Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
Michael Collinson wrote: The test I apply here is, Can I independently verify from personal knowledge ALL the tagging and location info before using odbl=clean. For footpaths, that may mean removing designation tags if you can't remember whether it is footpath or a bridle way. Look out also for any un-relicensable mapping notes. I also remove all tainted nodes, if necessary replacing them with new ones aligned to Bing imagery. The most difficult is paths going through woods or forest. You may well have to end up just putting node at either side and hoping that the unnatural straight line is enough to attract the attention of the next mapper walking in the area. The areas I've cleaned up I've remapped detail using Bing, confirmed names OS, but I've also stripped a few paths where they are obviously impractical. Same with streams recorded on Streetview which are no longer practical given the new buildings appearing on Bing. I've avoided or even replaced 'clean' simply to get the OSMInspector page totally clean ... then I can move on. I've few yellow dots left on the Malvern area, but I'll drop down and clear up Gloucester first, there is not much left there to do -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
Delighted to report that Andy Street has agreed to the CTs. Thank you Andy. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Remapping-update-tp5573600p5596324.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
On 26 March 2012 21:42, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Delighted to report that Andy Street has agreed to the CTs. Thank you Andy. This is great news. Thanks Andy and I'm glad you were able to resolve any problems you had with the CTs/license. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
*and where those contributions have since been superceded or washed out by subsequent changes* I think people understand this is important, but the wording is so vague and examples of appropriate usage given on the list vary wildly. The example you gave still allows for IP to be present in the history of the node... *shrug* To try and clear things up, for myself at least, can I get comment on some contrived examples of practice I have used and I've seen used by others? All non-odbl nodes in the examples below are deleted or no longer existed. Most ways I've come across no longer have any positional IP from the original creator. When commenting, please do explain why they differ from accepted practice. == A == Way V1: railway=rail Way Vn: railway=rail electrified = contact_line frequency = 50 gauge = 1435 passenger = yes source:electrified = observation tracks = 4 usage = main voltage = 25000 + odbl=clean - presence of railway checked against recent Bing and OS == B == V1: highway=residential name=Garden Street Vn: highway=residental name=Garden Street maxspeed=20 mph - name=Garden Street + name=Garden Street source:name=OS_OpenData_StreetView odbl=clean - 'notional' deletion of name attribute and re-naming with StreetView or Locator sources == C == V1: highway=primary ref=A38 Vn: highway=trunk ref=A27 name=Oxford By-pass source:ref=OS_OpenData_StreetView + odbl=clean - IP exists in history but all attributes over-written If someone rejects all those uses, then basically every odbl tag I've added is incorrect and all those I've happened upon as well. My next request will be for an admin to revert about 100 changesets *weeps* This will be all the more annoying because I thought I was being careful; I read the documentation, read examples from multiple posters, looked at the history of every way I touched, and actually spent quite a bit of time re-mapping many ways I came across. Cheers, Craig On 23 March 2012 13:14, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 March 2012 12:58, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Incidentally, is just knowing the footpaths evidence enough to tag with odbl=clean? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with iffy sources? Use odbl=clean to clear features which contain historic contributions from people who have not agreed to the new contributor terms [...] *and where those contributions have since been superceded or washed out by subsequent changes* Emphasis mine. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:odbl%3Dclean So if there's a path, and it's not clean, you can't just clean it by adding the tag - that's not what the tag is for. It means that absolutely no trace of the original IP remains in the current version, and you've checked there's no residual IP. An example would be a node tagged amenity = pub, that happens to have been moved, the tag removed, and incorporated into the middle of a road junction. Of course, I've been advising people from the beginning to avoid the tag in the first place. Since so many people are misunderstanding it, and accidentally misusing it, it has become meaningless. Therefore I don't see how it can be relied upon during the license change, and if it can't be used with confidence, there's even less point in tagging anything with it. I ask as I am intending to do some remapping of Andy Street's paths in the Bishops Waltham/Meon Valley area and wondering whether I have to actually walk the paths again or just tag with odbl=clean You don't have to walk the path if you can map it using other techniques, such as GPS traces, Bing, OOC maps etc. Especially if you know the path well enough to know how it goes (e.g. it's straight through a particular patch of woods) then just remap it remotely. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
I ask as I am intending to do some remapping of Andy Street's paths in the Bishops Waltham/Meon Valley area and wondering whether I have to actually walk the paths again or just tag with odbl=clean You don't have to walk the path if you can map it using other techniques, such as GPS traces, Bing, OOC maps etc. Especially if you know the path well enough to know how it goes (e.g. it's straight through a particular patch of woods) then just remap it remotely. Cheers Andy So, just to confirm - is it OK to use GPS traces as source material for remapping, even if they may have been contributed by someone who has refused the CTs? Reason I ask is that this precise issue came up today... damned battery ran out 15 mins before the walk finished, meaning I couldn't get a new trace. However I noted that it was a designation=public_footpath. Thanks, Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
Incidentally, is just knowing the footpaths evidence enough to tag with odbl=clean? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with iffy sources? I ask as I am intending to do some remapping of Andy Street's paths in the Bishops Waltham/Meon Valley area and wondering whether I have to actually walk the paths again or just tag with odbl=clean Thanks, Nick -Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com wrote: - To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org From: Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com Date: 23/03/2012 12:07AM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update Re: Andy Streets changes in Hampshire. So I thought I should get around at least to sticking in odbl=clean on ways (mainly paths tracks) I know to be OK, that I've personally been on whilst cycling or walking. Which turned out to be more interesting than I thought... First via using JOSM it was telling me some ways might have problems, the history check wasn't a green CT for the user http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/essjayhch. Initially I thought odd, since they have agreed to the CTs, however checking their diary entry revealed they have been entering in C classifications for roads from Hampshire Council Council (via http://www3.hants.gov.uk/adoptedroadsearch/). It's not clear this is allowed - hence I assume essjayhch has been 'black listed' some how - but not reverted as I guess these edits will be removed/reverted come the license change switch. They also seem to have entered in many footpath refs too. Clearly I can't stick a odbl=clean on any such way. Next I then discover Andy Street had been also using Hampshire Council Council as a source reference in various changesets, such as: http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/changeset/5184209 http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/changeset/8257081 Possibly this could a reason why he can not accept the CTs In my check the other day I did not check for this type of source reference. This also means potentially any of his 2000 changesets could be problematic - so not just after 1st April 2010 for the OS Locator/Streetview allowed data. PS Thanks Nick Austin for your efforts in Portsmouth (and all over Hampshire). I don't have the patience / time / willing to do that amount of remapping. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
Incidentally, is just knowing the footpaths evidence enough to tag with odbl=clean? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with iffy sources? As I read it, if the nodes along the way are clean then by marking the way odbl clean you're just checking the properties are clean... so if it is just a highway=footway and you know it exists there shouldn't be a problem. Craig On 23 March 2012 12:58, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Incidentally, is just knowing the footpaths evidence enough to tag with odbl=clean? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with iffy sources? I ask as I am intending to do some remapping of Andy Street's paths in the Bishops Waltham/Meon Valley area and wondering whether I have to actually walk the paths again or just tag with odbl=clean Thanks, Nick -Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com wrote: - To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org From: Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com Date: 23/03/2012 12:07AM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update Re: Andy Streets changes in Hampshire. So I thought I should get around at least to sticking in odbl=clean on ways (mainly paths tracks) I know to be OK, that I've personally been on whilst cycling or walking. Which turned out to be more interesting than I thought... First via using JOSM it was telling me some ways might have problems, the history check wasn't a green CT for the user http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/essjayhch. Initially I thought odd, since they have agreed to the CTs, however checking their diary entry revealed they have been entering in C classifications for roads from Hampshire Council Council (via http://www3.hants.gov.uk/adoptedroadsearch/). It's not clear this is allowed - hence I assume essjayhch has been 'black listed' some how - but not reverted as I guess these edits will be removed/reverted come the license change switch. They also seem to have entered in many footpath refs too. Clearly I can't stick a odbl=clean on any such way. Next I then discover Andy Street had been also using Hampshire Council Council as a source reference in various changesets, such as: http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/changeset/5184209 http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/changeset/8257081 Possibly this could a reason why he can not accept the CTs In my check the other day I did not check for this type of source reference. This also means potentially any of his 2000 changesets could be problematic - so not just after 1st April 2010 for the OS Locator/Streetview allowed data. PS Thanks Nick Austin for your efforts in Portsmouth (and all over Hampshire). I don't have the patience / time / willing to do that amount of remapping. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
On 23 March 2012 12:58, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Incidentally, is just knowing the footpaths evidence enough to tag with odbl=clean? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with iffy sources? Use odbl=clean to clear features which contain historic contributions from people who have not agreed to the new contributor terms [...] *and where those contributions have since been superceded or washed out by subsequent changes* Emphasis mine. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:odbl%3Dclean So if there's a path, and it's not clean, you can't just clean it by adding the tag - that's not what the tag is for. It means that absolutely no trace of the original IP remains in the current version, and you've checked there's no residual IP. An example would be a node tagged amenity = pub, that happens to have been moved, the tag removed, and incorporated into the middle of a road junction. Of course, I've been advising people from the beginning to avoid the tag in the first place. Since so many people are misunderstanding it, and accidentally misusing it, it has become meaningless. Therefore I don't see how it can be relied upon during the license change, and if it can't be used with confidence, there's even less point in tagging anything with it. I ask as I am intending to do some remapping of Andy Street's paths in the Bishops Waltham/Meon Valley area and wondering whether I have to actually walk the paths again or just tag with odbl=clean You don't have to walk the path if you can map it using other techniques, such as GPS traces, Bing, OOC maps etc. Especially if you know the path well enough to know how it goes (e.g. it's straight through a particular patch of woods) then just remap it remotely. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
On 23/03/12 13:14, Andy Allan wrote: On 23 March 2012 12:58, Nick Whiteleggnick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Incidentally, is just knowing the footpaths evidence enough to tag with odbl=clean? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with iffy sources? Use odbl=clean to clear features which contain historic contributions from people who have not agreed to the new contributor terms [...] *and where those contributions have since been superceded or washed out by subsequent changes* Emphasis mine. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:odbl%3Dclean So if there's a path, and it's not clean, you can't just clean it by adding the tag - that's not what the tag is for. It means that absolutely no trace of the original IP remains in the current version, and you've checked there's no residual IP. An example would be a node tagged amenity = pub, that happens to have been moved, the tag removed, and incorporated into the middle of a road junction. Of course, I've been advising people from the beginning to avoid the tag in the first place. Since so many people are misunderstanding it, and accidentally misusing it, it has become meaningless. Therefore I don't see how it can be relied upon during the license change, and if it can't be used with confidence, there's even less point in tagging anything with it. +1 -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Incidentally, is just knowing the footpaths evidence enough to tag with odbl=clean? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with iffy sources? If the way was created by a declining contributor then most (if not all) of it's nodes will have been created by the same person and therfore every node will also need an odbl=clean. Because of this I find that for ways that are highlighted in red on OSM Inspector it is usually faster to delete the way and re-create it from Bing and/or GPS traces. This also applies if a way created was clean but subsequently a declining contributor has re-adjusted its route. Every moved node is now tainted and requires an odbl=clean (and/or re-creating). Incidentally I believe that the behaviour of OSM Inspector has changed a few weeks ago. Before then it didn't always show nodes that had problems if it was included in a way with problems. Hence an area that was checked with OSM Inspector a while back and declared clean ought to be re-checked for bad nodes. Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
On 23 March 2012 12:58, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Incidentally, is just knowing the footpaths evidence enough to tag with odbl=clean? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with iffy sources? Use odbl=clean to clear features which contain historic contributions from people who have not agreed to the new contributor terms [...] *and where those contributions have since been superceded or washed out by subsequent changes* Emphasis mine. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:odbl%3Dclean OK may be I wasn't quite using it quite with the proper intention, although I think most of the ways I added it to have been revised in some manner. However it's quite difficult to determine how much a ways' geometry has changed. Of course, I've been advising people from the beginning to avoid the tag in the first place. Since so many people are misunderstanding it, and accidentally misusing it, it has become meaningless. Therefore I don't see how it can be relied upon during the license change, and if it can't be used with confidence, there's even less point in tagging anything with it. I think that's why I hadn't really bothered until now. To my mind, I was generally just going to wait until things were deleted and then create my own version, but I was inspired by Nick Austin's efforts, to attempt to do something first. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
OK may be I wasn't quite using it quite with the proper intention, although I think most of the ways I added it to have been revised in some manner. However it's quite difficult to determine how much a ways' geometry has changed. You should definitely always err on the side of caution. If you add odbl=clean, you are making a very strong statement about all the contributions that made up that element. I would ask that you please go back and remove odbl=clean from everything you have added it to, unless you can be truly certain about the history of that element. My worry is that if odbl=clean is diluted by uses that are not 100% clean, it will simply be ignored and that will waste a lot of effort by people who have carefully checked that ways are in fact clean. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
OK may be I wasn't quite using it quite with the proper intention, although I think most of the ways I added it to have been revised in some manner. However it's quite difficult to determine how much a ways' geometry has changed. You should definitely always err on the side of caution. If you add odbl=clean, you are making a very strong statement about all the contributions that made up that element. I would ask that you please go back and remove odbl=clean from everything you have added it to, unless you can be truly certain about the history of that element. My worry is that if odbl=clean is diluted by uses that are not 100% clean, it will simply be ignored and that will waste a lot of effort by people who have carefully checked that ways are in fact clean. I've now rechecked these changes and they are all correct - some I initially created, but agree with the highway type tagging (previously marked 'byway' is really a track), one way I moved it around, and finally one which was initially by Nick Austin, but split by Andy Street to correct path-track part - again is better tagged this way (i.e. can't delete the tag just to put back in the same key+value) Luckily I didn't put in many odbls, which I was planning to add more with my prior (mis)understanding. I shall be extra vigilant in any future use - if I use it at all. Happy Friday Night! ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
Re: Andy Streets changes in Hampshire. So I thought I should get around at least to sticking in odbl=clean on ways (mainly paths tracks) I know to be OK, that I've personally been on whilst cycling or walking. Which turned out to be more interesting than I thought... First via using JOSM it was telling me some ways might have problems, the history check wasn't a green CT for the user http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/essjayhch. Initially I thought odd, since they have agreed to the CTs, however checking their diary entry revealed they have been entering in C classifications for roads from Hampshire Council Council (via http://www3.hants.gov.uk/adoptedroadsearch/). It's not clear this is allowed - hence I assume essjayhch has been 'black listed' some how - but not reverted as I guess these edits will be removed/reverted come the license change switch. They also seem to have entered in many footpath refs too. Clearly I can't stick a odbl=clean on any such way. Next I then discover Andy Street had been also using Hampshire Council Council as a source reference in various changesets, such as: http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/changeset/5184209 http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/changeset/8257081 Possibly this could a reason why he can not accept the CTs In my check the other day I did not check for this type of source reference. This also means potentially any of his 2000 changesets could be problematic - so not just after 1st April 2010 for the OS Locator/Streetview allowed data. PS Thanks Nick Austin for your efforts in Portsmouth (and all over Hampshire). I don't have the patience / time / willing to do that amount of remapping. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
I suppose it's too late to propose an odbl=extend tag, which would indicate that the way is no longer allowed to be modified after 1st April but that the way will remain on the slippy map for the next 6 months to allow re-mappers to replace the way? Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
Robert Norris wrote: Here's my manual check (taking me about 2 hours) of Andy Streets changes. That's excellent. Thank you very much for that. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Nick%20Austin/edits I note the above user has been very busy with remapping efforts in Hampshire (with a healthy dose of odbl=clean tags too). However it's unlikely this effort (much appreciated) will match the quantity of changes that Andy Street made :( ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Robert Norris . http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Nick%20Austin/edits I note the above user has been very busy with remapping efforts in Hampshire (with a healthy dose of odbl=clean tags too). *waves* I'm mainly doing roads, currently in and around Portsmouth (my stomping ground from 10 years ago). I just won't have time for footpaths. There's a lot of railways across Southern England that have problems but because I don't understand railway tagging I can't remap them. If anyone wants to help... Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
I'm trying to do footpaths as and when, but it'll be a slow process as I've got quite a lot of other things on my plate at the moment. I've done a few round Bishops Waltham and the Meon Valley, and may well do more this weekend, but I'd welcome any other contributions as there is no way I am going to be able to do all of this myself withoout abandoning all other walking/mapping plans for the next 6 months - which I'm not too willing to do! ;-) Nick -Nick Austin nick.w.aus...@gmail.com wrote: - To: talk-gb talk-gb@openstreetmap.org From: Nick Austin nick.w.aus...@gmail.com Date: 20/03/2012 10:31PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Robert Norris . http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Nick%20Austin/edits I note the above user has been very busy with remapping efforts in Hampshire (with a healthy dose of odbl=clean tags too). *waves* I'm mainly doing roads, currently in and around Portsmouth (my stomping ground from 10 years ago). I just won't have time for footpaths. There's a lot of railways across Southern England that have problems but because I don't understand railway tagging I can't remap them. If anyone wants to help... Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
I've been invading Lancashire from Yorkshire and have got as far as Rochdale. I concur with Brian's methodology. My theory is that, at this point, concentrated holes in the centre of towns and cities are not a bad thing, they may encourage new or less active mappers to go out and map their town. I am now focusing on primary route interchanges, (lot's of stray old nodes defining key junctions) and rural roads where there is a low probability of an arm-chair mapper messing up. FYI, Martin's recent yes mentioned later in this thread greatly improves the greater Liverpool area. He got in touch with me to say that he was unaware of the license change until yesterday ... so there is still scope for trying to contact contributors. Mike On 17/03/2012 15:30, bpran...@gmail.com wrote: I've been working away at the trunk and primary routes in Manchester and environs - should be OK by end of month Regards Brian On , Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: We're now down to http://odbl.poole.ch/uk_major_roads.txt Also greatly impressed with Coventry progress - very little red left now! I've started intermittent work on Manchester; any help there would be appreciated. cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
I started to work on Hampshire, but got the following request from a decliner: I was wondering if you would mind refraining from 're-mapping' my contributions for the time being? I'm still in discussions with the OSMF regarding re-licensing some of my contributions which come from a 3rd party source not compatible with the new terms. Obviously we hope to have concluded this work before the 1st of April deadline. In the meantime the more of my contributions that are deleted means more work for me to put right once we get the licensing sorted. I think the time's getting close enough that I'll resume that work anyway. __John ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
On 19/03/2012 13:40, John Sturdy wrote: I started to work on Hampshire, but got the following request from a decliner: I was wondering if you would mind refraining from 're-mapping' my contributions for the time being? I'm still in discussions with the OSMF regarding re-licensing some of my contributions which come from a 3rd party source not compatible with the new terms. Obviously we hope to have concluded this work before the 1st of April deadline. In the meantime the more of my contributions that are deleted means more work for me to put right once we get the licensing sorted. I think the time's getting close enough that I'll resume that work anyway. __John This is almost certainly a person I had an amicable phone conversation with a week last Monday who is still concerned that OS open data somehow is not compatible with the new terms. Probability is dropping like a stone given the time that has passed but there is still a chance of a yes. Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
Michael Collinson wrote: On 19/03/2012 13:40, John Sturdy wrote: I think the time's getting close enough that I'll resume that work anyway. This is almost certainly a person I had an amicable phone conversation with a week last Monday who is still concerned that OS open data somehow is not compatible with the new terms. Probability is dropping like a stone given the time that has passed but there is still a chance of a yes. AIUI only a small amount of Andy Street's work (I don't see the point of pussyfooting around, we all know who it is!) is OS-derived. And, with the best will in the world, any monkey like thee or me can trace from OS OpenData, but Andy's footpath surveying work is excellent and it would be a shame to lose it because of an unrelated issue. Would a sensible solution be for LWG and/or any other volunteers to work with him on identifying the affected changesets; for those changesets to be retained; and for the remainder to remain 'declined' and be dropped in early April? After all, at the very least, OS OpenData was only released in April 2010, so it's actually impossible that any of his edits before then are in doubt. ;) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Remapping-update-tp5573600p5577315.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
Hi all, I've just managed to track down a contributor ScottDay in Caterham and he has just accepted the license which should greatly help that area. I've also done a fair bit of fixing/enhancing myself in a few places (centred around the areas I know - Wimbledon, Horsham and Seaford), although I did manage to delete the NCN relation (no idea how, sorry about that...) Stephen On 17 March 2012 13:20, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: We're now down to 900 problematic trunk/primary/motorway: http://odbl.poole.ch/uk_major_roads.txt Also greatly impressed with Coventry progress - very little red left now! I've started intermittent work on Manchester; any help there would be appreciated. cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
On 19/03/2012 12:40, John Sturdy wrote: I started to work on Hampshire, but got the following request from a decliner: I was wondering if you would mind refraining from 're-mapping' my contributions for the time being? I'm still in discussions with the OSMF regarding re-licensing some of my contributions which come from a 3rd party source not compatible with the new terms. Obviously we hope to have concluded this work before the 1st of April deadline. In the meantime the more of my contributions that are deleted means more work for me to put right once we get the licensing sorted. I think the time's getting close enough that I'll resume that work anyway. __John I've been working on the main roads in south of England over the past few weeks. I deliberately avoided parts of Hampshire as I'd heard Andy Street was still considering and if possible I'd prefer people accepted than we remap. However, with just two weeks left (possibly less if this continuous rebuild idea is going ahead and a fully ODBL map is due on 1 April) then I think the time has come to remap what we can. We've been at the licence change for a long time and I'm not sure how something will come up in the next few days that will make a difference in this case, unless somebody has more info they can share on this. Mark_S ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
Michael Collinson wrote: On 19/03/2012 13:40, John Sturdy wrote: I think the time's getting close enough that I'll resume that work anyway. This is almost certainly a person I had an amicable phone conversation with a week last Monday who is still concerned that OS open data somehow is not compatible with the new terms. Probability is dropping like a stone given the time that has passed but there is still a chance of a yes. AIUI only a small amount of Andy Street's work (I don't see the point of pussyfooting around, we all know who it is!) is OS-derived. And, with the best will in the world, any monkey like thee or me can trace from OS OpenData, but Andy's footpath surveying work is excellent and it would be a shame to lose it because of an unrelated issue. Would a sensible solution be for LWG and/or any other volunteers to work with him on identifying the affected changesets; for those changesets to be retained; and for the remainder to remain 'declined' and be dropped in early April? Here's my manual check (taking me about 2 hours) of Andy Streets changes. Everything before 01/04/2010 has been assumed ok, which is around 1100 changesets. Everything after this change has been considered: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4281583 This is about 900 changesets. I've grouped these into a few different categories for which could be considered to have OS 'issues' - amounting to around 37 changesets: // OS Derived changesets // Changesets with OS named in changeset comment: // OS StreetView http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4415489 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4415876 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4416305 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4595934 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4595929 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4595853 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7312608 // OS Locator http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7303315 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7367792 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7362036 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7321053 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7512624 // OS OpenData Locator+Streetview http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7286972 // SDNP (South Downs National Park) Import // OS_OpenData_Strategi (except western edge) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8216155 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8216120 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8216047 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8215988 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8215902 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8215608 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8215522 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8215395 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8215211 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8216603 // // Named in source:name tag // // OS StreetView http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8323516 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7550902 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7499950 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7460982 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7314486 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6780651 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5844267 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5306397 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5251524 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4537078 // OS Locator http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7436665 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7362367 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5353674 /// End I'm not sure which one's he's concerned about (I have now asked him explicitly too). I don't see any Code-Point data used, so there should be no worry there. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
Thanks Richard, Thats good to hear, I'd managed to tidy up a lot of the A roads, but we would have lost a lot of residential roads, and other local knowledge. Jason (UniEagle) From: rb...@cantab.net To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 19:58:40 + Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update I've just had an e-mail from Martin Green, who was one of the larger undecided mappers. He has just in the last few minutes accepted the new license terms - so most of the Wirral, parts of Liverpool and Cheshire should now be safe in 2 weeks' time. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
Richard Bullock wrote: I've just had an e-mail from Martin Green, who was one of the larger undecided mappers. He has just in the last few minutes accepted the new license terms That's terrific news. Thank you Martin, if you're reading! cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Remapping-update-tp5573600p5575729.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Remapping update
We're now down to 900 problematic trunk/primary/motorway: http://odbl.poole.ch/uk_major_roads.txt Also greatly impressed with Coventry progress - very little red left now! I've started intermittent work on Manchester; any help there would be appreciated. cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
I've been working on the Wirral and Liverpool. Making some progress there. Jason Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:20:00 + From: rich...@systemed.net To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-GB] Remapping update We're now down to 900 problematic trunk/primary/motorway: http://odbl.poole.ch/uk_major_roads.txt Also greatly impressed with Coventry progress - very little red left now! I've started intermittent work on Manchester; any help there would be appreciated. cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
I've been working away at the trunk and primary routes in Manchester and environs - should be OK by end of month Regards Brian On , Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: We're now down to http://odbl.poole.ch/uk_major_roads.txt Also greatly impressed with Coventry progress - very little red left now! I've started intermittent work on Manchester; any help there would be appreciated. cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
I finished Anglesey a couple of weeks ago - it's now 100% OK. Am now slowly working on the A55 and North Wales in general. On Mar 17, 2012 1:20 p.m., Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: We're now down to 900 problematic trunk/primary/motorway: http://odbl.poole.ch/uk_major_**roads.txthttp://odbl.poole.ch/uk_major_roads.txt Also greatly impressed with Coventry progress - very little red left now! I've started intermittent work on Manchester; any help there would be appreciated. cheers Richard __**_ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012, Richard Fairhurst wrote: We're now down to 900 problematic trunk/primary/motorway: http://odbl.poole.ch/uk_major_roads.txt Also greatly impressed with Coventry progress - very little red left now! I've started intermittent work on Manchester; any help there would be appreciated. I've been doing lots in North London. It's getting better... but not quite there yet! Derick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
Richard Fairhurst richard@... writes: We're now down to 900 problematic trunk/primary/ motorway: http://odbl.poole.ch/uk_major_roads.txt Also greatly impressed with Coventry progress - very little red left now! Surrey and southwest London are declining substantially although there are a few main roads left. I am sorting out Kew and Richmond where I can check things myself. -- Andrew ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
