Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
On 27 November 2010 06:25, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: For addressing, I guess it is usually sufficient to have a street name - the exact addr:housenumber stuff is not needed I assume? Something I can comment on (speaking as just me, not nearmap for once!) having been looking recently at some feedback from people relating to searching done using OSM data; unfortunately street isn't good enough. As SteveC points out in a later reply, some places have roads that are very long; the Albany highway in WA is 410km long and the numbering runs from around 51 in Albany to 2500-odd up near Perth, meaning that locating the Chicken Treat in Albany just by street name is subject to a considerable margin of error. Assuming that you'd ever want to locate a Chicken Treat. As Martijn van Exel comments, a good approach is to have start/end numbers per segment (or per block in cities) so that it's at least possible to get close to a number. Gathering number data at the junctions of streets is a darn sight quicker than doing a whole street, and gives a good gain in address accuracy for a smaller investment of time. I managed to do junction numbers for a large chunk of the suburb I live in in only about twice the time it took to do the street I live on (having to check numbers for subdivided plots slows things down a lot). OSM already has plenty of tools for 'noname' hunting but it is harder to track down streets which are missing from the map altogether. Another problem which crops up in WA, especially at the fringes of the metro area where there's lots of house-building going on; new streets appear almost without warning. This is something that could be assisted with processing of satellite or aerial images to identify roads - where there appears to be a road and there's no corresponding road in your database, that's where you concentrate your checking. Turn restrictions are also hard to survey manually. A mapper on foot or bicycle might not pay much attention to them, and again, it is hard to know when you have all of them. They might possibly be suggested from analysis of GPS traces, provided we have a large number of traces for an area and they are clearly tagged to show which ones are for travelling by car. This is one reason why a standard tagging scheme for GPS traces is needed. Or some of them can be spotted if you have decent resolution images to check, for example: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-31.955045,115.850815z=20t=knmd=20090702(helps if you can find an image where the cars don't obscure the arrows on the road). If I were Google, I'd have been capturing road markings and signs as part of Street View for eventual extraction of this sort of data from day one: http://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8ll=-31.954799,115.850835spn=0.001047,0.002064t=hz=20layer=ccbll=-31.954886,115.850879panoid=INN-K7Gt8NKz7PkL9V5r9Qcbp=12,160.76,,0,17.22 Getting back to the question of metrics; as a manager in my day job I've had to deal with measuring odd stuff for years - in the case of maps, I'd suggest following a Tom Gilb-esque approach and track the number of error reports that turn out be valid, by area, corrected for map density. In other words, one measures how accurate the map is in use. Unfortunately, I doubt that those sorts of figures would be released by a commercial map data provider. Finally (and echoing SteveC again), I'd give a +1 to the ability to do geocoding (both directions) as the #1 difference between current open mapping projects and commercial data. But routing (by which I mean full endpoint-to-endpoint connected routing, cross-border, including public transport and other non-road links) would be a pretty close second. Cheers Ben -- (speaking only for myself, not nearmap) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
On 27 November 2010 06:25, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: For addressing, I guess it is usually sufficient to have a street name - the exact addr:housenumber stuff is not needed I assume? Something I can comment on (speaking as just me, not nearmap for once!) having been looking recently at some feedback from people relating to searching done using OSM data; unfortunately street isn't good enough. As SteveC points out in a later reply, some places have roads that are very long; the Albany highway in WA is 410km long and the numbering runs from around 51 in Albany to 2500-odd up near Perth, meaning that locating the Chicken Treat in Albany just by street name is subject to a considerable margin of error. Assuming that you'd ever want to locate a Chicken Treat. As Martijn van Exel comments, a good approach is to have start/end numbers per segment (or per block in cities) so that it's at least possible to get close to a number. Gathering number data at the junctions of streets is a darn sight quicker than doing a whole street, and gives a good gain in address accuracy for a smaller investment of time. I managed to do junction numbers for a large chunk of the suburb I live in in only about twice the time it took to do the street I live on (having to check numbers for subdivided plots slows things down a lot). OSM already has plenty of tools for 'noname' hunting but it is harder to track down streets which are missing from the map altogether. Another problem which crops up in WA, especially at the fringes of the metro area where there's lots of house-building going on; new streets appear almost without warning. This is something that could be assisted with processing of satellite or aerial images to identify roads - where there appears to be a road and there's no corresponding road in your database, that's where you concentrate your checking. Turn restrictions are also hard to survey manually. A mapper on foot or bicycle might not pay much attention to them, and again, it is hard to know when you have all of them. They might possibly be suggested from analysis of GPS traces, provided we have a large number of traces for an area and they are clearly tagged to show which ones are for travelling by car. This is one reason why a standard tagging scheme for GPS traces is needed. Or some of them can be spotted if you have decent resolution images to check, for example: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-31.955045,115.850815z=20t=knmd=20090702(helps if you can find an image where the cars don't obscure the arrows on the road). If I were Google, I'd have been capturing road markings and signs as part of Street View for eventual extraction of this sort of data from day one: http://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8ll=-31.954799,115.850835spn=0.001047,0.002064t=hz=20layer=ccbll=-31.954886,115.850879panoid=INN-K7Gt8NKz7PkL9V5r9Qcbp=12,160.76,,0,17.22 Getting back to the question of metrics; as a manager in my day job I've had to deal with measuring odd stuff for years - in the case of maps, I'd suggest following a Tom Gilb-esque approach and track the number of error reports that turn out be valid, by area, corrected for map density. In other words, one measures how accurate the map is in use. Unfortunately, I doubt that those sorts of figures would be released by a commercial map data provider. Finally (and echoing SteveC again), I'd give a +1 to the ability to do geocoding (both directions) as the #1 difference between current open mapping projects and commercial data. But routing (by which I mean full endpoint-to-endpoint connected routing, cross-border, including public transport and other non-road links) would be a pretty close second. Cheers Ben -- (speaking only for myself, not nearmap) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
On 27 November 2010 08:45, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: I'd much rather see a relative completeness grid map to inspire people to go out and visit those grids that seem less than perfect. There's a tool I'd like to see available, with it own data store, that overlays the main database. I'd try and write it myself, but I'd suck at it. I'd like a map that I can go to, draw a polygon, add a date, and declare that every street in that area is mapped/checked as per that date. You can have various levels of completeness if you want - mapped, mapped and named, all turn restrictions, etc; but just checking that all the roads exist is a good start. The no-name map and similar can take it from there. I happened to be in a area recently I mapped some time ago, so I checked an area where developers were working at the time. They seem to have stopped, no new roads have been added since. But because I have nothing new to add, there's no sign on the map that I checked it last week, nothing in that area is newer than 18 months. In a completeness grid (or on OSM), this area would look unfinished. I guess one day when the housing market picks up a bit, it will get new roads eventually, but for now it is actually correct. The other thing that would be nice in the same tool would be the ability to add a marker were a check will be needed in the future. If you know something will need mapping in a month or two (or six), mark it down as a reminder that anybody will be able to see when the time is up. I'd really like to be able to bring up a version of the map, with colour shaded backgrounds that show how long ago an area was last declared checked, and maybe some markers were people think something is going to need to be looked at. I keep something like this on paper for my immediate area, but a group tool would be more useful. Stephen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
SteveC steve at asklater.com writes: For addressing, I guess it is usually sufficient to have a street name - the exact addr:housenumber stuff is not needed I assume? Imagine a country where many streets are miles and miles long. Then yes, it matters as you could be 10 miles out Ah, yes. So if we wanted to aim for a geocoding accuracy of one kilometre as a minimum, then any road longer than one kilometre needs house numbers. Turn restrictions are also hard to survey manually. They might possibly be suggested from analysis of GPS traces, provided we have a large number of traces for an area and they are clearly tagged to show which ones are for travelling by car. This is one reason why a standard tagging scheme for GPS traces is needed. You can expose it with things like routing. I don't understand what you mean - do you mean that OSM-based routing apps could submit a trace back to the server as you drive along? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
I think everyone agrees that detailed legal discussion belongs on the legal list. Questions such as how any licence transition should proceed, deletion of existing bits of map, and how to organize the voting process are not legal arcana but questions of project governance, and surely belong on this list. I am sorry I asked about what Microsoft and others would like to see from OSM's licensing terms. I hoped that some concrete answers would help discussion to move on from the mostly fixed positions and legal nitpicking we see on the legal mailing list (of which I am just as guilty as anyone else). But I guess the big mapping sites are not willing to make a public statement for fear of being seen to influence the project. That is a shame, since we are somewhat in the dark about what the rest of the world thinks. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 06:22:26AM +1100, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: You forgot to say that talk is for matters that mappers wish to discuss with the whole community. Perhaps you could respect this and stop hiding stuff which is important on legal-talk where there are fewer subscribers than on talk. Not that the whole community reads talk anyway, but… I hereby notify the whole community (on talk) that there is a plethora of mailing lists covering various topics, listed at the following places: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mailing_lists There, now the whole community (on talk) should be aware of the lists. Any posting of topics specifically covered by a list is now not only arrogant, but demeaning to the whole community (on talk) in that they are assumed to be incapable of subscribing to another list and choosing what subjects to listen to. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
Hi Johnny, On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Johnny Rose Carlsen o...@wenix.dk wrote: Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: You forgot to say that talk is for matters that mappers wish to discuss with the whole community. Perhaps you could respect this and stop hiding stuff [...] important [info] on legal-talk Just a small point -- legal-talk is an open and publicly available list. I don't think suggesting and steering the discussion to the topical list is hiding. Interesting topic and question raised, someone finds a reason to mention the license change, most of the thread from there is bitching about the license change. [...] Unfortunately I mostly miss the real and good answers to discussions, because I end of ignoring 90% of the threads. If I am the only one who acts like this, then feel free to ignore me. But if this is somewhat common behaviour, then the talk list is in big trouble. I too, am not fully decided on the license change at this point. I actually _did_ follow a bunch of messages where there was discussion about the license. Some good points were brought up, I'll admit. However, you are quite correct in stating that EVERY discussion has these same few points brought up, as well as general discussion and FUD, so that the original posting and any topics it has get lost in the noise. So, you are not alone. Personally, I think the constant repetition and ensuing flamewar does more harm then any license change might -- and it certainly isn't helping the people who are bringing it up all the time to win my vote. Thanks, Gerald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 3:27 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: I think everyone agrees that detailed legal discussion belongs on the legal list. Questions such as how any licence transition should proceed, deletion of existing bits of map, and how to organize the voting process are not legal arcana but questions of project governance, and surely belong on this list. Quite common sense. The legal list should be geared toward legal discussion of the license. The talk list should be geared toward non-legal discussion of it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 4:59 AM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: Any posting of topics specifically covered by a list is now not only arrogant, but demeaning to the whole community (on talk) in that they are assumed to be incapable of subscribing to another list and choosing what subjects to listen to. On that note, I recommend a list for people who want to discuss whether or not licensing talk belongs on the talk list. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
Speaking personally about what large orgs and what they want, I think it's pretty simple. Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what are the main things missing? Addressing for geocoding and turn restrictions for routing. On Nov 26, 2010, at 1:27 AM, Ed Avis wrote: I think everyone agrees that detailed legal discussion belongs on the legal list. Questions such as how any licence transition should proceed, deletion of existing bits of map, and how to organize the voting process are not legal arcana but questions of project governance, and surely belong on this list. I am sorry I asked about what Microsoft and others would like to see from OSM's licensing terms. I hoped that some concrete answers would help discussion to move on from the mostly fixed positions and legal nitpicking we see on the legal mailing list (of which I am just as guilty as anyone else). But I guess the big mapping sites are not willing to make a public statement for fear of being seen to influence the project. That is a shame, since we are somewhat in the dark about what the rest of the world thinks. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
...and some metric that tells you that the data covers 99.1273% of reality. fwiw. But there's a point there, serious users want to know more about quality than they can find out easily right now. How you define quality, that's another discussion. Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org laziness – impatience – hubris http://schaaltreinen.nl | http://martijnvanexel.nl | http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ twitter / skype: mvexel flickr: rhodes On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:36 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Speaking personally about what large orgs and what they want, I think it's pretty simple. Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what are the main things missing? Addressing for geocoding and turn restrictions for routing. On Nov 26, 2010, at 1:27 AM, Ed Avis wrote: I think everyone agrees that detailed legal discussion belongs on the legal list. Questions such as how any licence transition should proceed, deletion of existing bits of map, and how to organize the voting process are not legal arcana but questions of project governance, and surely belong on this list. I am sorry I asked about what Microsoft and others would like to see from OSM's licensing terms. I hoped that some concrete answers would help discussion to move on from the mostly fixed positions and legal nitpicking we see on the legal mailing list (of which I am just as guilty as anyone else). But I guess the big mapping sites are not willing to make a public statement for fear of being seen to influence the project. That is a shame, since we are somewhat in the dark about what the rest of the world thinks. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
On Nov 26, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: ...and some metric that tells you that the data covers 99.1273% of reality. fwiw. But there's a point there, serious users want to know more about quality than they can find out easily right now. How you define quality, that's another discussion. And that's kind of the problem - what is it? Everyone wants a simple definition and metric but it just doesn't exist. Even when you compare to ground truth, commercial providers are almost as wrong as they are right. That means if OSM has 100 turn restrictions and they have 100 it doesn't tell you very much about which ones are right and which are wrong. Which is counter-intuituve and hard to explain when advocating OSM as a source. Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org laziness – impatience – hubris http://schaaltreinen.nl | http://martijnvanexel.nl | http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ twitter / skype: mvexel flickr: rhodes On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:36 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Speaking personally about what large orgs and what they want, I think it's pretty simple. Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what are the main things missing? Addressing for geocoding and turn restrictions for routing. On Nov 26, 2010, at 1:27 AM, Ed Avis wrote: I think everyone agrees that detailed legal discussion belongs on the legal list. Questions such as how any licence transition should proceed, deletion of existing bits of map, and how to organize the voting process are not legal arcana but questions of project governance, and surely belong on this list. I am sorry I asked about what Microsoft and others would like to see from OSM's licensing terms. I hoped that some concrete answers would help discussion to move on from the mostly fixed positions and legal nitpicking we see on the legal mailing list (of which I am just as guilty as anyone else). But I guess the big mapping sites are not willing to make a public statement for fear of being seen to influence the project. That is a shame, since we are somewhat in the dark about what the rest of the world thinks. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 4:36 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what are the main things missing? The main thing missing is consistency. You'll often find a highly detailed section of map right next to a much more sparsely detailed section. With commercial data, this tends to happen only at jurisdictional boundaries. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
The metrics TeleAtlas and NAVTEQ give you are all smokescreens and impossible to verify. Completeness and spatial accuracy are interesting but what will be your reference to measure against? What I think is interesting is something you could call crowd quality, where you measure things like how many users have been active in an area, what is their experience / reputation, and how does their mapping activity affect individual features: how many versions, growing attribute richness, spatial convergence. If you can correlate this to the 'objective' quality metric (completeness, accuracy) you could predict how good OSM is even in places where you don't have any reference data to measure against. Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org laziness – impatience – hubris http://schaaltreinen.nl | http://martijnvanexel.nl | http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ twitter / skype: mvexel flickr: rhodes On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:49 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Nov 26, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: ...and some metric that tells you that the data covers 99.1273% of reality. fwiw. But there's a point there, serious users want to know more about quality than they can find out easily right now. How you define quality, that's another discussion. And that's kind of the problem - what is it? Everyone wants a simple definition and metric but it just doesn't exist. Even when you compare to ground truth, commercial providers are almost as wrong as they are right. That means if OSM has 100 turn restrictions and they have 100 it doesn't tell you very much about which ones are right and which are wrong. Which is counter-intuituve and hard to explain when advocating OSM as a source. Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org laziness – impatience – hubris http://schaaltreinen.nl | http://martijnvanexel.nl | http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ twitter / skype: mvexel flickr: rhodes On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:36 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Speaking personally about what large orgs and what they want, I think it's pretty simple. Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what are the main things missing? Addressing for geocoding and turn restrictions for routing. On Nov 26, 2010, at 1:27 AM, Ed Avis wrote: I think everyone agrees that detailed legal discussion belongs on the legal list. Questions such as how any licence transition should proceed, deletion of existing bits of map, and how to organize the voting process are not legal arcana but questions of project governance, and surely belong on this list. I am sorry I asked about what Microsoft and others would like to see from OSM's licensing terms. I hoped that some concrete answers would help discussion to move on from the mostly fixed positions and legal nitpicking we see on the legal mailing list (of which I am just as guilty as anyone else). But I guess the big mapping sites are not willing to make a public statement for fear of being seen to influence the project. That is a shame, since we are somewhat in the dark about what the rest of the world thinks. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
On Nov 26, 2010, at 3:03 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: The metrics TeleAtlas and NAVTEQ give you are all smokescreens and impossible to verify. Can you expand on that - what are they? Completeness and spatial accuracy are interesting but what will be your reference to measure against? What I think is interesting is something you could call crowd quality, where you measure things like how many users have been active in an area, what is their experience / reputation, and how does their mapping activity affect individual features: how many versions, growing attribute richness, spatial convergence. If you can correlate this to the 'objective' quality metric (completeness, accuracy) you could predict how good OSM is even in places where you don't have any reference data to measure against. Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org laziness – impatience – hubris http://schaaltreinen.nl | http://martijnvanexel.nl | http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ twitter / skype: mvexel flickr: rhodes On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:49 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Nov 26, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: ...and some metric that tells you that the data covers 99.1273% of reality. fwiw. But there's a point there, serious users want to know more about quality than they can find out easily right now. How you define quality, that's another discussion. And that's kind of the problem - what is it? Everyone wants a simple definition and metric but it just doesn't exist. Even when you compare to ground truth, commercial providers are almost as wrong as they are right. That means if OSM has 100 turn restrictions and they have 100 it doesn't tell you very much about which ones are right and which are wrong. Which is counter-intuituve and hard to explain when advocating OSM as a source. Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org laziness – impatience – hubris http://schaaltreinen.nl | http://martijnvanexel.nl | http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ twitter / skype: mvexel flickr: rhodes On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:36 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Speaking personally about what large orgs and what they want, I think it's pretty simple. Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what are the main things missing? Addressing for geocoding and turn restrictions for routing. On Nov 26, 2010, at 1:27 AM, Ed Avis wrote: I think everyone agrees that detailed legal discussion belongs on the legal list. Questions such as how any licence transition should proceed, deletion of existing bits of map, and how to organize the voting process are not legal arcana but questions of project governance, and surely belong on this list. I am sorry I asked about what Microsoft and others would like to see from OSM's licensing terms. I hoped that some concrete answers would help discussion to move on from the mostly fixed positions and legal nitpicking we see on the legal mailing list (of which I am just as guilty as anyone else). But I guess the big mapping sites are not willing to make a public statement for fear of being seen to influence the project. That is a shame, since we are somewhat in the dark about what the rest of the world thinks. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Steve stevecoast.com Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
SteveC steve at asklater.com writes: Speaking personally about what large orgs and what they want, I think it's pretty simple. Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what are the main things missing? Addressing for geocoding and turn restrictions for routing. For addressing, I guess it is usually sufficient to have a street name - the exact addr:housenumber stuff is not needed I assume? OSM already has plenty of tools for 'noname' hunting but it is harder to track down streets which are missing from the map altogether. In the United Kingdom we are fortunate to have the OS Locator database to check against, although even that is by no means complete. Without such a secondary source, noticing that a particular obscure side street is not on the map has to wait until a dedicated OSM contributor happens to walk past it. In a seemingly-complete area, that could take a while. But I think that name searches (from a website or a geocoding API) can help with the task of finding missing addresses. With access to a big dump of all name searches done from the Bing website (suitably anonymized) it would be possible to feed them all through Nominatim and see likely candidates for missing streets. Of course this procedure can produce only hints for resurveying, it can't add the streets to the map or even provide proof that they exist, but for getting the last 2% of missing addresses in an area we have to take any help we can get. Are you and the other Microsoft people able to generate any bulk data of this kind? Turn restrictions are also hard to survey manually. A mapper on foot or bicycle might not pay much attention to them, and again, it is hard to know when you have all of them. They might possibly be suggested from analysis of GPS traces, provided we have a large number of traces for an area and they are clearly tagged to show which ones are for travelling by car. This is one reason why a standard tagging scheme for GPS traces is needed. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
They usually pull something like we serve 95% of the population for area XYZ. For starters, there's some level of assumption behind that - having street level coverage in areas that hold 95% of the population does not make the data useful for those same 95% - but it really obfuscates the fact that they may only cover 30% of a country's geography. This may very well be a matter of supply and demand - they are only going to take cross-subsidization so far - but a metric like that does not have any real bearing on quality. I'll check some recent NAVTEQ / TeleAtlas on Monday to see what kind of claims they're making in the metadata. Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org laziness – impatience – hubris http://schaaltreinen.nl | http://martijnvanexel.nl | http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ twitter / skype: mvexel flickr: rhodes On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:11 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Nov 26, 2010, at 3:03 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: The metrics TeleAtlas and NAVTEQ give you are all smokescreens and impossible to verify. Can you expand on that - what are they? Completeness and spatial accuracy are interesting but what will be your reference to measure against? What I think is interesting is something you could call crowd quality, where you measure things like how many users have been active in an area, what is their experience / reputation, and how does their mapping activity affect individual features: how many versions, growing attribute richness, spatial convergence. If you can correlate this to the 'objective' quality metric (completeness, accuracy) you could predict how good OSM is even in places where you don't have any reference data to measure against. Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org laziness – impatience – hubris http://schaaltreinen.nl | http://martijnvanexel.nl | http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ twitter / skype: mvexel flickr: rhodes On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:49 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Nov 26, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: ...and some metric that tells you that the data covers 99.1273% of reality. fwiw. But there's a point there, serious users want to know more about quality than they can find out easily right now. How you define quality, that's another discussion. And that's kind of the problem - what is it? Everyone wants a simple definition and metric but it just doesn't exist. Even when you compare to ground truth, commercial providers are almost as wrong as they are right. That means if OSM has 100 turn restrictions and they have 100 it doesn't tell you very much about which ones are right and which are wrong. Which is counter-intuituve and hard to explain when advocating OSM as a source. Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org laziness – impatience – hubris http://schaaltreinen.nl | http://martijnvanexel.nl | http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ twitter / skype: mvexel flickr: rhodes On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:36 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Speaking personally about what large orgs and what they want, I think it's pretty simple. Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what are the main things missing? Addressing for geocoding and turn restrictions for routing. On Nov 26, 2010, at 1:27 AM, Ed Avis wrote: I think everyone agrees that detailed legal discussion belongs on the legal list. Questions such as how any licence transition should proceed, deletion of existing bits of map, and how to organize the voting process are not legal arcana but questions of project governance, and surely belong on this list. I am sorry I asked about what Microsoft and others would like to see from OSM's licensing terms. I hoped that some concrete answers would help discussion to move on from the mostly fixed positions and legal nitpicking we see on the legal mailing list (of which I am just as guilty as anyone else). But I guess the big mapping sites are not willing to make a public statement for fear of being seen to influence the project. That is a shame, since we are somewhat in the dark about what the rest of the world thinks. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Steve stevecoast.com Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: SteveC steve at asklater.com writes: Speaking personally about what large orgs and what they want, I think it's pretty simple. Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what are the main things missing? Addressing for geocoding and turn restrictions for routing. For addressing, I guess it is usually sufficient to have a street name - the exact addr:housenumber stuff is not needed I assume? The commercial street network data providers usually go with ranges per segment to be able to route to the right block at least. Individual house numbers - if they exist - may be a big bonus in sparsely populated rural areas where addresses may be miles apart. OSM already has plenty of tools for 'noname' hunting but it is harder to track down streets which are missing from the map altogether. In the United Kingdom we are fortunate to have the OS Locator database to check against, although even that is by no means complete. Without such a secondary source, noticing that a particular obscure side street is not on the map has to wait until a dedicated OSM contributor happens to walk past it. In a seemingly-complete area, that could take a while. At least in Europe more and more reference data will become available in the near future. in Germany, local groups have been successful in retrieving reference street name lists from local authorities so they could go out and map the missing streets in a more targeted effort. Here in NL we have the imminent release of the national road database, and also the upcoming Base Registries coming into effect, also containing addresses and buildings. These are all (supposed to be) open and accessible. Some speak of importing, I'd much rather see a relative completeness grid map to inspire people to go out and visit those grids that seem less than perfect. [...] -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
Martijn, Martijn van Exel wrote: They usually pull something like we serve 95% of the population for area XYZ. [...] I've also seen them avoiding the coverage talk completely, and preferring to say things like: xy% of our road network is re-checked per year, and at least zz% has been checked at least once in the previous 2 years or something. Which is, at least, a hard fact, and something that reassures customers (makes them think the material is current). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
Speaking personally about what large orgs and what they want, I think it's pretty simple. Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what are the main things missing? Addressing for geocoding and turn restrictions for routing. For addressing, I guess it is usually sufficient to have a street name - the exact addr:housenumber stuff is not needed I assume? On the contrary, any use in a serious navigation system fails to meet user expectation if not using accurate addr:housenumber. The #1 or #2 complaint in Skobbler's free US Smartphone navigation app is that the location is .25 mile, 9 houses, or 1/2 block from the real location. It is extremely useful and impressive to be delivered to the exact street address. I would be surprised if there is any realistic way to crowdsource 99% of addr:housenumber in the US. It's mindnumbing work, dangerous in some areas where pedestrians and bikes are not safe. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
This is a fun one. CANVEC has address ranges for some Canadian provinces. Locally after I imported the address ranges I found the missing streets because you just have the two address lines with no road in the middle. Working with others such as CANVEC does provide a method of cross checking for the data and in this case improves the accuracy of the map. It also has enabled people to fill in the basic map for some very remote locations. What CANVEC isn't so strong at is detail on point of interests such as restricted junctions or where there are traffic signals so OSM with imported data gives a very good blend. Cheerio John On 26 November 2010 16:51, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 4:36 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what are the main things missing? The main thing missing is consistency. You'll often find a highly detailed section of map right next to a much more sparsely detailed section. With commercial data, this tends to happen only at jurisdictional boundaries. ___ 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] Suggestion for an Unconference
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote: I would be surprised if there is any realistic way to crowdsource 99% of addr:housenumber in the US. It's mindnumbing work, dangerous in some areas where pedestrians and bikes are not safe. In most areas of the US you can crowdsource the collection of public domain information collected by others (usually governments), though. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
Certainly in Canada we have been having licensing issues with some levels of government to be able to include their data in OSM. Part of the problem is the open ended nature of the new license, the bit where OSM says Oh and we can change the data license to anything we want to in the future. On a practical level it makes explaining what we'd like from them very difficult indeed and I can sympathize with their point of view. I'd say that part of the new license creates too much uncertainty to be practical and makes working with others or importing very difficult which I suspect it was deliberately designed to do. In some parts of the world such as Germany and the UK there are enough mappers on the ground so that imports are not so valuable. Even here the UK has done a very nice job importing bus tops, it sounds mundane but to some map users knowing where the bus stops are is important, especially the old fogies with free bus passes. Cheerio John On 26 November 2010 18:14, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote: I would be surprised if there is any realistic way to crowdsource 99% of addr:housenumber in the US. It's mindnumbing work, dangerous in some areas where pedestrians and bikes are not safe. In most areas of the US you can crowdsource the collection of public domain information collected by others (usually governments), though. ___ 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] Suggestion for an Unconference
On Nov 26, 2010, at 3:25 PM, Ed Avis wrote: SteveC steve at asklater.com writes: Speaking personally about what large orgs and what they want, I think it's pretty simple. Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what are the main things missing? Addressing for geocoding and turn restrictions for routing. For addressing, I guess it is usually sufficient to have a street name - the exact addr:housenumber stuff is not needed I assume? Imagine a country where many streets are miles and miles long. Then yes, it matters as you could be 10 miles out :-) The country would be the US or Canada. Turn restrictions are also hard to survey manually. A mapper on foot or bicycle might not pay much attention to them, and again, it is hard to know when you have all of them. They might possibly be suggested from analysis of GPS traces, provided we have a large number of traces for an area and they are clearly tagged to show which ones are for travelling by car. This is one reason why a standard tagging scheme for GPS traces is needed. You can expose it with things like routing. Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 09:23 -0500, Gerald A wrote: Just a small point -- legal-talk is an open and publicly available list. I don't think suggesting and steering the discussion to the topical list is hiding. If there was a proposal to change the name to OpenMap instead of OpenStreetMap, which dragged on for many months, and everytime someone brought up an issue, someone said 'get over it, take it to new-name email list', would you believe that to be acceptable or 'hiding' an important discussion? As others have said, legal details such as grammatical or legalese issues, should be discussed on legal-talk. What would you think if parliament simply made laws and refused to publish the changed laws, stating that if you really wanted to know about law changes, youre welcome to sit in the public gallery all day and keep up-to-date yourself. Not everyone cares enough to sit through legal deliberations for 12 hours, to keep track of law changes theyre required to comply with, in the same way not everyone cares enough to read through all the legal detail that belongs on the talk list, simply to stay up-to-date with general information, such as timelines and the life of their data. So, you are not alone. Personally, I think the constant repetition and ensuing flamewar does more harm then any license change might I think such an important issue taking so many years to get anywhere, and not sticking at all to any timeline, is whats doing more harm than good. The problem is, rather than addressing the handful of complaints (that as you point out are repeated over and over again), the powers that be are telling them to go away, then wondering why we dont. People keep saying the decisions have been made many years ago, so, why has it taken so long to do anything? Im sure the time its taken for this licence change, is many times longer than the whole project took to establish in the first place, and has probably dragged on for a significant portion of the projects life. THAT is whats doing harm to the project, not people discussing it. Open projects like this, generally dont attract the sheep who just put up with it, they attract people who are aware of their licence rights and are used to groups trying to screw others to get what they want, usually using legal avenues to do so. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 22:25 +, Ed Avis wrote: SteveC steve at asklater.com writes: Speaking personally about what large orgs and what they want, I think it's pretty simple. Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what are the main things missing? Addressing for geocoding and turn restrictions for routing. For addressing, I guess it is usually sufficient to have a street name - the exact addr:housenumber stuff is not needed I assume? Just to make things more fun, in Australia rural numbers are changing, from a mailbox number, to a number which when multiplied by 10 gives the distance from the start of the road. For example, if you live at 2638 Smith Rd, the driveway location is 26,380m from the start of the road. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
So, how does this new Australian rural numbering scheme handle the case of the road being extended from its original starting point? Will every address along that road have a new address assigned to it, will the new stretch of road have negative numbers as addresses, or will the road be renamed, so that Smith Road will become Smith Road West and Smith Road East, with the name changing at the former origin point? Nashville, Tennessee, USA, where I live, has a version of the latter scheme for some street names. Around 1900, a lot of streets crossing West End Avenue were renamed to 1st Ave North (north of West End Avenue), 1st Avenue South (south of West End Avenue), etc. The house numbers are based upon the distance from West End Avenue. Unfortunately, no such orderly system was used for street names, or house numbers, anywhere else in the city. There are even a few named, rather than numbered, streets interspersed among the numbered streets, since the city planners back in 1900 apparently decided that streets only one or two blocks long wouldn't have their names changed. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference From :mailto:da...@incanberra.com.au Date :Fri Nov 26 18:24:17 America/Chicago 2010 On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 22:25 +, Ed Avis wrote: SteveC steve at asklater.com writes: Speaking personally about what large orgs and what they want, I think it's pretty simple. Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what are the main things missing? Addressing for geocoding and turn restrictions for routing. For addressing, I guess it is usually sufficient to have a street name - the exact addr:housenumber stuff is not needed I assume? Just to make things more fun, in Australia rural numbers are changing, from a mailbox number, to a number which when multiplied by 10 gives the distance from the start of the road. For example, if you live at 2638 Smith Rd, the driveway location is 26,380m from the start of the road. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
[follow-ups to legal-talk please] David Murn wrote: I have no interest in the legal detail of the licence, only interested in talking about the ramifications of the licence on our map data, no matter how many times people try to derail this important issue to a legal mailing list. It is nothing to do with derailing. The tagging@ list is there for discussions of how tagging impacts on our map data. No-one is saying that tagging isn't important: it's just a big subject that some people have chosen not to be interested in. The legal-talk@ list is there for discussions of how legal matters impact on our map data. No-one is saying that legal matters aren't important: they're just a big subject that some people have chosen not to be interested in. Please have some respect for your fellow mappers, and let _them_ choose what they're interested in by subscribing to the right list; don't try and tell them what they should be interested in by posting everything to talk@ regardless. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Suggestion-for-an-Unconference-tp5768507p5773851.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:13:27 -0800 (PST) Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: [follow-ups to legal-talk please] David Murn wrote: I have no interest in the legal detail of the licence, only interested in talking about the ramifications of the licence on our map data, no matter how many times people try to derail this important issue to a legal mailing list. It is nothing to do with derailing. The tagging@ list is there for discussions of how tagging impacts on our map data. No-one is saying that tagging isn't important: it's just a big subject that some people have chosen not to be interested in. The legal-talk@ list is there for discussions of how legal matters impact on our map data. No-one is saying that legal matters aren't important: they're just a big subject that some people have chosen not to be interested in. Please have some respect for your fellow mappers, and let _them_ choose what they're interested in by subscribing to the right list; don't try and tell them what they should be interested in by posting everything to talk@ regardless. cheers Richard You forgot to say that talk is for matters that mappers wish to discuss with the whole community. Perhaps you could respect this and stop hiding stuff which is important on legal-talk where there are fewer subscribers than on talk. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
Just a comment from one of the 130 who has voted yes on the recommendation of one of the people I thought was fairly sensible here and I now regret taking his advice. I now strongly suspect I should have spent six months wading through through the legal talk side of things rather than mapping because a whole slew of issues seem to be coming up here. I would like the ability to go back and change my vote. I don't like being told this is not the place for discussion of license issues or concerns. In light of the recent involvement of Microsoft and other large players I think there are perception problems that need to be addressed. For example I'm very concerned that there is no plan to deal with the transition to the new licensing model. Perhaps OSM should take note of the Open Data mob and be a little more open about what is happening rather than trying to censure discussion on issues and concerns which apparently have not been addressed by the decision makers. They seem to have taken decisions but won't accept any responsibility to address issues and concerns. I'm not asking to stay with the old licenses necessarily but I would like to see some sort of plan and if we can find a way to address the issues and concerns. Cheerio John On 24 November 2010 22:28, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 00:11 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: 2. The license train has left the station. We've been at this for ages and there is no viable alternative. We will certainly not throw away years of deliberations just because a handful of US corporations asked us to (and imagine the outcry among mappers if we were to do that). I think you mean 'The license slow-coach has left the station'.. If theres 'no alternative' then what is going to happen at the next stages of the license changeover, where apparently the community will be asked what to do next? I wonder if its a case of 'previous submissions need not submit again', when it comes to asking the community our views. By the way, from a quick glance at the voting process and timeline, it appears the train might have left the station, but no-one was onboard. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan You'll note that re-licensing only started to occur 12 weeks ago and the voting process had 130 people vote yes (Ive never seen a way to vote no, other than navigating away from the page with a single 'accept' button), hardly a case of left-the-station. I wonder how many people would change their vote, knowing the interests that large companies are getting in OSM, and how many people would be starting to worry about any 'future licence change' clause in CTs, when the projects founder works for the company known for taking over and screwing over other groups with legal avenues and licences. Fortunately from the wiki, the comment: Note: Licensing Working Group (LWG) is currently primarily focusing on clarification improvements to the Contributor Terms and resolving license issues with data donors. leads me to believe that despite what you and others are saying about everything being set in stone and not being able to be changed, is wrong, and the LWG *ARE* seeking to improve and fix the CTs and licence issues. At least it appears one working group is trying to hold the forks together while other individials try and drive the wedge in. 3. In case you want to go into any kind of detail about the license, legal-talk ist that way ---. I have no interest in the legal detail of the licence, only interested in talking about the ramifications of the licence on our map data, no matter how many times people try to derail this important issue to a legal mailing list. 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] Suggestion for an Unconference
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:13:27 -0800 (PST) Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: [follow-ups to legal-talk please] David Murn wrote: I have no interest in the legal detail of the licence, only interested in talking about the ramifications of the licence on our map data, no matter how many times people try to derail this important issue to a legal mailing list. It is nothing to do with derailing. The tagging@ list is there for discussions of how tagging impacts on our map data. No-one is saying that tagging isn't important: it's just a big subject that some people have chosen not to be interested in. The legal-talk@ list is there for discussions of how legal matters impact on our map data. No-one is saying that legal matters aren't important: they're just a big subject that some people have chosen not to be interested in. Please have some respect for your fellow mappers, and let _them_ choose what they're interested in by subscribing to the right list; don't try and tell them what they should be interested in by posting everything to talk@ regardless. cheers Richard You forgot to say that talk is for matters that mappers wish to discuss with the whole community. Perhaps you could respect this and stop hiding stuff which is important on legal-talk where there are fewer subscribers than on talk. Does anyone know the recipe for Nando's peri-peri sauce? I was walking past Nando's earlier and it smelled awesome. But it's like £10 or something so I was wondering if it's possible to make the sauce at home and grill a normal chicken? Thanks! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: You forgot to say that talk is for matters that mappers wish to discuss with the whole community. Perhaps you could respect this and stop hiding stuff which is important on legal-talk where there are fewer subscribers than on talk. I don't say much here, but I do agree with Richard (and others). I haven't decided 100% about the license, and for that reason I follow the legal-talk list. Reading the talk list here always goes like this: Interesting topic and question raised, someone finds a reason to mention the license change, most of the thread from there is bitching about the license change. What I do, is read a few replies, discover the license bitching and then select Ignore thread because I don't always want to read about the license, there are other issues too. Unfortunately I mostly miss the real and good answers to discussions, because I end of ignoring 90% of the threads. Sometimes when I do want to catch up on the license, I read talk-legal - and this might only be a few times a week. If I am the only one who acts like this, then feel free to ignore me. But if this is somewhat common behaviour, then the talk list is in big trouble. - Johnny ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
On 24 November 2010 18:20, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote: Dangerous question. On the one hand you are right: It would be awesome. But on the other OSM should not be as a big companies wants it to be. I agree with the statement that OSM should be what OSM wants to be. If the goal of OSM coincides with those companies, good, else we should not move out of our way to serve those companies interest. Emily Laffray ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
Hey Peter and Emilie: Totally agree - hence the reason to have an unconference. The important part of this conference would be the back and forth as we try to find the place where we both can get value. I think everyone who wrote the original letter is very sensitive to the claims of any company driving OSM - this is NOT what we want. Does that make sense? Steve From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org on behalf of Emilie Laffray Sent: Wed 11/24/2010 10:33 AM To: Peter Wendorff Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference On 24 November 2010 18:20, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote: Dangerous question. On the one hand you are right: It would be awesome. But on the other OSM should not be as a big companies wants it to be. I agree with the statement that OSM should be what OSM wants to be. If the goal of OSM coincides with those companies, good, else we should not move out of our way to serve those companies interest. Emily Laffray ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
On 25 November 2010 00:03, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote: But on the other OSM should not be as a big companies wants it to be. I agree with the statement that OSM should be what OSM wants to be. If the goal of OSM coincides with those companies, good, else we should not move out of our way to serve those companies interest. Exactly , I am afraid of these big names and their influence . Oracle and the set of forks which evolved from the FOSS projects it bought out (call it ownership ! ) should be a eye opener ! Regards, Pavithran -- pavithran sakamuri http://look-pavi.blogspot.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
Hrm. I think we should have some kind of idea of what we're trying to accomplish. There are a bunch of companies interested in OSM, and it might be nice for them to talk. I suspect it's about as simple as that? But we don't want to do that and exclude anyone else, so it should be free for anyone else to come along. I'd avoid discussion about where we both get value... because OSM isn't really a company you can negotiate terms with. The license on the data is what it is, take it or leave it. So there's not really any discussion about OSM giving anyone more value in that sense. On Nov 24, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Steve Citron-Pousty wrote: Hey Peter and Emilie: Totally agree - hence the reason to have an unconference. The important part of this conference would be the back and forth as we try to find the place where we both can get value. I think everyone who wrote the original letter is very sensitive to the claims of any company driving OSM - this is NOT what we want. Does that make sense? Steve From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org on behalf of Emilie Laffray Sent: Wed 11/24/2010 10:33 AM To: Peter Wendorff Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference On 24 November 2010 18:20, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote: Dangerous question. On the one hand you are right: It would be awesome. But on the other OSM should not be as a big companies wants it to be. I agree with the statement that OSM should be what OSM wants to be. If the goal of OSM coincides with those companies, good, else we should not move out of our way to serve those companies interest. Emily Laffray ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that Microsoft, Cloudmade or anybody else
should attempt to control the OSM project. ('anybody else' is quite broadly
defined in this case)
But I think it would be great at least to know what are the missing features and
data that these users of OSM would like to see. Whether that affects what you
do as an individual contributor is entirely up to you. But we can at least
find out.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
SteveC steve at asklater.com writes: I'd avoid discussion about where we both get value... because OSM isn't really a company you can negotiate terms with. The license on the data is what it is, take it or leave it. So there's not really any discussion about OSM giving anyone more value in that sense. Well, since there is a licence discussion anyway, how about it? What would Microsoft and others like to see from OSM's licence? It would be great to have some concrete preferences from the most important users. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
Greetings OSM: deCarta, Mapquest, Bing, and WeoGeo are really excited about where OSM is going - we would like to have an unconference on how mapping Corps can help OSM - what do people think? There should be a way we can work together to create value for everyone. We have more ideas or details that we can provide about how we MIGHT want to do this but we would really like to get this to be a community affair. Thanks Steve, Hurricane, Steve, and James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
I suggest to make it a ménage à trois and include the government perspective: USGS, EuroGeographics, etc. Also, the question of how can we help improve your product and operation is valid in all directions, not only -- OSM. Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org laziness – impatience – hubris http://schaaltreinen.nl | http://martijnvanexel.nl | http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ twitter / skype: mvexel flickr: rhodes On Nov 23, 2010, at 10:45 PM, Steve Citron-Pousty scitronpou...@decarta.com wrote: Greetings OSM: deCarta, Mapquest, Bing, and WeoGeo are really excited about where OSM is going - we would like to have an unconference on how mapping Corps can help OSM - what do people think? There should be a way we can work together to create value for everyone. We have more ideas or details that we can provide about how we MIGHT want to do this but we would really like to get this to be a community affair. Thanks Steve, Hurricane, Steve, and James ___ 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] Suggestion for an Unconference
Sounds interesting :) b On 24 November 2010 05:45, Steve Citron-Pousty scitronpou...@decarta.comwrote: Greetings OSM: deCarta, Mapquest, Bing, and WeoGeo are really excited about where OSM is going - we would like to have an unconference on how mapping Corps can help OSM - what do people think? There should be a way we can work together to create value for everyone. We have more ideas or details that we can provide about how we MIGHT want to do this but we would really like to get this to be a community affair. Thanks Steve, Hurricane, Steve, and James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Ben Last Development Manager nearmap.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
