Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Renaming FOSS4G

[Dan Ames]

+1 4 this comment: "a cool thing 2 do ten years ago"

Actually from an international point of view - and as OSGeo grows - I would
think that the 4 in FOSS4G raises more questions than answers since the
number 4 and the word "for" are only homonyms in English as far as I know.
The German words für and vier don't sound much a like and neither do the
Dutch words  voor and vier. And those are probably the closest matches. So
maybe it's a bit Anglo-centric to 4ce the 4 on people. For example, "for"
in Japanese, ための, sounds nothing at all like "4" in Japanese which to me
sounds like "yum".

Similarly, I doubt the Chinese pet shop, "52 Pets" would internationalize
very well.  By the way, does anyone know why 6 was afraid of 7? I suspect a
lot of people don't, just like I had no idea why my Thai colleague kept
texting me 555... But FOSS4G is an established brand now and brands are
hard to build and keep. So +1 for pressing forward with FOSS-yum-G...?


On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:24 AM Randal Hale 
wrote:

> I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. I will bring some fuel -
> diesel in honor of the largest car manufacturing plant near me (Volkswagen)
>
> It would strengthen the brand of OSGEO with a conference named the same.
> There seems to be a fairly large disconnect right now with the FOSS4GNA
> conference and OSGEO. That needs to be much tighter.
>
> Although I'm a bit of a stickler with Free and Open Source - I like the
> idea of going OS*Geo - *because that's what I do (at least in my case) -
> I use GIS and I do it with free and open source tools.
>
> +11 on having to explain foss4g and then dragging osgeo into it.
>
> Lets go one step further and talk to the Geo4all folks into saying
> osgeo4all.
>
> Randy
>
>
> On 10/06/2015 11:12 AM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
>
> Okay, this is probably sticking a match under a pile of dry wood but
> here goes...
>
> Can we rename The FOSS4G Conference to The OSGeo Conference?
>
> Cons:
>
>  1. FOSS4G is an established brand
>
>  2. FOSS4G sidesteps the "Free" vs "Open Source" argument by including both.
>
> Counters to those:
>
>  1. Really? Perhaps amongst OSGeo people, but outside our sphere I
> have to expand the acronym and then go on to mention OSGeo.
>
>  2. Let's have that argument somewhere else, okay?
>
> Pros:
>
>  1. Puts the *Geo* visible, not tucked away as a G at the end.
>
>  2. Gets rid of the "4G", which may have been a cool thing 2 do ten
> years ago, but not now :)
>
>  3. Removes any confusion with 4G telecoms networks.
>
>  4. Clearly brands the conference as an OSGeo conference. Recent
> discussion about the prominence and significance of OSGeo to FOSS4G
> becomes moot.
>
>  5. Is easy to explain. The OSGeo Conference is the open source
> geospatial conference. See the OSGeo web site. Search for OSGeo. One
> acronym to remember.
>
> [I toyed with the idea that the conference should be called "OSGeo
> Live!" and renaming the OSGeo Live operating system disc as "OSGeoOS"
> but that might be a bit too much :)]
>
> So, this is the discuss list, discuss.
>
> Barry
> ___
> Discuss mailing 
> listDiscuss@lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> --
> -
> Randal Hale
> North River Geographic Systems, Inchttp://www.northrivergeographic.com
> 423.653.3611 rjh...@northrivergeographic.com
> twitter:rjhale 
> http://about.me/rjhalehttp://www.northrivergeographic.com/introduction-to-quantum-gis
> Southeast OSGEO: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Southeast_US
>
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations

[Dan Ames]

Count me has one who has awoken. The survey has spawned an interesting
discussion. I hope to see the results shared at some point, even if not
everyone has participated. Maybe a threshold of charter member
participation should be met before the results are shared? This of course
would just be for information sake given that there are clearly issues with
the survey causing some not to participate as Frank has pointed out. - Dan

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:29 AM Milo van der Linden m...@dogodigi.net
wrote:

 +1 Frank's statement

 It is a great summary and I also want to compliment OSGeo on maintaining
 diversity in Board and Officers both in country of origin and companies
 people work for in all these years, it is an organization I am proud to be
 a humble little part of.

 If there is something that I think could be better in the future it might
 be:
 - More women present in the board although this should go naturally and
 not forced
 - broader representation for Asia and Africa, but again, this should grow
 organic

 But that is just my opinion and I feel in no way privileged to tell others
 what to do.

 Kind regards,

 Milo
 On Aug 3, 2015 6:44 PM, Stephen Woodbridge wood...@swoodbridge.com
 wrote:

 +1 Frank's statement is exactly what I would like to see also.

 -Steve

 On 8/3/2015 12:39 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:

 Folks,

 For what it's worth, I also do not feel comfortable with completing
 the survey as it is currently structured as the structure forces me to
 give answers that don't really represent my views.

 For what it's worth I am in favor of:
   - a modest number of charter members using something like the current
 process
   - open membership
   - no manditory membership fees
   - make every effort to treat regular members the same as charter
 members except for the minimum voting stuff required to be legally
 distinct.

 Best regards,
 Frank



 On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Jim Klassen klassen...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I have been involved in the MapServer and GeoMoose projects since before
 OSGeo existed.  I remember the founding of OSGeo and the heated
 discussions that took place to define the direction OSGeo would take.
 The future of OSGeo and how it interacts with its members is very
 important to me.

 However, as a charter member, this current discussion and particularly
 the survey has me confused as to how I should respond.

 For starters: Should I be taking the survey now or waiting for it to be
 improved?  Where are the results of this survey going?  Does this survey
 count as an official vote(s)?

 On 08/03/2015 05:16 AM, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:

 Dear Bruce, Steve, Even, Peter, Dan and others,

 Sorry for replying so late. I'm in vacation with limited Internet
 access. Personally, I agree with many of your points. However, as
 Steven already pointed out, we had a few days of open discussions on
 the survey before sending to our Charter members. Somehow I expected
 that our Charter members are subscribed on the discuss and board
 mailing list and following the topics there. Perhaps we need a
 dedicated mailing list for our Charter members or the invitation to
 comment on the survey should be also sent individually to all our
 Charter members. Not sure about the right approach. Anyway, please
 keep in mind that this is the first time we are polling our members
 and we still have to learn and adjust our communication skills.

 Now, regarding the survey. The main point was to find the best method
 to select our Charter members. This is an ongoing discussion for many
 years. The survey included the previous voting options and some new
 proposals. Then, some people suggested to use this opportunity to
 include additionally questions regarding the future of OSGeo
 membership. That's how the survey was created. The survey is really
 flawed if is not connected with the discussions on the board and
 discuss mailing lists. Different people, different angles, different
 opinions... But only a fraction of our members expressed their
 ideas/questions/opinions before assembling the survey. That's why the
 survey looks heterogeneous. I did my best to merge similar topics and
 not to include redundant questions. I also did not remove any question
 based on my own judgement. Anyway, I find this exercise very useful
 for our community. We should discuss further to keep our organization
 on the right track.

 Warm regards from the sunny Black Sea coast!
 Vasile

 PS I'm slowly catching up will all the emails on this thread (most of
 them privately sent). I'll get back when I have the full picture.

 On 7/31/15 3:07 AM, Bruce Bannerman wrote:

 Hi Vassile,

 This survey appears to be flawed.

 I applaud your efforts to bring this issue to a head, but I'm not
 convinced
 that we'll get valid results from the survey.


 In my case:

 I believe that there should be open membership for any interested,
 perhaps
 with a membership fee.

 I also see the value of recognising key contributors voted 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Munich Orientation Convention, Mapcodes, and All the Rest

[Dan Ames]

Fascinating discussion, though I agree with David that is belongs on the
Standards Committee mailing list. Thanks for the enlightening info though!
- Dan

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:12 AM Steve Swazee sdswa...@sharedgeo.org
wrote:

 Ian,

 Hardly confused.  Two of three principal originators of GeoMOOSE are on
 staff.  Served as the fiscal agent for FOSS4G NA 2013.  Former member of
 the GITA board of directors.



 It matters what you program.  If you want your software to have utility
 and gain acceptance, I am suggesting incorporation of USNG/MGRS as a
 feature would have value.  Likewise, it would be providing a service.



 Per the bombing story attributed to a confusion of mapping standards –
 concrete example would be beneficial.  I used to teach Close Air Support in
 the USMC and to be certain mistakes happen.  It is doubtfully, however,
 that it was due to none standard cartography among NATO troops, and far
 more likely due to another issue.



 Steve



 *From:* Ian Turton [mailto:ijtur...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Thursday, July 30, 2015 10:40 AM
 *To:* Swazee, Steve sdswa...@sharedgeo.org
 *Cc:* OSGeo Discussions discuss@lists.osgeo.org
 *Subject:* Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Munich Orientation Convention, Mapcodes,
 and All the Rest




 Now that I have your attention, I believe you and the rest of the OSGeo
 community would be well served by spending some time truly learning about
 this issue.  In so doing, I’m sure the open minds among you will come to
 the conclusion that USNG/MGRS is the answer to the issue I am addressing.
 OSGeo could do the world a heap of good in doing so.



 Fascinating as this discussion is  I can't help wondering if you (as a
 group) are confused as to what OSGeo does? - we write software and if you
 publish a standard there is a fair chance we will write some code to
 integrate that code into our software, especially if there is user demand.



 So I expect you are preaching to the wrong people - either we care or we
 don't but most of us have no power to change the world.



 At the risk of prolonging this discussion I'll add the following.

 Currently I'm not seeing any demand for this from users - I hear a lot of
 talk about military and 1st responders but the last time I talked to a
 military guy he was telling hair raising stories of US Army planes bombing
 UK troops because they both use a grid system but the the US has letters up
 the side of the map and the UK has letters across the bottom (it was
 slightly more complex than that but basically that was the problem), so
 their requirement was for WGS84 coordinates to match their GPS.



 Ian
 ___
 Discuss mailing list
 Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
 http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership consultations

[Dan Ames]

I'd love to see OSGeo evolve into a professional organization not entirely
unlike ASME, ASCE, IEEE, etc. These organizations charge nominal membership
dues usually at different levels depending on the person's status
(professional, student, developing country, etc.). All regular members can
vote for the officers. Officers run the programs of the society. It's a
well established model. - Dan

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 6:39 PM Stephen Woodbridge wood...@swoodbridge.com
wrote:

 I think Bruce has put some of my concerns about the questions into good
 examples the resonate with my concerns.

 For example: I am a long time contributor to multiple OSGeo projects and
 have mentored some smaller projects that are not OSGeo projects yet but
 are key pieces of GIS infrastructure. I have invested a lot of time and
 effort and as a consultant, being able claim I'm a Charter Member gives
 me some marketing credibility.

 I would like to vote for both general membership and meritorious
 membership, or to say both exclusive and inclusive membership classes
 and we might want a third class sponsorship class of membership.

 Given the amount of time I invest in OSGeo including being a GSoC Mentor
 for 6-7 years which benefited OSGeo financially, I find it hard to vote
 for membership dues.

 I know this is a complex issues and everyone has an opinion, so more
 power to you for taking on this task. If you can do anything to address
 these types of concerns that would make this survey all the more
 valuable. Maybe do not force a sequence of questions and let each
 question stand on its own with an other write in field.

 Best regards,
-Steve

 On 7/30/2015 8:07 PM, Bruce Bannerman wrote:
  Hi Vassile,
 
  This survey appears to be flawed.
 
  I applaud your efforts to bring this issue to a head, but I'm not
  convinced that we'll get valid results from the survey.
 
 
  In my case:
 
  I believe that there should be open membership for any interested,
  perhaps with a membership fee.
 
  I also see the value of recognising key contributors voted through some
  meritocracy process as the current Charter Membership allows, with this
  group having a voting responsibility. This is in essence not very
  different from the concept of a 'committers' group within an open source
  project. I don't really care if the name 'Charter Membership' is changed.
 
 
  However the survey appears to lead people into a binary situation where
  they believe in 'open' or 'closed' with 'closed' apparently assigned to
  those favouring 'Charter Membership'.
 
 
  For example:
 
  I'd like to vote NO to 'Should OSGeo move from the actual elected
  Charter member model to an (open) regular membership?'
 
  But, YES to 'If you agree with the OSGeo regular membership, do you also
  agree with a low annual membership fee?'
 
  However, I'm precluded from doing so, because I answered NO to Q1.
 
  For Question 4, I would like to answer both:
 
  - YES for Open, in the context that everyone interested should be able
  to participate in discussions and the OSGeo Community (perhaps having
  paid a membership fee); and
 
  - YES for 'Closed', in the context of key votes being subject to the
  equivalent of a 'Committers' list where people have been voted in
  through some meritocracy process.
 
  - However, I can only choose one or the other!
 
 
  I haven't read the remaining questions at this stage, given the flawed
  questions at the beginning.
 
 
 
  I apologise if you had sent this out for review earlier. I have not been
  following this debate closely as this type of membership noise pops up
  on a regular basis.
 
  However, when this proceeds to a vote of the OSGeo Charter membership, I
  need to register a comment.
 
 
  For consideration.
 
  Bruce
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  From: Vasile Crăciunescu c...@osgeo.org mailto:c...@osgeo.org
  Reply-To: Vasile Crăciunescu c...@osgeo.org mailto:c...@osgeo.org
  Date: Thursday, 30 July 2015 23:52
  To: Bruce Bannerman 
  Subject: Invitation to participate in the OSGeo membership
 consultations
 
  Dear Bruce,
 
  As an existing OSGeo Charter Member, you have been invited to
  participate in the 2015 OSGeo membership consultations.
 
  To participate, please click on the link below.
 
  Sincerely,
 
  Vasile ()
 
  --
 
 
 
 
  ___
  Discuss mailing list
  Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
  http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
 

 ___
 Discuss mailing list
 Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
 http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Which web project supports clipping/intersection?

[Dan Ames]

Thanks all. Dan, very interesting news on the JSTS development... We'll
start digging into turfjs and leaflet. I don't think OpenLayers actually
performs geoprocessing functions like overlay-clip/intersect. But I'm
willing to be corrected... - Dan

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 5:03 PM Dan Little theduckylit...@gmail.com wrote:

 We are also working on building these capabilities into GeoMOOSE using
 JSTS. Our 2.8 release will allow users to buffer their vectkr drawings
 completely in the client.
 On Jul 15, 2015 4:55 PM, Jorge Gustavo Rocha j...@osgeopt.pt wrote:

 Hi Dan,

 Maybe you can also check some more generic and powerful library like
 OpenLayers [1,2] or Leaflet [3].

 To use OpenStreetMap data, you can start play with Overpass API [4].

 It is also wise to clip the features on the server side; not on the
 client side.

 I hope it helps,

 J. Gustavo

 [1] http://openlayers.org/
 [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenLayers
 [3] http://leafletjs.com/
 [4] http://overpass-turbo.eu/

 On 15-07-2015 22:10, Dan Ames wrote:

 Hi all, as a long time desktop developer, I'm now building web mapping
 applications and am feeling like a major newbie.

 Can someone point me in the right direction?

 Is there a javascript library that can perform basic geoprocessing on
 geoJSON features?

 We're retrieving features from OpenStreetMap and need to clip/intersect
 features...

 Thanks in advance,

 Dan


 ___
 Discuss mailing list
 Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
 http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

  ___
 Discuss mailing list
 Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
 http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

 ___
 Discuss mailing list
 Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
 http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[OSGeo-Discuss] Which web project supports clipping/intersection?

[Dan Ames]

Hi all, as a long time desktop developer, I'm now building web mapping
applications and am feeling like a major newbie.

Can someone point me in the right direction?

Is there a javascript library that can perform basic geoprocessing on
geoJSON features?

We're retrieving features from OpenStreetMap and need to clip/intersect
features...

Thanks in advance,

Dan
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Which web project supports clipping/intersection?

[Dan Ames]

George, thank you for the quick reply. I shall investigate turfjs!

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:15 PM George Silva georger.si...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Yes there is.

 Check turfjs!

 On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Dan Ames dan.a...@byu.edu wrote:

 Hi all, as a long time desktop developer, I'm now building web mapping
 applications and am feeling like a major newbie.

 Can someone point me in the right direction?

 Is there a javascript library that can perform basic geoprocessing on
 geoJSON features?

 We're retrieving features from OpenStreetMap and need to clip/intersect
 features...

 Thanks in advance,

 Dan

 ___
 Discuss mailing list
 Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
 http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss




 --
 George R. C. Silva
 Sigma Geosistemas LTDA
 
 http://www.sigmageosistemas.com.br/

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[OSGeo-Discuss] Two GIS related conferences to consider...

[Dan Ames]

Dear OSGeo -Discuss List:

Many of you are doing interesting work in open source GIS that could/should
be presented at academic and professional conferences in application areas
such as water and environmental modeling.

If this describes your work, then please take a look at both of these
upcoming conferences and consider participating in one or both!

It's always nice to see a bit more open source and less proprietary
software represented at these meetings as time goes on...

- Dan

American Water Resources Association GIS  Water Resources 2014
May 12-14, 2014
Snowbird Resort, Utah, USA
http://www.awra.org/meetings/SnowBird2014/
Abstracts are due today!

International Environmental Modeling and Software Society (iEMSs) 2014
June 15-19, 2014
San Diego, California, USA
http://www.iemss.org/sites/iemss2014/index.html
Abstracts are due December 31, 2013





--
Daniel P. Ames, Ph.D., P.E.
Associate Professor, Civil  Environmental Engineering
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah

iEMSs 2014, San Diego, California, June 15-19, 2014.
http://www.iemss.org/iemss2014/
**
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss