Ben if I read this right then you're hiding the users from OSM and we'll see a stream of edits from NearMap which are actually from multiple users. This is why CM/matt/others built the OAuth code so that mapzen etc didn't do that, because it's horrific.
The reason is pretty simple - the first line of copyright defense if we get an email from TeleAtlas Legal saying 'user NearMap copied our data' is that we will remove _all_ NearMap data. We don't have many other options as we don't have any money to fight and we are the infringer as the publisher. If you don't believe me, go ask a lawyer. There are lots of other reasons. I suggest you rethink. Steve stevecoast.com On Aug 5, 2010, at 1:13 AM, Ben Last wrote: > On 5 August 2010 14:44, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > You're trying to remove two "barriers" at the same time, both quite unrelated: > 1. The barrier of users having to sign up to OSM; > 2. The barrier of a (supposedly) complicated editing process. > An interesting take on it :) But I disagree that these are not related. > Right now, you need to do 1 in order to do any edits, so it's not negotiable. > So you can't implement a better editor without users facing the barrier of > signup. We could build a better editor for users who are already signed up > with OSM, but that's a very small subset of the user population we're aimed > at, and I'm not sure that most OSM users want a simpler editor. > > Think of it as a use case; someone is happily using NearMap and finds that a > street they know well isn't named (this happens a lot). All they want is to > be able to quickly fix that. At that point in time, from their point of > view, given that this is almost certainly a side-issue to whatever they're > trying to do, the signup barrier is a really big deal. They don't care about > OSM, they don't care about mapping, they don't want to join an OSM community. > We have a small window of opportunity to have them help out before they lose > interest and motivation. So our starting point is that it has to be as easy > as possible for them to contribute. > > If we at OSM had an editor available that was easier than everything else we > can offer, we'd surely have put it up on the web site some time ago - but we > don't have one. So your effort and money on that front are surely welcome. > Actually... I'm not sure you would :) My reasoning is thus; OSM members are > interested in mapping, and relish the power of JOSM or Potlatch (I do > myself). You don't want a simpler editor, you want one that helps you do OSM > mapping. The motivations and interests of the "average user" community are > very different, and that drives the definition of "easier". > > I think the problem with your suggestion is that you're offering your help > only in the form of a package (1+2). > That's true; we do have valid reasons for doing that (well, we think they're > valid). We can't solve 1, because we don't run the OSM website, nor is there > a defined way in which we can help users sign up with some degree of > assurance that someone won't rework openstreetmap.org and break integration > with our site. We can do something to solve 2, but as expressed above, we > see 1 as a big barrier. If, as you suggest, there were a way to use openid > so that the OSM site could authenticate against our user database (or any > other openid one), then it wouldn't even be an issue; we'd just submit edits > with openid authentication. Or build a Facebook app so that both OSM and > NearMap could let a user sign in with their Facebook credentials :) I can > hear some people cringing, but there's a much bigger percentage of our users > who are on Facebook than are on OSM. > > Yes there would be an added burden for your users if you dropped "1", but > would that really be such a problem? One signup page, one E-Mail > confirmation, and then click "ok" for the OAuth page. How often does the > modern Internet user do that every day? > Given enough motivation, sure, people will sign up. But if the only reason > for signing up is to fix something that they think should be right in the > first place... not so much. > > If you were to decide to actually send your users to create an account with > OSM, you'd also be saving time because you would no longer have to be the > middle man in community communication. And if this is a factor for you, you > could still retain whatever rights you want on the content submitted by the > user, by way of their agreement with NearMap. > We save ourselves time at the expense of making it more work for our users. > Not really what we want to do. We're not interested in rights in the edits > (in fact, we have some rights anyway because those edits are derived from our > PhotoMaps and therefore we must be able to use them under CC-BY-SA). The > primary motivation here is to make the OSM data more usable, as fast as > possible. > > But having said that, if the response from OSM is "you need to make your > users sign up", then maybe we have no choice and we'll have to rework what > we've built. The problem I have right now is that I see conflicting advice > from people who are all part of the OSM community - there is no single answer > here. > > Cheers > b > > -- > Ben Last > Development Manager (HyperWeb) > NearMap Pty Ltd > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
