Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing the license
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 17:08, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: We have had a request for another big open organisation to re-use our contributor terms [1] and summary [2] . Both the terms and the summary are by default already published under CC-BY-SA 2.0. However, my initial thought it that it is more practical to (also) offer them under a license that does not require attribution. Legal pages get confusing when they contain text not completely to the point, particularly to non-native language readers. PD0 springs to mind. Does anyone think this is a bad idea and if so why? Mike LWG [1]http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms [2]http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary The attribution can be put anywhere, even osm.org doesn't have copyright notices nor attribution on frontpage Attribution is a nice thing. It's nice seeing something and being able to confirm that it is from Openstreetmap, and considering the tears, blood and sweat that went into those documents why not mention OSM. In my experience most professional outfits have no problem with giving attribution except figuring out if they have one enough. -- /emj PS. I was going to say that I don't claim any rights over the license/CT, but then I got sidetracked thinking about how the community as a whole could claim copyright based on some kind of sweat of the brow principle, and that got me laughing.. :-) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
Hi, apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience. I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-1.80469lat=35.88371zoom=2 This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined with a current planet file. The view is updated nightly. There's also statistics on the number of objects here: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html And detailed information here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] H.O.T OSM manual and learning OSM in Uganda
Hi all, We have started training some people about how to go about OSM, using the H.O.T training manual. JOSM is a good editor, but was wondering why it's the only one that was included in the manual. Otherwise the manual is concise, we are even including potlatch 2 as one of the training topics, among others and by the end of the training, we hope we would have well skilled people who will be contributing to providing geographical data to the open street world map. Fruits of thought (http://www.fruitsofthought.org) supports the mapping days (http://www.mappingday.com) that are held at given intervals in a year, to introduce mapping and the open street map to the participants, the features mapped on a mapping day can take a while to be fully updated correctly as most of the participants are new to OSM, we hope, after the training we shall have some more people who will have a better understanding of what OSM is all about. Notable edits in some of the selected areas of Uganda include: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=0.29531lon=32.61574zoom=17layers=M http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=0.30763lon=32.61526zoom=17layers=M http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=0.68169lon=34.19327zoom=16layers=M http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=0.380935lon=32.558124zoom=18layers=M http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=0.35489lon=32.74168zoom=17layers=M http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=0.348045lon=32.573484zoom=18layers=M These are just some of the links that can be identified, and is not an exhausted list of all the edits, there might be some that we do not know of, but during the mapping day we covered some of the links above, and in some of the areas correcting and editing features is still in progress. However it is clear that there is more work that needs to be done, but the good part is that the mapping community continues to grow. If you can spare some time and visit the above links, it would be good to have a feed back from you. There is just one link that was edited with JOSM, which can easily be identified, and the rest with potlatch. Yours Truly Douglas Ssebaggala Musaazi Mobile: +256-772-422524 http://www.mountbatten.net/ http://www.pamoya.com/node/13275 https://twitter.com/mapuganda https://twitter.com/Douglo2011 http://www.linux.or.ug/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
So now we're remapping??? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping states you can just delete a node and add a new one to resolve a license issue. I can hardly imagine that is legally right. Greets, Floris Looijesteijn On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience. I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-1.80469lat=35.88371zoom=2 This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined with a current planet file. The view is updated nightly. There's also statistics on the number of objects here: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html And detailed information here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
The key is to have your own valid source for the information. If your can
source the data in a license compatible way and recreate the node yourself
without the use of the old node, then it's all good.
if (*ra4 != 0xffc78948) { return false; }
On 13 Dec 2011, at 09:29, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
So now we're remapping???
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping
states you can just delete a node and add a new one to resolve a license
issue.
I can hardly imagine that is legally right.
Greets,
Floris Looijesteijn
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have
posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs could
be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.
I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-1.80469lat=35.88371zoom=2
This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined with
a current planet file. The view is updated nightly.
There's also statistics on the number of objects here:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html
And detailed information here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector
Bye
Frederik
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
That's exactly why I'm asking.
Most nodes ('information type' nodes like POI) can not be easily
verified by another
source except for resurveying.
I think that should be made more clear on the remapping page.
Or am I being paranoid? :)
Greets,
Floris
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com wrote:
The key is to have your own valid source for the information. If your can
source the data in a license compatible way and recreate the node yourself
without the use of the old node, then it's all good.
if (*ra4 != 0xffc78948) { return false; }
On 13 Dec 2011, at 09:29, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
So now we're remapping???
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping
states you can just delete a node and add a new one to resolve a license
issue.
I can hardly imagine that is legally right.
Greets,
Floris Looijesteijn
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have
posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs could
be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.
I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-1.80469lat=35.88371zoom=2
This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined with
a current planet file. The view is updated nightly.
There's also statistics on the number of objects here:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html
And detailed information here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector
Bye
Frederik
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
Go ahead, it's a wiki.
I found a way to make screencasts. Would it be useful to create a
screencast of an editing session with JOSM, while I'm resolving license
issues?
Jo
2011/12/13 Floris Looijesteijn o...@floris.nu
That's exactly why I'm asking.
Most nodes ('information type' nodes like POI) can not be easily
verified by another
source except for resurveying.
I think that should be made more clear on the remapping page.
Or am I being paranoid? :)
Greets,
Floris
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com
wrote:
The key is to have your own valid source for the information. If your
can
source the data in a license compatible way and recreate the node
yourself
without the use of the old node, then it's all good.
if (*ra4 != 0xffc78948) { return false; }
On 13 Dec 2011, at 09:29, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
So now we're remapping???
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping
states you can just delete a node and add a new one to resolve a license
issue.
I can hardly imagine that is legally right.
Greets,
Floris Looijesteijn
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
wrote:
Hi,
apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have
posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs
could
be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.
I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-1.80469lat=35.88371zoom=2
This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined
with
a current planet file. The view is updated nightly.
There's also statistics on the number of objects here:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html
And detailed information here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector
Bye
Frederik
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
Hi,
Floris Looijesteijn o...@floris.nu wrote:
Most nodes ('information type' nodes like POI) can not be easily
verified by another source except for resurveying.
It is true that information type nodes will require re-surveying or
good knowledge.
It is however not true that these make up most nodes. In fact, of
about 1.3 billion nodes in our database, only 30 million nodes are such
information type nodes - that's about 2.5%.
Bye
Frederik
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
Oh course, that's right. I was talking about single nodes, not part of a way.
I've added a little note to the wiki.
Greets,
Floris Looijesteijn
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Floris Looijesteijn o...@floris.nu wrote:
Most nodes ('information type' nodes like POI) can not be easily
verified by another source except for resurveying.
It is true that information type nodes will require re-surveying or good
knowledge.
It is however not true that these make up most nodes. In fact, of about
1.3 billion nodes in our database, only 30 million nodes are such
information type nodes - that's about 2.5%.
Bye
Frederik
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
Floris Looijesteijn wrote: I think that should be made more clear on the remapping page. You mean the fact that the _very_ _first_ _sentence_ of the main page content is Remapping means 'replacing with new content'. It does not mean simply copying the old content - that might infringe the original mapper's rights. isn't enough for you? Blimey. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-Change-View-on-OSM-Inspector-tp7089165p7089462.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] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
I just think it's unclear... deleting and recreating is probably not considered copying by some people. greets, floris On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Floris Looijesteijn wrote: I think that should be made more clear on the remapping page. You mean the fact that the _very_ _first_ _sentence_ of the main page content is Remapping means 'replacing with new content'. It does not mean simply copying the old content - that might infringe the original mapper's rights. isn't enough for you? Blimey. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-Change-View-on-OSM-Inspector-tp7089165p7089462.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What's wrong with this picture?
- Original Message - From: Michal Migurski m...@stamen.com To: Talk Openstreetmap talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 6:33 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] What's wrong with this picture? On Dec 12, 2011, at 8:38 AM, David Groom wrote: I recently made some updates to the code behind the Metro Extracts (http://metro.teczno.com) that pushes the coastline files through PostGIS and hunts down additional errors there. Many aren't interesting (nested holes) but some do lead to bugs in PostGIS and Mapnik's ability to render tiles, self-intersections being the largest problem. I'll be updating the site with new error shapefiles when the process stops running over the next 24 hours. It will be interesting to see how many errors that highlights Mike, thanks for the new shapefiles, they will be very useful A few sample errors: http://tile.stamen.com/coastline-next/preview.html#7/46.844/-86.764 The two pink 2's were identified by the coastline error checker, and (I think) indicate an island with part of its coastline facing away from the water. The three green X's represent self-intersections picked up by PostGIS, and if you zoom in more closely you'll see where they are to fix them. I've recently fixed up a number of self-intersections around South America, Mexico and the US: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/migurski/edits The data for this view is linked here: http://metro.teczno.com/#coastline …and the stylesheets are here: https://github.com/migurski/Extractotron/tree/master/coastline-preview I hope to keep this view up to date regularly, though it's possible I'll forget from time to time. I've been watching edits near these points and there are a few mappers getting to them before I do: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/dmgroom_ct/edits http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/PA94/edits PA94 certainly seems to have got started on these quickly :) David I've been dating blocks from versions of the coastline, they can be viewed here: http://tile.stamen.com/coastline-current/preview.html#8/46.106/-84.303 -mike. michal migurski- m...@stamen.com 415.558.1610 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License Change View on OSM
Let me get this straight. In the past, FormerMapper created a node or a way under the license as it stood. NewMapper, who has agreed to the new license terms, has modified the node or way by changing the alignment or location, or adding detail based on observation in the field-correcting what was incorrect, or adding information, but using the existing node or way record simply because it was there. FormerMapper has not accepted the new license (most likely because s/he is no longer active in OSM and cannot be reached-this is the case of a lot of the undergraduate students who have done some mapping here as parts of class projects). The modified nodes and ways in this case will be deleted, even though the information they contain is really now the product of NewMapper, with nothing really remaining of FormerMapper's work except for a record number and some history of having created the record number and now-defunct content for it? I am NewMapper in the above scenario, and I am not happy about the prospect of losing a lot of the mapping I've done over the past two years, or of having to redraw a bunch of ways, or of having to recopy data that I've already entered (lots of opportunities for introducing errors). Is there going to be some option whereby I can vouch for my contributions and say that they are real and should be retained? Ed Hillsman ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] H.O.T OSM manual and learning OSM in Uganda
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:24, Douglas Musaazi douglasmusa...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi all, We have started training some people about how to go about OSM, using the H.O.T training manual. JOSM is a good editor, but was wondering why it's the only one that was included in the manual. Otherwise the manual is concise, we are even including potlatch 2 as one of the training topics, Potlatch seems to be at least mentioned in the manual, but if you have longer docs about Potlatch2 then please post them. This is the link Kate posted here in august, they seem to have been updated this month. https://docs.google.com/#folders/0B5RDW80NUrJnMTJkMzcwZDMtZGJlMC00MDJmLTg0NWEtODljOWQ0ZjZkOTMz Wow are these edit done by aerial imagery or by foot survey? http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=0.29531lon=32.61574zoom=17layers=M http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=0.30763lon=32.61526zoom=17layers=M http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=0.68169lon=34.19327zoom=16layers=M http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=0.380935lon=32.558124zoom=18layers=M http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=0.35489lon=32.74168zoom=17layers=M http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=0.348045lon=32.573484zoom=18layers=M ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License Change View on OSM
2011/12/13 Hillsman, Edward hills...@cutr.usf.edu Let me get this straight. In the past, FormerMapper created a node or a way under the license as it stood. NewMapper, who has agreed to the new license terms, has modified the node or way by changing the alignment or location, or adding detail based on observation in the field—correcting what was incorrect, or adding information, but using the existing node or way record simply because it was there. FormerMapper has not accepted the new license (most likely because s/he is no longer active in OSM and cannot be reached—this is the case of a lot of the undergraduate students who have done some mapping here as parts of class projects). The modified nodes and ways in this case will be deleted, even though the information they contain is really now the product of NewMapper, with nothing really remaining of FormerMapper’s work except for a record number and some history of having created the record number and now-defunct content for it? ** ** I am NewMapper in the above scenario, and I am not happy about the prospect of losing a lot of the mapping I’ve done over the past two years, or of having to redraw a bunch of ways, or of having to recopy data that I’ve already entered (lots of opportunities for introducing errors). Is there going to be some option whereby I can vouch for my contributions and say that they are real and should be retained? I'm sure you're not the only one who is unhappy about this, but the only way to vouch for your work is by checking each node,way,relation individually. Removing it when necessary and replacing it with a version where no contributions of FormerMapper are present anymore. Unless you can use other sources from which you can gather those bits of information. For a street name, I suppose this could be the address information of a company with an address on that street, provided this address was entered in OSM by somebody who did agree to the license change. For coordinates, bing can be used in most cases to place the nodes. I have been doing this for several months now for all the edits I performed, exactly because I didn't want my hard mapping work to be thrown away at a (then) undefined time in the future. Anyway, I see it as a way to improve the map. I find that I'm adding zebra crossings and highway=give_way/stop while 'solving' license issues. I'm also taking the opportunity to align all the other features on bing. So if we all put our shoulders under it, this whole process could also mean that the map will improve tremendously. On the other hand, there is a region which I won't touch, as long as I was the only one in Belgium doing this. A large area where a very active FormerMapper doesn't agree to the license. I'll simply let it become devastated by the license change and then we'll have to rebuild it (mostly) from scratch. Given that the whole map as we have it now, was built from scratch without aid from Bing at the time in just a few years, this is not something we can't overcome. In that regard I'm glad a date has finally been set for phase 5. As far as I'm concerned, this whole thing being drawn out over several years is somewhat annoying. But I understand why it needs to done like that, no real issues there either. Cheers, And happy mapping. Simply check the license for everything you touch and it won't end up in the /dev/null trash can. Jo ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License Change View on OSM
Has anyone used HOT's Task management for cleaning maps of dirty elements? This could improve involvement and progression checking.. Janko Mihelić ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
What will happen to buildings that were drawn by a CT-agreeing mapper but with tags copied from a red node? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
There are some people [1] who are starting to get upset about the fact that contributions that they are making will get deleted on April 1st. Innocent contributors who know little or nothing about the license change are happily editing roads that will soon get deleted. There's little to tell them that this will happen. Shouldn't the API be preventing edits to non-CT content already? There is little point in allowing edits on top of non-CT content as they'll get deleted in April. At the same time this will seriously piss-off anyone who loses all their hard work. Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content? 80n [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-December/060996.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
Wow, that's scary, most of the major towns around where I live are going to cease to be. Actually, I've just looked in more detail at some of the areas I've been editing, and think there is a bug somewhere. For example (there are a lot more examples): http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-0.81228lat=51.72366zoom=17 Shows a path with red nodes, but I added that and no-one else has edited, and as far as I know I've signed the updated license thing. (I am 'atom oil' on openstreetmap.org). Also other paths around that are edited only by me and don't show up as red, so that's inconsistent at least. Do I need to file this as a bug somewhere (can anyone point me where please?). Best, Adam On 13 Dec 2011, at 08:46, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience. I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-1.80469lat=35.88371zoom=2 This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined with a current planet file. The view is updated nightly. There's also statistics on the number of objects here: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html And detailed information here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
On 13 December 2011 11:52, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Remapping means 'replacing with new content'. It does not mean simply copying the old content - that might infringe the original mapper's rights. Is that statement even correct? If editing old content after May 12 doesn't infringe rights of the authors of previous versions then surely copying and pasting old content does not infringe either, or this functionality should not be in the editors. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
Adam Hoyle wrote: For example (there are a lot more examples): http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-0.81228lat=51.72366zoom=17 shows a path with red nodes, but I added that and no-one else has edited If you look at the history of each node, you can see who's edited it. In this case, opening the area in Potlatch 2 shows those nodes highlighted in orange, which P2 uses to mean someone who edited this way hasn't responded to the CTs yet. You can click on any of these nodes and then, using the advanced view, click on the object ID to open it in OSM's data browser like so: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/413600706 which says that the nodes were created by ngent. ngent is undecided (not responded), as you can see by clicking on their username. Maybe send them a mail asking? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-Change-View-on-OSM-Inspector-tp7089165p7090946.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] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
There's no bug there If you examine more closely you'll notice that those 7 nodes were added by user 'ngent'. You're probably listed as the only contributor to the path because it was part of a longer path which was cut in 2 by you (when you cut up ways you get listed as original author of one of the 2 new paths). Tirsdag den 13. december 2011 18:08:52 Adam Hoyle skrev: Wow, that's scary, most of the major towns around where I live are going to cease to be. Actually, I've just looked in more detail at some of the areas I've been editing, and think there is a bug somewhere. For example (there are a lot more examples): http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-0.81228lat=51.72366zoom=17 Shows a path with red nodes, but I added that and no-one else has edited, and as far as I know I've signed the updated license thing. (I am 'atom oil' on openstreetmap.org). Also other paths around that are edited only by me and don't show up as red, so that's inconsistent at least. Do I need to file this as a bug somewhere (can anyone point me where please?). Best, Adam On 13 Dec 2011, at 08:46, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience. I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-1.80469lat=35.88371zoom =2 This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined with a current planet file. The view is updated nightly. There's also statistics on the number of objects here: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html And detailed information here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_ Inspector Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
Hi Adam, Yes, you have definitely accepted the new terms. You can check the UK list at http://odbl.de/great_britain.html I opened the same location with the on-line Potlatch editor http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=51.723507lon=-0.812403zoom=18 It looks like the way itself is yours (Nov 2009) but that you have used nodes made (May 2009) by an earlier contributor called ngent. He/she has not yet accepted the new terms. I suggest that you send him a message saying that your edits depend on his work and would he kindly login to his account and accept. He may think his contributions too small/old to be worth while. I have done this several times in the UK and have good response. Alternatively, remap it if you have enough information to do so without just copying his work. If this happens again and you use Potlatch, you and anyone else in the same situation can do this: - Select the way or node. - Hit the t key to get the Advanced view on the left-hand side. - At the top, you will now see something like Node: 413600709 unsure - Left click on that. - Thus opens a new window http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/413600709 - You can then click on ngent's name and see he is *Contributor terms:* Undecided and send him a message. Thank him for the contribution and ask him to log in and accept as your contributions depend on his. - (often there is more than one editor you will have to click on the View History link and find which user by by going through each one): This is a pain to do for just one or two nodes, but as the same contributor may have edits in other places we should collectively get these red points minimised pretty quickly. Germany, UK and Spain are the worst at the moment. Mike On 13/12/2011 19:08, Adam Hoyle wrote: Wow, that's scary, most of the major towns around where I live are going to cease to be. Actually, I've just looked in more detail at some of the areas I've been editing, and think there is a bug somewhere. For example (there are a lot more examples): http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-0.81228lat=51.72366zoom=17 http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-0.81228lat=51.72366zoom=17 Shows a path with red nodes, but I added that and no-one else has edited, and as far as I know I've signed the updated license thing. (I am 'atom oil' on openstreetmap.org http://openstreetmap.org). Also other paths around that are edited only by me and don't show up as red, so that's inconsistent at least. Do I need to file this as a bug somewhere (can anyone point me where please?). Best, Adam On 13 Dec 2011, at 08:46, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience. I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-1.80469lat=35.88371zoom=2 http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-1.80469lat=35.88371zoom=2 This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined with a current planet file. The view is updated nightly. There's also statistics on the number of objects here: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html And detailed information here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:08 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: [ ... ] Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content? And that would allow reconciling and improving that non-CT data how? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
80n wrote: Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content? There is certainly an issue here, and what you describe as non-CT content can take two forms. There is content that will not be relicensed. This is the content input by those who have declined the Contributor Terms. I agree that it would be good to encourage people not to build edits upon this. In the New Year I intend to switch the Potlatch 2 licence status display from off-by-default to on-by-default, with an explanatory notice. People are increasingly deleting such content and replacing with new content, often using the new sources which were not available when the content was first input (e.g. Bing imagery and OS OpenData) and that's good. There is a second content: content that may be relicensed, but we don't know yet. This is the content input by those who have neither declined nor accepted the Contributor Terms. In most cases, this is because the user simply isn't aware of the issue. Individual contact by local mappers often proves very fruitful in resolving this. It would be premature IMHO to delete or block edits to this content; the user may agree next week. Indeed, I'm delighted that just in the last few weeks, I've seen several UK cities and large towns saved! But there are a small number of mappers who are very well aware of the issue and have not signalled their intention, and you, of course, are the most prominent. I would encourage you to accept the terms. It is not crucial to the success of FOSM that OSM fails, and vice versa; you yourself have said many times that it is the _community_ which determines the future success of a project. Indeed, I hope both thrive, which is why I took the trouble to alert the FOSM list that I was actively remapping so that you have the choice of which content to retain (and you very kindly said that my mapping was of a good quality which you'd welcome in FOSM, for which thank you :) ). No-one who has read your postings will be in any doubt that allowing your content to continue in OSM is an endorsement of the CTs or ODbL. Though TimSC and I disagreed on pretty much everything, I think his final decision, to place his edits in the public domain, was an honourable one. But if you can't see your way to accepting the terms, it would be honourable of you to click 'Decline', so that those people mapping in the areas where you have worked know where they stand. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Editing-of-content-that-will-be-deleted-on-April-1st-tp7090874p7091028.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] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
On 12/13/2011 11:57 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: What will happen to buildings that were drawn by a CT-agreeing mapper but with tags copied from a red node? Presumably nothing will happen, since there is no easy way of identifying these. So this is an easy loophole - if you see any red nodes that represent points of interest, replace them with building polygons and copy the tags. (In fact I just did this the other day (though I have no idea if the node was red) before realizing this might cause problems, and I will continue to do it after thinking about it and realizing that it's been common practice for quite some time.) What I'm more concerned about is linear features. There has been a significant amount of dualling, adding bridges, and other realignment by mappers who have not agreed to the CTs. Reverting will not only remove these improvements, but will also vandalize any subsequent changes (e.g. ref, lanes, hgv, sidewalk). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
On 12/13/2011 2:02 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: People are increasingly deleting such content and replacing with new content, often using the new sources which were not available when the content was first input (e.g. Bing imagery and OS OpenData) and that's good. Disagree. It's only good if done with care to not remove any information. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License Change View on OSM
I've started work on producing Garmin maps based on Frederiks data: http://odbl.poole.ch/garmin/ While still very experimental, they should already be useful. Simon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
This will sound like I'm ranting, and if it does, that's not my intent. I'm really wanting to help creating additional problems. So . . . It won't help improving and reconciling the non-CT data. But it will keep anyone else from adding (and then losing) data to features slated for deletion. Thinking in terms of a NEW user, who is already facing a steep learning curve to contribute to OSM, and who has by default accepted the new CT, and may not even know about the license change, such a person has every right to expect that his/her contributions will stick and not disappear next spring because s/he did not know to look first for whether it is OK to edit something already in the OSM database. The big we (the OSM community) do encourage people to edit/correct/update whatever is in the data, if it is incorrect or incomplete, as one of the strengths of our crowd-sourced approach to mapping. It is difficult enough getting people involved without asking them to pay attention to a problem that they did not create but that could come back to bite them. Again, I'm thinking of new users here. Ideally, if someone selects and tries to edit a feature that is subject to deletion or reversion, I would have something pop up with a brief, clear note that this contains bad data and should not be edited, but asking the person to create a new node/way based on their own observation, and to feel free to copy any tags that they can confirm from their own observation (for example, it is indeed a Shell station and does indeed sell diesel). This will involve some programming and some attention to how to explain it. But without something like this, I think that this spring we're going to lose contributors who don't know anything about this and really shouldn't have to, when their contributions disappear. I don't want that to happen. Ed Hillsman Richard Weait richard at weait.com mailto:talk%40openstreetmap.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BOSM-talk%5D%20Editing%20of%20content%20that%20will%20be%20deleted%20on%20April%201stIn-Reply-To=%3CCAGwUD5tSCMf%3DqjM5f7RXzQh_poAJAn8VeKwmrTss1Cni_z96UQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E wrote Tue Dec 13 18:47:28 GMT 2011 On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:08 PM, 80n 80n80n at gmail.comhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk wrote: [ ... ] Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content? And that would allow reconciling and improving that non-CT data how? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
Fascinating, I was always taught that reliability was the most important thing to end users. In Ottawa it looks like many footpaths, steps etc will be the big losers. The imported road network looks fine. So it looks like the tools and specialist maps for the disabled, ones that make use of details mapped by hand about access will be what suffers the most. Do we care about the end users of our maps, who perhaps have come to depend on them. I suspect the blind community for one will be less embracing of OSM if its reliability track record is less than perfect. Or is it just one of those unplanned things that happens, there seems so many with OSM. Cheerio John On 13 December 2011 13:08, Adam Hoyle adam.li...@dotankstudios.com wrote: Wow, that's scary, most of the major towns around where I live are going to cease to be. Actually, I've just looked in more detail at some of the areas I've been editing, and think there is a bug somewhere. For example (there are a lot more examples): http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-0.81228lat=51.72366zoom=17 Shows a path with red nodes, but I added that and no-one else has edited, and as far as I know I've signed the updated license thing. (I am 'atom oil' on openstreetmap.org). Also other paths around that are edited only by me and don't show up as red, so that's inconsistent at least. Do I need to file this as a bug somewhere (can anyone point me where please?). Best, Adam On 13 Dec 2011, at 08:46, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience. I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-1.80469lat=35.88371zoom=2 This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined with a current planet file. The view is updated nightly. There's also statistics on the number of objects here: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html And detailed information here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
On 12/13/2011 2:30 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 12/13/2011 08:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Presumably nothing will happen, since there is no easy way of identifying these. So this is an easy loophole - if you see any red nodes that represent points of interest, replace them with building polygons and copy the tags. Anyone who is caught doing that will be told to stop, (In fact I just did this the other day (though I have no idea if the node was red) before realizing this might cause problems, and I will continue to do it after thinking about it and realizing that it's been common practice for quite some time.) Anyone who is caught doing that *against better knowledge* will quite possibly get his account blocked and/or cause a wholesale revert of his recent edits. I have absolutely zero patience with people trying to subvert the license change process, and especially those who deliberately misconstrue the intent of the process in the way you seem to be proud of doing. I will personally block your account if I should become aware of any edits of the kind you're sketching above. I have done many edits of this sort over the years. It has been standard practice for a long time. Any tainting has already happened. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:30 PM, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: Fascinating, I was always taught that reliability was the most important thing to end users. In Ottawa it looks like many footpaths, steps etc will be the big losers. The imported road network looks fine. So it looks like the tools and specialist maps for the disabled, ones that make use of details mapped by hand about access will be what suffers the most. Do we care about the end users of our maps, who perhaps have come to depend on them. I suspect the blind community for one will be less embracing of OSM if its reliability track record is less than perfect. Or is it just one of those unplanned things that happens, there seems so many with OSM. This is definitely unfortunate :( But at this point I seriously doubt the license change is going to stop (for better or for worse) so here's a proposal: For every message anyone sends to a mailing list about this, also make an attempt to contact a local mapper who has not indicated a decision about the license yet. Lukcily, I think I see two red and 3 orange objects in my city and that's it. So I don't have much to do around here but there are more cities in the area that will see a bigger impact so I will try to track some people down tonight. Toby ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
Hi, On 12/13/2011 08:47 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: I have done many edits of this sort over the years. It has been standard practice for a long time. Any tainting has already happened. I am not talking about any tainting that has happened in the past without people having thought about it. I am talking about any tainting that you, willfully, and in the full knowledge that it is problematic, commit (or incite others to commit) after today. 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] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
On 12/13/2011 2:57 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 12/13/2011 08:47 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: I have done many edits of this sort over the years. It has been standard practice for a long time. Any tainting has already happened. I am not talking about any tainting that has happened in the past without people having thought about it. I am talking about any tainting that you, willfully, and in the full knowledge that it is problematic, commit (or incite others to commit) after today. There is no difference in terms of acceptability under the ODBL+CT. Such copying is either OK or not. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
On 12/13/2011 2:27 PM, Hillsman, Edward wrote: Thinking in terms of a NEW user, who is already facing a steep learning curve to contribute to OSM, and who has by default accepted the new CT, and may not even know about the license change, such a person has every right to expect that his/her contributions will “stick” and not disappear next spring because s/he did not know to look first for whether it is OK to edit something already in the OSM database. This is the primary reason I haven't tried to create any local OSM meetups. But, (Smacking self up-side the head), I spent a block of time over the last 2 weeks fixing up an area that had been edited by some newbies - in too much of a hurry to check the license view. And now that I check the license view, I see that the whole area will be nuked back to the state of 2008 or so. So 80n's suggestion about disallowing edits to non-CT data isn't so bad. It makes sense only to delete it at this time. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: I have done many edits of this sort over the years. It has been standard practice for a long time. Any tainting has already happened. Yeah expanding nodes into buildings is pretty standard practice for me whenever I'm touching an area, assuming the available imagery is good enough. I sometimes also make the old node a part of the new way but remove all tags from it. So I guess that would leave the way with an odd shape after the license change. Of coures in my case a lot of them are imported GNIS nodes... but not all. Looking at each object before I do this will be a pain. I might be willing to but that is going to be above the heads of most mappers. Toby ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
It would be useful to have an idea of how many objects have been edited by a red user *and then edited by someone else*. These are the biggest problem in terms of damage. It's also important to keep in mind that relations are the most vulnerable of all, and do not show up on this view. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
Thank you all - I was looking at the Way, not the individual points, and it was obviously one that was there before I started mapping that I then edited. Is the process for deciding whether or not to delete a node set in stone? I am fairly sure that I have moved the majority of those nodes from where they were originally (I am fairly sure because there was originally only 1 path on OSM going up the hill when there are 2 different paths on the ground), so surely if I moved them from their original position they can't be deleted just because the specific node id in the database was originated by someone else?? that's crazy - what's the logic behind that decision - shouldn't the check ensure that they are at least in the same place as the originator positioned them? Otherwise I can see a lot of senseless destruction and that makes me really quite sad. Do I sound panicked? That might be because I am - it appears a *lot* of the footpaths and bridleways I've been editing over the last 3 years might be deleted. I will try to contact ngent, but to be honest I spend maybe an hour or two a week on OSM adding in walks I've done, so with all the good will in the world I don't realistically have the time to chase all of the original people who created nodes that are now potentially going to be deleted. Help(?) Adam On 13 Dec 2011, at 18:45, Michael Collinson wrote: Hi Adam, Yes, you have definitely accepted the new terms. You can check the UK list at http://odbl.de/great_britain.html I opened the same location with the on-line Potlatch editor http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=51.723507lon=-0.812403zoom=18 It looks like the way itself is yours (Nov 2009) but that you have used nodes made (May 2009) by an earlier contributor called ngent. He/she has not yet accepted the new terms. I suggest that you send him a message saying that your edits depend on his work and would he kindly login to his account and accept. He may think his contributions too small/old to be worth while. I have done this several times in the UK and have good response. Alternatively, remap it if you have enough information to do so without just copying his work. If this happens again and you use Potlatch, you and anyone else in the same situation can do this: - Select the way or node. - Hit the t key to get the Advanced view on the left-hand side. - At the top, you will now see something like Node: 413600709 unsure - Left click on that. - Thus opens a new window http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/413600709 - You can then click on ngent's name and see he is Contributor terms: Undecided and send him a message. Thank him for the contribution and ask him to log in and accept as your contributions depend on his. - (often there is more than one editor you will have to click on the View History link and find which user by by going through each one): This is a pain to do for just one or two nodes, but as the same contributor may have edits in other places we should collectively get these red points minimised pretty quickly. Germany, UK and Spain are the worst at the moment. Mike On 13/12/2011 19:08, Adam Hoyle wrote: Wow, that's scary, most of the major towns around where I live are going to cease to be. Actually, I've just looked in more detail at some of the areas I've been editing, and think there is a bug somewhere. For example (there are a lot more examples): http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-0.81228lat=51.72366zoom=17 Shows a path with red nodes, but I added that and no-one else has edited, and as far as I know I've signed the updated license thing. (I am 'atom oil' on openstreetmap.org). Also other paths around that are edited only by me and don't show up as red, so that's inconsistent at least. Do I need to file this as a bug somewhere (can anyone point me where please?). Best, Adam On 13 Dec 2011, at 08:46, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience. I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-1.80469lat=35.88371zoom=2 This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined with a current planet file. The view is updated nightly. There's also statistics on the number of objects here: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html And detailed information here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
Is the process for deciding whether or not to delete a node set in stone? I am fairly sure that I have moved the majority of those nodes from where they were originally (I am fairly sure because there was originally only 1 path on OSM going up the hill when there are 2 different paths on the ground), so surely if I moved them from their original position they can't be deleted just because the specific node id in the database was originated by someone else?? that's crazy - what's the logic behind that decision - shouldn't the check ensure that they are at least in the same place as the originator positioned them? Otherwise I can see a lot of senseless destruction and that makes me really quite sad. I agree, it sounds mad, and I find it hard to believe that 'we' would do this. Surely we need to apply a bit of pragmatism to this and think about 'reasonableness'? I can see that it is reasonable to delete the contributions from someone who has explicitly said that they do not agree to the new terms - that is a shame, but it is their choice. From the discussion on this list (and I have not looked into it properly - I gave up on thinking about licences when the 'debate' all got out of hand earlier in the year), it sounds as though if someone who has neither accepted nor declined the terms has touched an object, that object will be deleted - is this really the intention of those looking after this licence change? I see there are three potential reasons for someone neither accepting nor declining the terms: - They really do not agree with them, but for some reason that I can not think of they decide not to click the 'decline' button - These are an awkward case, but it is up to them to make their intentions clear. - They left the project having made their contribution and are now not contactable (changed email address etc.), or so un-interested that they do not respond. - They could be really keen OSM contributors who have since died, so are not answering their emails. In my opinion, it would be reasonable to assume that the last two have the best interests of the project at heart and do not want to have their contributions deleted, so they should be retained. If at some point they contact us to say that they object to their contributions being in the database, then yes, delete them, but leave them there until they do. A pragmatic approach along these lines would seem quite reasonable to me, and would save a lot of un-necessary re-work - deleting contributions of people that we can not make contact with just seems excessive, and is probably not what the non-contactable contributors wanted anyway. Graham. -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
On 12/13/2011 4:03 PM, Graham Jones wrote: I see there are three potential reasons for someone neither accepting nor declining the terms: * They really do not agree with them, but for some reason that I can not think of they decide not to click the 'decline' button - These are an awkward case, but it is up to them to make their intentions clear. * They left the project having made their contribution and are now not contactable (changed email address etc.), or so un-interested that they do not respond. * They could be really keen OSM contributors who have since died, so are not answering their emails. A fourth: they are not sure if they can legally do so. I am in this position (for example, I have copied tags from points to ways and have created nodes along existing ways) but have agreed under duress; others may not wish to do so. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
Hi Richard, On 13 Dec 2011, at 18:34, Richard Fairhurst wrote: In this case, opening the area in Potlatch 2 shows those nodes highlighted in orange, which P2 uses to mean someone who edited this way hasn't responded to the CTs yet. You can click on any of these nodes and then, using the advanced view, click on the object ID to open it in OSM's data browser like so: When I open P2 on my mac I don't get anything highlighted in orange (there is a yellow outline around 'The Ridgeway' but I have always presumed that's because it's part of a way). I've opened 'options' and ticked 'show license status' and also closed the window and re-opened, but nothing shows - is there something else I need to do? Thanks in advance, Adam___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: I agree, it sounds mad, and I find it hard to believe that 'we' would do this. Surely we need to apply a bit of pragmatism to this and think about 'reasonableness'? I can see that it is reasonable to delete the contributions from someone who has explicitly said that they do not agree to the new terms - that is a shame, but it is their choice. From the discussion on this list (and I have not looked into it properly - I gave up on thinking about licences when the 'debate' all got out of hand earlier in the year), it sounds as though if someone who has neither accepted nor declined the terms has touched an object, that object will be deleted - is this really the intention of those looking after this licence change? Touched no. Created yes. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
Adam Hoyle wrote: is there something else I need to do? It'll only work in the default, 'Potlatch' map style (not 'Network' or 'Wireframe' or others - I need to fix that!) but apart from that, yes, that should be all you need to do. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-Change-View-on-OSM-Inspector-tp7089165p7091486.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] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
What you can do is create an osm file on your local hard drive, in JOSM download a very small area with nothing in it. New download the area you have made edits in as a separate download. Select on username so user:xyz Merge the selection onto your empty map and save it locally. Then after the great clean up has happened you at least have a record of your edits. Alternatively there is always the other OSM style maps that aren't changing their license. Cheerio John On 13 December 2011 15:39, Adam Hoyle adam.li...@dotankstudios.com wrote: Thank you all - I was looking at the Way, not the individual points, and it was obviously one that was there before I started mapping that I then edited. Is the process for deciding whether or not to delete a node set in stone? I am fairly sure that I have moved the majority of those nodes from where they were originally (I am fairly sure because there was originally only 1 path on OSM going up the hill when there are 2 different paths on the ground), so surely if I moved them from their original position they can't be deleted just because the specific node id in the database was originated by someone else?? that's crazy - what's the logic behind that decision - shouldn't the check ensure that they are at least in the same place as the originator positioned them? Otherwise I can see a lot of senseless destruction and that makes me really quite sad. Do I sound panicked? That might be because I am - it appears a *lot* of the footpaths and bridleways I've been editing over the last 3 years might be deleted. I will try to contact ngent, but to be honest I spend maybe an hour or two a week on OSM adding in walks I've done, so with all the good will in the world I don't realistically have the time to chase all of the original people who created nodes that are now potentially going to be deleted. Help(?) Adam On 13 Dec 2011, at 18:45, Michael Collinson wrote: Hi Adam, Yes, you have definitely accepted the new terms. You can check the UK list at http://odbl.de/great_britain.html I opened the same location with the on-line Potlatch editor http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=51.723507lon=-0.812403zoom=18 It looks like the way itself is yours (Nov 2009) but that you have used nodes made (May 2009) by an earlier contributor called ngent. He/she has not yet accepted the new terms. I suggest that you send him a message saying that your edits depend on his work and would he kindly login to his account and accept. He may think his contributions too small/old to be worth while. I have done this several times in the UK and have good response. Alternatively, remap it if you have enough information to do so without just copying his work. If this happens again and you use Potlatch, you and anyone else in the same situation can do this: - Select the way or node. - Hit the t key to get the Advanced view on the left-hand side. - At the top, you will now see something like Node: 413600709 unsure - Left click on that. - Thus opens a new window http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/413600709 - You can then click on ngent's name and see he is *Contributor terms:*Undecided and send him a message. Thank him for the contribution and ask him to log in and accept as your contributions depend on his. - (often there is more than one editor you will have to click on the View History link and find which user by by going through each one): This is a pain to do for just one or two nodes, but as the same contributor may have edits in other places we should collectively get these red points minimised pretty quickly. Germany, UK and Spain are the worst at the moment. Mike On 13/12/2011 19:08, Adam Hoyle wrote: Wow, that's scary, most of the major towns around where I live are going to cease to be. Actually, I've just looked in more detail at some of the areas I've been editing, and think there is a bug somewhere. For example (there are a lot more examples): http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-0.81228lat=51.72366zoom=17 Shows a path with red nodes, but I added that and no-one else has edited, and as far as I know I've signed the updated license thing. (I am 'atom oil' on openstreetmap.org). Also other paths around that are edited only by me and don't show up as red, so that's inconsistent at least. Do I need to file this as a bug somewhere (can anyone point me where please?). Best, Adam On 13 Dec 2011, at 08:46, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience. I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-1.80469lat=35.88371zoom=2 This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined with a current planet file.
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
The intentions don't matter here, its to be able to defend the new licensing / copyright in court you need to show all the content has come from people who have accepted the new license. Its a lawyer thing and I'm not even sure that in the US OSM has a solid case anyway. Street names are facts for example. Cheerio John On 13 December 2011 16:03, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: Is the process for deciding whether or not to delete a node set in stone? I am fairly sure that I have moved the majority of those nodes from where they were originally (I am fairly sure because there was originally only 1 path on OSM going up the hill when there are 2 different paths on the ground), so surely if I moved them from their original position they can't be deleted just because the specific node id in the database was originated by someone else?? that's crazy - what's the logic behind that decision - shouldn't the check ensure that they are at least in the same place as the originator positioned them? Otherwise I can see a lot of senseless destruction and that makes me really quite sad. I agree, it sounds mad, and I find it hard to believe that 'we' would do this. Surely we need to apply a bit of pragmatism to this and think about 'reasonableness'? I can see that it is reasonable to delete the contributions from someone who has explicitly said that they do not agree to the new terms - that is a shame, but it is their choice. From the discussion on this list (and I have not looked into it properly - I gave up on thinking about licences when the 'debate' all got out of hand earlier in the year), it sounds as though if someone who has neither accepted nor declined the terms has touched an object, that object will be deleted - is this really the intention of those looking after this licence change? I see there are three potential reasons for someone neither accepting nor declining the terms: - They really do not agree with them, but for some reason that I can not think of they decide not to click the 'decline' button - These are an awkward case, but it is up to them to make their intentions clear. - They left the project having made their contribution and are now not contactable (changed email address etc.), or so un-interested that they do not respond. - They could be really keen OSM contributors who have since died, so are not answering their emails. In my opinion, it would be reasonable to assume that the last two have the best interests of the project at heart and do not want to have their contributions deleted, so they should be retained. If at some point they contact us to say that they object to their contributions being in the database, then yes, delete them, but leave them there until they do. A pragmatic approach along these lines would seem quite reasonable to me, and would save a lot of un-necessary re-work - deleting contributions of people that we can not make contact with just seems excessive, and is probably not what the non-contactable contributors wanted anyway. Graham. -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
How does the OSMF plan to handle split or combined ways? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
On 12/13/2011 4:25 PM, john whelan wrote: The intentions don't matter here, its to be able to defend the new licensing / copyright in court you need to show all the content has come from people who have accepted the new license. Which is impossible because of the common practice of copying tags from a node to a building polygon. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
Adam, On 12/13/2011 09:39 PM, Adam Hoyle wrote: Is the process for deciding whether or not to delete a node set in stone? I am fairly sure that I have moved the majority of those nodes from where they were originally (I am fairly sure because there was originally only 1 path on OSM going up the hill when there are 2 different paths on the ground), so surely if I moved them from their original position they can't be deleted just because the specific node id in the database was originated by someone else?? that's crazy - what's the logic behind that decision - shouldn't the check ensure that they are at least in the same place as the originator positioned them? This is an argument put forward by a number of contributors and it certainly has something going for it. My usual counter-example is: Assume I highlight a river in my editor and move the whole thing by one metre - leaving all the curves, bends, and zigzag shapes that the original mapper placed there intact - does that then afford me, exclusively, the copyright for all the nodes (if there is any at all)? I think that while we probably cannot ok such nodes wholesale, we should give individuals (like you) the option of saying (like you did above) I think that while this may technically look like it was using nodes from user X, it isn't really, and then that's that. It is important to note that the OSM Inspector view is not the final word - not even an official word - on the question of what gets deleted. It is just my interpretation of the current situation. 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] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
and do those, and the other examples mentioned before show up in the inspector as problematic? i think they should. gr, floris On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: How does the OSMF plan to handle split or combined ways? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:08 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: [ ... ] Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content? And that would allow reconciling and improving that non-CT data how? I don't think I made any point about reconciling and improving non-CT content. Why do you bring that up? It's a subject that needs to be addressed but but its related to my point how? You've known for quite some time that non-CT content will ultimately get deleted. It will be very demotivational if that unavoidably deletes fresh contributions made over the next three months. What plans are there to put some controls in place? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
On 13 December 2011 21:25, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: The intentions don't matter here, its to be able to defend the new licensing / copyright in court you need to show all the content has come from people who have accepted the new license. It will only come to court if someone sues, and in the context of this re-licensing discussion, the only person who would do that is someone who has not accepted the new terms, and objects to their data being retained. My view is that a reasonable approach would be to assume that non-contactable mappers actually want their data to be used, but if they complain and say that this is not the case, delete it thenso it would never go to court. But I think it is a defensible position anyway - xxx complained that we retained his data, so we have done what he wanted and deleted it Anyway, that is enough of legal stuff for me, but wanted to share what I think is a reasonable alternative approach to dealing with this issue, rather than re-mapping things that people may not actually want deleting in the first place. Graham. -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
On 13 Dec 2011, at 21:20, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Adam Hoyle wrote: is there something else I need to do? It'll only work in the default, 'Potlatch' map style (not 'Network' or 'Wireframe' or others - I need to fix that!) but apart from that, yes, that should be all you need to do. Oh wow - I must have been on some long gone map style, it's all looking very different now I've changed the map style (and looking good too). Am I right in saying that purple outlines mean things are part of a hiking route, and green outline means foot route right? And orange outlines are bad, orange outlines mean it'll get wiped, is that correct? Damn it, there are a *lot* of orange outlines. #wipestearsfromeyesandrollsupsleeves Adam ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
On 13 December 2011 22:30, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/13/2011 4:25 PM, john whelan wrote: The intentions don't matter here, its to be able to defend the new licensing / copyright in court you need to show all the content has come from people who have accepted the new license. Which is impossible because of the common practice of copying tags from a node to a building polygon. It is possible but not in an automated manner. With some very clever automated heuristics it might be close to correct. But certainly not only by looking at the history of each object individually. This is one reason the current ODbL-status tools are of little value. The second reason I see is that they look at CT-acceptance, which as it stands is orthogonal to ODbL-compatibility. Both of these things are present in OSM now: * data incompatible with ODbL but compatible with the current licensing terms, allowed to be contributed under CT and * data which available under ODbL (such as my contributions) contributed by mappers who decline the current version of CT. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
Am 13.12.2011 20:59, schrieb Nathan Edgars II: On 12/13/2011 2:57 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 12/13/2011 08:47 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: I have done many edits of this sort over the years. It has been standard practice for a long time. Any tainting has already happened. I am not talking about any tainting that has happened in the past without people having thought about it. I am talking about any tainting that you, willfully, and in the full knowledge that it is problematic, commit (or incite others to commit) after today. There is no difference in terms of acceptability under the ODBL+CT. Such copying is either OK or not. Even in law exists the distinction between crimes done willingly and those done unwillingly or without knowledge. You don't get necessarily out of the case without any harm if you didn't know or didn't want it, but often you have to do/pay/be imprisoned less than if you would have done that willingly. I would agree, that this particular edits are harmless and should not be criminalized - AS LONG AS the editor didn't know about it. You in particular told us here, word by word, that you know about it and that you will planfully follow that approach in the near future, too. That is different to someMapper doing that without knowledge of any future license change and without the intent to circumvent any legal issues. regards Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
On 13 December 2011 22:03, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: I agree, it sounds mad, and I find it hard to believe that 'we' would do this. Surely we need to apply a bit of pragmatism to this and think about 'reasonableness'? I can see that it is reasonable to delete the contributions from someone who has explicitly said that they do not agree to the new terms - that is a shame, but it is their choice. From the discussion on this list (and I have not looked into it properly - I gave up on thinking about licences when the 'debate' all got out of hand earlier in the year), it sounds as though if someone who has neither accepted nor declined the terms has touched an object, that object will be deleted - is this really the intention of those looking after this licence change? I see there are three potential reasons for someone neither accepting nor declining the terms: They really do not agree with them, but for some reason that I can not think of they decide not to click the 'decline' button - These are an awkward case, but it is up to them to make their intentions clear. They left the project having made their contribution and are now not contactable (changed email address etc.), or so un-interested that they do not respond. They could be really keen OSM contributors who have since died, so are not answering their emails. In my opinion, it would be reasonable to assume that the last two have the best interests of the project at heart and do not want to have their contributions deleted, so they should be retained. If at some point they contact us to say that they object to their contributions being in the database, then yes, delete them, but leave them there until they do. What's in the best interest of the project is very discussable. My personal opinion is that the change to the licensing model where a single body is the licensor instead of every contributor, is not in the project's interest and anything that helps this change isn't either. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
On 12/13/2011 4:46 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote: Even in law exists the distinction between crimes done willingly and those done unwillingly or without knowledge. You don't get necessarily out of the case without any harm if you didn't know or didn't want it, but often you have to do/pay/be imprisoned less than if you would have done that willingly. We're not talking about crimes here, but about copyright status. An unknowing derivative work is still a derivative work. The penalties for profiting off such a work may be less if infringement is not intentional, but the status of the work does not change. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
On 13 Dec 2011, at 21:34, Frederik Ramm wrote: On 12/13/2011 09:39 PM, Adam Hoyle wrote: Is the process for deciding whether or not to delete a node set in stone? I am fairly sure that I have moved the majority of those nodes from where they were originally (I am fairly sure because there was originally only 1 path on OSM going up the hill when there are 2 different paths on the ground), so surely if I moved them from their original position they can't be deleted just because the specific node id in the database was originated by someone else?? that's crazy - what's the logic behind that decision - shouldn't the check ensure that they are at least in the same place as the originator positioned them? This is an argument put forward by a number of contributors and it certainly has something going for it. My usual counter-example is: Assume I highlight a river in my editor and move the whole thing by one metre - leaving all the curves, bends, and zigzag shapes that the original mapper placed there intact - does that then afford me, exclusively, the copyright for all the nodes (if there is any at all)? an interesting and very valid point. If it is agreed to be an issue, then surely it's another thing a computer could check - eg. if the relationship (distance and angle) between all the points on a line don't match (or a % of them don't match) then that can be considered different and so not necessary to remove. It is important to note that the OSM Inspector view is not the final word - not even an official word - on the question of what gets deleted. It is just my interpretation of the current situation. it's awesome, and although this has panicked the hell out of me, I am glad to better understand the situation before things get deleted and I wonder why. Regards, Adam ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: 80n wrote: Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content? There is certainly an issue here, and what you describe as non-CT content can take two forms. There is content that will not be relicensed. This is the content input by those who have declined the Contributor Terms. The two forms you describe are quite irrelevant and just muddy the water. One form of content *will* get deleted, the other form *may* get deleted. Trying to convert *may* into *will* doesn't help the hapless contributor who just wants to edit something today. Does anyone have a plan? I'd suggest something like: Step 1. Identify what is safe content that can definitely be built up. Step 2. Prevent innocent contributors from touching content that is not safe. Is it any more complex than that? 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
Adam Hoyle wrote: Oh wow - I must have been on some long gone map style, it's all looking very different now I've changed the map style (and looking good too). Am I right in saying that purple outlines mean things are part of a hiking route, and green outline means foot route right? Green is route=foot, the blue/purple is any other route (i.e. not foot or one of the cycling types) IIRC. It would be nice to move all the hiking-type things to green, but I get confused as to the difference between route=hiking, root=foot, root=uk_ldp, etc. etc... And orange outlines are bad, orange outlines mean it'll get wiped, is that correct? Damn it, there are a *lot* of orange outlines. #wipestearsfromeyesandrollsupsleeves In P2: * dark maroon means created by someone who's disagreed. Abandon all hope * semi-transparent maroon means edited by someone who's disagreed. Will probably be reverted to an earlier version * orange means created or edited by someone who's not responded. Use the history function to find out who that is, and flutter your eyelashes at them I can't emphasise enough the importance of contacting people and asking them to agree. It really works. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-Change-View-on-OSM-Inspector-tp7089165p7091636.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] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
Hi, On 12/13/2011 10:52 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: We're not talking about crimes here, but about copyright status. No. The only thing I was talking about was that if you should have the audacity to publicly proclaim loopholes in the process and that you intend to use them, I will block your account. In my eyes, the license change does not have to be 100% perfect. If we apply diligence, and are seen to apply diligence, and still a few copyrightable bits and pieces slip through our hands and end up in the new database even though their authors didn't want that, then that's not too bad - we can fix that when someone complains. As long as we try hard to do the right thing, that's good enough in my eyes. However if someone blares on the lists about having found a loophole, and planning to use it, and we stand idly by, that's certainly not trying hard to do the right thing. And that's why it is a hell of a difference if *you* copy tags from a non-agreer node to a new way in the future, or of someone else does it. 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] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
80n wrote: The two forms you describe are quite irrelevant and just muddy the water. Can you answer the question, please? You have edited a bunch of stuff in the North Cotswolds, which is an area very near where I live and which I care about. I remember one changeset called Cotswolds, another called Rock and rollright. I will remap it if I need to but would rather not do so if unnecessary. Could you answer, for what will be the third time of asking today, do you intend to: a) accept the CTs b) reject the CTs c) you are not willing to say If c), which is the situation at present, why not? What reason can you give me for, say, not deleting your contributions in Weybridge immediately and reuploading from OS OpenData? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Editing-of-content-that-will-be-deleted-on-April-1st-tp7090874p7091664.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] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
On 13/12/2011 21:38, 80n wrote: You've known for quite some time that non-CT content will ultimately get deleted. The original promise was that it requires a critical mass to proceed. According to the OSMF wiki there are fewer than three quarters agreeing, and some of the major countries will lose nearly half their ways according to http://odbl.de/ . Frederick's map (THANK YOU!) is really the first indication I've seen of what the consequences are likely to be, yet what seems to be being said is that it will go ahead in April come what may. What are the precise, numeric criteria for proceeding? At the moment even by a vague definition I don't see how one could describe it as a critical mass. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
On 12/13/2011 5:03 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: No. The only thing I was talking about was that if you should have the audacity to publicly proclaim loopholes in the process and that you intend to use them, I will block your account. I have already used them many times as part of normal editing, and so have many others. I will not change my editing practices because the OSMF is not diligent enough. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
On 13 December 2011 22:46, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote: Am 13.12.2011 20:59, schrieb Nathan Edgars II: There is no difference in terms of acceptability under the ODBL+CT. Such copying is either OK or not. Even in law exists the distinction between crimes done willingly and those done unwillingly or without knowledge. You don't get necessarily out of the case without any harm if you didn't know or didn't want it, but often you have to do/pay/be imprisoned less than if you would have done that willingly. In this case this is not a crime and not a violation of Contributor Terms, the only reason a mapper may suspect it to be wrong is if they know that it is going to lead to the OSMF later violating the copyright of the original author by not applying sufficient criteria for detecting that a given element's licensing is not compatible with ODbL and publishing it under ODbL. I'd say that's very far fetched and (hopefully) an underestimate of the LWG's brain power. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Now you can see how much vandalism the OSMF will carry out on April Fools
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:13 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: I think Frederik has managed to decimate more of London than five years of bombing did during WW2 ;) Your smiley is poor compensation for that analogy. You owe Frederik and this list an apology. Shame, George, Shame! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Could someone explain why the way_id 4776297 is reported as created by non-agreers on osmi: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=5.98159lat=45.34536zoom=17overlays=wtfe_line_created Current version is 21: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4776297 But from history: http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/4776297/history we can see that version 1 has been created by user_7568 (user_id=7568): http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/user_7568 which is reported as accepted CT's over 1 year ago. Any thoughts ? Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: It is important to note that the OSM Inspector view is not the final word - not even an official word - on the question of what gets deleted. It is just my interpretation of the current situation. Frederik, If the OSM Inspector view is just your own interpretation of the current situation then this is surely problematic. Contributors may be reassured by OSM Inspector that a path is safe and that it can be edited. It may then later get deleted. Who gets to make the official decision about what is safe and what is not? And when does that decision get made? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
Hi, On 12/13/2011 11:20 PM, Pieren wrote: Could someone explain why the way_id 4776297 is reported as created by non-agreers on osmi: [...] we can see that version 1 has been created by user_7568 (user_id=7568): http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/user_7568 which is reported as accepted CT's over 1 year ago. Any thoughts ? There is a rather complex quirk that involves de-cloaking anonymous users. It is possible that this user accepted the CTs but was anonymous at the time; therefore his edits had to be treated as non-agreed. If he has de-cloaked meanwhile, then his edits can now be marked clean but that is a non-automatic process. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Low-edit decliners
Hi all, As of moments ago, 419 accounts have declined CT/ODbL. That sounds like a large number, but it is fewer than 1% of the over 54,000 accounts who have accepted CT/ODbL. Of the declining accounts, 56 have never submitted data to OpenStreetMap. An additional 167 accounts have fewer than 10 changesets. Some mappers are enjoying removing objects tainted by these low-edit accounts. It's a small way to say, That's not a problem any more. Sort of like picking up litter while you walk to the door of the shop and dropping it in the trash. I've started a table of declining accounts, and added the location and count of objects touched by some of them. So you can find a low-edit decliner near you and remap their data. Leave a note once you have purged a particular account so that other mappers can move on to other accounts. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rw/decliners The osm heatmap makes these low-edit accounts easy to recognize. http://yosmhm.neis-one.org Happy mapping, Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] Transition to CC-4 instead of destroying data
Creative Commons recently confirmed that the next version of its licences will attempt to cover sui generis database rights. Version 4.0 is planned to be available at the end of 2012. This was previously mentioned here as a possible alternative to the destructive ODbL process. I don't see any discussion of this in recent LWG minutes. Has it been considered? http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/30676?utm_campaign=newsletter_1112utm_medium=blogutm_source=newsletter http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/License_subject_matter -- Eric Marsden ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011 12:34:34 PM UTC-6, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Adam Hoyle wrote: For example (there are a lot more examples): http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-0.81228lat=51.72366zoom=17 shows a path with red nodes, but I added that and no-one else has edited If you look at the history of each node, you can see who's edited it. In this case, opening the area in Potlatch 2 shows those nodes highlighted in orange, which P2 uses to mean someone who edited this way hasn't responded to the CTs yet. You can click on any of these nodes and then, using the advanced view, click on the object ID to open it in OSM's data browser like so: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/413600706 which says that the nodes were created by ngent. ngent is undecided (not responded), as you can see by clicking on their username. Maybe send them a mail asking? I've added a handy dandy row to my deep history viewer to show license status: http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=413600706 There are node.php, way.php, and relation.php that share the same id parameter and give similar information. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:03 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.comwrote: On 13/12/2011 21:38, 80n wrote: You've known for quite some time that non-CT content will ultimately get deleted. The original promise was that it requires a critical mass to proceed. According to the OSMF wiki there are fewer than three quarters agreeing, and some of the major countries will lose nearly half their ways according to http://odbl.de/ . David, many people have been coerced or suckered into agreeing. I've been badgered many times (including three times today, on this very thread by an OSMF board member). Many people have been railroaded into compliance by threats that their contributions will be deleted, despite this being patently untrue (there is at least one fork that will not delete anyone's data). You should probably never believe in promises from politicians, especially if they don't have a viable plan for how they will achive it, 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
80n wrote: David, many people have been coerced or suckered into agreeing. I've been badgered many times (including three times today, on this very thread by an OSMF board member). No. I am badgering you to say what you will do, or explain why you will not say. Obviously, I would prefer it if you agreed, but it's your choice. I am at a loss to work out why, for someone so au fait with the issues, you have not done so yet. The OSMF board member thing is a red herring: I am posting here in a personal capacity, as I always will unless the message is signed otherwise. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Editing-of-content-that-will-be-deleted-on-April-1st-tp7090874p7091781.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] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
On 13 Dec 2011, at 21:59, Richard Fairhurst wrote: I can't emphasise enough the importance of contacting people and asking them to agree. It really works. Is there any tool out there that can highlight the red users in a given area? Fredrick, is that at all possible to add to your excellent, but frankly terrifying, map? Or is there a tool for entering a given osm username and finding out the ways they have initially created. I'm sure there is, there seem to be billions of awesome map hacks out there. Also, what happens to a way that was say 2 nodes long and I've added 20 nodes to it, does the whole thing get deleted or just the 2 nodes that the other person created? The damage around Aylesbury / Wendover / High Wycombe is going to be huge (looks like they will all essentially cease to be), but in some ways it could be quite a beautiful art project, rather like throwing a wrecking ball at a Ming vase. #thewhiskeyisnthelping Hang on, it's happening on April 1st - this isn't an April Fools joke is it? #iwouldbesorelievedifitwas \a___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Transition to CC-4 instead of destroying data
Eric, Yes, it has been considered in the past. There even have been conference calls between the LWG and CC about this subject. Currently it is unknown what that this license will look like. Looking at the current situation, the ODbL is a step forward from the current CC-BY-SA 2.0. When (in due time) CC4 proofs to be a better license then ODbL, we could change to this license. The Contributor Terms makes this possible. Changing to ODbL or CC4 (possibly in the future) does not change the presence of the Contributor Terms. cheers, Henk On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Eric Marsden eric.mars...@free.fr wrote: Creative Commons recently confirmed that the next version of its licences will attempt to cover sui generis database rights. Version 4.0 is planned to be available at the end of 2012. This was previously mentioned here as a possible alternative to the destructive ODbL process. I don't see any discussion of this in recent LWG minutes. Has it been considered? http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/30676?utm_campaign=newsletter_1112utm_medium=blogutm_source=newsletter http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/License_subject_matter -- Eric Marsden ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
Critical mass is there, at a ratio of more than a 100/1 and that is of the people who had to speak out their opinion. As far as I'm concerned, I don't have a doubt the license change will proceed. So remapping makes a lot of sense from now on and I'm glad I'm not the only one who is doing it any more. I, for one, am glad a date for the transition to phase 5 has been announced. We still have several months to limit the damages and that which won't get rescued, will be remapped in due course afterwards. Richard, I'd simply go ahead and get that area from a different source if you have an acceptable one. Some people don't agree because they can't, but others don't agree simply because they like to be obstructive. I'd have no mercy on their edits. Not giving an answer to your question is also an answer. I do agree that it's unfortunate that new contributor's contributions may get deleted if they are not rescued by somebody before April 1st, so it's probably important that people are made aware of the situation at hand and what to do about it. Polyglot 2011/12/13 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com On 13/12/2011 21:38, 80n wrote: You've known for quite some time that non-CT content will ultimately get deleted. The original promise was that it requires a critical mass to proceed. According to the OSMF wiki there are fewer than three quarters agreeing, and some of the major countries will lose nearly half their ways according to http://odbl.de/ . Frederick's map (THANK YOU!) is really the first indication I've seen of what the consequences are likely to be, yet what seems to be being said is that it will go ahead in April come what may. What are the precise, numeric criteria for proceeding? At the moment even by a vague definition I don't see how one could describe it as a critical mass. David __**_ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
Hi, On 12/13/2011 11:41 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: No. I am badgering you to say what you will do, or explain why you will not say. Personally I feel that it is unfortunate that we're allowing people to remain undecided for so long. Had 80n properly disagreed when he was first asked, his edits could long have been re-created by now. By holding out, he's in the position of being able to discount anyone touching his edits as a vandal, or someone making unnecessary work for themselves, as acting prematurely, or whatever, all the while hinting at maybe I'll still agree, I haven't said it you know. I, for one, have politely notified the major undecided contributors in my area that I will count their undecided as a no and start remapping their stuff in January, and frankly I would appreciate OSMF/LWG to set a date well before the planned license changeover and clearly say: If you haven't decided until then, that's a no. Because we gain nothing from major contributors holding out until the very last day and then, smilingly, tell us you know what, I've decided to disagree after all. That's four winter months wasted when they could have been perfectly well used for averting damage. 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-legal-talk] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Creative Commons wants your input on the 4.0 license process
Yes, it is. Apologies for not pinging this list directly and immediately, but now I'll point out two issue pages that might be of particular personal interest to some of you, and of long-term interest to OSM: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/ShareAlike (scope of SA and potential compatibility with other copyleft licenses) http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/License_subject_matter (including database rights) Best, Mike On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: FYI, cc 4 is open for discussion. mike -- Forwarded message -- From: Kat Walsh k...@wikimedia.org Date: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 9:37 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] Creative Commons wants your input on the 4.0 license process To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Commons Discussion List common...@lists.wikimedia.org, English Wikipedia wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org Creative Commons is beginning the process of revising their suite of licenses, with the goal of having a 4.0 version by the end of 2012: https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/30676 They have a set of goals, including better internationalization, better interoperability with other licenses, and addressing the needs of new communities like governments and other public institutions in addition to the communities already using the licenses. But this is the requirements gathering period--there is no draft yet. If you want your input considered, this is the best time to start thinking about what is and isn't working with the current version of the licenses. There is a public wiki explaining more about the goals, timeline, considerations, and ways to participate: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 Wikimedia wants the 4.0 licenses to be better for us and for the commons than the 3.0 versions, which most Wikimedia projects are currently using; CC has already reached out to us, wanting to come out with a version that the Wikimedia community will adopt, and we'll be trying to make sure everything is coordinated and communicated well throughout the revision process. But if you are interested, you should be participating directly. This is doubly true if you are in a jurisdiction with unusual requirements, or part of a group of users with particular wants that are not handled well by the current version. Please pass this message on to other places where interested people will see it! Cheers, Kat -- Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate Web: http://www.mindspillage.org Email: k...@wikimedia.org, k...@mindspillage.org (G)AIM, Freenode, gchat, identi.ca, twitter, various social sites: mindspillage ___ foundation-l mailing list foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
How about before we start attempting to rescue anything from the OSMF, we make sure we know what we're doing? What is the proper way to edit an object that has been modified by a decliner? What is the proper way to do this to a relation, especially one with many members and many revisions? How can we be sure that the OSMF will not apply a different algorithm that takes things into account that Frederik has not? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
On 12/13/2011 6:38 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Because we gain nothing from major contributors holding out until the very last day and then, smilingly, tell us you know what, I've decided to disagree after all. That's four winter months wasted when they could have been perfectly well used for averting damage. Please don't shift the blame. The OSMF is pushing the change and will be to blame for the damage that occurs on April Fools. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
Everyone, I'm seeing some really ugly and useless discussion on this thread. Yes, there are some real technical issues to discuss with the final stages of the license change, but those substantial issues are now lost in this thread. Review the etiquette rules (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Etiquette#Process_for_Moderation), and before you make your next post, consider how it stands up. Mike, Andy and I are going to discuss how to handle some specific posts from this thread, and take action as required. Mikel talk moderators ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License Change View on OSM
On Tue, December 13, 2011 23:17, Jo wrote: I'm also taking the opportunity to align all the other features on bing. Have you checked the local alignment of Bing aerials? Where I am they can be offset by as much as 20 metres! I have to realign the aerial photo layer before tracing anything from Bing. The same problem was present in Yahoo! aerials, but the offsets were different. Generally what I do is make several GPS traces around a very visible object (such as a field, running track, monument or something) then I average the traces to get a good outline. Once I have the outline accurately recorded in OSM I adjust the position of the aerial photos until the physical object lines up with the OSM outline. Then I can map other things nearby. I have found that a single adjustment can apply to areas 40 km away, sometimes more, sometimes less. Other people's GPS traces are good for double checking the alignment further away. Once I have a good alignment I record it in JOSM so I can re-use it again later. Best wishes, Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
Hi John, fyi, you can also create a new (empty) layer with ctrl+n. cheers, Martin 2011/12/13 john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com: What you can do is create an osm file on your local hard drive, in JOSM download a very small area with nothing in it. New download the area you have made edits in as a separate download. Select on username so user:xyz Merge the selection onto your empty map and save it locally. Then after the great clean up has happened you at least have a record of your edits. Alternatively there is always the other OSM style maps that aren't changing their license. Cheerio John ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: Critical mass is there, at a ratio of more than a 100/1 and that is of the people who had to speak out their opinion. That's not the point. Since not making a decision is the same as declining for the purposes of data survival, deleting a quarter to a third of the map seems to me to be the project committing suicide. It will improve no doubt as time goes on, but I was seriously expecting the threshold to be in the 90+% of data survival to proceed. Yes, the 100/1 means that only a tiny fraction of the red and orange is ideological, it's surely mostly about people who have moved on, in interests, email addresses or mortality who we'll just never hear from. If it were just their edits, I'd be much less concerned, but it's the way it kills everyone else afterwards. It's even more galling when they deleted the original data to make their edit, so they've effectively taken the earlier work away too. I'll certainly be contacting people now Frederick has provided an easy means to evaluate the data, but I'm not overly optimistic about people replying - I run a membership database and find maybe 10% of people change their email addresses each year, and half of those don't tell me, and that's when they've paid an annual sub to belong. Is anyone going to answer the question about the threshold? I'm not being rhetorical, I really would like to know. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
David I'm not quite sure where you got your numbers from, but it is clear that in terms of outright deletions we are talking of less than 5%. See odbl.poole.ch Simon David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com schrieb: On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: Critical mass is there, at a ratio of more than a 100/1 and that is of the people who had to speak out their opinion. That's not the point. Since not making a decision is the same as declining for the purposes of data survival, deleting a quarter to a third of the map seems to me to be the project committing suicide. It will improve no doubt as time goes on, but I was seriously expecting the threshold to be in the 90+% of data survival to proceed. Yes, the 100/1 means that only a tiny fraction of the red and orange is ideological, it's surely mostly about people who have moved on, in interests, email addresses or mortality who we'll just never hear from. If it were just their edits, I'd be much less concerned, but it's the way it kills everyone else afterwards. It's even more galling when they deleted the original data to make their edit, so they've effectively taken the earlier work away too. I'll certainly be contacting people now Frederick has provided an easy means to evaluate the data, but I'm not overly optimistic about people replying - I run a membership database and find maybe 10% of people change their email addresses each year, and half of those don't tell me, and that's when they've paid an annual sub to belong. Is anyone going to answer the question about the threshold? I'm not being rhetorical, I really would like to know. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
2011/12/14 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: Critical mass is there, at a ratio of more than a 100/1 and that is of the people who had to speak out their opinion. That's not the point. Since not making a decision is the same as declining for the purposes of data survival, deleting a quarter to a third of the map seems to me to be the project committing suicide. It will improve no doubt as time goes on, but I was seriously expecting the threshold to be in the 90+% of data survival to proceed. Then the whole process would drag on forever. It's good a definite date has been set and we can all, as a community, start working towards the goal of 'rescuing' as much as possible. Yes, the 100/1 means that only a tiny fraction of the red and orange is ideological, it's surely mostly about people who have moved on, in interests, email addresses or mortality who we'll just never hear from. If it were just their edits, I'd be much less concerned, but it's the way it kills everyone else afterwards. It's even more galling when they deleted the original data to make their edit, so they've effectively taken the earlier work away too. I'll certainly be contacting people now Frederick has provided an easy means to evaluate the data, but I'm not overly optimistic about people replying - I run a membership database and find maybe 10% of people change their email addresses each year, and half of those don't tell me, and that's when they've paid an annual sub to belong. I tried and out of a few hundred people I contacted in Belgium and the Netherlands, 20 responded and maybe 15 said yes (I also contacted people who had already explicitly declined). Is anyone going to answer the question about the threshold? I'm not being rhetorical, I really would like to know. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
The numbers come from Frederik's map and some areas really look dramatic. odbl.poole.ch and http://odbl.de come to very optimistic conclusions. Possibly because they only consider the last contributor to an object or another metric which doesn't hold water. Jo 2011/12/14 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch David I'm not quite sure where you got your numbers from, but it is clear that in terms of outright deletions we are talking of less than 5%. See odbl.poole.ch Simon David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com schrieb: On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: Critical mass is there, at a ratio of more than a 100/1 and that is of the people who had to speak out their opinion. That's not the point. Since not making a decision is the same as declining for the purposes of data survival, deleting a quarter to a third of the map seems to me to be the project committing suicide. It will improve no doubt as time goes on, but I was seriously expecting the threshold to be in the 90+% of data survival to proceed. Yes, the 100/1 means that only a tiny fraction of the red and orange is ideological, it's surely mostly about people who have moved on, in interests, email addresses or mortality who we'll just never hear from. If it were just their edits, I'd be much less concerned, but it's the way it kills everyone else afterwards. It's even more galling when they deleted the original data to make their edit, so they've effectively taken the earlier work away too. I'll certainly be contacting people now Frederick has provided an easy means to evaluate the data, but I'm not overly optimistic about people replying - I run a membership database and find maybe 10% of people change their email addresses each year, and half of those don't tell me, and that's when they've paid an annual sub to belong. Is anyone going to answer the question about the threshold? I'm not being rhetorical, I really would like to know. David -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Mails to undecided mappers (was: Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st)
David Earl wrote: I'll certainly be contacting people now Frederick has provided an easy means to evaluate the data, but I'm not overly optimistic about people replying - I run a membership database and find maybe 10% of people change their email addresses each year, and half of those don't tell me, and that's when they've paid an annual sub to belong. I strongly recommend investing some time into mailing non-responders. I've done it for mappers in my region a while ago. About half of them reacted within a day or so; until today 22 out of 26 have agreed. One even started mapping again. Sadly, the other 4 did not react at all. (Note that this was before the second mass mailing, the success percentage would almost certainly be lower today.) When writing the mails, I put some effort into personalizing the mail for the recipient by looking at their user and edits page on osm.org. The changesets and bounding boxes on the edits page are very helpful to find out when and where the user has contributed to OSM. If they have a clearly defined area of interest, I'm including the name of that area or town in the mail. To emphasize that this is not an automated mass mailing, I also tell them who I am, as well as my motivation for writing to them. As for the subject, I prefer to avoid legal jargon, but clearly state that a response is required - usually by phrasing it as a question (along the lines of Can OpenStreetMap continue to use your contributions?, but in German of course). YMMV, Tobias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Adam Hoyle adam.li...@dotankstudios.com wrote: Is there any tool out there that can highlight the red users in a given area? In JOSM, use select-all (crtl-a) then look at the list of authors in the author panel (alt-b). This will give you a list of accounts that were the most-recent to edit objects in your loaded data. The license details plugin will show you tainted objects. Even if they were subsequently edited. Ian Dees excellent deep diff tool will show you the history of a single object. http://osm.mapki.com/history/ The damage around Aylesbury / Wendover / High Wycombe is going to be huge (looks like they will all essentially cease to be), but in some ways it could be quite a beautiful art project, rather like throwing a wrecking ball at a Ming vase. #thewhiskeyisnthelping I see the problem. You left an extra e in your whisky. :-) Reconciling the data with ODbL before the changeover is preferable. While scripts can remove tainted data, it is difficult to make a script care about the resulting beauty of the map like a local contributor does. Contacting idle mappers and having them consider CT/ODbL is helpful. Replacing the data with a new survey is wonderful and updates things that haven't been checked since they were first added. Hang on, it's happening on April 1st - this isn't an April Fools joke is it? #iwouldbesorelievedifitwas No joke. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
Nathan Edgars II writes: I have done many edits of this sort over the years. It has been standard practice for a long time. Any tainting has already happened. I agee with Nathan. I do this all the time. Mostly it's to GNIS POIs, but the principle remains: some tainting of information cannot be detected. Threatening editors who are following standard practice is ... not particularly friendly nor helpful to a process which is already going to be difficult., Frederick. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Transition to CC-4 instead of destroying data
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Henk Hoff toffeh...@gmail.com wrote: Changing to ODbL or CC4 (possibly in the future) does not change the presence of the Contributor Terms. Is it possible to migrate from CC3 to CC4 without CTs? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Transition to CC-4 instead of destroying data
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Henk Hoff toffeh...@gmail.com wrote: Changing to ODbL or CC4 (possibly in the future) does not change the presence of the Contributor Terms. Is it possible to migrate from CC3 to CC4 without CTs? Good question. OSM is using Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ it says: A new version of this license is available. You should use it for new works, and you may want to relicense existing works under it. No works are automatically put under the new license, however. Now, even if the work is not relicensed automatically, it should be compatible. so if the new contribution is under 4.0, it can use data from 2.0. see also : http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions All of the ShareAlike licenses starting from version 2.0 are compatible with future versions of the ShareAlike licenses. If you want to make an adaptation using a photograph that is licensed under a BY-SA 2.0 license, you can apply BY-SA 3.0 to the adaptation. The licenses are not backward compatible, however. You cannot create an adaptation of a work licensed under BY-SA 3.0 and license the derivative under BY-SA 2.0. Of course this is a topic for legal talk, no this list. thanks, mike Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Transition to CC-4 instead of destroying data
Hi, On 12/14/11 05:51, Steve Bennett wrote: Changing to ODbL or CC4 (possibly in the future) does not change the presence of the Contributor Terms. Is it possible to migrate from CC3 to CC4 without CTs? Possible generally - I believe so. Advisable for us - I believe not. Only recently a legal analysis was posted by Ed Avis that came to the conclusion that while CC-BY-SA 2.0 may be fine for data, CTs really are required - which, assuming we take it at face value, would mean that even if we decided to remain with CC licenses, the whole agree to the CT or we have to discontinue distributing your data thing would still be upon us. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Aanbod van een ambulance rijder
Hoi Stefan, Heb je hier al een response op gehad? Gr, Henk 2011/11/24 Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de Goedeavond, Ik kreeg vanavond het aanbod van een Ambulance rijder om de problemen die zij aan hun kaartenboer terugmelden ook op te sturen naar OpenStreetMap. Zij werken nu met CitiGIS en hebben volgens mij niet echt een openstreetbugs bugflow zoals wij dat hebben. Maar misschien is daat wat mee te doen. Het gaat om omgeving Zwolle. Zijn er mensen die in die buurt wonen en/of graag dit soort data zou willen verwerken? Stefan __**_ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-nlhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
[OSM-talk-nl] Bushaltes en GSM antennes
Hoi allen en vooral Stefan, Ik heb de discussie op talk@osm over de licentieverandering weer flink aangezwengeld, dus laat ik dat hier nog eens dunnetjes over doen :) Inmiddels zijn er veel gebruikers akkoord gegaan [1], ik had nog niet eens gemerkt dat 3dshapes en AND dat inmiddels ook hebben gedaan. Super! Met de OSM inspector van Geofabrik [2] kun je makkelijk zien waar de probleemgevallen nu nog zitten. Bij mij in de buurt zijn dat voornamelijk bushaltes en gsm antennes, geïmporteerd op het account van Stefan. Stefan is niet akkoord met de CT en ik verwacht ook niet dat dat nog gaat gebeuren :) Onder andere door het importeren van data op z'n eigen account is dit waarschijnlijk niet eens een optie. Nu vroeg ik me af of die data wellicht nog ergens te verkrijgen is zodat we het opnieuw in kunnen lezen, en het ook meteen een update kunnen geven. Groet, Floris [1] http://odbl.de/netherlands.html [2] http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/ ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Aanbod van een ambulance rijder
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Op 13-12-11 22:17, Henk Hoff schreef: Heb je hier al een response op gehad? Nog niet hier, en nog niet persoonlijk. Maar als iemand dit wil doen vereist dat zeker enige 'educatie' aan de betreffende persoon wat OpenStreetMap zou kunnen gebruiken. Met de huidige screenshots kon ik niet zoveel. (Zelfs niet eens zien waar ze waren genomen.) Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAk7nysIACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn2ulACfbk6gTBx5NvjDx5pegniDb1iD UbUAoJOValOQVYV0woZa4HgK2FUEYus/ =ZmZT -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Bushaltes en GSM antennes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Op 13-12-11 22:50, Floris Looijesteijn schreef: Stefan is niet akkoord met de CT en ik verwacht ook niet dat dat nog gaat gebeuren :) Zoals nu al menig keer verteld: GEEF ME EEN OPTIE OM CHANGESETS TE ACCEPTEREN EN IK GA AKKOORD VOOR DIE CHANGESETS! - -- En voor onze internationale meelezers: GIVE ME AN OPTION TO ACCEPT CHANGESETS AND I AM HAPPY TO ACCEPT THOSE CHANGESETS! Is de FUD nu klaar? Mooi, dan gaan we constructief verder. Nu vroeg ik me af of die data wellicht nog ergens te verkrijgen is zodat we het opnieuw in kunnen lezen, en het ook meteen een update kunnen geven. Nu is het Antenneregister dus een goed voorbeeld van een overheidsbron die ooit CC-BY was, en waar ondertussen onder het label openbaar valt, en als je even wacht totdat het 1-1-2012 is, is waarschijnlijk alles wat ooit onder een Creative Commons licentie is uitgegeven (bijv. De Nieuwe Kaart), omdat de overheid dacht dat dat goed was, omdat wij daar ook voor kozen, echt PD. Het bestand hier: http://www.antennebureau.nl/binaries/content/assets/antennebureau/Antenneregister/2011/overzicht-gsm-en-umts-antennes-tm-30-november-2011 Vereist wat omschrijven van coordinaten naar WGS84, gelukkig hebben ze leesbare RD inmiddels wel weer toegevoegd nadat ik er over had gemaild. Voor het importeren om het importeren weer begint, is het misschien niet al te onverstandig om een masterplan te hebben hoe om te gaan met wijzigingen. Zowel mijn bushaltescript als het oude antenneregister update script linkte een OSM-ID aan een import nummer, zodat de maand daarna wijzigingen konden worden doorgevoerd. Het is verder jammer dat in die tabel alleen GSM en UMTS staat. Terwijl op de website een veelvoud te zien is. Wil je dus echt wat met verbindingen doen is het misschien wel veel handiger om ELI eens te bellen en te vragen of de bron opgenomen kan worden in het Nationale Georegister als WFS. Pak je het dan helemaal goed aan, ga je de data niet importeren, maar de Mapnik stylesheet aanpassen, zodat je de coole extra data uit de WFS haalt ;) De busdata, zoals ik al had verteld is een vervoerder verplicht om onder redelijke voorwaarden data te leveren aan een reisinformatie systeem. Dat implicieert dus dat ik ook accoord kan gaan voor busdata als openOV deze data onder CC-0 vrijgeeft... Maar Floris: hoe kun jij eigenlijk ook accoord zijn gegaan met de licentie als jij de nieuwe Maasvlakte hebt overgetrokken uit data die expliciet onder de Bernse conventie valt? (Hint: CC-BY) Dat impliceert toch dat jouw OSM lidmaatschap geroyeerd moet worden, de soep is heet vandaag ;) Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAk7n0EAACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn0QhwCgiVIoQkpKdo0mnBwJq11YVwk1 zCQAnipxFcJVnImqRO1gcPBbEILhOsQy =VO+h -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
[Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel-View im OSM Inspector
Hallo, der OSM Inspector hat jetzt eine Lizenzwechselkarte, die taeglich aktualisiert wird und alle (*) Objekte zeigt, die vermutlich vom Lizenzwechsel betroffen sind: Auf tools.geofabrik.de/osmi gehen und dann oben im Dropdown License Change auswaehlen. Oder: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-1.80469lat=35.88371zoom=2 Es gibt auch Statistiken dazu: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html Der View wird fuer Zoomlevel 0-9 aus einem grossen Rasterbild berechnet, fuer Zoom 10 und hoeher direkt aus Shapefiles. Diese Shapefiles haben fuer jeden Node und jeden Way in OSM, deren History mindestens einen Nichtzustimmer enthaelt (**), die Geometrie und den Lizenzstatus (1/rot = Nichtzustimmer hat das Objekt angelegt, 2/orange = Nichtzustimmer hat das Objekt bearbeitet, 3/gelb = wie 2, jedoch ist die Bearbeitung vernachlaessigbar). Die Shapefiles sind daher auch als Rohmaterial geeignet, falls jemand selbst etwas mit den Daten anfangen will, und sie koennen auf diesem temporaeren Server heruntergeladen werden: http://176.9.53.72/ (ebenfalls taeglich neu). Eine etwas detaillierte Dokumentation zum Zustandekommen der Daten und zur Nutzung gibt es hier auf Englisch: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector (*) Dieser View ist sicher nicht perfekt, und wem ein Fehler auffaellt, der moege das bitte sagen. Die groessten Probleme, die ich derzeit sehe, sind: 1. Das Zuruecksetzen eines Objekts in einen Zustand, der lizenzmaessig unbedenklich ist, weil alle von Nichtzustimmern gemachten Edits nicht mehr in der aktuellen Version enthalten sind, sollte idealerweise zu einer Umfaerbung orange-gelb fuehren, tut es aber nicht, weil diese Analyse nur schwer zu machen ist. 2. Triviale Edits werden nicht automatisch erkannt - Beispiel: Der User xybot hat der Lizenz zugestimmt und ist daher kein Problem, aber wenn er nicht zugestimmt haette, waeren alle Objekte, bei denen er je was korrigiert hat, erst mal orange. - Wer aber Changesets ausfindig macht, die offensichtlich von einem Nichtzustimmer mit einem Bot gemacht wurden, der kann die (idealweise nach Ruecksprache mit dem Ersteller) auf der Seite http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WTFE unter Changeset Overrides melden. 3. Keine Erkennung von Way-Joins/Way-Splits - einige Ways, die jetzt fuer ok gehalten werden, koennten sich im Nachhinein als problematisch erweisen; oft sieht man das aber an den Nodes. 4. Keine Visualisierung von Relationen 5. Nodes werden immer als rot eingezeichnet, auch wenn der Ersteller ausser Koordinaten nichts angegeben hat und spaetere Verschieber des Nodes daher praktisch alles, was der Node je an Infos hatte, durch ihre eigenen ersetzt haben. Das ist ein offener Diskussionspunkt, wie man damit umgeht, und im Augenblick zeichnet die Karte lieber mehr rot als weniger. Wichtig zum Verstaendnis: Diese Karte ist kein offizielles Produkt der LWG, sondern auf meinem Mist gewachsen (urspruenglich gestartet in London auf dem Hack-Weekend vor 2 Wochen). Die Karte zeigt nicht verbindlich an, welche Objekte beim Lizenzwechsel geloescht oder revertiert werden muessen; da gibt es noch eine Reihe von Policy-Entscheidungen eben gerade zu Fragen wie unter 5. diskutiert. (**) Die Overrides von http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WTFE werden wie Zustimmer behandelt und tauchen weder in der Karte noch in den Shapes auf. Bye Frederik ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Google maps nutzt Geobasisdaten
Hi, Ich denke, was wir bräuchten - und dann hielte ich es für sinnvoll - wäre ein Kataster-Overlay, bei dem man zusätzliche Daten ablesen kann, während man editiert. Klar: Wir müssen auch dazu kommen, dass Leute aufhören, ausschließlich von Luftbildern abzuzeichnen. Aber Ein Kataster-Overlay, das Fehler finden hilft, im Bedarfsfall meine Notizen von den Hausnummern stützt etc., wäre schon hilfreich. Aber warum sollte man Hausumrisse nach einem katasteroverlay nachpinseln? Das ist doch wie früher als 1000de Chinesen Telefonbücher abtippten statt das die Telekom die Daten raus gab. Da käme ich mir als mapper echt verarscht vor wenn mir einer das nahe legen würde. Ja, sehe ich ähnlich ... ich habe bei uns für ein gefühltes fünftel der Stadt die Häuser von bing abgezeichnet .. mir fehlt aktuell die Zeit und die Lust daran weiter zu machen (allen anderen in diesem Gebiet offensichtlich auch). Insbesondere wenn ich sehe dass es die Daten schon alle gibt/gäbe. Die wenigen Gebäude von denen ich weiß, dass sie in Bing falsch oder veraltet sind, update ich gerne, aber die anderen 99% abzumalen befriedigt auf Dauer echt nicht. Oder ich hoffe darauf, dass wieder ein User Maler vorbeikommt und nicht nur alle Wege abmalt sondern auch noch alle Häuschen. Eine Importmöglichkeit bei der ich ein Overlay hätte und die einzelnen Objekte übernehmen kann wäre da ECHT hilfreich. Die Building/Src/.. Tags vergeben ist im Vergleich dazu ja harmlos. Just my 2c. Franz ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Google maps nutzt Geobasisdaten - Motivation
Hallo, On 12/13/11 08:55, Markus wrote: Wir tun gut daran, eventuelle negative Entwicklungen im Keim zu entdecken und rechtzeitig umzusteuern. Wenn es also OSMer gbt, die für OSM brennen, und das plötzlich (meist schleichend oder mit bestimmten Ereignissen verbunden) nicht mehr tun, dann sind das ernstzunehmende Zeichen. Der Unmut, sinnlos zu mappen oder gar für die Tonne ist ein solches. Jein, da muss man vorsichtig sein. Als zum Beispiel die flaechendecken Yahoo-Luftbilder kamen und das noch was ganz neues war, gab es in einigen Teilen der Community da durchaus Widerstand und Unmut. Die Luftbild-Abmaler wurden als unsportlich gesehen, weil sie mit unfairem Vorteil zum Teil erstaunlich produktiv sein konnten - jemand, der in wochenlanger Kleinarbeit jeden Weg im Ort mit GPS gemappt hatte, musste ploetzlich sehen, wie andere ihren Ort ratz-fatz von einem Luftbild abzeichnen konnten. Unmut bei den einen - Freude bei den anderen. Damals haette man auch sagen koennen: Nee, Luftbilder wollen wir nicht, das zerstoert unsere Outdoor-Kultur. Man muss also schon immer genau schauen, um was fuer einen Unmut es geht, und welche Kultur dieser Unmut viellicht bedroht; nicht jeder Unmut muss bekaemft und nicht jede - vermutete - Kultur erhalten werden. Da reicht es nicht, darauf zu hoffen, dass schon genügend andere nachrücken werden. Denn auch wenn sie das tun: die Kultur wäre zerstört. Fuer mich ist bei importierten Hausumrissen eine Grenze ueberschritten - ich sehe da unsere Selbermach-Kultur in Gefahr. Ich glaube, dass viele unserer Erfolge darauf basieren, das wir selber machen und nicht warten, dass/bis uns gegeben wird. Ich wuerde mir auch wuenschen, dass wir, wenn wir Haeuser wollen, diese selbst von aktuellen Luftbildern abdigitalisieren - nicht zuletzt, weil ich den Wert von OSM auch darin sehe, eine zweite Meinung zu sein inmitten des Wusts von Geodaten, die alle aus der gleichen Quelle abgeschrieben sind. Haueser zu importieren bringt auf jeden Fall kurzfristig einen Vorteil; die Karte sieht huebscher aus, und auch Martins Argument, dass man mit Bezug auf die Haeuser dann Zusatzinfos erfassen kann, ist korrekt. Mittel- und langfristig stuetzt man damit (mit dem Importieren - nicht notwendigerweise mit anderen Arten der Erfassung) aber den Gedanken, dass OSM mehr eine Sammelstelle fuer Geodaten Dritter ist als ein Projekt, in dem diese Geodaten selbst erhoben werden. Das finde ich nicht gut; ich denke, dass das Selber-Erheben ein wichtiger Teil unserer Kultur ist. Bye Frederik ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
