Re: [OSM-newbies] Proposal to close newbies@ list

[Phil Monger]

With respect, the notion that there's a group of people who can contribute to 
osm edits but can't click a url is a little far fetched. 
It's not 1999 anymore, the overwhelming majority of people using email are 
doing so from a Web interface anyway, and most newbies are doing edits in their 
browser. 


P

> On 12 Jan 2016, at 12:01, Dorine Flies  wrote:
> 
> I think there exists a presumption that "everyone" has access to the sites 
> and portals mention, this presumption is not wholly accurate and additionally 
> the ability to read and navigate online is a challenge still for many, where 
> a direct question here would help to keep them engaged, rather than disengage 
> for want of a simple way to find an answer.
> 
> I was particularly struck when I attended the London meetup at just how 
> diverse the group was in age range, one lady while competent once taught, 
> step by step the how to, I would argue would have found the web content a 
> challenge, as with web content the presumption is that you know what you are 
> looking for in the first place. 
> 
> From my perspective what I see as the issue of being "underwhelm" here is 
> more a case that no one is signposting newbies to the list at a localised 
> level rather than that there is no need for it.
> 
>  
> 
>   
> EPIK
> about.me/dorine_flies
>   
>  
> 
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Dave F.  wrote:
>>> On 12/01/2016 08:26, Xan wrote:
>>> The only reason about maintaining that is because, in my opinion, the 
>>> help.openstreetmap.org answers are shorter than here in the mailing list. 
>>> Here the newbies have very deep explanation of things and in help.OSM just 
>>> a short message.
>> 
>> Those that help here will more than likely transfer to the other sites & 
>> where they will give their long answers.
>> 
>>> But close if you are overwheelmed.
>> 
>> I believe being 'underwhelmed' is the reason for the proposal.
>> 
>> Dave F.
>> 
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> newbies mailing list
>> newbies@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
> 
> ___
> newbies mailing list
> newbies@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
___
newbies mailing list
newbies@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies

Re: [OSM-newbies] Low detail datagrab?

[Phil Monger]

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for the help.

Is there anyway of applying this to the whole of Western Europe? The area I
need is larger than 100 degrees squared!

Thanks,

Phil

On 29 June 2010 11:28, Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.ukwrote:

  On 29/06/2010 11:12, Phil Monger wrote:


 Is there a simple way of just extracting certain tags? The idea would be,
 mostly, to keep the amount of data down!

  XAPI can return data with particular tags. See
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/XAPI for more info.



 ___
 newbies mailing list
 newbies@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies

___
newbies mailing list
newbies@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies

Re: [OSM-newbies] newbies Digest, Vol 37, Issue 32

[Phil Monger]

You're right. Also, by your logic, the following industries are UK taxpayer
subsidised :

- Construction
- UK Car industry
- US Car industry
- Japanese Car industry
- Microsoft (the parallels between the relationship between MS and councils
is very close to that of the OS and councils)
- Nokia
- Apple
- British Telecom
- Virgin Media / Telewest
- Hewlett Packard
- Travel Lodge
- McDonalds

 and I'm spent. I could quite literally go on forever.

I'll end this on the final note : The *commercial decisions* made by a
branch of government as to their *spending *does not constitute a tax-payer
*subsidy*. A subsidy is seen as a *legally contracted package of financial
assistance* NOT where they buy their maps, cars or phones from, whatever
the reason. Make all the allegories you want. It's just flat out wrong.

(also ... .heeding the notice of earlier - please, if you must continue, do
so in talk-gb)

On 25 March 2010 18:37, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:

 Phil Monger wrote:
  Again Dave, cause and effect are two different things. Just because a
  council choose to give the OS their data does not mean they *have to*
  - they could just as well say f*** you and give the data to OSM.

 You've obviously got a weak argument as you're shifting your position.

 Whether or not they have to is irrelevant. The fact is they are  are
 therefore the OS is receiving income from taxes, which disproves your
 original point.

 ___
 newbies mailing list
 newbies@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies

___
newbies mailing list
newbies@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies

Re: [OSM-newbies] newbies Digest, Vol 37, Issue 32

[Phil Monger]

Steve - The OS gets its money from local councils and other agencies

No, no they don't. That's exactly what I'm referring to. They haven't done
this in YEARS since they were mandated to be an independently funded
organisation. Do a little research.

The OS are a 'trading fund' and are required to cover *all* their costs by
selling product AND have to give a certain amount of this *to the taxpayer*
to cover the administration of them (as they are a civilian executive
agency).

Just glance at the UK budget and you will see there are *no fund* allocated
to Ordnance Survey.

Phil

On 24 March 2010 17:22, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:


 On Mar 23, 2010, at 8:22 PM, Phil Monger wrote:

  Steve Doerr - I don't think I understand your point?
 
  As had already been pointed out the OS are not tax funded. They act like
 any other company within the UK making and selling a product. They have done
 so for 11 years.
 
  The whole campaign has been driven ahead by the public's anger over
 having to pay for the mapping my taxes produced - when in fact no such
 situation exists.
 
  But hey, leading on the ignorance is politics, right?


 The OS gets its money from local councils and other agencies, who get their
 money from the UK taxpayer. Just saying that because it's indirect that it's
 not really tax money is short sighted, and playing along with the OS's own
 propaganda.


  On 21 March 2010 19:56, Steve Doerr steve.do...@blueyonder.co.uk
 wrote:
  On 20/03/2010 13:34, Mike Harris wrote:
 
   It might be worth bearing in mind that - thanks in part from the
   pressures exerted by excellent projects such as OSM - the UK government
   and the OS are in the process of considerably liberalising their
   position on what may and what may not be done by taxpayers (who have
   already funded both the OS and the Highway Authority!)
 
  Fallacious argument. Virtually every adult in the UK is a taxpayer,
  whereas hardly anyone is an OSM mapper. When the OS sells its products
  to an individual taxpayer, it is a case of 'the many' selling to 'the
  few': everyone pays for the OS, but only a few use its products, so it's
  only fair that the few should compensate the many for the investment
  they've made.
 
  --
  Steve
 
 
  ___
  newbies mailing list
  newbies@openstreetmap.org
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
 
  ___
  newbies mailing list
  newbies@openstreetmap.org
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies

 Yours c.

 Steve


 ___
 newbies mailing list
 newbies@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies

___
newbies mailing list
newbies@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies

Re: [OSM-newbies] newbies Digest, Vol 37, Issue 32

[Phil Monger]

Oh really, guys. You can have the big-bad monopoly argument if you want, but
it's terribly off-base.

Councils *are not forced* to buy OS mapping. Not even slightly.

Firstly, there have been, and are, alternatives to OS mapping. UKMap (Google
it) is one such example of an alternative to the large scale product
councils can use that are nothing to do with the OS.

Furthermore, council demands on OS mapping are internally constructed - they
decided that the only thing they will accept as mapping is OS mapping, and
ergo that's where their money goes.
To liken paying council tax to directly funding the OS is like saying
filling your car with petrol directly supports terrorism. You're confusing
cause  effect. There are a chain of events within that simply cannot be
passed aside by your trite argument.
The councils chose to buy OS mapping because they're either too lazy or too
ignorant to the alternatives. Or simply, their requirements for such are
ludicrously stringent.

You do not need 1:1250 mapping at c.£150 a square kilometre to show where
schools are, yet they buy it anyway so they can indulge in the ridiculous
process of measuring school applications to the nearest *half a metre* from
the school door.

Finally, *no* OS data currently in use exists from a survey prior to 1999,
nor incidentally does their infrastructure, which was
completely up-heaved at the same time to make way for their new status.
Every means of obtaining OS product now available has been developed after
2002. *OS Mastermap, which equates to 90% of their total revenue, was
developed and launched between 2000 and 2001.*

Roughly 92-95% of OS revenue comes from largescale data (2500 and 1250
product and boundary information) of which Direct to OS business from LA's
accounts for about 25% - a figure that is dropping year on year as councils
wise up to better ways of doing business (such as training personnel to use
GIS systems and maintain their own mapping of the local area). Other maps,
such as their entire paper range, constitute a tiny amount of revenue
because after retailers have taken their 50% the maps are sold near enough
at cost. (A reason the OS is currently in the process of withdrawing a lot
of these maps as funding to supersede them is missing). Quite on the
contrary, although the LAs may be paying the OS a lot of money, they are
paying them a *LOT* less than they should be - the direct from OS channel is
heavily subsidised in favour of the councils.

Many, many councils are investing their funds in mapping systems that look
beyond OS mapping - or make use of free mapping made available through their
openspace API to create their own systems. Heck, some boroughs of London are
even making statements about the usefulness of OSM mapping, and how it
should be used in schools.

You can level a huge number of complaints against the OS (such as the
incredible amount of money wasted on internal bureaucracy, their
dis-interest in adding value to mapping) but to claim that the OS are
tax-funded either through the taxpayer directly or through mandated
requirements for their services completely lacks an understanding of the
situation the LA's or the OS themselves are in today.

On 24 March 2010 18:49, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:


 On Mar 24, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Phil Monger wrote:

  Steve - The OS gets its money from local councils and other agencies
 
  No, no they don't. That's exactly what I'm referring to. They haven't
 done this in YEARS since they were mandated to be an independently funded
 organisation. Do a little research.

 I did. I did a FOIA request of my local and borough council and found out
 how much money they spend on the OS. You can find it on the wiki.

  The OS are a 'trading fund' and are required to cover *all* their costs
 by selling product AND have to give a certain amount of this *to the
 taxpayer* to cover the administration of them (as they are a civilian
 executive agency).
 
  Just glance at the UK budget and you will see there are *no fund*
 allocated to Ordnance Survey.

 you're just prevaricating, sorry.



 
  Phil
 
  On 24 March 2010 17:22, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
 
  On Mar 23, 2010, at 8:22 PM, Phil Monger wrote:
 
   Steve Doerr - I don't think I understand your point?
  
   As had already been pointed out the OS are not tax funded. They act
 like any other company within the UK making and selling a product. They have
 done so for 11 years.
  
   The whole campaign has been driven ahead by the public's anger over
 having to pay for the mapping my taxes produced - when in fact no such
 situation exists.
  
   But hey, leading on the ignorance is politics, right?
 
 
  The OS gets its money from local councils and other agencies, who get
 their money from the UK taxpayer. Just saying that because it's indirect
 that it's not really tax money is short sighted, and playing along with the
 OS's own propaganda.
 
 
   On 21 March 2010 19:56, Steve Doerr steve.do...@blueyonder.co.uk

Re: [OSM-newbies] newbies Digest, Vol 37, Issue 32

[Phil Monger]

The field boundaries on 25k maps are a derivative layer based on the larger
scale surveys - they come from data from as recently as 2009 and not older
than 2002. The problem is, if they change (and are not reported) and such a
change is not visible from an aerial survey, the lines won't move. They're
inaccurate rather than just old. This happens very easily when a hedge or
fence is removed but a ditch (or even just a grass row) creates what looks
like the same boundary on the map. Strictly speaking, a line on a 25k map is
a linear topographical feature and they implicitly state on the bottom
that they should not be seen as field boundaries. Field surveys went out a
long time ago. (they used to all be numbered, with their exact acreage
recorded).

Having said that, it all depends on where you are. When I led a geological
project in the Mendips we found that the field boundary lines were
completely invaluable - only a couple were out and it was clear why - wire
fences! Nearly all were exactly right.

The issue of footpaths on OS maps is about as contentious as they come. Soon
as anyone marks one on (council supplied data, included) a land owner
protests it. Arguing that although the land is 'access granted' they have
the right not to have their land advertised as a recreational site, and it
goes on ...
Even some of the National Trails aren't marked as there are access disputes.

The green lines on OS maps are therefore typically only marked where the
walkway is a clear physical path between two sections of land. Infrequently
do they cross land (even though in many cases they do, with rights to do
such.) Anything else is given the ambiguous dotted line and the title
track.

Again Dave, cause and effect are two different things. Just because a
council choose to give the OS their data does not mean they *have to* - they
could just as well say f*** you and give the data to OSM.

Unfortunately councils are just ill-informed. Surely, if nothing else, OSM
is here to spread it's message and it's ethos? Why not ask your council for
the data once it's done? Or would that be creating a subsidised fork of OSM?
Would we notice? Would anyone care? It's a ludicrous position.

On 24 March 2010 23:06, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:

 Phil Monger wrote:
  Finally, *no* OS data currently in use exists from a survey prior to 1999

 I'm not sure of an exact age but the field boundaries shown on 1:25k
 maps are well over 11 years old. They are hideously out of date.

 My local council is paying a surveying team to walk all the paths in
 their jurisdiction to create a definitive map which they will then pass
 on to the OS *at no charge*. The OS therefore *do* receive subsidisation
 from the taxpayer.

 Dave F.


 ___
 newbies mailing list
 newbies@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies

___
newbies mailing list
newbies@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies

Re: [OSM-newbies] newbies Digest, Vol 37, Issue 32

[Phil Monger]

Steve Doerr - I don't think I understand your point?

As had already been pointed out the OS are *not tax funded*. They act like
any other company within the UK making and selling a product. They have done
so for 11 years.

The whole campaign has been driven ahead by the public's anger over having
to pay for the mapping my taxes produced - when in fact no such situation
exists.

But hey, leading on the ignorance is politics, right?

On 21 March 2010 19:56, Steve Doerr steve.do...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:

 On 20/03/2010 13:34, Mike Harris wrote:

  It might be worth bearing in mind that - thanks in part from the
  pressures exerted by excellent projects such as OSM - the UK government
  and the OS are in the process of considerably liberalising their
  position on what may and what may not be done by taxpayers (who have
  already funded both the OS and the Highway Authority!)

 Fallacious argument. Virtually every adult in the UK is a taxpayer,
 whereas hardly anyone is an OSM mapper. When the OS sells its products
 to an individual taxpayer, it is a case of 'the many' selling to 'the
 few': everyone pays for the OS, but only a few use its products, so it's
 only fair that the few should compensate the many for the investment
 they've made.

 --
 Steve


 ___
 newbies mailing list
 newbies@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies

___
newbies mailing list
newbies@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies

Re: [OSM-newbies] Fwd: Re: Re: Footpaths again

[Phil Monger]

I have a lot of experience with OS copyright - and the gist goes like this.
If you *needed to use the map* to locate or sort through the information,
public data or not, then your work is derivative and OS have an IPR interest
in that data.

So, if you are using the map to find and locate access land, street names
(or anything else) your work is derivative. If you could have done the task
without the map, and nothing else to replace it (like simply marking
coordinates *without reference to the base map* you have recorded) then your
work is non-derivative.

On 19 March 2010 22:48, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:

 On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 3:04 PM, James Ewen ve6...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  So you would not be able to reference the information contained on the
  maps from the Highway Authority, if they are under a copyright.
 
  The location of the path is not copyright, but you can't copy the
  locations off the map.
 
  The name of the path isn't copyright, but you can't copy the name off
 the map.
 
  Incorrect, you are perfectly allowed to retrieve any non-copyrighted
  information from a copyrighted source. Getting all the information
  from a single copyrighted source usually will be covered under
  collection copyright, but getting single pieces of information, or
  even a number of them, is allowed.

 You are incorrect in the context of OpenStreetMap and this newbies list.

 The OpenStreetMap project does not permit copying anything from
 copyright-protected materials into OpenStreetMap.  You might, in some
 jurisdictions, be able to argue that copying a single point of
 information from a source is fine, but that is not that case in OSM.
 We have decided that we will not do that and that it is unacceptable
 in our community.  We wish to stay cleaner than clean with respect
 to copyright and with respect to respecting the rights of those who
 publish other maps. Just as we expect them you respect our license and
 rights.

 The single point of data from a map is okay argument can not be used
 in regards to OSM, as we are a community of 100s of thousands.  We're
 each member to make this single point breach, it might look to a
 copyright holder, like systematic copying.

 To be clear.  Copying data from encumbered sources is not okay.  We
 don't do that in the OpenStreetMap community.

 ___
 newbies mailing list
 newbies@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies

___
newbies mailing list
newbies@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies