Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[David Groom]

-- Original Message --
From: "Dave F via Talk-GB" 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 14/12/2019 15:54:13
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?


On 14/12/2019 15:19, Martin Wynne wrote:


Is this "farmland"?

 http://85a.uk/haws_hill_960x600.jpg


I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.

I concur with your frustration about 'huge multi polygons', especially when joined 
to other features such as roads & rivers. I believe a few mappers were keen to 
fill in the gaps rather than map accurately. Personally I think there should be one 
polygon per field, but I admit that makes for a lot more work.

I see no benefit to mapping individual fields as separate polygons 
tagged as farmland if adjacent fields are also farmland. Could you 
explain why you think this is best?


David




Cheers
DaveF

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UK coastline data

[David Groom]

-- Original Message --
From: "Devonshire" 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 12/07/2019 07:44:55
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] UK coastline data



On Thu, Jul 11, 2019, at 10:41 PM, Borbus wrote:


The Dart cuts the coastline off right at the mouth, which doesn't seem 
right...


I think the main reason I did that back in the day is that mapping 
coastline all the way up to Totnes seems extremely non-intuitive. 
Someone standing on Totnes quay (10 miles inland) is not standing on 
the coast in any meaningful way.
I agree, I long ago made the same point regarding the River Thames as it 
passes through London.

David




I don't really care either way but what would be the benefit of 
changing it to coastline (and slavishly copying the OS is not a 
benefit) ?


Kevin___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers

[David Groom]

-- Original Message --
From: "Mike Evans" 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Cc: "David Groom" 
Sent: 28/08/2018 19:22:16
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers


On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 11:09:47 +
"David Groom"  wrote:


There is no consensus.

Personally I'm not in favour of the view that any body of water which 
is

tidal should be bounded by a way tagged as coastline.

Reasons for this

1) Ask any one who lives in say central London "do you live on the
coast" or do you live beside a river", most would I'm sure say beside 
a
river, so surely our data should reflect that. I think this probably 
is

what you mean by "seems more natural"
Well if they're in Central London then it is an estuary at that point 
so they'd be incorrect. Hence the expression "estuary English", and not 
"river English".
Both the Oxford and Cambridge Dictionaries define as estuary as part of 
a river.




To quote Wikpedia "The district of Teddington a few miles south-west of 
London's centre marks the boundary between the tidal and non-tidal 
parts of the Thames".
The Wikipedia quote to which you refer suggests to  me that this should 
be tagged as a river, since the Thames is a river, parts of which are 
tidal and parts of which are not.  But it's still a river.





Perhaps "A History of the Foreshore and the Law Relating Thereto", 
published 1888 would be a useful reference.

https://archive.org/details/ahistoryforesho00hallgoog




2) In part because the converse is not true, we bound large non tidal
water areas as coastline

Examples?


Baltic , Caspian & Black Seas





3) If knowledge that a body of water is tidal is important it can be
tagged "tidal = yes"
But then the decision has to made as to where to draw the line and tag 
one side as "tidal = yes" and the other side not tagged but assumed to, 
in fact, be tidal. This just introduces an extra arbitrary boundary the 
inner end of which again becomes non-tidal.


The American Submerged Lands Act of 1953 does appear to define the line 
at which the coastline extends into estuaries etc., but this does not 
apply to the UK. That act seems to been precipitated as a result of 
disputes over oil drilling rights.


Mike
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers

[David Groom]

Colin

whilst in theory I'd say yes, in practice I'd say consensus is hard to 
achieve.


David



-- Original Message --
From: "Colin Smale" 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 28/08/2018 12:23:33
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers

David, do you consider that it would be advantageous to have consensus 
on this matter, and a consistent tagging paradigm in OSM? I am not 
prejudging what that consensus position might be, just sounding out if 
there is any point in having the discussion in the first place.





On 2018-08-28 13:09, David Groom wrote:


There is no consensus.

Personally I'm not in favour of the view that any body of water which 
is tidal should be bounded by a way tagged as coastline.


Reasons for this

1) Ask any one who lives in say central London "do you live on the 
coast" or do you live beside a river", most would I'm sure say beside 
a river, so surely our data should reflect that.  I think this 
probably is what you mean by "seems more natural"


2)  In part because the converse is not true, we bound large non tidal 
water areas as coastline


3) If knowledge that a body of water is tidal is important it can be 
tagged "tidal = yes"



David




-- Original Message --
From: "Colin Smale" 
To: "Talk-GB" 
Sent: 28/08/2018 08:49:01
Subject: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers

That old chestnut again...

There seems to be an open discussion about how far up a river the 
natural=coastline should go. The wiki suggests the coastline should be 
the high water line going up to the tidal limit (often a lock or a 
wier) but this can be a substantial distance inland. This is AIUI the 
general scientific approach.


There has been some discussion in the past about letting the coastline 
cut across the river at some convenient point, possibly because it 
"looks better" or "seems more natural" or "is less work."


I looked at a few rivers along the south coast to see how they had 
been tagged and it seems most have the coastline up to the tidal 
limit. However the coastline around the mouth of the Dart has recently 
been modified to cut across the mouth, and Salcombe Harbour is also 
mapped this way.


Is there a consensus for a particular definition of "coastline" in 
tidal estuaries? Should we try to keep a consistent paradigm, or 
doesn't it matter?






___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers

[David Groom]

There is no consensus.

Personally I'm not in favour of the view that any body of water which is 
tidal should be bounded by a way tagged as coastline.


Reasons for this

1) Ask any one who lives in say central London "do you live on the 
coast" or do you live beside a river", most would I'm sure say beside a 
river, so surely our data should reflect that.  I think this probably is 
what you mean by "seems more natural"


2)  In part because the converse is not true, we bound large non tidal 
water areas as coastline


3) If knowledge that a body of water is tidal is important it can be 
tagged "tidal = yes"



David




-- Original Message --
From: "Colin Smale" 
To: "Talk-GB" 
Sent: 28/08/2018 08:49:01
Subject: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers

That old chestnut again...

There seems to be an open discussion about how far up a river the 
natural=coastline should go. The wiki suggests the coastline should be 
the high water line going up to the tidal limit (often a lock or a wier) 
but this can be a substantial distance inland. This is AIUI the general 
scientific approach.


There has been some discussion in the past about letting the coastline 
cut across the river at some convenient point, possibly because it 
"looks better" or "seems more natural" or "is less work."


I looked at a few rivers along the south coast to see how they had been 
tagged and it seems most have the coastline up to the tidal limit. 
However the coastline around the mouth of the Dart has recently been 
modified to cut across the mouth, and Salcombe Harbour is also mapped 
this way.


Is there a consensus for a particular definition of "coastline" in tidal 
estuaries? Should we try to keep a consistent paradigm, or doesn't it 
matter?



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[OSM-talk] Misrepresentation of OSM by HOT?

[David Groom]

How about
1) Change "OpenStreetmap Collaborative Mapping" to "OpenStreetmap 
Distaster Mapping"

2) Link the word "OpenStreetmap"  to the OSM web site

Regards
David

-- Original Message --
From: "Blake Girardot HOT/OSM" 
To: "Christoph Hormann" 
Cc: "OSM Talk" 
Sent: 23/10/2017 10:37:38
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Misrepresentation of OSM by HOT?


Hi Christoph,

We can not win if we do or if we do not :)

It clearly says the HOT Tasking Manager, which it is. We were asked to
change it from OSM Tasking Manager because people felt that was
misrepresenting, it was not the OSM Tasking manager, it was HOT's
Tasking Manager, so I changed that in TM v2.

And the major emphasis on "OpenStreetMap Collaborative Mapping" is
exactly because people also said we did not put OpenStreetMap
prominently enough. Now it is the biggest thing on the page and that
is not right either :)

It doesn't say "HOT Collaborative Mapping" because people are not HOT
mapping, they are OSM mapping.

But, I think we are happy to change that title on that page to
something else if the community feels it is somehow misrepresenting
something.

Respectfully,
blake


On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 5:08 AM, Christoph Hormann  
wrote:


I recently turned up on the HOT tasking manager page
(http://tasks.hotosm.org/) and found the page is now presenting itself
tautologically as an "OpenStreetMap Collaborative Mapping" portal with
no indication except for the small logo on top that this is a separate
project with no official character. At the same time it seems (at a
first glance) there is not a single link on the site to OpenStreetMap.
To the visitor unfamiliar with OSM this is quite likely to generate 
the

impression that this is OSM and that contributing to "OpenStreetMap
Collaborative Mapping" always happens via HOT tasks.

In my eyes this is a fairly clear misrepresentation of OpenStreetMap 
not

covered by the trademark policy we now have.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk




--

Blake Girardot
Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[talk-ph] Duplicated highways

[David Groom]

In southern Mindanao there are a number of highways which have 
duplicated ways, but often with different highway classifications (for 
example one way being marked as trunk, the other as primary).


As an indication of where they are see here  
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing=124.83883=6.36641=9=duplicate_ways 
  The blue lines indicate part of the duplication, though the actual 
duplicated sections are much longer.


I don't feel confident in choosing which of these duplicated ways are 
correct and deleting the incorrect one.


David___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [Talk-GB] Select and correct a discovered key duplication of sorts in JOSM

[David Groom]

Alternatively in JOSM:

File > Download from Overpass API

Then put  ref:Chiltern_Society = *  in the text box next to "Build 
query", then click "Build Query".

Next select download area, and then click "Download"

David

-- Original Message --
From: "Bob Hawkins" 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 19/08/2017 16:55:03
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Select and correct a discovered key duplication 
of sorts in JOSM


My failing brain disturbs me at times: Edit>Preferences>Remote 
Control>Enable remote control!


Virus-free. 
www.avast.com 
 
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [talk-ph] landuse = farm

[David Groom]

Thanks for showing me those previous discussions

-- Original Message --
From: "Eugene Alvin Villar" <sea...@gmail.com>
To: "David Groom" <revi...@pacific-rim.net>
Cc: "OpenStreetMap Philippines" <talk-ph@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: 02/05/2017 04:31:46
Subject: Re: [talk-ph] landuse = farm

Of the 3 options, I also favor option 3. For the record, I've been 
saying that landuse=farmland (or landuse=farm before) should be tagged 
on the entire farm area and not on individual fields (or rice paddies 
if crop=rice). See this post of mine from 2009:


https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2009-November/001545.html

There's also a relevant discussion in 2014 regarding the mapping of 
individual farm fields/paddies (thread archive is split into two 
months):


https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2014-August/005229.html
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2014-October/005318.html

For the specific case of rice paddies, there are actually two ways you 
can go about mapping things (once you've marked up the whole area as a 
single landuse=farmland):


1. Mark the borders between paddies as ways as these are raised lines 
of land that serve as walls to hold the water and secondarily serve as 
footpaths (but shouldn't be tagged as highway=*) to access individual 
paddies. There was the suggestion to use man_made=bund or 
man_made=embankment or something similar but no decision was made.


2. Mark the paddies as individual polygons.

~Eugene

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:28 AM, David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net> 
wrote:


During early April I looked at  nodes/ways/relations tagged as 
landuse=farm as reclassified many of them as appropriate.


Howver , in some places I noted that individual fields had been tagged 
using landuse = farm, for example:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/11.225924767247454/124.54216374231005 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/11.225924767247454/124.54216374231005>
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/16.933969/121.13637 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/16.933969/121.13637>
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/14.883274660783613/120.25851326487962 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/14.883274660783613/120.25851326487962>



At present I have done nothing with these ways

The standard use in OSM for landuse=farmland is for it to be used on 
larger areas, rather than individual fields


There appears to be no approved tag in OSM for fields, (though taginfo 
<https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/field#values> shows field=yes 
used on 388 occasions worldwide)


There seem to be a number of possibilities regarding these ways:

1) retag them as landuse=farmland
2) delete them and draw a single way round the larger outline of all 
the adjacent fields and tag this as landuse=farmland
3) retag  them as field=yes, and also draw a single way round the 
larger outline of all the adjacent fields and tag this as 
landuse=farmland.


Of these I think I favour approach 3 as it keeps the field data in OSM 
(someone might have a use for this)


What are your thoughts?

Regards

David





-- Original Message --
From: "David Groom" <revi...@pacific-rim.net>
To: "OpenStreetMap Philippines" <talk-ph@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: 31/03/2017 12:23:53
Subject: Re: [talk-ph] landuse = farm

I don't think it will take too long for one person to do this, but I 
may be mistaken.


It will also be an opportunity to look at some of the areas tagged as 
"landuse = farm", and merge them into adjacent areas where 
appropriate.


David


-- Original Message --
From: "Eugene Alvin Villar" <sea...@gmail.com>
To: "David Groom" <revi...@pacific-rim.net>
Cc: "OpenStreetMap Philippines" <talk-ph@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: 30/03/2017 00:56:18
Subject: Re: [talk-ph] landuse = farm

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:06 PM, David Groom 
<revi...@pacific-rim.net> wrote:


Shall I start looking at the  relations and ways and change where 
appropriate from "landuse = farm" to "landuse = farmland"?


What do you think?


Go for it! Would it also make sense to turn this into a Maproulette 
task?


~Eugene


___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph 
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph>


___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Bridges mapped as link roads or ramps

[David Groom]

I have no idea why i wrote what I did in that last post on this topic !

What I meant to write was:

I think it would be appropriate to re-tag these with the appropriate 
highway type , ensuring that "bridge=yes" and "layer=1" are also on the 
way


David

-- Original Message --
From: "David Groom" <revi...@pacific-rim.net>
To: "talk-ph" <talk-ph@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: 27/04/2017 16:46:15
Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Bridges mapped as link roads or ramps

I think it would be OK to re-tag these as the appropriate highway type 
with "_link".


David

-- Original Message --
From: "Jherome Miguel" <jheromemig...@gmail.com>
To: "talk-ph" <talk-ph@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: 21/04/2017 13:11:48
Subject: [talk-ph] Bridges mapped as link roads or ramps

There are a lot of bridges in Samar that are still mapped as link 
roads or ramps and this brought misleading directions when I got 
directions between Manila and Tacloban, and it is also the problem 
when routing on Cagayan Valley Road in Bulacan and Nueva Ecija, for 
example, when getting directions from Manila to Tuguegarao or any 
point in Nueva Ecija, Aurora, Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino, Isabela, or 
Cagayan. Having bridges mapped as link roads makes routers say that 
you take the ramp, or other instructions. I do not know who made such 
mapping, but it is in the past years and no one have floated that 
mapping by any user[s], that should have been fixed earlier before it 
can affect directions.


--TagaSanPedroAko___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] landuse = farm

[David Groom]

During early April I looked at  nodes/ways/relations tagged as 
landuse=farm as reclassified many of them as appropriate.


Howver , in some places I noted that individual fields had been tagged 
using landuse = farm, for example:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/11.225924767247454/124.54216374231005
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/16.933969/121.13637
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/14.883274660783613/120.25851326487962


At present I have done nothing with these ways

The standard use in OSM for landuse=farmland is for it to be used on 
larger areas, rather than individual fields


There appears to be no approved tag in OSM for fields, (though taginfo 
<https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/field#values> shows field=yes 
used on 388 occasions worldwide)


There seem to be a number of possibilities regarding these ways:

1) retag them as landuse=farmland
2) delete them and draw a single way round the larger outline of all the 
adjacent fields and tag this as landuse=farmland
3) retag  them as field=yes, and also draw a single way round the larger 
outline of all the adjacent fields and tag this as landuse=farmland.


Of these I think I favour approach 3 as it keeps the field data in OSM 
(someone might have a use for this)


What are your thoughts?

Regards

David





-- Original Message --
From: "David Groom" <revi...@pacific-rim.net>
To: "OpenStreetMap Philippines" <talk-ph@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: 31/03/2017 12:23:53
Subject: Re: [talk-ph] landuse = farm

I don't think it will take too long for one person to do this, but I 
may be mistaken.


It will also be an opportunity to look at some of the areas tagged as 
"landuse = farm", and merge them into adjacent areas where appropriate.


David


-- Original Message --
From: "Eugene Alvin Villar" <sea...@gmail.com>
To: "David Groom" <revi...@pacific-rim.net>
Cc: "OpenStreetMap Philippines" <talk-ph@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: 30/03/2017 00:56:18
Subject: Re: [talk-ph] landuse = farm

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:06 PM, David Groom 
<revi...@pacific-rim.net> wrote:


Shall I start looking at the  relations and ways and change where 
appropriate from "landuse = farm" to "landuse = farmland"?


What do you think?


Go for it! Would it also make sense to turn this into a Maproulette 
task?


~Eugene___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Tagging of air conditioning repair/servicing centers

[David Groom]

If they also sell air conditioning units then maybe

shop=hvac  (used 34 times in OSM already 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=shop%3Dhvac)

repair=yes

This would be similar to tagging for a computer shop, 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dcomputer


David


-- Original Message --
From: "Jherome Miguel" 
To: "talk-ph" 
Sent: 28/04/2017 15:26:30
Subject: [talk-ph] Tagging of air conditioning repair/servicing centers

I have encountered a mistagged air conditioning service center around 
Batangas City, added via MAPS.ME, and I retagged it with craft=hvac and 
shop=trade. But the Philippines tagging conventions 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions) 
has no recommended tagging for such establishment. Air conditioning 
repair/servicing centers are common and mostly accept repair/servicing 
of air conditioning units of any or select brands, as authorized by the 
producers when seen on signage (e.g. Carrier/Condura Authorized Service 
Center) and when mapping those, there are no clear tags recommended for 
such business. How about possible tags, aside from the one I used here 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4360912990)?


(This is a Philippines tagging-specific issue, so I better sent this 
message to the talk-ph mailing list.)


--TagaSanPedroAko___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] landuse = farm

[David Groom]

I don't think it will take too long for one person to do this, but I may 
be mistaken.


It will also be an opportunity to look at some of the areas tagged as 
"landuse = farm", and merge them into adjacent areas where appropriate.


David


-- Original Message --
From: "Eugene Alvin Villar" <sea...@gmail.com>
To: "David Groom" <revi...@pacific-rim.net>
Cc: "OpenStreetMap Philippines" <talk-ph@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: 30/03/2017 00:56:18
Subject: Re: [talk-ph] landuse = farm

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:06 PM, David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net> 
wrote:


Shall I start looking at the  relations and ways and change where 
appropriate from "landuse = farm" to "landuse = farmland"?


What do you think?


Go for it! Would it also make sense to turn this into a Maproulette 
task?


~Eugene___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] landuse = farm

[David Groom]

I've just seen this discussion on the main OSM talk list

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2017-March/077741.html

The standard OSM rendering will soon drop the rendering of "landuse = 
farm".


There are :

66 Relations
7,390 ways
71 Nodes (interestingly the wiki did not recommend this tag on a node)

tagged "landuse = farm" in the Philippines.

Shall I start looking at the  relations and ways and change where 
appropriate from "landuse = farm" to "landuse = farmland"?


What do you think?

Regards

David


___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Residential.

[David Groom]

I've just forced a refresh of the affected tiles.

David


-- Original Message --
From: "Jim Morgan" 
To:
Cc: "OpenStreetMap Philippines" 
Sent: 22/02/2017 03:55:48
Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Residential.


Eugene Alvin Villar wrote on Wednesday, 22 February, 2017 04:17 AM:
 The wrong label is persisting on the map because low zoom level tiles 
are not refreshed as often. I'm not sure when these are refreshed.


Aha. That makes sense. Always ask an expert!

Jim

___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph




___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[Talk-GB] any cyclists familiar with Calder Aire link

[David Groom]

There seems a lot of duplication in these two route relations:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2171660

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1573805

Both are titled "Calder Aire link"



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering (?) bug at Marble Arch

[David Groom]

Rendering OK now, presumably as a result of 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45519828



-- Original Message --
From: "Edward Catmur" 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 26/01/2017 16:00:22
Subject: [Talk-GB] Rendering (?) bug at Marble Arch



http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6809001 
 isn't rendering on the 
Standard layer at any zoom level. It looks to be rendering OK on the 
Cycle and Transport layers, but the Humanitarian layer is failing to 
render not only that way but also a load of others making up the Marble 
Arch gyratory.


Off absolutely no evidence, I'm inclined to suspect that the breakage 
is caused by http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5640188 
 - has anyone seen 
anything like this before?
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

[David Groom]

Not quite sure what you had in mind by the tags map_type and map_size, 
but maybe need a tag something along the likes of "sign_type" withn 
values of "bollard | monolith | finger_post | totem" ( see 
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/legible-london-product-range.pdf)


David


-- Original Message --
From: "Robert Skedgell" 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 10/01/2017 07:54:41
Subject: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

Does anyone have any suggestions for tagging nodes for the Legible 
London
signs/maps (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legible_London and 
https://

tfl.gov.uk/info-for/boroughs/maps-and-signs )?

Perhaps:
 tourism=information
 information=map
 map_type=street
 map_size=site
 name=*
 ref=legible_london

--
Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] beetroot or beet

[David Groom]

Although "beet" could also refer to "sugar beet"

I think the wiki pages may be confused

The wiki page for crop in Japanese 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Key:crop does seem to have crop = 
beet translating as sugar beet


Whereas the Polish page I think has crop = beet translating a beetroot

There probably needs to be an addition to the English crop page to have 
crop = beet and make this clear it is sugar beet.


Tag info shows 579 ways tagged with crop = beet, of these 572 are in 
northern Italy added by 3 users, so its probably quite easy to ask what 
exactly they meant by "beet" , and retag these existing ways if they 
actually should be beetroot.


David

-- Original Message --
From: "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com>
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 10/01/2017 00:01:24
Subject: [Talk-GB] beetroot or beet


Hi again,

another UK English question.


I use beetroot .. but beet has been used on the wiki.

I think beet comes from American English.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

[David Groom]

The prow:ref tag emerged from a discussion I started on this list about 
the problem of using the ref tag to refer to PROW references.  The 
specific problem was that some highways were also designated footpaths / 
bridleways, and so if the ref tag was used to tag a rights of way 
reference it was given the same rendering priority on these ways as a 
road reference.  There was also no way to distinguish between a ref tag 
which was for a road reference, and a ref tag which was for a prow 
reference on that road.  Thus the prow:ref tag was suggested.


At a later stage I noted the prow_ref tag started to be used.  I did not 
follow the discussion / reasoning behind that, but I find it hard to 
believe that we need both a prow_ref  tag and a prow:ref tag.  So I 
assume the prow_ref tag supoerceeded the prow:ref tag, but for the 
reasoning outlined in the first paragraph I would not think it helpful 
to simple use the plain "ref" tag on the Isle of Wight.


I cant follow the logic of  "Visibly signed things go into 'ref'", since 
that would seem to mean we don't need lcn_ref tags as these are visible 
signed.


David




-- Original Message --
From: "Robert Norris" <rw_nor...@hotmail.com>
To: "Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>; "David 
Groom" <revi...@pacific-rim.net>

Sent: 10/01/2017 00:36:41
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

If I remember correctly the use of "prow_ref" tag is normally when the 
reference is taken from the  Council ROW information documents that are 
compatible with OSM.

'ref' is used when the Reference itself is on the signed on the ground.
Thus for the Isle Of Wight, it is probably recommended to use the 'ref' 
field since I believe most if not all ROW on the IOW have the reference 
on the sign posts.
Whereas for most of the rest of England and Wales, only rarely are the 
ROW references put on sign posts (I don't know of anywhere else that 
does it consistently compared to the IOW). The only times I normally 
see ROW references are on permissive notices or temporary route 
diversion notices.
Thus similar to the recommendation for 'C' road references vs A/B 
Roads. Visibly signed things go into 'ref' so used for A/B roads. 
'official_ref' or similar should be used for C roads.


--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.


From: David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net>
Sent: 09 January 2017 23:56:51
To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

Has any one got any instances of any providers of OSM data using the 
prow_ref on rendering / routing


I recently pointed out to a mapper that if the reference numbers he was 
adding to footpaths were official PROW reference numbers it was 
recommended to use the "prow_ref" tag rather than the plain "ref" tag.  
He's now amended his entries to prow_ref but is a little disappointed 
it doesn't show up on the main map, OsmAnd, or Maps.me.


I have pointed out to him that OSM is mainly a provider of data, not 
maps, so not everything is rendered on the man map, but it would be 
nice if I could point him in the direction of where it is being used,  
other than my own web site and custom OsmAnd file.


Thanks

David







___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

[David Groom]

Has any one got any instances of any providers of OSM data using the 
prow_ref on rendering / routing


I recently pointed out to a mapper that if the reference numbers he was 
adding to footpaths were official PROW reference numbers it was 
recommended to use the "prow_ref" tag rather than the plain "ref" tag.  
He's now amended his entries to prow_ref but is a little disappointed it 
doesn't show up on the main map, OsmAnd, or Maps.me.


I have pointed out to him that OSM is mainly a provider of data, not 
maps, so not everything is rendered on the man map, but it would be nice 
if I could point him in the direction of where it is being used,  other 
than my own web site and custom OsmAnd file.


Thanks

David

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] natural=heath

[David Groom]

I have came across a similar issue where areas of mainly grass, but with 
some gorse bushes, on chalk downland had been changed to natural=heath, 
when I contacted the mapper about it he said something along the lines 
of, "well I've seen it done like that elsewhere"


David



-- Original Message --
From: "SK53" 
To: "Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" 
Sent: 09/01/2017 11:53:51
Subject: [Talk-GB] natural=heath

Somehow I have been oblivious to the fact that large numbers of 
polygons tagged natural=heath have been added over the past few months 
to OSM.


I only noticed these when looking at old traces on the new GPX trace 
overlay. Specifically I noticed them on the Snowdon range extending 
beyond Moel Eilio.


I have now reviewed my photographs taken in 2010 for the countryside 
extending N of Moel Eilio to the pass between Foel Goch and Moel 
Cynghorion. As it was a beautiful day the photos also provide valuable 
interpretive evidence not only for the rest of the Snowdon range, but 
for the Northern Glyders, Mynydd Mawr and the Nantlle Ridge.


Both in detail and in long view the vast bulk of this countryside is 
unimproved grassland, which is why it is used for sheep farming and not 
grouse moors. There appears to be a small patch of heather moorland 
beyond the forestry to the N of Moel Eiio, and possibly a patch in one 
of the valleys to the E.


In addition to reviewing my own photos I have also checked the same 
areas against the Phase 1 habitat survey carried out by the Countryside 
Commission of Wales roughly between 1980-1995. This also shows the vast 
bulk of the area as being acid grassland, albeit with some small areas 
of mosaic grassland and heath. Unfortunately I cannot show this 
analysis because I obtained the data under an distinctly non-open 
licence and need explicit permission from Natural Resources Wales to 
publish the data.


This is not to say that the use of tag natural=heath is wrong. Many of 
the areas which have recently been mapped as natural=heath can also be 
described as moorland or rough grazing depending on context (upland or 
coastal).


The more usual use of heath, certainly within communities of 
naturalists, conservationists and ecologists, is for habitats dominated 
by ericaceous (members of the heather family) shrubs & sub-shrubs: 
i.e., heather, bell heather, heaths, bilberry, crowberry etc.


The phase 1 habitat manual (phase 1 is the basic ecological survey 
technique developed by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, JNCC) 
states:


"Heathland includes vegetation dominated by ericoids or dwarf gorse 
species, as well as 'heaths' dominated by lichens and bryophytes, dwarf 
forbs, Carex bigelowii or Juncus trifidus." (p. 41, 2010 revision)"


Personally, I would prefer that we stick to a definition similar to 
this one. There is not likely to an entirely straightforward 
correspondence with Phase 1 as some upland heather moorland may get 
mapped in Phase 1 onto other habitats, particularly if underlain by 
large quantities of peat.


The reasons for this are:
Habitats are different. Habitats as different as these should be tagged 
differently. Upland and coastal unimproved grasslands are very 
different habitats to heather moorland and very very different from 
rare lowland heaths. Just the range of birds one encounters will be 
different. On the former I expect to see Meadow Pipits, Wheatears and 
no Red Grouse. Lowland heaths in Southern England are habitats for 
quite rare birds: Nightjars, Woodlarks, Dartford Warblers.
Terrain underfoot is different. There is a massive difference between 
walking though knee-deep heather in places like the Rhinogs or the Mull 
of Kintyre, the lovely turf on the ridges N of Snowdon, or tussocky 
coastal grassland. We should be capturing such things.
Visual differences. The image of the country is different. Most 
apparent when heather is in bloom.Landuse differences. Most obviously 
sheep grazing versus grouse moor, although sheep may still be 
encountered on the latter.
Obscuring rare natural areas. Genuine lowland heath is a rare 
phenomenon in Britain and requires great conservation effort. Extension 
of the natural=heath tag to cover other things means that identifying 
these special areas using OSM will not be possible.
I reviewing the extent of current use of natural=heath I may already be 
too late in preventing an extension of its meaning to cover more or 
less all non-intensively farmed areas which aren't wooded. 
Notwithstanding this I would like to canvas views from other mappers. 
If the current usage of the tag is deemed to be the suitable one then 
we need to develop additional tags which allow the recognition of all 
the features I mention above.


Regards,

Jerry
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS

[David Groom]

Colin

I was more talking about the actual shape of the MHW rather than its 
position; if that makes sense.


some examples of problems in the Isle of Wight

1)  There's a section here  
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.66636/-1.48566, where the Bing 
imagery seems reasonably aligned to the gps tracks of the main road, but 
the gpx file for MHW seems to be too far to the north on the cliff area, 
and too far to the south on the area to the east.  this beach shelves 
relatively steeply so there is unlikely to be much difference between 
MHWS & MHWN


2) Even clearer is an area 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.69439/-1.09414, OSM is much more 
accurate here than the OS Boundary Line


3)  The car park and ice rink here 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/50.73237/-1.15736  were built 
sometime around 1990, but Boundary line  MHW would show these as flooded


4)  More inaccuracies here   
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/50.76650/-1.30029


David



-- Original Message --
From: "Colin Smale" <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 11/12/2016 22:17:44
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS


Hi David,

Looking at the spot you indicate on Bing imagery does indeed look like 
MHW should be above the salt-marsh areas. Looking at Google[1] it is 
however possible that the grass doesn't quite get submerged, even at 
the highest tides, so it might also be possible that it is strictly 
correct.


The Bing imagery is of course just a snapshot, and we don't know the 
state of the tide at the moment the photo was taken, so it can also be 
misleading. Even a personal visit is not really enough as MHW is 
apparently calculated over a 19-year cycle (not sure if OS use this 
though) and things could change a lot in that time. As MHW is an 
average, many tides will of course be higher.


The OS data looks a definite improvement for steeper coastlines, where 
combining OS admin boundaries with PGS coastlines produces many 
anomalies (admin boundary=MLW inland of coastline=MHW). I would 
definitely suggest applying the OS MHW data to address this kind of 
issue. But I agree, use of the OS data would need case-by-case 
judgements. However I still think the OS data is probably a better base 
to work from than (unimproved) PGS for reasons I mentioned earlier.


Could you give a couple of examples of problems you saw in the IoW?

//colin


[1] 
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5386032,0.6292606,3a,24.7y,277.12h,84.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMl8cwBlLLuOVtPES_DfkOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


On 2016-12-11 22:30, David Groom wrote:

I suspect that even though much of the coastline is tagged 
"source=PGS" is has been amended by reference to Yahoo and after that 
Bing imagery, but the subsequent editors did not remove the 
"source=PGS" tag.


Certainly comparing your gpx file for the Isle of Wight with the 
coastline currently in OSM there appear a number of places where the 
gpx file does not accurately represent MHW.


I certainly would not want to see a wholesale replacement of what is 
in currently in OSM with OD Boundary Line data.


Looking here http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.53546/0.60580 an 
area near Southend, unless the Bing imagery is outdated, the Boundary 
Line data seems to be an odd representation of the coastline.


David
On 11/12/2016 10:43, Colin Smale wrote:


Hi,

Most of the coastline is currently tagged as "source=PGS". As part of 
the Boundary-Line open data set OS provide MHW lines which look to be 
significantly better than the PGS data:


  * Much newer - updated twice a year, although I am not sure how old
the actual underlying survey data is (PGS coastlines seem to be
from 2006)
  * Better resolution - more nodes, smoother curves
  * Consistent with admin boundary data, so MLW never appears above
MHW (often a problem on rocky coastlines like Wales and Cornwall)

There are a couple of caveats when working with the OS data:

  * Where MHW=MLW, i.e. the MHW is colinear with the admin boundary 
at

MLW, there is a gap in the MHW data
  * The MHW data goes miles inland in tidal estuaries, which is
correct from the MHW standpoint, but for coastlines I think we
need to cut across the estuaries at the right point to form the
correct baseline
  * The MHW data is organised by area - down to constituency level.
Every time the line crosses the area boundary, it simply stops 
and

you need to load the adjacent area to continue the line

I have uploaded GPX versions of the October 2016 OS MHW data to 
http://csmale.dev.openstreetmap.org/os_boundaryline/mhw/ with a file 
per county / unitary area (I have not produced the files for the 
higher-level regions or the lower-level constituency areas).


In the Thames estuary around Southend and on the north Kent coast I 
have replaced the PGS data with the new OS data and to me it looks 
much better (in Potlatch) although the changes 

Re: [Talk-GB] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS

[David Groom]

I suspect that even though much of the coastline is tagged "source=PGS" 
is has been amended by reference to Yahoo and after that Bing imagery, 
but the subsequent editors did not remove the "source=PGS" tag.


Certainly comparing your gpx file for the Isle of Wight with the 
coastline currently in OSM there appear a number of places where the gpx 
file does not accurately represent MHW.


I certainly would not want to see a wholesale replacement of what is in 
currently in OSM with OD Boundary Line data.


Looking here http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.53546/0.60580 an 
area near Southend, unless the Bing imagery is outdated, the Boundary 
Line data seems to be an odd representation of the coastline.


David
On 11/12/2016 10:43, Colin Smale wrote:


Hi,

Most of the coastline is currently tagged as "source=PGS". As part of 
the Boundary-Line open data set OS provide MHW lines which look to be 
significantly better than the PGS data:


  * Much newer - updated twice a year, although I am not sure how old
the actual underlying survey data is (PGS coastlines seem to be
from 2006)
  * Better resolution - more nodes, smoother curves
  * Consistent with admin boundary data, so MLW never appears above
MHW (often a problem on rocky coastlines like Wales and Cornwall)

There are a couple of caveats when working with the OS data:

  * Where MHW=MLW, i.e. the MHW is colinear with the admin boundary at
MLW, there is a gap in the MHW data
  * The MHW data goes miles inland in tidal estuaries, which is
correct from the MHW standpoint, but for coastlines I think we
need to cut across the estuaries at the right point to form the
correct baseline
  * The MHW data is organised by area - down to constituency level.
Every time the line crosses the area boundary, it simply stops and
you need to load the adjacent area to continue the line

I have uploaded GPX versions of the October 2016 OS MHW data to 
http://csmale.dev.openstreetmap.org/os_boundaryline/mhw/ with a file 
per county / unitary area (I have not produced the files for the 
higher-level regions or the lower-level constituency areas).


In the Thames estuary around Southend and on the north Kent coast I 
have replaced the PGS data with the new OS data and to me it looks 
much better (in Potlatch) although the changes are not yet showing 
through on "the map". I think coastline changes are processed less 
frequently.


Any comments?

//colin





___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[talk-ph] way ID 353779765

[David Groom]

I'm aware that Bing & Mapbox imagery may be out dated, but is 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353779765  really a riverbank?


David

___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] areas of mangrove

[David Groom]

Totor

You are correct in that in general the coastline should be at the "mean 
high water spring".  However it may be that areas of mangrove need 
special consideration because even at high water the mangrove trees are 
above the water and therefore (a) when viewed from above you don't see 
sea; and (b)  its very difficult to navigate even a small boat through 
the thickest parts of them; and in in this respect these areas are more 
like land than sea.


When many years ago  (2007), I imported the coastline from PGS for large 
parts of the world I remember in particular coming across this dilema 
when working  on northern Ausrtralia.  I believe we had a discusion on 
the talk-au list and decided to map the mangrove / open sea boundary as 
coastline, and if you look at 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/-12.5837/130.8784  you will see 
that despite the number of years between my import and the present day, 
and the large number of mappers who have since contributed to Australian 
mapping, the coastline still remains at the mangrove / open sea 
boundary.  So there is a precedent for breaking the general rule the 
coastline should be at the "mean high water spring".


I think that rather than stick to a defined rule as stated in the wiki 
this is one instance where the local community should decide what they 
believe is the most appropriate mapping approach, and then that 
consistent approach should be adopted for the whole country. From what 
you write it would seem the most consistent approach, where it is 
possible from imagery or other sources to locate the dry land / mangrove 
boundary to treat that as the coastline.


Regards
David




On 30/04/2016 03:40, Totor wrote:

Hi David,

I understood the coastline should be at the "mean high water spring".
The mangroves I have seen in the Philippines, were always outside that 
coastline, in the sea.
So I map them as in your method 2.

When tracing from low res or unclear sat imagery, i usually include the 
mangroves in the land area (because i dont know if it is a mangrove) but then I 
do not tag the mangrove at all.

Just my opinion...

Cheers

Totor


On April 30, 2016 10:14:43 AM GMT+08:00, David Groom wrote:

There are two different approaches used in mapping mangrove  areas in
OSM

1)  Treat the boundary of the mangrove and the openwater sea as the
coastline, and then map the area between that line and the "dry" land
as
wetland.  This means that the wetland symbols are rendered over the
white colour of the land, and that at zoom levels 12 and lower the
mangrove areas simply get shown as white, with the sea outside them.

2)  Treat the boundary of the mangrove and the "dry" land as the
coastline, and then map the area between that line and the openwater
sea
as wetland.  This means that the wetland symbols are rendered over the
blue colour of the sea, and that at zoom levels 12 and lower the
mangrove areas simply get shown as blue sea.

Early today I added some mangrove areas and followed approach 2 because

the coastline had been accurately mapped along the mangrove / dry land
boundary, as so I simply added the mangrove area outside this, as it
seemed the existing mapper had cleary thought the coastline should be
at
the dry land boundary.

However at  http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/9.7497/125.6105 both
these approaches have been used.  Approach 1  has been used for Lamagon

Island, where the boundary of the mangrove area and the sea is tagged
as
coastline.  But Approach 2 has been used for the island immeditately
south, where the boundary of the dry land is tagged as coastline.

On further investigation I see at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/9.7003/125.6415  that Approach 1
has been used.

Has this issue been discussued before within the Philippine OSM
community, with any recommended way of mapping mangrove areas being
decided upon?

Regards
David



___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph


___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph



___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Various farmed landuses

[David Groom]

Hopefully fixing the geometries in this area is now complete

David

On 19/03/2016 17:53, David Groom wrote:
Its now been one month with no major objections to my proopesed 
cnages, so I have made them, but with the suggestion made by Eugene.


However the exisiting geometry of the landuse polygons is very messy, 
with many overlapping ways.  I am fixing these, but with over 230 ways 
to fix I wont able to do this all in one editing session, and probably 
not even all in one day.


The affected area is SW of Tacloban, Leyte at 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/11.1154/124.8905


If anyone notices the half fixed geometry do not think this is 
vanadalsim, or poor editing, it will be fixed.


Regards

David


On 14/02/2016 13:53, maning sambale wrote:

Agree with Eugene. There are other who mapped riceland as meadows and
should be fixed as well: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/489780

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar 
<sea...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with changes 2 and 3. For #1, I think it should be
landuse=farmland instead of meadow. Rice fields are far from being
meadows.

On 2/14/16, David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net> wrote:
While looking at existing tagging of landuse areas in Leyte I have 
come

across a number which do not seem to fit the tagging structure on the
main OSM wiki, and I cant see anything in the Philippines/Mapping
conventions  which contradicts the main OSM wiki (except that under
agricultural landuse the tag landuse = farm is suggested whereas this
seems to have been deprecated in favour of landuse = farmland  -  
maybe

the Phillipine / mapping conventions page is out of date?)

An example of some of the current tagging can be seen here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/11.1121/124.8899

I would like to change the following:

1) Areas currently tagged landuse = meadow; name = Ricefield   - 
change

to landuse = meadow; crop=rice [1]
2) Areas currently tagged landuse = farmland; name = Coco Land   -
change to landuse = orchard;  trees = coconut_palms [2]
3) Areas currently tagged landuse = orchard; crop = coconut - 
change to

landuse = orchard;  trees = coconut_palms [2]

Are these 3 changes acceptable?

My one slight discomfort is that I dont like the way crop = rice is
rendered on the map, but then we should't be tagging for the 
rennderers

anyway!

Regards

David

[1]  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crop
[2]  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trees

___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph


___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph






___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph



___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Various farmed landuses

[David Groom]

Its now been one month with no major objections to my proopesed cnages, 
so I have made them, but with the suggestion made by Eugene.


However the exisiting geometry of the landuse polygons is very messy, 
with many overlapping ways.  I am fixing these, but with over 230 ways 
to fix I wont able to do this all in one editing session, and probably 
not even all in one day.


The affected area is SW of Tacloban, Leyte at 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/11.1154/124.8905


If anyone notices the half fixed geometry do not think this is 
vanadalsim, or poor editing, it will be fixed.


Regards

David


On 14/02/2016 13:53, maning sambale wrote:

Agree with Eugene. There are other who mapped riceland as meadows and
should be fixed as well: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/489780

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar <sea...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with changes 2 and 3. For #1, I think it should be
landuse=farmland instead of meadow. Rice fields are far from being
meadows.

On 2/14/16, David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net> wrote:

While looking at existing tagging of landuse areas in Leyte I have come
across a number which do not seem to fit the tagging structure on the
main OSM wiki, and I cant see anything in the Philippines/Mapping
conventions  which contradicts the main OSM wiki (except that under
agricultural landuse the tag landuse = farm is suggested whereas this
seems to have been deprecated in favour of landuse = farmland  -  maybe
the Phillipine / mapping conventions page is out of date?)

An example of some of the current tagging can be seen here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/11.1121/124.8899

I would like to change the following:

1) Areas currently tagged landuse = meadow; name = Ricefield   - change
to landuse = meadow; crop=rice [1]
2) Areas currently tagged landuse = farmland; name = Coco Land   -
change to landuse = orchard;  trees = coconut_palms [2]
3) Areas currently tagged landuse = orchard; crop = coconut  - change to
landuse = orchard;  trees = coconut_palms [2]

Are these 3 changes acceptable?

My one slight discomfort is that I dont like the way crop = rice is
rendered on the map, but then we should't be tagging for the rennderers
anyway!

Regards

David

[1]  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crop
[2]  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trees

___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph


___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph






___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Various farmed landuses

[David Groom]

My only reason for choosing landuse=meadow rather than landuse=farmland 
was to change as few tags as possible, though I think I agree with you 
and prefer landuse=farmland


David


On 14/02/2016 13:25, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:

I agree with changes 2 and 3. For #1, I think it should be
landuse=farmland instead of meadow. Rice fields are far from being
meadows.

On 2/14/16, David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net> wrote:

While looking at existing tagging of landuse areas in Leyte I have come
across a number which do not seem to fit the tagging structure on the
main OSM wiki, and I cant see anything in the Philippines/Mapping
conventions  which contradicts the main OSM wiki (except that under
agricultural landuse the tag landuse = farm is suggested whereas this
seems to have been deprecated in favour of landuse = farmland  -  maybe
the Phillipine / mapping conventions page is out of date?)

An example of some of the current tagging can be seen here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/11.1121/124.8899

I would like to change the following:

1) Areas currently tagged landuse = meadow; name = Ricefield   - change
to landuse = meadow; crop=rice [1]
2) Areas currently tagged landuse = farmland; name = Coco Land   -
change to landuse = orchard;  trees = coconut_palms [2]
3) Areas currently tagged landuse = orchard; crop = coconut  - change to
landuse = orchard;  trees = coconut_palms [2]

Are these 3 changes acceptable?

My one slight discomfort is that I dont like the way crop = rice is
rendered on the map, but then we should't be tagging for the rennderers
anyway!

Regards

David

[1]  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crop
[2]  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trees

___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph




___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Coastlines - was Forest landcover

[David Groom]

Eugene

the coastline ways which I am improving seem to derive from an import of 
IFSAR 2012 data (See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33871982)


So these are after the 2010 mini project to improve the coaastline

David


>As for the saw-tooth coastlines, I'm actually surprised they still
>exist to a large degree since we did a mini-project back in 2010 to
>improve those coastlines:
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Coastline_corrections
>
>~Eugene

___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Coastlines - was Forest landcover

[David Groom]

>Might be good to probe more.  Can you give me sample changesets so I
>can ask around.

As far as I can see its https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33871982


___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Forest landcover

[David Groom]

Hi

Firstly let me introduce myself, I'm based in the UK.  I've been involed 
with OSM pretty much from the start, (I attended the first ever mapping 
party), was responsible for a large part of the original worldwide 
coastline import,  spent a lot of time fixing coastline errors, did most 
of the original mapping of Baghdad from Bing & Yahoo imagery, and have 
done of lot of other mappng from imagery worldwide, as well as mapping 
from my own GPX tracks here in th UK and wherever I vacation.


I have recently started mapping parts of Leyte. Initially focusing on 
some of the smaller scale mapping ( tracing builings etc) .


I then noticed that some areas of coastline on the west of the island 
needed updating from imagery since it had the typical "saw-tooth" effect 
resulting from imports of coastline data. so have been working on that.  
I'm not finished yet!


Anyway, the purpose of my post to the list is to ask about landuse = 
forest areas.  If you look at the central part of Leyte some large areas 
have been mapped and tagged for the forest, but :


(1) these seem to have arbitary boundaries (long strainght lines where 
the areas simply have not been accuarely mapped to any natural feature)


(2) The areas so far mapped with tree cover (either "natural = wood", or 
"landuse = forest" represent a smnall proportion of the actual forest 
cover on the island.


My question is, is it OK if as I map other things I extend the tree 
cover areas .  This may result in a large part of Leyte "turning green" 
on the map.


Regards

David Groom

___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com

To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=



Arg! We were converging on prow_ref when I last looked at tag info a few
months back. Perhaps I should have checked before changing the wiki!!

Seeing that I have now updated the wiki (and it really doesn't make a 
shred

of difference) does anyone have an issue if I change the existing
prow:ref s to prow_ref whilst we are still at low numbers of these 
tags?



Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a few 
hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of prow:ref, 
I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the wiki) would have 
been the better option.


David


Rob








___
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: [OSM-legal-talk] Data consumer use cases

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net

To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 3:43 PM
Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Data consumer use cases




Goal-oriented wiki page, first draft:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases

Some points deliberately simplified for readability. CC welcome.


In case 2 I'm slightly concerned about the ambiguity of the phrase If you 
just use the OSM database, particularly in view of the other use cases 3  
4 which talk about mixing OSM data with other data.


I believe there could be a misinterpretation that If you just use the OSM 
database  means if you don't add anything to OSM data.


Regards

David




As I was going through all the ways one might make a derivative database, 
it struck me that there's an obvious way of dodging this - to put whatever 
information you want to display into OSM first. I found the bulk import 
guidelines, but nothing really on what kinds of business data might be 
desirable/undesirable in OSM. Is there anything anywhere that gives 
examples of things we wouldn't want - like marketing slogans and product 
descriptions in place names, for example?


Jonathan.

--
Dr Jonathan Harley   :Managing Director:   SpiffyMap Ltd

m...@spiffymap.com  Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com
The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk





___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] importing ODBl data

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com

To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:32 AM
Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] importing ODBl data



Hi there,

I have a question about imports and the ODBl,

I see that some sources have decided to dual license the data
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue

But how can some third parties data be compatible when the CT says it
can change any time, surly they might be compatible with the current
instance of the license, but how can they be compatible with future
versions of the license when they are no known?



I think the answer to your question is covered by the clarification on 
license compatibility  issued by the LWG on 19 July 2011 [1]


The intent of the Contributor Terms as regards contributions that come from 
or are derived from third parties is:


1) To ask the contributor to be *reasonably* certain that such data can be 
distributed under the specific specific licenses, as explicitly listed in 
clause 3 of the contributor terms:  CC-BY-SA 2.0 and ODbL 1.0. 
Should the license change in the future, continued distribution 
of some data that comes from or is derived from third parties may no longer 
be possible. If this happens, it will have to be removed. This will be the 
responsibility of OSMF.


Should the licence change to something other than CC-BY-SA 2.0 or ODbL 1.0, 
OSMF have guaranteed that they will identify and remove any data 
incompatible with that licence.


Incidentally, I believe that the burden OSMF have imposed upon themselves 
makes it almost certain that no other licence than CC-BY-SA 2.0 or ODbL 1.0 
would ever be used.


David

[1] 
https://docs.google.com/document/preview?id=1-sm2NCRPBKQnb3dn8CFORi5RNE_JpdG02rwYVjLJppIpli=1



How can a contributor import any data and keep the data open to
license change? How can you keep any imports at all from people who
have not agreed to the CT directly?

thanks
mike

--
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion 
http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com

Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org
Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3





___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines proposal update

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net

To: sly (sylvain letuffe) li...@letuffe.org
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines proposal update



On 19/09/12 at 16:24 +0200, sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote:

Hi,

I've read the rather long thread Import guidelines  OSMF/DWG 
governance and

  ^^
Note that the use of the term guidelines is problematic by itself.
Either they are *guidelines*, that is, things that people SHOULD follow,
but it's OK (but not recommended) not to follow them.
Or they are *rules*, that is, things that people MUST follow.



Yes , except for the fact that some of the parts of that part do seem to 
relate to guidelines, Therefore I suggest :


1) Page Title  Import/Guidelines this should be changed to 
Import/Guidelines and Mandatory Requirements


2) Opening sentences be reworded.  The current use of phrases such as there 
are few hard and fast rules, all this is open to discussion could suggest 
that the text on the rest of the page are mere suggestions, rather than hard 
and fast rules.


3) be clear on the page which bits are guidance and which bits are 
mandatory requirements


David

If the DWG blocks accounts based on *guidelines*, I think that they 
should

be renamed to *rules*.

Lucas

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









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

[OSM-talk] Mapnik coastline layer

[David Groom]

Just wondering if it might be time for the mapnik coastline files to be 
updated.  It seems over two months since this was last done.


The number of coastline errors each day is now small.

The only reason I can see for not updating is that the redaction bot may 
have reduced the accuracy of the coastline ways, but its going to be easier 
to identify this if the tiles are generated using  a post- redaction 
coastline file


David 




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

Re: [talk-au] redaction cleanup - unusual water feature

[David Groom]

As others have said , I'd re-use the existing nodes.

I'd probably tag this as natural = water

David 
 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Chris Barham 
  To: talk-au 
  Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 7:21 PM
  Subject: [talk-au] redaction cleanup - unusual water feature


  Hi,
  I'm working on the post redaction checks from the rebuild server at 
http://rebuild.poole.ch/job/29


  And I'm a bit confused by this: http://osm.org/go/ueHoaPP9--


  If you look at Bing imagery for this location it is composed of some sort of 
inland harbour/marina/coastline/water feature which had previously been mapped 
(rather elegantly too by the look of it), from Nearmap as source.  Post 
redaction there are the outline nodes left,and I'm was wondering how to go 
about reinstating this coastline/water?  Join up the existing nodes?  Start 
again?  What tags?


  Cheers,
  Chas




--


  ___
  Talk-au mailing list
  Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[Talk-GB] Potential Vandalism - AGAIN

[David Groom]

islandmonkey seems to have been at it again

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12772095

which just seems to consist of mass deletions, including deleted coastline, and 
no meaningful changeset comment

I also note 4 other changesets by him / her today

Can we get this reverted and block his account




David


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk] Coastline generation resumed

[David Groom]

And thanks to you Paul for the data files in the first place.

Also I wouldn't want the impression I'm the only one fixing coastline errors, 
so thanks to the rest of you as well.

Just to be clear the error points layer is automatically updated from Paul's 
files.  The other error layers require manual generation so may only get done 
once a day.

Also due to the number of error points the map current won't display in some 
(maybe all) versions of IE, but is OK in Firefox  Chrome.  I can't be bothered 
to fix this, as the number of error points is falling daily, and so it won't be 
an issue in a while.

David
 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Paul Norman 
  To: 'osm-talk' 
  Cc: David Groom 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 6:42 AM
  Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] Coastline generation resumed


  Minor update: I am now running three times a day. Exact upload times depend
  on runtime which is largely a factor of dev server speed. Errors points are
  definitely going down. Many thanks for David Groom for both hosting the
  visualization and for often fixing errors before I can get to them, even
  though I know when my runs finish.

   From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com]
   Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 11:55 PM
   To: 'osm-talk'
   Subject: [OSM-talk] Coastline generation resumed
   
   I have resumed my daily generation of coastline files. These are
   generated with the coastcheck program[1] from my jxapi database starting
   at 5 AM pacific time. They take 3-4 hours to generate and upload,
   depending on my internet speed at the time.
   
   The completed files are uploaded to
   http://pnorman.dev.openstreetmap.org/coastlines/
   
   If opening these shapefiles in QGIS be sure to create a spatial index
   for tolerable performance.
   
   There is a visualization of errors at http://www.wightpaths.co.uk/coast/
   
   Many of the errors appear to be short errors between ways that became
   disconnected. More complicated errors are often best fixed by deleting
   the bad coastline and retracing.
   
   [1]: http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/utils/coastcheck/


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

Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com

To: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road



On 19 June 2012 14:07, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:


David Groom wrote:
 However at the north end there is a (newly erected) public footpath
 sign showing a footpath ref of B64, pointing straight down this road,
 and the definitive map shows this as a footpath.

I use admin:ref for refs that are predominantly intended for
administrative usage, rather than public-facing usage.


Now that sounds like tagging for the renderer.

The problem in the stated case, is that there is potentially a footpath 
ref

and a road ref.
I would want to suggest something like footpath:ref=B64 or prow:ref=B64,
but I don't think either is used or documented anywhere.



Thanks everyone for the comments

I like the idea of prow:ref. I think footpath:ref a bit too specific, we'd 
then need bridleway:ref, not to mention boat:ref (for byways open to all 
traffic) which could be just TOO confusing!


I've also found one instance of  where the problem mentioned by Andy, of a 
way needing both a road ref and a prow ref, see 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28919456 which currently is tagged 
ref = A49;Cuddington FP 24


Certainly here on the Isle of Wight, I think the use of the reference number 
has gone beyond just administrative purposes.  A large majority of the 
footpath/bridleway signs have the ref on them (and I think all the more 
recent ones do).  Walking guides and trail leaflets commonly refer to paths 
by using their reference number.


In the UK at present there seem to be 7,004 ways tagged with designation =* 
and ref = *, of which 941 are on the Isle of Wight. I'd be quite confident 
about changing the relevant Isle Of Wight ways to prow:ref , but would not 
want to mass change all the UK ones.


It would be good to hear comments from user mikh43, and Robert Whittaker, as 
the three of us account for 80% of the users who last edited those 7004 ways


Regards

David



Gregory
o...@livingwithdragons.com
http://www.livingwithdragons.com








___
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] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road

[David Groom]

Longwood Lane  when driving a car along it looks pretty much like a normal 
highway, although it is rather narrow.  It has an asphalt surface, and when 
turning in from the north, or south there is nothing to show there is 
anything special about this road at all from a vehicles point of view.


However at the north end there is a (newly erected) public footpath sign 
showing a footpath ref of B64, pointing straight down this road, and the 
definitive map shows this as a footpath.


Currently I've tagged this way as follows:

highway = unclassified
designation = public_footpath
ref = B64
name =  Longwood Lane

The problem is that the map now displays the ref, as if it were a road 
ref, whilst no other footpath refs get shown


http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.664715lon=-1.168427zoom=15layers=M 
. (see laso B33a and NC45a to the WNW of B64)


Is this:

a) Not a problem at all;
b) simply a problem for the rendering, and no change to the tagging is 
required;

c) a possible problem with the tagging?


David 




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-ca] Coastline rendering problems, Richelieu River

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Pierre Béland infosbelas-...@yahoo.fr

To: talk-ca talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 11:27 PM
Subject: [Talk-ca] Coastline rendering problems, Richelieu River


There are also Coastline rendering problems on the Richelieu river around
Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Chambly. The OSM history changesets list 
shows

many Non-ct data remove and recreate operations in the area done by user
PurpleMustang recently.

In Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, to correct the situation, I redrawed part of
the riverbank who was simply deleted.

In Carignan, Ile Ste-Marie is still flooded. There is no riverbank 
relation

and I dont know if it has simply been deleted.

In Chambly, the river enlarges. There are two river that connect to the
basin and island around extremity of these two rivers. There is a relation
that was probably containing all the riverbanks roles (outer and inner). 
But

the relation 305614 only contains to inner roles representing two islands.

In south-east part of Chambly Basin, there is a point and islands on the
east riverbank facing Fort de Chambly. The two islands included in the
relation are rendered as lake and the water as land.
see
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.45798lon=-73.26392zoom=15layers=Mrelation=305614

Just
on the right, there is the Huron river coming in. The polygon
representing the part of the riverbank that join the Richelieu River is
lost. And there is way waterway=river for this river. This means that
the flow of water in the river is not indicated an no river name can be
showed on the map.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.46277lon=-73.25257zoom=16layers=Mrelation=1775822

Part of the Huron riverbank joining into the Richelieu near the point as
simply vanished.
see
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.45798lon=-73.26392zoom=15layers=Mway=120716933

The riverbank around the basin is not included in the relation. This way 
is
also improperly traced on the point facing Fort Chambly. It should be 
closer

to the shore and not going around the tw islands.
see
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.45798lon=-73.26392zoom=15layers=Mway=164251774

On this last image of the Basin, we see on top four islands for wich I
cannot find the coastlines.Ile Goyer, Ile Demers, Ile-aux-Lièvres,
Ile-aux-foins riverbanks have disappeared.North of these islands, the
Riviere L'Acadie is joining Richelieu River. The junction of the two 
rivers

is improperly traced. Polygons 24346195 (Riviere L'Acadie riverbank) and
164254015 (Riviere Richelieu) simply do not join.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.47204lon=-73.2869zoom=15layers=Mrelation=1775822

I have to conclude again that these rendering problems are caused by
improper definition of coastlines and riverbanks.



I'm not sure coastlines are the current issue here. As you yourself have 
pointed out there are missing ways, and ways drawn which do not meet the 
full extent of the water area, and ways which are not included in the 
relation.


I've tried to fix as much as I can

David



In JOSM, we can see what the riverbank should look like using Geobase
Imagery.
wms:http://ows.geobase.ca/wms/geobase_en?service=wmsrequest=GetMapversion=1.1.1SRS=EPSG:4326style=format=image/pngtransparent=truelayers=nhn:hydrography,nhn:networkWIDTH={width}height={height}BBOX={bbox};



Pierre




___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Response from Hampshire County Council

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com

To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Response from Hampshire County Council



2012/6/11 Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk:

In answer to the queries below, the data is free to use as is the OS

open data on their website.
...

So in short, we believe the RoW data can be incorporated into
OpenStreetmap as long as acknowledgement and copyright is shown from
where it came and how can be used




So in summary it appears that the OS gave HCC specific permission to use
this, and I'm guessing it's OK to use in OSM, but I am not in any sense 
of

the word a legal expert so, what are people's opinions on this?



I am not a legal expert either, but their statements above seem clear
to me: if OS data is compatible with CT/ODBL also the HCC data should
be compatible.



Except that the OS OpenData licence is NOT compatible with the CT / ODbL. 
Which is why the LWG needed to get specific agreement from the OS last 
summer that OS OpenData could be used in OSM [1].


So it might be valid to ask, does the agreement from the OS last summer now 
cover the HCC ( and presumably Cambridgeshire data).?, and looking into the 
wording of [1] I cant see anything which would definitely say it is.  But we 
don't know the exact wording of the exemption, whereas the contact in HCC 
obviously does, and it could well be that the wording of the exemption 
taken together with the agreement between OSM  OS would allow use of HCC 
data


However we also seem to have a very clear statement from HCC we believe the 
RoW data can be incorporated into OpenStreetMap .


I think the best that can be said is that we cant be 100% sure of the legal 
position, but that we have been led to believe by HCC that we can use that 
data.  So I guess we should be able to rely on that statement alone, and not 
try and justify it on any other grounds.


The problem is of course that we may now find ourselves having to ask for 
clarification from any other local authority which releases such data, since 
I cant see the statement by HCC being binding on other local authorities.


Regards

David

[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.region.gb/6516

cheers,
Martin

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk





___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Response from Hampshire County Council

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net

To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Response from Hampshire County Council



On 11/06/12 17:16, David Groom wrote:
- Original Message - From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
dieterdre...@gmail.com
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. 
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org

Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Response from Hampshire County Council



2012/6/11 Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk:

In answer to the queries below, the data is free to use as is the OS

open data on their website.
...

So in short, we believe the RoW data can be incorporated into
OpenStreetmap as long as acknowledgement and copyright is shown from
where it came and how can be used



So in summary it appears that the OS gave HCC specific permission to 
use
this, and I'm guessing it's OK to use in OSM, but I am not in any sense 
of

the word a legal expert so, what are people's opinions on this?



I am not a legal expert either, but their statements above seem clear
to me: if OS data is compatible with CT/ODBL also the HCC data should
be compatible.



Except that the OS OpenData licence is NOT compatible with the CT / ODbL. 
Which is why the LWG needed to get specific agreement from the OS last 
summer that OS OpenData could be used in OSM [1].


That is not true. LWG did not get 'specific agreement' from OS. We are 
simply using OS OpenData in compliance with the OS OpenData licence and OS 
confirmed:


The Ordnance Survey has no objections to geodata derived in part from OS 
OpenData being released under the Open Database License 1.0.


This is not a special or specific agreement. If there was special 
permission there would be something in writing to the effect We (OS) 
grant You (OSM) permission   or somesuch and this does not exist. We 
are simply using the the OS OpenData under their licence and OS confirmed 
that that is acceptable.


--

I could equally reply that:

If OS had wanted to confirm that the OS OpenData licence and ODbL were 
compatible then they would have said something in writing to the effect  'We 
(OS) believe that data released under the OS OpenData licence is compatible 
with ODbL' or somesuch, and this does not exist.  What their statement does, 
is grant additional rights to OS OpenData so that it can be used under 
ODbL.


One of the problems is that all that has been made public is the phrase has 
no objections to geodata derived in part from OS OpenData being released 
under the Open Database License 1.0. [1], which is obviously taken from a 
larger document, and in the context of other non-disclosed correspondence.


I still believe my interpretation is the correct one to be drawn from the 
short quote above, but would concede that it is possible that Chris' 
interpretation could have been meant.


Regards

David

[1]  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.region.gb/6516


Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk





___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Response from Hampshire County Council

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net

To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Response from Hampshire County Council



On 11/06/12 17:16, David Groom wrote:
- Original Message - From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
dieterdre...@gmail.com
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. 
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org

Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Response from Hampshire County Council



2012/6/11 Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk:

In answer to the queries below, the data is free to use as is the OS

open data on their website.
...

So in short, we believe the RoW data can be incorporated into
OpenStreetmap as long as acknowledgement and copyright is shown from
where it came and how can be used



So in summary it appears that the OS gave HCC specific permission to 
use
this, and I'm guessing it's OK to use in OSM, but I am not in any sense 
of

the word a legal expert so, what are people's opinions on this?



I am not a legal expert either, but their statements above seem clear
to me: if OS data is compatible with CT/ODBL also the HCC data should
be compatible.



Except that the OS OpenData licence is NOT compatible with the CT / ODbL. 
Which is why the LWG needed to get specific agreement from the OS last 
summer that OS OpenData could be used in OSM [1].


That is not true. LWG did not get 'specific agreement' from OS. We are 
simply using OS OpenData in compliance with the OS OpenData licence and OS 
confirmed:


The Ordnance Survey has no objections to geodata derived in part from OS 
OpenData being released under the Open Database License 1.0.


This is not a special or specific agreement. If there was special 
permission there would be something in writing to the effect We (OS) 
grant You (OSM) permission   or somesuch and this does not exist. We 
are simply using the the OS OpenData under their licence and OS confirmed 
that that is acceptable.


--


Oh dear.  Embarrassingly I realise my email at 17:16 was not quite what I 
had intended to write.  My second sentance Which is why the LWG needed to 
get specific agreement from the OS last
summer that OS OpenData could be used in OSM, should have been Which is 
why the LWG needed to get specific agreement from the OS last summer that OS 
OpenData could be used under the ODbL and therefore used in OSM.


So essentially what I was saying was that I believe the statement in [1] 
grants additional rights (to those contained in the OS  OpenData licence), 
so that OpenData can be used under ODbL, whereas Chilly seems to be saying 
the statement in [1] means the OS has said data released under OS OpenData 
licence is compatible with ODbL.


Apologies if this was not clear.

David

[1 ] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.region.gb/6516

Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk





___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OSOpenData licence

[David Groom]

On talk-gb Nick Whiteleg recently announced what  initially seemed to be 
some good news , that Hampshire County Council have released their Rights of 
Way data under the OS OpenData licence.


However, my initial thoughts, and those of Robert Whittaker, was that this 
might not seem as good news as at first appeared, because the OS OpenData is 
not compatible with ODbL, and OSM had to seem explicit permission from OS 
for the use of their data to be covered by OSM's  ODbL licence.  Since this 
explicit agreement only covered the OS products, it seemed to be, and 
Robert, that this could not be extended to the Hampshire County Council 
(HCC)  Rights of Way (ROW) data.


I did have one further thought, which was that I could not see how HC ROW 
data could be released under the OS OpenData (OSOD) licence, since the OSOD 
licence is quite explicit in that in covers   use of OS OpenData made 
available at https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/opendatadownload/products.html 
and at http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ , and its difficult to see how 
this could cover HCC data.


However I am now wondering if the statement on HCC web site [1] The data 
has been published as Open Data under the Ordnance Survey Open Data 
Licence. is in fact a slightly badly worded statement.


A possible scenario which occurs to me is as follows:

HCC used OS Opendata to derive the HSS ROW data.  By this I mean that HCC 
used the OS VectorMapDistrict rasters, over which they then drew the ROW 
data which HCC had from their definitive statements.


By doing this HCC were bound by the terms of the OSOD licence.

When HCC state The data has been published as Open Data under the Ordnance 
Survey Open Data Licence  I wonder what they actually mean is something 
along the lines of  The data has been published as Open Data with the 
additional provisions required under the Ordnance Survey Open Data Licence.


If this scenario is correct, then it would seem to me that the data is OK to 
use in OSM. But it would need clarification from HCC that this is what they 
meant.


David


[1] 
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/communications/mediacentre/mediareleases.htm?newsid=534104







___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk

To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS 
OpenData licence




On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 13:29 +0100, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

Hence, unfortunately, I don't think we can use the Hampshire data
(going forward under ODbL) unless we get explicit permission from the
copyright holders. For the maps, this would presumably mean both the
council and OS. It's a real pain that OS felt it necessary to fork the
Open Government License. :-(

Any other opinions on this or is this definite? The guy I've been in 
contact with at Hants CC was giving the impression it was OK, I could ask 
him explicitly if that's any help.


Nick

I have to admit that as soon as I read your  first email, I had excatly the 
same concerns as Robert Whittaker.





While HCC could theoretically include any odd request they like in their
licence (all members of your organisation must dance the fandango every
Friday?) I can't see that they'd want us to enforce attribution of a
third party for any other reason than to satisfy licence conditions
imposed on them. Since the OS has already given us the green light to
include OS OpenData in ODbL then I don't see this as a problem.


However OS OpenData specifically excludes Rights Of Way  information.  So it 
would be difficult to draw any inference from the prior agreement between OS 
 OSM as to how that might apply to ROW data from HCC.


In effect you seem to be saying that since we have an agreement to use some 
specific OS data under the terms agreed between OS  OSM, then we have 
permission to use any OS data under that agreement.



David



If the
terms stated that we had to enforce attribution of HCC too I'd be more
concerned.

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] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OSOpenData licence

[David Groom]

I've had some additional thoughts on this, but will now be discussing these 
on legal talk rather than here


David 




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attributing Sources used in OSM

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com

To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 9:08 AM
Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Attributing Sources used in OSM



I've just been given permission to use some UK Local Government data
relating to Public Footpaths and other Rights of Way in OpenStreetMap,
under the terms of the Open Government License (OGL) [1]. In return
the County Council is asking for a standard attribution based on the
example given in the license. So far, so good.

Assuming that local mappers agree if and how we make use of the data
(ongoing discussion on the talk-gb lists), can I check that the right
place to put this attribution would be in the wiki at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors ?

Secondly, if that's the case, then surely there needs to be an obvious
way to reach that page from the main OSM page. From
http://www.openstreetmap.org/ , I can easily get to
http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright by following the Copyright 
License link in the left-hand bar. But, unless I'm missing something,
the trail then runs cold. That page contains a few attribution
statements / acknowledgements for major data providers, but I'd have
thought it should also link to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors for further detail and
additional statements. Should a link along the lines or For further
details about these and other sources used to compile the map, please
see ... be added just below the bulleted list of countries near the
bottom of http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright ?


That would seem a good first step.

It does of course leave open the question as to why some data providers are 
listed on the copyright page, and others on the contributors page.  I'm 
not sure if this is deliberate, or just the nature of different people 
editing the wiki and putting things in different places.


David




(Ok, so you can get to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors
from the main page by clicking Documentation on the main OSM page,
and then Contributors from the left-hand bar of the wiki. But given
the presence of the Copyright  License on the main page, and the
attribution statements contained at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright , I don't think a reasonable
person would consider looking anywhere else for additional
attributions.)

Thanks,

Robert.

[1] http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/

--
Robert Whittaker

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk





___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Have you contacted a UK local authority in regards to Rights of Way?

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk

To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Have you contacted a UK local authority in regards to 
Rights of Way?




On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 16:22 +, rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:

The second of a few emails from me today (apologies)!

As part of the Public Rights of Way work I have added a table of all the
English surveying authorities responsible for maintaining the 
Definitive

Map and Statement, to the wiki:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_local_councils

Please use this table to add details on council map services (free or
otherwise - there are clear copyright warnings on this wiki page), and 
also

email here if you have previously contacted a council in regards to
releasing the Def Statement under the OGL licence. I will then work 
through

all remaining councils over the coming months.


I contacted Hampshire County Council last week but haven't had a
response yet.


Is there a standard letter we are using to ask for this information?

David



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: [OSM-talk] Islands that will vanish in the license change

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com

To: OSM Talk talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 7:14 AM
Subject: [OSM-talk] Islands that will vanish in the license change



Thanks to Paul Norman's efforts and visualizations based on it[1],


I've now added  to the CT-only coastline error checker map [1] my estimation 
of island ways which might be at risk of deletion.  I've tried to identify 
all ways taged with natural = coastline, created by someone who has not 
agreed to the CT's, and which are not marked odbl=clean .


I'm afraid that dispalying this number of points has impacted performance 
when viewing the map in IE.


As Toby reported, most of the problematic ways are around Australia.

(Note that although the island points layer is based on this mornings' 
data, other error layers are based on data from 19 April)


David


there has been a lot of activity in remapping coastlines lately and a
lot of improvement. However one loophole that Paul's method does not
detect is islands that will have their coastlines vanish completely. I
decided to take a look at this tonight. So far I have come up with a
pretty hackish way of looking at things... but I think it might still
be of use.

I downloaded all natural=coastline ways from my jxapi. Then I split
the world into 4 parts to make them small enough for me to open in
JOSM. Then I selected all objects that were last touched by an
accepting user and purged them from the data set. What is left is all
ways that were last touched by a decliner. Some of these are actually
OK from a license standpoint. Maybe the decliner just deleted a tag or
added some nodes in the middle of a way which will obviously distort
the geometry but the coastline topology will remain intact so they
don't show up in Paul's files. Also, some things that I purged may
still be heavily impacted or even completely removed by the license
change if they were created by a decliner but last touched by someone
else. So it isn't perfect.

The south/west quadrant of the world is actually pretty much good to
go. I already fixed a few islands. The north/west one is still a
little large so I may have to do some more tinkering there. The one I
have ready to go right now is south/east (Australia) and I saw this
topic come up in the talk-au archives a few days ago so I thought I
would go ahead and share. Perhaps someone who is subscribed to talk-au
can forward this?

What I have is a ~10MB .osm file containing 537 ways (plus some stray
nodes that should just be ignored):
http://ni.kwsn.net/~toby/OSM/coastline_SE_bad.osm.gz
This file covers from the equator to the south pole and from 0 to 180
longitude so it is more than Just Australia although that is the most
impacted area.

The way to use this would be to download it and open it in JOSM. Then
do a type:way search and run the license plugin on that. Then just
look for the big red blobs. DO NOT use this layer to edit and upload
or terrible things are likely to happen. Use it only as a guide to
find trouble spots. I set the upload=false flag in the file so JOSM
should be very clear about this if you try to upload from this layer.

So download a problem area to a new layer and replace dirty coastlines
to your heart's content. The biggest blob of red is on the northeast
side of Australia. Some of them are random rocks along the coastline
that cover a few square meters. Some are large islands. Unfortunately
it looks like Bing isn't good enough to retrace some of these but I'm
hoping the locals may have other sources.

Enjoy,
Toby


[1] http://www.wightpaths.co.uk/coast/CT-only.php

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





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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Signing of Contributor Terms

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com

To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 3:14 PM
Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Signing of Contributor Terms



Hi All,

Would it be possible to have someone sign the contributor terms rather
than login to accept them?

If I understand things correctly if I am talking to a data provider
who has released their data ODbL they would still need to accept the
contributor terms to allow the relicensing of the data at some point?
Is this correct?



I don't think it is correct.  Contributor terms relate, as the name 
suggests, to contributors.  What you seem to be requiring is a more 
liberal form of the licence, for the initial data, than ODbL.


If the data provider were to accept the CT's then that would apply for all 
edits made by that user directly into OSM.  It does not have any impact of 
the licensability of data which they supply, but don't themselves enter 
into OSM.


If you want other OSM contributors to be able to upload the data, and there 
to be no danger of that data having to be removed of OSM licence ever 
changes in the future, then the underlying data has to be in a CT compatible 
licence.


I would have thought all that is necessary is for the data provider to agree 
to release the data to OSM contibutors under ODbl, CC-BY-SA 2.0, and any 
such other free and open licence as defined by OSM contibutor terms clase 
3.


David



To follow in the import guidelines better I think rather than having
them login and dump the data into OSM it would be better to have a
copy of the contributor terms to be signed for that data set.  With
governments giving them an actual physical document would likely be
the easiest. Then the OpenStreetMap community could decide what to do
with that data since it would be licensed appropriately and have
contributor terms associated with it.

Best,

-Kate

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk





___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [talk-au] How to fix the coastlines?

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com

To: Simon Poole si...@poole.ch
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] How to fix the coastlines?



Ok, is there someone with JOSM expertise that can actually do this?



I took a  slightly different approach, and there are still a few bugs left 
to iron out, but a first analysis of soon to be missing islands can be 
seen here. Green point represents a node on an island


http://www.wightpaths.co.uk/coast/CT-only.php?zoom=5lat=-24.77957lon=136.15304layers=BT

As I said I do need to iron out a few bugs, as the current visualisation 
misses a number of islands that will be deleted.


Also as creating the error points is fairly intensive, I'm not sure how 
often I'll be able to update it.


Regards

David



Steve

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:


Maybe of interest
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2012-April/062753.html




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au





___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] How to fix the coastlines?

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net

To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] How to fix the coastlines?





- Original Message - 
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com

To: Simon Poole si...@poole.ch
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] How to fix the coastlines?



Ok, is there someone with JOSM expertise that can actually do this?



I took a  slightly different approach, and there are still a few bugs left 
to iron out, but a first analysis of soon to be missing islands can be 
seen here. Green point represents a node on an island


http://www.wightpaths.co.uk/coast/CT-only.php?zoom=5lat=-24.77957lon=136.15304layers=BT

As I said I do need to iron out a few bugs, as the current visualisation 
misses a number of islands that will be deleted.





I've fixed a few things and I believe the current view shows a more accurate 
state of affairs


David


Also as creating the error points is fairly intensive, I'm not sure how 
often I'll be able to update it.


Regards

David



Steve

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:


Maybe of interest
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2012-April/062753.html





___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] How to fix the coastlines?

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com

To: Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 3:53 AM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] How to fix the coastlines?



A week or so ago there were a group of people working intent on filling
coastline gaps.

Perhaps another appeal to the wider community to help in the remaining
sections?


The situation has improved greatly over the last week, see 
http://www.wightpaths.co.uk/coast/CT-only.php?zoom=4lat=-24.29986lon=130.70382layers=B 
using data from early on 11 April.


I also suspect that the next update to the error map, (expected around 17:00 
GMT 12 April), will show further improvement.


However what this map cant show is islands whih are going to be deleted 
completely.


Regards

David




Ian
On Apr 12, 2012 6:06 AM, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote:


Quoting Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:

  So given that large slabs of coastline are about to be deleted -

what exactly are we going to do about them? Are there any sources of
data we can use? Does anyone have the skills and tools to import them?



Is it too early to upload the replacement ABS boundaries? Once this is 
in,

in areas where coastline has vanished we could use these boundaries for a
coastline, pending better surveys or imports. We can also repair state
borders with these boundaries.

Mark P.



__**_
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-auhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au










___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au





___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-talk] Coastline Update

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com

To: Paul Norman penor...@mac.com
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Coastline Update



On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:

There are no significant multi-square flooded or dry areas. The following
areas have significant number of error points:

Pudget Sound in Washington State
The mouth of the Columbia river in Washington
The Eastern Australia coast


Speaking as an Eastern Australian coast dweller, what do we need to
do? What do the red spots in the map mean, and what do we need to do
about them?



Steve

What do the red dots mean?

the red dots represent where there is a possibility of a gap in gap in the 
OSM coastline ways following the deletion of data which is happening this 
weekend.  This gap could just be a few metres, or the dot could represent 
the start of a missing section of many 10's (or possibly 100's) of 
kilometres.


In order for Mapnik to render coastline correctly there needs to be a 
continuos line of coastline ways around all landmasses.  Any gaps in the 
coastline ways will lead to poor rendering.


What can we do about this ?

The missing sections in the coastline will need to be completed.  There are 
various ways this can be done.  In Australia there is the option of:


tracing from Bing or AGRI.
there is also the possibility of importing data.  I did offer on the talk-au 
[1] list to re-import PGS data  (relatively low quality), though I did ask 
whether it was better to delay and wait until someone had time to reimport 
ABS data


If you are going to add in any coastline data please be aware that the 
direction it is drawn is very important.  It must be drawn so that the sea 
is on the right hand side of the way.


Although it would be possible in the next few days to redraw some coastline 
using JOSM and store this off line ready to upload when the database comes 
back on line, my opinion is that it is better now to do nothing until the 
new database comes back on line in a few days.  I am sure that Paul Norman 
will then regenerate the shapefiles from which the reds dots are derived, 
and the error maps will be updated to show actual positions where coastline 
ways are then missing .


Regards

David

[1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2012-March/008957.html


Steve

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





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

Re: [OSM-talk] Coastline Update

[David Groom]

Paul

A big thank you for providing all of the data.

It has helped to greatly reduce the number of error points over the last 
week.


Regards

David

- Original Message - 
From: Paul Norman penor...@mac.com

To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 4:26 AM
Subject: [OSM-talk] Coastline Update



I have completed another coastline generation and it has uploaded. This
version respects odbl=clean.

The shapefiles are in their normal place at
http://pnorman.dev.openstreetmap.org/coastlines/

Included is a .osm file with all the error points.

An overview can be found at http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines2.png
Detailed views:
Great Lakes: http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-lakes2.png
Europe: http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-europe2.png
US West Coast: http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-west2.png
Australia: http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-au2.png

There are no significant multi-square flooded or dry areas. The following
areas have significant number of error points:

Pudget Sound in Washington State
The mouth of the Columbia river in Washington
The Eastern Australia coast


The points indicated by the maps and by processedc_p files are where
coastcheck encountered an error and had to guess where the coastline
continues. These should generally represent transitions between ODbL clean
and ODbL dirty sections of the coastline. Islands with no ODbL clean
sections will not generate any error points.

http://www.wightpaths.co.uk/coast/CT-only.php and
http://suncobalt.homeip.net:82/coastline.php are two visualizations of
errors but neither has yet updated to the new data.

I hope to complete one more run of the ODbL-clean coastlines before the
downtime.

During the downtime I will be running a set of ODbL-clean and conventional
coastlines (and a planet file).

If diffs are available during the rebuild process I will be generating 
them

then and reloading my database when the ODbL planet is published.

Technical details:
This new run takes into account odbl=clean. It may not correctly handle
1. Objects that are dirty via a changeset override
2. Objects that WTFE reported clean but are now dirty
3. Certain sequences of edits and tag additions that are not likely to 
occur

frequently with coastlines and which require access to a full history
database to evaluate

The data is from 7 AM PST and the ODbL status is slightly more recent.


___
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] Coastline Update

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk

To: 'Toby Murray' toby.mur...@gmail.com; talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Coastline Update



Toby wrote:


Assuming you used the data I supplied this morning, it is actually
from 12:30 AM CST last night when I started the jxapi query before
going to bed.

Also, it looks like http://www.wightpaths.co.uk/coast/CT-only.php
has
been updated with your new files since you sent your email.


Perhaps I don't understand what I'm looking for, but have checked
the 4 points on the Scottish coastlines indicated on the link above.
I can't see what is wrong with any of them. Some of the ways were
edited on the 24th March 2012 which I guess might have fixed
whatever the issue was, but if the data is from (consults timezones)
yesterday-ish then I'm not sure why they would still show. The
points seem to correspond with Paul's Europe png too.



I think the answer lies in the original comment from Paul [1]

This is somewhat more aggressive than the rebuild will be,

As far as I can tell the error points sometimes get displayed where there 
are what the JOSM  relicencing plugin calls possible data loss.


As such the error points produced by Paul, and the two maps built upon that 
data are an indication of possible problems, not a 100% definite statement 
of actual problems.


Furthermore, as I understand it, none of the tools which find dirty ways 
and nodes are actually using the same logic as the actual rebuild will use, 
so its impossible to get a 100% accurate picture of what will happen.


Regards

David


[1]  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2012-March/062486.html


Ed


___
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: [talk-au] Plea to Australian decliners

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Richard Weait rich...@weait.com

To: Jack Burton j...@saosce.com.au
Cc: talk-au talk-au@openstreetmap.org; osm-f...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 6:32 AM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Plea to Australian decliners



On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Jack Burton j...@saosce.com.au wrote:

On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 15:54 +0100, Grant Slater wrote:

Australian Decliners,

As a mapper, contributor and member of the project's sysadmin team I
kindly ask you to please reconsider your declined status. Time is
about to run out.


I am a decliner, and contributed substantial amounts of data to the map
(mainly in Adelaide, Melbourne  Geelong) back in the early days of OSM
(late 2007 to mid 2009), although I haven't made any edits in almost 2
years now (that's not OSM's fault -- I just haven't had the time
recently).

Whilst I'd prefer that my old contributions remained in use by the
community, as originally intended, I still have reservations about the
open-ended relicensing provisions of the new CTs.

I've just re-read the CTs, and must admit they do look less
objectionable to me now than when I first read them -- outside of the
future reclicensing provisions (clause 3), I don't have any problem with
them.

Re those provisions, I still have one question, which I'm hoping someone
on the list can address.

Clause 3 talks about or such other free and open licence. I'm curious
as to how free and open license is defined in this context.

Both the FSD and the OSD speak specifically to software, not data. In
the software world, there have been instances in the past of licenses
claiming to be free or open source, without actually adhering to the
FSD or OSD. I suspect the same will be true in years to come with
respect to licensing of data.

To agree to such a future relicensing provision, I think the parameters
around it would need to be fairly well defined (not so open-ended). In
the absence of a definition in the CTs themselves, that would mean a
well-recognised definition of free and open license (with respect to
data) existing somewhere else (like the FSD  OSD do in the software
domain).

Can anyone point me to such a definition?




Richard

I am surprised that you did not mention the formal clarification that LWG 
gave on 19 July 2011 [1]


In response to community requests, the LWG formally clarifies as follows:

The intent of the Contributor Terms as regards contributions that come from 
or are derived from third parties is:



1) To ask the contributor to be *reasonably* certain that such data can be 
distributed under the specific specific licenses, as explicitly listed in 
clause 3 of the contributor terms:  CC-BY-SA 2.0 and ODbL 1.0. We also 
stress reasonably certain rather than must because we recognise that 
most contributors are not lawyers and do not have access to one. If in 
doubt, consult the wiki or mailing lists to see what the community thinks or 
knows.




2) To give the OSM community and the OSMF the ability to remove data that 
should not be distributed as part of the OSM database.



Should the license change in the future, continued distribution of some data 
that comes from or is derived from third parties may no longer be possible. 
If this happens, it will have to be removed. This will be the responsibility 
of OSMF and the OSM community at that time. It is not necessary for current 
contributors to make guesses.



Can I check with you that the LWG still stand by that clarification, since 
that clarification severely limits the impact of CT clause 3.


Regards

David


[1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_123cdchck62



Sure.  As listed in the terms, the Open Knowledge Foundation has their
Open Knowledge Definition.

http://opendefinition.org/okd/

Which takes an approach similar to FSD / OSD, but with attention to
data, rather than software.

http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au





___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What licences (other than ODbL) are compatible with OSM after 1st April

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com

To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What licences (other than ODbL) are compatible 
with OSM after 1st April




On 23 March 2012 10:46, Mayeul Kauffmann mayeul.kauffm...@free.fr wrote:



I'm a bit confused here: Does the data provider still need to create an
account and approve the contributor terms?? And they should add the data
themselves?



This would be ideal.  Then we know they have agreed the contributor terms
for the data, and no further negotiation is required.

If not, and you are doing the import, then you need to ensure that your
contribution to OSM is in line with the contributor terms you have agreed.
This is not merely that the data can be released under the ODbL.  The
contributor terms are much wider in effect than that, and grant certain
rights to the OSMF and the right to relicence (under a free and open
licence) to a majority of active members of the community.


Actually all we have been required to ensure is that data can be released 
under either CC-BY-SA 2.0 or ODbL, we have not been required to state that 
data is compatible with any possible future free and open licence




Going by the imports page, we are currently retaining imports from people
who have agreed for their data to be released under the openstreetmap
licence, and any free and open licence.

The hurdle to import is higher, but our flexibility with the resulting 
data

is greater.

We certainly don't want to be in a position of having to remove data 
should

we ever relicence again.


Following on from the point above it is obvious that should the licence 
change in the future then it is almost certain that data will have to be 
removed.


David



Ian.








___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk





___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Paul Norman penor...@mac.com

To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:34 AM
Subject: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines



I have been running a nightly coastline generation on my server, using the
latest data from my jxapi server. Tonight I switched it over to filter out
data that WTFE reports as dirty. This is somewhat more aggressive than the
rebuild will be, but the results are worrisome.

A PNG showing the OSM coastline post-transition along with red dots for
where the coastcheck program found errors is at
http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines24b.png
The red dots represent places where coastcheck found an error

A few things can be seen:
No continent will generate a satisfactory rendering. Australia, the US, 
most

of Africa and most of Eurasia from 50 degrees south will be completely
flooded.


Paul
thanks a lot for generating this, the situation is far worse than I had 
thought it was going to be.




There are 3471 points where coastcheck found errors. Normally I would 
expect

about 10.

The following areas are particularly bad:
The west coast of the US
The US coast of the Great Lakes
Australia
Antarctica (which has significant parts completely missing with no error
points since there's nothing left to even try to close)

When examining the data, I found most of the ODbL-dirty status was mainly
from the following accounts:
hasse_osm_korinthenkacker (Antarctica)
Kin (Antarctica)
Blars (US West coast)

I see a few ways for dealing with the coastlines:
- Remapping. Obviously this is the only option where the coastline was
actually created by the non-acceptor.


One advantage of remapping is the possibility that there are now better data 
sets available for import than the PGS data which was originally used.  I'm 
particularly thinking here of the US  Canada.



- Adopting changesets. Many of the dirty ways and nodes appear to be
imported. If the imported just imported PD data than they have no IP in 
the

ways and they can be retained.


Are you saying that it is impossible for data originally derived from PD to 
ever have IP in it, no matter what else is subsequently done to it?



- odbl=clean. It's generally easy to verify that a way is a coastline from
imagery



There is I think one other option.  Since a pretty much error free 
processed_p.shp file will be available just up to the licence switch over, 
then is it not legally possible to continue use this file in Mapnik combined 
with post switch over OSM data to create the maps.  The missing coastline in 
OSM can then be re-mapped on a more leisurely basis.


David


My coastline files are available in the usual location of
http://pnorman.dev.openstreetmap.org/coastlines/ but are named 
coastlinec_p
and processedc_p. processedc_p has not yet uploaded but will be complete 
in

about an hour.

Additional detail of some regions can be found at
http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-europe.png
http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-na-lakes.png
http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-na-west.png
http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-nz.png
http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-au.png

If opening processedc_p in QGIS be sure to make a spatial index or it will
crawl.

A refresher on coastlines for those who haven't tagged them in awhile:

Direction *matters*. Land on the left, water on the right.

Each end of each way should join with exactly one other natural=coastline
way

I am not sure when each processedc_p file will be completed. Cron starts 
the
job at 5 AM PST and I'd expect it to take about 5 hours, mainly depending 
on
WTFE server speed and my upload speed to errol. The coastlinec_p files 
will

be uploaded first so arrive at the server earlier.

Technical details:
The results of the jxapi way[natural=coastline] is filtered by cleanway to
remove any objects reported as severity=normal, leaving behind 0 or 1 node
ways if necessary. It then is passed to the coastcheck programs and the
results uploaded.

A CT-clean way to which a decliner added a tag other than 
natural=coastline

would be removed by this algorithm, but not by the rebuild.


___
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] ODbL-clean Coastlines

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com

To: Paul Norman penor...@mac.com
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines



Paul Norman writes:
 I have been running a nightly coastline generation on my server, using 
 the
 latest data from my jxapi server. Tonight I switched it over to filter 
 out
 data that WTFE reports as dirty. This is somewhat more aggressive than 
 the

 rebuild will be, but the results are worrisome.

Na, not particularly. If you've looked at the PGS, you'll see that
it is 99% crap. My problem with it is that 1) it's public domain, 2)
imported by an anonymous user, 3) I fixed it in my region, leaving
nothing remaining from the original import except the node and way
existence, BUT (you knew there was a but) without the odbl=clean tag
that I added, it would have been deleted. Or, at least, OSMI says it
would have been deleted.

Why are we deleting public domain data from OSM? If it says
source=PGS, it should not be deleted no matter who did the import.
If it was subsequently edited by a decliner, well, that's different.


I guess there are at least two problems.

Firstly the PGS import script had a simplification factor variable, which 
the person running the import could change.  I know that prior to doing my 
imports I played around with a number of different values for this 
variable to strike what I thought  was an acceptable trade off between 
number of nodes created, and the complexity of the resulting ways. 
Therefore what was uploaded to OSM was not simply PGS data, but was PGS data 
as amended by my decision making process.  I guess you would have to know if 
the user who did the imports in question made any similar changes.


Secondly you could use the PGS import script in two ways.  Either (i) run 
the script against the PGS data and let the script directly upload to OSM ; 
or (ii)  use script to create an OSM file, which could then be edited in 
JOSM, and then use JOSM to upload the data.  If choosing method (ii) you 
were then able to look at the data in JOSM and make corrections to it before 
uploading to OSM.  Although when doing my imports I started using (i) I 
later switched to method (ii) because that way what I uploaded to OSM was 
more error free. Had I now been a CT decliner I see no legal difference 
between the resulting data in this instance and data which If it was 
subsequently edited by a decliner, well, that's different.


David




It's particularly galling that anonymous users who haven't accepted or
declined are having their copyright respected. If you don't post your
land *with your name and address* in New York State, you cannot
successfully pursue a claim of trespass.

--
--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





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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com

To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines



Paul Norman writes:
  It's particularly galling that anonymous users who haven't accepted or
  declined are having their copyright respected. If you don't post your
  land *with your name and address* in New York State, you cannot
  successfully pursue a claim of trespass.

 Copyright applies when you author something, regardless of if you state 
 your

 name on it.

I can make any kind of claims of ownership of land that I want. Unless
I go to the county clerk's office and register my claim under my name,
they won't enforce my claim against anyone else.

But all theories of law aside, as a practical matter, if someone
hasn't bothered to decline, they're not going to bother to sue. You


The argument hey,  we understand we don't know if we have any right to use 
this data, buts lets leave it in and hope no one complains doesn't sound a 
particularly moral one to me.  It also seems to set a rather dangerous 
precedent.



have to consider what copyright law is for: it's a temporary monopoly
granted to protect revenue. If there's no potential for restricting
distribution under CC-By-SA, and there's no potential for restricting
distribution under the OdBL, what loss in revenue has anybody
suffered? What nutcase is going to bother to sue anybody over
distributing under one free license versus a different free license
where neither one has the potential for proprietary distribution?
Nobody's making money here, and it costs money to sue. A LOT of
money. No lawyer is going to take your case on unless there are
punitive or actual damages.

Worst comes to worse, you claim innocent infringement because you
thought you were distributing under fair use, you delete the offending
data, and life goes on. In other words, the worst a lawsuit is going
to cost the OSMF is THE HARM IT'S VOLUNTARILY DOING TO ITSELF.



Your worse case sounds so harmless.  Of course it's possible to sketch an 
alternative worse case scenario:


At some time in the future after being asked to delete the offending data, 
the data is deleted and ... ...


a) all those contributors who had  made edits to that data after 1 April 
2012 get very annoyed because they see the results of their work deleted., 
and when they query this they are told hey, its a risk we thought we'd 
take, and by the way we may have to delete a load more data in the future, 
so be careful what bits of OSM you edit.


b) users of OSM data get very annoyed because having seen masses of data 
disappear once, they suddenly see masses of data disappear again, and when 
they query this they are told hey, its a risk we thought we'd take, and by 
the way we may have to delete a load more data in the future, so be careful 
which bits of OSM data you use.


David


--
--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





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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping Coastlines (Was: Re: Boundary removal.)

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com

To: OSM Australian Talk List talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Mapping Coastlines (Was: Re: Boundary removal.)


On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com 
wrote:

If there is a man made seawall or barrier, I use that.  If not, I try to
estimate how high the water comes at high tide from the look of the
terrain.  If all we have is one image, then that's all we have.


If there was a seawall that the water reached once a day that would
make it easy as that is your mean high tide mark, but few places have
such a wall.

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:43 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net
wrote:

With the high resolution imagery its usually quite easy to differentiate
between permanently dry areas, and areas which was been covered by water
in
the last 12 hours.


I'm not an expert but for areas like a coastal beach which have waves
coming in won't the peak point where the water comes to be higher that
mean high tide?

For a lake with no upstream influence that would work well, but I was
thinking about where you have beach with waves coming in.

If anyone has some expertise and knows if this peak water point caused
by the waves is generally close to mean high tide or not that would be
good to know as then we can just trace/measure that mark.


That will depend on the gradient of the land between the highest high water 
spring tide, and the lowest high water spring tide, and what location you 
are in, since the tidal variation between spring and neap tides varies 
enormously depending whereabouts you are.


I think you are possibly seeking a higher degree of accuracy than is 
required.  Also then next question would then be to concern ourselves with 
whether we took the peak water point of the largest expected wave, or the 
average wave.


David




Having said that, tropical regions where there may be large areas of
mangrove etc, it is quite common for the coastline way to be drawn at the
mangrove / water interface rather than the mangrove / land interface .
This
boundary is usually quite visible on even the low resolution imagery.


I think I'm going against what I said in an earlier thread on this
list, but I think now that the tide mark should be mapped
independently of what plant life is growing in that area of
land/water.


If all else fails, then you have guess when to put the coastline, someone
with more knowledge can always come along later and correct it. If its a
choice between no coastline, and inaccurate coastline then I'd always go
for
inaccurate. You could always tag the ways with a fixme if you wanted to
flag them up.


There are some lakes which I've observed over the full cycle (but even
that isn't really a mean, but just a sample of one day) and mapped
those more accurately, but it isn't so easy when you have waves coming
in.



Lastly, if you are redrawing coastline ways then can I make a reminder
that
the direction of the way is important. They must be drawn with the water
on
the right hand side.


Yep, defiantly.




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [Talk-ca] Clean up - natural coastline

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Andrew Allison andrew.alli...@teksavvy.com

To: talk-ca talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 3:33 PM
Subject: [Talk-ca] Clean up - natural coastline



Hello:
I'm in the process of recreating non-ct data.

Any gotchas that I should look out for in replacing coastline data.


2 main ones -

A) direction ( see below),

B)  coastline ways when taken together should always form an unbroken line 
around a land mass.


minor gotchas

C)  the coastline import from PGS caused a number of small artefacts to be 
created, (many 3 node triangles of coastline appearing).  These are not true 
coastline, so need to be dealt with.


D) In places the coastline import was run over an area which was well inland 
of the true coast. The import found water bodes (lakes and rivers) in these 
areas, and created them as coastline.  When recreating these ways it would 
make sense to tag these correctly.  Note very large lakes may still have to 
be tagged as coastline however.


Note, that a lot off C  D's I have tried to clear up over the last few 
months, but I'm still working through them.




Pros and Cons of shorter ways.


Some of the PGS imports have created very short ways (I've come across whole 
km of coastline made up of many 2 or 3 node ways)


In general when I've been tidying coastlines I've tried to join any sections 
of coastline less than 40 nodes.


Similarly I've come across some very long ways. In general (and its a 
personal view which I don't always adhere to myself) I don't like ways which 
are longer than 1,000 nodes.




Does direction matter?


YES YES YES.  Coastline ways MUST be drawn with the water to the right.



How often is coastline data updated?


Do you mean, how often is the coastline file used to render the coast on 
the Mapnik layer updated.  The answer is periodically, but generally every 
4 - 6 weeks


David




Hope I keep every bodies feet dry and I don't damage something and find
out next month that I messed up big time.

Or don't bother we are working on that :-)


Andrew
aka Purple Mustang.


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca





___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] Coastline Clean Up 2

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Paul Norman penor...@mac.com
To: 'James A. Treacy' tre...@debian.org; 'Andrew Allison' 
andrew.alli...@teksavvy.com

Cc: 'talk-ca' talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 3:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Clean up - natural coastline



From: James A. Treacy [mailto:tre...@debian.org]
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Clean up - natural coastline

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 10:33:09AM -0500, Andrew Allison wrote:
 Hello:
 I'm in the process of recreating non-ct data.

What areas need to be replaced?



I know that some PGS coastline imports are not CT-clean. Importing a
coastline from CanVec to replace the PGS data is on my list to-do, but I
don't see it happening before CanVec 9.0 since the current coastline model
is broken on the west coast and it takes about an hour a tile when there's
no other data to replace.



As I mentioned in my earlier email, over the last few months I've been going 
round clearing up a lot of coastline issues remaining from the original 
PGS import.


These include
- retagging coastline ways rivers as multipolygons with waterway = 
riverbank

- joining short sections of coastline ways together
- dealing with the small coastline artefacts, either deleting them or 
combining them with the main coastline way


What I probably didn't make clear is that I have been doing this 
systematically on a worldwide basis.


Although I have done some changes in Canada, so far I have concentrated on 
Europe, South  Central America,  Africa. Its not that I have anything 
against Canada, its just that I had to start somewhere :)


However last week it occurred to me that if I were to continue my cleanup 
into Canada I would be wasting my time as Canada data could be better 
recreated from Cavnvec.


I then decided to look at some Canvec data and see what was involved.  I 
deliberately choose an area up in the arctic, so the only real data likely 
to be there was water body based.  I was surprised at how time consuming it 
was to correct the Canvec data and get it into a state ready to replace the 
OSM data.   This lead me to believe that a wholesale replacement of OSM 
Canada coastline with Canvec data was unlikely to happen any time soon.


The question therefore is, should I continue my cleanup of coastline data 
into Canada?


The downside is that eventually all my cleanup work should be rendered 
obsolete due to Canvec imports.


The upside is that it's likely I could complete the cleanup a lot sooner 
than Canvec is imported, and that by tidying up the coastline sooner, it may 
make it easier to merge the Canvec data into OSM without breaking coastlines 
and causing flooding.


What are your thoughts?

David 




___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [OSM-talk] Big Blue Something in Colombia

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: malenki

To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Big Blue Something in Colombia


bastien wrote:


Have a little look in talk-co,


Thanks for the hint, but my knowledge of Spanish consists of three to
five words. ;)


Someone call David repair the error, a way with costline attibute.


That would be me :)



Maybe thats why I couldn't find a possibly guilty coastlines at the
region underwater.


We need to wait now.


One more¹ reason to reprocess the coastline shapefile.


I've been doing a lot of tidying up coastline data throughout the world in 
the last month, and although I'm pretty sure that I have not created any 
further errors, some of the areas which needed tidying were quite complex, 
and an error or two may have crept in.


I thought I'd wait till the next set of the coastline error checker files 
[1] which should be next week, check if there are no major problems, and 
then suggest to the sys admins that the coastline shapefiles be updated.


It would be a pity to update the shapefiles now to fix the issue in 
Colombia, only for issues to appear elsewhere on the map.


If I had the bandwidth I'd download the planet file and produce the error 
checker files myself, but I'm afraid its not really practical for me to do 
that.


Regards

David

[1] http://metro.teczno.com/#coastline


Regards
malenki

¹ http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.145lon=66.528zoom=9layers=M





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

Re: [OSM-talk] An example of the complications inherent in determining tainted ways

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com

To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 4:47 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] An example of the complications inherent in 
determining tainted ways




Yeah, a healthy chunk of the interstates in Kansas are the same way. I
didn't go quite as deep as Nathan but this way is a relevant example:
http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=33576021

User moonwashed created this way by splitting it from a TIGER way.
He made several more edits to it but the last 20 versions have been by
agreeing users (including both NE2 and myself) and while that page
doesn't show node position changes, I have verified that every single
node has been moved since moonwashed last touched it.


But do you know what the source was for moving each node? As has been said 
earlier, if each node was simply moved by a tiny amount away from the 
position created by moonwashed, and the new position of the node was not 
determined by reference to some other source (Bing or GPS maybe), then the 
new nodes are derived form moonwashes edits




So in my mind
there is no information left in that way that is attributable to the
declining user.


Not necessarily true.  You can only state that when you know for sure what 
the basis was for moving each node


David


I would have absolutely no misgivings doing a straight
copy/paste to replace that way with an identical duplicate. But I
would rather not do so out of respect to the other CT-accepting users
who have contributed to that object.

Saying that it is up to the community to decide individual objects is
nice but I don't think there is enough time for me to evaluate every
tainted object in Kansas before April 1 and there sure as hell isn't
enough of a community here to help me with such a thankless task.
There are a few mappers in the area but if I asked them to deal with
this kind of stuff, I'm pretty sure they would run away screaming. I
doubt I can expect much outside help either since pretty much everyone
is affected and will be working in their own area first.

And as long as there is no official word from the foundation about
exactly how this change will be technically executed, we can't really
proceed in a meaningful way anyway except from trying to contact
non-responsive users, which I am doing. So as much as I really don't
really care about the license and am happy to relicense under ODbL and
even think it might be a good move, I do have some serious doubts
about the ambiguity of the process this late in the process...

Toby



On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com 
wrote:

On 12/14/2011 10:25 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:


Hi,

On 12/15/2011 04:11 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:


So why have people been recommending for months that we remap tainted
objects when we still don't know what needs to be remapped?



If you prefer to wait until the exact rules are laid out for you, that's
your choice.


Yes, I prefer only doing a make-work task once.



Personally I'd rather make a few educated guesses and get

to work now.


By my educated reasoning, anything from one node to the entire road is
tainted, so it's a little hard to make a guess.


___
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] An example of the complications inherent in determining tainted ways

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org

To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] An example of the complications inherent in 
determining tainted ways




On 15/12/2011 12:40, David Groom wrote:

- Original Message -
From: Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 4:47 AM

User moonwashed created this way by splitting it from a TIGER way.
He made several more edits to it but the last 20 versions have been by
agreeing users (including both NE2 and myself) and while that page
doesn't show node position changes, I have verified that every single
node has been moved since moonwashed last touched it.


But do you know what the source was for moving each node? As has been 
said earlier, if each node was simply moved by a tiny amount away from 
the position created by moonwashed, and the new position of the node was 
not determined by reference to some other source (Bing or GPS maybe), 
then the new nodes are derived form moonwashes edits
But what if the source changes ? When I use high-resolution imagery to 
improve areas formerly mapped from low-resolution imagery, I change the 
source tag - i.e. from Yahoo low resolution satellite to Microsoft Bing 
satellite. Since my edit is correlated with a change of source, shouldn't 
it be considered a break from being a derivative ?


Yes it should be considred a break, because in that case you know what the 
source for moving the nodes was.


What I was pointing out is that you have to know the source used when moving 
the nodes, before you can determine if the new position is derived from the 
old one


David

___
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] Who mapped it first with ref to forth coming deletions - implication

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Richard Weait rich...@weait.com

To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Who mapped it first with ref to forth coming 
deletions - implication



On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:15 PM, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com 
wrote:

So essentially all data that existed on this date will need to be deleted
since we can't be sure who entered or edited it or if they have agreed to
the new license if the .odbl database is to be clean.


That's quite a conclusion that you are jumping to there, John.  Of
responding accounts registered by then, more than 98.5% have accepted
CT/ODbL.


Richard

if you are saying that that conclusion is incorrect then could you tell us 
what will happen ?


Regards

David

___
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?

[David Groom]

 - 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] What's wrong with this picture?

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Michal Migurski m...@stamen.com

To: Talk Openstreetmap talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] What's wrong with this picture?



On Dec 9, 2011, at 3:29 AM, David Groom wrote:


Martin

Someone had been tidying up the coastline and making it part of admin 
boundaries, but they had managed to get the direction of the coastline 
ways wrong. I fixed this some weeks ago, so it should render OK the next 
time the coastline files are updates



David, thanks for continuing to check up on coastline errors!

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

David



The code:
https://github.com/migurski/Extractotron/blob/master/coastline-errors.sh

I've also been maintaing a coastline table that contains only last-known 
good tiles, so it might have out-of-date areas but generally good-looking 
coastlines everywhere. You can see that here:

http://tile.stamen.com/terrain-background/preview.html

Just need to get southern Chesapeake Bay replaced, I think I fixed the 
problem in changeset #10030763.


-mike.


michal migurski- m...@stamen.com
415.558.1610




___
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?

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com

To: Sax-Barnett, Melelani barne...@trimet.org
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] What's wrong with this picture?



a similar problem is also observable for some weeks in the current
medium zoom mapnik tiles of southern Italy:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.276lon=16.347zoom=9layers=M



Martin

Someone had been tidying up the coastline and making it part of admin 
boundaries, but they had managed to get the direction of the coastline ways 
wrong. I fixed this some weeks ago, so it should render OK the next time the 
coastline files are updates


David


cheers,
Martin




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

Re: [OSM-talk] What's wrong with this picture?

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com

To: David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] What's wrong with this picture?



2011/12/9 David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net:

Someone had been tidying up the coastline and making it part of admin
boundaries, but they had managed to get the direction of the coastline 
ways
wrong. I fixed this some weeks ago, so it should render OK the next time 
the

coastline files are updates



Thank you. I tried to mark some (most?) of the affected tiles as
dirty, but I am not sure if this works for low-zoom as well.



I'm not sure either, but even the higher zoom tiles if re-rendered will not 
look OK unless the coastline shapefile has been updated recently


David


cheers,
Martin





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

Re: [OSM-talk] What's wrong with this picture?

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at

To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] What's wrong with this picture?



Sax-Barnett, Melelani schrieb:
I've actually noticed the same problem over in Portland, Oregon, USA as 
well. In our case, it looks like the river is bleeding out to the north 
and west, and it's not even square-shaped. Very strange.


http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.266lon=-122.763zoom=10layers=C


Is the square between Savannah and Augusta in Mapnik the same problem?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.87lon=-81.31zoom=8layers=M



A re-render of the level 9 tiles in that area has fixed the problem at that 
zoom level, so I assume the underlying problem with data no longer exists


David


Robert Kaiser


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





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

[OSM-talk] Coastline errors ( was Argh, Canvec imports)

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Simone Cortesi sim...@cortesi.com

To: Michal Migurski m...@stamen.com
Cc: Talk Openstreetmap talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Argh, Canvec imports



On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 08:40, Michal Migurski m...@stamen.com wrote:

A cry of frustration:

I do bimonthly runs of the worldwide coastlines
(http://metro.teczno.com/#coastline), and Canada seems to be a recurring
source of problems. What the heck is going on up there? I consistently 
see

new imports of what seems to be Canvec data screwing up coastlines and
making for some deeply broken renders:

http://mike.teczno.com/img/broken-coast.png

Most of that junk in the Atlantic Ocean is newly introduced within the
last few weeks, and is making it difficult to get out a clean coastline
suitable for rendering. It shows up in the main OSM mapnik tiles in 
Hudson

Bay, too:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=55.7lon=-83.6zoom=5layers=M

I've been trying to fix problems as I encounter them and I've managed to
fix invalid coastilnes around Baltimore, Houston, Tampa and the dreaded
Montréal area in an effort to generate a usable map of North America, but
this Canvec stuff is absolutely killing me.


I care about the coastline too,
long time ago there used to be this:
http://www.openstreetmap.nl/coastlines.html where anyone could go and
fix coastline errors that did show up on a purpose made mapnik layer.
I see there is a geofabrik layer for that same purpos, but it is
limited just to europe.

Michal, are you aware of any such layer, but worldwide?


Simone

I use this  http://www.wightpaths.co.uk/coast/  . I generate the error 
points from the error points shapefile at http://metro.teczno.com/#coastline


My version is not as comprehensive as the old version at 
http://www.openstreetmap.nl/coastlines.html , since it only shows the error 
points.   I try and remember to look every couple of weeks to see if there 
are new extracts http://metro.teczno.com/, and then regenerate my error 
file.


David 






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

Re: [OSM-talk] Argh, Canvec imports

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Frank Steggink stegg...@steggink.org

To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Argh, Canvec imports



On 17-11-2011 18:13, David Groom wrote:

- Original Message - From: Michal Migurski m...@stamen.com
To: Talk Openstreetmap talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 7:40 AM
Subject: [OSM-talk] Argh, Canvec imports



A cry of frustration:

I do bimonthly runs of the worldwide coastlines
(http://metro.teczno.com/#coastline), and Canada seems to be a recurring
source of problems. What the heck is going on up there? I consistently 
see

new imports of what seems to be Canvec data screwing up coastlines and
making for some deeply broken renders:

http://mike.teczno.com/img/broken-coast.png

Most of that junk in the Atlantic Ocean is newly introduced within the 
last
few weeks, and is making it difficult to get out a clean coastline 
suitable
for rendering. It shows up in the main OSM mapnik tiles in Hudson Bay, 
too:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=55.7lon=-83.6zoom=5layers=M

I've been trying to fix problems as I encounter them and I've managed to 
fix
invalid coastilnes around Baltimore, Houston, Tampa and the dreaded 
Montréal
area in an effort to generate a usable map of North America, but this 
Canvec

stuff is absolutely killing me.

-mike.


I know, this just looks so wrong to me:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1619985
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1613190
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1618562

and although these relations are not in themselves creating problems, 
there's an error at 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.11737lon=-66.52564zoom=15 , which 
is difficult to fix without knowing how the ways making up these 
relations are eventually going to end up.


Although over the last few months I've been going round trying to fix 
coastline errors in the rest of the world, I'm afraid that I've virtually 
given up trying to do anything in Canada


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



Hi David,

Did you already contact that user?


Frank

I haven't contacted the user, because from reading 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canvec  I could not find enough 
information to tell him what he should be doing.


I will however now contact him and copy the information you have given 
below, and suggest he ask on talk-ca if he has any other problems


Regards

David


This error is caused because the prepared Canvec OSM files also contain
waterbodies (natural=water) for areas which are actually in the ocean.
Someone importing Canvec is supposed to convert the boundaries to
coastlines (except for the sheet boundaries), and replace them with the
existing coastline, joining up at the sheet boundaries.

Frank






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

Re: [Talk-GB] How to tag marine lights on posts

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk

To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 3:48 PM
Subject: [Talk-GB] How to tag marine lights on posts




I've just tagged a row of 18 marine hazard lights, on tall posts, as
highway=street_lamp

For example:

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1494256519

Clearly that's not correct; what tag would folk suggest?

--


Something from

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSeaMap/Seamark_Tag_Values

depending on exactly what the light characteristsics are

David


Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk







___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk] Japan coastline errors

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net

To: Kimon Berlin ki...@deepskymarines.org; talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Japan coastline errors


I think I fixed all coastline errors in Japan which showed up on  the 
coastline error files at http://metro.teczno.com/ dated 15 October.


1) It may well be that the coastline data has not been imported to create 
the Mapnik layer since I fixed it ;

2) new errors may have been introduced since 15 Oct


Yesterdays extracts don't show any errors in the coastline near Japan
see 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Coastline_error_checker_screenshot.png


David



David

 - Original Message - 
 From: Kimon Berlin

 To: talk@openstreetmap.org
 Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 3:58 AM
 Subject: [OSM-talk] Japan coastline errors



 Hi,

 talk-ja seems to be in Japanese and I'm not quite good enough for that
 -- I noticed that there are several spots where the Japanese coastline
 has problems, with large land polygons extending out to sea. For example:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.65lon=142.87zoom=8layers=M
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.704lon=133.075zoom=9layers=M
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.783lon=130.372zoom=10layers=M

 Maybe the detailed coastline got deleted at some point? I took a quick
 look at the history for some areas, but did not find any obvious changes.

 Kimon


 ___
 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] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com

To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure




On 05/10/2011 16:36, Serge Wroclawski wrote:

The status of Jerusalem as part of Israel is not disputed. Its status as 
a Palestinian city is


I'm not sure that's true. Israel was effectively created as a result of a 
UN partition plan that would have created a Jewish state and an Arab 
state, but would have left Jerusalem administered by the UN itself. Even 
now, I believe most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of 
Israel: most treat Tel Aviv as the capital, presumably to emphasize that 
they don't accept that Jerusalem unambiguously belongs to Israel.




This raises another point. Should the node in question have the tag 
capital=yes removed, so that the map data reflects what seems to be the 
intentional community consensus [1] ?


If the node is not tagged as the capital, then it may be less of a problem 
how the name actually gets displayed.


David


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positions_on_Jerusalem


FWIW, the DWG's stance seems reasonable to me, although the obvious 
solution would be to have the two names separated by 'space hyphen space' 
as seems to be the case with Brussels. It would seem reasonable to give 
Hebrew precedence - which ironically would mean the Arabic name would be 
on the left!


--
Steve

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








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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Pieren pier...@gmail.com

To: OSM talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure




On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Lambert Carsten lhc@solcon.nl 
wrote:

As an outsider I really don't understand this. Is there a dispute on
what can be considered the local language in Jerusalem?


Yes, it is. And this happens on some other areas in the world. The
answer just saying set up your own tile server is not working
because the main Mapnik rendering is used as am international
reference, whatever we like it or not. The other answer saying please
find an agreement locally or keep the name empty is also not
acceptable impov. This type of answer will not satisfy the two local
communities, neither the rest of the world.
Perhaps the solution adopted by the belgians for their disputed areas
could be used as a model: put both versions in the tag 'name' (as
Frederik already suggested). Another way would be to check how the UN
is handling this on their own maps...

Pieren

how about adding the tag name:disputed = Jerusalem / Al-Quds , and then 
getting the OSM Mapnik layer to render the name:disputed tag in preference 
to either of the local language variants.


David 






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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Lambert Carsten lhc@solcon.nl

To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure




On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:39:16 -0400
Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:


On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Serge Wroclawski
 emac...@gmail.com wrote:



I said that you can't get consensus from idle accounts.

 I like David's idea with the specific tag name:disputed.

The status of Jerusalem as part of Israel is not disputed except by
the same sort of people who might say that London is not the capital
of the UK.

The fact that some people don't like the situation doesn't change
that.

A disputed tag will result in many things being marked disputed. I
can think of a bunch even in the US.


I have to agree here. It also doesn't solve disputes about what is
disputed.


But I think we have to recognise that there are some genuine disputes, and 
at the end of the day we are a provider of mapping data, not a dispute 
resolution service.


David


In other words it doesn't force parties to agree to disagree.
And rightly so, sometimes (rarely I'll admit) people can be mistaken. :)





Lambert Carsten






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

Re: [OSM-talk] There are new coastline shapefiles

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Michal Migurski m...@stamen.com

To: Talk Openstreetmap talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 9:42 AM
Subject: [OSM-talk] There are new coastline shapefiles




Hi,

I've started including new coastline shapefiles with the metro extracts:
http://metro.teczno.com/

The error checker was relatively painless to run, and with a few edits to 
Canada and Brazil (http://teczno.com/s/5fs) and a test render I've just 
verified that the contents of the processed coastline shapefile have 
approximately the right number of continents.


This should be an improvement over the previously shapefiles, which are 
almost 18 months out of date:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Coastline_error_checker#New_hosting_required

-mike.




Mike

Thanks for these, they have already helped me to fix some errors.

David





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

Re: [talk-au] OSM Inspector

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Peter Watson peter.bmwk7...@gmail.com

To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:14 AM
Subject: [talk-au] OSM Inspector



Hi Everyone,
I recently found OSM Inspector and Keep Right and have been slowly fixing
the problems found starting in the geometry heading. I found many
roundabouts that went around more than once, caused by the bug in the
Potlatch circle tool. I have fixed many roads which go back on them self 
or
other self intersecting ways, fixed all in Brisbane and many in other 
places
around Aust. many left in Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney. I have been 
unable

to fix the two single node ways in Aust. one in Adelaide and one near the
Gold Coast. Any Ideas?
Peter W


These were easily deleted using JOSM

David 






___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [Talk-GB] Looking For Unconnected Cycleways

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Kev js1982 o...@kevswindells.eu

To: Steve Dobson st...@dobbo.org
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Looking For Unconnected Cycleways


Keep right seams to lag a bit behind the current state, just click the
ignore for now option.  Does anyone know how/ when it updates?


Text at the very extreme bottom left indicated last update was 3 August 2011

David




On 12 Aug 2011 11:25, Steve Dobson st...@dobbo.org wrote:

Hi Tim, Craig

Many thanks, KeepRight does appear to fit the bill, it also seams to
spot other things around Eastbourne and I will start work trying to
clear them.

However, it has shown up that the edit I made yesterday isn't perfect
as I didn't create junction nodes.  I can't see what's different about
the nodes I created and the end points so I have no idea what I didn't
do that I should have.  Could you be kind enough to point me at the
documentation for junction nodes so I can create them correctly.

Ta
Steve




On 12/08/11 11:19, Craig Loftus wrote:

I think Keep right is what he is looking for, the inter...



On 12 August 2011 10:09, Tim François sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:


Hmm, actually, may not ...
--- On *Fri, 12/8/11, Tim François sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk* wrote:


From: Tim François sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk



Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Looking For Unconnected Cycleways
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org, Steve...








___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbl and collective databases

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org

To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbl and collective databases




Hi,

On 07/12/11 01:05, David Groom wrote:

Well that's what I asked to this list on 17 June [1] , and you will see
from the only answer received (which incendtally was from a member of
the LWG) that an except of an ODbL database will always be a Derivative
Database, and not an ODbL licensed database in its own right.


You are mis-interpreting his response.

Of course an excerpt you make from OSM is always a derivative database. 
But at the same time it is also a database in its own right.


Else the whole ODbL could only ever deal with two levels - oh dear, I can 
only make derivative databases from the original database, nowhere does 
ODbL say anything about derivative database from derivative databases! 
FAIL!!!


ODbL gives you  the right to make a derivative of a derivative under Clause 
3(d)  Creation of temporary or permanent reproductions by any means and in 
any form, in whole or in part, including of any Derivative Databases


Regards

David

this means I cannot cut out a city from the UK extract, I always have to 
cut out my city from the planet file, because there are no provisions for 
derived databases of derived databases...



Now I'm happy to believe that RW was wrong,


He wasn't; you just have to understand that this is no either-or 
situation.


It's really just the same with CC licenses; you can make a derived work 
from a CC-licensed thing, and then that is a derived work with regard to 
its mother work but it is a CC-licensed work in its own right with 
regard to anything that might again be derived from it!


Bye
Frederik

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk








___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbl and collective databases

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Anthony o...@inbox.org
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org; 
Richard Weait rich...@weait.com; Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org; 
David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net

Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbl and collective databases




On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:05 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net 
wrote:

- Original Message - From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbl and collective databases



David,

David Groom wrote:


This seems to be quite different to my interpretation, and it would be
good to have some clarification, as the definition is quite fundamental 
to a

number of use cases of OSM data.


You can always make an excerpt from an ODbL licensed database, which
will then be an ODbL licensed database in its own right. That's the
classic derived database thing.



Well that's what I asked to this list on 17 June [1] , and you will see 
from

the only answer received (which incendtally was from a member of the LWG)
that an except of an ODbL database will always be a Derivative Database, 
and

not an ODbL licensed database in its own right.


The correct answer is that it's both.  It is a Database, with respect
to the license offered by the creator of the Derivative.  And it's a
Derivative Database, with respect to the license offered by the author
of the original database.



Thanks for the clarification.

Regards

David


Now I'm happy to believe that RW was wrong, but it would have been 
helpful

if someone had pointed that out before now.


Reading his answer, I don't think it's fair to say he was wrong.








___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbl and collective databases

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. 
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org

Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbl and collective databases



David,

David Groom wrote:
This seems to be quite different to my interpretation, and it would be 
good to have some clarification, as the definition is quite fundamental 
to a number of use cases of OSM data.


You can always make an excerpt from an ODbL licensed database, which
will then be an ODbL licensed database in its own right. That's the
classic derived database thing.



Well that's what I asked to this list on 17 June [1] , and you will see from 
the only answer received (which incendtally was from a member of the LWG) 
that an except of an ODbL database will always be a Derivative Database, and 
not an ODbL licensed database in its own right.


Its why I asked the question.

Now I'm happy to believe that RW was wrong, but it would have been helpful 
if someone had pointed that out before now.  It actually makes a lot more 
sense, its a lot easier to see how Collective Databases can come about, and 
it helps with a lot of use cases of OSM, but it does rely on the fact that 
an except from an ODbL database can be an ODbL database in its own right, 
which three weeks ago I was told could not be the case.


Regards

David.

[1] 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-June/006236.html



While you have to retain attribution saying you derived this from X, in
every other aspect your new, derived database stands on its own feet,
and the ODbL applies to it in exactly the same fashion as it did to the
original database.

Therefore, whenever the ODbL says this database, that could either be
the full OSM database; or you could make an excerpt from OSM, licensed
under ODbL, which would then again be this database in a smaller 
context.


Apart from the attribution thing, the excerpted database is not
different, legally, from the mother database; there is nothing in ODbL
that refers to that mother database in any way.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09 E008°23'33

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk







___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Steve Coast st...@asklater.com

To: talk@openstreetmap.org; talk...@openstreetmap.org
Cc: p...@opengeodata.posterous.com
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 8:00 AM
Subject: [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au


[snip]


Maybe you have a better option?

Yes. Do nothing.  Invariably these things settle down after a few days, and 
any knee jerk reaction is likely to be overkill.  If people don't want to 
subscribe to talk-au they don't have to, so its not something that's likely 
to me a main concern of the majority of people on the main talk list.


Either way, this is an ugly bridge to cross. We need to do something to 
make it clear this is not how things work in OSM.


I think you have just made it clear.

We need to make the message heard that this is not normal, this is not the 
reputation we want to be known by and we won't let it be this way.


I think you might be giving undue prominence to the postings on talk-au.  At 
the end of the day our reputation will be based on the quality of our data, 
the ease of use of contributing, and the ease of use of using our data, 
rather than a few days worth of postings to a country specific email list.


Regards

David


Steve






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

[OSM-legal-talk] ODbl and collective databases

[David Groom]

The ODbL  defines a Collective Database as   this Database in unmodified 
form as part of a collection of independent databases in themselves that 
together are assembled into a collective whole.


Now I had assumed that as far as the above definition was concerned that:

Database meant Database as defined by the ODbL; and
unmodified form  meant that the Database had not been modified.

In posting to the talk-au list I have been told that my interpretation is 
incorrect.  Specifically Database could mean Database or Derivative 
Database, and unmodified form is a merely a clarification of 
independent and does not mean unmodified.  On this basis a collective 
Database would then be defined as This Database, or Derivative Database in 
independent form as part of a collection of independent databases in 
themselves that together are assembled into a collective whole .


This seems to be quite different to my interpretation, and it would be good 
to have some clarification, as the definition is quite fundamental to a 
number of use cases of OSM data.


Regards

David





___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [talk-au] [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Steve Coast st...@asklater.com

To: t...@openstreetmap.org; talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Cc: p...@opengeodata.posterous.com
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 8:00 AM
Subject: [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au


[snip]


Maybe you have a better option?

Yes. Do nothing.  Invariably these things settle down after a few days, and 
any knee jerk reaction is likely to be overkill.  If people don't want to 
subscribe to talk-au they don't have to, so its not something that's likely 
to me a main concern of the majority of people on the main talk list.


Either way, this is an ugly bridge to cross. We need to do something to 
make it clear this is not how things work in OSM.


I think you have just made it clear.

We need to make the message heard that this is not normal, this is not the 
reputation we want to be known by and we won't let it be this way.


I think you might be giving undue prominence to the postings on talk-au.  At 
the end of the day our reputation will be based on the quality of our data, 
the ease of use of contributing, and the ease of use of using our data, 
rather than a few days worth of postings to a country specific email list.


Regards

David


Steve






___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net

To: David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways




David Murn wrote:

I think the biggest problem people in .au had was that there were some
issues which were specific to the Australian usage of OSM (imports of
gov data, etc).  Those who sought to change the licence claimed to be
listening to people, but when Australian mappers raised issues, we were
simply told 'bad luck youre only a tiny percentage of the data'.

Part of the problem that has arisen is that our data would be affected
more than most by the removal of CCBYSA imported data.  Some people
looked at this as simply a data loss in a remote part of the world, the
same way most of us wouldnt care if a big import from Africa was due to
be removed for the same reason.

The OSMF has always accepted that some users wont accept the licence
(whether on principle or because of the sources they wish use) and this
loss of mappers will be acceptable for the future progression of OSM.

From the OSMF perspective, they feel this is a required step to move
on. From the Aussie perspective, it feels like its acceptable to lose
our contributions, or at least easier to remove them than to work to
resolve any minor attribution issues that we ('we' meaning a few
users knowledgable about the licence) have raised.


Those last two paragraphs are a fair summary, certainly.

I think OSMF (and I'm not part of OSMF, of course) would disagree with 
your bad luck characterisation, and would say that other parts of the 
world have engaged with the process (so we now have an agreement with 
Ordnance Survey, for example) whereas Australia hasn't.


But that's water under the bridge. The current discussion has shown that 
the rift between the two is now too strong. I think the priority now is to 
make sure that each project can continue without adversely affecting the 
other.



[...]
You are covering one point of the equation, the contributors.  What
about the map users?  Sure, its great to have a massive network of
contributors, but if the data being contributed isnt being used or isnt
complete enough to be used, then you'll lose the masses.  The masses
dont want to add nodes and new roads, they want to replace garmin maps
with OSM maps, so they can drive for their job or their holiday.  They
dont care about what licence is on the maps, they just want the most
complete maps they can get.  If that means a choice of OSM or OSM - 52%
who in their right mind would choose the smaller dataset?


Absolutely - so if OSM doesn't attract enough new contributors 
post-changeover, FOSM becomes the dominant map for Australia (or 
CommonMap, or...). I don't have a problem with that at all.


But also: Australia has a great advantage. You're both a whole continent 
and an island. There is therefore no reason why data users can't use FOSM 
for Australia and OSM for the rest of the world - and even combine the two 
into one dataset.


Because you can just cut out Australia and place it in a new database 
with no linkage, it can be a Collective Database, not a Derivative 
Database - so they don't have to be the same licence. That unambiguously 
works with ODbL (4.5a):


Are you sure?  ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database in 
unmodified form as part of a collection of independent databases ..'. 
Therefore if you cut out Australia it cant be part of a collective 
database, because it is not the whole database in an unmodified form.


In fact, given the wording of the ODbL is difficult to see that there will 
ever be anything which is a collective database.


Regards

David


whether it works with CC is a moot point because CC is unclear for data 
licensing, but it's likely that it does (after all, there are CC-licensed 
Wikipedia pages which contain non-CC-licensed photographs, as Collective 
Works).


So a data user could work from planet-combined.osm, which contains OSM 
rest-of-the-world and FOSM Australia. Such a file could legally be 
distributed by a mirror site as a Collective Database/Work. Best of both 
worlds for data users.


Richard


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au








___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net

To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways




David Groom wrote:

Are you sure?  ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database
in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent
databases ..'. Therefore if you cut out Australia it cant be part
of a collective database, because it is not the whole database in an
unmodified form.


I am sure, yes.

You would be making planet-combined.osm out of two databases:
osm-without-australia.osm (ODbL) and fosm-australia-only.osm (CC-BY-SA).

As it happens, osm-without-australia.osm is a Derivative Database of
planet.osm, and fosm-australia-only.osm is a Derivative Work of 
planet.fosm.

But that's immaterial - planet.osm is probably a Derivative of some other
databases, too. It being a Derivative doesn't restrict your rights under
ODbL. Once you have the Derivative Database, you are free to use it under
the full provisions of ODbL, and that includes doing whatever you like 
with

an unmodified version of it.



Which seems to me to that you are agreeing with my point, that these are 
derivative databases, not collective databases as you first argued.


Regards

David


cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Going-separate-ways-tp6567842p6570839.html

Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au








___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net

To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways




David Groom wrote:

Which seems to me to that you are agreeing with my point, that these
are derivative databases, not collective databases as you first argued.


No: one is a Derivative Database (ODbL) and the other a Derivative Work
(CC-BY-SA), but the combination of the two is a Collective Database or 
Work.




But as I said earlier, the ODbL seems quite clear that you cant make a 
Collective Database from anything other than the original database in 
unmodified form.  Since neither of the two individual items are the original 
database in unmodified form, then I cant see how you could claim the 
resulting combination is a Collective Database as defined by the ODbL .


Regards

David


Derivatives have to be licensed under the licence of the original.
Therefore, they have all the freedoms afforded by that licence. Therefore,
they can be incorporated into Collective Works.

I don't think this would work for most countries. You couldn't usefully 
make

a Collective Work from CC-Germany and ODbL-France, for example, because
you'd want cross-border routing and that would mean the two databases are 
no

longer separate and independent. But Australia is an island, intire of
itself, so the issue doesn't arise. It doesn't even have a Channel Tunnel 
to

worry about. :)

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Going-separate-ways-tp6567842p6570979.html

Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au








___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net

To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways




David Groom wrote:

But as I said earlier, the ODbL seems quite clear that you cant make
a Collective Database from anything other than the original
database in unmodified form.  Since neither of the two individual
items are the original database in unmodified form


Yes, they are.

This is a general principle of any open content licence: a Derivative 
always

enjoys the same freedoms as the works from which it was made.


I don't think we need to concern ourselves too much with general 
principles, lets stick with the actual ODbL.  Although I suppose if you 
start from the position of what the general principles are it might be 
easier to read into the ODbL things which are not there.



ODbL makes
this absolute in 4.8: Each time You communicate [a] Derivative Database,
[...] the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Database on 
the

same terms and conditions as this License. Your reading would break this.


Well for a start 4.8 only comes into play when you communicate a derivative 
database, whereas the definitions are always in force.  So assuming I did 
not communicate the derivative database then surely I would have to look at 
what the definitions say rather than clause 4.8 which is not relevant?


Irrespective of the point above, my reading of the terms would not break 
clause 4.8. The derivative database would be offered under ODbL, and you 
would still have to comply with all the requirements of the ODbL which 
relate to derivative databases.  What is broken?




Rather, in unmodified form in this instance is clarifying independent.


Exactly how to you come to the conclusion that unmodified does not mean 
unmodified , but means independent?


Regards

David



That is, you cannot make non-ODbL-licensable changes in order to mix the
ODbL- and non-ODbL-licensed parts of the collective.

This is why you cannot take ODbL-France and CC-Germany and link them. This
would require modifying the ODbL data _outwith_ what ODbL permits you to 
do.
In unmodified form is making it clear that you can't do that: you have 
no

additional permissions to modify the ODbL-licensed part of the database
(which is, after all, all ODbL is concerned about) for the purpose of
forming a Collective Database. But in the Australia case, you are not
modifying the ODbL-licensed part of the database. Every item in the 
database

remains 100% ODbL-licensed.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Going-separate-ways-tp6567842p6571535.html

Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au








___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] offering adapted databases

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Anthony o...@inbox.org

To: David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net
Cc: OSM Fork osm-f...@googlegroups.com; openstreetmap 
t...@openstreetmap.org

Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] offering adapted databases



On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 3:27 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net 
wrote:

- Original Message - From: Anthony o...@inbox.org

How long do I have to keep a copy of the adapted database in case
someone takes me up on my offer? How much of the database do I need
to keep? Is the offer valid to third parties? If person A makes a
bunch of tiles from a database, and person B prints out a map from
those tiles and gives the map to person C, who offers person C the
copy of the adapted database? (Person B likely doesn't have a copy,
but Person A would have to keep a ton of obsolete data indefinitely if
his offer is valid to third parties.)



It would depend on who was making the tiles and the print outs publicly
available


In the example I've given, both A and B have made the work publicly
available, right?  (As far as I can tell, private distribution to
Persons other than You or under Your control by either more than 50%
ownership or by the power to direct their activities, such as from
Person B to Person C, counts as making publicly available.)

So if B prints out a map with directions to X (a bar, a meetup, a
class, whatever), B has to include an offer [of one of those three
choices].


It is the person who makes the produced work publicly available
who has to comply with clause 4.6. So if A made the tiles publicly
available he would have to comply, and if B printed out the map, and then
made that map publicly available he would have to comply as well.


Right, but what does it mean for A to comply?  Does A have to offer
[one of the three choices] only to the people who download the tiles,
or does A have to offer [one of the three choices] to third parties
who receive tiles indirectly?  Does A have to offer [one of the three
choices] to third parties who receive derivatives of those tiles
indirectly?



I have no idea! I think it would depend on whether the map printed out by B 
was considered a different produced work to the tiles made available by A. 
My gut feeling is that these are different produced works, and so A is only 
required to comply with one of the three options in respect of recipients of 
his produced work.


A more complicated scenario might be:

W produces a pdf map from data released under ODbL, W gives the pdf to X, X 
then distributes the pdf to Y  Z.


I could see that you could argue there is only one produced work, so  W is 
required to offer to Y  Z one of the alternatives.


However it might still be possible to argue that the pdf produced by W was 
different to the pdfs produced by Y (after all Y produced 2 copies of one 
original, so clearly they cant both be the original), so W does not have to 
offer anything to Y  Z.


I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the answer, and it may be that different 
jurisdictions take differing views.



The former is certainly much easier for A to comply with than the latter.

If you take a look at section 6 of the GPL, it's all spelled out a lot
more clearly (all my questions are answered):

The time limit is 3 years.  The source code includes all the source
code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the
object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those
activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries,
or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which
are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not
part of the work.  Nothing more, nothing less.  The offer must be
valid for anyone who possesses the object code, including third
parties.  In the case of Person B, if the redistribution is done
occasionally and noncommercially, then Person B can simply give a
copy of the offer s/he received from Person A.  If the redistribution
is not occasional, or is commercial, then Person B has to give an
offer of his/her own (or the source code itself).

If that's what's intended by the ODbL, then that should be spelled
out.  And I think it's too much of a burden on Person A.  Though given
a shorter time period (say, 3 months), I guess it's reasonable.

As it stands maybe I just shouldn't sweat it at all, as I can just
give an offer which expires in 15 days and doesn't include third
parties, and still be within the letter of the license (*).


I'm afraid I dont understand that point at all.

Regards

David


But I
don't really want to do that.  I'd rather try to figure out what's
actually intended, and get that spelled out in the license.

(*) According to some people on the fosm list, I can say that the
offer expires December 31, 1999 and still be in compliance with the
letter of the license.  But I'm not so sure about that.












___
legal

[OSM-legal-talk] Guidelines on interpretation of section 4.6 od ODbL

[David Groom]

One of the main requirements of compliance with ODbL [1] is set out in 
Section 4.6.As yet there are no community guidelines on how OSM / OSMF 
interprets this section.


There seem to be at least three areas where guidelines might be necessary:

A)  The term offer  as used in the first paragraph of section 4.6 You 
must also offer to recipients .  I would have thought this means that 
whenever you  publicly use a Derivative Database or a Produced Work from a 
Derivative Database then you must instantly comply with the remainder of 
section 4.6.  I may have misunderstood Frederick, but I infer from his 
comment so in effect if someone ever asks you.. [2] that he 
believes you only have to comply with the requirements of section 4.6 when 
asked.


B)  The first para of section 4.6 states You must also offer . in a 
machine readable form.  What do we believe machine readable form means? 
For instance if  I produce a printed map, is it OK to have printed 
instructions on how to produce the derivative database, on the basis that an 
OCR program can read the printed instructions, and it is thus machine 
readable?


C)   In section 4.6(b) what does the OR relate to.  It could mean

(i) A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database OR  the 
method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an 
algorithm); ie a file or the method
(ii) A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database OR 
the method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an 
algorithm)... ie a file which contains all the alterations OR a file which 
contains the method.


I realise that some on this list may think I'm being picky, that I'm looking 
for an insignificant comma here or there, but the fact is that if we do not 
know how to interpret the ODbL then how will we answer when others ask us 
how to interpret it?


Regards

David





[1]  http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/
[2] 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-June/006272.html 






___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] My recent post to OSM legal talk

[David Groom]

Frederick

I have just posted a series of questions to the OSM legal talk mailing list.

In one point I cite an earlier point you made in an email to the list, and 
what I inferred from that email.


I am in no way meaning to be critical of you, and it may be that I have 
inferred the wrong thing, alternatively we may have genuinely held differing 
opinions on the matter.


Please be assured that I do not mean the posting as a criticism of you, but 
that I am merely trying to resolve what I see as am ambiguity.


Regards

David 






___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Guidelines on interpretation of section 4.6 od ODbL

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. 
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org

Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Guidelines on interpretation of section 4.6 
od ODbL




Hi,

David Groom wrote:
A)  The term offer  as used in the first paragraph of section 4.6 You 
must also offer to recipients .  I would have thought this means that 
whenever you  publicly use a Derivative Database or a Produced Work from 
a Derivative Database then you must instantly comply with the remainder 
of section 4.6.  I may have misunderstood Frederick, but I infer from his 
comment so in effect if someone ever asks you.. [2] that he 
believes you only have to comply with the requirements of section 4.6 
when asked.


Well you have to *comply* with the requirements always, not only when 
asked.


OK, I must have misunderstood what you were saying in the email I referred 
to earlier.  Happy to have cleared that up.




But the requirement is to offer something, and in general legal or
commercial terms, an offer will only lead to a transaction if taken up
by someone.

For example, you can offer free headphones with every purchase of a
music CD but this does not mean that the headphones must be
shrink-wrapped with the CD; the offer might indeed be something like
simply send us your address and a proof of purchase and we'll send you
the headphones.

See also
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Closed_Issues under
the first section (What sort of access to Derivative Databases is
required?) where our lawyers say:

This offer can point to a publicly accessible dump, diff or explicit
instructions for recreating the database, or it can be an (email)
address at which the author can be contacted. If someone takes up the
offer - makes a request for the database - you must provide it to them
within a reasonable time from receiving the request ...


C)   In section 4.6(b) what does the OR relate to.  It could mean

(i) A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database OR  
the method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an 
algorithm); ie a file or the method
(ii) A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database OR 
the method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an 
algorithm)... ie a file which contains all the alterations OR a file 
which contains the method.


I don't think it matters but I dont't think it makes sense to require
that the method be described in a file.



It matters in the sense that either (i) or (ii) was implied, and we (OSM) 
need to understand what is meant.  I'm happy to agree with you that we go 
along with interpretation (ii).


Regards

David


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09 E008°23'33

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk












___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk