Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: incompatibility issues
On 2 Mar 2009, at 07:38, Gustav Foseid wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Not so, it turns out; the Produced Work freedom allows us to combine OSM data *only* with other data whose license does not prohibit the addition of constraints, because ODbL mandates that we add the reverse engineering leads to ODbL licensing rule. I do not read the ODbL this way. I read that only persons bound by the license/contract are prohibited from reverse engineering. Clarification here is needed. When we find an issue like this then lets document it on the wiki and move on to the next topic. We have identified at least two so far, 1) When is a 'DB and derived DB' and now 'what licensing applies to Produced Works and how does the 'no reverse engineering' clause work with PD images. - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: incompatibility issues
Hi, 80n wrote: I can imagine a scenario where, for example, Google uses Amazon's Mechanical Turk to pay lots of people to use Map Maker to trace from OSM's rendered tiles. Is this a scenario we could try to fight when it happens, instead of complicating things upfront, or would it be too late then? My opinion is that if OSM were non-changing, one could say we need to be cautions because once the data is leaked beyond our control then that's it. But since OSM is changing, and (IMHO) our database is worth little without the steady stream of changes, we can risk such a leak because we always have the power to cut off the updates and thus render the leaked data next to worthless after a short time. If we leave everything as it is (saying that Produced Works need to be accompanied by a rule that reverse engineering triggers ODbL - assuming for a moment that this is the license's intent, Gustav has rightly said that we should seek clarification on that), but we add a clause saying: This license explicitly allows the distribution of a Produced Work under any of the following licenses: GPL v2 or later, GFDL, CC-SA, CC-BY-SA, CC-BY-SA-NC. In addition, a Produced Work may be distributed under any other license that complies with the requirements set forth in this license. - then this would make it possible to create a Produced Work that mixes OSM data and, say, CC-BY-SA data; your above scenario would still be possible, but it should be reasonably unattractive for a commercial entity to spend a vast amount of money to finally have a collection of data that is CC-BY-SA or GFDL licensed. And if it should happen and be used for a purpose that we don't like then we simply create ODbL v1.1 which prohibits exactly that. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Who is ODC and why do we trust them?
On 2 Mar 2009, at 08:29, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Grant wrote in his announcement: ... Therefore, we have worked with the license authors and others to build a suitable home where a community and process can be built around it. Its new home is with the Open Data Commons http://www.opendatacommons.org.; snip The December 23 board meeting minutes say: No hosting option for the licence is currently available and therefore OSMF may need to host., which suggests that the ODC/OKFN idea is a relatively young one. The same meeting minutes also reported that all communications with Jordan [Hatcher] had broken down; it is good to see that this seemed to be temporary, but still this does not exactly give the impression that the ODC/OKFN connection is a well-thought-out and future-proof thing. Sounds more like clutching at straws as far as I'm concerned. I suggest we create a OSM wiki page for OpenDataCommons and also the Open Knoweldege Fundation and add what information we can gleen from our research to it. We will be getting our lawyer to look into this aspect of the license and will report when we know more. However the legal entity is Open Knowledge Foundation and the directors/ trustees there should be in charge of any changes. We probably need to know a lot more about that organisation and the people behind it. I do however think it looks like a very valuable organisation with a very useful initiative. Btw, we don't have any published minutes from the OSMF for Jan or Feb 09 yet so we have no visibility of what decisions they have been making which is a shame. I will email them and suggest that they publish them to help in this process. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: incompatibility issues
2009/3/2 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: 80n wrote: I can imagine a scenario where, for example, Google uses Amazon's Mechanical Turk to pay lots of people to use Map Maker to trace from OSM's rendered tiles. Is this a scenario we could try to fight when it happens, instead of complicating things upfront, or would it be too late then? My opinion is that if OSM were non-changing, one could say we need to be cautions because once the data is leaked beyond our control then that's it. But since OSM is changing, and (IMHO) our database is worth little without the steady stream of changes, we can risk such a leak because we always have the power to cut off the updates and thus render the leaked data next to worthless after a short time. this is valid for some portions of our data, while a lot of it will most likely not change but still is quite precious, e.g. housenumbers. Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Who is ODC and why do we trust them?
Peter Miller wrote: Sent: 02 March 2009 8:57 AM To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Who is ODC and why do we trust them? On 2 Mar 2009, at 08:29, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Grant wrote in his announcement: ... Therefore, we have worked with the license authors and others to build a suitable home where a community and process can be built around it. Its new home is with the Open Data Commons http://www.opendatacommons.org.; snip The December 23 board meeting minutes say: No hosting option for the licence is currently available and therefore OSMF may need to host., which suggests that the ODC/OKFN idea is a relatively young one. The same meeting minutes also reported that all communications with Jordan [Hatcher] had broken down; it is good to see that this seemed to be temporary, but still this does not exactly give the impression that the ODC/OKFN connection is a well-thought-out and future-proof thing. Sounds more like clutching at straws as far as I'm concerned. I suggest we create a OSM wiki page for OpenDataCommons and also the Open Knoweldege Fundation and add what information we can gleen from our research to it. We will be getting our lawyer to look into this aspect of the license and will report when we know more. However the legal entity is Open Knowledge Foundation and the directors/ trustees there should be in charge of any changes. We probably need to know a lot more about that organisation and the people behind it. I do however think it looks like a very valuable organisation with a very useful initiative. Btw, we don't have any published minutes from the OSMF for Jan or Feb 09 yet so we have no visibility of what decisions they have been making which is a shame. I will email them and suggest that they publish them to help in this process. The Jan meeting minutes will be up in the next few days. The February draft minutes will be made available when we have concluded the meeting, which was split in two halves, the second half is on Wednesday. Cheers Andy Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.5/1979 - Release Date: 03/01/09 17:46:00 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Who is ODC and why do we trust them?
On 2 Mar 2009, at 09:30, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: Btw, we don't have any published minutes from the OSMF for Jan or Feb 09 yet so we have no visibility of what decisions they have been making which is a shame. I will email them and suggest that they publish them to help in this process. The Jan meeting minutes will be up in the next few days. The February draft minutes will be made available when we have concluded the meeting, which was split in two halves, the second half is on Wednesday. Sounds good. Speed would be appreciated. Regards, Peter Cheers Andy http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A simplification of the agreement on the signup page.
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 11:30:41AM -0500, Russ Nelson wrote: Creative Commons license (by-sa). or under the ODbL. If you choose not to give us your email address, or your email address stops working, you waive all right to ownership of your edits. This needs a safeguard to allow for email addresses temporarily not working. I’m not even sure this is the right thing to do anyway. It’s far safer getting rid of a user’s data than it is assuming ownership of it. GPL-licenced Free Software projects can use two safeguards against losing track of contributors. Firstly, licencing code under Version X or later of the GPL. CC's licences include this option automatically in the licence itself as the upgrade clause. With the GPL, you trust that Stallman won't suddenly decide that the GPL needs to give everyone's code to Microsoft for their proprietary use, with the CC licences they explicitly state that the new licence must have only the same modules as the existing licence. Secondly, getting copyright assignments from contributors. I can't see OSM going for assignment (of whatever rights), but accepting contributions under version X or later of the licence would allow OSM to take advantage of version 5 of the ODbL to handle the WIPO Universal Database Copyright Act of 2030. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Concerns about ODbL
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:40 PM, jean-christophe.haes...@dianosis.org wrote: I found out recently about the license change issue, and I discover with fear that everything looks decided. I feel I'm being rushed. The licence discussion has been going on for a couple of *years* now. It needs resolving as soon as possible. But people have raised the issue of needing time for review, and possibly further review. I don't understand why an adoption plan has been put up while the very terms of the license are yet unsettled. If the licence isn't approved, adoption cannot go ahead. But if it is approved, it needs to happen as soon as possible so the project can move on. So this is good planning. How can the authors be so certain that no significant changes will need to be made after the comment phase? Changes would imply another comment phase on the new version. They cannot. If that is the case then another review phase should be added. And the licence can be rejected if it is not acceptable even after that. The time granted to read all the discussions, documents, wiki pages *and* understand them correctly is way too short. OSM is not a full-time occupation for many people. You can ask questions on this list to help with understanding of the licence (ours as well as yours). Moreover, after having read the proposed license text and some comments on wiki pages, I am under the impression that most of the participants in the discussion are public domain advocates and that they may use this license change to promote their views. While i respect these people, I do not share their opinions and I will not let OSM go PD. Granted, some texts claim it will not be the case (report from SOTM), but the current text of the ODbL raised my suspicion. Please correct if I misunderstood. Richard points out that the conversation on the list is currently dominated by freetards^D^Dcopyleft advocates. And the PD advocates may well do a better job of improving the licence by criticizing it, as they won't look at the licence with rose tinted spectacles on. * Waivers : thankfully I cannot legally waive my moral rights in my country, but I think it is unfair to require this form any person in the world. Of course I do not require that my name is printed on all OSM-generated maps, should they effectively contain data that I inserted in the DB. Being collectively acknowledged as OSM contributor is sufficient for me. But, I require that if someone wants to find out who are the precise people behind the data, this should be possible. To me, the current license text simply states that any person contributing data from a country where moral rights waivers are possible, may have their name completely deleted from the DB. As Frederik says, OSM exists to provide a free street map. Advertising contributors' names is a bug of BY-SA, not a feature. * Produced Works : as I understand, it will be possible to distribute a produced image map under any license, including all rights reserved. Therefore, if an editor produces good-looking maps with an unpublished process, the published maps will not even be usable in a SA manner, even if the editor used community resources at the root of its process. This sounds unacceptable to me. It's a pragmatic step to ensure that what users of free maps actually need (free maps generated using quality geodata) isn't denied by ensuring that the subject of copyleft in the wild is something else (low-resolution maps rendered from that data). - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Concerns about ODbL
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: OJ W wrote: the ability to create an uncopiable map image from OSM data does seem to have appeared in the ODbL license? You can create an image and (provided that your image is not a data base, a distinction that has not yet been resolved) restrict copying of the image. This is essential if we want to give users the chance to combine OSM material with other, more restrictively licensed material, into images or other products. Exactly, so the ODbL has a political choice to license OSM map images as PD (that can trivially be made uncopiable) where previously we guaranteed that all map images would be freely copiable. Whether this is essential hasn't been explained - it certainly isn't essential to the creation of free maps. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Concerns about ODbL
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:35 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: OJ W wrote: the ability to create an uncopiable map image from OSM data does seem to have appeared in the ODbL license? You can create an image and (provided that your image is not a data base, a distinction that has not yet been resolved) restrict copying of the image. This is essential if we want to give users the chance to combine OSM material with other, more restrictively licensed material, into images or other products. Exactly, so the ODbL has a political choice to license OSM map images as PD (that can trivially be made uncopiable) where previously we guaranteed that all map images would be freely copiable. Whether this is essential hasn't been explained - it certainly isn't essential to the creation of free maps. s/political/pragmatic/ The practical effect of the ODbL is to ensure that free maps are made from quality geodata and that users of free and non-free maps made from ODbL data have access to the data. Access to free maps is then a matter of ensuring that they are made and distributed, rather than a matter of trying to get the data. BY-SA doesn't ensure this. It's like the GPL without the requirement to provide source. A licence that means that your map may not be free but I can make you a free one is not absolutely convincing from a copyleft point of view. But from a pragmatic point of view, better guarantees of access to data that copyleft maps can and will be made from may be at least an acceptable compromise. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Concerns about ODbL
Hi, Jean-Christophe Haessig wrote: I surely understand that contributors’ names won’t disappear from OSM itself, however with that clause, someone might make a copy of the database, remove the names and redistribute it (only attributing to OSM), which will in effect disable the users of this copy to find out original contributors’ names. This is certainly true. Someone making a derived database can freely choose which elements to retain and which to remove. - We do not even tell people the names of all contributors (only the last person to edit the item is listed in the planet file). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] compatibility with CC licenses
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: There has been some discussion of adding a tag into the planet.osm header detailing that the data is licensed. Also adding some contract text on http://planet.openstreetmap.org/ to cover our non-eu-database-right friends. Take a closer look at the use case. The two first users (the one making the derived database and the one unzipping it on a FTP server) both distributed the license. The problem here is the direct link to the modified database and the CTO never seeing the license text. The first user could of course have put some kind of notice in the header, but then again he might not. - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] compatibility with CC licenses
Grant, Grant Slater wrote: There has been some discussion of adding a tag into the planet.osm header detailing that the data is licensed. Actually this is exactly what the license suggests: Quoting 4.2 (b) [You must] Include a copy of this Licence [...] or its Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) [...] both in the Database [...] and in any relevant documentation Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] compatibility with CC licenses
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Quoting 4.2 (b) [You must] Include a copy of this Licence [...] or its Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) [...] both in the Database [...] and in any relevant documentation Sorry, overlooked that. If this is in the planet.osm (or in my example planet-modified.osm), which is a machine readable file not intended for manual reading, will this be anything even close to a valid contract? - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Factual Information License and Produced Works?
80n schrieb: As far as I know there has been no attention paid to the FIL. It was grabbed at the last minute from here It doesn't look like it has been reviewed thoroughly (and the co-ment page seem to be password protected.) The requirement to include a copy of the license pretty much defeats the ODbL clause according to which a hyperlink is sufficient for a Produced Work. So an image description would read This image contains information from OpenStreetMap, which is made available here under the Open Database Licence (ODbL), followed by the 760 word Factual Information License. That would sort of work on a Wikipedia image description page, but a newspaper would probably rather use the space to print two or three other stories. The license should allow modification for any purpose, but they only mention modifying the Work as may be technically necessary to use it in a different mode or format. The disclaimer is different from the ODbL one. Either the ODbL disclaimer is unnecessarily verbose, or something is missing in this one. Also the license once uses Database where it should say Work, and capitalization for defined words is used inconsistently. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Concerns about ODbL
Le lundi 02 mars 2009 à 14:14 +0100, Frederik Ramm a écrit : No. If that were the case then OSM would have gone PD long ago and we would all be mapping happily instead of wasting our time trying to create freedom from the barrel of a license (kudos to JohnW for this phrase). Ok, I believe I just read comments at the wrong time: each time I followed a signature to an User page on the wiki, I found the PD banner. You misunderstood. The basic quality of OSM is that it is a database. If it were not a database it would be utterly useless (sit down for a minute and think of what you would do with OSM data that was not arranged in a database - you are unlikely to find anything). So we need a license for the fact that the data is collected into a database. That’s quite abstract, since every bit of real data would not be covered by the ODbL, but another (which one ?) license. [snip stuff about t-shirt example] I do not see where the license requires the data used to produce the Produced Work must be published under the ODbL. Quoting the ODbL : «4.3 Notice for using output (Data). Creating and Using a Produced Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice within, on, or as part of the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database and that the Database is available under this Licence.» It only states that the Produced Work must include a notice that the original data was obtained from : a. The Database (OSM), or b. a Derivative Database (author’s of PW copy, not public), or c. the Database (OSM), as part of a larger collection. And, the Produced Work must also add to that notice that the Database (OSM) is available under the ODbL. Nowhere can I read that the Derivative Database (if it exists) must be made public under the ODbL. JC signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Factual Information License and Produced Works?
I'd like to clarify the reason for two (2) licenses. The FIL is being considered for individual atoms of data, while the ODbL is being considered for major chunks of the database? Is this correct? Would it be helpful to: [1] Determine what is an atom that the FIL would apply to. [2] Determine what is a major chunk that the ODbL would apply to. I think this distinction is going to become important. Also, it seems the discussion would indicate that the FIL would only be needed in certain jurisdictions. Would it be helpful to clarify which jurisdictions would require the FIL to operate OSM as desired? (Or maybe it would be easier to list the jurisdictions in which we know the FIL would not be necessary.) It seems to me we often try to speak about different jurisdictions in general, when it might be helpful to discuss legal questions with specific jurisdictions in mind. The Sunburned Surveyor On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Ulf Möller use...@ulfm.de wrote: 80n schrieb: As far as I know there has been no attention paid to the FIL. It was grabbed at the last minute from here It doesn't look like it has been reviewed thoroughly (and the co-ment page seem to be password protected.) The requirement to include a copy of the license pretty much defeats the ODbL clause according to which a hyperlink is sufficient for a Produced Work. So an image description would read This image contains information from OpenStreetMap, which is made available here under the Open Database Licence (ODbL), followed by the 760 word Factual Information License. That would sort of work on a Wikipedia image description page, but a newspaper would probably rather use the space to print two or three other stories. The license should allow modification for any purpose, but they only mention modifying the Work as may be technically necessary to use it in a different mode or format. The disclaimer is different from the ODbL one. Either the ODbL disclaimer is unnecessarily verbose, or something is missing in this one. Also the license once uses Database where it should say Work, and capitalization for defined words is used inconsistently. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A simplification of the agreement on?the?signup page.
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 05:05:00AM +, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: This needs a safeguard to allow for email addresses temporarily not working. I’m not even sure this is the right thing to do anyway. It’s far safer getting rid of a user’s data than it is assuming ownership of it. Some day I die. Should I take my OSM data with me, or try to re-activate my e-mail account pretty soon then? Yes and no. You could change that by giving licence to OSM to do whatever they wish with your data after your death. Have you written your will yet? :) Or, you could indicate that you allow your data to be licensed as the OSM community sees fit now. This is really your choice, and not something to be forced by the licence. Much more idealistically, copyright and database right terms would be reduced and measured from the date of publication. Every work becomes public domain in a reasonable amount of time, and everyone gets to make use of it, regardless of whether the authors disappear. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: incompatibility issues
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 08:08:58AM +, Peter Miller wrote: I do not read the ODbL this way. I read that only persons bound by the license/contract are prohibited from reverse engineering. Clarification here is needed. When we find an issue like this then lets document it on the wiki and move on to the next topic. We have identified at least two so far, 1) When is a 'DB and derived DB' and now 'what licensing applies to Produced Works and how does the 'no reverse engineering' clause work with PD images. This sounds like brushing the issue aside, putting it in the neverending inbox to deal with “at some point”. I’d prefer people carry on discussing issues, here _and_ on the wiki, and in the comments of the licence draft. The more the issues are recognised, the better the chance of having them dealt with. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: incompatibility issues
Hi, Simon Ward wrote: I’d prefer people carry on discussing issues, here _and_ on the wiki, +1... discuss stuff here, record on the Wiki, so that when the time comes to judge whether a revised license addresses our concerns we can tick off the issues from the Wiki pages. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Concerns about ODbL
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 01:40:47PM +0100, jean-christophe.haes...@dianosis.org wrote: * Waivers : thankfully I cannot legally waive my moral rights in my country, but I think it is unfair to require this form any person in the world. While I agree to collective attribution, I share some of this sentiment. It may just be ego, but I like to be credited for the work I have done. It gives a sense of purpose, and something I can take pride in. Thankfully I don’t think this will disappear just because of this section of the ODbL. User data is stored in OSM, and as far as I know there has not been any suggestion of removing it. If all identifying data was removed, it may actually hurt OSM because it would be harder to track down and deal with breaches of others’ rights. There is one thing in moral rights that I don’t feel should be waived where it is applicable: The right not to be falsely attributed for something. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] regarding ODC and OKF
John Wilbanks schrieb: In terms of OKF, hosting licenses is hard, and versioning licenses is really hard, but OKF has been around for a while and is a solid group of folks. If they are going to host your license you are way ahead of the game in terms of having a group that is smart and honest and open in your camp. According to their web site, they are a Company Limited by Guarantee. I couldn't find any information on the owners. Regardless of who they are, why should we give them complete control over the license? It seems, if they were to decide to for example make our project PD, neither the OSMF Board, nor the OSMF members, nor anyone else could do anything about it? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The Illustrated ODbL
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:11 AM, rich...@weait.com wrote: Hi all, I've attempted to illustrate ways to use the OpenStreetMap database under ODbL and comply with the ODbL obligations. legal-talk: patches welcome! talk: perhaps you'll find the illustration instructive without having to participate in all of the discussion on legal-talk. http://weait.com/content/odbl-use-cases-illustrated Richard These are excellent diagrams. Would it be possible to publish them in some way so that the pdf is not wrapped inside a tarball. Windows users, who are generally the people who will gain the most from this type of explanation ;) will have a lot of difficulty opening your diagrams. I think they could cope with a pdf, but a pdf inside a tar inside a gz is going to defeat many. 80n Best regards, Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Tags for signposting
Hello everyone, does anyone know if we already have some tags for signposting? (tagging what city-names are printed on direction-signs at intersections) I would like implement driving instructions like In 800m exit the motorway, then stay left towards 'city1,city2,city3'. for Traveling Salesman. Marcus http://travelingsales.sourceforge.net ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tags for signposting
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:43:35 +0100, Yann Coupin y...@coupin.net wrote: While I was discussing my proposal for route_instructions, someone pointed me to existing proposal that covered part of what I was proposing. Signposts were part of that list... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Destination_Signs Thanks. Tagwatch shows next to no usage of these yet but I added phrases and german translations to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sample_driving_instructions and will see about adding support for driving directions that make use of these in the next days/weeks as I feel this to be important for good driving directions in a navigation software. Marcus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bad Bot Activity: Maarten Deen
2009/3/2 maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com: Same here in the Philippines. Please stop removing the highway = xxx_link tag. On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: Annoying... Stop stripping highway = xxx_link Just because you are smart enough to write a bot doesn't mean you should. I love my data, don't go f*** it up. Tiny Snapshot of stupid bot activity... Glad to see some reverts happening to these... would be absolutely wonderful if everyone else's got put back too, not just the people who've so far noticed and complained. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] odd rendering + county boundaries
I made some changes a couple of weeks ago to the banks of the River Dart through Totnes http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.42863lon=-3.67974zoom=15layers=B000FFF Obviously those changes have been picked up as the county boundary is rendering along the updated river bank but the actual river isn't. Is this just a time lag thing or have I done something wrong? On the subject of UK county boundaries it's nice to see them rendering (in Mapnik) but it seems a bit odd for the boundaries to be rendered around coastlines and up river estuaries. Is it possible to only render the inland parts ie. where the ways are not tagged as natural=coastline? thanks, Kevin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Factual Information License and Produced Works?
The ODbL says that one can release Produced Works under any license. The Factual Information License says that You must include a copy of this Licence with the Work in a location reasonably calculated to make others aware of it. Given that OSM data will always have content licensed using the Factual Information License then how can one create a Produced Work that doesn't include a copy of the FIL? There seems to be a bit of a lock-out between the two licenses. The generally get the impression that the FIL has had less attention that the ODbL. It still talk about 'neighbouring rights' a phrase that was removed from ODbL, and there is no 'or later version of this license' clause. Regards, Peter ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] highway=secondary_link (was: Re: Bad Bot Activity)
Grant Slater wrote: Annoying... Stop stripping highway = xxx_link The examples you gave were all of the completely undocumented highway=secondary_link. It would be incorrect to say that the edits apply to highway=*_link; I can see several trunk_link and primary_link ways in my area completely unaffected by this edit. But that doesn't excuse bad bot behaviour. This is bad bot behaviour. Given that the Mapnik layer renders secondary_link, perhaps it should be documented on the wiki. I tend to prefer documented tags wherever possible, but also there are multi-lane secondaries in my area with fairly complex (flared, split, bypassing) roundabout approaches, so I'd really like this tag. Using little segments of unclassified or service road is Technically Wrong and Bad Data. I hate feeling I have to do it. I'd be in favour of someone Just Adding It to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway . Anyone want to give it a go? -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=secondary_link
Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote: Grant Slater wrote: Annoying... Stop stripping highway = xxx_link The examples you gave were all of the completely undocumented highway=secondary_link. It would be incorrect to say that the edits apply to highway=*_link; I can see several trunk_link and primary_link ways in my area completely unaffected by this edit. But that doesn't excuse bad bot behaviour. This is bad bot behaviour. Indeed, just because a tag is not mentioned on the wiki does not mean people should go round removing it! Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=secondary_link
Tom Hughes wrote: Indeed, just because a tag is not mentioned on the wiki does not mean people should go round removing it! Though the tag should probably be documented too, for the avoidance of future errors amongst those who attach undue meaning to lack of documentation, and too little importance to the spirit of [[Any tags you like]] and the nature of other people's data :( -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] odd rendering + county boundaries
I believe that there's some boundary rendering bugs that are yet to be fixed in mapnik, I've not seen this one before. As a side issue, does the county boundary really go up the river like that or just cut across the mouth? I think we need to review this. I recall talking to steve8 who did the boundary relation for the southwest counties that he'd just added the coastline to the relation, and not considered river mouths. I'll look into the data myself if I get the time. 2009/3/2 Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.com: I made some changes a couple of weeks ago to the banks of the River Dart through Totnes http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.42863lon=-3.67974zoom=15layers=B000FFF Obviously those changes have been picked up as the county boundary is rendering along the updated river bank but the actual river isn't. Is this just a time lag thing or have I done something wrong? On the subject of UK county boundaries it's nice to see them rendering (in Mapnik) but it seems a bit odd for the boundaries to be rendered around coastlines and up river estuaries. Is it possible to only render the inland parts ie. where the ways are not tagged as natural=coastline? thanks, Kevin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=secondary_link
On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 11:09:16 +, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote: Grant Slater wrote: Annoying... Stop stripping highway = xxx_link The examples you gave were all of the completely undocumented highway=secondary_link. It would be incorrect to say that the edits apply to highway=*_link; I can see several trunk_link and primary_link ways in my area completely unaffected by this edit. But that doesn't excuse bad bot behaviour. This is bad bot behaviour. Indeed, just because a tag is not mentioned on the wiki does not mean people should go round removing it! I completely agree. The wiki is a guideline. It is neither complete nor completely authorative. Marcus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=secondary_link
I've just added it to the wiki, and since it's transcluded on Map Features, the wiki promptly went down on saving. Hope it comes back up soon... 2009/3/2 Andrew Chadwick (email lists) andrewc-email-li...@piffle.org: Tom Hughes wrote: Indeed, just because a tag is not mentioned on the wiki does not mean people should go round removing it! Though the tag should probably be documented too, for the avoidance of future errors amongst those who attach undue meaning to lack of documentation, and too little importance to the spirit of [[Any tags you like]] and the nature of other people's data :( -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Factual Information License and Produced Works?
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.comwrote: The ODbL says that one can release Produced Works under any license. The Factual Information License says that You must include a copy of this Licence with the Work in a location reasonably calculated to make others aware of it. Given that OSM data will always have content licensed using the Factual Information License then how can one create a Produced Work that doesn't include a copy of the FIL? There seems to be a bit of a lock-out between the two licenses. The generally get the impression that the FIL has had less attention that the ODbL. It still talk about 'neighbouring rights' a phrase that was removed from ODbL, and there is no 'or later version of this license' clause. As far as I know there has been no attention paid to the FIL. It was grabbed at the last minute from here http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/open-data-commons-factual-info-licence/ I don't know whether or not it has been reviewed by Clark Asay but I've not seen any evidence to suggest that it has. In my opinion the FIL is much more important than the ODbL and yet it has had very little attention. When the community is asked to vote on the license change it is the FIL that they need to consider not the ODbL. There doesn't seem to be anything in the FIL that binds it to ODbL. Anyone contributing their work under this license is assigning away virtually all rights to OSM and there is nothing that then requires OSM to use ODbL or any other license. Regards, Peter ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] odd rendering + county boundaries
Maybe the coastal part of the boundary should follow the baseline as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maritime_borders The base line is the maritime border closest to the coast, and will probably not be rendered on most maps. --[] On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:22:34 +, Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com wrote: I believe that there's some boundary rendering bugs that are yet to be fixed in mapnik, I've not seen this one before. As a side issue, does the county boundary really go up the river like that or just cut across the mouth? I think we need to review this. I recall talking to steve8 who did the boundary relation for the southwest counties that he'd just added the coastline to the relation, and not considered river mouths. I'll look into the data myself if I get the time. 2009/3/2 Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.com: I made some changes a couple of weeks ago to the banks of the River Dart through Totnes http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.42863lon=-3.67974zoom=15layers=B000FFF Obviously those changes have been picked up as the county boundary is rendering along the updated river bank but the actual river isn't. Is this just a time lag thing or have I done something wrong? On the subject of UK county boundaries it's nice to see them rendering (in Mapnik) but it seems a bit odd for the boundaries to be rendered around coastlines and up river estuaries. Is it possible to only render the inland parts ie. where the ways are not tagged as natural=coastline? thanks, Kevin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Brgds Aun Johnsen via Webmail ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] The Illustrated ODbL
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:11 AM, rich...@weait.com wrote: Hi all, I've attempted to illustrate ways to use the OpenStreetMap database under ODbL and comply with the ODbL obligations. Richard These are excellent diagrams. Would it be possible to publish them in some way so that the pdf is not wrapped inside a tarball. Windows users, who are generally the people who will gain the most from this type of explanation ;) will have a lot of difficulty opening your diagrams. I think they could cope with a pdf, but a pdf inside a tar inside a gz is going to defeat many. Thank you for the kind words. I probably should have ROT-13'd them too, non? I'll have another go at them today. Best regards, Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] odd rendering + county boundaries
The reason it is being rendered is because the coastline is included in the boundary relation, not (afaik) any tagging on the coastline and/or overlapping boundary ways. 2009/3/2 Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) skipp...@gimnechiske.org: Maybe the coastal part of the boundary should follow the baseline as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maritime_borders The base line is the maritime border closest to the coast, and will probably not be rendered on most maps. --[] On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:22:34 +, Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com wrote: I believe that there's some boundary rendering bugs that are yet to be fixed in mapnik, I've not seen this one before. As a side issue, does the county boundary really go up the river like that or just cut across the mouth? I think we need to review this. I recall talking to steve8 who did the boundary relation for the southwest counties that he'd just added the coastline to the relation, and not considered river mouths. I'll look into the data myself if I get the time. 2009/3/2 Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.com: I made some changes a couple of weeks ago to the banks of the River Dart through Totnes http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.42863lon=-3.67974zoom=15layers=B000FFF Obviously those changes have been picked up as the county boundary is rendering along the updated river bank but the actual river isn't. Is this just a time lag thing or have I done something wrong? On the subject of UK county boundaries it's nice to see them rendering (in Mapnik) but it seems a bit odd for the boundaries to be rendered around coastlines and up river estuaries. Is it possible to only render the inland parts ie. where the ways are not tagged as natural=coastline? thanks, Kevin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Brgds Aun Johnsen via Webmail ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Factual Information License and Produced Works?
Hi, When the community is asked to vote on the license change it is the FIL that they need to consider not the ODbL. I propose that we start working on the wording of the messages that users will receive, i.e. the initial E-Mail, and the dialogue messages they see on osm.org when they are asked to say yes to the license change (plus the notices greeting those who newly sign up afterwards). These things are an important part of the license change and are likely to be legally very relevant in many jurisdictions. There doesn't seem to be anything in the FIL that binds it to ODbL. I don't think it is designed to be bound to the ODbL, generally. Anyone contributing their work under this license is assigning away virtually all rights to OSM and there is nothing that then requires OSM to use ODbL or any other license. I think this can be remedied quite easily, without changing a word on the licenses. When the data travels from the mapper to the OSM server, we have a very simple, well-established and authenticated one-to-one relationship. We do not need any complicated license here, a simple contract will do: By uploading your data to the OSM server, you agree that OSM will publish your data under the FIL as part of an ODbL licensed database. You do not grant any other permission than that; notably you do not grant permission for OSM to release your data under FIL outside of an ODbL licensed database. Or something like that. But as I said, we should really start writing these messages and notices now, not least because it is likely that in doing so we uncover further license weaknesses that need to be fixed before we can accept it. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Factual Information License and Produced Works?
Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, When the community is asked to vote on the license change it is the FIL that they need to consider not the ODbL. I propose that we start working on the wording of the messages that users will receive, i.e. the initial E-Mail, and the dialogue messages they see on osm.org when they are asked to say yes to the license change (plus the notices greeting those who newly sign up afterwards). These things are an important part of the license change and are likely to be legally very relevant in many jurisdictions. Somebody certainly needs to work on that. I have the technology implemented to support the procedure described in the transition plan but we will need the words to plugin to the various screens. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Factual Information License and Produced Works?
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: 80n wrote: As far as I know there has been no attention paid to the FIL. It was grabbed at the last minute from here http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/open-data-commons-factual-info-licence/ I don't know whether or not it has been reviewed by Clark Asay but I've not seen any evidence to suggest that it has. In my opinion the FIL is much more important than the ODbL and yet it has had very little attention. As you know (and without wanting to reopen Saturday's argument) I don't believe that users are intended to sign up to the FIL. I believe that they're intended to sign up to the ODbL, and that each user is viewed as contributing a database of content to the wider OSM database, the individual atoms of which are licensed as FIL to recognise that they are, essentially, facts. (One could argue that, coincidentally, the changeset model being adopted with 0.6 makes the conceptual leap to database very easy indeed.) It's not clear to me, and you could well be right. I've requested clarification of the legal advice we have been given on this point. Apparently the sentence referring to the FIL in Grant's email was inserted by Steve, so I've asked Steve to copy us on the original advice provided by Clark Asay. Clearly from Saturday's postings you disagree. Nonetheless the very fact that there is some uncertainty about this merits a clarification, ideally both from Jordan and these Wilson Sonsini chaps. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Factual-Information-License-and-Produced-Works--tp22286008p22286647.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Factual Information License and Produced Works?
Hi, 80n wrote: Apparently the sentence referring to the FIL in Grant's email was inserted by Steve, It is nice to know that Steve still speaks to this mailing list, even if only through sentences inserted into other people's E-Mails. Bye Frederik PS: If you find any Lolcat stuff in any of my E-Mails you know who it was. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Factual Information License and Produced Works?
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.comwrote: The ODbL says that one can release Produced Works under any license. The Factual Information License says that You must include a copy of this Licence with the Work in a location reasonably calculated to make others aware of it. The Factual information license, seems to be a bit schizophrenic. It says both that facts are free, and that these free facts cannot be used without including a license... - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Factual Information License and Produced Works?
El Lunes, 2 de Marzo de 2009, Gustav Foseid escribió: The Factual information license, seems to be a bit schizophrenic. It says both that facts are free, and that these free facts cannot be used without including a license... That's called the stupid jurisdictions clause. Just because facts are free in your jurisdiction doesn't mean all jurisdictions in the world think the same. Look at the CC0 and CC-PD licenses. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es Un ordenador no es un televisor ni un microondas, es una herramienta compleja. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=secondary_link
Hello, Would adding also highway=tertiary_link be too much? :-) - Eugene / seav On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.comwrote: I've just added it to the wiki, and since it's transcluded on Map Features, the wiki promptly went down on saving. Hope it comes back up soon... 2009/3/2 Andrew Chadwick (email lists) andrewc-email-li...@piffle.org: Tom Hughes wrote: Indeed, just because a tag is not mentioned on the wiki does not mean people should go round removing it! Though the tag should probably be documented too, for the avoidance of future errors amongst those who attach undue meaning to lack of documentation, and too little importance to the spirit of [[Any tags you like]] and the nature of other people's data :( -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] highway=tertiary[_link?] (was: Re: highway=secondary_link)
Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Would adding also highway=tertiary_link be too much? :-) I'm not sure I can think of any examples in the areas I'm familiar with. Perhaps that's just due to local road design though: link-like structures seem to be reserved for faster, more multi-lane road designs. Not having link roads: a concrete criterion for highway=tertiary? :-) -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Concerns about ODbL
Hello, I found out recently about the license change issue, and I discover with fear that everything looks decided. I feel I'm being rushed. I don't understand why an adoption plan has been put up while the very terms of the license are yet unsettled. How can the authors be so certain that no significant changes will need to be made after the comment phase? Changes would imply another comment phase on the new version. The time granted to read all the discussions, documents, wiki pages *and* understand them correctly is way too short. OSM is not a full-time occupation for many people. Moreover, after having read the proposed license text and some comments on wiki pages, I am under the impression that most of the participants in the discussion are public domain advocates and that they may use this license change to promote their views. While i respect these people, I do not share their opinions and I will not let OSM go PD. Granted, some texts claim it will not be the case (report from SOTM), but the current text of the ODbL raised my suspicion. Please correct if I misunderstood. * Waivers : thankfully I cannot legally waive my moral rights in my country, but I think it is unfair to require this form any person in the world. Of course I do not require that my name is printed on all OSM-generated maps, should they effectively contain data that I inserted in the DB. Being collectively acknowledged as OSM contributor is sufficient for me. But, I require that if someone wants to find out who are the precise people behind the data, this should be possible. To me, the current license text simply states that any person contributing data from a country where moral rights waivers are possible, may have their name completely deleted from the DB. * Produced Works : as I understand, it will be possible to distribute a produced image map under any license, including all rights reserved. Therefore, if an editor produces good-looking maps with an unpublished process, the published maps will not even be usable in a SA manner, even if the editor used community resources at the root of its process. This sounds unacceptable to me. That's all for now, but I might raise other concerns as I discover them. JC ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] odd rendering + county boundaries
It's two thingsthe county boundary shouldn't go up rivers in the first place but also the part of the boundary that follows the coast would be better not being rendered. It seems to me that it must be included in a relation so that the county is an area but would be better not being visible. Kevin Thomas Wood wrote: The reason it is being rendered is because the coastline is included in the boundary relation, not (afaik) any tagging on the coastline and/or overlapping boundary ways. 2009/3/2 Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) skipp...@gimnechiske.org: Maybe the coastal part of the boundary should follow the baseline as per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maritime_borders The base line is the maritime border closest to the coast, and will probably not be rendered on most maps. --[] On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:22:34 +, Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com wrote: I believe that there's some boundary rendering bugs that are yet to be fixed in mapnik, I've not seen this one before. As a side issue, does the county boundary really go up the river like that or just cut across the mouth? I think we need to review this. I recall talking to steve8 who did the boundary relation for the southwest counties that he'd just added the coastline to the relation, and not considered river mouths. I'll look into the data myself if I get the time. 2009/3/2 Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.com: I made some changes a couple of weeks ago to the banks of the River Dart through Totnes http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.42863lon=-3.67974zoom=15layers=B000FFF Obviously those changes have been picked up as the county boundary is rendering along the updated river bank but the actual river isn't. Is this just a time lag thing or have I done something wrong? On the subject of UK county boundaries it's nice to see them rendering (in Mapnik) but it seems a bit odd for the boundaries to be rendered around coastlines and up river estuaries. Is it possible to only render the inland parts ie. where the ways are not tagged as natural=coastline? thanks, Kevin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Brgds Aun Johnsen via Webmail ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Concerns about ODbL
jean-christophe.haessig wrote: Moreover, after having read the proposed license text and some comments on wiki pages, I am under the impression that most of the participants in the discussion are public domain advocates and that they may use this license change to promote their views. Just to dispel any conspiracy theories: that certainly isn't true. Looking at the postings to legal-talk in March so far, I see contributions from three people I believe to be PD advocates (Frederik, Russ, me) and six from people I believe to be share-alike advocates (Simon, Peter, Rob, Oliver, Etienne, Ivan). I don't keep track of everyone's preferences - I'm not that creepy ;) - but you get the general idea. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Concerns-about-ODbL-tp22287609p22287833.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Concerns about ODbL
Hi, jean-christophe.haes...@dianosis.org wrote: I found out recently about the license change issue, and I discover with fear that everything looks decided. I feel I'm being rushed. You are probably not alone. Moreover, after having read the proposed license text and some comments on wiki pages, I am under the impression that most of the participants in the discussion are public domain advocates No. If that were the case then OSM would have gone PD long ago and we would all be mapping happily instead of wasting our time trying to create freedom from the barrel of a license (kudos to JohnW for this phrase). I will not let OSM go PD. Granted, some texts claim it will not be the case (report from SOTM), but the current text of the ODbL raised my suspicion. Please correct if I misunderstood. You misunderstood. The basic quality of OSM is that it is a database. If it were not a database it would be utterly useless (sit down for a minute and think of what you would do with OSM data that was not arranged in a database - you are unlikely to find anything). The ODbL makes sure that whenever OSM is used or passed on as a database, then this database must also be under ODbL; it is a share-alike license. The ODbL makes an exception from share-alike where the data is transformed into something that is not a database, e.g. a printout. This may be distributed under (almost) any license. But this freedom comes at a cost for the person using it: An improved database on which the printout is based, must be shared. In this respect, ODbL can be said to be even stricter than the current CC-BY-SA, see the following example: Guy takes OSM data, adds some streets on his local machine, makes a nice printed T-Shirt with a city map on it and sells the T-Shirt. CC-BY-SA: Guy has to share the T-Shirt design (more specifically, he has to allow us to make copies of his T-Shirt). He can keep the improved database for himself. ODbL: Guy does not have to share the T-Shirt design (he has to attribute OSM but his artistic input made the design his), but he does have to share the improved database that he has created. From our project perspective, the ODbL outcome in this situation is much better. What good is a T-Shirt design for us? We want data. Some people come from a more ideological background and they say that they support OSM because they want a world with more Freedom in it, and thus it is important for them that the T-Shirt in this example is Free as well even though it does not help OpenStreetMap one bit to have the T-Shirt. They are of course entitled to hold this view, but OpenStreetMap is not about more Freedom in the world, OpenStreetMap is about a free world map, and this vision should guide our decision. * Waivers : thankfully I cannot legally waive my moral rights in my country, but I think it is unfair to require this form any person in the world. Of course I do not require that my name is printed on all OSM-generated maps, should they effectively contain data that I inserted in the DB. Being collectively acknowledged as OSM contributor is sufficient for me. But, I require that if someone wants to find out who are the precise people behind the data, this should be possible. I don't think anybody is saying we should drop usernames from the data base (we need them for our project to function). If you have read the Waivers section as meaning we want to do that, then some clarification is perhaps needed. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tags for signposting
A related tag to check for: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Towards ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-legal-talk] regarding ODC and OKF
Merging a few threads here again... Just to say that although I hold different positions than the ODC and OKF on this issue, the ODC project has always been of the highest legal and ethical standards, and the OKF folks as well. Jordan has run the ODC as a labor of love for years and deserves a lot of respect for his work there. In terms of OKF, hosting licenses is hard, and versioning licenses is really hard, but OKF has been around for a while and is a solid group of folks. If they are going to host your license you are way ahead of the game in terms of having a group that is smart and honest and open in your camp. jtw ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Concerns about ODbL
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: jean-christophe.haessig wrote: Moreover, after having read the proposed license text and some comments on wiki pages, I am under the impression that most of the participants in the discussion are public domain advocates and that they may use this license change to promote their views. Just to dispel any conspiracy theories: that certainly isn't true. However, the ability to create an uncopiable map image from OSM data (one of the main aims of some PD advocates) does seem to have appeared in the ODbL license? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Concerns about ODbL
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:32 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: jean-christophe.haessig wrote: Moreover, after having read the proposed license text and some comments on wiki pages, I am under the impression that most of the participants in the discussion are public domain advocates and that they may use this license change to promote their views. Just to dispel any conspiracy theories: that certainly isn't true. However, the ability to create an uncopiable map image from OSM data (one of the main aims of some PD advocates) does seem to have appeared in the ODbL license? It was always there, I thought? From a share-alike point of view the ODbL has important practical advantages over BY-SA for geodata. Unlike the GNU GPL, BY-SA doesn't require the provision of source, and it may well be that geodata source is more important for freedom of maps in general than copyleft is for specific maps. BY-SA allows the creation of maps that cannot usefully be used and modified because the original geodata that they have been rendered from cannot be recovered from them. So in my copyleft-proponent opinion it can be argued that ODbL protects access to geodata more strongly *in practice* than BY-SA. But I'm really feeling uncomfortable about the contract law component of the licence... - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=tertiary[_link?] (was: Re: highway=secondary_link)
http://www.informationfreeway.org/api/0.5/*[highway=tertiary_link] - 1.3mb file Well, these seems to be quite a lot tertiary_links out there ... For example http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.95321lon=11.57331zoom=16 (not rendered though, you have to use some editor to see it) So I'd say we should have tertiary links too. Martin On 02/03/2009, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) andrewc-email-li...@piffle.org wrote: Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Would adding also highway=tertiary_link be too much? :-) I'm not sure I can think of any examples in the areas I'm familiar with. Perhaps that's just due to local road design though: link-like structures seem to be reserved for faster, more multi-lane road designs. Not having link roads: a concrete criterion for highway=tertiary? :-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
MP singularita at gmail.com writes: As for the people who can't be reached/refused to accept new license - what about tagging such data with some tag like license=cc_by_sa to warn people that this part is licensed otherwise and keep the data in database? I don't think that would work. If some parts of the data are CC-BY-SA, and some parts are under a new licence, then the resulting database )or maps derived from it) would be a derived work of both. That means that it can be distributed only under CC-BY-SA, and also that it can be distributed only under the new licence. The result would be that you cannot legally distribute it at all. Presumably OSM chose CC-BY-SA to stop other organizations taking the OSM data and distributing it under different conditions. Even if only some of the data in your work is OSM data licensed CC-BY-SA, you must distribute the whole work under that licence, or not at all. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Iván Sánchez Ortega ivan at sanchezortega.es writes: I'm one of the persons who consider CC-by-sa to be a risk for the integrity of the project (i.e. there are potential legal loopholes). I'd rather nuke half the user-contributed data than lose everything. This seems rather apocalyptic. What do you mean by 'lose everything' and how would changing to a different licence avoid that? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday 27 February 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote: If you take a *relaxed* view then all our data is un-protected anyway because facts are not copyrightable. With that relaxed view I'd be copying teleatlas maps by now. except that TA data *isn't* just factual because they add in creative easter eggs. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On 02/03/2009, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: MP singularita at gmail.com writes: As for the people who can't be reached/refused to accept new license - what about tagging such data with some tag like license=cc_by_sa to warn people that this part is licensed otherwise and keep the data in database? I don't think that would work. If some parts of the data are CC-BY-SA, and some parts are under a new licence, then the resulting database )or maps derived from Well, if you need the data for personal use - you can use them even with mixed license. If you need to distribute them, etc ... you could filter the cc-by-sa data out. This would allow the remaining cc-by-sa data to be iteratively deleted and then redrawn under correct license. I think this could be viable, if there would be only small part of such data. (so the period in which the data won't be properly distributable will be quite small, perhaps few days till all is redrawn) Martin it) would be a derived work of both. That means that it can be distributed only under CC-BY-SA, and also that it can be distributed only under the new licence. The result would be that you cannot legally distribute it at all. Presumably OSM chose CC-BY-SA to stop other organizations taking the OSM data and distributing it under different conditions. Even if only some of the data in your work is OSM data licensed CC-BY-SA, you must distribute the whole work under that licence, or not at all. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
2009/3/2 MP singular...@gmail.com: On 02/03/2009, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: MP singularita at gmail.com writes: As for the people who can't be reached/refused to accept new license - what about tagging such data with some tag like license=cc_by_sa to warn people that this part is licensed otherwise and keep the data in database? I don't think that would work. If some parts of the data are CC-BY-SA, and some parts are under a new licence, then the resulting database )or maps derived from Well, if you need the data for personal use - you can use them even with mixed license. If you need to distribute them, etc ... you could filter the cc-by-sa data out. This would allow the remaining cc-by-sa data to be iteratively deleted and then redrawn under correct license. I think this could be viable, if there would be only small part of such data. (so the period in which the data won't be properly distributable will be quite small, perhaps few days till all is redrawn) You probably don't mean it that way, but redrawn here sounds suspiciously like copy, which of course you can't do :-) You'd obviously have to redo from scratch, which if there's anything remotely significant would take more than a few days. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Concerns about ODbL
On Mar 2, 2009, at 8:12 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: from three people I believe to be PD advocates (Frederik, Russ, me) and six That's fair to say. I put my faith in the people of OSM, not the license. The process of editing OSM is what protects us. We're a community, and if you try to take data outside the community, you voluntarily separate yourself from the community (note: the Amish don't kick people out when they shun them -- they note that the person has separated themselves from the community -- and the community responds in turn). -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
MP singularita at gmail.com writes: As for the people who can't be reached/refused to accept new license - what about tagging such data with some tag like license=cc_by_sa I don't think that would work. Well, if you need the data for personal use - you can use them even with mixed license. If you need personal use only then Google Maps is fine. Freely distributable map data is the raison d'etre of OpenStreetMap. This would allow the remaining cc-by-sa data to be iteratively deleted and then redrawn under correct license. That would have to be a very careful process. Imagine that you started with a printout of Google Maps and iteratively rubbed out small sections and redrew them. Even when you had redrawn the whole thing, do you think you'd really be on a firm legal footing? The purported reason for relicensing is to put the project on an undeniably sound legal basis. The only way to do that is to get explicit permission from some contributors, and remove the contributions of all the rest (as well as anything that depends on or was derived from those contributions). Obviously a flag 'this road was formerly marked as one-way, but that tag was removed for copyright reasons' would just be a way of copying the removed data. So you would have to be careful when removing data and make sure that whatever is re-added is done from scratch, by re-tracing the satellite outlines and re-walking the streets, and without any automatic notice 'something is missing here'. There would need to be reasonable checks that nobody is copying data from the CC-BY-SA licensed set, since doing so would be very tempting. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Add 'Keep right!' to the list of map links in the 'place' template
[I sent a message about this to the list last week, but it got lost somewhere] Most of the individual country pages on the OSM wiki have a box on the right generated using the 'place' template. This gives a link to view the country on the main slippy map and also to view it in various external 'lint' tools such as OpenStreetBugs. I'd like to request that 'Keep right!' http://keepright.ipax.at/ be added to this list. It checks various map errors, not all of which are covered by maplint or the other tools. For example, here is the report for the Regent's Park area: http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?lat=51.53011lon=-0.15456zoom=15layers=B0T. I have contacted the maintainer Harald Kleiner e9625...@gmx.at and he is enthusiastic for the site to be used. Although the tabular download can cause a high server load if downloading a large area, the slippy map is limited to showing 100 error markers, so it is safe to link to at any size. At the moment 'Keep right!' has data only for Europe, because running the check for the whole planet file would take two weeks. But I suggest linking to it now, and perhaps some better hardware could be sorted out later to expand it to the whole world. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Concerns about ODbL
On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 14:56 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, OJ W wrote: the ability to create an uncopiable map image from OSM data does seem to have appeared in the ODbL license? You can create an image and (provided that your image is not a data base, a distinction that has not yet been resolved) restrict copying of the image. I believe that an image is not a database, but is Produced Work. Take a png tile. For any non-trival render there is a loss of information in the conversion from database to image some tags are un-rendered. This loss of fidelity in some areas allows increased attention to say, cycle paths. That is a creative work that requires skill and judgement. Evil Evan tries to reverse engineer a png and turn it back into a database so that it is searchable, indexable, etc. Evil Evan is creating another database from the ODbL with the image as an intermediate step. So that new database must be under the terms of the ODbL or in violation of it. We know that Evil Evan is both evil and stupid because the direct database to database conversion is permitted under ODbL. His only motivation can be to try to evade the ODbL but he is out of luck. He was notified of ODbL by the attribution in the image. Bad violator. This is essential if we want to give users the chance to combine OSM material with other, more restrictively licensed material, into images or other products. I say we can. See Collective Databases. OSM (ODbL), CGIAR (NC) are collective but separate databases. They are combined into a single image from those separate databases by the renderer to become a Produced Work. The Produced Work may be licensed at your discretion given you obligations to the Collective Databases, ODbL (attribution) and CGIAR (NC). Best regards, Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] OpenPisteMap: Cross Country Ski Trails.
Hi all, Having 'gotten into' cross country skiing this winter I have been mapping the trails at our local spot, however OpenPisteMap is not quite working as I would expect. I have tagged the trails a 'highway=footway' and 'piste:type=nordic' as these trails are multi-use; cycling and walking in the summer and groomed cross country trails in the winter. At present OPM does not render these as ski-trails. Is this the correct way to tag this situation, or can someone suggest a better method? OPM (no contours): http://openpistemap.org/?lon=-114.60574lat=49.66878zoom=15layers=0B00 Osmarender: http://openpistemap.org/?lon=-114.60574lat=49.66878zoom=15layers=000B Also there is no mention of the following on the OpenPisteMap wiki page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Piste_Maps): 1) Direction of Way: I assume that 'forward' is meant as 'generally downhill' as the 'piste:type=downhill' implies one-way. 2) Steep Sections: Is there a method of marking a steep section? The maps posted on site (http://www.crowsnestguide.com/allisonwonderlands/allisonmap.html) draw a little '|---' line next to the trail at the appropriate places. This could be marked with a short way marked 'piste:steep=yes'. Where this is against the general direction of the way should we reverse the way or use a 'up/down' or 'forward/backward' tagging (ie. 'piste:steep=backward')? If there are no objections, I could/will add the above to the wiki page. Finally, is there an simple way to extract/note elevations from a GPX file in JOSM? Yes I know that GPS elevation is not that accurate. But it's something that would be useful and I'm using a professional/survey grade receiver as the forest trails are rather hard to get lock with my handheld. I would like to add a 'ele=xxx' tag to the markers tag at the junction of the trails to give some indication of height gain/loss between markers. This would enable a person unfamiliar with the trail to gain a sense of the workout they are about to get Cheers, Mungewell. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Add 'Keep right!' to the list of map links in the 'place' template
Ed Avis wrote: [Add Keep Right! to Template:places] Done (anyone can do this, it's a wiki). I think it's a potentially useful tool, even if it does use the deprecated phrase deprecated for perfectly reasonable tags like abutters=retail (how else do you tag shopfronts in an otherwise predominantly residential area?) At the moment 'Keep right!' has data only for Europe, because running the check for the whole planet file would take two weeks. But I suggest linking to it now, and perhaps some better hardware could be sorted out later to expand it to the whole world. I've marked it Europe-only. -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Add 'Keep right!' to the list of map links in the 'place' template
On 2 Mar 2009, at 15:48, Ed Avis wrote: [I sent a message about this to the list last week, but it got lost somewhere] Most of the individual country pages on the OSM wiki have a box on the right generated using the 'place' template. This gives a link to view the country on the main slippy map and also to view it in various external 'lint' tools such as OpenStreetBugs. I'd like to request that 'Keep right!' http://keepright.ipax.at/ be added to this list. It checks various map errors, not all of which are covered by maplint or the other tools. For example, here is the report for the Regent's Park area: http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?lat=51.53011lon=-0.15456zoom=15layers=B0T . I have contacted the maintainer Harald Kleiner e9625...@gmx.at and he is enthusiastic for the site to be used. Although the tabular download can cause a high server load if downloading a large area, the slippy map is limited to showing 100 error markers, so it is safe to link to at any size. At the moment 'Keep right!' has data only for Europe, because running the check for the whole planet file would take two weeks. But I suggest linking to it now, and perhaps some better hardware could be sorted out later to expand it In Potlatch you can enter edit mode with a particular feature already selected. We do this with OSM Mapper and it works very well and Geofabrik do it as well. You should add this to Keep Right. For example http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lon=8.10411lat=51.05425zoom=18way=29411858 There is also a way to do this with JOSM as long as it is already running. Regards, Peter to the whole world. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-legal-talk] images are Produced Works
My position is that images are Produced Works, not a derived OSM database. Rendered images are a creative work that requires skill and judgement. This is an important use case and ODbL Section 1 Definitions specifically includes images in the definition of Produced Work. I further believe that a directory tree full of images ./zoom/x/y are still Produced Work and that even a database of these Produced Work images is still a Produced Work. In the special case of somebody creating a renderer that takes input from the OSM database and renders it as OCR text, then uses a post-processing step to OCR-to-text back into a database; that is reverse engineering and covered in the Reverse Engineering clause. Rendered images being Produced Work is an important use case judging from the level of discussion. Perhaps the legal team can assure us that we are fine and the the legal reading supports our goals. If not perhaps they can fix the terms of the license and / or the preamble to make this both clearer to laymen and clear in law. Best regards, Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Add 'Keep right!' to the list of map links in the 'place' template
Andrew Chadwick (email lists andrewc-email-lists at piffle.org writes: [Add Keep Right! to Template:places] Done (anyone can do this, it's a wiki). Thanks - I didn't want to risk breaking every single country page without discussing it on the list first :-p. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPisteMap: Cross Country Ski Trails.
At present OPM does not render these as ski-trails. Is this the correct way to tag this situation, or can someone suggest a better method? Maybe OPM doesn't support rendering those nordic pists ? 2) Steep Sections: Is there a method of marking a steep section? The maps posted on site There is this proposition : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Incline for ways, that could be awoken. If there are no objections, I could/will add the above to the wiki page. Talk about it first, this incline feature might be usefull not only to skiers but also on any highway (as defined in osm) Some have suggest on the above page that SRTM dem would make it useless, but the quality of SRTM has proven to be too low for that need. Yes I know that GPS elevation is not that accurate. Says who ? I do have a ~10m vertical precision and sometimes less when stopped with my Garmin 60cx. I find it very enough for many many cases, even more than STRM models I would like to add a 'ele=xxx' tag to the markers tag at the junction of the trails to give some indication of height gain/loss between markers. I'm doing it as well, puting in somewhere on a way might be problematic has someone might mive the node along the way, but if properly tagged at a mountain_pass, a peak, a crossing, I would find it very usefull. -- sly Sylvain Letuffe li...@letuffe.org qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Add 'Keep right!' to the list of map links in the 'place' template
However I don't see a link to 'Keep right!' in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom... did adding it take effect? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=tertiary[_link?] (was: Re: highway=secondary_link)
There's another question brought up by the example below that's somewhat tangential: Does the group think that short connectors at intersections, such as a separate lane that allows traffic turning right (left in the UK, Australia, Japan, etc.) to bypass traffic lights, should be tagged as highway=*_link? Personally, I would say that it's a valid use of the tag, but the definition in Map Features is vague and all of the example renderings and images show them being used at junctions where the two major roads are vertically separated. Also, if we accept that short connectors at intersections should get highway=*_link tags, doesn't that mean that every class of street needs a corresponding _link tag? In other words, should we be adding not just tertiary_link, but also unclassified_link and residential_link? I don't think that service roads, tracks, or foot/cycle ways really need them, but I can think of places where I'd tag ways with highway=residential_link if it was a documented and rendered option. On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 08:18, MP singular...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.informationfreeway.org/api/0.5/*[highway=tertiary_link] - 1.3mb file Well, these seems to be quite a lot tertiary_links out there ... For example http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.95321lon=11.57331zoom=16 (not rendered though, you have to use some editor to see it) So I'd say we should have tertiary links too. Martin On 02/03/2009, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) andrewc-email-li...@piffle.org wrote: Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Would adding also highway=tertiary_link be too much? :-) I'm not sure I can think of any examples in the areas I'm familiar with. Perhaps that's just due to local road design though: link-like structures seem to be reserved for faster, more multi-lane road designs. Not having link roads: a concrete criterion for highway=tertiary? :-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPisteMap: Cross Country Ski Trails.
Yes I know that GPS elevation is not that accurate. Says who ? I do have a ~10m vertical precision and sometimes less when stopped with my Garmin 60cx. I find it very enough for many many cases, even more than STRM models Technically the vertical accuracy is always less than the horizontal. The receiver (http://www.point-inc.com/products/gsr1700csx.html) I'm using quotes: Static H: 5.0 mm + 1.0 ppm V: 8.0 mm + 2.0 ppm Kinematic, Stop-and-Go H: 10.0 mm + 1.0 ppmV: 12.0 mm + 2.0 ppm Stand-Alone Position 1.8 m CEP Horizontal I'm using it stand alone, although in theory I could use a UHF link back to a base station in the parking lot. The resultants tracks are a little bit jumpy in the heavily tree-ed enviroment: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mungewell/traces/325254 http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mungewell/traces/325256 http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mungewell/traces/320570 It doesn't help the accuracy when I fall over though ;-) Cheers, Mungewell. I would like to add a 'ele=xxx' tag to the markers tag at the junction of the trails to give some indication of height gain/loss between markers. I'm doing it as well, puting in somewhere on a way might be problematic has someone might mive the node along the way, but if properly tagged at a mountain_pass, a peak, a crossing, I would find it very usefull. -- sly Sylvain Letuffe li...@letuffe.org qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Add 'Keep right!' to the list of map links in the 'place' template
Ed Avis wrote: However I don't see a link to 'Keep right!' in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom... did adding it take effect? It seems to take rather variable effect, which is odd. From where I'm sitting: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bradford - works http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom - nothing http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Oxford - still contains my typo :/ Possibly some caching issue here. Hopefully it'll all shake itself out eventually. -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] compatibility with CC licenses
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 2:10 PM, John Wilbanks wilba...@creativecommons.orgwrote: If Big Company decides to run a mechanical turk contest on Amazon to extract facts from your DB one at a time, do they violate the license without having ever signed it - can they possibly be bound by it if they haven't signed it, clicked ok on a digital box etc? And at what point does the individual person working in the turk contest infringe - 5 facts, 10 facts, 100 facts? And who would you sue in the event you wanted to take it to court? A related use case: A user in the EU downloads the database (planet.osm in OSM), modifies it (simplifies ways and merges dual carriageways, for instance) and puts this derived database (planet-modified.osm) on a FTP server, along with a readme.txt containing the license, in a zip file. Another user in the EU, downloads this copy, unzips the archive and puts all the files in the zip archive in a folder on a FTP server. A person in the USA, not related to the creation or publishing of the database, makes a web page with a direct link to just the database (planet-modified.osm). Then Small Company CTO downloads the database from this link, having never seen the license text and working in a jurisdiction without copyright protection (or related rights) for databases. Can the CTO use the database in his brand new product without any restrictions? Who, if any, can the creator of the original database take to court? A variation is if all the users are in the US, but Small Company is in the EU. The Database Directive does not give protection for database creators outside the EU/EEC (as far as I remember). Same questions. - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Add 'Keep right!' to the list of map links in the 'place' template
Le lundi 02 mars 2009 à 16:48, Ed Avis a écrit : I'd like to request that 'Keep right!' http://keepright.ipax.at/ be added to this list. It checks various map errors, not all of which are covered by maplint or the other tools. Hey, I just discovered this site, it's great! I've quickly corrected many small problems in Liège, so many of the bugs present here http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?zoom=15lat=50.64151lon=5.57285layers=B0T should be gone by the next update ;-) -- Renaud Michel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] odd rendering + county boundaries
On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 13:00 +, Kevin Peat wrote: It's two thingsthe county boundary shouldn't go up rivers in the first place but also the part of the boundary that follows the coast would be better not being rendered. It seems to me that it must be included in a relation so that the county is an area but would be better not being visible. Kevin I discussed this with Steve8 a few days ago on IRC and the plan is to: - Hide any boundary rendering on ways with natural=coastline - When there is more than one boundary on a given way, only render the one with the lowest admin_level. This corresponds to the most important boundary. It is complicated by the fact that the information has to be cross-referenced across multiple objects. This will need some extra processing in osm2pgsql to implement and it may be a few weeks before I get around to it. Jon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Add 'Keep right!' to the list of map links in the 'place' template
Such a cool tool. I wish it worked for the rest of the world. :( Is the source available that it could be run on another site? I have a server sitting doing nothing that might be good for something like this. -Jeremy -Original Message- From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk- boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Renaud MICHEL Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 1:08 PM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Add 'Keep right!' to the list of map links in the 'place' template Le lundi 02 mars 2009 à 16:48, Ed Avis a écrit : I'd like to request that 'Keep right!' http://keepright.ipax.at/ be added to this list. It checks various map errors, not all of which are covered by maplint or the other tools. Hey, I just discovered this site, it's great! I've quickly corrected many small problems in Liège, so many of the bugs present here http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?zoom=15lat=50.64151lon=5.5728 5layers=B0T should be gone by the next update ;-) -- Renaud Michel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] odd rendering + county boundaries
Thanks Jon, that's great. Kevin Jon Burgess wrote: On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 10:51 +, Kevin Peat wrote: I made some changes a couple of weeks ago to the banks of the River Dart through Totnes http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.42863lon=-3.67974zoom=15layers=B000FFF Obviously those changes have been picked up as the county boundary is rendering along the updated river bank but the actual river isn't. Is this just a time lag thing or have I done something wrong? There is a lag. The coastlines are generated from a set of shapefiles which is periodically updated from the OSM data. I've just fetched the latest updates. You probably won't see much difference in the map tiles until the weekend, but images from the export tab will show them right away (see attached). Jon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=secondary_link
I'm still a relative newbie, and am confused about how this could get added to the Mapping Features. I guess like a lot of people I joined the osm community then immediately started mapping stuff in my local area. In the last few weeks I've tried to learn a bit more by reading emails sent to the lists, and by reading the wiki. I've come to the conclusion that OSM is inherently anarchic. But, although everyone is allowed to add their own tags when mapping, the community is building up an agreed set of Mapping Features on the mapping features page, via drafts, proposals and voting. But it appears this feature was added to mapping features without a draft, proposal or voting. If this is the case the feature should be removed then added after correct procedure has been followed? Bots in my limited knowledge seems unacceptable. Surely a bot should also have to go through some sort of approval process before being unleashed? Then again, I assume someone will answer with the following The first rule of OSM, is that there are no rules. (If it has been approved or I've not understood a procedure, then the mapping features page needs to make things clearer) Jason 2009/3/2 Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com I've just added it to the wiki, and since it's transcluded on Map Features, the wiki promptly went down on saving. Hope it comes back up soon... 2009/3/2 Andrew Chadwick (email lists) andrewc-email-li...@piffle.org: Tom Hughes wrote: Indeed, just because a tag is not mentioned on the wiki does not mean people should go round removing it! Though the tag should probably be documented too, for the avoidance of future errors amongst those who attach undue meaning to lack of documentation, and too little importance to the spirit of [[Any tags you like]] and the nature of other people's data :( -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=secondary_link
Hi, Jason Cunningham wrote: But, although everyone is allowed to add their own tags when mapping, the community is building up an agreed set of Mapping Features on the mapping features page, via drafts, proposals and voting. No. The Map Features page is intended to be a documentation of tags being used, not a documentation of tags having been voted in. If you dig through the archives, you will find that never has there been a draft, proposal, or vote for highway=motorway; nonetheless it is used and not questioned by anyone. But it appears this feature was added to mapping features without a draft, proposal or voting. This often happens when we find that a feature is being widely used but omitted from Map Features. If this is the case the feature should be removed then added after correct procedure has been followed? No, that would be utterly non-OSM. We are not (yet) a bureaucracy. Bots in my limited knowledge seems unacceptable. Surely a bot should also have to go through some sort of approval process before being unleashed? We have a code of conduct on the Wiki that strongly suggests each bot be discussed on the lists *before* it is used, but we have no formal approval process. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Add 'Keep right!' to the list of map links in the 'place' template
Hi! Done (anyone can do this, it's a wiki). I think it's a potentially useful tool, even if it does use the deprecated phrase deprecated for perfectly reasonable tags like abutters=retail (how else do you tag shopfronts in an otherwise predominantly residential area?) Just don't take every so called error on keepright as error; some of them are just warnings ;-) I took the page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Deprecated_features as reference and I wanted to point people to items tagged the old way to help them adapt the tags to the new way Best regards, Harald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Factual Information License and Produced Works?
Ulf Möller wrote: It doesn't look like it has been reviewed thoroughly (and the co-ment page seem to be password protected.) Passport protection was a mistake and has now been removed. / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Add 'Keep right!' to the list of map links in the 'place' template
Hi Peter, Thank you very much for the hint to that great feature! Just added that to keepright Have fun with it! Harald In Potlatch you can enter edit mode with a particular feature already selected. We do this with OSM Mapper and it works very well and Geofabrik do it as well. You should add this to Keep Right. For example http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lon=8.10411lat=51.05425zoom=18way=29411858 There is also a way to do this with JOSM as long as it is already running. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Add 'Keep right!' to the list of map links in the 'place' template
Hi Milenko! Watch out, I could take you at your word! I am surprised that there is so much response and demand to run checks by many people. Up to now I've tried to run the checks on the whole planet but that just crashed the server. You need at least 4GB RAM and 400GB hard disk, built up as RAID0 preferably, if you want to try that. Hardware requirements are less if you just check part of the planet obviously. Now here is my proposal: As configuring PostGIS and setting up my scripts is quite a hassle, I could prepare a virtualBox image file for download. Then you could just configure the location where the planet file is to be downloaded and then you could get started within minutes. For the experts I could provide the script sources as well, but I'm afraid of drowning in mails later on... What do you think? Best regards, Harald Such a cool tool. I wish it worked for the rest of the world. :( Is the source available that it could be run on another site? I have a server sitting doing nothing that might be good for something like this. -Jeremy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Add 'Keep right!' to the list of map links in the 'place' template
On 2 Mar 2009, at 20:51, Harald Kleiner wrote: Hi! Done (anyone can do this, it's a wiki). I think it's a potentially useful tool, even if it does use the deprecated phrase deprecated for perfectly reasonable tags like abutters=retail (how else do you tag shopfronts in an otherwise predominantly residential area?) Just don't take every so called error on keepright as error; some of them are just warnings ;-) I took the page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Deprecated_features as reference and I wanted to point people to items tagged the old way to help them adapt the tags to the new way This crossing of a highway and a railway needs to be tagged as railway=level_crossing Is not quite right as it should also allow railway=crossing. a crossing is a crossing just for pedestrians, while level_crossing is a crossing where larger vehicles can cross too. Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Add 'Keep right!' to the list of map links in the 'place' template
Shaun wrote: This crossing of a highway and a railway needs to be tagged as railway=level_crossing Is not quite right as it should also allow railway=crossing. a crossing is a crossing just for pedestrians, while level_crossing is a crossing where larger vehicles can cross too. Hi Harald, Do you use the saved comments against false positives to improve the checks at all? For example I noted against one such highlighted problem that railway=abandoned meeting a highway=footway probably doesn't need to be tagged as a level_crossing (indeed part of the footway runs along a section of the abandoned railway line). Having said that I've found a few things to correct around here as well as the false positives, and there are a few things that are highlighted as places I meant to go and finish but forgot about... Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
El Lunes, 2 de Marzo de 2009, Ed Avis escribió: Iván Sánchez Ortega ivan at sanchezortega.es writes: I'm one of the persons who consider CC-by-sa to be a risk for the integrity of the project (i.e. there are potential legal loopholes). I'd rather nuke half the user-contributed data than lose everything. This seems rather apocalyptic. What do you mean by 'lose everything' and how would changing to a different licence avoid that? It is my opinion that CC-by-sa poses a high risk of not being enforceable to databases. That would mean losing the share-alike rights to the data. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es MSN:i_eat_s_p_a_m_for_breakf...@hotmail.com Jabber:ivansanc...@jabber.org ; ivansanc...@kdetalk.net signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
This seems rather apocalyptic. What do you mean by 'lose everything' and how would changing to a different licence avoid that? It is my opinion that CC-by-sa poses a high risk of not being enforceable to databases. That would mean losing the share-alike rights to the data. So you mean the data will become sort of public domain? Well, then there is question: what is worse? 1. Have all the data, but risk someone abusing it? 2. Or force the license change, therefore enforcing the share-alike rights correctly, but tossing some data away? Note that if cc-by-sa is somehow abusable, anybody that want to abuse the license using some loophole will simply grab last dump srill published under cc-by-sa instead of the new license - and then abuse the non-enforcability of cc-by-sa to databases. As for the possible data loss - since new license is basically still in spirit of cc-by-sa we can assume that most users will agree to license change, if we can contact them. So if we assume we will contact everybody who has logged/uploaded data at least once in last month and we will fail to contact the others - how many data will be removed? Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
So now we are talking about changing the OSM license. On the one hand I agree that this is necessary but we have to be quite sure that this is the right thing to do. We might lose more during this process then we gain: First of all we will lose data. We won't get everyone to agree on the new license. No matter why. Maybe they don't approve the new license or we just can't reach them anymore. The worst thing would be a huge data lose that we gained because of governments or organizations. But we could lose even more! The ones that don't agree on the change might start a fork and that would be the worst thing that could happen. We got already more then enough to do but splitting our resources into two or more different projects would be awe full. And one more thing. How can we be sure that the coming up license suites the project? I don't want to have this discussion in 3 years again. Roger ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
El Martes, 3 de Marzo de 2009, MP escribió: Note that if cc-by-sa is somehow abusable, anybody that want to abuse the license using some loophole will simply grab last dump srill published under cc-by-sa instead of the new license - and then abuse the non-enforcability of cc-by-sa to databases. ... Which is, IMHO, the reason for the migration to ODbL to be as fast as possible. (If this happens, though, we should start looking for loopholes in other people's data). So if we assume we will contact everybody who has logged/uploaded data at least once in last month and we will fail to contact the others - how many data will be removed? We won't know until we ask. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es - ¿Cuanto tiempo lleva muerto? - Unas cinco horas. - Interrogadle -- Fringe, 2008 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
Something that's come up a few times in chatting to people is the front page design of the website and how it's been pretty static for a long time. That's pretty cool as nobody has felt the need to hack it away and it's sprouted some cool additions with time. But there are some things that could be nicer, it could be made more obvious that you could edit for example. One of the things I've heard multiple times from newbies is that they thought you had to be a hacker to be able to contribute... so maybe it could be a bit more welcoming to people. I asked the CM designers for some quick hacks on what different front pages could look like which you can see on the wiki page below. There are some very quick ideas there but it's not a full picture by a long way. The other thing that could be better is the search engine optimisation of the front page so that it shows up higher for some search terms like free maps and stuff. Anyway some thoughts are jotted down here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Front_Page There are a bunch of open questions like what design elements should stay, what should go, what colour schemes would be neat. Feel free to contribute and if it's useful we can build a design brief based on comments and ideas... then if it's useful to the community we can have them do some more design work to build some cool front page mockups. Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:51 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I asked the CM designers for some quick hacks on what different front pages could look like which you can see on the wiki page below. There are some very quick ideas there but it's not a full picture by a long way. To get some conversation going: I really like the Fp4.jpg[1] example on the URL you gave, Steve. It's important to make the map (and thus its data) the largest GUI element on the page. The buttons along the top draw my eye up there to see what's available. I also like the Shop link idea. After looking at all of the examples, Fp4.jpg seems to be the one that is the simplest and most eye-catching. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Fp4.jpg ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO
2009/3/3 Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:51 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I asked the CM designers for some quick hacks on what different front pages could look like which you can see on the wiki page below. There are some very quick ideas there but it's not a full picture by a long way. To get some conversation going: I really like the Fp4.jpg[1] example on the URL you gave, Steve. It's important to make the map (and thus its data) the largest GUI element on the page. The buttons along the top draw my eye up there to see what's available. I also like the Shop link idea. After looking at all of the examples, Fp4.jpg seems to be the one that is the simplest and most eye-catching. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Fp4.jpg I must say, I like that one too... but... So many sites and applications these days seem to be going with all the options at the top/bottom and a full width content section, while at the same time most 4:3 screens are being replaced with 16:10 screens... Though at least most sites allow the content to be scrolled moving their menu bars out of view, this however, proboably isn't something that would be preferable with the OSM page... The end result being that with a layout like that on a widescreen display, you'll have browser title bar, menu bar, link bar, tab bar, random other tool bars, osm tab bar, small, but, wide, sliver of map, osm key bar, browser status bar and finally task bar... Obviously if you have a big screen with a decent vertical resolution, the sliver of map is somewhat larger and more useful, but, on smaller screens at least, and I'm thinking of screens with a resolution like 1280x800 here that are pretty common in laptops these days, that sliver isn't going to be that big... As such... I think the fp6/7 images would be probably better generally, and especially for smaller widescreen displays... That said, I guess there's no reason, beyond maintainability, why both layouts couldn't be made available, even if only selectable by logged in users... though a default that's good for everyone would still be needed :)... I think all the samples shown are an improvement on the existing layout in term of usability and from an aesthetics point of view, making things clearer and prettier at the same time :) d ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 03:39, Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es wrote: El Martes, 3 de Marzo de 2009, MP escribió: Note that if cc-by-sa is somehow abusable, anybody that want to abuse the license using some loophole will simply grab last dump srill published under cc-by-sa instead of the new license - and then abuse the non-enforcability of cc-by-sa to databases. ... Which is, IMHO, the reason for the migration to ODbL to be as fast as possible. (If this happens, though, we should start looking for loopholes in other people's data). What about finding a loophole that will allow convert from cc-by-sa to ODbL without asking anybody? :) I think wikipedia is doing something similar with their transition from GFDL to cc-by-sa So if we assume we will contact everybody who has logged/uploaded data at least once in last month and we will fail to contact the others - how many data will be removed? We won't know until we ask. I tried running some statistics on extract of Czech Republic from (~ 78000 km^2, 684 Mb uncompressed) If i take data from all users, that have uploaded/modified at least one node, way or relation in last month, I end up with 72.66% of all the data. If I use last two months instead, I end up with 85.56% of data. That is only current state, not considering any history or possible derivative work, etc When I tried the same for germany, I get 59.82% for one-month-recent contributors and 79.17% for two-month-recent. Even worse. If we assume people without contribution in last two months as unreachable (lack of interest in OSM for them), we lose at least 20% data. If the loss would be such high, I think we'll have another fork very soon. Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Mapnik coastline shapefile update - Philippine coast still somewhat square when exported
2009/3/3 Jon Burgess jburgess...@googlemail.com On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 10:51 +, Kevin Peat wrote: I made some changes a couple of weeks ago to the banks of the River Dart through Totnes http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.42863lon=-3.67974zoom=15layers=B000FFF Obviously those changes have been picked up as the county boundary is rendering along the updated river bank but the actual river isn't. Is this just a time lag thing or have I done something wrong? There is a lag. The coastlines are generated from a set of shapefiles which is periodically updated from the OSM data. I've just fetched the latest updates. You probably won't see much difference in the map tiles until the weekend, but images from the export tab will show them right away (see attached). There's a large chunk of bad coastline around The Philippines that's been there since some shapefile update in the recent past... It can be seen here... http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=15.481lon=120.274zoom=9layers=B000FTFT The coastline is all OK now (there were a couple of problems at one point) and the view at the coastline checker ( http://tile.openstreetmap.nl/coastlines.html?lat=15.481lon=120.274zoom=9) and a local mapnik render I've done using the coastline checker output both show the coastline correctly... A trac ticket was raised about this problem a couple of days ago now, but, I'd have expected an update of the shapefiles to have corrected this... It looks like it's only corrected the problem above zoom level 10 though suggesting that only the processed_p shapefiles have been updated... So... some questions... Is there a problem with the world boundaries shapefiles being used? Were they generated from the processed_p shapefiles at some point? Are the world boundaries files used on tile different to the ones packaged here http://tile.openstreetmap.org/world_boundaries-spherical.tgz? What would be involved in regenerating them? Once regenerated, could new ones be made available somewhere? Thanks, d ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] problem compilint mod_tile under debian etch
hi, am trying to compile mod_tile under debian etch. Am getting the following error: xlquest:/home/lawgon/install/mod_tile# make /usr/share/apr-1.0/build/libtool --silent --mode=compile i486-linux-gnu-gcc - I. -DLINUX=2 -D_GNU_SOURCE -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -D_REENTRANT - I/usr/include/apr-1.0 -I/usr/include/openssl -I/usr/include/postgresql - I/usr/include/xmltok -pthread-g -O2 -Wall -DLINUX=2 -D_GNU_SOURCE - D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -D_REENTRANT -I/usr/include/apache2 -I. - I/usr/include/apr-1.0 -I/usr/include/postgresql -I/usr/include/apache2 -I. - I/usr/include/apr-1.0 -I/usr/include/postgresql -prefer-pic -c mod_tile.c touch mod_tile.slo /usr/share/apr-1.0/build/libtool: line 1222: i486-linux-gnu-gcc: command not found make: *** [mod_tile.slo] Error 1 any clues? -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] problem compilint mod_tile under debian etch
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote: hi, am trying to compile mod_tile under debian etch. Am getting the following error: xlquest:/home/lawgon/install/mod_tile# make /usr/share/apr-1.0/build/libtool --silent --mode=compile i486-linux-gnu-gcc - I. -DLINUX=2 -D_GNU_SOURCE -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -D_REENTRANT - I/usr/include/apr-1.0 -I/usr/include/openssl -I/usr/include/postgresql - I/usr/include/xmltok -pthread -g -O2 -Wall -DLINUX=2 -D_GNU_SOURCE - D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -D_REENTRANT -I/usr/include/apache2 -I. - I/usr/include/apr-1.0 -I/usr/include/postgresql -I/usr/include/apache2 -I. - I/usr/include/apr-1.0 -I/usr/include/postgresql -prefer-pic -c mod_tile.c touch mod_tile.slo /usr/share/apr-1.0/build/libtool: line 1222: i486-linux-gnu-gcc: command not found make: *** [mod_tile.slo] Error 1 It looks like you don't have gcc installed. You should start with running: $ sudo aptitude build-essential ... or stick to a good howto: http://www.kelvinism.com/howtos/revised-mod_tile-howto/ any clues? -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Wbr, Andrii V. Mishkovskyi. I have the last page code of rocket launch program in NASA written in Lisp: ))) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi! MP schrieb: This seems rather apocalyptic. What do you mean by 'lose everything' and how would changing to a different licence avoid that? It is my opinion that CC-by-sa poses a high risk of not being enforceable to databases. That would mean losing the share-alike rights to the data. So you mean the data will become sort of public domain? That is not the same. PD means the data is open to everybody. Abusing a bad licence means the data is open for grabbing for unscrupulous people that don't care about violating the idea. But it is still restricted to honest users respecting the licence. A ridiculous situation. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi! MP schrieb: What about finding a loophole that will allow convert from cc-by-sa to ODbL without asking anybody? :) I think wikipedia is doing something similar with their transition from GFDL to cc-by-sa An extremely bad idea. This is the perfect way to alienate people even more and cause a counter-initative or split in the community. From the reactions I see, many people are annoyed that the initiative for a new licence has been conducted in secret by a small group of people, that the information has not been spread and not been translated and that they are being overrun and forced to agree by threat of deletion of their data. These are not my words but taken from posts in lists and forum. The only way to get this rolling is to inform people and ask for their cooperation. It has had a very bad start, but looking for loopholes will feel to many people like you're stealing their data. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
