[OSM-talk] A0 or A1 OSM map poster and other conference stuff
Hi guys, I will be manning an OSM stand at the next OpenExpo(.ch) in Bern, Switzerland in March. I need a poster for that. Unfortunately, I have forgotten how people have been creating these so far. There was a postscript renderer somewhere in CVS right? Or have people been using Mapnik directly? I have no mapnik installed so that would pose some more hassle. I will be needing both a low-zoom variant (Switzerland + Surroundings) as well as some high-zoom, show-off thingie (downtown Zurich or so). I will also be looking into SVN whether I can reuse some of the OSM lecture slides. Any recommendations? What else should I showcase there? OpenLayer with OSM. JOSM. N800 with Maemo-mapper. Some routing software perhaps? What can run on a Mac easily? I never got OJW's pyroute to run on my Mac yet, but that would certainly be cool. spaetz ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Roadnav
Hi, Jannis Achstetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Hi, did you ever try navit? http://navit.sourceforge.net/ Thanks for letting me know of this program, it is very impressive. Very fast in gtk mode. Only 3-5 fps using SDL, but that's my laptops fault. Still needs some work on rendering OSM data, I think they either don't use the layer tag, or they have it back to front. The routing also doesn't seem to be working with osm data (yet). Finally I can give up my continual struggle with GPSdrive and Mapnik. Cheers, Ian - Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Marrakech Mapping Party -CANCELLED-
Hi, For personal reasons I am not going to be able to complete the preparations of the Marrakech mapping party. And becaue there is no other OSM member from Morocco at the time, there is no one to whom I can hand on the responsability. At the same time I think the timing for a Morrocan mapping party is not good, we should have at least 3 or 4 members to start a party. At the same time I have not received confirmation from anyone that he is coming from abroad and booked a flight, which means no harm done (I hope). Ali. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] "As on ground" country names
Dave Stubbs wrote: > On Jan 9, 2008 4:22 PM, Michael Collinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> At 03:06 PM 1/9/2008, Stefan Baebler wrote: >> >>> Hi! >>> >>> I'd imagine that OSM's "as on ground" rule for primary names should >>> also apply for country nodes (tagged with place=country), however this >>> doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. >>> http://osmxapi.hypercube.telascience.org/api/0.5/node%5bplace=country%5d >>> shows that primary names are english names for most of the countries. >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> Do we bend the rule here in favor of english over local name? >>> How about multilingual countries (eg. Switzerland) >>> >> The main use at the moment will be for the "international generic >> map" that OSM hosts directly (as 80n writes) but more will come. >> >> I suggest therefore for the moment that the default name should >> English, repeated as name:en and (at least) the name(s) of the >> country in its own language(s) and script be entered using the ISO >> 639-1 [1] language namespace tag: >> >> > > I'd suggest keeping the exact same philosophy as used everywhere else. > If you want a generalised english map at the top layer, then just > rejig the renderer to use the name:en tag. There aren't that many > countries so it shouldn't be too hard to ensure they all have an :en > tag. And that way we're not special-casing data entry. > > Even if there is no name:en, the international renderer can fallback to the int_name and then finally to local name attribute. Sticking to the "as on ground" rule can probably elegantly avoid some of the known naming disputes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Geographical_naming_disputes Stefan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] administrative boundaries and is_in
On Jan 9, 2008 3:34 PM, Thomas Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 9, 2008 10:58 PM, Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You could query it for admin_level=4 to get the state or > > province name, to take an example from the "boundary" key page on the > Wiki. > > (Does anyone know why there are only even numbers for the admin_level > > values???) > > I believe its so it would fit all possible international region schemes. > It also fixes the issue for different levels of regions being called > the same thing, eg counties in the UK and US. > I understand why numbers are used instead of names. My question is why are there no odd numbers listed? It just looked strange. Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] POIs from wikipedia
On 10/01/2008, Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [co-ordinates on Wikipedia] > > really, that sounds like it would contravene wikipedia's rules and > > google's terms of use? and is it our responsibility to pre-guess what > > wp editors are doing? i think taking their data at face value is > > acceptable > > Please read > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates > > It actively recommends getting co-ordinates from Google Maps, > Multimap, Microsoft etc. etc. etc. it does, cheers i'm slightly lost now, wondering how osm fits in to this. if wp users can do it (i assume their legat team has looked through it?), why not osm i guess it's ok, because they're using it for illustrative purposes (fair use?), rather than as a basis for their content ok, i'll keep looking and keep thinking. thanks ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] source=yahoo
I swapped to this recently as well - on the basis of it being more 'consistent' with other tags - i.e lower case and no spaces cheers On Jan 10, 2008 10:31 AM, Lukasz Stelmach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Franc Carter wrote: > > > > I have seen these two > > source=Yahoo Imagery > > source=yahoo_imagery > > the latter seems quite nice. i'll use it. > > > -- > Było mi bardzo miło. Czwarta pospolita klęska, [...] > >Łukasz< Już nie katolicka lecz złodziejska. (c)PP > > > > -- > Kupujesz laptopa? Sprawdz nasze testy! > Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1cd1 > -- Franc ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] administrative boundaries and is_in
On Jan 9, 2008 10:58 PM, Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You could query it for admin_level=4 to get the state or > province name, to take an example from the "boundary" key page on the Wiki. > (Does anyone know why there are only even numbers for the admin_level > values???) I believe its so it would fit all possible international region schemes. It also fixes the issue for different levels of regions being called the same thing, eg counties in the UK and US. -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] source=yahoo
Franc Carter wrote: I have seen these two source=Yahoo Imagery source=yahoo_imagery the latter seems quite nice. i'll use it. -- Było mi bardzo miło. Czwarta pospolita klęska, [...] >Łukasz< Już nie katolicka lecz złodziejska. (c)PP -- Kupujesz laptopa? Sprawdz nasze testy! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1cd1 begin:vcard fn;quoted-printable:=C5=81ukasz Stelmach n;quoted-printable:Stelmach;=C5=81ukasz email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] POIs from wikipedia
Robin Paulson wrote: > [co-ordinates on Wikipedia] > On 08/01/2008, Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > These are almost certainly derived from Google Maps et al, therefore > > unsuitable for OSM. > > really, that sounds like it would contravene wikipedia's rules and > google's terms of use? and is it our responsibility to pre-guess what > wp editors are doing? i think taking their data at face value is > acceptable Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates It actively recommends getting co-ordinates from Google Maps, Multimap, Microsoft etc. etc. etc. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] administrative boundaries and is_in
On Jan 9, 2008 12:44 PM, Robin Paulson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > can someone explain a few things about the way boundaries work, and > their relation to the is_in key? > > as far as i can tell, when a location (say the suburb of balham, in > london) is added to the map, the is_in tag needs to be set, multiple > times. in this case, it would be set as follows: > > is_in:Westminster (...i think) > is_in:greater london > is_in:england > is_in:united_kingdom > is_in:British_Isles > is_in:Great_Britain > is_in:Europe > ...etc. > > which seems counter-intuitive, not to mention requiring huge amounts > of work. do we set this for every item - roads, churches, > supermarkets,thousands of other items? > is there anything underway to enable OSM to calculate where an object > is, based upon knowledge of administrative boundaries - after all, > they are only a polygon-shaped bounding box? > > if i set is_in of balham to london, and the is_in of london to > england, does osm know that balham is therefore in england, by > cascading the is_in values? and so on, for as many levels as we > define? > I think the is_in tag is mostly useless, for the reasons you've demonstrated. I've been thinking about this problem, too. In order to make properly indexed streets (for find by address) and POIs for GPS devices (I'm thinking Garmin here specifically), each point or street needs to be associated with a region (i.e., state or province or maybe country), city, zip code, etc. But this doesn't need to be tagged on each point--it should be able to be derived from boundaries. I'm thinking of a program which uses the administrative boundaries already in the planet file to do an optimized lookup for points. You could query it for admin_level=4 to get the state or province name, to take an example from the "boundary" key page on the Wiki. (Does anyone know why there are only even numbers for the admin_level values???) This is basically reverse geocoding, and I know some work has been done on it in other projects in the past. Maybe PostGIS would be good for this (I don't know much about PostGIS, but it seems to be the sort of thing for which it was created). Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] source=yahoo
Franc Carter wrote: > > I have seen these two > source=Yahoo Imagery > source=yahoo_imagery I have been using "source=Yahoo! aerial imagery" myself. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] source=yahoo
I have seen these two source=Yahoo Imagery source=yahoo_imagery I'd be interested in knowing which is the more generally accepted one. cheers On Jan 10, 2008 7:12 AM, Lukasz Stelmach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greetings Everyone. > > If there is source=landsat for features derived from landsat photos > should I tag source=yahoo those ones I have spotted on Yahoo imagery? > > > -- > Best regards. Czwarta pospolita klęska, [...] > >Łukasz< Już nie katolicka lecz złodziejska. (c)PP > > > > -- > Nadchodzi wojna miedzygalaktyczna! > Sprawdz! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1cc2 > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk > > -- Franc ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] administrative boundaries and is_in
Robin Paulson wrote: > can someone explain a few things about the way boundaries work, and > their relation to the is_in key? > > as far as i can tell, when a location (say the suburb of balham, in > london) is added to the map, the is_in tag needs to be set, multiple > times. in this case, it would be set as follows: > > is_in:Westminster (...i think) > is_in:greater london > is_in:england > is_in:united_kingdom > is_in:British_Isles > is_in:Great_Britain > is_in:Europe > ...etc. > > which seems counter-intuitive, not to mention requiring huge amounts > of work. do we set this for every item - roads, churches, > supermarkets,thousands of other items? For central Europe there's another project, named opengeodb, which is structured hierarchically. Here it's enough to take the lowest matching level (by loc_id), while all other levels above can be heritated. The names which are used for is_in have no need to be unique. Thus you can not derive info. - Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] administrative boundaries and is_in
can someone explain a few things about the way boundaries work, and their relation to the is_in key? as far as i can tell, when a location (say the suburb of balham, in london) is added to the map, the is_in tag needs to be set, multiple times. in this case, it would be set as follows: is_in:Westminster (...i think) is_in:greater london is_in:england is_in:united_kingdom is_in:British_Isles is_in:Great_Britain is_in:Europe ...etc. which seems counter-intuitive, not to mention requiring huge amounts of work. do we set this for every item - roads, churches, supermarkets,thousands of other items? is there anything underway to enable OSM to calculate where an object is, based upon knowledge of administrative boundaries - after all, they are only a polygon-shaped bounding box? if i set is_in of balham to london, and the is_in of london to england, does osm know that balham is therefore in england, by cascading the is_in values? and so on, for as many levels as we define? my second, related, point concerns boundaries that coincide with coastlines: do we need to trace over the coastline of a country/city/suburb to define an unbroken loop for each administrative areas, or can OSM work out for itself that the coastline forms the rest of the boundary? what about if the entire boundary is defined by coastline? are these questions only relevant if and when items are automagically aware of their location? thanks for any help ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] source=yahoo
Greetings Everyone. If there is source=landsat for features derived from landsat photos should I tag source=yahoo those ones I have spotted on Yahoo imagery? -- Best regards. Czwarta pospolita klęska, [...] >Łukasz< Już nie katolicka lecz złodziejska. (c)PP -- Nadchodzi wojna miedzygalaktyczna! Sprawdz! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1cc2 begin:vcard fn;quoted-printable:=C5=81ukasz Stelmach n;quoted-printable:Stelmach;=C5=81ukasz email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] The OSM licence: where we are, where we're going
Hi, > Rob and Frederik - I don't think it's too much of a leap to say that > you're never going to convince each other. ;) Yes but I always hope Rob's going to get tired at some point ;) seems I underestimated his stamina though. > If this rough view, however, does not settle so neatly, then the > Foundation will need to decide whether it should embark on a formal > consultation before the relicensing (maybe like the "poll" that some > have mentioned); and the outcome of that consultation would affect the > proposed relicensing. I thought you might use the poll as a "straw poll" just to give you a raw idea, instead of as a kind of "vote" late in the process. > I should note that there's nothing[1] in this process that only the > Foundation can do. That may be true but being the outspoken PD advocate that I am, any poll I created would either be biased or at least be *perceived* to be biased, and thus worthless. It's not only that the Foundation alone has access to all the E-mail addresses (btw: does it? and why?), it is also that the Foundation would probably be trusted to create an unbiased poll. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33' ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] Wiki broken?
When i update an Article in OSM Wiki I get an error message: >Warning: require(/var/www/wiki.openstreetmap.org/extensions/ConfirmEdit/ConfirmEdit_body.php) [function.require]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/wiki.openstreetmap.org/includes/AutoLoader.php on line 302 > Fatal error: require() [function.require]: Failed opening required '/var/www/wiki.openstreetmap.org/extensions/ConfirmEdit/ConfirmEdit_body.php' (include_path='.:/var/www/wiki.openstreetmap.org:/var/www/wiki.openstreetmap.org/includes:/var/www/wiki.openstreetmap.org/languages') in /var/www/wiki.openstreetmap.org/includes/AutoLoader.php on line 302 Best Regards Sven ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] POIs from wikipedia
On 08/01/2008, Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > while i was looking up some info on wikipedia [1], i noticed that a > > lot of pages have a lat/lon value to describe their location; this > > strikes me as something we could use to increase the amount of data in > > OSM > > These are almost certainly derived from Google Maps et al, therefore > unsuitable for OSM. really, that sounds like it would contravene wikipedia's rules and google's terms of use? and is it our responsibility to pre-guess what wp editors are doing? i think taking their data at face value is acceptable ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] shop = chemist
On Wed, January 9, 2008 7:30 am, Ulf Lamping wrote: > Hi! > > > There's an RFC about shop=chemist, please have a look at: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Chemist > > > On the wikipedia page about superdrug, I've found the term "health and > beauty retailer" which might be a better term than chemist. It's not a term that I've ever heard before. It sounds like something that sector of the industry have made up to describe themselves. > > I'm still pretty unclear about the meaning of the dispensing tag of the > already existing amenity=pharmacy. In the UK context, a dispensing chemist is one that is allowed to sell drugs which can only be issued on a prescription. (I hope I phrase that correctly.) A prescription is issued by a doctor. Mike Collinson has added wording to the Wiki page that may go some way to clarifying the terms. In the UK context, as he says "For most people a pharmacy and a chemist meant (past tense) the same thing", though I might argue with the "past tense" - I'd still expect both a pharmacy and a chemist to be dispensing chemists. > > > As I'm not a native speaker, I could need some help here :-) I am a native speaker. -- David James ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Roadnav
Ian Haylock schrieb: > Hi, > > For those that don't know, there is now a beta version of Roadnav available. > This version has support for openstreetmap data. > Displays the maps ok, but routing and searching do not seem to be working. > Not as pretty as Gpsdrive using mapnik, but oh, so much easier to install. > > Cheers, Ian Hi, did you ever try navit? http://navit.sourceforge.net/ Jannis smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] "As on ground" country names
On Jan 9, 2008 4:22 PM, Michael Collinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 03:06 PM 1/9/2008, Stefan Baebler wrote: > >Hi! > > > >I'd imagine that OSM's "as on ground" rule for primary names should > >also apply for country nodes (tagged with place=country), however this > >doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. > >http://osmxapi.hypercube.telascience.org/api/0.5/node%5bplace=country%5d > >shows that primary names are english names for most of the countries. > > > >Any thoughts? > >Do we bend the rule here in favor of english over local name? > >How about multilingual countries (eg. Switzerland) > > The main use at the moment will be for the "international generic > map" that OSM hosts directly (as 80n writes) but more will come. > > I suggest therefore for the moment that the default name should > English, repeated as name:en and (at least) the name(s) of the > country in its own language(s) and script be entered using the ISO > 639-1 [1] language namespace tag: > I'd suggest keeping the exact same philosophy as used everywhere else. If you want a generalised english map at the top layer, then just rejig the renderer to use the name:en tag. There aren't that many countries so it shouldn't be too hard to ensure they all have an :en tag. And that way we're not special-casing data entry. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] The OSM licence: where we are, where we're and are, where we're going
(follow-ups to legal-talk, please) Peter Miller wrote: > There are clearly uncertainties and complications with the current licence, > however it does allow for the license to be upgraded without going back to > original contributors for permission. In OSM's case that's unlikely to be true. Copyright in OSM contributions is owned by the original contributors, not by OSMF. As the CC-BY-SA 2.0 summary says, "A new version of this license is available. You should use it for new works, and you may want to relicense existing works under it. No works are automatically put under the new license, however." Since no works are automatically put under the new licence, every contributor would have to choose to move to (say) CC-Data-BY-SA just as they would any other licence. > As such I feel confident that CC could > come up with a derivative of CC-BY-SA 3.0 that covers our needs and plug the > gaps (and those of other gedata/DB type datasets generally); after all, if > the ODL can do it then why can't CC do it The following background is absolutely crucial. It's in the OpenGeoData post but I'll take the chance to restate it. I'd encourage you, Longbow4u and others to reflect on it. * The Open Data Commons Database Licence is a share-alike licence with attribution elements. It is, as you say, "in the spirit of CC-BY-SA". * Its authors are working with Creative Commons. * Creative Commons has a strong policy that "facts are free"[1]. They have therefore now introduced a "licence" for factual information, but this is essentially public domain (CC0/PDDL) with a voluntary request to share info. We are _not_ recommending that OSM adopts that licence. The ODC Database Licence is entirely separate. So to specifically answer your point about "if the ODL can do it then why can't CC do it": * CC doesn't believe factual information should be subject to restrictions, so _won't_ do it. * But if CC were to do it (if, for example, they were lobbied to do so), their existing collaboration with ODC makes it very likely that they would actually adopt the Open Data Commons Database Licence. In other words, this option is significantly _more_ copyleft than CC themselves propose. > Btw, where should this debate be happening? Personally I suggest the legal > nerdy details are discussed on legal-talk but any discussion about > principles are discussed on 'talk' It's a good point, but in practice legal-talk will work best because it's very difficult to separate the two, and because discussions will drift from one to the other. We also don't want to overwhelm the rest of the project with it! cheers Richard [1] From their database FAQ: "As you know, Creative Commons and Science Commons work to promote freely available content and information. Our preference is that people do not overstate their copyright or other legal rights. Consequently, we adopt the position that 'facts are free' and people should be educated so that they are aware of this." ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] The OSM licence: where we are, where we're going
Hi, Please can we keep this to legal-talk to stop discussion fragmenting? Thanks. Longbow4u wrote: > After the > proposed revision of the GFDL by the Free Software Foundation our maps will > probably be compatible with Wikipedia. If we would go for another copyleft > licence this compatibility would not materialise. Our maps are already available for inclusion in Wikipedia and it's inconceivable that this would change - see earlier posting to legal-talk. I think your posting is good evidence of a widespread truth: there is no way that OSM contributors would ever countenance a change that would stop Wikipedia using our maps. If Wikipedia does change to CC-BY-SA, its Collective Work provision will certainly allow Wikipedia to continue using OSM maps, whether OSM uses CC-BY-SA, ODCL, public domain or whatever. cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The OSM licence: where we are, where we're going
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:16:59PM +, Longbow4u wrote: > It is not proven that CC-BY-SA does not work for maps. You're probably not on the legal-talk list, but if you're interested in discussing this further, I highly encourage you to join that list. There are a number of salient points being discussed there that might help change your understanding of the current legal situation. Regards, -- Christopher Schmidt MetaCarta ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] "As on ground" country names
At 03:06 PM 1/9/2008, Stefan Baebler wrote: >Hi! > >I'd imagine that OSM's "as on ground" rule for primary names should >also apply for country nodes (tagged with place=country), however this >doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. >http://osmxapi.hypercube.telascience.org/api/0.5/node%5bplace=country%5d >shows that primary names are english names for most of the countries. > >Any thoughts? >Do we bend the rule here in favor of english over local name? >How about multilingual countries (eg. Switzerland) The main use at the moment will be for the "international generic map" that OSM hosts directly (as 80n writes) but more will come. I suggest therefore for the moment that the default name should English, repeated as name:en and (at least) the name(s) of the country in its own language(s) and script be entered using the ISO 639-1 [1] language namespace tag: place=country name=Japan name:en=Japan name:ja= That will then support national maps as they start to appear and also be useful in searching - I am doing some experimental work resolving the various values in is_in tags back to the actual place and place type. Mike Stockholm [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ISO_639-1_codes ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-legal-talk] The OSM licence: where we are, where we're and are, where we're going
For the record, my vote is strongly for the spirit of CC-BY-SA (as long as it delivers). At STOM7 there was precious little preparation and as a result I don't think the vote should be taken very seriously. We must remember that this is a very fast moving legal area, the wikipedia GNU problem mentions that SOTM may well soon be. There are clearly uncertainties and complications with the current licence, however it does allow for the license to be upgraded without going back to original contributors for permission. As such I feel confident that CC could come up with a derivative of CC-BY-SA 3.0 that covers our needs and plug the gaps (and those of other gedata/DB type datasets generally); after all, if the ODL can do it then why can't CC do it Anyway, let's continue batting this one around and see where we get to, but I am focusing on a CC-BY-SA style license that works, not a PD vs CC-BY-SA debate. Btw, where should this debate be happening? Personally I suggest the legal nerdy details are discussed on legal-talk but any discussion about principles are discussed on 'talk' . Regards, Peter Miller ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The OSM licence: where we are, where we're going
It is not proven that CC-BY-SA does not work for maps. I think it is working perfectly. The last thing we would need is to get an alternative copyleft licence which is not compatible with any other important material. After the proposed revision of the GFDL by the Free Software Foundation our maps will probably be compatible with Wikipedia. If we would go for another copyleft licence this compatibility would not materialise. That does not make sense. I saw the great presentation of Fredrick Ramm at 24C3. My compliments for it. But I personally did not agree with his statement on the licensing issue. Everyone of course may have his own opinion, or his own reason for contributing. Perhaps there should have been a double licensing regime from the start, like with MySQL, but that did not happen. Or a statement that the data would be available under CC-BY-SA with attribution assigned to Openstreetmap.org. I hope User:OJW will restart his work on a page where all contributors to OSM are listed, to which some user of our maps can link to for attribution. Longbow4u Pro CC-BY-SA 2.0 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] "As on ground" country names
On Jan 9, 2008 3:17 PM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 9, 2008 2:06 PM, Stefan Baebler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi! > > > > I'd imagine that OSM's "as on ground" rule for primary names should > > also apply for country nodes (tagged with place=country), however this > > doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. > > http://osmxapi.hypercube.telascience.org/api/0.5/node%5bplace=country%5d > > shows that primary names are english names for most of the countries. > > > > Any thoughts? > > Do we bend the rule here in favor of english over local name? > > How about multilingual countries (eg. Switzerland) > > > I suspect that this has more to do with them not actually being > rendered by anything (certainly not osmarender, nor mapnik), and also > by them being almost impossible to find during normal map editing (due > to their extremely small size compared to what they represent). My proposed new version of lowzoom for [EMAIL PROTECTED] will render country names. > > Italy doesn't even have "Italia" /anywhere/ in it's description. > > I don't know what people are actually using them for, but i suspect > they'll all get heavily edited now that you've pointed them out. > There are 38 place=country tags in the database. There are over 75 country based wiki-projects. We could do with a few more country tags being added I guess. > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] "As on ground" country names
On Jan 9, 2008 2:06 PM, Stefan Baebler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! > > I'd imagine that OSM's "as on ground" rule for primary names should > also apply for country nodes (tagged with place=country), however this > doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. > http://osmxapi.hypercube.telascience.org/api/0.5/node%5bplace=country%5d > shows that primary names are english names for most of the countries. > > Any thoughts? > Do we bend the rule here in favor of english over local name? > How about multilingual countries (eg. Switzerland) I suspect that this has more to do with them not actually being rendered by anything (certainly not osmarender, nor mapnik), and also by them being almost impossible to find during normal map editing (due to their extremely small size compared to what they represent). Italy doesn't even have "Italia" /anywhere/ in it's description. I don't know what people are actually using them for, but i suspect they'll all get heavily edited now that you've pointed them out. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] The OSM licence: where we are, where we're going
At 12:33 PM 1/9/2008, Frederik Ramm wrote: >Hi, > > > Although the recent Artistic License case has taken a different view: > > http://lawandlifesiliconvalley.blogspot.com/2007/08/new-open-source- > > legal-decision-jacobsen.html > >Hm, being neither lawyer nor native speaker of English nor American >citizen I my get some things wrong here but the statement > >"The second point is very important because it deals with remedies. >Generally, the remedy for contract violations under US law is >damages, not "injunctive relief" (which means that the court order a >party to cease their violation)." > >prompts me to ask: > >Would that mean that if our license was a contract and somebody >violated it, he would have to pay us damages, which I (perhaps >naively) would interpret as "the amount of money we lost due to his >infringement", i.e. zero dollars? Yes, if I understand it, your summary is spot on. That is the main motive behind "Free Software Foundation and some lawyers have taken the position that open source licenses are not contracts" - copyright violation = you stop them continuing the violation versus contract violation = you can get damages = 0. So the obvious inference for us is that "data copyright" is meaningless and in the US, if this decision is adopted by higher level courts and becomes a precedent, then a contract is meaningless too except to stop people with morals. I can see where you are going with this one ;-) Mike Stockholm ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] wikipedia moving to cc-by-sa
(this is a separate thread so I don't mind expressing my personal opinions) Peter Miller wrote: > I have just been reading about the wikipedia foundation's recent vote to > start a process to migrate their project to CC-BY-SA > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update Yes, it's a really good move on their part, and achieved through some clever legal work. CC-BY-SA is much more explicit and unambiguous for their purposes (the GFDL article on Wikipedia shows some of the criticisms that Wikipedians have of their current licence), just as a data-focused licence could be for ours. It is worth noting that Wikipedia's licence has no effect on whether or not Wikipedia can use OSM maps. Wikipedia already admits images from a whole host of sources under "free licences", even with licences as obscure as "Trainweb" and "Ubisoft-screenshot" (!); if Wikipedia does move to CC-BY-SA, the Collective Work provision will would continue that. No licence OSM would ever consider moving to would be outwith Wikipedia's definition of a free licence - OSMers simply wouldn't agree to that! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/All cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The OSM licence: where we are, where we're going
I was at SOTM 2007. My recollection of the "show of hands" that allegedly
shows massive support for PD is as follows:
1. Problems with current licence were presented at length (especially
attribution requirement)
2. PD was presented as an alternative
3. Attendees were asked for a show of hands ("Who supports PD, who doesn't
support PD")
In other words, at no point was there any vote on, say, CCbySA vs some
not-yet-written-alternative-copyleft-data-license. Therefore I feel it is
not appropriate to say "copyleft fans are in the minority" based on this
flawed poll.
Had the vote been "Shall we write a new license that fixes the attribution
problem whilst retaining copyleft for the data" I am sure that would also
have resulted in an overwhelming show of hands.
Aled
On Jan 9, 2008 1:53 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I'd like to mention, as Frederik doesn't think there are many of us,
> > that I'm a strong supporter of copyleft.
>
> I just said that there weren't many copyleft supporters at SOTM 07. Has
> the license panel discussion ever reached audio publication? Because I
> believe the result of the show of hands was spoken so it should be on
> there. Not that this would mean a lot since it is very well possible
> that the folks at SOTM were not representative of the general OSM
> population. I just don't want people to have the impression that I am
> hallucinating when I say that the copyleft fans were a tiny minority.
>
> To be fair, I think that the reason why many at SOTM said they'd favour
> PD over copyleft is that the question was raised after a panel debate on
> licensing during which people were alerted to many of the problems we
> face with our *current* license, including the fact that nobody knows
> whether it holds any water, legally, at all; many may have approved of
> PD out of sheer exhaustion ("well if nothing else works then let's just
> move on"). Presented with a *viable* way of achieving copyleft, they
> might have said something else.
>
> But this is all idle speculation; it would not be too hard to ask our
> contributors.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Roadnav
Hi, For those that don't know, there is now a beta version of Roadnav available. This version has support for openstreetmap data. Displays the maps ok, but routing and searching do not seem to be working. Not as pretty as Gpsdrive using mapnik, but oh, so much easier to install. Cheers, Ian - Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The OSM licence: where we are, where we're going
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just said that there weren't many copyleft supporters at SOTM 07. Has > the license panel discussion ever reached audio publication? Because I > believe the result of the show of hands was spoken so it should be on > there. Not that this would mean a lot since it is very well possible > that the folks at SOTM were not representative of the general OSM > population. I just don't want people to have the impression that I am > hallucinating when I say that the copyleft fans were a tiny minority. The audio the debate is here: http://www.archive.org/details/Sotm07PanelDebate-LicensingOsmData Tom -- Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] OSM meetup during Linux.Conf.Au 2008
Kim Hawtin wrote: > I was wondering if there would be any value for folks to organise a > meet up during the Linux Conference in Melbourne starting on the 28th > of January? Belated reply - I will be there. Any others? Cameron ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Osmosis and large bounding polygons
Thanks for taking the time to write this. I tried running it on the united_states2pts.txt from maproom, which is 3.4MB and I'm getting suspiciously small files as the output. I've tried some combinations of the three options you outlined and the largest file I've seen so far is 200KB as output. I ran it with just the --percent=80, which as I understand your email will drop 20% of the nodes in the polygon and I ended up with only a 180KB file. Also, I see lots of messages like the one below as it processes the file: "Use of uninitialized value in subtraction (-) at .usr.lib.perl5/Math/Polygon/Transform.pm line 220, <> line 59834." These line numbers seem to correlate with the END statements in the polygon file. Is this expected? -Jeremy - Original Message - From: "Frederik Ramm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Milenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:50 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Osmosis and large bounding polygons Hi, > Is there any easy way to edit these polygon files? They're basically just > a list of lat and lon values I think, but it'll take forever to edit one > of that size by hand. I have just commited a simple utility that allows simplification of polygon files, based on the perl module Math::Polygon: /applications/utils/osm-extract/polygons/simplify-poly.pl It takes a polygon file on stdin (or give name on cmdline) and writes to stdout. There are three modes of simplification which may be combined: --percent=10 will simply drop 90% of nodes in the polygon, first those with the biggest angles (i.e. those carrying least information). --slope=0.01 will compute the partial polygon circumference between any three consecutive nodes and drop the middle node if that reduces the circumference by less than the given number. --same=0.01 will drop any node that lies within 0.01 length units of a neighbouring node. Note that length units are just degrees, i.e. at the equator one unit is 60 miles but that becomes distorted towards the poles. The angle computation upon which the --percent operation is based doesn't take the spherical earth into account either so it is all quite flawed but it should be sufficient for boiling down the number of points in your polygon a bit. A better way to do this would be using the algorithms I nicked from GPSBabel and implemented in the "simplify way" code for JOSM but I'm not in a mood to perlify them atm. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33' ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-legal-talk] wikipedia moving to cc-by-sa
I have just been reading about the wikipedia foundation's recent vote to start a process to migrate their project to CC-BY-SA http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update Regards, Peter ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] "As on ground" country names
Hi! I'd imagine that OSM's "as on ground" rule for primary names should also apply for country nodes (tagged with place=country), however this doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. http://osmxapi.hypercube.telascience.org/api/0.5/node%5bplace=country%5d shows that primary names are english names for most of the countries. Any thoughts? Do we bend the rule here in favor of english over local name? How about multilingual countries (eg. Switzerland) enjoy the day, Stefan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The OSM licence: where we are, where we're going
Hi,
> I'd like to mention, as Frederik doesn't think there are many of us,
> that I'm a strong supporter of copyleft.
I just said that there weren't many copyleft supporters at SOTM 07. Has
the license panel discussion ever reached audio publication? Because I
believe the result of the show of hands was spoken so it should be on
there. Not that this would mean a lot since it is very well possible
that the folks at SOTM were not representative of the general OSM
population. I just don't want people to have the impression that I am
hallucinating when I say that the copyleft fans were a tiny minority.
To be fair, I think that the reason why many at SOTM said they'd favour
PD over copyleft is that the question was raised after a panel debate on
licensing during which people were alerted to many of the problems we
face with our *current* license, including the fact that nobody knows
whether it holds any water, legally, at all; many may have approved of
PD out of sheer exhaustion ("well if nothing else works then let's just
move on"). Presented with a *viable* way of achieving copyleft, they
might have said something else.
But this is all idle speculation; it would not be too hard to ask our
contributors.
Bye
Frederik
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [voting] need more votes - hov access
Voting is being extended, as there are only three votes on this proposal. Please drop in and add your vote. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/hov_access ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] The OSM licence: where we are, where we're going
Frederik Ramm wrote: > > And I say this again, if I saw that a majority of OSM contributers > thinks that the copyleft aspect is important, then I'd not have this > discussion. It is just that it seems to me that there are very few > people who hold up the CC banner. And most of these, after some > thinking, silently retract their banner when I ask them how they'd > combine OSM data with a GNU FDL source and what the result should be > licensed under... Since that mainly concerns wikipedia, do you still get the same response now wikipedia have announce their intention to be CC compatible? This strikes me as a problem with the FDL, not with our license, and I'm not aware of the FDL having much importance for material we might want to merge with ours apart from that case. I'm also slightly surprised you think the number of supporters of (the intention behind) CC-BY-SA is so small. Like you said, I guess a poll would be good - but when the actual alternatives have firmed up more, as the geodata blog describes. Cheers Graham > > Bye > Frederik > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] POIs from wikipedia
Frederik Ramm wrote: > Well no matter where they came from, being Wikipedia they're > GNU FDL and if we incorporated them we'd have to switch to GNU FDL as > well, at least that's how I read virulent licenses. Wikipedia are working with the FSF to make the FDL "compatible" with CC-BY-SA 3. I expect that this will happen by the FSF adding a clause to the FDL saying "If you have no front-cover texts, no back-cover texts etc. etc, you may relicense this work under CC-BY-SA 3". This is something we need to consider if we move away from CC-BY-SA. I can see the arguments for it, but unless we are careful, it does move us further away from the growing area of license compatibility. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The OSM licence: where we are, where we're going
Richard Fairhurst wrote: > http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=262 Thanks for this. I'd like to mention, as Frederik doesn't think there are many of us, that I'm a strong supporter of copyleft. IMO, copyleft is anti-fragmentary (see BSD vs. Linux) and it's fundamentally just - if I share with you, you must share with me. I have no desire to do unpaid work for mapping companies, but I'm happy to collaborate with them in fair exchange. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] The OSM licence: where we are, where we're going
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Second, really really really really do read the text of the draft Open > Data Commons licences, as considered in the opengeodata posting: > http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/open-database-licence/ > http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/open-data-commons-factual-info-licence/ To my mind the interesting question about the ODL is how (or perhaps whether) it works in jurisdictions without database rights. On the face it claims to work in those jurisdictions via contract law, but what is not clear to me is how you require people to enter into that contract. The beauty of copyright based licenses like the GPL and CC is that because copyright is automatic you only get permission to do things by accepting the license so the default position is that you can't distribute the item except under the terms granted to you by the license. The same applies to databases in jurisdictions with database rights in that you can't distribute the database until you are given a license to do so, but where database right does not exist there is (as I understand it) nothing to stop you doing so without entering into any contract. So although the license may claim to operate via contract law, if somebody chooses not to enter into a contract they can go ahead and do what they like without being bound by the terms of that contract. [ ... slight delay while I read wikipedia on contracts ... ] I guess the theory is that publishing the license constitutes an offer and taking and using/distributing the data constitutes an acceptance which (in civil law countries) is enough to create a contract. Whether there is some way in which a person could reject the offer and then use the data anyway is an interesting question though? In common law countries the requirement for consideration makes things a little more complicated - it is clear that the person taking data gains something of value (the data) which acts as consideration but what is the consideration in the other direction from the person using the data to the person providing the data? Tom -- Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The OSM licence: where we are, where we're going
Hi,
> It's not speculation because I'm actually talking to them.
Yes, but you're talking to them on the basis of our current licensing
situation. You are not, I assume, asking anyone who agrees to give us
data whether they would also do this under some other license ("tick
all that apply"). So the best you have is a gut feeling whether or
not they would perhaps agree with another license or not, but since
nobody is actually asking them, nobody knows.
> Nowhere am I saying that OSM has changed fundamentally.
> We're not dependent on any other entity.
But you do say that the value of OSM would decrease substantially if
other entities withdrew their cooperation, or did I get this wrong?
> But to say the OSM is not a political project is naive.
I thought it was when it started, maybe I got this wrong, I wasn't
around then. Maybe anything you do is political, in a way.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
___
legal-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=busway (or alike) - second try - please vote
linky: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Bus_guideway -- Gregory [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] The OSM licence: where we are, where we're going
Hi all, I'm trying to avoid putting my own views forward (which are reasonably well-known) about the "right" form of licence, instead restricting myself to the manner of the debate and how it informs future decision-making. So here are four points of order to try and ensure a clearer debate. First, please consider [EMAIL PROTECTED] the main discussion channel, rather than [EMAIL PROTECTED] Second, really really really really do read the text of the draft Open Data Commons licences, as considered in the opengeodata posting: http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/open-database-licence/ http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/open-data-commons-factual-info-licence/ Third: be careful referring to "a CC licence" unless you're actually talking about the family of licences issued by Creative Commons, and none others. Just a random quote (not meaning to pick on anyone): > [Neil Penman] > Given the recent Knols initiative by Google I would have thought that > the importance of preserving the CC license in OSM has been > highlighted. I really don't think you mean that. I think (going on your previous paragraphs) you mean "the importance of preserving a share-alike licence" - which the ODC Database Licence is. As the opengeodata posting notes, if we were to adopt Creative Commons' position on licensing data, we would go public domain (or CC0)! Fourth, remember that the current licence has two halves - share-alike and attribution - and to some extent they're separate. Going on the SOTM straw poll, AFAICT, most people voting for "public domain" actually meant "attribution only". So if you're arguing for or against "public domain", do make it clear what you're actually objecting to and what you'd agree to. Follow-ups to legal-talk please. :) cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
