On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com> wrote:
> I think it's high time this was done. IMO, OCM should be removed from > the main map options asked persuasively to rename themselves as they're > not really open, are they? I'll ask you for one favour - when you are talking about me, please call me "Andy" and not some facessless entity. Not only is it polite, but it also makes things seem less hostile. As for the name, it was originally "The OpenStreetMap Cycle Map" and I pondered long and hard on the use of the word "The" in the title since that sounded a bit exclusive. Eventually I gave up worrying about it since there actually only *was* one OpenStreetMap-based cycling map and there's more important things in life to get on with. Then I wanted to move it out of my personal domain and the host I'd just signed up to gave me a free domain name with the package, so I tried www.ocm.org (as in the _OpenStreetMap _Cycle _Map) but of course it was taken so I setted for www.opencyclemap.org instead. It's a nice title for what it always has been, a cycle map based on OpenStreetMap data, and a daft play on the title of OpenStreetMap itself. And I started a trend, since many other projects based on OpenStreetMap data have since called themselves OpenWhateverMap too, and it's a shorthand for showing that these projects are based on OpenStreetMap in a geeky in-joke kind of way. But in the recent "discussions" on these lists nobody has actually enquired as to the meaning behind the name - nobody has asked me anything about it. Instead, people have invented their own false meanings behind it (that it's claiming to be open-source when it isn't), and then used those false meanings to go as far as petition me to change the name of my project, purely because they think it means something that it doesn't and they don't like it!? Unbelievable. Please, discussions should be as factual as we can make them, not based on rumours and myths. And I'm here and willing to answer questions *when asked*. On the subject of whether it's on the front-page of osm.org or not, again I think people who don't know the reasons behind it have invented their own (well, certainly nobody asked me for the truth). I agreed that it could be added, and that I would find a way to cover the costs (considerably more now than when I agreed to it), because it was a great example of the possibilities of OpenStreetMap data. It's not there to promote opencyclemap.org, as others have suggested - if it was, then wouldn't that theory be more plausible if there was a link, or even the name of the layer was "opencyclemap"? Sheesh. It's there to show off Open*Street*Map, to inspire people as to the possibilities of single-purpose custom renderings, and to show that OSM can be used with height data (an unsurprisingly common question). If you were to *ask me* about the front page, I'd want to see other layers being added - öpvnkarte for starters - but there are still few people willing/able to make global layers and find the (financial) resources to make them available. Calling on removing the cycle map layer - not because it sucks, not because it brings the project into disrepute, not because it can't handle the load, but instead purely because you have a difference of opinion on how important it is to have access to the stylesheets - well, that's the biggest case of cutting your nose off to spite your face that I've seen in a long while. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
