[OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Hi! Am 02.01.2010 00:23, schrieb Frederik Ramm: > We cannot, and do not want to, trademark the words "open", "free" and > the like, but I think we could be a little bit more assertive about whom > we consider to be a kindred spirit and who is doing his own thing, and > apply the tiniest amount of pressure for people to upgrade from (b) to (a). > > I think many of us will be surprised how many "cool OSM projects" > actually fall into the (b) category. Before we talk about putting projects in categories - this would assume that there is an agreement on what those terms mean and what is the "right" direction to move into. But as far as I got it from previous discussions, opinions are very much divided here, too. So what does "open" mean: - everything is available to look at? - everything may be copied and re-used? - everybody may participate and change things? - all of that? And what does "free" mean: - generally available? - free of restrictions on usage? - free of cost? - available in an open format? - a combination of that? In my personal opinion, PD is free, while OSM is already non-free as it puts severe restrictions on the usage of the data. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
Hi! Am 01.01.2010 15:48, schrieb Anthony: > Only if you care. If you want simple, you click edit on potlatch, you > draw the way, you click on the car until it turns into a bicycle, and > you select "cycle track". > > Then those of us on the mailing list write 1000 emails about whether or > not you were right, but you probably don't even notice it. Not at first. But you note later, when your edit has been changed into something that you don't understand or someone sends you a notice to do it some other way. :-( bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
Hi! Am 31.12.2009 14:29, schrieb Anthony: > Maybe, but while the "supply of people willing to become mappers" is > limited, it isn't fixed. I took a quick look at GMM, and it looks to me > like it's not a bad introductory class for potential OSM contributors. > GMM doesn't offer anywhere near as many features as OSM, and given their > business model it seems unlikely to me that they ever will. And then, > even if they do, there would be nothing stopping someone from > contributing to OSM and then importing their contributions additionally > into GMM. I believe that GMM can be a serious competition to OSM if it is simpler to use, easier to learn and thus more inviting to the casual newcomer. With GMM you have one way of mapping a simple item e.g. a bicycle track. Everybody can do it in ten minutes, no questions arise. With OSM you have two major tools, a huge load of tags, a wiki, a forum, several mailing lists, three different answers to the question, long discussions, pages of contradictory documentation, plenty of old discussions and after working through all this, you realize that the question has not been resolved yet. I can see how many people would prefer the simple way offered by Google. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to manage GPX files?
Hi! Am 30.12.2009 08:18, schrieb Maarten Deen: > Is it just me or is there a limit to the size of the Java VM you can enter > in Windows XP? I've had on separate occasions had to lower the limit to > something like 1300 because it just wouldn't run. There is a limit, though it depends heavily on your machine. Absolute maximum on a 32bit Windows is 1600MB, a value that works on most machines is 1200MB. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] ClosedCycleMap (was: Re: Cross-renderer tag support, now with OSMdoc!)
Hi! Am 20.12.2009 03:58, schrieb John Smith: > Most of them might not have the technical skills or the inclination > since someone else has already made something "good enough" Technical skills and inclination are not enough. You also need considerable server side muscle to create a dedicated map. The standards for acceptance by the casual user have grown enourmously. A year ago, the main maps were re-rendered once a week and that was cool. Now they are updated daily/minutely and somehow people expect that from _every_ map. Weekly updates are now considered lame. And less than full world-wide coverage is lame, too. :-[ Most people are not aware of the server power required to do this. It ain't cheap, and getting support on a sponsored/community server takes time and effort, too. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
Hi! Pieren schrieb: > Therefore, I would like to know what "you", the contributor, thinks > today about the transition to Odbl 1.0 licence in this opinion poll: > > http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w > It is good that there is a general poll of opinion. This is something the OSMF should have organized. I have translated the call to German and put it on the talk-de. I am very interested in the outcome and am looking forward to see what the actual numbers say. One the request to those people questioning the poll (in true community style) or suggesting more options. Please leave the poll alone, it may not be perfect and may not have your personal preferred option, but it corresponds to the intended options of the real vote and the major realistic outcomes. It is a very good chance to get an overview over the opinion of the active people so please just cast your vote as best as you can. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
Hi!
Steve Bennett schrieb:
>
> Before you go, do you think there is potential at least to have
> consistency within each country?
It would be possible to solve the problem for each country.
It would also be possible to solve the problem generically for the whole
planet.
The real problem is that many people claim that there is no problem or
that they have already solved it and everybody should just do as they do.
Several of the approaches would work on their own if they were completed
to cover all use cases - but not with other interpretations using the
same tags in different ways thrown in between.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
Hi! Cartinus schrieb: > On Sunday 29 November 2009 22:53:58 Nop wrote: >> Richards view works only in the UK and fails >> terribly in Germany and other countries. > > Richards view works in a lot more countries than the UK. You can see it even > works in Germany by just looking at how Germany is currently mapped. Fuzzy > logic is flexible and extensible, that's why it works. Let me apply your logic to a different use case. Just imagine that in my country there is a law that generally allows bicycles to use a one-way road in both directions. So I would define one-way as "mainly or exclusively intended for use in one direction, bicycles may use both" and I claim that this is sufficient. If you have a more rigid law where one-way is strictly for all vehicles, it does not matter, fuzzy logic is good. Right? I don't think so. But again, it is a waste of time to discuss whether there is a problem at all when we have chaotic and contradictory tagging for very basic use cases. That is a problem. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
Hi! Cartinus schrieb: >> If you negate the existence of a problem that has been widely confirmed, >> you're not likely to contribute to a solution. >> > > Except that I am far from alone with my opinion. See e.g. Richards > explanation > somewhere at the start of this thread and the widespread opposition the path > tag gets. EVERY contradictory interpretation has a substantial number of followers - that IS the problem. Richards view works only in the UK and fails terribly in Germany and other countries. But sorry, I really am fed up with the pointless discussions on this matter, so I'll refrain from plucking apart the details. It has all been said before. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
Hi! Cartinus schrieb: > On Sunday 29 November 2009 01:34:19 Nop wrote: >> 2) AFAIK the only attempt at a neutral display of the different opinions >> is here: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path > > That page is far from neutral, because the only solutions it offers are doing > something with the path tag. It is an attempt. If you find something missing or have another suggestion for a solution, why don't you add it? bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
Hi! Roy Wallace schrieb: > The newbie reading these conflicting responses either 1) becomes > confused, or 2) begins to think that best practice is to invent your > own meaning for existing tags and then pass this secret knowledge on > to only the newbies who ask via email. This is not a good outcome. The newbie - who usually assumes that there is a simple and straightforward answer to the simple question "how to I tag a footway" - becomes confused - and frustrated that such a basic thing is unsolved and not looking like it's going to be solved one of these years. To the newcomer, this is somewhere between unexpected and crazy. > So if consistency is the goal, you cannot rely on various personal > opinions that exist only in people's minds and in email discussions > from time to time (which no doubt only a small proportion of mappers > ever read). You must write it down for reference. And if what's > written down has flaws, they must be fixed. No help there. The major contractiory interpretations of the tags around this topic are all "documented" in the wiki in contradictory ways. It just depends on which page you find first and what conlusions you derive from rather fuzzy definitions. > Note also that by the wiki serving as a "reference" I do not mean that > the wiki page for, say, footway must give only the one "true" > definition. It should 1) document the usage of tags as they occur in > the database, 2) detail any ongoing controversy and 3) if a consensus > exists, give a clear recommendation on how the tag should be used by > new mappers. 1) The same tags are used with up to 5 different meanings - usually one wiki page only states one interpretation, but there are many different pages. 2) AFAIK the only attempt at a neutral display of the different opinions is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path 3) There has never been anything approaching a consensus. Not even close. The discussion has been going around in circles since I first thought there had to be a simple answer to a simple question. Which is about a year. :-) bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Fwd: Seamark/Marine-Tagging-Proposal open for Voting
Zur Info: Original-Nachricht Datum: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:15:14 +0100 Von: Mario Salvini An: talk@openstreetmap.org Betreff: [OSM-talk] Seamark/Marine-Tagging-Proposal open for Voting http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/marine-tagging. Let's vote or continue discussing critical details. Best Regard Mario ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- DSL-Preisknaller: DSL Komplettpakete von GMX schon für 16,99 Euro mtl.!* Hier klicken: http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Projection for processed_p.shp?
Hi!
I am trying to convert an excerpt from the processed_p.shp for mapnik
coastline rendering back to .osm with shp-to-osm.jar. This application
requires a .prj projection file, but there is none included with the
shape files.
Does anyone have a matching .prj file for the processed_p shapes or does
know how to create one? I'm completely lost there.
thanks
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
Hi! Richard Fairhurst schrieb: > Potlatch enables you to convert a GPS track to a way by clicking > "Edit" beside the track (in the "GPS Traces" listing), then selecting > "Convert track to ways" when Potlatch loads. There is no option _not_ > to simplify the track on import; it runs Douglas-Peucker over it, and > I would commend this forced simplification to the JOSM devs. Ways are > automatically split after an interval of n seconds. It is good that simplification is forced. But of course, it will still stupidly add a large zig-zag caused by bad reception to the map. (I have seen beginners manually add such zig-zags before they learn that GPS isn't perfect, but at least they usually learn) How does it take care of crossing other ways without a junction point? bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for JOSM
Hi! Shalabh schrieb: > Given my limited understanding of mapping and even more limited > understanding of computing, I think it would be better if JOSM assumed > the trails to be correct and drew nodes on it on its own. This is possible combining several features. However, it is a bad idea, most ways added this way are in horrible state and need correction. - way too many nodes. The API does not return more than 5 nodes in one request, so many tracks with 1500 nodes each quickly make it impossible to download a sizable area - the GPs is inaccurate. If you just stupidly add the track, all the mismeasurements are added to the DB. While drawing the way, you can smooth out the obvious zigzags of errors and deviations of known bad reception. Also, as the distance of nodes (usually 1m) is way smaller than the basic error of the GPS, it makes no sense to add this sort of misleading pseudo-accuracy - those ways are then unconnected to all other ways. It is very difficult and tedious to create the proper connections - most people who take this "easy way" don't connect and simplify the way properly, you will often find ways that are simply created over existing, manually edited versions of the same way. So in practice this doesn't work out. If you process your track properly, it is quite some work either way, but using the track directly encourages quick and sloppy adding of bad geometry. It has been suggested several times, that the possibility to do this indirectly be removed from JOSM altogether and having corrected many bad direct uploads I am rather in favour of this. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Garmin eTrex Vista Hcx
Hi! Shalabh schrieb: > Would just like to figure out if any of you have had the same issue with > this model or any other Garmin GPS. I have a similar Issue with the Garmin Vista HCx. Occasionally I observe, that the GPS position is way off the known road/path I am on. The satellite accuracy is high +-5m. When I switch the device off and on again, it positions me right where I am supposed to be. So it seems to accumulate some sort of error in its internal calculations and needs the occational reset when it is "going wrong with great confidence" bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] view blocks received?
Hi! Lars Francke schrieb: > I'm sure someone else will be able to better answer this question but > it seems as if "moderators" and "administrators" are able to block > certain users from using the API. Actually, could someone explain how this is supposed to protect against vandalism? It appears that if an account is blocked, a vandal can simply create any number of alternate accounts and continue his "work" - probably much faster than anybody can hand out blocks. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changes to Key:access wiki page
Hi! Christiaan Welvaart schrieb: > I changed some things on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access - > only to document current (best) practices. It is a good thing that you try to complete and clarify the page. However I must protest the way of doing it: Change the access tag page and only start a discussion on a single mailing list afterwards is not a good way to do this: - some of your best practices may not be quite as universally applicable as you think - some of your changes require discussion - which just started. But for everybody looking at the wiki, it appears your changes are approved recommendations - you are completely circumventing the proposal process, and everybody who is interested in feature changes and is watching the proposal page in order to be informed is simply excluded from the discussion. So in short: Regardless of the content: You should have created your version of the page as a seperate copy, maybe on the discussion page, announced it as a proposal and only changed the main access tag page _after_ some discussion and refinement. I believe even well-meant edits that change the meaning of established feature pages without prior discussion and bypassing everybody watching the proposals are creating chaos and are responsible for some of the confusion we are having about apparently simple tags like "footway". So please, don't do it. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! Hatto von Hatzfeld schrieb: > >> Official is new and has only one meaning. > >>From Map features: "official is used for ways dedicated to a certain mode of > travel by law. Usually indicated by a traffic sign." > > I really do not see where the use of "designated" has differed from this > definition. Which of the 5 definitions of designated do you mean? :-) Just read this topic from the beginning and you should understand. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! Hatto von Hatzfeld schrieb: > > I appreciate Nop's proposal - but why replace "designated" by "official"? I > do not see that "designated" has been used in the past with a meaning > differing from what "official" would be used for in future. > > Or did I miss anything in this discussion? Yes. :-) Designated is linked to footway/cycleway and there are about 5 different interpretations on what it means, all of them documented somewhere in the Wiki. Official is new and has only one meaning. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! Nick Whitelegg schrieb: >> I would prefer that "designated" does not infer "exclusively >> designated", so that it's possible to have bicycle=designated as well >> as foot=designated on a shared pathway (signed with a picture of a >> person and a picture of a bicycle). > > Agree here. UK bridleways for instance should have foot=designated; > horse=designated; bicycle=designated as all three have equal right. It > would be a mistake to assume the horse rights are greater than > foot/bicycle; they are not. > > I would similarly guess the shared foot/cycleways in Germany would be > similar, i.e. foot=designated; bicycle=designated. Yes, this would work out. And a German bridleway would be horse=dsignated, foot=no, bicycle=no. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! Roy Wallace schrieb: > If "footway/cycleway is fuzzy" in terms of current usage (and I > believe it is), then +1. But I would personally prefer that > "designated" mean "signed". This stays true to "mapping what is on the > ground", and separates legal issues from geographical/physical > features, as others have suggested. I think this is in line with the > current usage of "designated" (correct me if I'm wrong). For example, > in Australia you may be "legally" allowed to ride a bicycle on a > footpath, but I don't think anyone would ever tag such a footpath as > "bicycle=designated". You can often "legally" ride a bike on an > Australian road, but again, I would never tag such a road with > "bicycle=designated". Clarification: What I meant is: Designated only for ways legally dedicated to one mode of travel. Usually that means individually road-signed, but it could also be done for a whole area like a nature reserve with a declaration for all ways inside. You could also say: Designated means designated by the government. But in this approach, ways that are just waymarked as a route are _not_ designated. A cycle route often runs on a tertiary highway, but that doesn't make the highway a designated cycleway. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! This discussion seems to be going the same way as it always does - in circles. :-) So I'd like to try again for a more general statement and summary. The need for change First of all, we would need to agree that there actually is a problem and that we need to (re)define something to clarify it. There have again been many mails along the line "It is easy and can all be done following existing definitions - if it is done my way". But this is simply not true, the wiki _is_ contradicting itself. The Fuzziness If I summarize all different, contradicitory positions mentioned, what is the meaning if we see footway or cycleway today if we don't know who has tagged it according to which interpretation? highway=cycleway : road-signed or waymarked or suitable/allowed for bicycles or intended for bicycles or intended for mixed use with primary use bicycle bicycle=designated : the same as highway=cycleway by wiki definition highway=footway : road-signed or waymarked or suitable/allowed for pedestrians or intended for pedestrians or intended for mixed use with primary use pedestrians foot=designated : the same as highway=footway by wiki definition In theory, bridleway has the same problems, but it seems that so far nobody has cared about bridleways and so there are not as many contradicting interpretations attached. Conclusion If you don't really care about foot/cycleways or if you are in a country where the rules of traffic generally allow mixed use, this is ok. If you want to tag the strict use cases of legal dedication in Germany or France, this is insufficient. The basic problem is also apparent: A good definition should be unambigous and not include the word "or". :-) Solution attempts Finally, I cannot resist the temptation anymore and have to present the two possible solutions I have arrived at. Both are minimum impact solutions and only take into account the currently known use cases. Proposal #1: Unjoin designated Get rid of the idea that cycleway is the same thing as bicycle=designated. Accept that foot/cycleway is fuzzy. Redefine designated to be only used for legally dedicated ways. Likewise seperate foot=designated from footway. This way, foot/cycleway can be used for the lenient use cases like today, but designated can be used to tag the strict use cases. Proposal #2: Introduce offical dedication Leave old tags as they are and accept that foot/cycleway and designated are as fuzzy as described above. Clarify that these tags only give information on possible use, but not about the legal situation. Introduce a new tag biclyce/foot=official to tag the strict use case of road-signed ways or corresponding legal dedication. This way, nothing needs to be changed in existing fuzzy tagging, but real foot/cycleways are simply tagged by adding an "official" or changing designated to official if appropriate. And again: I believe that these two ways would work as a solution and that they would cause little impact. But I will be happy with any complete and workable solution. In any way we would still have to come to an agreement and implement it the same way in renderers and editors - which seem near impossible. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: >>>> highway=footway (not suitable) >>>> bicycle=dedicated (signed) >>> A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me. > > why not? In Germany: sign footway + additional sign: "Fahrräder frei" That's yes, not designated. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! Nick Whitelegg schrieb: > I have not got round to marking these up yet, but my intention (German > users, please feel free to tell me otherwise!) would be to tag the > waymarked paths as > > highway=path|track; foot=designated > > and the unwaymarked tracks as > > highway=track; foot=permissive Waymarking has no legal impact whatsoever. Those ways are foot=yes/permnissive, bicycle=yes/permissive, horse=yes/permissive. If you use designated for the waymarked ways without legal impact, then you need yet another tag (e.g. official) for the real cycleways with roadsigns and legal impact. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! Gustav Foseid schrieb: > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Nop <mailto:ekkeh...@gmx.de>> wrote: > > In the strict (German) use case, you need to distinguish between > bicycle= and bicycle=. This is not about > marking a default, this is about describing the real situation precise > enough to make deductions about access rights for _other_ traffic. This is one possible way to go, but you are using assumptions which are diputed/interpreted differently. > highway=cycleway (allowed and suitable) > bicycle=dedicated (road sign) Some people hold that designated is the same as cycleway, so it cannot describe a road sign. You could use bicycle=official instead, wich is rather new and not yet generally established. > bicycle=yes => (not road sign) > foot=yes/no (to make the situation clearer) If you go for explicit tagging of all access rights you would at least have to also add horse=no > > highway=footway (not suitable) > bicycle=yes (but allowed) > bicycle=dedicated (signed) A footway for cycling is not a valid combination to me. Well basically your approach is a variant of the path+acess tags. You just leave cycleway alone and use it like path, expressing all the important information in access tags. This is a possible way to go if we can achieve consent on it, especially on the new tag "offical" which is required to express the legal road-signed status. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! James Livingston schrieb: > On 12/08/2009, at 3:51 PM, Nop wrote: >> There is no consent on which way to go to express the strict use case. > > I think the only two solutions are to either have this be country- specific (at which point routers/renderers have to start knowing these kinds of things), or we have highway=cycleway not imply any value for foot at all. Yes. Or we keep cycleway, but don't use it for road-signed cycling ways where it does not apply correctly. (e.g. in Germany) bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
John Smith schrieb: > --- On Wed, 12/8/09, Nop wrote: > >> There is no consent on which way to go to express the strict use >> case. > > Does there need to be? YES!!! > Not that this implies that I agree or disagree but strictly from a > technical point of view all you have to do is create/get an extract > of a bounding area, not bounding box, covering Germany, you would > probably need to clip exactly on the boundary, and then you write a > bot to update all the highway=cycleway to be > highway=path,bicycle=designated,foot=no Which does not help you at all as you don't know which cycleways actually have a road sign and which just look suitable for cycling. And you have to achieve a consent first whether "designated" actually means "has a road sign" or just "mainly for cycling just like cycleway". It's not that easy. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! Greg Troxel schrieb: > For highway=cycleway, clearly bicycle=designated is implied. But we > have to just define whether foot=yes or foot=no is the default, and then > tag the exceptions. In the US, every bike path I've seen has also > allowed pedestrians, so I'd be inclined to have foot=yes be the default, > but I realize other places have different rules. This is exactly one of the controversities as it only conveys the lenient use case. In the strict (German) use case, you need to distinguish between bicycle= and bicycle=. This is not about marking a default, this is about describing the real situation precise enough to make deductions about access rights for _other_ traffic. If I follow your statement: Cycleway means foot=yes (Map features). It also means bicycle=designated. But the offical road sign in Germany restricts to foot=no. So designated _cannot_ be used for ways with road signs as it is too weak to express this correctly. An additional tag "official" has been proposed to express the "offically and legally dedicated". But the opposing argument works just the other way: If I look up "designated" in a dictionary it means "marked with a sign" and it is the only/most fitting tag for the purpose anyway, so in Germany bicycle=designated must mean foot=no, so it cannot be the same as highway=cycleway which means foot=yes. Or if it is the same, cycleway must mean foot=no. There is no consent on which way to go to express the strict use case. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
Hi! Tobias Knerr schrieb: > Tom Chance wrote: >> - Tags are proposed on the wiki, no change to current practice >> - If the proposal throws into question existing, accepted tags, defer the >> proposal to small working groups >> - These working groups study the wider questions and formulate a complete >> proposal for new tags, deprecation, etc. > > People can do this already, and I'm sure that a good proposal created by > a working group would easily be accepted in a wiki vote. The problem is that a wiki vote is not considered valid by many people. Due to the few numbers participating and voting compared to the vast number of mappers, the process is ridiculed by many. Which is unfortunate, because I think that the process of working out a proposal, publishing and discussing it is pretty good. The problem is just that there is no binding result. If you form a working group which is open to all interested people and this group trys to establish a compatible and working tagging scheme in a public wiki documentation, taking into account all problems, use cases and arguments that users may throw at them, the result of this work should be considered final once no more killer arguments are coming in. >> - If proposals are accepted, a combination of carrot (rendering >> stylesheets, Potlatch presets, etc.) and sticks (error checking, >> auto-correcting bots) to implement the accepted proposals > > On the one hand, you still cannot force software/stylesheet developers > to use your proposal. On the other hand, we could try the same thing > right now. The path proposal could have been successful long ago if > applications were pushing it instead of refusing to use it (see CycleMap). You cannot force anything but you can discourage putting presets for disputed tags in editors (if it is frowned upon as some sort of indirect vandalism and rolled back) and you can make an organised effort to bring a newly established tagging scheme into all major editors and renderers in a consistent way. Right now, it is purely chaotic. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
Hi! James Livingston schrieb: >> - At SOTM present and discuss their proposals and vote > > As others have mentioned this is bad because it penalises those who > can't go to SotM. IRC meetings could work, but as soon as you get more > than a certain number of people involved they need to be moderated, > and then tend to go on for a *long* time. Another possiblity may be to host a meeting on a Teamspeak server. You'll need moderation, too, but spoken sentences flow much faster than a chat. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
Hi!
Jason Cunningham schrieb:
> I agree with the working groups idea, but disagree with membership of
> the OSMF or attending SOTM being a requirement for taking part.
+1
Absolutely.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! Lauri Kytömaa schrieb: > _When not signed for anyone_ but where local legislation allows cyclists > on such routes, people used local judgement to decide whether the way > was built as being suitable for the common cyclist. Some claim that one > couldn't know what others consider suitable, but I hold the view that > most people can relate to what others think, if they have ever ridden a > bicycle after childhood. This is a rather lenient definition that is unsuitable to depict the German use case. That is exactly the reason for the confusion we are having. If something is tagged as a cycleway and I am planning to walk on foot, I need to know whether it is an unsigned way assumed to be suitable for cycling (then I may use it as a pedestrian) or whether it is legally dedicated to cycling (then I must not use it as a pedestrian). bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Fixed version of srtm2osm
Hi! The contour tool srtm2osm used to be broken due to two server changes by NASA and a change from FTP to HTML download. A fix was provided by Bodo Meisner and the new and working version srtm2osm 1.7 can be downloaded via the wiki page. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Srtm2osm bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
Hi! Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: > 2009/8/10 Tom Chance : >> out how best to tag paths of all kinds. If their proposal was accepted at >> SOTM 2010, ... >> >> Does this sound workable? > > it surely doesn't speed up things ;-) It does. Any speed is faster than going in circles. :-) bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] to all potlatch and JOSM users - automatic simplification of geometry
Hi! Apollinaris Schoell schrieb: >> To prevent accidential damage, there could be a warning when you are >> using it in a dangerous or most likely harmful way. E.g. more than 10 >> ways are selected or using it on ways that already have less than 10 >> nodes. >> > use the plugin and if you miss features file a trac ticket. > but you will see it's all builtin already How many users do you think are using JOSM? How many of those have any idea what trac is? I am not missing those features, I already did some damage simplyfying ways and learned from it. This is about future users. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi!
Liz schrieb:
> would a suggestion made on the talk-au list in which highway=footway and
> highway=cycleway be deprecated and be replaced by
I think we should step back one step.
The discussion here seems about to fall victim to the same mechanisms
that produced the present chaos. Different people/groups think they have
solved the problem for their (local) use cases and are arguing in favor
of their solution, which usually involves interpreting existing tags in
a specific way. I am glad that this topic has come up - and of course I
have my own ready-made suggestion for a solution - but I suggest we look
at the problems and goals again before we go for a specific solution
attempt.
I think the main questions are:
- Can we agree on a common interpretation of what foot/cycleway are
supposed to mean?
- Do we want a general meaning for every country, delegating local
specifics to other tags, or a local meaning dependent on a countries
specific conditions?
- Can we use the existing access-Tags to describe the exact rules of
traffic e.g. in Germany (which seems to have the highest requirements so
far) and agree on the meaning there, too, or do we need to invent a
whole new scheme for local specifics?
- Do we tag generic trails as highway=path or does this tag have a more
complex meaning?
Can we try to discuss the problem at this level before proposing
detailed tagging schemes?
There is also the questions which is important but should not be mixed in:
- how can we get a coherent tagging model for OSM?
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: > the same thing that people wanted to achieve with path (expressing the > official designation) can be achieved with those > foot-/cycle-/bridleway by adding supplementory tags like > xy=designated, xy=official. Therefore I would consider the introdution > of path a bad decision. Then you are still missing a tag for the general purpose path where you don't know any more details except it is not a road. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! Tom Chance schrieb: > The result is a totally unclear fudge which leaves us either with > needlessly complicated maps, or stylesheets with a long string of "this or > that or that or that" definitions to describe near-identical features that > should be rendered in the same way. It is even worse, as different groups of mappers use exactly the same tags with different meanings. This cannot be resolved by rendering rules or any other technicyl means. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Hi! Tom Chance schrieb: > I'm 100% unclear about the distinction between highway=path and > highway=footway. The same discussion erupts regularly on the German mailing list, also without results. There is no agreement on whether to primarily use footway/cycleway (as suggested by tag explanation) or whether to primarily use path (as suggested in several German tagging guidlines). The situation in Germany is rather tricky. The rules of traffic for dedicated foot-ways and cycle-ways are very strict. A sign indicating one type of use also implies that this use is compulsory and that all other types of use are prohibited. Everything is mutually exlusive, but multiple signs may be combined and there may be signs for exceptions. - Some mappers want to depict this situation as precisely as e.g. oneway regulations for cars and are using path and access=desigated/official to to this. - Some mappers believe that footway and cycleway should be used for this purpose, but that either contradicts the much more lenient English definition or does not depict the legal situation adequately, depending on personal interpretation - Some mappers are applying footway and cycleway rather indiscriminately to all sorts of ways so it basically only means "not for cars" in some areas In short: It's a mess. :-) bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] to all potlatch and JOSM users - automatic simplification of geometry
Hi! Andre Hinrichs schrieb: > Problem for the JOSM plugin is that this option is not automatically > added to the preferences and hidden in the description in the WIKI and > you have to actively search for this option. +1 As long as you don't have any idea that such an option exists you don't start looking for it. > So I would think, that if the default value of the plugin is set to 1 > and the option is automatically added to the preferences, than the > situation would be much less bad and it would become a useful tool. I disagree. Actually, when I download a plugin, I assume that the default operation of the plugin is already set to reasonable values and there should be no need to change anything before using it. If you set it to 1 it will simply appear broken. The main problem is simply that the tool looks harmless, but isn't, and is easily applied wrongly due to an overly aggressive default setting. Why don't we simply add a dialog when you apply the tool, showing the current setting, allowing to change it and giving some reasonable upper and lower bounds for the value. To prevent accidential damage, there could be a warning when you are using it in a dangerous or most likely harmful way. E.g. more than 10 ways are selected or using it on ways that already have less than 10 nodes. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] to all potlatch and JOSM users - automatic simplification of geometry
Hi! Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: > 2009/8/9 Liz : >> I concur >> I found about 350 -400 km of highway uploaded (twice) with points at one per >> second at 100kmh travel speed >> Once uploaded and made into a way, and then the way deleted without removing >> the points, then uploaded again >> and while we have editors that allow that sort of default behaviour, then we >> need simplifying tools > > not sure. If someone left a real mess (like here leaving thousands of > useless nodes behind), maybe it's better to undo his action and start > from scratch. Why? When applying simplify way on these you get exactly what you want. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] to all potlatch and JOSM users - automatic simplification of geometry
Hi! Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: > I want to point attention to the potlatch-funtion tidy-points (similar > to JOSM simplify way). I encourage everybody not to use these > functions (at least not on data someone else entered) as it harms > severly the data. First of all, I agree with you that these function can seriously harm data, at least when carelessly applied to data that is already well-designed. Some people mentioned that the default settings of these tools are very agressive - this is true and a more lenient approach might produce much better results. But then, I have not seen any options to change this (in JOSM). But on the other hand, there's some areas where you need those tools. During my mapping I have found two areas where the way were hideously over-defined. When ways have 10 or 20 times more nodes than required to show their none-too-complex form or when nodes are set in 2m distances it appears that someone has just uploaded raw GPS traces. This makes those areas nearly unusable as even a very modest bounding box will exeed the 50k nodes limit. In these cases, simplify way is your good friend. Eventually, in an anarchic open source society like OSM you can't take away a tool anyway, so don't even try. But it is definitely worth refining and pointing out proper and improper uses. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: > 2009/6/5 Nop : >> No. The name just indicates that the term used to have this meaning in the >> middle ages. I don't know a single example of a town referred to as "Burg" >> today and I am still waiting for you to proof your point. > > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcassonne > Thank you, a good example. The article distinguishes between the "Burgstadt" (the whole city) and the "Burg" (a seperate fortification inside the city). As you can see, the terms are used in different ways, Burg never referring to the whole city. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
Hi! Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: > No! A walled town called burg in English would be a Burg in German > (and more specific a Stadtburg). There is nothing misleading. A > fortress called burg in English would be a Burg in German. You can't > pick one possible meaning in a 2 phrase--general-dictionary-definition > to definitely proof something. A town is not the primary meaning of Burg. And if you go for all possible meanings - it means castle and is too general to be useful. :-) >> If otherwise, please give me an example of a city that is actually referred >> to as a Burg today (not with "burg" in its name, but designated as a Burg ). > burg in it's name is a perfect proof. No. The name just indicates that the term used to have this meaning in the middle ages. I don't know a single example of a town referred to as "Burg" today and I am still waiting for you to proof your point. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
Hi! Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: > Roman already told you at the time that there is no 1:1 English > replacement. That's why he suggested the german terms. There is no exact _translation_. But it is easily possible do _define_ a tag (in english) that represents the correct meaning in the local context. It is that simple: You see the tag highway=motorway and you interpret in a local context, so you know that in Britain it is a Motorway with a speed limit and in Germany it is an Autobahn with unlimited speed. But you use the same tag. In my opinion it is just the same for castles. You see the tag catle_type=defensive and you know that it is a Burg in Germany and a keep in Britain. There is no need to use Burg, hrad, linna, Chateau, zamek etc. with roughly the same meaning. > but you do like russian and japanese terms, or why didn't you > "translate" shiro and kremlin? Because "kremlin" is an English tag and thus universally usable. :-) Actually, according to your doctrin, it is wrong. Being a russian type, it would have to be tagged in Russian language terms. So the page is even inconsistent. > You are complaining about people sneaking stuff into the wiki, but you > are the one doing this: after quite a lot of time (and tagging, this > is tagwatch for castle_type: Schloss (77), Burg (68), burg (6), > Burg, Schloss (5), schloss (4), Herrenhaus (3), Wasserburg (2), > chateau (1), citadelle (1), fort (1), kremlin (1) ), a nice wikipage > with pictures, etc. the only effort you do is to add confusion by > simply adding your own private favorite tags below the old ones. I ask > you to remove them there at least until there is some more conclusion > in this discussion. You could set up your own alternative > castle_type-page, but simply putting them there is really not good > style. Please check the edits, I have been adding more than that. I am just following the bad example set by the page. As I said: Never a proposal. If you check the edits, the tagging scheme was opposed by Malenki and myself in April and Ulfl enhanced the notice that it was never voted upon. I tried the discussion page, but this was ignored. Since this improper proposal has just hijacked the main tag's wiki page, showing that there actually is a simple - and IMHO better - alternative appears feasible. Actually, it is sort of pointless if we keep discussing this among ourselves. I would like to invite a few other people to voice their opinions. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
Hi! Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: > 2009/6/4 Nop : >> This may be true from an archeological point of view, but a tag does not >> have to be a scientifically exact term. > > I don't see the point. It was proposed a tag for a sub-feature that > occurs just in areas where English is not the native language, with an > internationally recognised term. It is there (quite a long time) in > the wiki. Why should it be changed? This is not true. Outside of Germany, there are also differences between castles - and they are the same. The difference between a defensive castle, a palace and a fortress exists there, too, and it is also of interest for a map. By using Local language for the same thing in every country you just create confusion. It is easy to find tags that are in English and work in Germany, in Britain, in France etc. > It is there (quite a long time) in > the wiki. Why should it be changed? It was simply put into the wiki without a proposal or vote. Only a few people have joined the discussion, there have been several opposing opinions and alternate suggestions. Just nothing has happened. This is not an indication that this is well established but rather that it was sneaked into the wiki with very few people actually participating. >> Most common tags are not exact matches (e.g. motorway, secondary) or even > > they are well defined and therefore used. Why should motorway not be > an exact match? So what keeps us from defining tags for castles just as well in English and using them? > Why should motorway not be an exact match? If you look at roads with the same scientific level of precision, there are differences in measurements, markings, minimum speed, maximum speed, traffic rules etc. > >> If we can make non-scientific tags work everywhere else why deviate for >> building types? > > to avoid confusion about certain building types. This is not even > about the main tag (historic=castle) which everyone without special > knowledge can apply to all "big houses", you are complaining about a > sub tag (castle_type). I really don't see the problem. Have you looked at the values? Do you really think a value of "castle_type=Schloss;Burg" is a good idea? This is supposed to be one unique value, not a sequence as everybody would assume. And the meaning is even incomprehensible to a German. > I think by > changing this you would destroy the work already done in this field > for OSM. Not at all. As there is a 1:1 English replacement for every German term, it can be switched to alternate terms easily without any loss of information. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
Hi! Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: > there was some intensive discussion on this topic involving some > archeologists as well. There are some scientific activists in Germany > who like to contribute to OSM with their professional knowledge, who > confirmed, that "burg" ist a specific term with no English equivalent > (and says in professional context "burg" is used even in English > conferences to refer to this type of building). This may be true from an archeological point of view, but a tag does not have to be a scientifically exact term. Most common tags are not exact matches (e.g. motorway, secondary) or even need looking up in the wiki or a template before you can use them (tracktype=grade3). If we can make non-scientific tags work everywhere else why deviate for building types? bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New Proposed Feature: Tagging the age and duration of existence of features
Hi! > start_date=, end_date= > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Properties > http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/start_date/ > http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/end_date/ > maybe someone could create the tag pages for those on wiki? > Actually, I think these tags as well as the proposal are a very bad idea in their current form. The only reason this has not already exploded is that they are not being used (14 uses according to above statistics). I assume that the main and default application for a map is to show current information on the present. Including past and future data is ok, but it should be done in a non-intrusive way that does not damage the main use. Just tagging something that isn't there with and end_date does not remove it from any map as to my knowledge all current tools and renderers ignore them and will show the objects anyway. When introducing a new tag, you don't seriously want to damage all existing maps and databases and force every tool to be changed, do you? I suggest we remove those tags from MapFeautres and find a better way to represent things that are not there. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] We're back
Grant Slater schrieb:
> check again and report.
Appears to be fixed.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] We're back
Hi! I noted that in the OSM inbox, all old messages are truncated to about the same length. I guess this is a result of transferring them. Are there any plans to restore them? bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cloudmade: "We are the Wikipedia of maps"
Hi! Peter Miller schrieb: > There have been reasons for concern, many of which have been raised in > the past on this list and on legal-talk in the past and we don't need > to raise them again. I really hope that we will all be able to learn > from them and avoid the understandable wariness that is the result. I disagree with that for several reasons. - Time moves on, the project is growing at an impressive rate with new people coming in. To them, everything is new. - Things change and looking at something again after a while may bring a new view - If it keeps coming up, it might be important or it might not have been solved yet - When things come up as current news again, it is a good thing to examine them again. Therefore I think things should be raised again if there is something to add. If it really wasn't necessary, discussion will close shortly anyway. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!
Hi! Ok, first of all, when I use the term "you" I don't mean you personally, I mean the OSMF as a group. I have no idea who's in charge of what there, I just know that none of you has taken care of an information process and you are currently listening. SteveC schrieb: >> But you have actually succeeded in making quite a number of people >> suspect malice - and warn others about that. >> >> I do not agree, but I think it is a natural reaction, especially in a >> community concerned about freedom: >> - You keep me in the dark and suprise me >> - You try to force my consent while I have had no chance to inform myself > > Yeah I'm still baffled by this one... where have I or the license > working group tried to force any consent? I think we've been clear again > and again that the whole process is up for discussion. > >> => What are you hiding? What are you up to? I was trying to explain the way how many people have reacted to the proposed time table in absence of comprehensive and comprehensible information. And there's quite some posts on this list that express exactly that reaction. You (the OSMF) have not been clear on anything - a clear, official announcement is exactly what is sorely missing. >> It is your initiative. It is your job. And if you don't do a better >> job of including the community and breaking the news in an acceptable >> way to everybody really quick, I fear desaster. You are inviting >> hundreds of "No" decisions just because of bad information policy. > > You can keep blaming me personally for everything. I think when Eve ate > that apple it was also my fault at least I think so. (* Again - you as the OSMF). > Or you could help build the process now. I am sorry, but I cannot write the official information bulletin with your* ideas and your* intentions for you*. I also cannot take the initative for you*. And I cannot restore your credibility. You* will need to do that yourself. You* need to be source of the information. What I can do is translate it into German and continue from there. Actually, I bet you* would be surprised about how many volunteers you* get to help you* in spreading the news - if you* ever had started any organized information process. But I don't remember ever seeing a request: "Here we have the rationale we want everybody to understand - who can translate it?" So maybe you* want to start a proper information campaign now? I am waiting to help. And personally, I would prefer doing some constructive work for a good plan over opposing a disastrous plan any time. > >>>> This is the first time an ordinary OSM member had a chance to get >>>> notice >>>> of the licence change and I bet you that there are 8 account >>>> holders >>>> who still have no idea that anything is going on - so the process is >>>> just starting now. And we still have failed to give notice and >>>> understandable (translated) information to the majority of >>>> participants. >>> I want to correct something here, there is this view of 100,000 users >>> needing consent. The number is in fact far smaller for people who >>> ever made an edit (about 30% of the users). It's vastly smaller still >>> for anyone who has edited anything significant. It's an easier >>> problem than you might think, is what I'm saying. Far easier than >>> convincing you I don't have a satanic portal in my basement. >> >> You know what you're saying? You don't care about 10 people who >> are interested or want to contribute, you just care about the data of >> the 8000 (?) who have substantially contributed? > > No that's your mad interpretation of what I said. Mad. > >> This is a community. This is about people. At least it should be. > > Look I invented that, and I concentrated on the people and not the > technology from the very beginning which is why this project succeeded > where others didn't. > >> Can't you understand why people do not trust you and suspect you are >> just out to grab their work when you argue like this? If you want the community to adopt the new licence (as opposed to fork off in protest), you need to convince the people in the community. If I think this way, I count 10 people who should at least be able to make an informed decision. If you want to narrow it down to only the people who did significant edits, that is a suspiciously data-oriented view. The community also needs the people who are developing tools or who edit wiki pages or who are still working up to become big mappers. It would be g
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!
Hi! SteveC schrieb: > We've not always done a great job of communicating for a variety of > reasons but it was never with malice. But you have actually succeeded in making quite a number of people suspect malice - and warn others about that. I do not agree, but I think it is a natural reaction, especially in a community concerned about freedom: - You keep me in the dark and suprise me - You try to force my consent while I have had no chance to inform myself => What are you hiding? What are you up to? I don't know you. And I had to google to check your affiliation with OSMF. I have no reason to trust you. I have no reason to suspect you of malice. But your repeated "Not our job" statements towards this matter worries me a lot. It is your initiative. It is your job. And if you don't do a better job of including the community and breaking the news in an acceptable way to everybody really quick, I fear desaster. You are inviting hundreds of "No" decisions just because of bad information policy. >> I recon there was no way to find out about this short of subscribing to >> legal talk - and why on earth would any mapper do that if he has no idea >> that anything concerning him is going on? >> >> This is the first time an ordinary OSM member had a chance to get notice >> of the licence change and I bet you that there are 8 account holders >> who still have no idea that anything is going on - so the process is >> just starting now. And we still have failed to give notice and >> understandable (translated) information to the majority of participants. > > I want to correct something here, there is this view of 100,000 users > needing consent. The number is in fact far smaller for people who ever > made an edit (about 30% of the users). It's vastly smaller still for > anyone who has edited anything significant. It's an easier problem than > you might think, is what I'm saying. Far easier than convincing you I > don't have a satanic portal in my basement. You know what you're saying? You don't care about 10 people who are interested or want to contribute, you just care about the data of the 8000 (?) who have substantially contributed? This is a community. This is about people. At least it should be. Can't you understand why people do not trust you and suspect you are just out to grab their work when you argue like this? Even though I am in favour of the licence itself, this way of thinking is unacceptable to me. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!
Hi! SteveC schrieb: >> I guess a good strategy would have been: >> >> 1. Provide some background information and keep it current >> - the problems with the current licence >> - the intention of the new licence >> - the current state of the process >> - and later the wording of the licence > > Perhaps you could put that together? Would have been the job of OSMF in a more diplomatic process. > >> 2. Provide translations of this in the major languages. Most people >> speak English to some degree, but some don't and something of this >> importance and with so much legalese involved does need to be in your >> native language to be sure you understood it. Keep translations current, >> also. > > That would be great, when will you start organising them? Would have been the job of OSMF in a more diplomatic process. It seems you didn't get my point. A convincing attempt at informing the community would have had to be organized by the OSMF, not by volunteers stepping in to fix parts of a bungled job. > >> 3. Define a way for feedback from the community. Maybe some unoffical >> votes would have given an impression on how well a particular idea would >> have worked. > > Yeah I think that's usually a great idea but I get the sense the vast > majority of the community are apathetic or bored by the tone of these > exchanges and so the ones who vote are the ones who really take extreme > views. So it's hard to do it in a way that we get a real sense of the > lay of the land. Unless you have some ideas? There are extreme views in any direction and everybody has one vote. They will still give you and idea. A better one than a page of use cases nobody knows about. >> 4. Mail an announcement to every member of OSM when you start and when >> there is significant progress, linking the information pages. One every >> few months would have been enough. This would have given those people >> who are interested a chance to get informed and either get involved or >> be satisfied with what they read. Most people would ignore those mails >> but feel informed rather than surprised. > > Something similar I thought about was having an OSM 'buddy program' so > when you join you are assigned an existing community member who helps > you though the process of mapping and getting to know the community and > tools. I am talking about an organized information process on the licence change. > >> 5. Give people plenty of time to react. >> >> >> Actually I am worried. You may have noticed that there are many >> complaints, and also hostile reactions and suspicions voiced. And I bet >> you that still most OSM members have no idea that anything is going on, >> because they do mapping and not mailing lists. You have only seen the >> peak of the iceberg. But that still gives the foundation the chance to >> get something right. I am in favor of the new licence. But I don't >> believe it can be done by April. The only thing that can be achieved by >> April is splitting or breaking OSM apart. > > Your worry is well placed, however I disagree that the vitriol here on > these lists is widely held by the majority of the people who have mapped. Well, wait and see how many people will rather remove their data or switch to a fork just because they feel surprised and pressured. I can assure you that there is plenty of vitiriol in store for you on the German forum for example that just doesn't make it here yet due to the language barrier. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!
Hi! SteveC schrieb: > To me this is similar to "ignorance of the law is no defence". The > data, people and facts are out there and it's not our job to serve > them up to you in the specific best way you want. We will help all we > can when you ask though. Thank your for bringing it down to this simple point. Actually, it *IS* your job. That simple. You want a change. You want their consent. Your job. bye Nop. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Allow more time: license is not for OSM data only
Hi! Niccolo Rigacci schrieb: > I suggest to revise the schedule, to allow a more wide debate. We > don't need a license for OSM data, we need a license for free > data. Excellent point. I fully support that. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!
Hi! Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb: > Out of curiosity, what would have been better? The licence has been > recognised to be a problem for years, it was known well before I > joined. It's been discussed at almost every OSM meeting I've been at. > But you're right, we didn't plaster a huge banner on the front page > advertising it because frankly that would be pointless. How many > people knew wikipedia had a licence problem before they changed? No idea, never been into wikipedia. But I can assure you that you can be with OSM for 6 months, consider yourself rather active, be subscribed to talk, talk-de and the forum and visit the local OSM meetings without ever getting any hint to that licence business. > I thought there was a message added while creating an account along > the line of "the data is under CC-BY-SA but may be changed at some > later date". hmm, looks like that never happened, oh well. > > I'm just wondering what kind of notification would have been > appropriate for you. Actually, I think the attempt to convince 10 people to cooperate is an awe-inspiring task to me. At work, I usually don't have to convince more than 50 people of something not all will agree with and that is something I already consider difficult. So it merits some work. I guess a good strategy would have been: 1. Provide some background information and keep it current - the problems with the current licence - the intention of the new licence - the current state of the process - and later the wording of the licence 2. Provide translations of this in the major languages. Most people speak English to some degree, but some don't and something of this importance and with so much legalese involved does need to be in your native language to be sure you understood it. Keep translations current, also. 3. Define a way for feedback from the community. Maybe some unoffical votes would have given an impression on how well a particular idea would have worked. 4. Mail an announcement to every member of OSM when you start and when there is significant progress, linking the information pages. One every few months would have been enough. This would have given those people who are interested a chance to get informed and either get involved or be satisfied with what they read. Most people would ignore those mails but feel informed rather than surprised. 5. Give people plenty of time to react. Actually I am worried. You may have noticed that there are many complaints, and also hostile reactions and suspicions voiced. And I bet you that still most OSM members have no idea that anything is going on, because they do mapping and not mailing lists. You have only seen the peak of the iceberg. But that still gives the foundation the chance to get something right. I am in favor of the new licence. But I don't believe it can be done by April. The only thing that can be achieved by April is splitting or breaking OSM apart. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!
Hi! Russ Nelson schrieb: > On Mar 4, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Nop wrote: >> >> And I never heard of it until now. And wasn't in OSM when it was posted. > > Fair enough, but any time you join a group there will be efforts > underway which you haven't contributed to, not know about, nor had any > effect on. I guess that given the growth in OSM users perhaps we should > convince the OSMF to write a weekly "Welcome to OSM; here's what's going > on" message. Yes. At least when you expect 10 people to go along and the issue has the potential to break OSM apart, it would not be a bad idea to send monthly information about the state of things. But my point is that you would have needed to actively inform people. It is plain silly to blame them for not getting involved when you simply did not give them any real chance to do so. Originally you would only have had to convince the hardliners holding fast to the old licence. Now you will have to fight the rumours and half-informed opinions circling around the community and win back those who feel overrun and pressed by the time frame, those who feel angry about the blundering or brazen way this has been handled, those who feel disoriented and afraid their work might be taken away or destroyed and eventually those who suspect you to serve some obscure self-interest. And now that you hopefully get an idea of how many people actually want to get involved, you need to give them the time to do so. How many people do you think are involved by now on the mailing lists? 0.1% of the community? 0.2%? > >> But I guess it's >> their own fault if 5 people fail to scan blogs at a different site >> for half-year old entries. Not worth a notification or a prominent hint >> in the wiki. > > Click "BLOG" on http://openstreetmap.org/ "Hardware Upgrade Appeal: Thank you" So what? I guess nobody digs back 9-14 months there. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!
Hi! Russ Nelson schrieb: >> >> Pay attention to what? There was no attempt to inform a wider number of >> people. > > I'm a small fish in the OSM pond, but I managed to notice Steve's > opengeodata.org posting of last January talking about relicensing: > http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=262 And I never heard of it until now. And wasn't in OSM when it was posted. As were probably more than 50% of the current members. But I guess it's their own fault if 5 people fail to scan blogs at a different site for half-year old entries. Not worth a notification or a prominent hint in the wiki. come on Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data
Hi! I would like to bring this back to the original - and very important - question. I do create a derivative database and from that a produced work and publish it. So I must make that data available. How? 1. Do I need to make it available immediately or upon request? 2. Does it need to be online or can I send it? 3. Do I have to update it as often as my produced work or can there be other intervals? 4. Do I have to provide it as an SQL database or is a database dump or an OSM XML export sufficient? 5. What if my data is in a platform-dependent format? 6. Do I just have to provide the raw data or do I have to process it to facilitate import to OSM? 7. Do I just provide the data or do I have to document in any way what it is, what I changed/added and how I used it? This has been asked in the German forum. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!
Hi! Russ Nelson schrieb: >> Hopefully you know and trust the lawyers, foundation, whoever, ... >> involved. WE PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THEM SO WHY SHOULD WE MAGICALLY TRUST >> THEM?!? > > You can't. There is no magic wand to create trust. Only through time > and repeated interaction can you learn to trust somebody. And if you've > been around for more than a year, you've had that time and those > interactions -- if you've chosen to pay attention. If you expect to > participate in the process afterwards, then I think your expectations > are off. Pay attention to what? There was no attempt to inform a wider number of people. That is exactly the point. I have been around for 6 months, I am subscribed to talk and talk-de and until two weeks ago I was completely unaware that there was a planned change of licence at all. And then it was not some official information but mentioned in a private discussion. I recon there was no way to find out about this short of subscribing to legal talk - and why on earth would any mapper do that if he has no idea that anything concerning him is going on? This is the first time an ordinary OSM member had a chance to get notice of the licence change and I bet you that there are 8 account holders who still have no idea that anything is going on - so the process is just starting now. And we still have failed to give notice and understandable (translated) information to the majority of participants. If you want to convince people to consent to your scheme, you have to go to them. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!
Hi! Iván Sánchez Ortega schrieb: > El Miércoles, 4 de Marzo de 2009, Ulf Lamping escribió: >> Hopefully you know and trust the lawyers, foundation, whoever, ... >> involved. WE PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THEM SO WHY SHOULD WE MAGICALLY TRUST >> THEM?!? > > Because they are more knowledgeable in their field than we are. > > > I do think this is another ad-hominem attack against the ODbL. > > By using your same way of thinking, I shouldn't use my car because I don't > know and trust the designers and assemblers that built it. Counter-examples > could go on and on. The mappers don't know them and have no reason to trust them. They will have to prove that they are more knowledgable, but with the prior non-information policy they have not even shown that they *care* about the mappers opinions at all. So they are not to be compared to the designers of your car, but rather to the used car salesman approaching you and trying to sell you a new one. I am arguing in favor of the new licence, but with the way this was conducted I can understand everybody who feels overrun, forced and badly informed. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi! Steve Chilton schrieb: > Having said all that, my real point is that I > know a lot of "traditional" cartographers (some in a commercial > environment and some not) and have observed an actual reluctance to > consider using OSM data. This might be surprising given that OSM has > always said "OpenStreetMap creates and provides free geographic data > such as street maps to anyone who wants them. The project was started > because most maps you think of as free actually have legal or > technical restrictions on their use, holding back people from using > them in creative, productive, or unexpected ways" [top of homepage]. > My perception is that there are two things that stop this: Firstly, > there seems to be either a misunderstanding of what the licence > currently means, or a feeling that it is not possible to work within > it's current terms. Thank you for bringing this up. It has been on the back of my mind that OSM does not really live up to this mission statement on the top of the front page. It is good (or rather it is sad, but confirmation) to hear that there actually is reluctance among cartographers to use OSM data. I have found the same doubts in some forums in the geocommunity. The statement "The project was started because most maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical restrictions on their use, holding back people from using them in creative, productive, or unexpected ways" describes very accurately the problem I have with the CC BY SA licence (apart from insufficient protection against abuse): I think of the OSM maps as free. But when I try to use them together with other sources in a creative, productive and not even unexpected way, I find myself bound by legal restrictions of the licence that disallow these use cases. This would indicate to me one of two cases: - The mission statement is wrong and needs to be changed to express the uncompromising disapproval of any non-totally-free use - The CC licence fails to provide the freedom of usage OSM was started for and needs to be replaced or augmented I believe/hope it was the latter and that is the reason why I approve the change of the licence. I want those two lines to be true and I want OSM to live up to them. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi! OJ W schrieb: > If anyone who converts map data into a map image is provided with > WTFYW license and gets to choose who is permitted to use, view, > modify, overlay, and copy their images then lots of websites might > decide "I paid for hosting and rendering, so only people who agree to > these conditions can use my maps", leading to a fragmentation of > licenses for the various slippy maps available. > > Do we want to see the slippy-map tileservers becoming a commercial > battleground for who can make the most money while imposing the most > restrictions, where currently it's a nice easy "everything is > CC-BY-SA" level playing-field where tangogps doesn't have to worry > about enforcing the terms and conditions of 20 different rendererers? Actually, the opposite is the case. Right now, the restrictive SA-licence keeps the community people from creating better maps using both OSM data and other sources with other licences. At the same time, the data ist not sufficiently protected and any unscrupulous company or person can just grab everything and create a much better map combining any sources, completely disregarding the spirit of the licence. The community could not compete with such multi-sourced maps and puplic usage would likely prefer the stolen, but much more complete maps. The new license will *enable* the community to create better works based on OSM and as long as these are available for free, the evil commercial cartographer has no leverage to sell his commercial products if he doesn't add considerable effort and due to the DB-license everything he adds is available to the community to build upon it, too. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi!
Ed Loach schrieb:
>
> As I think someone else pointed out, if it is abusable then we could
abuse it and not lose any data with the switch.
Yep, we would just loose the people and the credibility.
This could only be considerd a last resort for data of people that still
cannot be reached after trying really hard.
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi! MP schrieb: > What about finding a loophole that will allow convert from cc-by-sa to > ODbL without asking anybody? :) I think wikipedia is doing something > similar with their transition from GFDL to cc-by-sa An extremely bad idea. This is the perfect way to alienate people even more and cause a counter-initative or split in the community. From the reactions I see, many people are annoyed that the initiative for a new licence has been conducted in secret by a small group of people, that the information has not been spread and not been translated and that they are being overrun and forced to agree by threat of deletion of their data. These are not my words but taken from posts in lists and forum. The only way to get this rolling is to inform people and ask for their cooperation. It has had a very bad start, but looking for loopholes will feel to many people like you're stealing their data. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi! MP schrieb: >>> This seems rather apocalyptic. What do you mean by 'lose everything' and >>> how would changing to a different licence avoid that? >> It is my opinion that CC-by-sa poses a high risk of not being enforceable to >> databases. That would mean losing the share-alike rights to the data. > > So you mean the data will become sort of "public domain"? That is not the same. PD means the data is open to everybody. Abusing a bad licence means the data is open for grabbing for unscrupulous people that don't care about violating the idea. But it is still restricted to honest users respecting the licence. A ridiculous situation. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi! Grant Slater schrieb: > Read the full announcement in all its glory: > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001958.html > > Discussion is best on legal-talk or the avenues as per announcement. > I disagree. This matter is important enough that it should be announced and explained to as many mappers as possible. Actually, I cannot think of any matter more important for OSM. Especially when you expect people to happily vote in favour of a proposal it might be a good idea to inform them ahead of time rather than annoy them by keeping them out of the loop until it is too late to comment. In my opinion, a statement about this that is understandable to a non-lawyer belongs not only on talk, but onto the national mailing lists, onto the forum, onto the wiki news, the login page and any other place where you can reach mappers. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - better on legal@
Hi! sly (sylvain letuffe) schrieb: > >> The license change is no longer a boring legal affair, > It has, and always will be, in the eyes of the majority. > > The best that can be done IMHO is to warn the maximum possible users, but > don't force anyone to follow the discussion he is not interesting in. I strongly disagree. At the latest when users are surprised by the fact that they cannot log in anymore and a notice threatens to delete their data if they not agree to some obscure licence change, most will become interested. But not very cooperative if it happens this way. :-) You should inform as many users as possible about the upcoming licence change and leave it to them whether they are interested. > > This announce as been made, I'd perfer you to continue talking about it on > legal. The legal details can be discussed on legal. But the matter of informing or rather not informing the people concerned by this fits right here. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
Hi! marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com schrieb: > On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:32:38 +0100, Nop wrote: >> marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com schrieb: >>> Just a note: >>> As a developer I am accepting the following values in the Traveling >>> Salesman >>> navigation system (case ignored): >>> no >>> false >>> 0 >>> -1 >>> all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have >>> a >>> oneway-tag). >> So you are treating -1 as "no"? > > No, I accept the value "-1" (and interprete it as a oneway=yes > in the opposite direction). That's what I believe to have written. Not quite, you wrote that you accept the value, but not how you interpret its meaning and all other values you quoted mean "no". But now it is clear. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
Hi! marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com schrieb: > Just a note: > As a developer I am accepting the following values in the Traveling > Salesman > navigation system (case ignored): > no > false > 0 > -1 > all other values are ignored and treated as yes (why else would you have a > oneway-tag). So you are treating -1 as "no"? bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true
Hi! Lambertus schrieb: > What would really add additional information to oneway is: 0, 1 and -1. > These values additionally give a direction relative to the direction of > the way. Imho only 0, 1 and -1 are the true options for the oneway tag. Actually, it would convey less information. Technically you are right, but by choosing an non-intuitive encoding that only people with some technical background and metainformation will understand, you are transporting less information by drastically decreasing the number of recipients - and people willing to deal with it. It seems to me that this is just the most basic example of a problematic tendency. Some people enjoy setting up very complicated structures because of the many things that can be expressed with them. But you need a lot of technical background to understand them and avoid their pitfalls and probably some advanced tooling to use them. On the other hand, the way I understood it OSM was a global initative and is happy for every additional mapper. If this is the goal, we need structures that you can understand and properly use without a degree in computer science. So back to the original topic: "yes" is definitely the most intuitive value and thus the most useful. My personal preference would be "true" ( but then I have a degree in computer science. :-) but I understand that it is less intuitive. But 0, 1, -1 needs an additional mapping table and is incomprehensible to most people, so I deem it unsuitable. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Osmosis running forever with completeWays=yes?
Hi! I am trying to cut 10 areas out of the planetfile for germany. When I set the parameter completeWays=yes for these areas, osmosis (V0.29) seems to run forever. After 8,5 hours of CPU time, osmosis had created a number of large temporary files, one output file was at about 15% the expected size and all others were still empty. Without the parameter completeWays=yes the job is completed in less than 30 minutes. Is completeWays=yes broken? Or does it really take this long to process? Is there anything I can do differently? I want the cut areas to be seamless, that is the reason I switched on completeWays=yes. All hints welcome thanks Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki: chriscf vandalism
Hi! Lars Aronsson schrieb: >> I would suggest the following changes in the wiki: >> - replace "vote" by "opinion poll" > > This would probably be a step in the right direction. But why > have a poll at all, where you count the number of people/votes? > Wouldn't it be better to ask for a number of arguments for or > against a proposal? Then people would have to contribute more > arguments, instead of more votes. I agree. A vote/poll with an argument attached has meaning. A quick yes/no without reasoning does not even tell you whether the voter read the page, let alone understood it. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki: chriscf vandalism
Hi! Pieren schrieb: > I would suggest the following changes in the wiki: > - replace "vote" by "opinion poll" > - replace "I approve"/"I oppose" by "I like it"/"I don't like it" > - replace "approved" feature status by "valuable" > - split the map features page in two parts "core map features" for > well established tags (e.g. used by more thant 50% of the > contributors) and another map features page for the rest. This would be a considerable improvement. Splitting map features into established by mass use and suggestions would help a lot. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki: chriscf vandalism
Hi! Russ Nelson schrieb: > Is there any voluntary community in which this does not happen? There > will always be people who have good ideas who are unable to convince > other people of the correctness of their ideas. See, for example, > Galileo. The point was that those people are being mislead by the Wiki that suggests there was more meaning to it. The frustrating part is spending a lot of time working out a proposal, discussing it, actually convinving the people who joined the discussion believing that the vote meant something. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki: chriscf vandalism
Hi! Richard Fairhurst schrieb: > Sven Rautenberg wrote: >> I take it that you oppose this tag. Why haven't you said so in >> the voting section until now? > > For the same reason that no-one on talk-de ever submits any patches to > Potlatch? They don't patch. But they also don't object to other people's patches. (Or switch off Potlatch overnight because someone thinks its BS). So I think this comparison is a little bit off. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki: chriscf vandalism
Hi! Richard Fairhurst schrieb: > (Nop's e-mail went to me rather than the list but I'm guessing that was > a mistake - and he probably expressed the other side best) > > Well, this is the crux of it. I'm not convinced the form of democracy we > have in the tag voting is at all helpful. > > The problem is that people vote on tags: > > - without knowing anything about the subject > - without ever having mapped the feature in question > - without any intention of ever mapping the feature in question We are agreed that the voting system needs improvement. I am especially annoyed about people who never contributed anything to the discussion and then just smugly vote "no" without giving a reason. So a good vote needs a better system and considerably more attention. But just because people have not been paying attention when asked to contribute does not give them the right to overrule those who did. > With smoothness that's gone out of the window. As far as I'm concerned, > with the approval of smoothness=very_horrible (come _on_!), all bets are > off. The voting system has just voted itself into irrelevance. It's not quite that easy. I agree, that "very_horrible" is ridiculous - if you are a native speaker or proficient in english. If you have only a basic understanding of english and you are doing your best to contribute and express yourself, it is not. And last time I checked, OSM was supposed to be a global endeavour. So I'd rather would have to ask the question: Why did none of the people who see an obviously ridiculous value - including myself - step in and correct it? Should have been very simple, shouldn't it? > I'm starting to wonder about a "Tags I Use" system. In other words, if I > think I have a smart way of tagging tracks (their surface, their > cyclability, conditions through the year, etc.), I document it - maybe > on the wiki (/User:Richard/Tags_I_Use), maybe someplace else. I explain > what I use, why. Other people do the same. > > A miraculous aggregator then goes through all these pages, drawing in > some Tagwatch data, and reports "50 people are using surface=gravel, 10 > people are using smoothness=very_horrible, 1 person is using > my_bike_suspension=knackered" - and links to people's documentation. > > Then, for those who like to have everything in a central place, once the > tags have been used n times, they can go in Map Features. Well, you are proposing a differnt kind of vote by usage of tags. An interesting thought, but probably no the solution. Some of the shortcomings are: - it can be even more easily abused to push silly tags. With some diligence or a little programming I can easily get a tagwatch count of >100 for anything I like. And as this is only in the DB, nobody even sees it coming. I like a proposal page much better. - It lacks a definition of meaning. Just because a tag is used a certain number of times, it does not mean that all people who used it, did mean the same. Just think about the at least 3 usages of "designated". A well formulated proposal is a more concise definition of meaning and has a well-kown place to look for this. I'll probably have a hard time to find your personal "my tags" page, even if I want to join your cause. - It lacks a way to simply introduce a new tag. Not all proposals are ridiculous, many are well thought out, address a topic that has been missing so far and are compatible to the existing world. I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to propose and use them if there is no problem. What the proposal process sorely lacks is the experience and attention of some veteran mappers, so it produces less random results. Why do they not care about it? bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki: chriscf vandalism
Hi! Richard Fairhurst schrieb: > Chris has had the courage of his convictions to stand up against an utterly > ridiculous tag, thereby pointing out the flaws in a voting system which a > lot of us are silently unhappy with. Good luck to him. Maybe I am misreading your lines, but to me they sound like you are calling for anarchay and decision making by edit war. I would consider it the basic principle of democracy/a community that things established by vote need to be changed by vote, even if the need for change is obvious. I do not agree with the tag either, but as I sort of believe in democracy I strongly oppose the overriding of votes by individuals. Following your thoughts, as this is my conviction, I should stand up to it and immediately undo Chris' "illegal" changes, thus starting an edit war? I would rather suggest tackling the real problem with the voting system or at least re-open discussion and vote of a badly designed tag. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Anonymous editing
Richard Fairhurst schrieb:
> Yay for 0.6 going live in March.
+1
> Can we take this opportunity to finally disable anonymous editing?
+1
bye
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Exclusive usage rights)
There is a basic dissent about the meaning of access=designated (and of the derived use of highway=footway, highway=cycleway). This is illustrated by repeated animated discussions on talk-de that merely outlined the opposing opinions but remained without result. The use of the tags in the database is just as inconsistent. This proposal aims at resolving the dispute by displaying the different interpretations side by side and suggesting a new access tag as a technical solution to represent both intended meanings in the database without conflict. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Exclusive_usage_rights. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Are osm ids unique?
Hello! Are the ids of osm objects unique? A) globally unique B) unique only within the type of object, so the same id may occur with a way, a node and a relation. C) unique only within the type of object, but with non-intersecting numbering schemes According to the wiki it is B) [1] In my data processing I have so far assumed A) and never encountered a problem. What are the facts? thanks Nop [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Database_schema ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Watering place
A body of water or water supply suitable for and accessible to animals. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Watering_place ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Trail riding station
Proposal: Define a tag for way stations that have a stable with room for guest horses as well as some type of accomodation for riders. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Trail_riding_station ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Hiking and Trail riding map
Hi folks! As I liked the features of the cycle map but rather missed a hiking map based on a similar design, I started working on one. Or rather, as I am doing my mapping on horseback, I am working on a map that some day should be suitable for trail riding. But as the requirements for a hiking map are very similar, it should be able to serve that purpose as well. Main requirements are contour lines, hill shading, emphasis on displaying the trackgrades and paths, landmarks of all kinds and hiking routes. My work on a hiking map originally started with a map for Garmin devices and Map Composer. For the open layers map I extended Composer to generate matching mapnik styles. This means that a Garmin map will be available that exactly matches the online topo map minus the hill shading. You can have a look at an early draft here: http://www.nop.onpw.de/. And there the problems start. Currently the test map is located at a free webhoster, but it is obvious that the final map will be require some magnitudes more webspace. So do you have any recommendations for me on where to find webhosting for this project? It is a simple set of prerendered tiles and openlayers and requires no server side database or applications. I guess I could use advice and help with this project. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Windows binary of mapnik gdal plugin
Hi!
I am looking for a windows binary of the gdal input plugin for mapnik.
It is missing from the binary distribution and I have not been able to
find an alternative distribution or the plugin for download.
Of course I have tried building mapnik myself, but as I am neither
familiar with scons or python nor have any of the required environments
or an alternate C++ build system installed yet and it seems scons has no
concept of single build targets, this will probably take days to figure out.
So I'd rather ask for your help: Does anybody know of a location for a
binary of that plugin or could someone with a working build environment
send the binary over?
thanks
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Cannot get osm2pgsql to run
Hello!
I am trying to set up a mapnik instance, but I cannot get osm2pgsql to
run. I have followed the instructions on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapnik/PostGIS but they are rather
sketchy so I need some pointer on where the problem is.
I have created a DB gis. First I got an error "missing function" so I
concluded that I had to create the db from the template_postgis, though
the Wiki does not mention this. My user is superuser and owner of the
db. When I try to import a small osm file, I get the following error.
osm2pgsql SVN version 0.55-20081113 $Rev: 10464 $
Using projection SRS 900913 (Spherical Mercator)
Setting up table: planet_osm_point
SELECT AddGeometryColumn('planet_osm_point', 'way', 900913, 'POINT', 2 );
failed: ERROR: AddGeometryColumns() - invalid SRID
CONTEXT: SQL statement "SELECT AddGeometryColumn('','', $1 , $2 , $3 ,
$4 , $5
)"
PL/pgSQL function "addgeometrycolumn" line 4 at SQL statement
Error occurred, cleaning up
Can anybody tell what the problem is?
thanks
Nop
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazard warning
Mark dangerous locations on a way. Main focus is on the dangers encountered by hikers and cyclists on smaller tracks and paths in the countryside. Street hazards marked with a traffic sign could also be mapped with this tag. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hazard_warning ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Watering place
When you are travelling longer distances with animals, you need to find water supplies during the day. This proposal defines a tag for this purpose. amenity=watering_place is analogous to amenity=drinking_water, but considering the needs of animals rather than humans. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Watering_place ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
