Re: [Talk-hr] oznacavanje uskih ulica
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 08:52:26 +0200, Marjan Vrban wrote: On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:25:14 + (UTC), Valent Turkovic wrote: [7 quoted lines suppressed] Možda je ovo već postojeće rješenje za uske ulice, staze... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:width http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxwidth http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:est_width valjda ce i pametni rendereri znati koristiti i ovaj key pa sukladno tokmu i renderirati širinu ulice na karti, a ovo je znacajno i za routing (pogotovo za teretna vozila). Evo i primjera Venecije kako to izgleda kod njih... sve footpath... http://sautter.com/map/?zoom=15lat=45.43779lon=12.32924layers=B0TFFF http://sautter.com/map/?zoom=15lat=45.438lon=12.33301layers=00B000TFFF ___ Talk-hr mailing list Talk-hr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-hr
Re: [Talk-hr] oznacavanje uskih ulica
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 10:25:14PM +, Valent Turkovic wrote: Što više razmišljam o tagiranju uskih, srednjih i širokih ulica naših primorskih mjesta sve više mislim da bi trebali skoro svi biti pedestrian. Pa one koje su dovoljno uske da auto ne moze proci kroz njih definitivno ne bi trebale biti pedestrian nego footway. Za sire ovisi, vidi nize. Recimo http://www.putovnica.net/galerije-slika/hrvatska/dalmacija/sibenik-slike-galerija/foto-sibenik-gradske-ulice ne moze biti nista nego footway :-) U opisu pedestrian taga stoji kako je to tag za centar grada, za široke ulice koje su prohodne i za aute (zašto je to uopće bitno nije mi jasno a ni drugima koji pitaju istu stvar na talk stranici wikija). Pa to je vrlo bitno - naime cijeli smisao highway=pedastrian kako ga ja shvacam i kako opis i diskusije sugeriraju je da definira pjesacku zonu. Dakle ono sto se vertikalnom signalizacijom oznacava sa: http://www.prometna-zona.com/znakovi/znakovi_obavijesti/23_pjesacka_zona/pjesacka_zona.gif Ili alternativno hrpicom na prava mjesta postavljenih znakova: http://www.prometna-zona.com/znakovi/znakovi_izricitih_naredbi/03_zabrana_prometa_u_oba_smjera/zabrana_prometa_u_oba_smjera.gif http://www.prometna-zona.com/znakovi/znakovi_izricitih_naredbi/04_zabrana_prometa_u_jednom_smjeru/zabrana_prometa_u_jednom_smjeru.gif http://www.prometna-zona.com/znakovi/znakovi_izricitih_naredbi/20_zabrana_prometa_za_sva_vozila_na_motorni_pogon/zabrana_svi_motorni.gif i sl. Dakle radi se o cesti po kojoj bi sasvim uredno mogli (i dapace nerijetko i vrlo htjeli) prolaziti automobili, ali im je to iskljucivom zakonskom odlukom gradskog prometnog poglavarstva zabranjeno (radi zelje grada da neka cesta/podrucje bude slobodna od vozila: najcesce radi velikog prometa pjesaka, nesigurnosti za pjesake ili smanjenjenja zracnog zagadjenja obicno u uzem centru grada). Ponekad je cak po pjesackoj zoni promet dozvoljen za odredjenu klasu vozila, i/ili u neko vrijeme (recimo dozvoljen promet motornih dostavnih vozila izmedju 22-06 i sl); takvo sto bi svejedno bilo highway=pedestrian (sa opaskom u note o iznimkama po mogucnosti). Dakle zasto se highway=pedestrian stavlja samo na ulice prohodne za aute bi po meni trebalo biti savrseno jasno: ako nije prohodna za aute, tj. ako po fizikalnim zakonima nije moguce da se auto pojavi tamo; onda nema niti neke potrebe donositi zakon/prometne znakove kojima se to proglasava pjesackom zonom (highway=pedestrian) i zabranjuje autima da budu tamo -- jer je i tako fizicki nemoguce da se isti tamo pojave! Dakle, da probam napraviti pseudo-kod koji definira izbor izmedju to dvoje (first match wins): 1) ako niti jedan auto *fizicki* ne moze proci tim putem (preuska i sl), onda je to highway=footway (uvijek i bez greske; bez obzira koliko nam se rendering tog taga u t...@h vise svidja od Mapnikovog ili whatever) 2) ako bi auto fizicki mogao proci tim putem, ali mu *prometni znakovi* to brane, onda je to highway=pedestrian 3) ako bi auto fizicki mogao proci tim putem kada bi se nasao tamo, ali postoje fizicke prepreke (stisnute zgrade, stupici, ograde itd) na svim mjestima moguces ulaska da bi uopce mogao *doci do tamo*, onda je to vjerojatno isto highway=pedestrian 4) ako nisi matchirao nista iznad, onda je highway=footway Mislim da je prerekvizit za razmisljanje o tagu (bez skretanja na opasne stranputice mapping for the renderer) taj da razmisljas uvijek kao da se *oba taga* izmedju kojih dvojis renderiraju *potpuno isto* svuda (ili jos bolje, kao da se uopce NE renderiraju u defaultnim renderima). Na primjeru jedne od glavnih Rapske ulica (http://free-ri.htnet.hr/ apartments-zora/SlikeRab/Grad/RabSrednjaUlica.jpg) se vidi da nije ni uska ni široka, auto bi mogao proći no tamo nema što raditi. Tu ulicu Da li netko ima tamo sto raditi ili ne je vrlo diskutabilno (i ne utjece na rezultat odluke koji tag koristiti). Npr. za primjer gore siguran sam da bi se naslo preko nekoliko genijalaca kojima bi bilo super (pod uvijetom da mogu fizicki i da im ne bi nitko naplatio masnu kaznu) autom se odvesti do te slasticarne na slici jer im se ne da hodati :-) Pitanje je dakle samo da li im je to fizicki moguce, i da li im je to zakonom dozvoljeno. Odgovor na ta dva pitanja uvrsti if/then/else pseudo-program gore i vidi sto ces dobiti (ja nemam pojma kako je po Rabu, pa ti ne mogu sam odgovoriti na to) nikako ne bih označio kao footway već obavezno kao pedestran, no bočne ulice koje se granaju s nje (širine cca 1.5-2m) bih još razmislio kako je pravilnije označiti. Kroz 1.5 vjerujem da ni manji auto ne moze fizicki (i mali uski puntac je preko 1.6m sirine) proci tako da je definitivno footway, a iako bi u 2m mozda teoretski mogao proci uski auto sa dobrim vozacem i brzinom stani/kreni do 5km/h to bi u najboljem slucaju bio neki highway=service od par metara (recimo za ulaz na parking u dvoristu stambene zgrade ako mu je to namjena ili sl.) a ne cesta po kojoj bi se
Re: [Talk-hr] oznacavanje uskih ulica
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 08:52:26AM +0200, Marjan Vrban wrote: On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:25:14 + (UTC), Valent Turkovic wrote: m funkciju tih ulica imaju skoro istu kao glavna ulica, i u njima se nalaze trgovine, restorani, kafići, jedino je šira od glavne ulice. Ne vidim razlog da se isključivo i samo zbog širine ulice koristi drugi tag, i koja će to širina biti? 250cm je pedestran dok je ulica 249 širine footway? To mi je malo blesavo. Nadam se da razumiješ moju dvojbu. Možda je ovo već postojeće rješenje za uske ulice, staze... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:width http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxwidth http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:est_width da, to je tocno ono sto sam govorio. Prvo dodatnim tagovima bolje opisati postojecu stvar (jer nije highway=footway ista stvar sa width=0.5 i surface=gravel ili sa width=4.0 i surface=asphalt), a onda lobirati da se takve razlike drugacije mapiraju u raznim rendererima. Ili na kraju krajeva dignuti posebni renderer za hrvatsku pa promovirati njega (ili cemo i tako i tako prelaziti na razne druge stranice i radi podataka a ne samo izgleda renderera - ako dodje do toga da se OSM forka, sto mi ne izgleda tako nemoguce vise sa ovim licencnim kaosom) E sad kako se ponasa trenutni renderer treba probati pa vidjeti (ili pogledati u trenutni kod/definicije). Recimo na devel bazi se moze randomli provlaciti x kombinacija pa vidjeti sto se dobije, ili se mogu upisati podaci na pravoj bazi pa gledati kako se mijenja (no to je sporije i teze za pratiti, a i kratkorocno zagadjuje kartu neispravnim podacima). valjda ce i pametni rendereri znati koristiti i ovaj key pa sukladno tokmu i renderirati širinu ulice na karti, a ovo je znacajno i za routing (pogotovo za teretna vozila). poanta je da rendereri to uvijek MOGU uzeti u obzir (ako ne sad, onda mozda kasnije; ili ce se u buducnosti npr. se pojavitui neki treci tag koji ce se renderirati drugacije a koji bolje opisuje takvu stvar; tada moze se pokrenuti bot koji ce npr. highway=footway sa sirinom 3 oznaciti kao taj novi tip highwaya koji ih bolje opisuje itd). Ali za to je bitno da stvari budu *ispravno* tagirane. Jer ako su krivo tagirane da bi bile ljepse renderirane u danasnjem Mapniku onda to znaci da iako ce danas mapnik izgledati lijepo: - da ce drugi rendereri to ruzno renderati. Neki koji su mozda i bitniji (recimo mobilni uredjaji) - da ce i sam Mapnik u buducnosti to mozda ruzno renderati jer ce se on izmijeniti - da ce razni botovi propustiti nadograditi nase tagove na nove - da ce razni botovi KRIVO nadograditi nase tagove na nesto - da ce razni drugi programi koji nisu rendereri (routeri su recimo dosta popularni, iako tu ima svega) donositi krive odluke - raznim ljudima sa raznim potrebama nesto sto ce nama izgledati super ce biti uzasno, i obratno. - i jos hrpa stvari koja meni trenutno nije pala na pamet, ali ne znaci da ne postoji. -- Opinions above are GNU-copylefted. ___ Talk-hr mailing list Talk-hr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-hr
Re: [Talk-hr] oznacavanje uskih ulica
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 03:22:23PM +0200, Janko Mihelić wrote: Što se tiče rendera, nemoguće je napraviti da je dobar za aute i bicikle/pješake istovremeno. Mapnik očito više pogoduje autima, makar bi autima bilo bolje da se highway-pedestrian isto crta crtkano, jer je njima svejedno gdje se kako šeće, a ovako ih može i zbuniti. da, to je sasvim moguce. Ako je to tako, sasvim je moguc taj rezultat. No s druge strane, nekako naginjem da bi Mapnik ipak htio imati i malo vise univerzalnosti u sebi (iako vjerujem da ce u slucaju nedoumica preferirati automobile pred svima ostalima). Jednostavno treba napravit dva odvojena rendera, ovako će stalno biti problema. Vec je napravljeno: na http://www.openstreetmap.org/ kada kliknes na plusic gore desno mozes birati izmedju Mapnik, Osmarender (by ti...@home) i Cycle Map (koji je bas to, prilagodjen za bicikle. Ili bi trebao biti :) Po defaultu ti pamti onaj na kojem si zadnje bio... -- Opinions above are GNU-copylefted. ___ Talk-hr mailing list Talk-hr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-hr
[Talk-hr] Što je nedozvoljeno kopiranje, a š to nije
Ne znam kako bih odredio granicu kopiranja informacije. Recimo da imam knjigu u kojoj imam ucrtane nekakve kote. U knjizi piše Sva prava pridržana. Recimo da mogu precrtati kote i pravit se grbav, nije da me mogu uhvatiti. Ali što ako nisam baš siguran u kote, i onda odlučim upisati tag source:knjigaSaKotama. Jel to legalno? Hvala. Možemo pričati i o drugim tipovima precrtavanja i kopiranja jer vjerujem da je to i drugima poprilično mutno područje. ___ Talk-hr mailing list Talk-hr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-hr
Re: [Talk-hr] Što je nedozvoljeno kopiranje, a š to nije
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 05:11:39PM +0200, Janko Mihelić wrote: Ne znam kako bih odredio granicu kopiranja informacije. Recimo da imam knjigu u kojoj imam ucrtane nekakve kote. U knjizi piše Sva prava pridržana. To bi čak i pravnom laiku trebali biti prilično jasno i nedvosmisleno da ne smije ništa raditi s time, zar ne? (bar se meni tako čini, ali ja se već neko vrijeme skroz amaterski motam po pravnim vodama, pa možda griješim) Recimo da mogu precrtati kote i pravit se grbav, nije da me mogu uhvatiti. Zapravo mogu. Upravo kako nagađaš niže, namjernim unošenjem neispravnih podataka (tzv. Copyright Easter Eggs) po kojima vide da je precrtavano. Ali što ako nisam baš siguran u kote, i onda odlučim upisati tag source:knjigaSaKotama. Jel to legalno? Nije legalno. Dapače je izričito protuzakonito. Hvala. Možemo pričati i o drugim tipovima precrtavanja i kopiranja jer vjerujem da je to i drugima poprilično mutno područje. Hvala na mailu, napokon me ponukao da umjesto da tebi detaljno odgovorim direktno na listu da napokon složim stranicu: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/HR:Copyright što se spremam već godinu dana pa nikako da nađem vremena :-) Evo sad sam našao vremana i složio to, pa pročitaj što piše na tom linku. (pa vrati diskusiju ovdje ako treba, da možemo doraditi i poboljšati stranice). A ako se kome da uljepšavati i dodati dodatne informacije i primjere - dobro došli također! -- Opinions above are GNU-copylefted. ___ Talk-hr mailing list Talk-hr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-hr
Re: [Talk-hr] Što je nedozvoljeno kopiranje, a š to nije
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 10:16:41PM +0200, Ivan Biuklija wrote: Dana Sun, 22 Aug 2010 21:30:07 +0200, Marjan Vrban Koliko bi ovakve situacije kršile nečija autorska prava, s obzirom na to da nisam iskopirao položaj ulice, a naziv ulice je javni podatak koji bi po svim pravilima trebao biti označen? Slažem se ja naziv ulice javan, ali na koji način doći do naziva ulice, a da je legale što se tiče OSM pravila, osim da pogledaš tablu, neznam. Gledanje na tablu je naravno, pod uvjetom da je tabla postavljena, da je ispisana gramatički ispravno i da se ne radi o (pra)starom nazivu. Ako ta tri uvjeta nisu ispunjena, bez gledanja u više izvora i eventualnog ispitivanja stanovnika te ulice, ne postoji drugi način. Tako je. To pobrojano su otrpilike svi legalni nacini. But worry not, dok smo mapirali Trnavu i Borongaj, barem nasa ekipa sa biciklima je susrela hrpu vrlo susretljivih starijih ljudi koji su u zamjenu da im kazemo sto to zapravo radimo bili spremni pruziti sve informacije koje pozelimo... mislim da smo mogli skupiti history svih ulica od 1920 do danas samo da smo malo dulje ostali procaskati :-) Malo mi ne nejasno kako HT može polagati kopirajt na broj telefona i adresu, ali čim su se ogradili u dnu, jasno je o čemu se radi. Da. U Hrvatskoj su copyright, original database copyright, i sui generis database rights sve skupljeno u jednom zakonu koji se zove Zakon o autorskom pravu i srodnim pravima. Zakon ti je linkan na http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/HR:Copyright a posebno te zanima Poglavlje 6. PRAVO PROIZVODJACA BAZE PODATAKA Pretpostavljam istom logikom da ne bismo smjeli otići na www.posta.hr i prepisati poštanske brojeve jer je (c) 2005 Hrvatska pošta d.d. Da, tocno tako. S tim da je yours truly ishodio dozvolu od Hrvatskih Posta da se postanski brojevi mogu koristiti. Linkovi na ta 3 maila su isto navedeni na URLu http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/HR:Copyright http://karte.haerbe.net/ HAERBALIJE - DRZAVNI NEPRIJATELJI #1 DO #101 To znam. Tko će onda najebati zbog odavanja vojne tajne na www.arkod.hr? Ako su krivi, oni koji su za to odgovorni. No mozda su dobili dozvolu, mi to ne znamo. Mozemo ih pitati. Ili smo u prekršaju samim gledanjem tih karata? Nije nemoguce, vidi kako su hapsili one gore ;-) No to je bilo po clanku kaznenog zakona za odavanje vojne tajne, a ne po zakonu o autorskom pravu i srodnim pravima (detalji su ti na danom haerbe linku). Dobro, karte su sada službeno negdje 'javno' objavljene, ali ih ne smijemo koristiti jer je sada ministarstvo polaže autorska prava na njih? Otprilike tako. Autorsko pravo ne polaze nuzno ministarstvo (iako je moguce - no jednako tako je moguce da su samo dobili dozvolu za objavu), no to sto je nesto objavljeno (na webu ili drugdje) ne znaci da imas pravo reprodukcije, umnazanja, distribucije i/ili izmjene istog. Upravo suprotno - ogromna vecina stvari je objavljena negdje pa je copyright svejedno stiti (zapravo dalo bi se reci da copyright u praksi i stiti samo stvari koje su objavljene; jer one koje nisu objavljene nego ih samo njihov autor posjeduje niti ne treba stititi jer ih se nema od cega stititi). Dakle to sto je nesto na webu ne znaci da imas pravo s tim raditi ista sto zakon brani (a brani *sve* sto bi nam bilo korisno). Dakle jedini nacin za dobiti dozvolu je pitati sto se smije i traziti eksplicitnu dozvolu za ono sto se ne smije. Ima primjer na linku kojeg sam dao kako sam ja to trazio informacije prvo od Drzavnog zavoda za Intelektulno vlasnistvo oko nedoumica oko prava, a zatim trazio (i dobio) dozvolu od Hrvatskih Posta - pa ako netko zeli to iskoristiti za upite drugje, slobodno -- keep us posted sto i koga ste trazili i koje odgovore ste dobili. 3. Kad smo kod toga, kakav je uopće pravni status podataka s http://www.arkod.hr ili iz katastra? ?? 2009 Ministarstvo poljoprivrede, ribarstva i ruralnog razvoja. Jasno. A službeni dio Narodnih novina? Kao i na cijelom siteu, Copyright ?? Narodne novine d.d. Sva prava pridržana, a radi se o Da, gdje? Na http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/ ja to ne vidim (primjeti da su www.nn.hr nesto drugo i gdje ima puno vise raznih sadzaja, a ne samo zakoni i pravilnici i sl.). zakonima, pravilnicima i slično. Mogu li oni uopće polagati autorsko pravo na to? Ne mogu na to. Preciznije, cl.8.st.2.t.1 ZAPSPa (NN167/03) kaze: 2) Nisu predmetom autorskog prava: 1. otkrica, sluzbeni tekstovi iz podrucja zakonodavstva, uprave i sudstva (zakoni, uredbe, odluke, izvjesca, zapisnici, sudske odluke, standardi i sl.) i druga sluzbena djela, kao i njihove zbirke, koja su objavljena radi sluzbenog informiranja javnosti Primjeti takodjer cak i kad bi pisalo takvo sto na jednu bitnu stvar: sva prava pridrzana samo znaci da se ne odricu niti jednog prava koje imaju; a ne da i tvrde da neka prava postoje i u kojem obimu. Takodjer taj tekst je pravno suvisan u RH, jer ako nije nista napisano uvijek se podrazumijeva po sili zakona da su sva prava pridrzana; odnosno
Re: [Talk-hr] Što je nedozvoljeno kopiranje, a š to nije
Monday, August 23, 2010, 2:00:38 AM, Matija Nalis wrote: Ne bih znao, treba ih pitati. Ako se nekome da, mogu vidjeti kako sam ja pitao za postanske brojeve na http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/HR:Copyright pa pitati tako ili slicno i javiti na listu da su to napravili i koje su rezultati (ako/kad se pojave rezultati ili prodje par tjedana a da se ne jave) Ajmo hipotetski, da pošta nije dala dozvolu za korištenje te baze, kako bismo došli do tih podataka? Iz glave bi ih, pretpostavljam, smjeli pisati. Kakav bi status imali eventualni telefonski pozivi pošti s upitima? 4. Smijem li koristiti neku kartu sa zaštićenim pravima kako bih pronašao i odabrao trasu, primjerice, poljskim putevima i onda ih snimiti GPS-om? Da, smijes. E sad, ne zezam već ozbiljno pitam. Što ako u proučavanju karte i odabiru rute namjerno ili nenamjerno zapamtim nazive ulica, a na terenu ne primijetim samu tablu? -- Best regards, Ivanmailto:i...@biuklija.com ___ Talk-hr mailing list Talk-hr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-hr
[OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms - The Early Years
Liz, You asked about the early intent of the Contributor Terms before they were re-written by legal counsel. As promised: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes or directly https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lVQlsnuEKPY2gjspScwHqgmo8RyoqmuaWWmWh58T4TY 0.1 https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=18q0b_f_-rtuWWC04qaAcO3NY_Aob2QjY2gGRMmo0IrM 0.2 Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?
At 10:46 AM 14/08/2010, Rob Myers wrote: On 08/14/2010 07:33 AM, Liz wrote: If you believe, like many data donors, that the attribution must be preserved, then a licence which incorporates the viral provisions is necessary. The ODbL does incorporate attribution. From a given work you can find out which dataset was used to produce it, and from a given dataset you can find out who produced it. BY-SA already requires less attribution than the GNU FDL, and this was an issue for some people when Wikipedia was relicenced - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers#Attribution - Rob. And section 4 of the Contributor Terms is designed for first-stage attribution of data donors irrespective of license used. Thanks Rob for the article. I was struck by the moderate importance attached in the survey result to the wiki(pedia) history page. It has bothered me that though attribution is a good abstract idea , we lacked a similar mechanism in a database of highly factual non-immutable data to make it sticky. It strikes me that the work by Matt now gives a practical analogue of that in the history planet dump that has now been published. Speculatively, it is perhaps something we should commit to continue publishing as part of our attribution commitments. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY is compatible with ODbL/CT?
- Original Message - From: Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org; Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:38 PM Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY is compatible with ODbL/CT? (Was [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?) At 10:38 AM 14/08/2010, Francis Davey wrote: On 14 August 2010 09:22, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: In order to submit CC-BY-SA under the contributor terms you need to give OSMF rights that you don't possess. CC-BY-SA does not grant you a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright and so you can't pass that right on to OSMF. Its as simple as that isn't it? That looks right to me. In order to comply with section 2 of the contributor terms and contributor must be able to grant an extremely widely drafted licence. If the contributor is merely a licensee under CC-BY-SA they will not be able to comply with section 2 of the contributor terms. I also think its pretty clear that, in context, section 1 would not be complied with either. It would be impossible for a CC licensee to agree to You have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents and grant the license below. since CC-BY-SA does not give that permission. Apologies if this misses the point: I am a lawyer not a mapper. Francis, thank you. And I am a mapper not a lawyer so this may be a dumb question relating to CC-BY (not CC-BY-SA): If Section 2 of the Contributor Terms [1] were amended from Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 below, You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, ... to Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, ... do you see at least converging compatibility with CC-BY [2]? Or indeed it is implicit now? Intent: (1) Section 4 always was intended to allow and encourage governmental organisation imports that require attribution under the standard terms without need for derogation. (2) Maintain maximum flexibility for future choices. The license used in section 3 might vary over the next 100 years due to the freedoms in Section 2 but Section 4 remains immutable. We attribute our sources but not necessarily force users further down the chain to do so. If you say not necessarily force users further down the chain to do so isn't that a breach CC-BY terms which, Under 8b, requires Licensor offers to the recipient a licence to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the licence granted to You under this Licence [2 below]. Surely if we use CC-BY data, we have for require (force) users down the line to attibute it to the origional authors. David (3) Avoid the attribution chain problem now. Not get into the situation where end users making maps are forced to check whether just possibly they are making a map with data from a 100 agencies and have to attribute on the map. This is the real reason I am twisting and turning not to just say we will accept any attribution terms required. We want to migrate from CCs license specifically because they are not suited, it would be a great shame to bring back all the ambiguity via the back door. Mike [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms [2] If a specific topical version is useful, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/legalcode ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY is compatible with ODbL/CT?
At 05:50 PM 22/08/2010, David Groom wrote: Intent: (1) Section 4 always was intended to allow and encourage governmental organisation imports that require attribution under the standard terms without need for derogation. (2) Maintain maximum flexibility for future choices. The license used in section 3 might vary over the next 100 years due to the freedoms in Section 2 but Section 4 remains immutable. We attribute our sources but not necessarily force users further down the chain to do so. If you say not necessarily force users further down the chain to do so isn't that a breach CC-BY terms which, Under 8b, requires Licensor offers to the recipient a licence to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the licence granted to You under this Licence [2 below]. Surely if we use CC-BY data, we have for require (force) users down the line to attibute it to the origional authors. David Yes, that really is the rub, isn't it? I do not see much of an issue with sideways attributions where a derivative geodata database has been from OSM as the main source. The Deriver copies http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution and uses it appropriately. Things become difficult when geodata sources really open up and OSM is a major but amongst thousands of geospatial resources and folks will be routinely creating multiple mixed derived databases and them mixing them too. Governments move on to more realistic licensing but we can't. Oops. But I may be being pessimistic. Then there is upwards attribution. Software generally does not demand that a book attribute the word-processor used, the various image packages used to make the picture, how field notes were made ... CC-BY is vague on this as, like CC BY SA, it is not written for databases. Are we really going to have to force any map-maker to acknowledge hundreds of sources because they just might be adding to a particular area?? We seem to be dealing with all this at the moment by simply ignoring it. Mike PS http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution only attributes Australian Bureau of Statistics as an Australian source. I've counted at least 6 CC-BY licenses in the import catalogue. :-) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point
- Original Message - From: 80n 80n...@gmail.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 6:26 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 5:44 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.netwrote: Why are we changing the licence? Well [1] states among other things that [CC-BY-SA] is therefore very difficult to interpret, and we have indeed seen this situation occur many times when people have asked what can and can't be done with OSM data, and no definitive answer could be found. If it was unclear if something was allowed under CC-BY-SA then users of our data were asked to take a cautious approach. And that seems very reasonable stance to take, even though it resulted in a lower than hoped for use of OSM data. So it was decided that since even the OSM community could not categorically say how CC-BY-SA applied to OSM data a licence change was needed. Move forward a bit and we start to implement the new licence. Since we could not reach consensus on how CC-By-SA applied to our data, it seems reasonable to assume that we can not assume how CC-BY-SA data applies to other people data, and therefor to be safe I presume we won't simply be blindly importing CC-BY-SA data into OSM. I presume we will be approaching providers of data that has a CC-BY-SA licence and asking if we can use that data in OSM. So our permission to use the data will stem not from a CC-BY-SA licence, but from the explicit permission given by the copyright holder. Or am I missing something? David, CC-BY-SA licensed content is incompatible with ODbL+CT. CC-BY-SA derived content would not be allowed in an ODbL version of OSM. 80n Sorry I should have made it clear that I realise that. As I titled the post, it was more a philosophical point that extended beyond the confines of the CT's ODbL. I suppose where it ovelaps with the discussion on CT ODbl is where I asked if we will be approaching providers of data that has a CC-BY-SA licence and asking if we can use that data in OSM. So our permission to use the data will stem not from a CC-BY-SA licence, but from the explicit permission given by the copyright holder. As such it then wouldn't matter if CC-BY-SA were incompatible eith the CT ODbL as we would not be relying on the CC-BY-SA licence, but rather on the explicit permisison. David 80n Furthermore if we don't approach CC-BY-SA providers and ask if we can use their data, then we are using it by virtue of the fact it is CC-BY-SA, and surely the CC-BY-SA permissions flow though into the OSM data. In which case nothing has been gained from the licence change process as the same permissions which were there before (and were difficult to interpret) still exist. Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I cant see anything about it on the implementation plan [2] David [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#Why_are_we_changing_the_license.3F [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] New license for business: meh
Hi, I'm sort of sick of allegations that what I say and do in the community is somehow tainted by myself doing business in OSM. Here's a quote from talk a while ago: Chris Browet wrote: The fact that many key players (SteveC, Frederik, Richard(?)) in the project also have commercial interests in the OSM data also make me nervous and doubtful. I assure you it does not have to make you nervous. Just because someone earns money doesn't automatically make him an asshole with no morals. Basically, everyone who writes what you wrote above somehow seems to want to say: We must always consider that he might be lying to us because he wants to make more money. This makes me sad; I spend a lot of time with OSM stuff, and I could certainly be making a lot more money if I'd take a job in some IT consultancy. But I chose to work in OSM because that way I get to do what I like. Hear? WHAT I LIKE. I have found a way to earn a living from doing what I like, and helping to move the project forward while I'm doing that. Until now, I have had exactly one prospective client who, after I had explained the CC-BY-SA to him, want away with a no thank you, and I have had exactly one prospective client for whom the CC-BY-SA would have been fine but his project wouldn't work with the ODbL (forcing him to release a database he would not have wanted to release), so he went away too. So the ODbL isn't really better or worse for business - it depends, or at least that's my view. In a way, of course, I have a business interest in OSM growing and becoming better, but can you hold that against me? You could also say that I have a business interest in the license matter being resolved one way or the other becaus that saves me from having to explain *two* licenses to every prospective customer which is a bit painful sometimes. And as for me being a key player - I am writing a lot on the lists, I am mapping a bit, I have written some software, and I am on the data working group. I am not essential to anything OSM does, don't hold an OSMF post (nor have I ever sought one)... 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] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:50 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.netwrote: - Original Message - From: 80n 80n...@gmail.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 6:26 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a philosophical point On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 5:44 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: Why are we changing the licence? Well [1] states among other things that [CC-BY-SA] is therefore very difficult to interpret, and we have indeed seen this situation occur many times when people have asked what can and can't be done with OSM data, and no definitive answer could be found. If it was unclear if something was allowed under CC-BY-SA then users of our data were asked to take a cautious approach. And that seems very reasonable stance to take, even though it resulted in a lower than hoped for use of OSM data. So it was decided that since even the OSM community could not categorically say how CC-BY-SA applied to OSM data a licence change was needed. Move forward a bit and we start to implement the new licence. Since we could not reach consensus on how CC-By-SA applied to our data, it seems reasonable to assume that we can not assume how CC-BY-SA data applies to other people data, and therefor to be safe I presume we won't simply be blindly importing CC-BY-SA data into OSM. I presume we will be approaching providers of data that has a CC-BY-SA licence and asking if we can use that data in OSM. So our permission to use the data will stem not from a CC-BY-SA licence, but from the explicit permission given by the copyright holder. Or am I missing something? David, CC-BY-SA licensed content is incompatible with ODbL+CT. CC-BY-SA derived content would not be allowed in an ODbL version of OSM. 80n Sorry I should have made it clear that I realise that. As I titled the post, it was more a philosophical point that extended beyond the confines of the CT's ODbL. David, I know that you realise that. I just wanted to clarify this for the benefit of others reading this thread who may not have the detailed background knowledge or stumble on this thread out of context. I suppose where it ovelaps with the discussion on CT ODbl is where I asked if we will be approaching providers of data that has a CC-BY-SA licence and asking if we can use that data in OSM. So our permission to use the data will stem not from a CC-BY-SA licence, but from the explicit permission given by the copyright holder. As such it then wouldn't matter if CC-BY-SA were incompatible eith the CT ODbL as we would not be relying on the CC-BY-SA licence, but rather on the explicit permisison. David 80n Furthermore if we don't approach CC-BY-SA providers and ask if we can use their data, then we are using it by virtue of the fact it is CC-BY-SA, and surely the CC-BY-SA permissions flow though into the OSM data. In which case nothing has been gained from the licence change process as the same permissions which were there before (and were difficult to interpret) still exist. Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I cant see anything about it on the implementation plan [2] David [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#Why_are_we_changing_the_license.3F [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan ___ 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] New license for business: meh
I can't speak for Chris, but you don't make me nervous because you're quite open and you don't drive any issues that may have business implications. On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, I'm sort of sick of allegations that what I say and do in the community is somehow tainted by myself doing business in OSM. Here's a quote from talk a while ago: Chris Browet wrote: The fact that many key players (SteveC, Frederik, Richard(?)) in the project also have commercial interests in the OSM data also make me nervous and doubtful. I assure you it does not have to make you nervous. Just because someone earns money doesn't automatically make him an asshole with no morals. Basically, everyone who writes what you wrote above somehow seems to want to say: We must always consider that he might be lying to us because he wants to make more money. This makes me sad; I spend a lot of time with OSM stuff, and I could certainly be making a lot more money if I'd take a job in some IT consultancy. But I chose to work in OSM because that way I get to do what I like. Hear? WHAT I LIKE. I have found a way to earn a living from doing what I like, and helping to move the project forward while I'm doing that. Until now, I have had exactly one prospective client who, after I had explained the CC-BY-SA to him, want away with a no thank you, and I have had exactly one prospective client for whom the CC-BY-SA would have been fine but his project wouldn't work with the ODbL (forcing him to release a database he would not have wanted to release), so he went away too. So the ODbL isn't really better or worse for business - it depends, or at least that's my view. In a way, of course, I have a business interest in OSM growing and becoming better, but can you hold that against me? You could also say that I have a business interest in the license matter being resolved one way or the other becaus that saves me from having to explain *two* licenses to every prospective customer which is a bit painful sometimes. And as for me being a key player - I am writing a lot on the lists, I am mapping a bit, I have written some software, and I am on the data working group. I am not essential to anything OSM does, don't hold an OSMF post (nor have I ever sought one)... 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license for business: meh
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: I can't speak for Chris, but you [Frederik] don't make me nervous because you're quite open and you don't drive any issues that may have business implications. He doesn't make me nervous, but I wouldn't want him (or anyone else) to have any say in the relicensing of my contributions. On the other hand, who cares? You make me nervous and doubtful. You make me sad. Isn't there a discuss-your-feelings-l for this stuff? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms - The Early Years
On 22/08/2010 15:27, Mike Collinson wrote: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes or directly https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lVQlsnuEKPY2gjspScwHqgmo8RyoqmuaWWmWh58T4TY 0.1 https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=18q0b_f_-rtuWWC04qaAcO3NY_Aob2QjY2gGRMmo0IrM 0.2 Mike Thanks Mike. Any idea how or why the or got lost from para 1 between 0.2 and 1.0? Without it para 1 in 1.0 seems self-contradictory to me? Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms - The Early Years
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:58 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: On 22/08/2010 15:27, Mike Collinson wrote: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes or directly https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lVQlsnuEKPY2gjspScwHqgmo8RyoqmuaWWmWh58T4TY 0.1 https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=18q0b_f_-rtuWWC04qaAcO3NY_Aob2QjY2gGRMmo0IrM 0.2 Mike Thanks Mike. Any idea how or why the or got lost from para 1 between 0.2 and 1.0? Without it para 1 in 1.0 seems self-contradictory to me? That's an open question for the lawyer that wrote the CT. In casual conversation with one lawyer (casual as in I wasn't paying the lawyer) I was told that legal-English is not FORTRAN and the or is not required for legal-English syntax. This one lawyer does not trump the OSMF lawyer, this is just one data point. Perhaps any lawyers on this list would comment on this matter in general? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms - The Early Years
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: That's an open question for the lawyer that wrote the CT. In casual conversation with one lawyer (casual as in I wasn't paying the lawyer) I was told that legal-English is not FORTRAN and the or is not required for legal-English syntax. This one lawyer does not trump the OSMF lawyer, this is just one data point. What jurisdiction(s) did that lawyer practice in? Also, did you get a chance to ask him if the second sentence (*) applies If You are not the copyright holder of the Contents? In any case, as a contract of adhesion, the courts are likely to interpret the contract in favor of the non-OSMF litigant. (*) You represent and warrant that You are legally entitled to grant the license in Section 2 below and that such license does not violate any law, breach any contract, or, to the best of Your knowledge, infringe any third party’s rights. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
Instead of just moaning about the Odbl, let's stark working on a future without Odbl. So let's do our best to convince as many mappers as possible to not accept Odbl, reopen registration to people who want to contribute under CCBYSA2.0 terms, and put pressure on OSMF and others to tell them that if they decide to go the Odbl way, they will loose us and also be faced with a fork. This is not for legal-talk, because it should not be about why we don't want the Odbl, but what WE can do to stop it and continue working under CCBYSA 2.0 This means we have to find a new domain, new servers, and get the usernames/passwords copied so people can login to the CCBYSA 2.0 fork without new registration. I put up a wiki page with a few points here, please contribute: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ccbysa_fork ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
On Sunday 22 August 2010, Felix Hartmann wrote: This means we have to find a new domain, new servers, and get the usernames/passwords copied so people can login to the CCBYSA 2.0 fork without new registration. How about you start with your own mailing lists? robert. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
On 22.08.2010 12:26, Robert Scott wrote: On Sunday 22 August 2010, Felix Hartmann wrote: This means we have to find a new domain, new servers, and get the usernames/passwords copied so people can login to the CCBYSA 2.0 fork without new registration. How about you start with your own mailing lists? robert. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Why should We? Is this mailinglist excluding anyone who does not agree to the Odbl? If so then clearly state this somewhere and tell everyone else so fuck off. As I hope this is not the case, currently we should be able to work from here too. (besides as I noticed by private mails, there are already people working on a fork on a rather private basis for now)... This list should be for general talk about OSM, and working on how to continue OSM as we know it, should be part of it! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
More talk from the folk who would rather brush everyone else's concerns under the carpet I see? I seriously look on OSM in despair at the moment with comments like that. Jeni On 22/08/2010 11:26, Robert Scott wrote: How about you start with your own mailing lists? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
Felix, Felix Hartmann wrote: Instead of just moaning about the Odbl, let's stark working on a future without Odbl. So let's do our best to convince as many mappers as possible to not accept Odbl, reopen registration to people who want to contribute under CCBYSA2.0 terms, and put pressure on OSMF and others to tell them that if they decide to go the Odbl way, they will loose us and also be faced with a fork. I am all for people being constructive, so you have my support if you want to create a fork, and I have no reason to tell people that they should not support that. There are certainly good uses for a fork. However, you do not only want to create a fork but *also* do your best to harm the rest of the project that goes along with ODbL. You say you want to convince as many people as possible not to sign up to ODbL, in order to cripple that effort, with the hope of in the end forcing everyone to stick with your fork. These two aspects are separate - you could set up a fork *without* doing anti-ODbL propaganda. I think this is unnecessary. Also, from discussions myself various others had with you on the German forum, I still have the impression that your opposition to ODbL is based on fear and uncertainty and not on fact. I don't think you have understood (or are willing to understand) the reasons for changing the license. (If you feel you need to discuss this further, please make sure to do so on legal-talk and not here.) This is not a good starting position for a fork. I'd rather have somone do it who doesn't do it out of blind protest and political propaganda. 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] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
On 22 August 2010 20:58, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: This is not a good starting position for a fork. I'd rather have somone do it who doesn't do it out of blind protest and political propaganda. License disputes is one of the more common reasons for forks to occur. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
Felix Hartmann schrieb: Instead of just moaning about the Odbl, let's stark working on a future without Odbl. So let's do our best to convince as many mappers as possible to not accept Odbl, reopen registration to people who want to contribute under CCBYSA2.0 terms, and put pressure on OSMF and others to tell them that if they decide to go the Odbl way, they will loose us and also be faced with a fork. I think this is quite interesting: if you do not do as I want, YOU will be responsible. Isn't there a term for this? I think it's blackmail This means we have to find a new domain, new servers, and get the usernames/passwords copied so people can login to the CCBYSA 2.0 fork without new registration. I think this could be a real problem. Because I for one do not agree to have my log in credentials copied to any other server. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
Hi, John Smith wrote: This is not a good starting position for a fork. I'd rather have somone do it who doesn't do it out of blind protest and political propaganda. License disputes is one of the more common reasons for forks to occur. Yes, but it can be done clear-headed and without hatred. They want this, we want that, ok we do our different ways - what I didn't like about Felix's post was that it was *not* really about going forward but about ruining it for the others as much as possible. 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] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CC BYSA 2.0 continuation
On Sunday 22 August 2010, Jenny Campbell wrote: everyone else's concerns You are trying to make it sound like there are a huge number of people that agree with you. Perhaps you genuinely believe that. If so I think you are tremendously mistaken. It is a very vocal minority. There have been threats of a fork for about a year now from what I can remember. They have not gone anywhere so far. The only effect they have had is to be disruptive to those of us who want to be productive and use the various lists to discuss our productive activities. -talk has become near useless for that. I think most fork-threateners have no intention of doing anything other than disrupt things until they get their way. On Sunday 22 August 2010, Felix Hartmann wrote: Why should We? Is this mailinglist excluding anyone who does not agree to the Odbl? If so then clearly state this somewhere and tell everyone else so fuck off. You are proposing to start your own project. This project would not be OSM. This is a list to discuss OSM. I can't believe I have got sucked in to this, but I've spent so long watching this list degenerate. robert. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
On 22.08.2010 12:58, Frederik Ramm wrote: Felix, Felix Hartmann wrote: Instead of just moaning about the Odbl, let's stark working on a future without Odbl. So let's do our best to convince as many mappers as possible to not accept Odbl, reopen registration to people who want to contribute under CCBYSA2.0 terms, and put pressure on OSMF and others to tell them that if they decide to go the Odbl way, they will loose us and also be faced with a fork. I am all for people being constructive, so you have my support if you want to create a fork, and I have no reason to tell people that they should not support that. There are certainly good uses for a fork. However, you do not only want to create a fork but *also* do your best to harm the rest of the project that goes along with ODbL. You say you want to convince as many people as possible not to sign up to ODbL, in order to cripple that effort, with the hope of in the end forcing everyone to stick with your fork. As I stated, my goal is to have OSM to continue under CCBYSA2.0 - and I think this will workout best by showing the people that they do not have to blindly accept the new Odbl including the strange Contributor Terms. If there was a fair decision for the users, than the question would not be do you accept the new terms Yes or No, but which license do you prefer - (and which additional licenses would you accept to work with). The current process is simply dictated by people that do everything to push through ODbL, in hoping that most users blindly accept without ever thinking about it! It is clear that a fork makes only sense, if enough people participate in it, but the same is true for OSM under Odbl. If 80% of people wander of to work on the fork instead, than soon the remaining 20% of people will be faced to decide how they want to continue. So yes, I do want to do my best to stop the ODbl by showing everyone that it is possible for us, to continue successfully using CCBYSA. These two aspects are separate - you could set up a fork *without* doing anti-ODbL propaganda. I think this is unnecessary. Also, from discussions myself various others had with you on the German forum, I still have the impression that your opposition to ODbL is based on fear and uncertainty and not on fact. I don't think you have understood (or are willing to understand) the reasons for changing the license. (If you feel you need to discuss this further, please make sure to do so on legal-talk and not here.) This is not a good starting position for a fork. I'd rather have somone do it who doesn't do it out of blind protest and political propaganda. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
On 22 August 2010 21:09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Yes, but it can be done clear-headed and without hatred. They want this, we Considering how heated the debate over the license is, do you seriously think this won't happen on similar topics as well? want that, ok we do our different ways - what I didn't like about Felix's post was that it was *not* really about going forward but about ruining it for the others as much as possible. You are just as guilty over using emotive language as any of us. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
On 22 August 2010 21:12, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote: On Sunday 22 August 2010, Jenny Campbell wrote: everyone else's concerns You are trying to make it sound like there are a huge number of people that agree with you. Perhaps you genuinely believe that. If so I think you are tremendously mistaken. It is a very vocal minority. There You mean like the vocal minority for CTs/ODBL ? Most won't care either way, but some people might care less if they don't feel there is an option, at present the CTs/ODBL seem to be forced upon us or else we won't be able to keep our edits in the database or edit in future... who is making the ultimatum exactly? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Felix Hartmann extremecar...@googlemail.com wrote: This means we have to find a new domain, new servers, and get the usernames/passwords copied so people can login to the CCBYSA 2.0 fork without new registration. If you must fork, fork the data (planet.osm), not the user data. I disagree with having my credentials being carried over to a separate project that I would not want to be involved in. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
Le dimanche 22 août 2010 à 13:08, Florian Heer a écrit : This means we have to find a new domain, new servers, and get the usernames/passwords copied so people can login to the CCBYSA 2.0 fork without new registration. I think this could be a real problem. Because I for one do not agree to have my log in credentials copied to any other server. I agree with that. Although my login informations in OSM are not very sensible, I expect them to be reasonably confidential and only accessible to a few administrators. I have no problem if the data I contributed is copied by [one or multiple] fork (that's why a full history dump has been created, cf http://planet.openstreetmap.org/full-experimental/ ), but as those forks would be different projects I expect the account I created in OSM to be confined in that project. If, after some though, I decide I prefer to work on a fork, then I will create a new account there, possibly using the same user name if it is still available, or a new one. -- Renaud Michel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
On 22 August 2010 22:06, Renaud MICHEL r.h.michel+...@gmail.com wrote: Although my login informations in OSM are not very sensible, I expect them to be reasonably confidential and only accessible to a few administrators. I have no problem if the data I contributed is copied by [one or multiple] fork (that's why a full history dump has been created, cf http://planet.openstreetmap.org/full-experimental/ ), but as those forks would be different projects I expect the account I created in OSM to be confined in that project. If, after some though, I decide I prefer to work on a fork, then I will create a new account there, possibly using the same user name if it is still available, or a new one. I don't think making passwords publicly available is a good idea, but it might be a sign of good faith on OSM(F)'s behalf if it were to facilitate an easy method for people waiting to claim their account/edits on a forked database. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
Am 22.08.2010 14:06, schrieb Renaud MICHEL: I have no problem if the data I contributed is copied by [one or multiple] fork (that's why a full history dump has been created, cf http://planet.openstreetmap.org/full-experimental/ ), but as those forks would be different projects I expect the account I created in OSM to be confined in that project. Full ACK, creating a fork under the same license would be covered by the current license anyway. Regards, Florian Heer ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
Hi, forgive my ignorance, but are the licenses not some how compatible? I mean the work has been done up to now under ccsa20 and compatible license. So that means that the new license allows data from ccsa20 to be ported over, right? or do you need the permission of the new authors? if people want to continue without changing the license, would they be allowed to? Is this discussed fork really needed? thanks for filling me in, mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
I don't think making passwords publicly available is a good idea, but it might be a sign of good faith on OSM(F)'s behalf if it were to facilitate an easy method for people waiting to claim their account/edits on a forked database. I hope you are kidding... When someone signed-up at OSM there wasn't written that that data would be public, and - in our society - is given for granted that these data are not redistribuited in any way. I think you are abusing of the idea of 'good faith' -- Fabio Alessandro Locati Home: Segrate, Milan, Italy (GMT +1) Phone: +39-328-3799681 MSN/Jabber/E-Mail: fabioloc...@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: 5525 8555 213C 19EB 25F2 A047 2AD2 BE67 0F01 CA61 Involved in: KDE, OpenStreetMap, Ubuntu, Wikimedia ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation
My largest complaint is that, if you click yes, you not only are agreeing to the current new license, but you are also agreeing in advance to any future license changes, without being able to know what those new license terms will be. It is the equivalent to voting someone into office as President for life. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation From :mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com Date :Sun Aug 22 06:27:41 America/Chicago 2010 On 22 August 2010 21:12, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote: On Sunday 22 August 2010, Jenny Campbell wrote: everyone else's concerns You are trying to make it sound like there are a huge number of people that agree with you. Perhaps you genuinely believe that. If so I think you are tremendously mistaken. It is a very vocal minority. There You mean like the vocal minority for CTs/ODBL ? Most won't care either way, but some people might care less if they don't feel there is an option, at present the CTs/ODBL seem to be forced upon us or else we won't be able to keep our edits in the database or edit in future... who is making the ultimatum exactly? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation
This is also one of my concerns, especially when using imports. I don't think this has been discussed at all well. Cheerio John On 22 August 2010 09:13, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: My largest complaint is that, if you click yes, you not only are agreeing to the current new license, but you are also agreeing in advance to any future license changes, without being able to know what those new license terms will be. It is the equivalent to voting someone into office as President for life. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:13 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: My largest complaint is that, if you click yes, you not only are agreeing to the current new license, but you are also agreeing in advance to any future license changes, without being able to know what those new license terms will be. It is the equivalent to voting someone into office as President for life. Except that it's not. 1. There isn't one OSM The OSMF is a membership driven organization. It's democratic and membership is open to anyone. The organization took votes for the current license plan and there's no reason to believe it won't do so in the future. 2. Much more stringent requirements are put on lots of projects You may have heard of the GNU project. Are you aware that all contributors to GNU project must sign over not just license agreements, but copyright assignments? Just this week a new project came along called OpenStack, and all contributors must sign a license agreement to the central body. This is normal and there are very good reasons these organizations do what they do. 3. You can always fork later I've yet to hear many objections to the OBdL other than I don't like change. The ODbL is a more solid license. It's a better license in pretty much every way. But should the OSMF be taken over by green brain-sucking aliens, you can always fork in the future. - Serge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:22 AM, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: This is also one of my concerns, especially when using imports. I don't think this has been discussed at all well. The issue of imports and data has been discussed at length in places like the US where imports are a big deal. The bottom line in those discussions: the ODbL and the contributor terms simplify the process immensely, now and in the future. - Serge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation
2010/8/22 Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com: On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:22 AM, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: This is also one of my concerns, especially when using imports. I don't think this has been discussed at all well. The issue of imports and data has been discussed at length in places like the US where imports are a big deal. The bottom line in those discussions: the ODbL and the contributor terms simplify the process immensely, now and in the future. Simplify at what cost? There is just 'CT will make our lifes easier'. Which lives? How easier? And WHAT IS THE COST? I simply want core people of OSM come forward and say honestly that they don't know how big impact will be. And for those who claim that complainers are minority - it's bullshit and you know it. Rest of mappers don't care because they don't have such imput done in OSM. Those who complain are usually those who drives map forward. Without them, OSM is dead as serious map, period. And this is WHY I'm against fork. ODbL now sounds like good compromise. But they still want CT to be attached as Trojan horse. Cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation
On 22/08/2010 14:13, John F. Eldredge wrote: My largest complaint is that, if you click yes, you not only are agreeing to the current new license, but you are also agreeing in advance to any future license changes, without being able to know what those new license terms will be. It is the equivalent to voting someone into office as President for life. This is complete nonsense. Any further change would require a 2/3 majority of active contributors (as well as agreement from OSMF members). This is considerably higher than most democratic countries require for a change of Government, which you might consider a significant event, and the same as most organisations set for making constitutional changes. It stops people like Felix Hartman attempting to hold the majority to ransom by requiring a 100% vote and therefore effectively giving everyone a veto, while at the same time recognising a simple majority is not enough for more fundamental changes. Are you saying you want a personal veto on any future change? Seems a massively selfish attitude for a supposedly co-operative project. I've yet to find an organisation whose members don't disagree on things, but OSM does seem to have more than its fair share of people who set out to disagree with anything anyone else says for the sake of it. Democracy isn't about unanimity. It never can be because it is never achievable. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
Felix Hartmann schrieb: Instead of just moaning about the Odbl, let's stark working on a future without Odbl. If you do that, please do it on your own servers, mailing lists, and community, and with your own new project name, as a real fork of any project should do. Robert Kaiser ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
Hi everyone! As I'm interested in keeping my data within OSM and find a common ground with rest of you, I'm delighted to see that requests to specify 'free and open license' in CT section 3 has been taken into account[1]. Huge thanks and sorry for any emotional storm it have caused. [1] http://www.abalakov.com/?p=56 Cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation
According to the summaries that have been published thus far, those who click yes are licensing data already entered not only under the current new license, but are agreeing in advance to any future licenses. You won't have the right to choose not to license the data under those new licenses, even though it will take a two-thirds majority to select a new license. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation From :mailto:da...@frankieandshadow.com Date :Sun Aug 22 08:46:20 America/Chicago 2010 On 22/08/2010 14:13, John F. Eldredge wrote: My largest complaint is that, if you click yes, you not only are agreeing to the current new license, but you are also agreeing in advance to any future license changes, without being able to know what those new license terms will be. It is the equivalent to voting someone into office as President for life. This is complete nonsense. Any further change would require a 2/3 majority of active contributors (as well as agreement from OSMF members). This is considerably higher than most democratic countries require for a change of Government, which you might consider a significant event, and the same as most organisations set for making constitutional changes. It stops people like Felix Hartman attempting to hold the majority to ransom by requiring a 100% vote and therefore effectively giving everyone a veto, while at the same time recognising a simple majority is not enough for more fundamental changes. Are you saying you want a personal veto on any future change? Seems a massively selfish attitude for a supposedly co-operative project. I've yet to find an organisation whose members don't disagree on things, but OSM does seem to have more than its fair share of people who set out to disagree with anything anyone else says for the sake of it. Democracy isn't about unanimity. It never can be because it is never achievable. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
On 22 August 2010 13:08, Florian Heer florianheerf...@yahoo.de wrote: Felix Hartmann schrieb: Instead of just moaning about the Odbl, let's stark working on a future without Odbl. So let's do our best to convince as many mappers as possible to not accept Odbl, reopen registration to people who want to contribute under CCBYSA2.0 terms, and put pressure on OSMF and others to tell them that if they decide to go the Odbl way, they will loose us and also be faced with a fork. I think this is quite interesting: if you do not do as I want, YOU will be responsible. Isn't there a term for this? I think it's blackmail Not at all. There are (oversimplifying things) two sides in this discussion, each side is telling the other side that they're wrong and will harm the project if they continue. If you're on one side you'll see the other side's arguments as blackmail. Same goes to Frederik, the ODbL group is trying to convince people that ODbL is the way to go and CC-By-SA is harmful, the CC-By-SA tries to convince them of the contrary. Both sides try to lobby the OSMF too. Both sides would prefer that the other side forks the project and they're left alone to continue as OpenStreetMap. If you don't express you opinion and try to convince others, you've failed, let's not try to censor this completely normal process of communication in a group project. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
I am not against a fork, but as Frederik already mentioned, there is no to debate about a fork and spread anti-odbl propaganda. There are other good reasons to fork, for me one of them is getting a more distributed database instead of everything in a single farm on a single location. I would not mind to discuss a fork, but I would prefer to see good arguments as to the why (keeping the current license being one) My 2 cents would be: - Being able to set up a globally distributed database farm - Changing from mysql to postgresql/postgis as the core database - Opening up on how to set up the core open-geodata database and creating your own node I am aware that this will introduce new issues, but as long as we keep an open discussion, not excluding any ideas and any group of people, it might be of benefit to all ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Moderation
talk@ is not the place for acrimonious posts about the license like this http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-August/053323.html Both sides have had their say in the Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation thread. Please, when responding to that thread now move to legal-talk@ Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: Felix Hartmann schrieb: Instead of just moaning about the Odbl, let's stark working on a future without Odbl. If you do that, please do it on your own servers, mailing lists, and community, and with your own new project name, as a real fork of any project should do. Isn't the OSMF the one actually doing the fork, though? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
Chris Browet wrote[1]: The fact that many key players (SteveC, Frederik, Richard(?)) in the project also have commercial interests in the OSM data Wut? I don't have any commercial interest in OSM, at all. I'm a magazine editor. We do have maps in our magazine but we (well, I) make them using Ordnance Survey OpenData, SRTM, and tracings from the New Popular Edition sheets which I bought, scanned and rectified at my own expense. OSM data is too fiddly and too uneven to be of any use for small-scale mapping when there's lovely, consistent Ordnance Survey data available instead. cheers Richard [1] a week or so ago. I've been on holiday. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/NearMap-Community-Licence-and-OSM-Contributor-Terms-tp5439327p5449920.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
Le dimanche 22 août 2010 à 14:13, vous avez écrit : If, after some though, I decide I prefer to work on a fork, then I will create a new account there, possibly using the same user name if it is still available, or a new one. I don't think making passwords publicly available is a good idea, Actually, I'm not very concerned about the password (I don't reuse passwords), but more about the email I used to create the account at the time, which is a more personal email, as it was (and still is) guaranteed not to be displayed publicly. but it might be a sign of good faith on OSM(F)'s behalf if it were to facilitate an easy method for people waiting to claim their account/edits on a forked database. Actually, that would be more a sign that they are not trustworthy. -- Renaud Michel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
Le dimanche 22 août 2010 à 16:58, Milo van der Linden a écrit : - Changing from mysql to postgresql/postgis as the core database This one has already been done during the API 0.6 switch, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Servers/smaug So this is actually a reason to fork for the pro-mysql camp ;-) -- Renaud Michel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
Anthony schrieb: On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote: Felix Hartmann schrieb: Instead of just moaning about the Odbl, let's stark working on a future without Odbl. If you do that, please do it on your own servers, mailing lists, and community, and with your own new project name, as a real fork of any project should do. Isn't the OSMF the one actually doing the fork, though? They can't fork away from the current infrastructure, as they are providing it, AFAIK. Robert Kaiser ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation
John F. Eldredge schrieb: According to the summaries that have been published thus far, those who click yes are licensing data already entered not only under the current new license, but are agreeing in advance to any future licenses. You won't have the right to choose not to license the data under those new licenses, even though it will take a two-thirds majority to select a new license. That's right. By the way, this is very similar to what the GNU project requires, but they do it with a copyright assignment, so that the FSF can change the license at will, while the OSM CTs require 2/3 of the active mappers to agree to a license change, so those CTs are stricter than the GNU rules. Interesting, right? Still, this once again is a topic for legal-talk, not the main talk list. Robert Kaiser ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 17:21, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Chris Browet wrote[1]: The fact that many key players (SteveC, Frederik, Richard(?)) in the project also have commercial interests in the OSM data Wut? I don't have any commercial interest in OSM, at all. I'm a magazine editor. Sorry Richard, wasn't sure (that was the reason of the question mark) Point noted. - Chris - ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Op 22-08-10 18:04, Renaud MICHEL schreef: Le dimanche 22 août 2010 à 16:58, Milo van der Linden a écrit : - Changing from mysql to postgresql/postgis as the core database This one has already been done during the API 0.6 switch, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Servers/smaug So this is actually a reason to fork for the pro-mysql camp ;-) The database is still not 'spatial' as far as we are informed? But I ack Milo's points. Distribution is what we need, and maybe even better if we can do distributed content as well. Hence: data on different layers not bothering eachother. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAkxxU3MACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn2HzACbB+sbsj53bnIjorx5XJO1KdH/ BfcAniDYUIItw/RzKu/5Rv7L7Ez0385r =6QC7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com writes: As I'm interested in keeping my data within OSM and find a common ground with rest of you, I'm delighted to see that requests to specify 'free and open license' in CT section 3 has been taken into account[1]. Huge thanks and sorry for any emotional storm it have caused. [1] http://www.abalakov.com/?p=56 It's great to read that. When will be the new terms available to accept them? How much time has left to accept the terms anyway? -- Miłego dnia, Łukasz Stelmach ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 8:13 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think making passwords publicly available is a good idea, but it might be a sign of good faith on OSM(F)'s behalf if it were to facilitate an easy method for people waiting to claim their account/edits on a forked database. That would be OAuth. http://sharedmap.org/auth/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Felix Hartmann extremecar...@googlemail.com mailto:extremecar...@googlemail.com wrote: This means we have to find a new domain, new servers, and get the usernames/passwords copied so people can login to the CCBYSA 2.0 fork without new registration. If you must fork, fork the data (planet.osm), not the user data. I disagree with having my credentials being carried over to a separate project that I would not want to be involved in. When I signed up for an account with OSM I didn't realize that my account information was going into a database that was also CCBYSA. Although I accept that this probably was stated somewhere, I would prefer to not have my login information copied. Let me choose to create an account if I want to. Andy -- Andy PGP Key ID: 0xDC1B5864 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Andrew Ayre a...@britishideas.com wrote: When I signed up for an account with OSM I didn't realize that my account information was going into a database that was also CCBYSA. It's not. This is just the dream of the forkers and then lots of random commenters. - Serge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Andrew Ayre a...@britishideas.com wrote: When I signed up for an account with OSM I didn't realize that my account information was going into a database that was also CCBYSA. It wasn't, although arguably, the entire database (including usernames, passwords, and email addresses) must be offered under section 4.6 of the ODbL. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Andrew Ayre a...@britishideas.com wrote: Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Felix Hartmann extremecar...@googlemail.com mailto:extremecar...@googlemail.com wrote: This means we have to find a new domain, new servers, and get the usernames/passwords copied so people can login to the CCBYSA 2.0 fork without new registration. If you must fork, fork the data (planet.osm), not the user data. I disagree with having my credentials being carried over to a separate project that I would not want to be involved in. When I signed up for an account with OSM I didn't realize that my account information was going into a database that was also CCBYSA. Although I accept that this probably was stated somewhere, I would prefer to not have my login information copied. Let me choose to create an account if I want to. If there is a fork then no private account data will be shared with the fork. The only data that will be shared is the User ID and User Name both of which are already public. There will be a mechanism (oAuth or similar) which will enable users to transition from the Steve Coast OSM to any OSM fork with about three mouse clicks. At no time will private data ever be shared between any OSM forks. 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Garmin etrex Vista HCx issue
http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/shine/archives/2008/11/21/replacement-garmin-etrex-bike-clip/ may be relevant. Shaun On 22 Aug 2010, at 21:42, Steve Chilton wrote: My new week old Garmin etrex Vista HCx is causing me grief. The power on/off button has decided to not function at all. Am thinking I will have to go to Garmin to resolve it (it was purchased from Amazon). Anyone had this issue with theirs? Anyone with good (or bad) experiences of going to Garmin Europe with issues such as this? Anyone with any advice to cheer me up basically?!! Cheers STEVE ___ 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] Garmin etrex Vista HCx issue
My new week old Garmin etrex Vista HCx is causing me grief. The power on/off button has decided to not function at all. Am thinking I will have to go to Garmin to resolve it (it was purchased from Amazon). Anyone had this issue with theirs? Anyone with good (or bad) experiences of going to Garmin Europe with issues such as this? Anyone with any advice to cheer me up basically?!! Cheers STEVE ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Garmin etrex Vista HCx issue
Steve, My old eTrex Legend packed in completely and Garmin fixed it ok under the guarantee - pretty quick turn around from what I remember. The Zoom out button is playing up on my newer one and I am trying to decide what to do about it because it is well out of guarantee now - I may have to attempt surgery... If it is only a week old and you bought it from Amazon, I would just contact them - i would expect them to exchange it for you rather than getting it repaired. Graham. On 22 August 2010 21:42, Steve Chilton s.l.chil...@mdx.ac.uk wrote: My new week old Garmin etrex Vista HCx is causing me grief. The power on/off button has decided to not function at all. Am thinking I will have to go to Garmin to resolve it (it was purchased from Amazon). Anyone had this issue with theirs? Anyone with good (or bad) experiences of going to Garmin Europe with issues such as this? Anyone with any advice to cheer me up basically?!! Cheers STEVE ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Dr. Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK email: grahamjones...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Hot to build a marine chart for garmin devices?
Around January someone, I think it was Mark Burton, built a Garmin map for the Openseamap guys. It covered the southern half of the Baltic Sea. It had different symbol styles for all the seamarks (buoys etc.), a nice white background for the sea and a light brown background for the land areas. To me this map was perfect. Unfortunately this map generated back then was the only one that used this style. No updates, no documentation of how to built something like that yourself- nothing. Unfortunately the documentation of the mkgmap programm in the wiki is far from useable to a newbie. All this about style files, options like --generate-sea:multipolygon or --generate-sea:no mp - I don't even know what all this is. Could anybody please point me in the right direction? Is there a proper documentation of the files that I have overlooked? The page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mkgmap/help/usage seems useless to someone who wants to render seamarks and have a white sea polygon with brown land. Let's say I downloades the OSM file of the area and I downloades mkgmap- how would one proceed? Thank you very much in advance and forgive my ignorance if I missed the obvious, Christian Wagner ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0 continuation
Felix Hartmann wrote: As I stated, my goal is to have OSM to continue under CCBYSA2.0 As I see it CCBYSA is not a goal but a tool. Before asking us to work with - and to give our new data to - your project, it would be fair to tell us what your real goals are. Then ask some layers if CCBYSA is the right tool to achieve this goals. Norbert ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's prepare to Fork OSM to a CCBYSA 2.0continuation
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010, Serge Wroclawski wrote: 2. Much more stringent requirements are put on lots of projects You may have heard of the GNU project. Are you aware that all contributors to GNU project must sign over not just license agreements, but copyright assignments? Just this week a new project came along called OpenStack, and all contributors must sign a license agreement to the central body. This is normal and there are very good reasons these organizations do what they do. However, that its the original agreement which all of these contributors signed up using. Other projects have different ways of handling the copyright issues. Both schemes are *normal* but changing between them is not. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Garmin etrex Vista HCx issue
On 22/08/2010 21:42, Steve Chilton wrote: My new week old Garmin etrex Vista HCx is causing me grief. The power on/off button has decided to not function at all. Am thinking I will have to go to Garmin to resolve it (it was purchased from Amazon). Possibly, but I think that it should be the retailer's problem in the first instance (sale of goods act and all that)? Anyone had this issue with theirs? No, but the pointer stick on my first one failed after about 11 months fairly intensive use. Anyone with good (or bad) experiences of going to Garmin Europe with issues such as this? Anyone with any advice to cheer me up basically?!! It went back to to the shop I bought it from*, they leant me a spare, sent mine to Garmin got another back within 2-3 weeks, and I've been using that since. Let's just say that they seemed familiar with the Garmin returns process, but there were no quibbles from either them or Garmin. It just cost me the petrol. Cheers, Andy * Hitch'n'Hike in Bamford. I'm not on commission, but it's worth mentioning good service as well as bad... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
Chris Browet wrote: The fact that many key players (SteveC, Frederik, Richard(?)) in the project also have commercial interests in the OSM data also make me nervous and doubtful. looking at Frederik this statement sounds offending to me! HINT: I don't want to comment on the other persons (SteveC, Richard) simpley as I'm not in contact with them that much. @Chris: did you ever check what Frederik or to be more precise the Geofabrik (= Frederik + Jochen) is offering to the community? If you would have had, you would not give a statement like that: * look at the talk Frederik gave at the SOTM 2009 (how to earn money with OSM) where he requests a fair (!) partnership from commercial companies * they offer processing and free download of data (download.geofabrik.de) * they offer an amount of tools developed by themselves and hosted at their servers (tools.geofabrik.de) who really help the community * they generated and printed flyers for the community in Germany ans send them out for free (!) * they generated and printed large maps (e.g. A0 size) for the community for use e.g. at conferences in Germany * they provided sollutions e.g. for imports of data provided by some communities in Germany * they are helpfull and activeley contribute to the project (e.g. Frederik in the Data Working Group) * they give a lot of talks e.g. at trade shows / conferences to attract to the project Of cause they are not sainty [1] but they are more than fair: they could give much less back to the community but they don't do as they are a real open company from open source persons. I would be happy if we would have more people like Frederik and Jochen within the project! But maybe the whole discussion should go to legal talk. Best regards, Michael. add [1]: who is sainty? I don't think anybody including myself and you is this. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: Finally, as ever, I want to make it clear that it's not our place as a company to try and direct or influence the direction of OSM. That's for the community and OSMF to debate and decide. I disagree. NearMap is part of the community, as a source of imagery, as a consumer of OSM maps, and as the developer of a (forthcoming?) editor. NearMap's voice counts for a lot more than many of the squeaky wheels on this list. Not only that, but NearMap represents *here and n ow* issues around the licenses, rather than potential future issues, so it's doubly welcome. IMHO. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] moderation going forward
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote: But every opinions should have a place to voice themselves, shouldn't they? No. Not all opinions are helpful. And certainly, sheer volume of opinions is unhelpful. If Talk becomes moderated/censured, where would that be? Wouldn't it better to create specific, on-topic moderated lists (and moderate the existing ones) rather than moderating Talk, whose topic is not obvious? Then people who don't want the noise can just turn it off, while leaving a place of free speech, and topic-focused lists would be sane... If anything, I would do the opposite: tightly moderate Talk as a community forum where issues of all nature can be discussed, if done so constructively and succinctly. Individual specialist lists could be left unmoderated. Since the numbers of subscribers are lower, they can form and enforce their own standards more easily. Btw, once more, this notion of those who don't want the spam don't have to read it is just plain wrong. The spam overwhelms the valuable discussion, meaning everyone suffers. It's not a question of if you don't like the rain, don't stand in it. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch for Newbies
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 8:55 PM, NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: - Why don't we disable that Live edit feature for good? I vaguely remember the question has been raised before, but I just can't think of any use case where I' need to mess up the data directly with no undo. I only ever use the Live Edit mode. I don't trust my browser not to crash, or my internet connection not to fail, between the time I make the edit and the time I push save. Since there is no way to save data locally, using the non-live mode makes you very vulnerable to data loss. I consider Live Edit mode to be much less error-prone, and thus less harmful, than offline mode. I note someone below saying Potlatch 2 will only have the offline mode. Ugh. That's a real pity. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Poller taggen
Zo'n paaltje is barrier=bollard en wordt dan ook gerenderd op de slippy map. 'bicycle=yes' is dan niet nodig. Je zou 'motorcycle=yes' er bij kunnen zetten als die toegestaan zijn. 'access=permissive' gaat over toegankelijke prive-wegen en heeft hier dus niet mee te maken. Peter Op 21 augustus 2010 11:37 schreef Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl het volgende: Hoe taggen we een poller, een paaltje dat voor bepaalde soorten verkeer toegang biedt? Ik zie op de duitse pagina voor barrier wel iets staan met bicycle=yes, maar een poller kan ook voor bepaalde soorten motorvoertuigen toegang bieden. Iets als access=permissive erbij? Maarten ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Poller taggen
Andre Engels wrote: Zoals al gemeld, barrier=bollard, en dan eventueel voertuigtype=yes/no. Default voor een bollard is access=no, foot=yes, bicycle=yes (dus: fietsers en voetgangers kunnen erlangs, andere weggebruikers niet). Niet akkoord: default voor bollard is al het smal verkeer, i.e. alles dat per default op een highway=path kan: foot, bicycle, moped, horse. Ben ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
[OSM-talk-nl] Mapping party Utrecht geslaagd
Ja, ondanks de dreigende luchten met 14 man. IMO goede opkomst :) Artikel op blog: http://blog.openstreetmap.nl/index.php/2010/08/22/mapping-party-utrecht-groot-success/ Verder heeft ZMWandelaar ons allen uitgenodigd om, in tegenstelling tot de vieze stadsgeuren, frisse boslucht in te snuiven in Putten. Dit gaat eind oktober gebeuren, dus mooi op tijd voor de herfstkleuren. After-kaartje gaat morgen wel worden gemaakt, want nog lang niet alle PoI's zitten erin. Frank ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
[OSM-talk-nl] Fietsroutes Alblasserwaard
Met dit weer heb ik de utrecht party maar laten zitten, er was daar toch niet zoveel te doen wat ik aardig vindt. Gister wel wezen fietsen in o.a de albasserwaard. http://openfietskaart.nl/?zoom=13lat=51.87325lon=4.71604layers=BTTF Wat is het daar een rommeltje met de fietsroutes. Vroeger was dit een bijna geheel gemapped, tenminste het westelijk deel bij kinderdijk. Waar zijn al die routes gebleven ??? Kunnen we ergens zien of er routes verwijderd zijn, en door wie ?? Van wegen en relaties kan je eenvoudig zien wat de history is, maar van verwijderde data. De nog aanwezige routes staan op naam avn Gercokees en Cartinus.. Kunnen jullie (als je dit draadje leest tenminste) wat licht laten schijnen ?? Gert ceteste ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
[OSM-talk-nl] Mapping Party Putten
De 2de MappingParty zal gehouden worden in Putten op de Veluwe. In een prachtige omgeving heeft de gemeente twee nieuwe wijkjes laten bouwen: Husslerveld en Bijsteren. Op OSM is het een gapend gat die we deze dag gaan opvullen. We willen toch niet dat G. op dat punt beter is dan OSM? Ik nodig jullie uit in mijn eigen 'huis cafe'. Gratis Wifi, Free Beverage and Beer. Geef aan welke datum je kunt en komt. http://www.doodle.com/bh7suw97p6r5uqqf ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
[OSM-talk-nl] Mapping Party Purmerend Weidevenne - 4 September 2010
Howdy, Om dan eindelijk de daad bij het word te voegen een mapping party in Purmerend. In de Weidevenne [1] wel te verstaan. Een beetje kort dag misschien maar anders zou het pas ergens eind Oktober worden. Wat gaat er gebeuren: * Mappen nieuwbouwwijk ten noord-oosten van de Laan de Continenten, deze is zo goed als af dus dat zou prima moeten lukken * Mappen paadjes/straatjes/huisnummers in de rest van de Weidevenne * Eventueel (als er tijd/mankracht is) ontbreken er nog enkele wegen ten zuiden van de Zambezilaan. Eigenlijk heeft niemand een excuus om niet te komen. Per auto is het prima te bereiken (afslag 4 op de A7). Er gaan bussen en op station Weidevenne stopt ieder half uur een trein! Komt allen en laat dit ook weten op de wiki [2] Groet, --Roeland [1] http://osm.org/go/0E7ETlb0-- [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Netherlands_Mapping_Parties_2010#Purmerend signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Fietsroutes Alblasserwaard
On Sunday 22 August 2010 21:15:05 ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: Met dit weer heb ik de utrecht party maar laten zitten, er was daar toch niet zoveel te doen wat ik aardig vindt. Het was heerlijk weer. Lekker op een terras zitten nabuurten. Gister wel wezen fietsen in o.a de albasserwaard. http://openfietskaart.nl/?zoom=13lat=51.87325lon=4.71604layers=BTFFF FTF Wat is het daar een rommeltje met de fietsroutes. Vroeger was dit een bijna geheel gemapped, tenminste het westelijk deel bij kinderdijk. Waar zijn al die routes gebleven ??? Kunnen we ergens zien of er routes verwijderd zijn, en door wie ?? Van wegen en relaties kan je eenvoudig zien wat de history is, maar van verwijderde data. De nog aanwezige routes staan op naam avn Gercokees en Cartinus.. Kunnen jullie (als je dit draadje leest tenminste) wat licht laten schijnen ?? Gert ceteste Wat er helemaal in het westen is gebeurd weet ik niet. Kinderdijk is een beetje te ver fietsen vanuit Utrecht. Toen ik afgelopen herfst voor het eerst naar het oostelijk deel van de Alblasserwaard keek was het al een puinhoop. Hier en daar wat losse stukjes route, allemaal in één relatie. Ik heb de stukjes tussen Ameide en Meerkerk daar toen uit gehaald en als losse routes gemapped. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [talk-au] What's going on here? (mysterious street)
In NSW you can often check up unformed roads on council web sites. There are oodles of them shown in Google that don't currently exist in reality. Compare http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8hq=ll=-33.777168,150.627912spn=0.006269,0.009645z=17 with http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/bmccmap/maps.cfm?rid=2474search=address%252C%2525emu%2525%252CGLENBROOK%2525 cheers On 20/08/2010 12:10 PM, Evan Sebire wrote: I think google and melways obtained their Victorian base maps from landvic, http://services.land.vic.gov.au/maps/interactive.jsp Then they go about fixing up the street use, that is why melways has a much better map because they have been modifying it for many more years. In this case Ward road is still on landvic as a government easement so may get developed in the future and is not private property (unless we are talking about something different). In my neighbourhood which isn't to far away from Kallista a neighbour has built a shed on government land reserved of a road and erected a fence to block people. Directly above his shed are powerlines that run down the easement beside the land reserved for the road! This all get back to a discussion on this list about 12 months ago about mapping non-existing roads/gazetted road, Evan ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] CrisisCamp Pakistan Floods, Sydney (4-5 Sept)
Hi all, Sorry if you have already gotten this via the Aust-NZ OSGeo list. Thought some of you maybe interested in coming along and helping out at the CrisisCamp being organized at UNSW Sydney on the weekend of 4-5 Sept. An enterprising team of volunteers and organisational supporters such as Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE) and Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (CIE) at the University of New South Wales, and Drumbeat, an open web initiative of the Mozilla Foundation and the World Bank are coming together on the weekend of September 4-5, 2010 in CrisisCamp in Sydney, Australia. We will help find, organize and share spatial information for relief agencies in Pakistan via open source platforms such as Sahana, OpenStreetMap and Ushahidi: Please come along if you have: 1 mapping experience or 2 can code/program or 3 can research for information on the internet or 4. speak local Pakistani languages or 5. are familiar with the geography of Pakistan or 6. generally understand disaster response 7. can blog about events More details at http://pkfloods-sydney.eventbrite.com/ To help us organize the catering please register at: http://pkfloods-sydney.eventbrite.com/ Feel free to share the event details amongst your contacts. If you have any further queries please don't hesitate to contact me or Vicky Shoaib Burq Skype: spatialgoat Twitter: http://twitter.com/sabman Vicky Pinpin-Feinstein Skype: Pinpinfeinstein Twitter: http://twitter.com/Pyrmontvicky kind regards Shoaib Burq -- http://geospatial.nomad-labs.com Canberra, Australia ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Fwd: [ILUG] ossbarcamp
On 22/08/10 19:34, Richard Cantwell wrote: Now there's an idea. The area around UCD is pretty well mapped, but I'm sure there are plenty of POI's etc. that could be added. The producer of the Phantom FM radio show that I was interviewed about OSM on (available here: http://www.geographic.ie/opinion/interview-on-phantom-fm/ - thanks Ken) has been in touch with me as she's interested in writing a magazine article about Mapping Parties. I could mention the barcamp to her, it might be of interest either as a bigger article or a separate one entirely. Richard www.geographic.ie Well it just migh be an idea to get people learning hands on with people so they can be shown things to do and not do and how it's all done. Laura -- https://wiki.ubuntu.com/czajkowski http://www.lczajkowski.com Skype: lauraczajkowski ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
Re: [Talk-br] Digest Talk-br, volume 23, assunto 17
Sou de Porto Alegre, e gostaria de participar do grupo de mapeadores daqui, aprender mais, se existir este grupo uma abrao Mauro Borowsky Em 17/08/2010 08:00, talk-br-requ...@openstreetmap.org escreveu: Send Talk-br mailing list submissions to talk-br@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-br-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-br-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-br digest..." Tpicos de Hoje: 1. Re: Ajuda para iniciantes (Flavio Bello Fialho) -- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:34:22 -0300 From: Flavio Bello Fialho be...@cnpuv.embrapa.br To: OSM talk-br talk-br@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-br] Ajuda para iniciantes Message-ID: 4c6984ae.7010...@cnpuv.embrapa.br Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Bem-vindo(a) ao projeto. Eu mapeei uma parte (pequena) de Porto Alegre. No moro em Porto, mas estou perto. A melhor forma usar essa lista para tirar dvidas, coordenar esforos, etc. Uma dica visitar a pgina do projeto no Brasil: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Brazil O mapeamento da Restinga est bem fraco, por enquanto: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-30.1543lon=-51.1337zoom=14layers=M Toda ajuda bem-vinda. Em 15-08-2010 20:07, venu...@riseup.net escreveu: Ol todos e todas mapeadoras. Estou iniciando o uso do open e gostaria de fazer contato direto com mapeadores em Porto Alegre. Como seria isso? Grande abrao da Restinga ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
Re: [Talk-de] An die Garmin-Bastler
Johann H. Addicks schrieb: Aber vielleicht kannst Du mal schauen, warum dein Mailclient derzeit wieder auf Vollquote arbeitet, sogar inklusive der Mailingslisten-Footer. Das liegt an der Tastatur, genauso wie die prellenden Tasten bei Ausrufe- und Fragezeichen und das Leerzeichen davor. hth malenki ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Unterscheidung (war Tiefenangabe alsName)
Am Samstag, den 21.08.2010, 03:47 +0200 schrieb Olaf Hannemann: Hallo Christian, [...] Das ist genau das was FT macht, wenn aus der privaten Datenbank gearbeitet wird und das laden in die OSM Daten Bank nur Alibi-Funktion hat. Denn sagt ja selbst: Es wird entschieden was zu OSM geschickt wird. Das Datenmodell das FT verwendet ist immerhin im Wiki als proposal zur Diskussion gestellt worden und ist so wie es aussieht auch mehrheitsfähig. Klar taggen wir irgendwann für den Renderer (keiner würde statt highway=motorway ...=Autobahn schreiben)- wir wollen ja auch irgendwann Mal eine Karte gerendert haben. Und genau da ist ein Punkt, der mich damals enorm geärgert hat und eine weitere Zusammenarbeit unmöglich gemacht hat. Um bei deinem highway Beispiel zu bleiben: Es wurde über nacht das vorher gemeinsam genutze Modell seitens FT angezweifelt und ein eigenes Datenmodell inclusive Proposal geschaffen. Kurz darauf wurden alle highway=motorway Schlüssel in highway=street + street=motorway umgewandelt. Keine Diskussion möglich. Anyway, das ist Schnee von gestern. Die Frage ist wie können wir jetzt mit der Situation am besten umgehen. Ich habe die Diskussion damals nur unvollständig verfolgen können, da ich erst später darauf aufmerksam wurde. Aber Du hast recht- das ist Schnee von gestern. Wichtig ist wie wir von der aktuellen Situation aus weitermachen. Allerdings ist das, was du da FT vorwirfst auch bei OSeaM der Fall. Da wurde der community nicht nur der Renderer gebaut (dafür übrigens herzliche Dank- ganz ehrlich), sondern auch gleich noch ein unvollständig/schlecht dokumentiertes Tagingschema vor den Latz geknallt welches vom gemeinen Mapper nicht mehr ohne OSeaM Editoren zu bewältigen ist. Einfach Mal in Potlach eine Backbordboje mit Topzeichen reinzuhacken geht de facto nicht mit eurem Tagingschema- dafür ist es einfach zu kompliziert. seamark:type = buoy_lateral + seamark:buoy_lateral:category=starboard + seamark:topmark:colour=green (bzw red für IALA B) Ist schon klar, allerdings ist ein seamark=buoy buoy=lateral_starboard topmark=yes color=green (falls IALA auf diese weise implementiert wird/ist) IHMO kürzer, einfacher und von einem normalen Menschen irgendwie machbarer. Die erste Zeile ist sogar redundant, aber vielleicht als Signal für den Renderer gar nicht so verkehrt (sowas hat OSeaM ja auch indem es vor jeden Tag seamark schreibt). Ich finde es eleganter- aber seis drum- meine Meinung ist hier nicht wirklich maßgeblich. Welches Tagingschema sich durchsetzt wird über die nächsten Jahre entschieden. Schon allein die dauernde Redundanz der einzelnen tags und values (z. B.seamark:buoy_lateral:colour_pattern=...) ist komplett am Bedarf eurer Datenlieferanten- den Mappern- vorbei entwickelt. Und wie möchtest du deutlich machen, dass colour_pattern sich auf den Tonnenkörper und nicht auf das Topzeichen usw. bezieht? Kenne jetzt kein Topzeichen mit color pattern. Du hattest ja auch Mal geschrieben dass Ihr die Bedeutung der Seezeichen mappt, und nicht etwa was sich wirklich dort wirklich befindet (also z. B. ein rotes Topzeichen das wegen Möwenschiss weiss gesprenkelt ist). Somit ist dann eigentlich klar dass sich color pattern auf den Seezeichenkörper bezieht. Das ganze führt dann dazu daß Ihr z. B. bei Rügen eine Seekarte anbietet die nur einen Bruchteil der vorhandenen Daten zeigt- was daran jetzt qualitativ besser sein soll ist mir ehrlich gesagt schleierhaft. Da in den Diskussionen immer wieder das Argument der meisten Schlüssel fällt, möchte ich zur Zeit nicht automatisiert zu allen Seezeichen das OpenSeaMap Schema hinzufügen. Dann hätten wir nämlich ein Unentschieden. Es reicht doch, dass im Augenblick wieder massenhaft Schlüssel von einem einzigen User an die bestehenden Knoten herangehängt werden. (siehe z.B. Changeset 5537834, 5537760, 5530183) Das ist genau das Doppeltaging das ich die ganze Zeit anprangere und im Prinzip eine Folge der Auswertung der Daten (rendern, Konvertierung in Garminformate etc.) ist. Wenn alle die beiden, aktuell leider existierenden Schemata, auswerten würden, dann wäre der Drang doppelt zu tagen sicherlich geringer (ob das bei CBM aktuell der Grund ist sei dahingestellt...). Wie gesagt, welches Schema sich durchsetzt wir nicht nächste Woche entschieden (von wem denn), sondern wenn dann über die nächsten Jahre. Jetzt da per Hand Fakten schaffen zu wollen ist sicherlich nicht sinnvoll. Wie schon in einem anderen post verlinkt, die Daten zwischen Rügen und Hiddensee sind ja prinzipiell vorhanden, werden von OSeaM aber leider nicht gerendert. Warum soll sich jetzt da einer drüber machen und node für node nochmal redundante tags drüberlegen. Im Prinzip habe ich euch da schon mehrfach drauf angesprochen, aber eure ständige Weigerung die Seezeichen die nach dem proposal im wiki getaggt sind zu rendern führt dann eben zu diesem Dilemma daß vieles doppelt
Re: [Talk-de] Maßstab
Hallo, On Sunday 22 August 2010 04:30:32 Tirkon wrote: Ich meinte eigentlich eine Lösung für alle - auch ohne Kenntnis von Computerchinesisch - auf der Hauptseite des Projektes www.osm.org. Selbst wenn der Maßstab nicht genau ist. Aber eine Abschätzung, ob eine Strecke etwa 100 Meter oder 1 Kilometer lang ist, wäre in fremden Gefilden schon hilfreich. Das machen wir übrigens in Marble (http://edu.kde.org/marble): Natürlich ist uns klar, dass die Angaben im schlimmsten Fall nur als Einschätzung für die Größenordnung herhalten können. Das nehmen wir aber in Kauf, denn der größte Anteil der Zielgruppe erwartet ohnehin nicht die ultimative Präzision (und macht sich schon gar nicht die Mühe mithilfe eines Lineals auf der Grundlage der Maßstabsleiste Wege nachzumessen). Und diejenigen, die eine hoße Präzision erwarten, sind sich der kartentechnischen Problematik ohnehin bewusst. Selbstverständlich versuchen wir trotzdem im Rahmen der projektionsbedingten Grenzen eine Darstellung zu erreichen, die im Durchschnitt (oft ist das die Kartenmitte) möglichst genau ist. Damit sind wir mit Marble in guter Gesellschaft mit den gedruckten Karten, die seit eh und je einen grafischen und numerischen Maßstab angeben (und in puncto Kartendarstellungsqualität in mancher Hinsicht deutlich höhere Anforderungen haben, als so manche Karte für die Benutzung am Bildschirm). Selbst bei gedruckten Weltkarten ist die Angabe eines numerischen Maßstabs ja quasi Pflicht - und das selbst dann wenn es projektionsbedingt größere Abweichungen gibt. Ähnliches gilt übrigens für die Darstellung der Windrose auf einigen Karten, bei der man ebenfalls eine akademisch wertvolle, aber zielgruppenmäßig völlig nutzlose Diskussion halten könnte. In Marble berücksichtigen wir bei der Maßstabs-Zeichnung übrigens die Korrektur in Breitengrad-Richtung in der Merkator-Projektion schon seit geraumer Zeit - wenn ich mich recht erinnere sogar seit wir diese Projektion eingeführt haben. Wer mal in Marble hineinzoomt und sich dann in Richtung des sich ändernden Breitengrads bewegt wird das schnell feststellen. Bei der Globus- und der rechteckigen Plattkarten-Darstellung gibt es genau diese Problem natürlich nicht (dafür dann andere ;-). Wer mag, kann ja mal das Maß-Werkzeug (das natürlich naturgemäß deutlich genauer ist) in Marble nehmen und die Ergebnisse mit der Maßstabsleiste vergleichen. Oft sind die Abweichungen gering genug, dass man sich fragt, ob man die richtigen Pixel überhaupt mit seiner Feinmotorik getroffen hat ;-) Über Feedback und Bugreports freuen wir uns natürlich auch, Grüße, Torsten ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] Fragen zu Grenzen
Hallo, die Grenzen unseres Gemeindegebiets wurden von jemandem vor Jahren schon grob vereinfacht eingezeichnet. Verständlicherweise, weil Feldwege, an denen die Grenze verläuft, gefehlt haben. Kann ich, sobald die nötigen Wege da sind, die Grenze nach einer amtlichen Karte übertragen? Grenzverläufe sind ja wohl hoffentlich nicht geschützt... Andere Frage: Unsere Gemeinde besteht aus drei Ortschaften. Die Grenze zwischen den Ortschaften ist auf keiner Karte mehr zu finden. Sind die alten Grenzen, sofern ich die Grenzsteine finde, noch relevant und können/sollten in die OSM eingetragen werden? Gruß Manuel ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Unterscheidung (war Tiefenangabe alsName)
Am Samstag, den 21.08.2010, 16:42 +0200 schrieb Olaf Hannemann: Hallo Mario, [...] das klingt bei dir so, als würdest du auf eine Delegation von (gewählten/ernannten?) Entscheidungsträgern warten? Auch fänds ichs schon deine Perspektive des gegenseitig Kaputtmachens erzählt zu bekommen. Klar gabs da am Anfang einige Missverständnisse, aber das letzte gute Jahr dümpeln doch quasi beide Ideen kontaktfrei nebeneinander durch die Karte. Gerade dadurch, dass beide Ideen kontaktfrei durch die Karte dümpeln, geht es ja in 95% aller Fälle gut. Sollten wir aber wieder ein gemeinsames Tagging- Schema benutzen, haben die Änderungen des jeweils Anderen wieder direkten Einfluss auf beide Karten. Und genau so soll es sein. Wenn ich als mapper die Daten einmal eingebe oder einmal korrigiere, dann wäre es nett wenn das dann bei beiden Projekten erscheint. Das doppelte Taging ist aus Sicht der Mapper irre umständlich. Der Rat sich für ein Schema zu entscheiden wäre ok, wenn es nur einen Mapper gäbe, aber so lässt sich einfach nicht vermieden dass es Doppeltaging gibt. Um zu verhindern, dass die eine oder die andere Seite von heute auf morgen ohne Karte da steht, muss einfach definiert werden was z.B. Bots wann und wie dürfen: ich habe auf meinem Server das Schema hinterlegt und wenn dort etwas geändert wird, werden die Tags in OSM automatisch nachgeführt. Am besten benutzt ihr auch das Schema auf meinem Server ist für mich ein No Go. Auch wenn sich dies spezielle Problem aufgrund der inzwischen gewonnen Erfahrung heute bestimmt vermeiden lässt, gibt es noch viele Kleinigkeiten, die nicht das Tagging an sich betreffen, sondern den Umgang mit OSM-Daten im Allgemeinen. Was natürlich nicht sein kann ist, dass ein bot großflächig über die Daten drüber mäht, wie es wohl in der Vergangenheit Mal geschah. Mittlerweile haben sich doch beide Tagingschemata sozusagen stabilisiert, somit müssten jetzt die Anpassungen doch eher auf der Rendererseite, als auf der Datenbankseite erfolgen. Als OSM- Mapper sehe ich FT eher als Editor als als eigenes Datenbankprojekt (was es natürlich ist). Wenn ich im FT- Editor etwas ändere dann sollte das auch in der OSM- Datenbank erscheinen. Genauso wird eine Änderung mit dem OSeaM- Editor auch in der Datenbank abgebildet. Jetzt aber Mal eben alle Leuchttürme umzutagen nur weil einem ein neues tag anstattdessen eingefallen ist sollte beim derzeitigen Verwendungsgrad aller seamark tags tunlichst unterlassen werden, da stimme ich dir voll und ganz zu. Erst wenn dieser allgemeine Umgang mit den Daten geklärt ist, macht es Sinn über ein gemeinsames Schema zu sprechen. Dies sollte dann natürlich nicht am runden Tisch passieren ;-) +1 Grüßle, Christian ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Unterscheidung (war Tiefenangabe alsName)
Am Sonntag, den 22.08.2010, 03:37 +0200 schrieb Olaf Hannemann: Hallo Martin, [...] Das Problem ist, dass nicht jeder Leuchturm bei Tage (also als Landmarke) von See aus gut zu erkennen ist. So stehen einige wie z.B. der Leuchtturm Buk zu weit im Landesinneren um noch als Landmarke erkannt zu werden. Andere wie z.B. das Maritim in Travemünde sind von der eigentlichen Bauform kein Leuchtturm im klassischen Sinne. Das Maritim ist ein Hotelhochhaus mit einem Leuchtfeuer auf dem Dach. Es würde zwar eine Landmarke sein aber eben kein Turm (tower). Mein Vorschlag wäre entgegen des Proposals für marine-tagging das seamark ganz weg zulassen und des weiteren wie im Proposal vorgeschlagen ein landmark=* tag mit dem entsprechenden Wert an das wirklich als Landmarke benutzbare Objekt heran zuhängen. +1 Evtl. könnte es ggf. sinnvoll sein, aktive und alte Leuchttürme zu unterscheiden, indem die aktiven zusätzlich den seamark-tag bekommen (wenn Leuchttürme wovon ich als Landratte ausgehe, Seezeichen sind, die für die Navigation relevant sind). Üblicherweise in OSM machen wir das allerdings sonst über disused. Die aktiven Leuchtfeuer sollten sowieso durch die angehängten seamark:light=* tags leicht zu erkennen sein. Dies benötigt keinen extra tag. +1 Christian ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] Ideen Sammel, und organisieren eines CCBYSA 2.0 Forks
Ich hab mal hier ganz kurz ein paar Punkte hingeschrieben, die wir uns anschauen sollten, um einen Fork aufzusetzen, und somit Druck auf die OSMF auszuueben, die Odbl abzublasen. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ccbysa_fork Statt nur zu meckern sollten wir Taten folgen lassen um die Odbl effektiv den Bach runtergehen zu lassen! Also arbeiten wir dran, wie wir die Odbl verhindern koennen, und nicht warum und wieso, sondern ganz klar, lasst uns einen Fork entstehen lassen, um einerseits im Falle des durchgehens der Odbl eine effektive Alternative bieten zu koennen, und nicht mit leeren Haenden darzustehen, zweitens um denen die nur aus Angst dass OSM ohne Zustimmung nicht mehr existiert Sicherheit zu geben, dass es auch ohne odbl weitergeht, und drittens und eigentlich als Ziel der Anstrengungen das erreichen das obiges eingestampft werden kann, weil die odbl nicht durchgeht! ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] OpenRouteService Beta Fahrradrouting!
Hallo zusammen, hab gerade das neue Fahrradrouting von ORS ausprobiert und muss sagen, dass ich beeindruckt bin. Auf mein Standardweg hier (ca. 10km) wir genau die Route vorgeschlagen, die ich immer fahre und die auf langjähriger Erfahrung beruht. Endlich keine zwanghafte Benutzung großer Straßen mehr. Gruss Sven -- Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety (Benjamin Franklin) /me is gig...@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Ideen Sammel, und organisieren eines CCBYSA 2.0 Forks
Felix Hartmann wrote on 22.08.2010 12:10: Ich hab mal hier ganz kurz ein paar Punkte hingeschrieben, die wir uns anschauen sollten, um einen Fork aufzusetzen, und somit Druck auf die OSMF auszuueben, die Odbl abzublasen. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ccbysa_fork Wo muss ich unterschreiben, daß meine Daten nicht in diesem Fork landen? mfg Sebastian ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Unterscheidung (war Tiefenangabe alsName)
Moin Olaf, Olaf Hannemann schrieb: P.S. Bitte antworte demnächst doch bitte nur an die Mailingliste und nicht zusätzlich an mich als pm. Du resp. Dein Mail-Client fordert den Antwortenden explizit dazu auf, beim 'normalen' Antworten zusätzlich eine Mail direkt an Dich zu senden, auch ohne 'an alle' zuantworten. Wenn Du das nicht wünschst, solltest Du das besser direkt in deinem Mail-Client einstellen, sonst wird das zwangsläufig immer wieder passieren. Hier jetzt mit Absicht so gehandhabt, um es zu verdeutlichen. Gruß Georg ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Ideen Sammel, und organisieren eines CCBYSA 2.0 Forks
On 22.08.2010 12:56, Sebastian Masch wrote: Felix Hartmann wrote on 22.08.2010 12:10: Ich hab mal hier ganz kurz ein paar Punkte hingeschrieben, die wir uns anschauen sollten, um einen Fork aufzusetzen, und somit Druck auf die OSMF auszuueben, die Odbl abzublasen. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ccbysa_fork Wo muss ich unterschreiben, daß meine Daten nicht in diesem Fork landen? mfg Sebastian Dass kannst du nicht, solange der Fork unter CCBYSA steht. Erst zu dem Zeitpunkt wenn/falls ein Split kommt, ist es dir moeglich zu bestimmen dass NEUE Daten nicht mehr in einem CCBYSA Fork landen. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Ideen Sammel, und organisieren eines CCBYSA 2.0 Forks
Am 22.08.2010 13:20, schrieb Felix Hartmann: Dass kannst du nicht, solange der Fork unter CCBYSA steht. da Daten von der CC nicht abgedeckt werden, sind meine Daten nach Deutschem (EU-) Recht eigentlich garnicht oder nur für OSM lizensiert. ^^ bin gespannt was dabei rauskommt. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Ideen Sammel, und organisieren eines CCBYSA 2.0 Forks
Felix Hartmann wrote: Ich hab mal hier ganz kurz ein paar Punkte hingeschrieben, die wir uns anschauen sollten, um einen Fork aufzusetzen, und somit Druck auf die OSMF auszuueben, die Odbl abzublasen. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ccbysa_fork Statt nur zu meckern sollten wir Taten folgen lassen um die Odbl effektiv den Bach runtergehen zu lassen! Also arbeiten wir dran, wie wir die Odbl verhindern koennen, und nicht warum und wieso, sondern ganz klar, lasst uns einen Fork entstehen lassen, um einerseits im Falle des durchgehens der Odbl eine effektive Alternative bieten zu koennen, und nicht mit leeren Haenden darzustehen, zweitens um denen die nur aus Angst dass OSM ohne Zustimmung nicht mehr existiert Sicherheit zu geben, dass es auch ohne odbl weitergeht, und drittens und eigentlich als Ziel der Anstrengungen das erreichen das obiges eingestampft werden kann, weil die odbl nicht durchgeht! Vielleicht könnte man ein wenig die politische Schärfe aus der Aktion rausnehmen. Ein cc-by-sa Fork könnte in jedem Fall sinnvoll sein - unabhängig davon, ob man persönlich die Lizenzumstellung zum Scheitern bringen möchte oder nicht. Ein lauffähiger Fork kann natürlich auch als Druckmittel benutzt werden, aber muss man ihn als solchen im Vornherein aufbauschen? So wie ich es mitbekommen habe, gibt außerdem viele Communitymitglieder, die mit der ODbL keine Probleme haben, sondern eher mit den mit der Art, wie sie dem Projekt vorgesetzt wurde. Weiterhin die Gruppe, welche den Contributor Terms aus verschiedenen Gründen nicht zustimmen möchte, und für die aus diesem Grund ein Lizenzwechsel nicht in Frage kommt. Dies macht einen cc-by-sa Fork nicht weniger sinnvoll, aber man könnte ein wenig die Agenda und Projektbeschreibung überdenken. Sebastian ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Fragen zu Grenzen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hallo Manuel Am 22.08.2010 11:51, schrieb Manuel Reimer: Kann ich, sobald die nötigen Wege da sind, die Grenze nach einer amtlichen Karte übertragen? Grenzverläufe sind ja wohl hoffentlich nicht geschützt... Die Grenzverläufe selbst sind nicht geschützt, aber in den meisten Fällen die Karten, die Grenzverläufe enthalten. Nach meinem Verständnis, darf man die Verläufe nicht direkt von den Karten abzeichnen, aber man darf sich ruhig an ihnen orientieren (wie von dir beschrieben: an welchem Weg/Fluss/whatever verläuft die Grenze) Andere Frage: Unsere Gemeinde besteht aus drei Ortschaften. Die Grenze zwischen den Ortschaften ist auf keiner Karte mehr zu finden. Sind die alten Grenzen, sofern ich die Grenzsteine finde, noch relevant und können/sollten in die OSM eingetragen werden? Wenn du weißt, wo die Grenzen verlaufen, trag sie ein. Wenn ich das richtig sehe, haben diese Ortsteilgrenzen keine administrative Funktion (mehr)? Dann nimm dafür admin_level=10. Solche Ortsteilgrenzen sind für Auswertungszwecke gut geeignet. Zum Beispiel wird in RLP in den Straßenlisten oft nach Ortsteilen unterschieden. Beste Grüße, Rainer -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMcQ6ZAAoJEPT/XJzV1tNzM9IH/1rF/5Khz9Bmh/7J/SS+qbvh tLJx1+nFAPAySNVXM2EGeZRZeMwes5dmJxV0KI6m9oMM3d9RUmFwnmf+WTWPWiIh MT/eHXXvgJGnXKI3I0pQcca8cC6s2dyDOKxmuC5R5rd9M2HFYkeBLqtwAZiIXgqG vSlCECMU4uIL+kMhNH+OmlTFzL4J3arcx6Du6YvAgZyBuplN6ZDVAAgpHB8fyHgF TE7sgA4Rxr4qg7UlU8AVx0kuIDaicL7b2ZBWt2IqVJSv7N3zZvAoG5OZukFj+R/i nkhqly46bYCnVdU4vs1HQqIJWVOw8vwNt7jKOJ4Ffehbj3k6hXiOMDlYZfVgy3w= =Kt3U -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
