Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki key:maxspeed page
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Alan Mintz wrote: > Looking at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maxspeed , it clearly say > that, for countries that use imperial values (i.e. in miles/hour), we should > tag the speed limits shown on the signs (+ " mph"), not convert them to kph. yes. There where some very good arguments for it. > Assuming there is no significant disagreement with this, why should there be > a conversion table on the wiki page? Anyone mind if I remove it? not at all ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] sotm2010 video stream?
On 7 July 2010 04:09, Floris Looijesteijn wrote: > > If they can't be streamed live, are they still going to be recorded? > > > > yes, both tracks will be recorded. Could some one please take time to upload the videos ! Also those who have spoke but haven't uploaded slides please do upload your slides ( now that most of you have reached your home) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/State_Of_The_Map_2010#Sessions_list has lot of red colour , no page links . do correct them ;) Regards, Pavithran -- pavithran sakamuri http://look-pavi.blogspot.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Wiki key:maxspeed page
Looking at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maxspeed , it clearly say that, for countries that use imperial values (i.e. in miles/hour), we should tag the speed limits shown on the signs (+ " mph"), not convert them to kph. Assuming there is no significant disagreement with this, why should there be a conversion table on the wiki page? Anyone mind if I remove it? -- Alan Mintz ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] fact-based vote?
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 20:56, Richard Weait wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: >> Richard Weait wrote: [ ... ] >>> Or more simply. Ask users if they are willing to proceed. Calculate >>> and show users the results. Then ask users if that is good enough to >>> make it "official". [ ... ] >> That would be a great solution. It allows a decision based on facts, >> rather than what-if scenarios. At the same time, it ensures that this >> decision will be supported by the mapping community. [ ... ] >> The procedure could be similar to the one for future license changes: >> "Active contributors" can vote, 2/3 majority is required. > > Right, the contributor terms state 2/3 of active contributors and a > minimum of three weeks for the vote. Would an additional three-week > or longer voting period, added to the process now be a problem? The license issues were already being discussed back when I joined OpenStreetMap (which was more than two years ago). So I don't think that this additional voting period will make much of a difference. Loss of data is the primary concern about the license change for quite a lot of mappers. Dealing with their worries is worth the delay. > Limiting a hypothetical (what should it be called? referendum?) to > just active contributors might exclude some who have just agreed to > the license upgrade. Is this the right thing to do? Should the > hypothetical referendum(?) be open to any person who responded to the > license upgrade question? Or to any person with an OSM account? I've wondered myself, and I think that either would be an acceptable choice. An argument for allowing anyone who responded to the license upgrade question to vote could be that the referendum, among other advantages, will make people less likely to (ab)use the license change question as a vote. If some people cannot vote in the referendum, they might still be inclined to do this, which we probably want to avoid. > If we imagine that the current process is: > > 1) users polled for acceptance of ODbL > 2a) poll result summary compiled by LWG > 2b) poll results on database calculated and displayed by LWG > 3) LWG recommend (or not) upgrade to OSMF Board > 4) OSMF Board accept (or not) LWG recommendation to upgrade license > > What role should a hypothetical referendum take? Should the > referendum be added as 5) so that LWG or OSMF Board might decide to > not proceed? Or should a referendum _replace_ 3) and 4), and any poll > result should be presented to the wider community? I would use it as a step 5) - if we expect to suffer really bad data losses or encounter some other severe issue, then 3) and 4) can prevent a time-consuming, confusing and potentially divisive (esp. in the case of massive regional differences) referendum. However, if people prefer removing the possibility for LWG/Board intervention at that stage, that would also be fine with me. > And for those critical of the process to date, would this address > your concerns and if not, what would address your concerns? This would eliminate my only major issue with the process, and I'm certain that it would do the same for a lot of mappers I've communicated with in the past. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] fact-based vote?
Richard Weait wrote: > > Right, the contributor terms state 2/3 of active contributors and a > minimum of three weeks for the vote. Would an additional three-week > or longer voting period, added to the process now be a problem? > Given that the whole process has taken on the order of two years, I don't think a three-week community voting period is going to harm, even though I suspect everyone just wants to get this topic over and done with as soon as possible. Richard Weait wrote: > > What role should a hypothetical referendum take? Should the > referendum be added as 5) so that LWG or OSMF Board might decide to > not proceed? Or should a referendum _replace_ 3) and 4), and any poll > result should be presented to the wider community? > I am not sure it matters too much. But adding it as 5) would probably change the proposed process in the minimum possible way and leave the full flexibility of a judgement call and recommendation with the LWG and Board. Richard Weait wrote: > > And for those critical of the process to date, would this address your > concerns and if not, what would address your concerns? > >From my personal point of view, I think that would be a very good solution to ensure the community is happy with the outcome. Indeed, imho much better than attempting to propose any what-if scenarios, that I was suggesting earlier, and addresses the issue much more directly. With such a solution I very much hope that more people will feel comfortable to agreeing to the new license who were more worried about the process than the license it self. So I do hope, that despite the flames this discussion had a constructive and positive aspect to it. Kai P.S. As it might have not come over in some of my previous mails, I would like to again express my gratitude to the members of the LWG for embarking on this unthankful yet necessary job of hammering out the new License and its process. And would like to say that you have done a great job, even though on the odd technical question I might have disagreed. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/fact-based-vote-tp5294260p5294902.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] fact-based vote?
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Richard Weait wrote: > >> Interesting idea. How should this work? Something like?: > >> > >> ... steps leading to today > >> - users indicate ODbL acceptance or not > >> - summarize user replies: x replies, y accept. > >> - somebody processes all the results to show data effect > >> - publish those results > >> - users vote to proceed with license upgrade (or not) based on > >> published results. > >> - upgrade license (or not) based on user vote > >> > >> Or more simply. Ask users if they are willing to proceed. Calculate > >> and show users the results. Then ask users if that is good enough to > >> make it "official". > >> > >> Is this what you imagine? Is this acceptable to those reading this? > > > > That would be a great solution. It allows a decision based on facts, What about regional differences? How are we going to look at a region (geographic or political) and decide firstly who 'represents' that region (mappers or residents) and then who can decide that losing X% of data in a region is acceptable? Example If Europe as a map stays intact will we be concerned if [earthquake region] is lost because it was traced from photography whose licence does not let it proceed under the new licence or terms and conditions? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] fact-based vote?
On 15 July 2010 04:56, Richard Weait wrote: > [I re-added attribution for John Smith that appears to have been > dropped during context trimming.] Pretty sure Kai was responsible for this sentiment on the legal list thread. > Right, the contributor terms state 2/3 of active contributors and a > minimum of three weeks for the vote. Would an additional three-week > or longer voting period, added to the process now be a problem? 3 weeks v the possibility of failure because people are concerned about the result if they agree to the change? > Limiting a hypothetical (what should it be called? referendum?) to > just active contributors might exclude some who have just agreed to > the license upgrade. Is this the right thing to do? Should the > hypothetical referendum(?) be open to any person who responded to the > license upgrade question? Or to any person with an OSM account? If we are splitting out agreement with the new license with a vote to change over to the license then it should be any active contributors since they technically agreed to cc-by-sa as well at present. > What role should a hypothetical referendum take? Should the > referendum be added as 5) so that LWG or OSMF Board might decide to > not proceed? Or should a referendum _replace_ 3) and 4), and any poll > result should be presented to the wider community? I'm not sure if adding this between 3 or 4, or adding it as 5 makes much difference. > And for those critical of the process to date, would this address your > concerns and if not, what would address your concerns? It would help a lot more than the current situation of what-ifs and guessing what the fall out would be, this way we would know exactly what will be lost if the license change went ahead. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Error loading Yahoo-Images in Potlatch
Am 14.07.2010 18:37, schrieb Richard Fairhurst: > Flash Player tends to cache things very aggressively - it's a > constant pain. The question is: Where? I close FF, clear the browser cache, start FF and open Potlatch. I can see files emerging in the cache-folder. When I open them in paint, I can see that these files are the Yahoo-Images. So the error must happen somewhere before the images are loaded. I suspect HanseNet is running some kind of proxy... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] fact-based vote?
[I re-added attribution for John Smith that appears to have been dropped during context trimming.] On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: > Richard Weait wrote: >> John Smith wrote: [ ... ] >>> Allow contributors to vote before the change over occurs, not just if >>> they agree to license their data under ODBL or not... >> >> Interesting idea. How should this work? Something like?: >> >> ... steps leading to today >> - users indicate ODbL acceptance or not >> - summarize user replies: x replies, y accept. >> - somebody processes all the results to show data effect >> - publish those results >> - users vote to proceed with license upgrade (or not) based on >> published results. >> - upgrade license (or not) based on user vote >> >> Or more simply. Ask users if they are willing to proceed. Calculate >> and show users the results. Then ask users if that is good enough to >> make it "official". >> >> Is this what you imagine? Is this acceptable to those reading this? > > That would be a great solution. It allows a decision based on facts, > rather than what-if scenarios. At the same time, it ensures that this > decision will be supported by the mapping community. > >> What are the details of the "- users vote..." step? Let's talk more >> about this. > > The procedure could be similar to the one for future license changes: > "Active contributors" can vote, 2/3 majority is required. Right, the contributor terms state 2/3 of active contributors and a minimum of three weeks for the vote. Would an additional three-week or longer voting period, added to the process now be a problem? Limiting a hypothetical (what should it be called? referendum?) to just active contributors might exclude some who have just agreed to the license upgrade. Is this the right thing to do? Should the hypothetical referendum(?) be open to any person who responded to the license upgrade question? Or to any person with an OSM account? If we imagine that the current process is: 1) users polled for acceptance of ODbL 2a) poll result summary compiled by LWG 2b) poll results on database calculated and displayed by LWG 3) LWG recommend (or not) upgrade to OSMF Board 4) OSMF Board accept (or not) LWG recommendation to upgrade license What role should a hypothetical referendum take? Should the referendum be added as 5) so that LWG or OSMF Board might decide to not proceed? Or should a referendum _replace_ 3) and 4), and any poll result should be presented to the wider community? And for those critical of the process to date, would this address your concerns and if not, what would address your concerns? [For clarity, I'm just bouncing ideas around as an OSM contributor. I'm not speaking for anybody else.] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
Richard Weait wrote: > >> Allow contributors to vote before the change over occurs, not just if >> they agree to license their data under ODBL or not... > > Interesting idea. How should this work? Something like?: > > ... steps leading to today > - users indicate ODbL acceptance or not > - summarize user replies: x replies, y accept. > - somebody processes all the results to show data effect > - publish those results > - users vote to proceed with license upgrade (or not) based on > published results. > - upgrade license (or not) based on user vote > > Or more simply. Ask users if they are willing to proceed. Calculate > and show users the results. Then ask users if that is good enough to > make it "official". > > Is this what you imagine? Is this acceptable to those reading this? That would be a great solution. It allows a decision based on facts, rather than what-if scenarios. At the same time, it ensures that this decision will be supported by the mapping community. > What are the details of the "- users vote..." step? Let's talk more > about this. The procedure could be similar to the one for future license changes: "Active contributors" can vote, 2/3 majority is required. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Error loading Yahoo-Images in Potlatch
Peter Herison wrote: > Now the strage part: Closed FF. Cleared browser cache without hope > but... After starting FF again, the error-images were gone. I could > continue editing like before and see all Yahoo-Images. Even these > tiles that has errors before. > I tried the same here at home (again) but the appearence of the > area mentioned in the link above is still the same. D***! Flash Player tends to cache things very aggressively - it's a constant pain. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Error-loading-Yahoo-Images-in-Potlatch-tp5284915p5293603.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Error loading Yahoo-Images in Potlatch
Am 13.07.2010 21:08, schrieb Peter Herison: > Am 12.07.2010 23:04, schrieb Peter Herison: >> Does anyone encounter errors loading Yahoo-Images in Potlatch? >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=39.111598&lon=-94.712041&zoom=19 ... > I had no problems today in the office. Everything works fine, but... > > now, home again: Potlatch looks exactly like the screenshoot > from yesterday. - I cleared flash cache, but this is not for tiles > (max. 100kB). The tiles goes into normal browser cache (Vista: > C:\Users\***\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\***.default\Cache). > I cleared everything in that folder: Still the same Error-Images. > I used IE: Still the same Error-Images. > > I've no idea what's going on here... :( > Maybe it's something with my provider (Alice/HanseNet)?! OK, last chapter and then I give up. :( Today I got the same problem on my Office-PC (also Vista and same FF): Loading tiles took some time and the I got the error-image. Closed Firefox tried again and the error-images were still there. Now the strage part: Closed FF. Cleared browser cache without hope but... After starting FF again, the error-images were gone. I could continue editing like before and see all Yahoo-Images. Even these tiles that has errors before. I tried the same here at home (again) but the appearence of the area mentioned in the link above is still the same. D***! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [SOTM] For those who don't know how awesome Ivan Sanchez can be
El día Wednesday 14 July 2010 17:56:54, Ian Dees dijo: > Does anyone have the lyrics and/or video from what was presented on the > screen behind him? http://ivan.sanchezortega.es/need_a_map/song.html It still has a couple of bugs, though. And, believe it or not, I didn't have the time to finish the app properly. -- Iván Sánchez Ortega Un ordenador no es una televisión ni un microondas: es una herramienta compleja. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Satellite Imagery of South America
Hello Guillermo, We talked directly by gtalk, but I would like to answer you on the list so more people can give their opinion. This "license" published at INPE site restricts the use of images by people outside Brazil. On the other hand, I got an answer from a director of INPE, authorizing the use these images for derivative works in CC-BY-SA, and this license has no geographic restrictions on who can use the licensed data. Perhaps the situation is not so clear in legal terms, and there is a chance (I think very low) that we'll have to reverse the work made over these images. But in my opinion we can use the images, making the proper attribution. Vitor On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Guillermo Sansovic wrote: > > > Vitor George gmail.com> writes: > > > > > Hi there, > > Because of the mapping > > we are doing in the states affected by flooding in northeastern > > Brazil, we had direct contact with INPE, and we were informed that the > > satellite images of the CBERS 2B HRC can be used to perform mapping in > > OpenStreetMap. > > The images cover the > > whole South America in a resolution of 2.7m, black and white, and are > > extremely useful to map locations out of large cities. > > The big problem is that > > these images are not geo-referenced, so I'm wondering if we can setup a > > web-service to crowdsource this work, based on gps tracks and other > > satellite imagery. > > The > > image catalog can be > > accessed here: > > http://www.dgi.inpe.br/CDSR/ > > Vitor > > > > > > ___ > > talk mailing list > > talk openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > > This would be great for Argentina where we only have good resolution images > of > a handful of cities. > > I downloaded a couple of files and they are quite useful for mapping. > > The problem is that the license only authorizes Brazilian citizens to use > the > images. > > Should we ask our Brazilian neighbours to map our country? > > Is there any other way around? Could we ask for a license for OSM > regardless of > mapper country of residence? > > > > > > ___ > 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] [SOTM] For those who don't know how awesome Ivan Sanchez can be
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Emilie Laffray wrote: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjO1S0AYMs4 Does anyone have the lyrics and/or video from what was presented on the screen behind him? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [SOTM] For those who don't know how awesome Ivan Sanchez can be
2010/7/14 Iván Sánchez Ortega > And so, the IvanSanchez fan club is born: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Melaskia > > HAHAHAHAHAHA, yeah yeah, I really need to set that up! Emilie Laffray ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [SOTM] For those who don't know how awesome Ivan Sanchez can be
El 14/07/2010 14:04, Emilie Laffray escribió: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjO1S0AYMs4 And so, the IvanSanchez fan club is born: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Melaskia -- Iván Sánchez Ortega ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Garmin Maps
Hi all, Is there an #osm-garmin IRC chat for those who specialize in making custom garmin maps? I think there is a need to combine the tallent that is collectively known about all the tools available to make it. With an aim to make a better central repository for the maps. And a slippy map system where Contours & typ styles can be made. Thanks, Sam -- Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blogs: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/ http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans Skype: samvekemans IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #osm-ca Canadian OSM channel (an open chat room) @Acrosscanadatrails ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > I am simply saying that if you wanted to get involved in the decision > whether or not to ask users how they would licence their contributions, > there was a really simple way to do so: by joining OSMF. > If you want to be allowed to criticize us, join us? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Andy Allan wrote: > Further to what Frederik has said, there's a couple more points that > are important. The OSMF receives legal advice on matters relating to > the license change, and as far as I'm aware they are forbidden from > making the legal advice public. If I recall correctly there was a > problem about a year ago where the legal advice was publicly quoted > and it had to be redacted from the mailing lists. Such is the nature > of legal advice. > OSMF is not forbidden from making the advice public. It may be disadvantageous to some people who may not want it generally known, but it is not forbidden. The terms of engagement between OSMF and WSGR say that it is in the clients best interest to preserve the confidentiality of all communications. But this appears to be boilerplate and relate to Attorney-Client Privilege which is probably not applicable to the matters being dealt with. It also specifically relates to third-parties. OSMF members are not third-parties. I can't think of any scenario where it would be in the best interest of the OSMF board to withhold information from it's members. Perhaps someone can give examples of the kinds of legal advice that might fall into this category? Otherwise the suspicion has to be that there's a self-serving interest involved. 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
In a project where there are endless copies of the data floating around the net I can't see how deleting non-trivial amounts of data is going to work anyway. What is going to stop people who don't care about the license change, or are just pissed off to lose "their" work, just re-uploading the deleted data, if necessary with minimal changes to defeat any checks there might be? My area was mostly blank before I started mapping but there were some roads traced very roughly from the old NPE maps which I then surveyed on the ground and aligned correctly. If that original user votes against the license change then would those roads be deleted from the db regardless of the fact I might have edited them multiple times since? If the answer to that is yes then I'm struggling to see why I wouldn't just re-upload the latest version that I edited and how I would be wrong if I did so. I would rather see a solution that doesn't require data to be deleted, so new contributions + significant edits are under the new license and maybe involving the planet files and the like being split by license until the day when the old license ceases to be an issue. If the data turns-over as frequently as people say then this needn't be a very long time. Kevin On 14 July 2010 12:52, John Smith wrote: > On 14 July 2010 20:59, Richard Weait wrote: > > What do you suggest would be acceptable / unacceptable? > > I would consider things to fail if more than 5-10% of data disappears > in any region. At the very least it would be demoralising for anyone > that spent even a few hours working to make OSM data better. > > ...snipped > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 13:05, James Livingston wrote: > On 14/07/2010, at 10:28 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> I'm no expert on this sort of thing, but there are probably a lot of >> well known pitfalls to avoid when trying to run an inclusive >> international project in many languages. I'd think having English-only >> discussion at a set time convenient for Europeans would be pretty high >> on that list. > I don't know if you'll get out of being English-only, since like it > or not it is the main working language of OSM (as with many open > projects on the Internet). Using any other language is probably > going to exclude even more people. I should have been clearer. The problem isn't that the communication happens in English, but that it's happening in real time over the telephone. My German is pretty basic, but I can follow everything on talk-de armed with Google Translate and dict.leo.org. However, I wouldn't be able to follow a real-time German teleconference. That applies to a lot of people that are involved in OpenStreetMap, and will increasingly apply as we attract more contributors outside of the US/European hacker community. As an example, during the live stream for SOTM's Q&A session in Girona someone in the audience interrupted Steve Coast and asked him (in broken English), to please speak slowly and enunciate carefully, because many in the audience couldn't understand spoken English at that pace. That person is a good example of someone interested in the project (at least interested enough to show up on SOTM), but would pretty much be naturally excluded from the current teleconference system. > One thing that I've seen done in other projects is rotate between > three meeting times eight hours apart. So for example one meeting > would be 1800 UTC, the next 0200 UTC and the next 1000 UTC. Maybe that would mitigate it, I don't know. But since we're all volunteers living on a spinning globe I think what should be answered first is whether these discussions really have to be synchronous. >>> Further to what Frederik has said, there's a couple more points that >>> are important. The OSMF receives legal advice on matters relating to >>> the license change, and as far as I'm aware they are forbidden from >>> making the legal advice public. > I can't speak for them, but I would guess it's more inadvisable than > forbidden (with respect to licensing anyway). If you get advice > saying "we believe that sections A, B and C will hold up in court, > section D probably would, E should unless XYZ happens and we don't > know about F", then telling everyone that means anyone trying to get > around it knows about the potential holes you found. I hope security through obscurity like that isn't something we're actually relying on. It'd also be trivially found out by anyone else willing to pay lawyers of equal caliber. > Of course, people using the license will want to know about that kind of > thing, so it's a trade-off. > >> I.e. can the legal advice only be shared among people actually on the >> LWG conference call, and not all OSMF members? > Who can be on the call - LWG members, any OSMF member, or anyone > involved in the project? Actually, I can't even find how you get on > the LWG in the first place. I can't find that either. It'd be nice if the criteria for joining / application process was oneline somewhere. Maybe it is and I just haven't found it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 14 July 2010 14:05, James Livingston wrote: > > I.e. can the legal advice only be shared among people actually on the > > LWG conference call, and not all OSMF members? > > Who can be on the call - LWG members, any OSMF member, or anyone involved > in the project? Actually, I can't even find how you get on the LWG in the > first place. > > You get on the mailing by asking the phone number and the time of the next conference call. Emilie Laffray ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 14/07/2010, at 10:28 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > I'm no expert on this sort of thing, but there are probably a lot of > well known pitfalls to avoid when trying to run an inclusive > international project in many languages. I'd think having English-only > discussion at a set time convenient for Europeans would be pretty high > on that list. I don't know if you'll get out of being English-only, since like it or not it is the main working language of OSM (as with many open projects on the Internet). Using any other language is probably going to exclude even more people. One thing that I've seen done in other projects is rotate between three meeting times eight hours apart. So for example one meeting would be 1800 UTC, the next 0200 UTC and the next 1000 UTC. >> Further to what Frederik has said, there's a couple more points that >> are important. The OSMF receives legal advice on matters relating to >> the license change, and as far as I'm aware they are forbidden from >> making the legal advice public. I can't speak for them, but I would guess it's more inadvisable than forbidden (with respect to licensing anyway). If you get advice saying "we believe that sections A, B and C will hold up in court, section D probably would, E should unless XYZ happens and we don't know about F", then telling everyone that means anyone trying to get around it knows about the potential holes you found. Of course, people using the license will want to know about that kind of thing, so it's a trade-off. > I.e. can the legal advice only be shared among people actually on the > LWG conference call, and not all OSMF members? Who can be on the call - LWG members, any OSMF member, or anyone involved in the project? Actually, I can't even find how you get on the LWG in the first place. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
I've split this from the original thread before it derails the one it was in any further, and cc'd legal-talk. On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:57, Andy Allan wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Ęvar Arnfjörš Bjarmason wrote: >>> >>> That doesn't just go for the LWG, it seems that a lot of the people >>> involved in the OSMF prefer to do things via conference calls. The >>> calls aren't recorded and published (that I've seen) >> >> Recording and making public such conversations would mean that everyone >> would have to choose their words carefully in order to minimise the danger >> of being quoted out-of-context by people with a limited understanding of >> English (wo might, for example, not immediately understand the humour in >> certain expressions). It would also discourage straight talk in many cases >> (people would say "someone has contacted me about this-and-that" instead of >> saying who that someone was, and so on). >> >> The telephone calls are already, as you say yourself, time-consuming and >> thus not for everybody; they are also, if I may add from my tiny little >> personal exposure, tedious and not something one likes to do. >> >> Your suggestions would make the telephone calls even more tedious, more time >> consuming, and rob them of the last bit of fun (in the form of a humourous >> remark here and there). It would be even harder to find people doing the >> work if you expect that from them. Well, my main suggestion was to not use conference calls due to the inherent bias towards people near UTC+0, and those that speak English at a near-native level. Which wouldn't be the case if the communication was in textual and asynchronous form. It's not something I care deeply about myself, since I probably wouldn't participate. But it's unfortunate that the people in a position to enact such a change would be those already active in the OSMF, i.e. people who've largely self-selected for doing things via conference call in the first place. I'm no expert on this sort of thing, but there are probably a lot of well known pitfalls to avoid when trying to run an inclusive international project in many languages. I'd think having English-only discussion at a set time convenient for Europeans would be pretty high on that list. > I'm not sure I've heard any of the LWG members have any fun whatsoever > on their calls! > > Further to what Frederik has said, there's a couple more points that > are important. The OSMF receives legal advice on matters relating to > the license change, and as far as I'm aware they are forbidden from > making the legal advice public. If I recall correctly there was a > problem about a year ago where the legal advice was publicly quoted > and it had to be redacted from the mailing lists. Such is the nature > of legal advice. > > I would also expect there to be lots of other confidential matters > discussed (such as contacting people external to the project) that > again can't be publicly broadcast without heavy editing of any > recording. I'm sure the Data Working Group also has similar problems > of confidentiality when there are copyright accusations being dealt > with - some things just can't be recorded and broadcast publicly. That's fair enough. But since the legal advice and confidential information is being given to the OSMF, is there anything preventing these from being recorded and distributed amongst paying OSMF members, and not members of the general public? I.e. can the legal advice only be shared among people actually on the LWG conference call, and not all OSMF members? And would it be possible to offer podcasts of working group conference calls that aren't (presumably) legally sensitive, like the SOTM group, Local Chapters, Strategy, Sysadmins etc.? (from http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Groups) > I'm sure if there are specific things from the minutes that you'd like > elaboration on, the LWG members will do their best to try to answer > your questions. I think the LWG should be applauded for providing such > up-to-date minutes for all of their regular meetings, it shows some > insight into their dedication to doing things well. Well, since you mention it I proposed a human readable version of the contributor terms in May [1] which the LWG rewrote [2]. A mention of it in the minutes last appeared on 2010-06-22 [3] as - Summary of OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary Mike has removed "This is a work in progress". Presumably that means they're ready for rollout, but I don't know. I have a patch to the website that's been sitting around for two months waiting for a LWG yay/nay on this. Now, I *don't* mean that as "waa waa, they took two months to look at my issue". I understand that this is low priority and that Mike et al are busy with other stuff. What I think is unfortunate is that stuff like this which seemingly has no need fo
[OSM-talk] State of the Map 2010 - Concert Contest Winner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjO1S0AYMs4 State of the Map 2010 wasn't all panel discussions, intense technical debate and delicious tapas. State of the Map 2010 was also a bit of fun. Five songs were entered in the Concert Contest for the entertainment of the performers, and even the audience. In a landslide of audience opinion, Iván Sánchez Ortega's multi-media masterpiece, _I Need A Map_ was found to be the winner. This video is his encore performance from Saturday in Girona. Bravo, Iván, Bravo! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [SOTM] For those who don't know how awesome Ivan Sanchez can be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjO1S0AYMs4 Emilie Laffray ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On 14 July 2010 20:59, Richard Weait wrote: > What do you suggest would be acceptable / unacceptable? I would consider things to fail if more than 5-10% of data disappears in any region. At the very least it would be demoralising for anyone that spent even a few hours working to make OSM data better. > - users vote to proceed with license upgrade (or not) based on > published results. This step would be a good exercise in visualising the extent of any loss of data, rather than figures being plucked from the air. If large amounts of data disappear then obviously more work needs to be spent fixing issues as much as possible, rather than trying to rail road dissent into submission. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
Richard Weait wrote: > > Interesting idea. How should this work? Something like?: > > ... steps leading to today > - users indicate ODbL acceptance or not > - summarize user replies: x replies, y accept. > - somebody processes all the results to show data effect > - publish those results > - users vote to proceed with license upgrade (or not) based on > published results. > - upgrade license (or not) based on user vote > Yes, I too think that is a very interesting idea and perhaps the most workable solution to keep as many people as possible happy and ensures that OSM remains a success, without having to go through the incredibly difficult process of defining these thresholds. It also means that people should feel much more confident in trusting the OSMF and LWG with some of the other difficult decisions yet to come (like what counts as derivative), which will hopefully give the LWG the necessary freedom to continue to do a good gob. I understand your suggestion as basically going exactly through the steps that are already planned in the Implementation plan ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan ) in exactly the same way, just that the final stage, the "Done!" stage would be replaced by a vote by the community, once a copy of the new CC-By-SA clean db is avalable. (I would probably suggest the same definition of 66% of active contributors as in the CT for this final vote). "Phase 4 - CC-BY-SA edits no longer accepted" phase would still mean the LWG need to define a critical mass, at which point Phase 4 can enter, but as that would only be temporary and subject to the final vote, I hope it will be much easier to sell this to people who are worried about data loss and convince them to offer their temporary trust. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Defining-critical-mass-tp5290276p5292084.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Question on filtering data
Liz - Do you have experience with computer programming? You will need to know how to process XML. I don't have too much experience with the OSM API, but this should be fairly straightforward. I would break the task up into something like this: Download details for all of the changesets of that user, extract id numbers [1] Split the 600km2 into bounding boxes by calculating what the API allows as [2] For each bounding box: download features [3] for each feature, check feature id against user's changes if that feature is a match, add it to a list of matches [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API_v0.6#Methods_for_User_Data [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API_v0.6#Capabilities:_GET_.2Fapi.2Fcapabilities [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API_v0.6#Retrieving_map_data_by_bounding_box:_GET_.2Fapi.2F0.6.2Fmap On 14 July 2010 22:22, Liz wrote: > I would like to filter OSM data in a large area which is about 600km square > and find what has been surveyed by a particular mapper. > > If data has been added to this later eg a maxspeed tag by another mapper, I > do > not want this data excluded. > > I accept that this may involve a series of searches. > > Can anyone assist me? > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > I am simply saying that if you wanted to get involved in the decision > whether or not to ask users how they would licence their contributions, > there was a really simple way to do so: by joining OSMF. That I did, and was disappointed at the failure to get any answers that way either. So I chose not to continue inside OSMF. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
Ulf Lamping wrote: > For example remember positions like Richard Fairhursts in the thread > (I know that it's not an "official" OSMF/LWG position) Of course it isn't. I'm not on the OSMF board let alone LWG; indeed, I actively told OSMF earlier this year that I did not intend to assist it in any way because of my discontent at how the project blog and Twitter feed were being managed. There is no more reason why I should speak for OSMF than for the Venezuelan government, and I have no idea whether or not either OSMF or the Venezuelan government shares any of my views. (I suspect I'm probably closer to the Venezuelans on most issues...) > I have choosen "to get involved in the running of the project" by > mapping a lot of stuff, organising a local regular mapping group, > helping in several german OSM activities and whatnot. Now telling > me to shut up about decisions when I'm not a member of the OSMF > is, well, disgusting IMHO. Hey. Please don't put words into my mouth. I have not used the phrase "shut up". I am simply saying that if you wanted to get involved in the decision whether or not to ask users how they would licence their contributions, there was a really simple way to do so: by joining OSMF. Over at Wikipedia they have a phrase: "Assume good faith". It's a good phrase. Please remember it. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Defining-critical-mass-tp5290276p5292002.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:18 AM, John Smith wrote: > On 14 July 2010 19:08, Andy Allan wrote: >> See also http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes if >> you are interested in seeing what's been involved in the LWG so far. > > How about defining some specific points about what an acceptable loss > of data will be, possibly on a per region basis and if not obtained > what the outcome will be. What do you suggest would be acceptable / unacceptable? > Allow contributors to vote before the change over occurs, not just if > they agree to license their data under ODBL or not... Interesting idea. How should this work? Something like?: ... steps leading to today - users indicate ODbL acceptance or not - summarize user replies: x replies, y accept. - somebody processes all the results to show data effect - publish those results - users vote to proceed with license upgrade (or not) based on published results. - upgrade license (or not) based on user vote Or more simply. Ask users if they are willing to proceed. Calculate and show users the results. Then ask users if that is good enough to make it "official". Is this what you imagine? Is this acceptable to those reading this? What are the details of the "- users vote..." step? Let's talk more about this. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Ęvar Arnfjörš Bjarmason wrote: >> >> That doesn't just go for the LWG, it seems that a lot of the people >> involved in the OSMF prefer to do things via conference calls. The >> calls aren't recorded and published (that I've seen) > > Recording and making public such conversations would mean that everyone > would have to choose their words carefully in order to minimise the danger > of being quoted out-of-context by people with a limited understanding of > English (wo might, for example, not immediately understand the humour in > certain expressions). It would also discourage straight talk in many cases > (people would say "someone has contacted me about this-and-that" instead of > saying who that someone was, and so on). > > The telephone calls are already, as you say yourself, time-consuming and > thus not for everybody; they are also, if I may add from my tiny little > personal exposure, tedious and not something one likes to do. > > Your suggestions would make the telephone calls even more tedious, more time > consuming, and rob them of the last bit of fun (in the form of a humourous > remark here and there). It would be even harder to find people doing the > work if you expect that from them. I'm not sure I've heard any of the LWG members have any fun whatsoever on their calls! Further to what Frederik has said, there's a couple more points that are important. The OSMF receives legal advice on matters relating to the license change, and as far as I'm aware they are forbidden from making the legal advice public. If I recall correctly there was a problem about a year ago where the legal advice was publicly quoted and it had to be redacted from the mailing lists. Such is the nature of legal advice. I would also expect there to be lots of other confidential matters discussed (such as contacting people external to the project) that again can't be publicly broadcast without heavy editing of any recording. I'm sure the Data Working Group also has similar problems of confidentiality when there are copyright accusations being dealt with - some things just can't be recorded and broadcast publicly. I'm sure if there are specific things from the minutes that you'd like elaboration on, the LWG members will do their best to try to answer your questions. I think the LWG should be applauded for providing such up-to-date minutes for all of their regular meetings, it shows some insight into their dedication to doing things well. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
Am 14.07.2010 11:08, schrieb Andy Allan: On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote: See what our (IMHO not so) respectful OSMF chairman and project founder Steve C had to say about license (working group) critics in December 2009: http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2009/12/fable.html That wasn't written by Steve Coast, the "fake" blog is written by other people and is supposed to be satirical, but in this case is clearly attacking other members of the community. One of the characters is clearly based on you. I don't find it very funny or constructive. Steve Coast actually posts at the following blogs: http://www.opengeodata.org/ (with others) http://blog.stevecoast.com/ Deep apologies to Steve C that I accused him about things he didn't do. It's really not my style to falsely accuse people - seems I really got a wrong impression about that blog. I had hoped that after the dust settled a bit the OSMF learned from these discussions, but reading the above legal talk thread I still see the same elitist behaviour from the "inner circle" as before - very sad to see :-( It's a shame that you feel there's an "inner circle". It's worth bearing in mind that when a project grows to be more than 30-40 people that not everyone can be involved in everything all the time (and we have around 30-40 *thousand* people involved now). But there's no intention to create an inner circle or, by corrollary, exclude other people. What could we (you/me/LWG) do to make this more inclusive? For example remember positions like Richard Fairhursts in the thread (I know that it's not an "official" OSMF/LWG position): "Of course, not everyone is a member of OSMF, but if you don't choose to get involved in the running of the project then you can't really complain if decisions are taken that aren't to your liking." I have choosen "to get involved in the running of the project" by mapping a lot of stuff, organising a local regular mapping group, helping in several german OSM activities and whatnot. Now telling me to shut up about decisions when I'm not a member of the OSMF is, well, disgusting IMHO. Remember: There are a lot of active OSM activists around the world that are not OSMF members, a lot of them might not even speak english. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Andreas Labres wrote: > On 14.07.10 09:59, Ulf Lamping wrote: >> I had hoped that after the dust settled a bit the OSMF learned from these >> discussions, but reading the above legal talk thread I still see the same >> elitist behaviour from the "inner circle" as before - very sad to see :-( > > Sad to have to read that you (as beeing in the LWG) see that the same way I > see it. Just to clarify: Ulf Lamping isn't in the LWG, but Ulf Möller is. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
Hi, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: That doesn't just go for the LWG, it seems that a lot of the people involved in the OSMF prefer to do things via conference calls. The calls aren't recorded and published (that I've seen) Recording and making public such conversations would mean that everyone would have to choose their words carefully in order to minimise the danger of being quoted out-of-context by people with a limited understanding of English (wo might, for example, not immediately understand the humour in certain expressions). It would also discourage straight talk in many cases (people would say "someone has contacted me about this-and-that" instead of saying who that someone was, and so on). The telephone calls are already, as you say yourself, time-consuming and thus not for everybody; they are also, if I may add from my tiny little personal exposure, tedious and not something one likes to do. Your suggestions would make the telephone calls even more tedious, more time consuming, and rob them of the last bit of fun (in the form of a humourous remark here and there). It would be even harder to find people doing the work if you expect that from them. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Question on filtering data
I would like to filter OSM data in a large area which is about 600km square and find what has been surveyed by a particular mapper. If data has been added to this later eg a maxspeed tag by another mapper, I do not want this data excluded. I accept that this may involve a series of searches. Can anyone assist me? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
Andy Allan wrote: > But there's no > intention to create an inner circle or, by corrollary, exclude other > people. What could we (you/me/LWG) do to make this more inclusive? 1. Define reasonable limits for your future decisions, so people know what to expect. 2. Let active contributors have a say in the really important decisions. That way, people know that it won't be possible for some "inner circle" to act without their consent. A good example for this is the way *future* license changes will be handled according to the Contributor Terms: Besides other requirements, there is a guarantee that licenses will be free and open (-> reasonable limit for future decisions) and that there will be a vote among active contributors. This is actively marketed as a reason for trust.[1] Why don't we apply some of these ideas to the current license change, too? Tobias Knerr [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#Can_I_trust_the_OpenStreetMap_Foundation_.3F ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
Am 14.07.2010 12:03, schrieb Andreas Labres: On 14.07.10 09:59, Ulf Lamping wrote: I had hoped that after the dust settled a bit the OSMF learned from these discussions, but reading the above legal talk thread I still see the same elitist behaviour from the "inner circle" as before - very sad to see :-( Sad to have to read that you (as beeing in the LWG) see that the same way I see it. You probably think about Ulf Möller (OSMF) and not me :-) I'm not a member of the OSMF nor the LWG. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On 14.07.10 09:59, Ulf Lamping wrote: > A lot of the points in this thread was already discussed by others and me > around 2009. The whole license (change) discussion in 2009 (to my > understanding) boiled down to: Become member of the OSMF or shut up and follow > our judgement. Well, I am an OSMF member and I can't see why that should change anything. The manner things are pressed through (don't know if this is the correct English phrase, I mean "durchdrücken" in German) is not ok. > I had hoped that after the dust settled a bit the OSMF learned from these > discussions, but reading the above legal talk thread I still see the same > elitist behaviour from the "inner circle" as before - very sad to see :-( Sad to have to read that you (as beeing in the LWG) see that the same way I see it. /al ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:08, Andy Allan wrote: > But there's no intention to create an inner circle or, by > corrollary, exclude other people. What could we (you/me/LWG) do to > make this more inclusive? > [...] > See also http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes if > you are interested in seeing what's been involved in the LWG so far. There's a lot of data being lost when you publish minutes. Entire discussions are being squeezed into a bullet point or two. It would help if those meetings were also published as podcasts. That doesn't just go for the LWG, it seems that a lot of the people involved in the OSMF prefer to do things via conference calls. The calls aren't recorded and published (that I've seen), so the only people who can be directly involved in them and get the full data (and not just summaries) are those that: * Speak English at the level of being able to participate in a conference call. * Are roughly in the CET timezone. Those conference calls are in the middle of the night in some parts of the globe. * Can commit enough time to the project to do a synchronous conference call weekly. That's a pretty small group compared to e.g. what you could get with a closed but publically archived mailing list. I get that a conference call can be easier than writing E-Mail, but this model of communication for the OSMF is restricting a lot of user participation in what is otherwise an international and multilingular project. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On 14 July 2010 19:08, Andy Allan wrote: > See also http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes if > you are interested in seeing what's been involved in the LWG so far. How about defining some specific points about what an acceptable loss of data will be, possibly on a per region basis and if not obtained what the outcome will be. Allow contributors to vote before the change over occurs, not just if they agree to license their data under ODBL or not... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote: > A lot of the points in this thread was already discussed by others and me > around 2009. The whole license (change) discussion in 2009 (to my > understanding) boiled down to: Become member of the OSMF or shut up and > follow our judgement. I doubt anyone involved in the licensing intended that to be the outcome of the discussion. There are certain things (like the legal advice received from the OSMF lawyers) that could be seen as not being up for debate, but membership of the OSMF is only required for a very few specific things like voting to appoint the foundation board. > See what our (IMHO not so) respectful OSMF chairman and project founder > Steve C had to say about license (working group) critics in December 2009: > > http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2009/12/fable.html That wasn't written by Steve Coast, the "fake" blog is written by other people and is supposed to be satirical, but in this case is clearly attacking other members of the community. One of the characters is clearly based on you. I don't find it very funny or constructive. Steve Coast actually posts at the following blogs: http://www.opengeodata.org/ (with others) http://blog.stevecoast.com/ > I had hoped that after the dust settled a bit the OSMF learned from these > discussions, but reading the above legal talk thread I still see the same > elitist behaviour from the "inner circle" as before - very sad to see :-( It's a shame that you feel there's an "inner circle". It's worth bearing in mind that when a project grows to be more than 30-40 people that not everyone can be involved in everything all the time (and we have around 30-40 *thousand* people involved now). But there's no intention to create an inner circle or, by corrollary, exclude other people. What could we (you/me/LWG) do to make this more inclusive? See also http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes if you are interested in seeing what's been involved in the LWG so far. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
Ulf Lamping wrote: > > See what our (IMHO not so) respectful OSMF chairman and project founder > Steve C had to say about license (working group) critics in December 2009: > > http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2009/12/fable.html > You are aware that you pointed to a post by _fake_ stevec? I.e. something written specifically to be satirical and not at all by Steve him self? So please don't use quotes from fakesteveC to implicate anything Steve has said because that is simply unfair and not helpful either. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Defining-critical-mass-tp5290276p5291649.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
> Am 14.07.2010 09:59, schrieb Ulf Lamping: > See what our (IMHO not so) respectful OSMF chairman and project founder > Steve C had to say about license (working group) critics in December > 2009: > > http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2009/12/fable.html Um, I think it is worth pointing out the word "fake" prominently displayed in the title of that blog. Read the other entries and you will see it is intended as satirical, most of it lampooning SteveC. Whilst whoever did write that article may have been wiser not to, it was clearly not SteveC! Cheers davespod ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Shared nodes between non-routable objects?
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:19:00 +1000 Steve Bennett wrote: > Yep. In my area (Victoria, Australia), we have administrative > boundaries supplied by the government, and you can see that in some > places they follow roads or creeks, but we've never quite taken the > step of confirming that that's the case and merging the road ways and > boundary ways. It would certainly be cleaner. > > Steve And this is a render issue not a data issue. It makes it extremely difficult and easy to create errors within the boundary data when roads are realigned but the associated boundary is not. Whilst it's very usable for regional and remote areas for which there is no data. There is no justification for joining making admin boundaries into roads for metro areas particularly where there is Nearmap coverage. -- Cheers Ross ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On 14 July 2010 17:59, Ulf Lamping wrote: > A lot of the points in this thread was already discussed by others and me > around 2009. The whole license (change) discussion in 2009 (to my > understanding) boiled down to: Become member of the OSMF or shut up and > follow our judgement. As pointed out in that thread, that's a disingenuous argument because it's not possible for everyone interested to become a member. It keeps getting spouted that the contributors are the most important thing to the project, so why are the contributors getting such little real say into the process? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote: > I had hoped that after the dust settled a bit the OSMF learned from these > discussions, but reading the above legal talk thread I still see the same > elitist behaviour from the "inner circle" as before - very sad to see :-( Question to both of you: what are you hoping will happen by making these complaints to this mailing list? I see another 500 post thread starting up with no tangible results. If you have a specific course of action, please continue, but otherwise I suggest letting this thread die now. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
Am 14.07.2010 01:26, schrieb John Smith: There has been a slightly disturbing thread on the legal-talk list about defining critical mass, so far things aren't any closer to being defined and statistics are being abused to suit positions: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-July/003453.html At this stage I'll not be agreeing to ODBL, not because I disagree with the license, but because I disagree with the process being used. Without some better criteria being employed to make the process less subjective and prone to personal bias it will be as 80n put it, a simple wait game until things go their way, I don't think this is the right thing to do, it's a kind of sleazy politicking tactic to achieve an unfavourable result desired by a minority... A lot of the points in this thread was already discussed by others and me around 2009. The whole license (change) discussion in 2009 (to my understanding) boiled down to: Become member of the OSMF or shut up and follow our judgement. See what our (IMHO not so) respectful OSMF chairman and project founder Steve C had to say about license (working group) critics in December 2009: http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2009/12/fable.html I had hoped that after the dust settled a bit the OSMF learned from these discussions, but reading the above legal talk thread I still see the same elitist behaviour from the "inner circle" as before - very sad to see :-( Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
