date:20091206

Hi,

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Well, you may think Creative Commons is stupid, but I hope others will
give them a chance and listen to what they have to say. I think they will,
considering that Creative Commons is well known and respected, compared to
Open Data Commons, who doesn't even seem to have an article on Wikipedia.

I also tend to side with Creative Commons. It is not very wise of ODbL
proponents to claim that CC say that CC-BY-SA doesn't work for data
without also admitting that CC recommend CC0 for data.

Matt Amos wrote:
i have listened to what they have to say, and it makes perfect sense.
they recognise that databases like OSM's don't have much basis for
protection in copyright law, so they correctly deduce that there are
two options:

1) drop requirements enforced by copyright law. this results in a
PD-like license, to whit: CC0.
2) enforce requirements by law other than copyright law. this results
in a database rights/contract license, to whit: ODbL.

creative commons decided, as a policy, that option (1) was preferable,
as it places fewer restrictions on the use of the data. however, it
drops the share-alike and attribution requirements. they clearly felt
that this would provide the best benefit to the scientific community.

This as a policy is something that Steve claims as well, implying that
rather than working things out, they just decreed something. But I don't
think this does them justice, and anyone who has followed legal-talk
should know. They claim to have invested considerable brainpower in
finding a share-alike license (or, at least, an attribution license) for
data that works, and failed. One of the big obstacles they saw was
endless attribution chains. There was a posting in John Wilbanks' blog
about this:

http://network.nature.com/people/wilbanks/blog/2007/12/17/open-access-data-boring-but-important

Proponents of the ODbL are of the opinion that CC simply were too
skeptical, that a license which CC thought wouldn't be good enough is
indeed good enough. But that's not a matter of policy, that's a matter
of judgment. You an accuse them of bad judgment but you cannot accuse
them of blindly choosing a license out of policy. Or if you do, then
OSM sticking to share-alike is just the same kind of policy.

The best rebuttal of the CC (or Science Commons, to be more precise)
position came, like so often, from Richard Fairhurst, here:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-March/002317.html

In short, he says that Science Commons was thinking too much about
research and education, and that thus their results may not necessarily
apply to OSM. If your prime example of data is, say, a deciphered human
genome, then it is understandable that you'd rather not have endless
layers of some kind of viral license slapped onto that.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote:
  Matt Amos schreef:
  we're talking about moving to another
  license with very similar requirements, but a different
  implementation, and that's not open and free anymore? it would
  really help me if i could understand your position.
 
  Its honestly terribly simple. We get into a discussion over moving from
  a widely used `GPL2.0' like license that works for everyone, and best of
  all is compatible with everyone.

 it does neither of the above. imagine a situation in which source code
 were considered not to generate copyrights. any project licensed under
 GPL2.0 would lose protection. this is the situation we're in:
 copyright very probably doesn't apply to our database, yet the license
 we're using is based entirely on copyright.

 also, CC BY-SA isn't compatible with everyone. it's compatible with
 PD, attribution-only and itself. the exact same is true of ODbL.

  Some folks here think that BSD style should be our target.

 indeed. but wouldn't it be better to find a license which works first,
 then discuss what an even better license might be?

  Now the stearing committee thinks that for better protection we should
  go for OSI-APPROVED-LICENSE-X; that nobody is compatible with yet and
  worse. If we were Linux, we would have to remove our cool exotic network
  card drivers just to facilitate this move. And worst of all, all the
  nice vendors we were just talking with that were moved to going open are
  now bound to a contract... that sounds so... formal?

 well, such is the nature of legal documents :-(

 although, maybe it's familiarity talking, but i find ODbL less formal
 and easier to read than CC BY-SA's legal code.

  Until anyone can guarantee that every bit of CC-BY-SA could be used
  without problems in the new framework; I'm a skeptic. And basically
  think about the deletionism in Wikipedia. Or wasting capital in real
 life.

 i'm afraid i can't dispel your skepticism, then. it's possible we
 could just keep all the old CC BY-SA data, since the license governing
 it doesn't work, but i think this would be too radical a step for the
 OSMF board ;-)


It's shocking that you could even have such a thought.  Nevermind the
smiley.

You've spent many many hours studying the licensing issues and claim to have
a deep understanding of the issues.  If CC BY-SA is as broken as you claim
it is then Google, Navteq, Teleatlas and many others would all have helped
themselves to our data by now.

You can't continue to claim that CC BY-SA is broken without some evidence of
our data being abused.  Put up or shut up, please.

You'll remember that one of the original reasons a license change was even
contemplated was because the license *prevented* people from using the
data.  In what way can a license that is broken actually do that?

Show us the evidence of license abuse please.




 our choices are basically the following:
 1) continue to use a license which legal experts seem to agree doesn't
 work for us.
 2) move to a new license.

 option (2) will likely mean that some data is lost and i don't think
 option (1) is what people really want. which do you prefer?

 cheers,

 matt

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-06 Thread Patrick Kilian

Hi all,

 I live in the United States.  I can do whatever the heck I want with the
 OSM database.  Now you want me to agree to a contract limiting those
 rights.  So I'll ask again:  What's in it for me?
My data. The streets I mapped. The trails I mapped. The POIs I mapped.
The Indonesian islands I traced from aerial imagery. All that and all
the data I'm going to add. For free and in my spare time and with the
assumptions that I would get credit for it. Not personally but in the
form of this dataset was collected by the collaborators of the OSM
project. If the copyright law in you're place allows you to take my
data and use it with out attributing me and my fellow mappers I consider
it broken. And if the copyright law was that broken in the whole world I
would never have invested as much time as I have.

Nearly all of my data doesn't concern the US and is totally
uninteresting to you. Which I consider a good thing. Because I sure as
hell don't want to help somebody who has the attitude I can use the
data no matter who collected it and how much effort is was. It's just
facts.

Oh and by the way: I'm not totally convinced that ODbL is great or the
right move. I want a open (as in go and do incredible cool stuff with
the data I collected), free (as in collecting the data was fun, no
need to pay me) license with a attribution clause (forcing you to say
btw, the base data was collected by the diligent contributors of OSM).

When I joined up, I though that CC-BY-SA did that. Talking to people
knowledgeable in matters of law and copyright I learn that this is not
the case _in_ _countries_ _like_ _yours_. And as I don't want to hand my
data to people with your attitude I see a clear need to relicense, not
matter how difficult and painful.

Patrick Petschge Kilian

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

Anthony,

Anthony wrote:
 I looked at the license and I said Why are they bothering with this 
 crap?  It's not like this stuff is copyrightable in the first place.  
 Well, I guess that this stuff is protected by some laws in some 
 jurisdictions, so CC-BY-SA is useful for waiving those rights in those 
 jurisdictions.  For me, in a state with sane laws, I don't have to worry 
 about it.  What the heck, sure, I'll license my data under CC-BY-SA.  
 Can't hurt.

Ah, now I get it. You are a PD advocate by heart like myself, and you 
were actually *happy* with the non-working CC-BY-SA. Or put it this way, 
for you the major point of CC-BY-SA was the you are granted the 
following rights... bit (which wasn't required for your jurisdiction 
but might have been in others), and you sort of ignored the under the 
following conditions... bit.

It's nice to see that point of view, given that some people endlessly 
drone on about how there was a consensus in OSM to have a share-alike 
license; now there's you having consented to CC-BY-SA but only because 
you knew it wasn't binding for you anyway. Sweet!

I am also pro-PD but I am based in Europe where it is less clear which 
aspects of CC-BY-SA work and which don't; for me, ODbL at least brings 
more safety and clarity about what is allowed and what isn't, so I will 
support it. If I were in the States where it seems blatantly obvious 
that CC-BY-SA doesn't protect our data, and thus ODbL only adds 
restrictions, I might think differently.

However, one thing you should perhaps consider is this argument of 
project sanity: We're all in this together. It's no good having a 
license that has different effects in different countries. This has the 
potential to disrupt community efforts - a US-based project using OSM 
data but people from Europe cannot participate for fear of prosecution 
in their countries. Or, you are a US company and create an OSM based 
product but cannot sell to Europe because your customers fear legal 
trouble. ODbL doesn't completely harmonise jurisdictions but it goes a 
long way there, and I find this desirable.

Another thing is of course the moral component. The non-working 
CC-BY-SA in your country might let you get away with taking OSM data, 
printing a map from it and claiming full copyright on that. But even if 
legally non-working, the community still expects you to adhere to the 
share-alike terms of the license, and will scorn you for that activity. 
Whereas with ODbL, this is perfectly allowed, and will be accepted by 
the community.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09 E008°23'33

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:25 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
 
  On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
   Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF
 Chairman's
   position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own
   opinion.
 
  I'm not allowed to have opinions?
 
   Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM
   data?
 
  The OSMF wont own the data and you know it.
 
  The Contributor Terms contains the following clause:  You hereby grant
 to
  OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, royalty-free,
  non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is
  restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the
  original medium or any other.
 
  That's pretty much as close as you can get to owning a piece of data.

 out of interest, would you prefer that it were worded like CC BY-SA?

 [you] hereby grant[s] [OSMF] a worldwide, royalty-free,
 non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable
 copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:
 [list of rights covered by the Berne convention.] The above rights may
 be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter
 devised. The above rights include the right to make such modifications
 as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and
 formats.

 as far as i can see the contributor terms definition says the same
 thing, except ...


...except the context is different.  With CC BY-SA you are giving everyone
the same rights.  With the Contributor Terms the only one to have those
rights is the OSMF.




 it's more concise. we strived for readability and
 brevity in the contributor terms, given that it will be read by so
 many people. do you think it would have been better to go for the
 longer version as CC BY-SA does?

 just as CC BY-SA contains limitations on the exercise of those rights
 (BY and SA), so does the contributor terms - initially only a release
 under CC BY-SA and ODbL, subject to a vote of the OSMF membership and
 active contributors if the need arises to change that to a different
 free and open license.

 cheers,

 matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Thank you, LWG

2009-12-06 Thread Florian Lohoff

On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 09:13:14PM -0700, SteveC wrote:
  Richard Weait schrieb:
  I think the LWG has done a good job on a difficult task.  A task that
  we, as a community, asked them to do for us because we couldn't
  implement a license change as a group of 20,000 (at the time)
  individual mappers.  I'm glad that the LWG looked after our shared
  concerns so ably, by consulting with lawyers, the Creative Commons,
  the Open Knowledge Foundation and the community at large over the few
  years of the license discussion to date.
 
  I'm sorry, but for the last two years I can't remember asking for a
  license change at all.
 
 And there lays the point, we should all do what Ulf asks for.

So we should do the YOU or the OSMF asks us to do?

Ulf is not alone - I havent asked  ... And a lot of people did
not do so too.

Even that i didnt ask for a license change - the new license is much to complex
for my mind - CC-BY-SA hasnt shown any real problems up to now so i see the
whole discussion as an artificial problem. 

I started with OSM to get free GeoData and IMHO any restriction
put on the data limits its usefulness. I accepted the Attribution and
the Share alike - now a lot more rules on what i am allowed and what not
come down on me. This is a change in rules of the game while half
way.

AFAIK The only problem which could ever arise from CC-BY-SA is that its void
which would probably (not proven) make data Public Domain which would also be
fine with me.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org
Es ist ein grobes Missverständnis und eine Fehlwahrnehmung, dem Staat
im Internet Zensur- und Überwachungsabsichten zu unterstellen.
- - Bundesminister Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble -- 10. Juli in Berlin 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Full Database dump request - forking possible Was: [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-06 Thread Florian Lohoff

On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 11:44:40PM +0100, Ulf Lamping wrote:
 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
 
 Tom Hughes schrieb:
  Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another 
  vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to 
  relicense.
 
 With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th 
 February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed 
 downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing..

I hereby request that the OSMF publishes a full (including history) 
Database Dump just prior deleting non ODbL relicensed data to allow
a forking of OpenStreetmap under the old licensing terms.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org
Es ist ein grobes Missverständnis und eine Fehlwahrnehmung, dem Staat
im Internet Zensur- und Überwachungsabsichten zu unterstellen.
- - Bundesminister Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble -- 10. Juli in Berlin 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Thank you, LWG

2009-12-06 Thread Jonas Krückel


Am 06.12.2009 um 10:47 schrieb Florian Lohoff:

 On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 09:13:14PM -0700, SteveC wrote:
 Richard Weait schrieb:
 I think the LWG has done a good job on a difficult task.  A task that
 we, as a community, asked them to do for us because we couldn't
 implement a license change as a group of 20,000 (at the time)
 individual mappers.  I'm glad that the LWG looked after our shared
 concerns so ably, by consulting with lawyers, the Creative Commons,
 the Open Knowledge Foundation and the community at large over the few
 years of the license discussion to date.
 
 I'm sorry, but for the last two years I can't remember asking for a
 license change at all.
 
 And there lays the point, we should all do what Ulf asks for.
 
 So we should do the YOU or the OSMF asks us to do?
 
 Ulf is not alone - I havent asked  ... And a lot of people did
 not do so too.
 
 Even that i didnt ask for a license change - the new license is much to 
 complex
 for my mind - CC-BY-SA hasnt shown any real problems up to now so i see the
 whole discussion as an artificial problem. 

I'm not sure if the CC-BY-SA license is really simpler than ODbL. Just look at 
this website here http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ and 
you'll see that the ODbL is as simple as CC-BY-SA. Plus it's now clear how to 
attribute correct and when your derived work also has to be ShareAlike and when 
not.

Personally I'm also a PD fan and the only thing I was missing from the LWG was 
a survey to see if the majority of the OSM contributors wants to keep the 
attribution and Share alike component in a new license or if they would want 
completely free data under PD or CC0.

Jonas


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Full Database dump request - forking possible Was: [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-06 Thread Tom Hughes

On 06/12/09 09:59, Florian Lohoff wrote:

 I hereby request that the OSMF publishes a full (including history)
 Database Dump just prior deleting non ODbL relicensed data to allow
 a forking of OpenStreetmap under the old licensing terms.

Which has exactly what to so with me?

Of course they've already said they're going to, so your request is 
basically pointless, but I'm not an OSMF board member or LWG member so I 
don't know why you're including me in your request.

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://www.compton.nu/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Thank you, LWG

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Jonas Krückel o...@jonas-krueckel.dewrote:


 Am 06.12.2009 um 10:47 schrieb Florian Lohoff:

  On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 09:13:14PM -0700, SteveC wrote:
  Richard Weait schrieb:
  I think the LWG has done a good job on a difficult task.  A task that
  we, as a community, asked them to do for us because we couldn't
  implement a license change as a group of 20,000 (at the time)
  individual mappers.  I'm glad that the LWG looked after our shared
  concerns so ably, by consulting with lawyers, the Creative Commons,
  the Open Knowledge Foundation and the community at large over the few
  years of the license discussion to date.
 
  I'm sorry, but for the last two years I can't remember asking for a
  license change at all.
 
  And there lays the point, we should all do what Ulf asks for.
 
  So we should do the YOU or the OSMF asks us to do?
 
  Ulf is not alone - I havent asked  ... And a lot of people did
  not do so too.
 
  Even that i didnt ask for a license change - the new license is much to
 complex
  for my mind - CC-BY-SA hasnt shown any real problems up to now so i see
 the
  whole discussion as an artificial problem.

 I'm not sure if the CC-BY-SA license is really simpler than ODbL. Just look
 at this website here http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/and 
 you'll see that the ODbL is as simple as CC-BY-SA. Plus it's now clear
 how to attribute correct and when your derived work also has to be
 ShareAlike and when not.

 ODbL appears simple when expressed like this:

As long as you: * Share-Alike: If you publicly use any adapted version of
this database, or works produced from an adapted database, you must also
offer that adapted database under the ODbL.

But in combination with the Contributor Terms it becomes complex and has
unexpected properties.

For example I could take some OSM data, modify it, and publish it.  But you
couldn't then add my modifications back into OSM.  Why not?  Because in
order to do that you have to agree to the Contributor Terms.  But you don't
have the rights to do that for my ODbL licensed data, only I have the right
to do that.  So while I can add my ODbL data to OSM you can't.  And if I
choose not to then OSM loses.

Simple?  No.





Personally I'm also a PD fan and the only thing I was missing from the LWG
 was a survey to see if the majority of the OSM contributors wants to keep
 the attribution and Share alike component in a new license or if they would
 want completely free data under PD or CC0.

 Jonas


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

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

[OSM-talk] License - simple example

2009-12-06 Thread bernhard

hi all

If somebody creates a printed map, is it allowed to make copies of this 
map and distribute the copies?

With CC-BY-SA I think it is allowed to copy the map.
Is it also allowed with ODBL?


Bernhard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-06 Thread Lester Caine

SteveC wrote:
 Oh we have those people though, matt is calm, rational and diligently  
 replying to the concerns. Note its mostly misunderstood or ignored by  
 people like 80n. That frees me to lose my temper with the passive  
 aggressive lot who just want to screw everything up and can't work as  
 a team.

Just to stick my oar in 
I think part of the problem here is that the 'license' problem DOES go back 
several years, and I have many emails about it. BECAUSE it had moved from the 
'front line' while all the facts were gathered, newcomers would not have been 
aware of the REAL problem, which is that courts were separating 'data' from 
'documents' and allowing commercial organizations free use of the underlying 
data simply because it was not a breach of copyright. There are a couple of 
commercial organization in the US using freely gathered data for their own 
purposes without putting anything back into the project that generated it - the 
courts have found they are not in breach of copyright!

The bottom line is that courts all over the world will make up their own mind 
on 
how THEY think licenses are interpreted and because there is not a single 
'jurisdiction' ANYTHING we draft will be ignored somewhere in the world!

I probably do not support the current offering, but that is more because I see 
it as restrictive and I would prefer free access. HOWEVER it HAS to be 
restrictive otherwise any commercial organization can walk over it. If we could 
get a world wide agreement then there would not be a problem, but TODAY I see 
many government sources fully supporting the SPIRIT if OSM and providing data 
to 
be included. We DO need to protect the use of that data - something which 
'copyright' simply does not do - and is an area where there is NO case law to 
fall back on? SO we need something which can then become acceptable case law?

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Divided roads proposal

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
1, 2. Dual carriageway

 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Dual carriageway


Alright, but let's be practical. It's a lot of effort to create and maintain
pairs of roads (let's not call them dual carriageways - that's really a
specific type of motorway). Let's imagine this tag is implemented and there
is renderer support. What value do you see in mapping examples 2 and 10 as
pairs of roads rather than a single road with divided=median?

Is the benefit just so you can get more precise with area micromapping?
Let's assume, because it's true, that volunteer mapping time is limited, and
the use of areas to micromap roads is rare, and certainly not expected by
end users. Why is a pair of roads better in 2 than a single, divided road?

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

[OSM-talk] OSM/GoogleMap mashup

Wondering if there is a site that overlays OSM data over GoogleMaps (or any
other site, for that matter)? Not for tracing, but for checking
completeness. It would be very interesting.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM/GoogleMap mashup

Hi,

Steve Bennett wrote:
 Wondering if there is a site that overlays OSM data over GoogleMaps (or 
 any other site, for that matter)? 

Several, for example

http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc

with a side-by side comparison and

http://sautter.com/map/

with a transparent overlay.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09 E008°23'33

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM/GoogleMap mashup

2009-12-06 Thread Sam Vekemans

I use the google earth KML overlay for that, it also has yahoo imagery also.

There are GoogleMap hacks available, but thats too complicated.

Its (google earth link) not on the wiki because its a sensative issue.

Google search 'openstreetmap kml overlay google earth'

AFAIK there are 2 versions out there.

cheers,
Sam


On 12/6/09, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 Wondering if there is a site that overlays OSM data over GoogleMaps (or any
 other site, for that matter)? Not for tracing, but for checking
 completeness. It would be very interesting.

 Steve



-- 
Twitter: @Acrosscanada
Blog:  http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
Skype: samvekemans
OpenStreetMap IRC: http://irc.openstreetmap.org
@Acrosscanadatrails

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM/GoogleMap mashup

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:


 http://sautter.com/map/

 with a transparent overlay.


That's really cool, thanks!

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM/GoogleMap mashup

2009-12-06 Thread Ciprian Talaba

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:

 Hi,

 Steve Bennett wrote:
  Wondering if there is a site that overlays OSM data over GoogleMaps (or
  any other site, for that matter)?

 Several, for example

 http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc

 with a side-by side comparison and

 http://sautter.com/map/

 with a transparent overlay.


Or (sorry it is available only in romanian, but try Hibrid): www.openmap.ro.
The data is available worldwide.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License - simple example

2009-12-06 Thread Iván Sánchez Ortega

El Domingo, 6 de Diciembre de 2009, bernhard escribió:
 hi all

 If somebody creates a printed map, is it allowed to make copies of this
 map and distribute the copies?

Yes.

 With CC-BY-SA I think it is allowed to copy the map.
 Is it also allowed with ODBL?

Yes.

The main difference between CC-by-sa and ODbL is that, with CC-by-sa, the 
printed map would be also CC-by-sa. With ODbL, the map just has to attribute 
OSM.


-- 
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es

http://ivan.sanchezortega.es
MSN:i_eat_s_p_a_m_for_breakf...@hotmail.com
Jabber:ivansanc...@jabber.org ; ivansanc...@kdetalk.net
IRC: ivansanchez @ OFTC  freenode


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Divided roads proposal

2009-12-06 Thread Lester Caine

Steve Bennett wrote:
 On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org 
 mailto:o...@inbox.org wrote:
  1, 2. Dual carriageway
 
 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Dual carriageway
 
 
 Alright, but let's be practical. It's a lot of effort to create and 
 maintain pairs of roads (let's not call them dual carriageways - 
 that's really a specific type of motorway). Let's imagine this tag is 
 implemented and there is renderer support. What value do you see in 
 mapping examples 2 and 10 as pairs of roads rather than a single road 
 with divided=median?
 
 Is the benefit just so you can get more precise with area micromapping? 
 Let's assume, because it's true, that volunteer mapping time is limited, 
 and the use of areas to micromap roads is rare, and certainly not 
 expected by end users. Why is a pair of roads better in 2 than a single, 
 divided road?

Many of the example pictures have end cases that need to be handled by 
separated 
roads, so why not just draw the reality on the ground? Having to add MORE 
complexity such as you can turn off this side of the road is just as wrong? So 
map the dual carriage way section, and show the other detail joining to the 
physical situation?

In many areas, the macro level view is complete and people are starting to look 
at the micro view. Just because a few areas 'might look better' in the macro 
view is no reason to remove the existing format, and I see little point adding 
tags for something that is hiding the micro view?

SOME roads do need a 'divider' tag, but only to add 'white line' and other 
'micro' data that can't be included by areas or other means. The crosshatch 
area 
is just another edge case that needs to be handled in bother levels.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Full Database dump request - forking possible Was: [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-06 Thread Simone Cortesi

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:59, Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org wrote:
 I hereby request that the OSMF publishes a full (including history)
 Database Dump just prior deleting non ODbL relicensed data to allow
 a forking of OpenStreetmap under the old licensing terms.

There already is a plan for a complete dump (with history). This will
not happen tomorrow. Because we are not going to change the licence
anyday this month.

I'm really hoping that nobody will effectively go on with a fork of the project.

The strenght of OpenStreetMap is in its community. We dont need a second one.

-- 
-S

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License - simple example

Hi,

Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
 If somebody creates a printed map, is it allowed to make copies of this
 map and distribute the copies?
 
 Yes.
 
 With CC-BY-SA I think it is allowed to copy the map.
 Is it also allowed with ODBL?
 
 Yes.

Well... that's only half the answer.

With CC-BY-SA, it is always allowed to make copies of the map no matter 
what the map maker wants.

With ODbL, the map maker can decide whether he wants to allow copying or 
not.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09 E008°23'33

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-06 Thread Mike Collinson

At 10:26 PM 5/12/2009, Ian Dees wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:

If you are an OSMF member then you should have received an email  
about this vote, which contains a URL with which you can access this  
site. If you have not received an email, first please check your  
spam folder then, if it still cannot be found, contact the OSMF  
membership secretary: membership at osmfoundation dot org.

If you are not an OSMF member, you can read the final version of our  
formal proposal at:

Is this email implying that contributers to OSM who are not members o  
the OSMF can not vote on the license decision?

If so, how are non-OSMF members represented in this vote? 


Ian,

A little at a time. This is a key test for change after all the community-wide 
input and consultation over the last two years. If it gets through here, then 
all contributors will be asked for their consent.

Some OSMF members also question this strategy, and that would be a reason for 
them to vote no:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#Who_owns_OSM.3F_You.21

Mike
License Working Group




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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-06 Thread Mike Collinson

At 01:58 AM 6/12/2009, John Smith wrote:
2009/12/6 Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk:
 The License Working Group has spent months, well probably nearer years, on 
 the license change. They know one heck of a lot more about legal systems 
 than myself. They are people that I trust. Therefore I'm going to listen to 
 them, and let them just get on with it. I really just wan this license 
 change sorted out and completed as there are other more important things to 
 be done.

How many of them are practising copyright lawyers?

None.

Which is why we elected to work with Open Data Commons. The ODbL 1.0 license 
itself is theirs, not ours. Our relationship with them has worked very well. We 
have provided our special, but often generalisable, requirements for geodata 
and they have provided the big picture and, of course, specific legal 
discipline.  Their general jurisdictional background is UK and Europe: 
http://www.opendatacommons.org/about/advisory-council/ .

The OSMF also directly engaged legal counsel specifically for OpenStreetMap; 
Clark Asay of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich  Rosati, http://www.wsgr.com . They 
generously provided hours pro bono and we burned through quite a few. Clark has 
been both enthusiastic and diligent. We asked him to review both ODbL and give 
input to our Contributor Terms as well as presented many specific concerns 
raised by us and the OpenStreetMap community. Based in Silicon Valley also gave 
us the advantage of a US jurisdictional perspective and in the heart of 
technical intellectual property land.

Hope that helps,
Mike Collinson
OSMF License Working Group





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

Re: [OSM-talk] Divided roads proposal

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:

 Many of the example pictures have end cases that need to be handled by
 separated
 roads, so why not just draw the reality on the ground?


Because, as someone else pointed out, drawing the reality on the ground
isn't the only, or even, best approach for mapping. The slightly more
abstract this is a single road, divided works better than this is two
roads in some cases.

It seems to me that to almost any proposal you could argue why not just
draw the reality on the ground?:
Q: Can we have a cinema tag?
A: Why not just draw the reality on the ground? It's a building, with
chairs, a room with a projector...

Q: Can we have a swimming pool tag?
A: Why not just draw the reality on the ground? It's a waterway,
surface=tiles, foot=yes, bicycle=no...



 Having to add MORE
 complexity such as you can turn off this side of the road is just as wrong?


I don't think a single road with a single junction leading to a side road,
with a single tag, could possibly be construed as more complex than two
roads with an extra road for the gap.


 In many areas, the macro level view is complete and people are starting to
 look
 at the micro view. Just because a few areas 'might look better' in the
 macro
 view is no reason to remove the existing format,


I repeat: I am not proposing removing anything.

I'm proposing *adding* a tag, primarily to allow *adding* information about
*new* streets. It's possible this will mean that some streets that *would
have* been mapped as two roads will instead be mapped as one road, but it's
a stretch to call that removing anything.

(Sorry for the irritated tone, but...c'mon.)




 and I see little point adding
 tags for something that is hiding the micro view?


If and when roads are mapped as areas (in addition to ways), I'm sure you'll
be able to map the individual halves of the divided road to your heart's
content. Just like you'll be able to map every lane, every slipway, every
traffic island and every painted arrow.

Honestly though, the primary function of OSM is not the micro view. We're
not primarily interested in centimetre perfect placement of lumps of
concrete. Are you really suggesting that we don't use a feature because it
might interfere with the micro view, even though it works better at the
macro view?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-06 Thread Richard Fairhurst

80n wrote:
You've spent many many hours studying the licensing issues and claim
to have a deep understanding of the issues. If CC BY-SA is as broken
as you claim it is then Google, Navteq, Teleatlas and many others
would all have helped themselves to our data by now.

You can't continue to claim that CC BY-SA is broken without some
evidence of our data being abused. Put up or shut up, please.

Ok.

Assiduous readers of legal-talk will know about the machine-generated
derivative loophole which Frederik and I independently identified; which
has been confirmed for us on the CC mailing lists; and which CC will not fix
because they don't believe people should use a creative works licence for
data.

Under CC-BY-SA, attribution and share-alike are required when you distribute
OSM data, or a derivative of it.

They are not required, of course, if you don't distribute the data. If I
write a program that downloads planet.osm to my hard disc, then replaces the
word node with nude throughout, I don't have to give it back or
attribute OSM.

In other words: If you want to use OSM data without attribution or
share-alike, you may do so by distributing the program that makes the
derivative, rather than the derivative itself. This is perfectly permissible
under CC-BY-SA.

This is trivial because you can distribute programs as part of a webpage -
for example, as JavaScript (e.g. Cartagen) or Flash (e.g. Halcyon).

To this end, because you would like to see some evidence of the data being
'abused', I've temporarily removed the attribution from
http://www.geowiki.com/halcyon/ . This is now using OSM data without any
credit, perfectly legally.

I also give notice that I intend to write an iPhone application which uses
the same loophole to download OSM data, creates a derivative, and neither
attributes OSM nor offers the derivative under the terms of CC-BY-SA.

cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A--Announce--OSMF-license-change-vote-has-started-tp26659536p26665018.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Divided roads proposal

2009-12-06 Thread Lester Caine

Steve Bennett wrote:
 Honestly though, the primary function of OSM is not the micro view. 
 We're not primarily interested in centimetre perfect placement of lumps 
 of concrete. Are you really suggesting that we don't use a feature 
 because it might interfere with the micro view, even though it works 
 better at the macro view?

Why do you say THAT ?
Many of the additions currently being discussed ARE because the macro view is 
now complete, and adding the fine detail is now being carried out. There is no 
PRIMARY interest. Everybody has their own views on what is important!

I think my only problem with 'divided' is At what point do you apply it? The 
samples being shown are quite clearly - on the whole - dual carriageway 
structures. Example 10 clearly has a more complex structure than can be mapped 
by showing a 'divided' tag, since there is no access to the joining road from 
the other carriageway?

Example 6 has some quite complex slip roads that really need isolated ways for 
the main carriageway. Trying to ADD tags to supplement a simple 'divided' tag 
to 
explain the slips on and off at the end is handled much easier with a simple 
dual carriage way? And many of the other examples need the same end cases. So 
at 
what level does a simple 'divided' tag actually work in practice? However 
'double white lines' on a single carriage way road IS a divider that needs 
tagging?

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...

2009-12-06 Thread Dave Stubbs


 as far as i can see the contributor terms definition says the same
 thing, except ...

 ...except the context is different.  With CC BY-SA you are giving everyone
 the same rights.  With the Contributor Terms the only one to have those
 rights is the OSMF.



But only with the condition that they give everyone else those rights
when publishing the data (via cc-by-sa or odbl). There's a slight
change to attribution in that redirection which is just a
formalisation of the current practice of attribution to OSM, and a
wiki page for large contributors.

The only extra right you give OSMF here, over and above everyone else,
is the license change part -- and that can only be initiated by OSMF,
the rest has to go to a vote of the OSM contributors. With cc-by-sa
you currently give this right to Creative Commons, who think we should
be using CC0 for data anyway.

Dave

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started