California Supreme Court 
decisions make state-published data roughly if not essentially equivalent to 
public domain.  These legal circumstances taken together with OSM's ODBL result 
in "be free to use the data, OSM, they are ODbL compliant."  It isn't exactly 
correct to use the word "license" in how California publishes geo data.  It IS 
correct that such data are "ODBL compliant."  It isn't a license that grants 
this, it is case law or stare decisis (Latin for "let the decision stand") 
which confirm such data published by the state comply with both statutory law 
(California Public Records Act, CPRA) and California's state constitution.  The 
bottom line is "the data are ODbL compliant" though it isn't via "license."

Let's not get sloppy with how we understand "ODbL" or use the word "license" 
when to do so isn't quite correct.  Yet let's not get too legally onerous, or 
nit-picky, either.  Juust right, enough said.  Vivek, please understand I'm 
not "barking hard" at you:  you are correct to use the data, I simply notice a 
little smudge using the word "license" here.  I feel a need to type this:  
maybe one more person gets a sharper focus on how state Open Data laws in the 
US can and do work for OSM (yay!) and we converse about that with rather 
precise verbiage.

The Code for San José orientation might briefly explain to participants how 
this all works:  California (public agency produced) geo data rather neatly 
comply with ODbL in a nice straight path springing from CPRA and stare decisis, 
which neatly mesh with ODbL — it's pretty cool if you enjoy the intricacies of 
legal stuff like copyright and license compliance.  From an OSM perspective, I 
suppose it can be said we are fortunate to have as much state (of California) 
published geo data available to us as we do; I certainly am grateful for these 
circumstances!

Thanks for reading,
SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us