date:20100810

Ik probeer stadsbus nr 8 in een relatie te gieten. Met backward en forward
geeft de relatiechecker allemaal kleine stukjes. Is het mogelijk om bepaalde
vakken zowel forward als backward te noemen en toch de relatie consistent te
houden?

Ik heb nu 1 richting volledig (forward) gemaakt voor het traject zie
http://betaplace.emaitie.de/webapps.relation-analyzer/analyze.jsp?relationId=1115027
en
dat is ok. Als ik 1 stuk eruit, zowel forward als backward benoem (of blanco
laat) is alles weer stuk.

Een oplossing zou natuurlijk kunnen bestaan uit het maken van 2 relaties :
relatie x 8 Bertem - Bierbeek
relatie y 8 Bierbeek - Bertem

Kan je me helpen?

zie ook http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ivodeb

-- 
Ivo De Broeck
Valleilaan 13
3360  Korbeek-lo
Tel (0)16 43 84 93
Gsm +32 486 17 61 13
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] busroutes

OK, can we put this in the conventions wiki pages?

Proposal:
Use two different relations, one for the forward direction, one for the
backward direction.
Example :
relation xx busnumber zzz Brussels - Antwerp
relation yy busnumber zzz Antwerp - Brussels


Op 10 augustus 2010 10:22 schreef Tim Francois sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk het
volgende:

  Een oplossing zou natuurlijk kunnen bestaan uit het maken van 2
  relaties :
  relatie x 8 Bertem - Bierbeek
  relatie y 8 Bierbeek - Bertem

 Dat is wat op veel plaatsen toch al gedaan wordt. En dan geen forward
 of backward er in. Ik zou zeggen: de eerste node/way in de relatie geeft
 aan waar gestart wordt.

 +1. Yup, this is what is currently happening in most of the UK - a
 separate relation for the 'up' and 'down' bus routes, so that
 forwards/backwards (which is kinda broken as a concept in this case)
 is not required!

 Tim

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


\
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] busroutes

2010-08-10 Thread Maarten Deen

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:41:38 +0200, Renaud MICHEL
r.h.michel+...@gmail.com wrote:
 Le mardi 10 août 2010 à 10:22, Tim Francois a écrit :
 +1. Yup, this is what is currently happening in most of the UK - a
 separate relation for the 'up' and 'down' bus routes, so that
 forwards/backwards (which is kinda broken as a concept in this case)
 is not required!
 
 I'm interested, for now I have created single relation for a bus route in 
 Liège.
 How should I tag the two separate relations?
 
 The page
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buses
 doesn't talk about double relation, but suggests that bus_stop should be put 
 on the way, but the bus stops are not on the road but along it.

Have a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/VRS , for a lot of
relations, there are two routes. Often also tagged with a from and to in
the relation, although I don't know if that really helps in a program.

Regards,
Maarten


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] busroutes

2010-08-10 Thread Maarten Deen

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:56:28 +0200, Ivo De Broeck
ivo.debro...@gmail.com wrote:
 What i propose is keeping the existing relation for the normal
 direction.

There is no normal direction with buses.

 Example stadsbus nr 8 go from Bertem - Leuven - Bierbeek (check the
 relation with the relation checker). Give the same relationnumber to
 all bus-stops for that direction. 

You mean: add the stops to the relation.

  If you are in Leuven you can choose the bus 8 to Bierbeek (relation
 one) OR bus 8 to Bertem (relation 2).

And there comes the part for the from and to tags in the relation
which I thought had no use. You always take line X towards Y. And
having the from and to in the relation will specify Y.

Oh, and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema
has a more elaborate tagging scheme.

Regards,
Maarten

 2010/8/10 Renaud MICHEL 
  Le mardi 10 août 2010 à 10:22, Tim Francois a écrit :
 
 +1. Yup, this is what is currently happening in most of the UK - a
   separate relation for the 'up' and 'down' bus routes, so that
   forwards/backwards (which is kinda broken as a concept in this
 case)
   is not required!
 
  I'm interested, for now I have created single relation for a bus
 route in
  Liège.
  How should I tag the two separate relations?
 
  The page
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buses [2]
  doesn't talk about double relation, but suggests that bus_stop
 should be put
  on the way, but the bus stops are not on the road but along it.
 
  --
  Renaud Michel
 
  ___
  Talk-be mailing list
  Talk-be@openstreetmap.org [3]
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be [4]


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] busroutes

2010/8/10 Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl

 On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:56:28 +0200, Ivo De Broeck
 ivo.debro...@gmail.com wrote:
  What i propose is keeping the existing relation for the normal
  direction.

 There is no normal direction with buses.


Yes the normal name for the route is 8 Bertem- Leuven - Bierbeek
On relation one are busses with : 8 BIERBEEK
On relation two are busses with : 8 BERTEM


  Example stadsbus nr 8 go from Bertem - Leuven - Bierbeek (check the
  relation with the relation checker). Give the same relationnumber to
  all bus-stops for that direction.

 You mean: add the stops to the relation.

   If you are in Leuven you can choose the bus 8 to Bierbeek (relation
  one) OR bus 8 to Bertem (relation 2).

 And there comes the part for the from and to tags in the relation
 which I thought had no use. You always take line X towards Y. And
 having the from and to in the relation will specify Y.


Right, there are no tags forward or backward.


 Oh, and
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema
 has a more elaborate tagging scheme.


We need now, a working convention for busses.


 Regards,
 Maarten

  2010/8/10 Renaud MICHEL
   Le mardi 10 août 2010 à 10:22, Tim Francois a écrit :
 
  +1. Yup, this is what is currently happening in most of the UK - a
separate relation for the 'up' and 'down' bus routes, so that
forwards/backwards (which is kinda broken as a concept in this
  case)
is not required!
 
   I'm interested, for now I have created single relation for a bus
  route in
   Liège.
   How should I tag the two separate relations?
 
   The page
   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buses [2]
   doesn't talk about double relation, but suggests that bus_stop
  should be put
   on the way, but the bus stops are not on the road but along it.
 
   --
   Renaud Michel
 
   ___
   Talk-be mailing list
   Talk-be@openstreetmap.org [3]
   http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be [4]


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




-- 
Ivo De Broeck
Valleilaan 13
3360  Korbeek-lo
Tel (0)16 43 84 93
Gsm +32 486 17 61 13
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] busroutes

2010-08-10 Thread Ben Laenen

Maarten Deen wrote:
  Een oplossing zou natuurlijk kunnen bestaan uit het maken van 2
  relaties : 
  relatie x 8 Bertem - Bierbeek 
  relatie y 8 Bierbeek - Bertem
 
 Dat is wat op veel plaatsen toch al gedaan wordt. En dan geen forward
 of backward er in. Ik zou zeggen: de eerste node/way in de relatie geeft
 aan waar gestart wordt.

Alleen spijtig dat sommige editors de volgorde van relatiemembers graag door 
elkaar schudden, dat de eerste node/way in de relatie kan veranderen zonder 
dat je het doorhebt.

Daarnaast, stel dat in plaats van een terminus op het einde van een busroute, 
de bus een lus maakt vooraleer in de tegengestelde richting te komen zonder 
ergens terminusgewijs wat langer halt te houden. Waar begint en eindigt dan de 
heen- en terugrelatie?

Ben

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] busroutes

2010-08-10 Thread Renaud MICHEL

Le mardi 10 août 2010 à 12:41, Ben Laenen a écrit :
 Yes, please put the bus stop nodes next to the way, not on the way.

OK, that seems more logical anyway.

 btw, the page talks about an *extra* node on the way, used together with
 the bus stop node next to the way.

Is it useful?
If I split the route in two relations, forward and backward, most bus stops 
will only be part of one relation or the other.

-- 
Renaud Michel

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] busroutes

2010/8/10 Renaud MICHEL r.h.michel+...@gmail.comr.h.michel%2b...@gmail.com


 Le mardi 10 août 2010 à 10:22, Tim Francois a écrit :
  +1. Yup, this is what is currently happening in most of the UK - a
  separate relation for the 'up' and 'down' bus routes, so that
  forwards/backwards (which is kinda broken as a concept in this case)
  is not required!

 I'm interested, for now I have created single relation for a bus route in
 Liège.
 How should I tag the two separate relations?

 see the example on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Public_Transport#Stad_Leuven(bus
8)


 The page
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buses
 doesn't talk about double relation, but suggests that bus_stop should be
 put
 on the way, but the bus stops are not on the road but along it.

 --
 Renaud Michel

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




-- 
Ivo De Broeck
Valleilaan 13
3360  Korbeek-lo
Tel (0)16 43 84 93
Gsm +32 486 17 61 13
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] busroutes

2010/8/10 Renaud MICHEL r.h.michel+...@gmail.comr.h.michel%2b...@gmail.com


 Le mardi 10 août 2010 à 10:22, Tim Francois a écrit :
  +1. Yup, this is what is currently happening in most of the UK - a
  separate relation for the 'up' and 'down' bus routes, so that
  forwards/backwards (which is kinda broken as a concept in this case)
  is not required!

 I'm interested, for now I have created single relation for a bus route in
 Liège.
 How should I tag the two separate relations?

 The page
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buses
 doesn't talk about double relation, but suggests that bus_stop should be
 put
 on the way, but the bus stops are not on the road but along it.


see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Bus_and_tram_lines#Tagging(to
discuss)


 --
 Renaud Michel

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




-- 
Ivo De Broeck
Valleilaan 13
3360  Korbeek-lo
Tel (0)16 43 84 93
Gsm +32 486 17 61 13
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] busroutes

2010-08-10 Thread Ben Laenen

Ivo De Broeck wrote:
 see
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Bus_and_
 tram_lines#Tagging(to discuss)

Watch out when editing the wiki: you've replaced the paragraph about tagging 
belbussen. Furthermore, when starting a discussion on the wiki, this should 
go on the talk page before putting it on the conventions page itself when a 
consensus is reached.

Greetings
Ben


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] busroutes

2010-08-10 Thread Ben Laenen

Maarten Deen wrote:
 Have a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/VRS , for a lot of
 relations, there are two routes. Often also tagged with a from and to in
 the relation, although I don't know if that really helps in a program.

a lot of relations: I count 12 on that page with two relations, given the 
number of routes on it I wouldn't really call that a lot :-)


Anyway, I personally don't see why splitting the relation in two would be so 
much better. Basically the only reason why you'd do it because it tags a 
little bit easier since you don't have to add 'forward' and 'backward' roles. 
It doesn't solve anything else: the ambiguous possibilities to follow a route 
when a bus makes loops are all still there for example.

IMHO, the best option would be to stick with just one relation, but map it 
differently: take a starting point on the bus route and then just add the ways 
in the order the bus follows them to get to the other end, and then add the 
ways in order as the bus goes back to the start point (so usually adding the 
same ways to this relation again). In principle, you don't need 
forward/backward tags with that either.

Alas, we have problems with this since one of the main editors can't handle 
ways that belong multiple times to the same (so if someone else e.g. splits up 
a way in that editor the relation is broken), and it doesn't keep the order of 
the members in the relation.


I have the impression that making two relations of them is trying to patch 
this: avoid ways that belong multiple times to the same relation by putting 
them in two different ones. This doesn't work properly btw, since I know bus 
routes that go up and down the same road in both directions between the 
termini. One could suggest the topology of the ways belonging the unordered 
relation would always make it possible to get the exact way order the bus 
follows, but I'm not really convinced of that yet. Certainly if you drop the 
forward/backward roles: then you really cannot know anymore in which direction 
the bus rides a loop in its route. And for now I can see only one thing two 
relations without forward/backward can represent more that one with 
forward/backward: if the bus follows a loop in one direction, but doesn't 
follow it in the other. But if that's worth it to start tagging something 
differently? Better to wait for when Potlatch can finally handle relations 
nicely and map the bus routes properly instead of going to this intermediate 
method that doesn't bring much advantages and brings its own problems.

Greetings
Ben


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA derived ODbL data

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Jukka Rahkonen
jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi wrote:
Richard gave me an idea for mixing the stew.

Let's say that a user who stays with CC-BY-SA has drawn crossing streets and
buildings around the corner. Then another user who is willing to go with ODbL
locates some POIs by looking at the ready OSM map. Sooner or later the streets
and buildings will disappear from the OSM-ODbL but what will happen to the
POIs?
I suppose there are folks who say that also these POIs should be deleted from
(or not transferred to) the OSM-ODbL database because they are derived from
the
CC-BY-SA only data.

How strict are we going to be with these cases? If we are going to be strict,
how can we sort them out?

Not that strict.

If we were that strict you'd have to figure out how close something
had to be before it became derived... 2m, 10m, 50m, 500m? I don't
know.

Anyway from [1]:
OSMF counsel does not believe that CC-BY-SA data within the database
is viral in this regard. The original data will have to be removed,
plus any later versions of the same element, but it is not necessary
to remove nearby or adjoining elements.

Any follow ups to legal-talk please as that is the place for this kind
of discussion.

Thanks,

Dave

[1]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Closed_Issues#Features_touched_by_multiple_contributors.2C_not_all_of_whom_sign_up_to_new_terms

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] (Not) Removing data

On 10 August 2010 18:34, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
 Two, we have at least one contributor who has sadly passed away. Normally, 
 the executors/inheritors of the estate would be approached.  But what is the 
 benefit to them?  This is one reason I am very keen on leaving future license 
 changes to then active contributors,  I really, really don't want folks to 
 have to ask my daughter's permission just to keep open data relevant and 
 useful in a changing world.

I, like many others, signed up to OSM and started contributors
specifically because it was a BY and SA project, but I don't want my
contributions under a non-BY or non-SA license, why can't my wishes be
recorded like contributors wishing to express their choice of PD?

Maybe instead of restricting things by CT as to future license we
should just ask contributors as to what they would agree with as a
minimum, eg:

Do you require attribution: Yes/No
Do you require share-a-like: Yes/No

If they say no to both then that is obviously PD...

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward

On 10 August 2010 23:39, Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.uk wrote:
 I suggest you fit into the wait and see category above.

That's unfortunate, because then we can't model how many support ODBL,
but don't support the CTs...

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward

2010-08-10 Thread Brian Quinion

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
 If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new 
 Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike 
 license written especially for databases.  If you are a Public Domain license 
 supporter, we are divided as a community on which is best and I do urge you 
 to give this one a good try.  The Contributor Terms is expressly written to 
 allow us to come back in future years and see what is best  without all this 
 fuss about procedure.  And if you'd just really like all this hoo-haa to go 
 away and get back to mapping, well, please say yes.

One question:

Given that you can't (legitimately) sign up to the CT if you have used
data which you are not the copyright owner how will we deal with the
situation where someone who HAS imported external data signs up to the
Contributor Terms?

In some ways it is their own problem, they have warranted that they
are the legal owner and accepted responsibility for any resulting
copyright infringement but this seems a trifle unfair since they may
not have understood the implications and it also still leaves OSMF to
resolve the future copyright disputes.

--
 Brian

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward

2010-08-10 Thread Richard Weait

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Brian Quinion
openstreet...@brian.quinion.co.uk wrote:
 On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
 If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new 
 Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike 
 license written especially for databases.  If you are a Public Domain 
 license supporter, we are divided as a community on which is best and I do 
 urge you to give this one a good try.  The Contributor Terms is expressly 
 written to allow us to come back in future years and see what is best  
 without all this fuss about procedure.  And if you'd just really like all 
 this hoo-haa to go away and get back to mapping, well, please say yes.

 One question:

 Given that you can't (legitimately) sign up to the CT if you have used
 data which you are not the copyright owner how will we deal with the
 situation where someone who HAS imported external data signs up to the
 Contributor Terms?

 In some ways it is their own problem, they have warranted that they
 are the legal owner and accepted responsibility for any resulting
 copyright infringement but this seems a trifle unfair since they may
 not have understood the implications and it also still leaves OSMF to
 resolve the future copyright disputes.

If you have derived data from a source that allows deriving to OSM
then I'd say you are fine.  This would cover tracing from aerial
imagery.  If we were dealing with the world of copyright and creative
works this would be similar to taking a photograph of a bonsai plant
after being granted permission to take the photograph.

If you've imported data from a source that allows importation to OSM,
again I'd say that you are okay.

If you've imported data from a source based only on license
compatibility in the last three years you'd have to have been
uninformed or thoughtless to do it without giving the license upgrade
some consideration as stated in the import guidelines since January
2008.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines

It would probably be pretty embarrassing for anybody who made that
sort of error in judgment or declaration of ignorance, so they might
be a little prickly about the subject or try to make it seem like
someone else's fault rather than admitting their error.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-ca] new brunswick mappers

2010-08-10 Thread Sam Vekemans

Hi Bernie,
I must apologies,  I responded to the message on my mobile  too quick
without reading the message in its entirety.


On Behalf of the OSM Canada community, i'd like to thank you for
providing this data to the OSM community.   From what i can see, with
this data announcement, shows how the Province of New Brunswick, is in
line with todays fast-changing advancements of technology.
(Sometimes so fast that it remains difficult for even the industry to
keep up with this globally changing GeoSpatial  environment.)


(copied from the website)
http://www.snb.ca/e/1000/1000-3/e/1000-3_001_e.asp

Background

Since late 2006, the Government of New Brunswick has been working
toward implementing its renewed vision for geomatics in New Brunswick.
The culmination of this effort is a collaboratively built and
maintained Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) for New Brunswick, now
referred to as GeoNB.

Simply put, an SDI is a shared data environment that improves access
to geographic information; however, the GeoNB initiative involves much
more than simply sharing data. It also involves sharing tools,
technology and services (or applications) built as part of, or linked
into, the core infrastructure, along with guiding principles, policies
and data standards.

As one of its main objectives, GeoNB will facilitate the sharing of
geographic data and services among government departments,
non-government organizations, industry, not-for-profit companies,
academia, and the general public. GeoNB will even share the
infrastructure it is built on by making services and applications
available to users. GeoNB will evolve and grow as user needs change
and various components (i.e. data sets, tools, services, partners,
participants, etc.) are added over time.

Although a great deal of work has already been done to lay the
foundation and build a collaborative environment, the release of the
GeoNB Map Viewer is, for many stakeholders, the first tangible
deliverable of the overall GeoNB initiative.




 On 8/10/10, Connors, Bernie (SNB) bernie.conn...@snb.ca wrote:
 Sam,

(snip)
       We are providing a free online mapping tool called the GeoNB Map Viewer
 http://www.snb.ca/geonb/.  Please feel free to use the maps here as a
 reference.  The road data displayed in the GeoNB Map Viewer comes from
 several sources and is not one homogeneous dataset.  *Most* of the data
 displayed in the GeoNB Map Viewer is governed by an unrestricted use data
 agreement: http://geonb.snb.ca/geonb/Agreement_en.pdf

quote from pdf

3. Protection and Acknowledgement of Source
1. Subject to this Agreement, SNB hereby grants to the Licensee a
non-exclusive, fully
paid, royalty-free right and licence to exercise all Intellectual
Property Rights in the
Data. This includes the right to use, incorporate, sublicense (with
further right of
sublicensing), modify, improve, further develop, and distribute the Data; and to
manufacture and / or distribute Derivative Products derived from or
for use with the
Data.

I have also cc'd the legal-talk@openstreetmap.org mailing list, to
ensure that the enterpretation of it is the same as the (already
approved by the OSM Foundation) GeoBase / GeoGratis / StatsCan  data
licences, and has the same intent.

I have created a wiki page for this data  announcement details.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GeoNB

Work is already underway to analyze this data, and see the exact
details and how it can be added to the map.
 As you already know, there is currently an abundance of  data sources
 (from Natural resources Canada - Geogratis among others), which are
already in progress.   However, as this community is far reaching, and
leverages the multiple talents of many users, im sure that there will
be more involvement locally.

For those in New Brunswick, and are interested in helping out with the
efforts, please add your username to the list.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:New_Brunswick


       I have also added the GeoNB map services to arcgis.com.  At arcgis.com 
 you
 can combine the GeoNB map services with the OSM data and do some comparisons
 by using the transparency controls.  Just search for GeoNB at arcgis.com
 and you will find our data.

The Wiki page for ArcGIS will be updated (as soon as i can)
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ArcGIS
As i have recieved reviews (screenshots) from the OSM-editor
attachment with the software.  So then those who know how to use
ArcGIS, will be able to work with the data.


       I would really like to see some OSM presentations at the upcoming 
 Geomatics
 Atlantic Conference in Fredericton, Oct 28 and 29.  The call for
 presentations has been extended:
 http://www.geomaticsatlantic.com/call-for-papers

This message is forwarded out to others in the OSM Canada Community,
so i hope that others with experience in OSM will be able to attend.

So again, i apologies for my 1st response, as it was not sent with
care.   And want to thank the
Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI)

Re: [OSM-talk] Marine taggine/OpenSeamap

2010-08-10 Thread Malcolm Herring


Bernhard R. Fischer wrote:


Don't you think that we shouldn't put the lighthouse also on that page?
Everything is there: light vessel, float, major, minor lights. I think we could 
put the lighthouse also there.



You are right. I have now done it.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-10 Thread Aun Johnsen

Ok, the chilean and the brazilian imports differ in the base license, giving
the brazilian imports a head start ahead of chilean in the race for the new
license.

AFAICT all the brazilian imports are PD, and conditions have been very
simple, as giving a way of pointing to sorce data (i.e. source= tag)

By brazilian law govermental statistics and survey data have to be put in PD
(though military survey data is exempted from this law). That means that
virtually all geospatial data of Brazil is compatible with almost any
license. Our contacts with the data publishers have mainly been to have this
confirmed by the publishers, not to negotiate any release of the datas.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Marine taggine/OpenSeamap

2010-08-10 Thread Aun Johnsen

I see I got a snowball running here, great guys. Continue on that. I can
help out with some language makeup and corrections on the English language
pages (Nautical Professional) but have little time to offer at the moment. I
will also look into translating the important bits of it into Portuguese
together with my other Portuguese translations allowing more contributions,
also on marine mapping, from the portuguese speaking part of the world.

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

[OSM-talk] Wanted - spare CC-BY-SA account

2010-08-10 Thread 80n

Does anyone have a spare / unused OSM account that was created before the
new Contributor Terms were introduced?

I'm planning an import of some micro-mapping that's been done for my local
area.  The import guidelines[1] recommend that I create a new account for
this to keep it separate from my own personal contributions.

For obvious reasons I'm not going to use an account that forces me to commit
to the new contributor terms.  So now I'm looking for anyone who might have
an old OSM account (created before May 12th 2010) that they are not using
and would be happy to give away to me.

Can anyone help me?

80n

[1]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import_guidelines#Use_a_dedicated_user_account
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 72, Issue 43

2010-08-10 Thread David Ellams

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:06:00 +0100, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:

 Why don't you try this.  Import some Ordnance Survey Street View data
 into
 OSM, then render it as a Produced Work with the ODbL required
 attribution:
 
  Contains information from OpenStreetMap, which is made available here
 under the Open Database License (ODbL).
 
 Now take that rendered map and wave it under the noses of the nice people
 at
 Orndance Survey and see how long it takes them to sue you for not
 complying
 with their attribution clause.

Why don't you try this. Import some Ordnance Survey Street View data
into OSM, then render it as a Produced work with the _current_
OpenStreetMap recommended attribution:

Map data (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, CC-BY-SA

Now take that rendered map and wave it under the noses of the nice
people at Ordnance Survey and see how long it takes them to sue you for
not complying with their attribution clause (or at least send you a
stern lawyer's letter).

I'm not the first to say this, but is the problem not (whichever BY-SA
licence we use) that we are suggesting to people that attributing the
project is enough (rather than, say, giving the most major contributors
to the map area individual attribution). I don't know; IANAL.

David

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

[OSM-talk] OSM vehicle tracking in Turkey.

2010-08-10 Thread ozgur akyar

Hey friends,
I have just started learning about OSM then had an idea to improve OSM in
Turkey. As you might now, OSM is not good enough improved.
Now, I had an idea which is making a vehicle tracking system and encouraging
companies to use it and through this adding tracks in to OSM.
Now a days, Ive just focused that issue and looking forward to hearing some
helpful ideas.
I will be so appreciated if I hear something useful.

Thanks in advance
Regards.

-- 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...


Anthony wrote:
 What about a tracing of a photograph of a flower? [...]
 What about a tracing of a photograph of a lake, as viewed from 
 an aircraft?

Bauman v Fussell may be relevant here.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Frederik-declares-war-on-data-imports-tp5385741p5392168.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] Wanted - spare CC-BY-SA account

2010-08-10 Thread Frederik Ramm


80n,

80n wrote:
For obvious reasons I'm not going to use an account that forces me to 
commit to the new contributor terms.  So now I'm looking for anyone who 
might have an old OSM account (created before May 12th 2010) that they 
are not using and would be happy to give away to me.


Maybe instead of playing these kinds of games you could just help those 
people who want to set up a fork, and then import to that fork. Because 
for us, your plannet import along with your steadfast refusal of the new 
license, only causes more work and more problems.


This appeal will of course fall on deaf ears if your very motive is to 
cause problems for OSM but I refuse to believe 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] Frederik declares war on data imports...


80n wrote:
 Why don't you try this.  Import some Ordnance Survey Street View data 
 into OSM, then render it as a Produced Work with the ODbL required 
 attribution

I've written fairly extensively on this in talk-gb, but to reiterate a
posting from May:

 To comply with ODbL for data obtained from OSM, you have to at least 
 provide attribution to OSM.

 That does not preclude that the data may have other attribution
 requirements, and it does not prevent you from fulfilling them.

Which, as David Ellams observes, for large attribution-required imports is
the same situation as we have now. I note that the recent Dundee cycle map
made with OSM data (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmam/4815063190/)
includes both OSM-original and OS-via-OSM, and correctly attributes both in
the bottom right corner.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Frederik-declares-war-on-data-imports-tp5385741p5392205.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] Wanted - spare CC-BY-SA account

2010-08-10 Thread Stefan de Konink


On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Maybe instead of playing these kinds of games you could just help those 
people who want to set up a fork, and then import to that fork. Because for 
us, your plannet import along with your steadfast refusal of the new license, 
only causes more work and more problems.


Sinds the people that want change, hence a license change, start forking 
first. Then at least they know that everyone that goes to their project 
provides 'clean' data.


Seams a much more logical descision.


Stefan

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM vehicle tracking in Turkey.

2010-08-10 Thread Niccolo Rigacci

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:16:14AM +0200, ozgur akyar wrote:
 
 Now, I had an idea which is making a vehicle tracking system and encouraging
 companies to use it and through this adding tracks in to OSM.

As far I know there is not an open source fleet tracking software 
right now.

I imagine a web application with some key features:

* Based on OpenLayers and some modern JS library (may be 
  the MapFish framework?)
* Vehicle managment (add, remove, ecc.)
* Accesso Control List for user/vehicles
* Database storage (PostGIS)
* Real time mapping of vehicles
* Time shifting mapping (historic position)
* Virtual fencing (alarm on boundary trepassing)

Starting such a project on a platform like Sourceforge can 
attract interested people?

-- 
Niccolo Rigacci
Firenze - Italy

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM vehicle tracking in Turkey.

2010-08-10 Thread Ciprian Talaba

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Niccolo Rigacci o...@rigacci.org wrote:

 On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:16:14AM +0200, ozgur akyar wrote:
 
  Now, I had an idea which is making a vehicle tracking system and
 encouraging
  companies to use it and through this adding tracks in to OSM.

 As far I know there is not an open source fleet tracking software
 right now.


You mean like OpenGTS: http://opengts.sourceforge.net/ ? :)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM vehicle tracking in Turkey.

 Now, I had an idea which is making a vehicle tracking system and encouraging
 companies to use it and through this adding tracks in to OSM.

I've had same idea and done some trials. I have a blackbox in my car
for a year or so, and it stores GPS traces to a tracking system over
GPRS. These look nice, but if you look closer then they are not really
useful for OSM updates:
 - the tracker stores location in every 1 minute, and after turns. But
you don't get precise crossings, but some location many meters after
it. As result the GPS track is not matching roads well. See attached
random sample.
 - they have no tags

If you have on-device storage of GPS locations in every second or so,
then the first issue would be solved. And maybe some other GPS tracker
has better way to detect when to send on-line locations, but I'm
afraid none of them does it in every second to get good-quality trace.

I have also output USB cable from the in-car GPS blackbox to connect
it to computer, but I've used it only once as it was very-very
inconvenient (you have to power laptop, start and monitor proper
software etc). I rather take a Garmin Oregon with me when I go mapping
with car, then you just turn it on and check if it has battery.

 As far I know there is not an open source fleet tracking software
 right now.


There is http://opengts.sourceforge.net/, UI looks ugly for me (like
most open source software), but seems to be quite powerful and
extendable. Btw, it uses OSM as default global map.

--
Jaak Laineste

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

80n wrote:
This is quite a good place to start:
http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Copyright_protection_of_databases

It's good to see licence sceptics starting to look at the case law too.

There are of course a million things you could say about rights pertaining
to factual compilations in the US. Several thousand of them have been said
on this list over the past few years and I don't intend to bore everyone by
repeating them.

I will, however, repeat one point which I've made several times over the
years (Google suggests
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-July/002603.html
was a recent instance :) ). Whether geodata is copyrightable in the US is a
shades of grey thing, not an either/or. When a few years back I trudged
round a Worcester housing estate with a GPS noting down the street names,
then faithfully entered them into OSM, there certainly wasn't a minimal
level of creativity there. If I were to do a detailed hiking survey of the
Malvern Hills, carefully judging what might be a MTB-suitable trail, and
what paths have become established despite not being RoWs, that would
involve some creativity and thus merit some protection. And so on.

This is well established in Mason v Montgomery Data, a case about copying
data from a 'traditional' cartographic map, which I'm slightly surprised the
Wikia article doesn't cite. It's regarded by commentators as the case that
stretches the Feist v Rural judgement the most in favour of compilations
involve creativity, so it's a good one to test against. It concludes that
Mason's maps are original through the creativity in both the selection,
coordination, and arrangement of the facts that they depict... and in the
pictorial, graphic nature of the way that they do so. I wouldn't for a
moment say that my Worcester estate survey involved any creative selection,
coordination or arrangement: my Malvern Hills survey might well.

So, as I've said several times before, some extracts from OSM involve
copyright in the US, others don't. One could of course say we're happy with
only protecting some of our data, let's stick with CC-BY-SA. But given that
I remember you (Etienne) remonstrating with me three or four years ago when
I suggested maybe we should allow people to derive the position of features
not included on the map (the same thing Ed Parsons keeps suggesting to OS),
and you said ah, but what if they plot the lamp-posts then reconstruct the
road, I'm guessing you're still on the maximalist side.

Ok. Some of OSM involves copyright in the States. What does that actually
_mean_?

Probably not what we think it does. I'll cut to the chase and just
copy-and-paste the conclusion from that Wikia page:

In summary, very few of the post-Feist compilation cases have held entire
works to be uncopyrightable. In fact, copyrightability of the entire work is
seldom even contested. Disputes tend to focus instead on the scope of
protection. Consistent with Feist's pronouncement that copyright affords
compilations only 'thin' protection, most of the post-Feist appellate cases
have found wholesale takings from copyrightable compilations to be
non-infringing. This trend is carrying through to district courts as well.

In case you didn't spot the interesting bit:

wholesale takings from copyrightable compilations [are] non-infringing

Holy cow.

In other words, whether or not the compilation (the database) is
copyrightable, you can still extract from it with impunity. In Feist, it
actually says: a subsequent compiler remains free to use the facts
contained in another’s publication to aid in preparing a competing work, so
long as the competing work does not feature the same selection and
arrangement.

Mason v Montgomery Data spots this in Feist, too: The facts and ideas ...
are free for the taking... The very same facts and ideas may be divorced
from the context imposed by the author, and restated or reshuffled by second
comers

And in Wikia's commentary on Warren Publishing v Microdos Data: the only
conduct that arguably can be said to infringe is verbatim duplication of the
entire work.

It's all good fun.

But however much we content ourselves with happy thoughts of ah, but the
smoothness tag is creative and so on, we need to think about what an
alleged infringement might actually be. Let's say our mappers have corrected
all the TIGER geometries using aerial/satellite imagery. Is that a hell of a
lot of work? Yes. Is that commercially valuable? Yes. Would J Map Co, aiming
to compete on a street map level with Google et al, like that data? Hell
yes. Are they bothered about the smoothness tag? Hell no.

Can you _unambiguously_ say that the wholesale taking of this part of OSM
is an infringement according to US case law? I can't.

Shades of grey, shades of grey.

cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Frederik-declares-war-on-data-imports-tp5385741p5392366.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM vehicle tracking in Turkey.

2010/8/10 Jaak Laineste jaak.laine...@gmail.com:
 Now, I had an idea which is making a vehicle tracking system and encouraging
 companies to use it and through this adding tracks in to OSM.

 I've had same idea and done some trials. I have a blackbox in my car
 for a year or so, and it stores GPS traces to a tracking system over
 GPRS. These look nice, but if you look closer then they are not really
 useful for OSM updates:
  - the tracker stores location in every 1 minute, and after turns. But
 you don't get precise crossings, but some location many meters after
 it. As result the GPS track is not matching roads well. See attached
 random sample.

it seems I cannot attach pictures here, it is in
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7344...@n07/4878260007/

-- 
Jaak Laineste

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM vehicle tracking in Turkey.

2010-08-10 Thread Niccolo Rigacci

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:23:16PM +0300, Ciprian Talaba wrote:
 
 You mean like OpenGTS: http://opengts.sourceforge.net/ ? :)

It seems that the web interface improved greatly since the last 
time I checkd that project!

Neverthless, if I'm right, the project started around the 
low-level software, concerning vehicle data acquisition, not 
around the web application.

Also I don't think that the architecture used by OpenGTS 
(Java/Tomcat) is well suited for a modern web-GIS application. It 
seems to me also that the back-end engine for data acquisition is 
tightly tied to the web interface. I imagine a stand-alone web 
interface instead, getting data from a database where others 
stand-alone data engines put data. I mentioned MapFish as a 
possible framework.

Finally I don't like very much the dual-version projects, with an 
open source basic version and a closed source enhanced one. I 
fear that the organization controlling the code base will prevent 
the community from pushing advanced features into the open 
version.

But I cannot speak about OpenGTS, because I never followed the 
project actually.

-- 
Niccolo Rigacci
Firenze - Italy

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

Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 72, Issue 43

On 10 August 2010 18:14, David Ellams osmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm wrote:
 I'm not the first to say this, but is the problem not (whichever BY-SA
 licence we use) that we are suggesting to people that attributing the
 project is enough (rather than, say, giving the most major contributors
 to the map area individual attribution). I don't know; IANAL.

I've only seen it suggested in the past about how crediting every
single contributor would be pages long, your suggestion is a good
idea, however I'm left wondering if this would make things open to
abuse, how many times would something be mass tagged attribution=Buy
viagra now online! before that was no longer shown to prevent
vandalism...

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

[OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA derived ODbL data

2010-08-10 Thread Jukka Rahkonen

Richard gave me an idea for mixing the stew.

Let's say that a user who stays with CC-BY-SA has drawn crossing streets and
buildings around the corner. Then another user who is willing to go with ODbL
locates some POIs by looking at the ready OSM map. Sooner or later the streets
and buildings will disappear from the OSM-ODbL but what will happen to the POIs?
I suppose there are folks who say that also these POIs should be deleted from
(or not transferred to) the OSM-ODbL database because they are derived from the
CC-BY-SA only data.

How strict are we going to be with these cases? If we are going to be strict,
how can we sort them out? 

-Jukka Rahkonen-


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted - spare CC-BY-SA account

On 10 August 2010 18:36, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Maybe instead of playing these kinds of games you could just help those
 people who want to set up a fork, and then import to that fork. Because for
 us, your plannet import along with your steadfast refusal of the new
 license, only causes more work and more problems.

He seemed to be stead fast refusing the new contributor terms, I don't
have a problem with the new license, even though you keep saying I do,
although those in .hr might disagree since they've used cc-by-sa data.

Why can't we compromise on this? Why is anything but a completely
free license unacceptable?

You stated that the contributors are the ones that mattered the most,
so why are contributors being unreasonably limited on what sources of
data they can use to make useful maps?

By unreasonable here, I think some form of attribution at the minimum
isn't unreasonable... If it's so unreasonable why are you supporting
the ODBL?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA derived ODbL data

On 10 August 2010 20:28, Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi wrote:
 How strict are we going to be with these cases? If we are going to be strict,
 how can we sort them out?

I think this is why some people are advocating that ODBL be a fork and
start with 'clean' data, it's going to be very messy no matter how you
look at it and will this be used as a precedent against OSM in future?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA derived ODbL data

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Jukka Rahkonen
jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi wrote:
Richard gave me an idea for mixing the stew.

How strict are we going to be with these cases? If we are going to be strict,
how can we sort them out?

Not that strict.

If we were that strict you'd have to figure out how close something
had to be before it became derived... 2m, 10m, 50m, 500m? I don't
know.

Any follow ups to legal-talk please as that is the place for this kind
of discussion.

Thanks,

Dave

[1]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Closed_Issues#Features_touched_by_multiple_contributors.2C_not_all_of_whom_sign_up_to_new_terms

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

Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA derived ODbL data

2010-08-10 Thread Serge Wroclawski

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:41 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 10 August 2010 20:28, Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi wrote:
 How strict are we going to be with these cases? If we are going to be strict,
 how can we sort them out?

 I think this is why some people are advocating that ODBL be a fork and
 start with 'clean' data, it's going to be very messy no matter how you
 look at it and will this be used as a precedent against OSM in future?

First, the argument of forking vs transitioning in the ODbL is purely
semantic. The transition to ODbL will essentially be a fork of OSM.

OpenStreetMap will cease its CC-BY-SA database and only use ODbL data.

In order to make this transition easier, OSM is taking steps to make
the transition easier (ie dual license).

The only people who are advocating clean data (ie no data at all)
appear to be those who dislike the ODbL and would prefer OSM to fail,
rather than see this license change. Personally, I think that's pretty
petty.

- Serge

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

Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA derived ODbL data

On 10 August 2010 20:52, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
 The only people who are advocating clean data (ie no data at all)

It's slightly annoying to be told time after time after time to only
use clean data for OSM, but now that some people want a change it's
ok to have slightly less clean data under the new license...

 appear to be those who dislike the ODbL and would prefer OSM to fail,

This has nothing to do about wanting anything to fail, it's about not
loosing years of work due to some people not willing to compromise
over the CTs mostly, not the license.

 rather than see this license change. Personally, I think that's pretty
 petty.

I'm not being petty in the least, I want a compromise, but others have
outright refused to even consider any kind of a compromise that will
save years of work without resorting to shady legal tactics.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010/8/10 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 Can we get a collection of quotes from those lawyers that you say
 think otherwise?  Exact quotes of what they said?

 unfortunately not. apparently legal advice can't be publicly shared
 without making the lawyers in question liable for it. given that our
 legal advisors are acting for us pro-bono and have asked that we don't
 quote them publicly, i don't think it would be nice to do that.

 Then can you at least stop referring to what they said, especially
 referring to it as though it's in any way authoritative.  Without the
 ability to see the exact quote, let alone ask questions, many lawyers
 said you're wrong is useless.

 i'm simply saying that there are people out there who know what
 they're talking about.

 I'm simply saying that I have strong doubts that many of them would
 have said that the contents of the OSM are purely factual.
 Furthermore, if asked whether or not collections of facts can be
 copyrightable, I have strong doubts that many of them would have said
 no.

Map is a hand-written 2D picture of the world. It is definitely more a
kind of art than a digital photo in flickr, there is more subjectivity
and intelligence etc needed to make it.

How can photos be copyrighted? Aren't photos just visual registrations
of facts? Also there are many artistic paintings, books, movies etc,
which try to be purely factual, at least through the eyes of the
author?

I don't really see how someone can even have the idea (or argument)
that map is just a database of facts.

 I'd suggest a simple technical test for is X an art or fact.
1. ask two persons to create the X.
2. store it to a digital file, and make diff of the files.

Only if you can get no differences then this was a pure fact. I am
sure that mapping (like e.g. photography) will fail the test, even
without trying it out.

-- 
Jaak

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

Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA derived ODbL data


John Smith wrote:
 I'm not being petty in the least, I want a compromise, but others 
 have outright refused to even consider any kind of a compromise 
 that will save years of work without resorting to shady legal tactics.

Hey, now that's not fair.

The reason I suggested to LWG that they drop the relicensing option from the
Contributor Terms, and limit future options to CC-BY-SA or ODbL[1], was
precisely that: a spirit of compromise.

Personally I'd love OSM to be PD, yet I suggested a scheme to LWG that would
rule out OSM _ever_ being relicensed as PD. Compromise is probably too
mild a word for that.

cheers
Richard

[1] ODbL is defined by its maintainers Open Data Commons as Share-Alike for
data/databases, and contrary to misinformation, _does_ have an attribution
requirement on Produced Works. It is a By/SA licence and will remain one.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/CC-BY-SA-derived-ODbL-data-tp5392496p5392609.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] CC-BY-SA derived ODbL data

On 10 August 2010 21:17, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 The reason I suggested to LWG that they drop the relicensing option from the
 Contributor Terms, and limit future options to CC-BY-SA or ODbL[1], was
 precisely that: a spirit of compromise.

And I liked that proposal, I even said so on the talk-au list a week or so ago:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2010-July/006922.html

 Personally I'd love OSM to be PD, yet I suggested a scheme to LWG that would
 rule out OSM _ever_ being relicensed as PD. Compromise is probably too
 mild a word for that.

It doesn't rule out PD at all, it just makes it harder to achieve
without asking most contributors again.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted - spare CC-BY-SA account

2010-08-10 Thread Ed Avis

Now that we have identifiable changesets, the advice to create a separate user
account is no longer as essential as it once was.  I would suggest using your
existing user account and doing the upload as one or more clearly marked
changesets.

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted - spare CC-BY-SA account

2010-08-10 Thread Ed Avis

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes:

Because for us, your plannet import along with your steadfast refusal of the 
new
license, only causes more work and more problems.

That is true.  But then for those who would prefer to continue with CC-BY-SA,
the pushing of the new contributor terms and ODbL only causes 'more work and
more problems'.  We'd much prefer them to stop doing it!

As you say, I don't think either side is setting out deliberately to damage the
project.  Although that will surely be the result if some compromise is not
reached.

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-10 Thread Ed Avis

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes:

Any license that tries to use this patchy copyright protection of data 
is bound to be unfair at the very least, and more likely a pain the 
behind of anybody who wants to use it. The legality of OSM use cases 
would depend on whether you execute a project from your Australian or 
American office. We might be divided on some issues but *that* can 
surely not be our aim.

In fact, personally I disagree with that.  I think it is important to
respect national decisions on the scope of copyright and not try to
overrule them with contract law or other means.  So, for example, if the
parliament of Canada decided that all maps and map data should enter the
public domain, then it would be possible to do more things with OSM
in Canada than in other countries.  This is one of the reasons why we have
more than one country in the world!

It is for each country to decide on its own copyright and other 'intellectual
property' laws, and we should not try to export more-strict regulations from
one country to another.  The CC licences are carefully written to avoid doing
this.  The ODbL, sadly, seems to take the opposite approach.

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Jaak Laineste jaak.laine...@gmail.com wrote:
 Map is a hand-written 2D picture of the world. It is definitely more a
 kind of art than a digital photo in flickr, there is more subjectivity
 and intelligence etc needed to make it.

 How can photos be copyrighted? Aren't photos just visual registrations
 of facts? Also there are many artistic paintings, books, movies etc,
 which try to be purely factual, at least through the eyes of the
 author?

 I don't really see how someone can even have the idea (or argument)
 that map is just a database of facts.

  I'd suggest a simple technical test for is X an art or fact.
 1. ask two persons to create the X.
 2. store it to a digital file, and make diff of the files.

 Only if you can get no differences then this was a pure fact. I am
 sure that mapping (like e.g. photography) will fail the test, even
 without trying it out.

Agreed.  That's basically the merger doctrine.  Of course, the problem
with that here in the United States is Feist, and especially the lower
court cases which attempted to follow Feist.

I asked before why isn't OSM copyrightable when maps are
copyrightable.  And after some research I think I found the answer.
Under a certain line of reasoning following Feist, maps *aren't*
copyrightable, at least not to any significant extent.  See ADC v.
Franklin Maps.

Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Maps are one of the original
works for which copyright was designed.  Not sure what's next.  Maybe
software.  Eventually only abstract art will be copyrighted ;).

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM vehicle tracking in Turkey.

 You mean like OpenGTS: http://opengts.sourceforge.net/ ? :)

 It seems that the web interface improved greatly since the last
 time I checkd that project!

 Neverthless, if I'm right, the project started around the
 low-level software, concerning vehicle data acquisition, not
 around the web application.
 Also I don't think that the architecture used by OpenGTS
 (Java/Tomcat) is well suited for a modern web-GIS application. It
 seems to me also that the back-end engine for data acquisition is
 tightly tied to the web interface.

http://opengts.sourceforge.net/OpenGTS_Config.pdf has architecture
picture. The data collection is separate, not via Tomcat. I've built
commercial tracking systems for big mobile operators in the past, and
we used actually very similar technology to this (just instead of
tomcat there were higher performance engines).

I'd not really agree  if you say that Python is more modern than
Java-based system, and this is good enough reason to reimplement the
thing.

 Finally I don't like very much the dual-version projects, with an
 open source basic version and a closed source enhanced one. I
 fear that the organization controlling the code base will prevent
 the community from pushing advanced features into the open
 version.

You are probably right about that; you get it for free, but with a
price. This is still a small niche, and very demanding task, as usual
it turns out to be lot more complex than it seems in the first look,
especially with all the system/user administration/permission
management needs behind the scenes.

Jaak

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010/8/10 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com:
 Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes:

Any license that tries to use this patchy copyright protection of data
is bound to be unfair at the very least, and more likely a pain the
behind of anybody who wants to use it. The legality of OSM use cases
would depend on whether you execute a project from your Australian or
American office. We might be divided on some issues but *that* can
surely not be our aim.

 It is for each country to decide on its own copyright and other 'intellectual
 property' laws, and we should not try to export more-strict regulations from
 one country to another.  The CC licences are carefully written to avoid doing
 this.  The ODbL, sadly, seems to take the opposite approach.

I'd like this approach too: each country should be able to decide
license terms. Communities are different, population/contributor
densities are very different, laws are different. Would it be really
practical, and how it could be technically doable - no idea, perhaps
not. But still I'd like it.

-- 
Jaak Laineste

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-10 Thread Ian Dees

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Jaak Laineste jaak.laine...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Map is a hand-written 2D picture of the world. It is definitely more a
  kind of art than a digital photo in flickr, there is more subjectivity
  and intelligence etc needed to make it.
 
  How can photos be copyrighted? Aren't photos just visual registrations
  of facts? Also there are many artistic paintings, books, movies etc,
  which try to be purely factual, at least through the eyes of the
  author?
 
  I don't really see how someone can even have the idea (or argument)
  that map is just a database of facts.
 
   I'd suggest a simple technical test for is X an art or fact.
  1. ask two persons to create the X.
  2. store it to a digital file, and make diff of the files.
 
  Only if you can get no differences then this was a pure fact. I am
  sure that mapping (like e.g. photography) will fail the test, even
  without trying it out.

 Agreed.  That's basically the merger doctrine.  Of course, the problem
 with that here in the United States is Feist, and especially the lower
 court cases which attempted to follow Feist.

 I asked before why isn't OSM copyrightable when maps are
 copyrightable.  And after some research I think I found the answer.
 Under a certain line of reasoning following Feist, maps *aren't*
 copyrightable, at least not to any significant extent.  See ADC v.
 Franklin Maps.

 Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Maps are one of the original
 works for which copyright was designed.  Not sure what's next.  Maybe
 software.  Eventually only abstract art will be copyrighted ;).


If you march your way down Wikipedia's list of US copyright case law [0],
you'll notice that specific expansion of copyright was made for things like
photographs, applied art, and computer software.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_copyright_case_law#United_States
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-10 Thread Jukka Rahkonen

Jaak Laineste jaak.laineste at gmail.com writes:

 I don't really see how someone can even have the idea (or argument)
 that map is just a database of facts.
 
  I'd suggest a simple technical test for is X an art or fact.
 1. ask two persons to create the X.
 2. store it to a digital file, and make diff of the files.
 
 Only if you can get no differences then this was a pure fact. I am
 sure that mapping (like e.g. photography) will fail the test, even
 without trying it out.
 
I like this test because it will make things easy. No fuzzy shades of grey like
some Richard is suggesting. Can you give an example of a thing that is done by a
human being and that is not art by this definition?

-Jukka Rahkonen-


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On 10 August 2010 22:09, Jaak Laineste jaak.laine...@gmail.com wrote:
 I'd like this approach too: each country should be able to decide
 license terms. Communities are different, population/contributor
 densities are very different, laws are different. Would it be really
 practical, and how it could be technically doable - no idea, perhaps
 not. But still I'd like it.

From the contributor side of things it would relatively straight
forward, you wouldn't be able to make changes within a country polygon
unless you agree to whatever license/terms via the website.

However then taking that information and trying to create a combined
output file would be very difficult, although I suppose you could
output multiple countries in the same file based on compatible
licenses.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Jaak Laineste jaak.laine...@gmail.com wrote:
 2010/8/10 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com:
 Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes:

Any license that tries to use this patchy copyright protection of data
is bound to be unfair at the very least, and more likely a pain the
behind of anybody who wants to use it. The legality of OSM use cases
would depend on whether you execute a project from your Australian or
American office. We might be divided on some issues but *that* can
surely not be our aim.

 It is for each country to decide on its own copyright and other 'intellectual
 property' laws, and we should not try to export more-strict regulations from
 one country to another.  The CC licences are carefully written to avoid doing
 this.  The ODbL, sadly, seems to take the opposite approach.

 I'd like this approach too: each country should be able to decide
 license terms. Communities are different, population/contributor
 densities are very different, laws are different. Would it be really
 practical, and how it could be technically doable - no idea, perhaps
 not. But still I'd like it.

Seriously?  What a mess.

Frederick obviously is advocating for public domain here (or, more
specifically, a public domain-like license), since the only way to
offer consistent restrictions is to have no restrictions.

ODbL actually makes things less consistent between countries.  In
addition to the inconsistent treatment of copyright law, it adds
inconsistent treatment of database right law, and inconsistent
treatment of contract law.  It's a step in the wrong direction.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...


Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
 I like this test because it will make things easy. No fuzzy shades of grey 
 like some Richard is suggesting.

I'm not suggesting, I'm reporting. You might like things to be easy but that
isn't the way the law works... or we wouldn't have been having this
discussion for the last five years.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Frederik-declares-war-on-data-imports-tp5385741p5392819.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] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-10 Thread Jukka Rahkonen

Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net writes:

 Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
  I like this test because it will make things easy. No fuzzy shades of grey 
  like some Richard is suggesting.
 
 I'm not suggesting, I'm reporting. You might like things to be easy but that
 isn't the way the law works... or we wouldn't have been having this
 discussion for the last five years.

I am awfully sorry, I did it again. I should have just written that I consider
that the test that Jaak suggests is too simple, and the shades of grey are the
colours I tend to see around me.

-Jukka-


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

Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 72, Issue 43

2010-08-10 Thread David Ellams

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:20 +1000, John Smith
deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 I've only seen it suggested in the past about how crediting every
 single contributor would be pages long, your suggestion is a good
 idea, however I'm left wondering if this would make things open to
 abuse, how many times would something be mass tagged attribution=Buy
 viagra now online! before that was no longer shown to prevent
 vandalism...

I can't take credit for the suggestion, as I think this was Richard F's
idea (I knew I'd seen it somewhere: is this fair attribution? grin).
Maybe, for an online map (such as osm.org), a more prominent link to
OSM's contributors page would be sufficient (again, only maybe - still
not certain a national mapping agency would think so). I think I had a
printed map in my mind. It would be impractical to list all
contributors, but certainly possible to list the most significant for
the area/scale (I mention scale, as I don't think it reasonable to need
to attribute, say, Ordnance Survey if you are rendering only a World Map
with no significant detail from OS).

David

PS Apologies for the crappy subject line - it was an accident.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 72, Issue 43

On 10 August 2010 22:52, David Ellams osmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm wrote:
 I can't take credit for the suggestion, as I think this was Richard F's
 idea (I knew I'd seen it somewhere: is this fair attribution? grin).
 Maybe, for an online map (such as osm.org), a more prominent link to
 OSM's contributors page would be sufficient (again, only maybe - still
 not certain a national mapping agency would think so). I think I had a
 printed map in my mind. It would be impractical to list all
 contributors, but certainly possible to list the most significant for
 the area/scale (I mention scale, as I don't think it reasonable to need
 to attribute, say, Ordnance Survey if you are rendering only a World Map
 with no significant detail from OS).

No idea about printed maps, but several sites recently only linked to
an attribute page on their site, rather than displaying it on top of
the map, so maybe having a small lookup table of major contributors
that can be linked to would be suitable?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 72, Issue 43

2010-08-10 Thread Stefan de Konink


On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, David Ellams wrote:


I can't take credit for the suggestion, as I think this was Richard F's
idea (I knew I'd seen it somewhere: is this fair attribution? grin).
Maybe, for an online map (such as osm.org), a more prominent link to
OSM's contributors page would be sufficient (again, only maybe - still
not certain a national mapping agency would think so). I think I had a
printed map in my mind. It would be impractical to list all
contributors, but certainly possible to list the most significant for
the area/scale (I mention scale, as I don't think it reasonable to need
to attribute, say, Ordnance Survey if you are rendering only a World Map
with no significant detail from OS).


For online maps we could even render maps with explicit sources. But for 
printed maps; why not a long tail approach?


This map has been aggregated from
the following sources:
60% AND
10% OS
5%  Ldp
~   Others



Stefan

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

[OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward

2010-08-10 Thread Mike Collinson

What ifs, what ifs. The key is clearly to reduce these. So, in summary, we'll 
proceed with a voluntary program of sign-up for the new OpenStreetMap 
Contributor Terms [1].  Those that simply want to get on and accept that we 
won't doing anything daft can sign up.Those that are worried about data 
loss and that the OSMF will make a stupid decision,  can wait and see.  
There'll be no Decline button. There'll be no switching over to the new license 
during this phase.  We'll show how much of the database is potentially covered 
by the ODbL. We've got some help on modelling that, and we'll aim for at least 
a weekly update if not daily. We'll also make all the data available needed to 
calculate that, so if you want to try a different metric or just see what is 
happening in your local area, everything will be transparent.

If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new 
Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike 
license written especially for databases.  If you are a Public Domain license 
supporter, we are divided as a community on which is best and I do urge you to 
give this one a good try.  The Contributor Terms is expressly written to allow 
us to come back in future years and see what is best  without all this fuss 
about procedure.  And if you'd just really like all this hoo-haa to go away and 
get back to mapping, well, please say yes.

Some supporting notes:

() The key thing is that there are about 12,500 contributors who have 
contributed over 98% of the pre-May data.

() I personally really, really want to get a coherent license in place so that 
my mapping efforts are more widely used. I also really, really don't want us as 
a community to shoot ourselves in the head and divide.  I pledge to continue 
working with *both* objectives in mind.

() The License Working Group will not recommend switching over the license if 
data loss is unreasonable. We will issue a formal statement to that effect and 
attempt to define better what unreasonable means. A totally quantitative 
criteria is extremely difficult to define ahead of actually seeing what 
specific problems may arise. But I understand the concern that we are tempted 
to do something wild.

() The License Working Group will ask the OSMF board to issue a similar 
statement.

() We are working to create a process whereby we can model on a regular basis 
how much of the OSM database is covered by ODbL and how much not.  We will make 
all the data needed to do that public so that anyone can analyse using their 
own metrics. Work on this is active and being discussed on the dev mailing 
list. You will need:

- An ordinary planet dump.
- Access to history data. A public 18GB history dump is available 
http://planet.openstreetmap.org/full-experimental/full-planet-100801.osm.bz2.  
The intent is to make this available available on a regular basis with difffs. 
A full re-generation takes several days.
- A list of userids of who has and has not accepted the license. Work in 
progress. 

() A final vote on whether to switch or not remains an option. But let us see 
first if data loss really is an issue and what the specific problems might be.

Regards to all,
Mike
License Working Group 

[1] The new Contributor Terms:

http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary  - Summary

http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms - Full text and 
links to translations


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

Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 72, Issue 43


John Smith wrote:
 No idea about printed maps, but several sites recently only linked 
 to an attribute page on their site, rather than displaying it on top 
 of the map, so maybe having a small lookup table of major 
 contributors that can be linked to would be suitable?

We do. :) www.openstreetmap.org/copyright

This also gives the advice, consistent with our current licence and with
ODbL, that where data from a national mapping agency or other major source
has been included in OpenStreetMap, it may be reasonable to credit them by
directly reproducing their credit or by linking to it on this page.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-talk-Digest-Vol-72-Issue-43-tp5392127p5392937.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] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:

 Anthony wrote:
 What about a tracing of a photograph of a flower? [...]
 What about a tracing of a photograph of a lake, as viewed from
 an aircraft?

 Bauman v Fussell may be relevant here.

Not particularly.  The question there was not about whether or not the
painting was copyrightable, but whether or not the painting was an
infringement on the photo.

The question I'm asking (which you chopped out of the quote) is
whether or not the tracing is copyrightable.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted - spare CC-BY-SA account

2010-08-10 Thread Peter Körner


Am 10.08.2010 13:38, schrieb Ed Avis:

Frederik Rammfrederikat  remote.org  writes:


Because for us, your plannet import along with your steadfast refusal of the new
license, only causes more work and more problems.


That is true.  But then for those who would prefer to continue with CC-BY-SA,
Didn't you read? There is no way in continuing with CC-BY-SA as CC-BY-SA 
can't be used for databases. It is just not possible, damn!


Let the guys from the LWG do what the need to. If you can't accept that, 
go away.


Peter

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

 I like this test because it will make things easy. No fuzzy shades of grey 
 like
 some Richard is suggesting. Can you give an example of a thing that is done 
 by a
 human being and that is not art by this definition?

 Humans create many non-art things. For example databases it
human-created items. Database of phone numbers of a telco operator,
financial accounting database, state registry of roads. If two persons
are creating the same database, then only reason why there can be
differences is that there there is clear mistake  in one of them,
without any doubt.

-- 
Jaak

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted - spare CC-BY-SA account

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
 [...] CC-BY-SA can't be used for databases.

That's certainly trivially incorrect.

The database that holds Wikipedia is a database, for instance.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward

On 10 August 2010 23:04, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
 If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new 
 Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike 
 license written especially for databases.

I support BY-SA (and probably ODBL) but I don't support the
contributor terms, can I agree to the ODBL without agreeing to the new
CTs?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted - spare CC-BY-SA account

2010-08-10 Thread Stefan de Konink


On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Peter K?rner wrote:

Didn't you read? There is no way in continuing with CC-BY-SA as CC-BY-SA 
can't be used for databases. It is just not possible, damn!


Anyone tested this is any court? Which CC-BY-SA project was 'killed' 
because of this?


Let the guys from the LWG do what the need to. If you can't accept that, go 
away.


Why is this again a statement of making OSM more restrictive, while the 
hole transition was invented to be less restrictive on the OSM data ;) 
Paradox?



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

Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 72, Issue 43

On 10 August 2010 23:05, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 This also gives the advice, consistent with our current licence and with
 ODbL, that where data from a national mapping agency or other major source
 has been included in OpenStreetMap, it may be reasonable to credit them by
 directly reproducing their credit or by linking to it on this page.

I should have spelt out my thoughts a little more clearly, I was
suggesting a lookup table that could be used for the attribution, not
just by OSM(F), but by others as well, that could be linked to, eg a
wiki page, or shown as overlaid text on map tiles...

The reason for this would be to still attribute major contributors
properly, without risking the database being corrupted by spammers.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted - spare CC-BY-SA account

On 10 August 2010 23:32, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote:
 Why is this again a statement of making OSM more restrictive, while the hole
 transition was invented to be less restrictive on the OSM data ;) Paradox?

The transition is from more free for contributors to less free for
contributors so end users can go from less free to more free, it's
inherently wrong to state this will make things more free, it will
only be more free for end users of the data.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted - spare CC-BY-SA account

2010-08-10 Thread Elena of Valhalla

On 8/10/10, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de
 wrote:
 [...] CC-BY-SA can't be used for databases.

 That's certainly trivially incorrect.

 The database that holds Wikipedia is a database, for instance.

And it's not under CC-BY-SA per se, it's a collection of creative
works (the articles) that are under CC-BY-SA

-- 
Elena ``of Valhalla''

homepage: http://www.trueelena.org
email: elena.valha...@gmail.com

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:24 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 10 August 2010 23:04, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
 If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new 
 Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike 
 license written especially for databases.

 I support BY-SA (and probably ODBL) but I don't support the
 contributor terms, can I agree to the ODBL without agreeing to the new
 CTs?


From reading that e-mail the answer is no, at at this time.

I suggest you fit into the wait and see category above.

Thanks,

Dave

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

 The question I'm asking (which you chopped out of the quote) is
 whether or not the tracing is copyrightable.

Automatic tracing is not copyrightable by the tracer, according to the
test. What was copyrightable is the aerial image, and automatic
tracing is just a way of making a specific copy of that (just like you
use BW copymachine to copy colored image, different result, but still
just a copy). Generally you must have permission to copy from the
holder of the original. If different people use same tracing
soft+config+source, they'll get exactly the same result. Manual
tracing is different: it will become combined art, as you partly just
create copy and partly create art yourself. I guess that to
publish/sell combined art you have to have agreement (and revenue
sharing) with the original also.

In common sense it seems quite clear, simple and logical to me. Why
different countries have different copyright principles, and it
depends on type of creation (software, maps, photos, art etc) is
another question. Especially in some countries I'm afraid it just
reflects which interest group happened to have more power and
therefore better attorneys/lobbyists. Unfortunately they still have,
so their truth is stronger than my philosophical points of view.

 OSM is just a huge collective artistic work. Probably the largest one
in the world, in terms of number of artists. Who owns it? It is matter
of agreement between artists, and as far as I know then general
consensus/agreement seems to be that it is OSMF and the license for
the work will be ODbL (unless someone proves that the votes you all
know have been flawed). Of course, artists tend to be crazy people
(luckily usually in good sense) and with collective work you'll always
find some of them who think that their 0.001% part of the work is so
important that they'll always find reason to try to tear whole picture
to the pieces. But it would be ashame if they'll succeed.

-- 
Jaak

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted - spare CC-BY-SA account

2010-08-10 Thread Florian Lohoff

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 03:13:02PM +0200, Peter Körner wrote:
 Am 10.08.2010 13:38, schrieb Ed Avis:
 Frederik Rammfrederikat  remote.org  writes:

 Because for us, your plannet import along with your steadfast refusal of 
 the new
 license, only causes more work and more problems.

 That is true.  But then for those who would prefer to continue with CC-BY-SA,
 Didn't you read? There is no way in continuing with CC-BY-SA as CC-BY-SA  
 can't be used for databases. It is just not possible, damn!

In case i dont care and like PD more than CC-BY-SA or even worse the ODbl i 
would
be more than happy to continue with CC-BY-SA and accept it to fail in court,
basically putting the OSM Data into PD ...

All of this is unproven but i'd rather take that risk than to lock us into even
more legal binding documents which are unproven aswell.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Jaak Laineste jaak.laine...@gmail.com wrote:
 I like this test because it will make things easy. No fuzzy shades of grey 
 like
 some Richard is suggesting. Can you give an example of a thing that is done 
 by a
 human being and that is not art by this definition?

  Humans create many non-art things. For example databases it
 human-created items. Database of phone numbers of a telco operator,
 financial accounting database, state registry of roads.

Software, maps, encyclopedias, textbooks...

 If two persons
 are creating the same database, then only reason why there can be
 differences is that there there is clear mistake  in one of them,
 without any doubt.

If two people are creating the same database, then there aren't any
differences, because then they wouldn't be the same database.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted - spare CC-BY-SA account

On 10 August 2010 23:44, Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote:
 In case i dont care and like PD more than CC-BY-SA or even worse the ODbl i 
 would
 be more than happy to continue with CC-BY-SA and accept it to fail in court,
 basically putting the OSM Data into PD ...

I never really got that, pro-PD people are pro-ODBL because copyright
may not be enough to cover the database...

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted - spare CC-BY-SA account

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:49 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 10 August 2010 23:44, Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote:
 In case i dont care and like PD more than CC-BY-SA or even worse the ODbl i 
 would
 be more than happy to continue with CC-BY-SA and accept it to fail in court,
 basically putting the OSM Data into PD ...

 I never really got that, pro-PD people are pro-ODBL because copyright
 may not be enough to cover the database...


... and aren't immoral arseholes who like to trample over other's
intent and damn well know the project is highly unlikely to ever end
up PD so would rather be on a level playing field by having a license
that works for everybody, arseholes or not.

Hope that makes it clearer :-)

Dave

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted - spare CC-BY-SA account

2010-08-10 Thread Emilie Laffray

On 10 August 2010 14:49, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 10 August 2010 23:44, Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote:
  In case i dont care and like PD more than CC-BY-SA or even worse the ODbl
 i would
  be more than happy to continue with CC-BY-SA and accept it to fail in
 court,
  basically putting the OSM Data into PD ...

 I never really got that, pro-PD people are pro-ODBL because copyright
 may not be enough to cover the database...


It could be that those pro-PD people actually cares more about the project
than pushing an ideology. I would like to point out that there are other
major pro-PD who are against ODbL, because of the SA requirements. It is
just that most of the vocal pro-PD on those lists care more about getting
data than none.
Yes, there are compromises towards those people but the license is a SA BY
license ultimately.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted - spare CC-BY-SA account

2010-08-10 Thread Florian Lohoff

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:49:18PM +1000, John Smith wrote:
 On 10 August 2010 23:44, Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote:
  In case i dont care and like PD more than CC-BY-SA or even worse the ODbl i 
  would
  be more than happy to continue with CC-BY-SA and accept it to fail in court,
  basically putting the OSM Data into PD ...
 
 I never really got that, pro-PD people are pro-ODBL because copyright
 may not be enough to cover the database...

I want my data to be as free as possible and i dont buy any of the share-alike
and the Big corp will steal our data position.

And if i had to decide PD or share alike i always would decide it to be PD. This
is even more the case the more complicated it gets to protect the data. 
Protect
against WHAT? There is nothing to protect against - we have the data and 
everybody
should create nice, interesting, useful applications with it. The more rules 
you have
on usage, the more people using the data one drives away. Nobody wants to read 
10 
pages of legal stuff to be shure on can present a slippymap.

If CC-BY-SA is non enforcable as everybody repeats over and over we currently 
have
a PD database which is perfectly fine for me. Make a social contract which says 
It
would be nice if you would attribute to the OSM project and be done.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted - spare CC-BY-SA account

On 10 August 2010 23:54, Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.uk wrote:
 ... and aren't immoral arseholes who like to trample over other's
 intent and damn well know the project is highly unlikely to ever end
 up PD so would rather be on a level playing field by having a license
 that works for everybody, arseholes or not.

If it won't end up PD why the limitation in the CTs?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted - spare CC-BY-SA account

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:49 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 I never really got that, pro-PD people are pro-ODBL because copyright
 may not be enough to cover the database...

Not sure what that means.  I'd prefer OSM to stay CC-BY-SA.  Barring
that, I'd prefer CC0 (or PDDL, or DbCL, or some PD-like license).
ODbL is just not on the list.

If ODbL removed the clause requiring offering a copy of the database
when distributing a produced work, then maybe.  But as it stands,
that's far too onerous on people (like me) who like to play around
with OSM data and don't want to worry about keeping track of the exact
process of how they produced the mashups that result.  (And the fact
that I can't even charge for the download adds insult to injury.  11
gigs of transfer don't come free.  At EC2 pricing that'd be $1.65 -
fine if only one person requests it, not fine if lots of people
request it.)

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward

On 10 August 2010 23:51, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
 Thanks for the support on the ODbL but as Dave says, no, the acceptance is 
 for the Contributor Terms.

As I've said before, I can't legally agree to the CTs due to clause 1
at the very least, I don't have the right to relicense all my
contributions...

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted - spare CC-BY-SA account

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Elena of Valhalla
elena.valha...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 8/10/10, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de
 wrote:
 [...] CC-BY-SA can't be used for databases.

 That's certainly trivially incorrect.

 The database that holds Wikipedia is a database, for instance.

 And it's not under CC-BY-SA per se, it's a collection of creative
 works (the articles) that are under CC-BY-SA

So you're agreeing with the statement that CC-BY-SA can't be used for
databases?  Okay, whatever.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wanted - spare CC-BY-SA account

2010-08-10 Thread Peteris Krisjanis

2010/8/10 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
 On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Elena of Valhalla
 elena.valha...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 8/10/10, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de
 wrote:
 [...] CC-BY-SA can't be used for databases.

 That's certainly trivially incorrect.

 The database that holds Wikipedia is a database, for instance.

 And it's not under CC-BY-SA per se, it's a collection of creative
 works (the articles) that are under CC-BY-SA

 So you're agreeing with the statement that CC-BY-SA can't be used for
 databases?  Okay, whatever.


This is going too many times around.

For summary, there are:
1) People who are imported bunches of data from thirty party sources
and owners those sources where fine with SA and/or Attribution
clauses, or have licensed data under CC-BY-SA and are mostly easily
reachable to relicense data to ODbL. These pople DON'T OPPOSE ODbL,
but they DO OPPOSE CT, as it has nasty wording about further
re-licensing, which can make promises to keep data attributed and
shared alike impossible. As far we know, there are several official
complains made to LWG and we hope this will be fixed.
p.s. I'm and several very loud people in this list in this group :)

2) There are people who oppose OdBL in general, as they are confused
OR don't see problems with CC-BY-SA. Unfortunately, facts plus
copyright law are in grey area, and it is very hard to say easily what
works and what not. But from other side, LWG and OSMF have listened to
complains and have done their homework on ODbL. So while it is leap of
faith, it could be good one. For this group it would probably better
scenario is a fork, as it seems majority of OSM contributors accept
move to ODbL.

Please take into account, that first group is rather big. We are not
looking to ignore that CC-BY-SA is on shaky grounds, we want to use
ODbL, but we want to be sure about future - therefore we are asking to
fix wording of CT so we can be sure OSM in the future will be licensed
using SA (we don't mind limited form of this in ODbL) and SA.

I really hope LWG will soon make decision about re-licensing clauses
in CT so we can move forward.

Cheers, and have a nice day,
Peter.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-10 Thread Robert Kaiser


Anthony schrieb:

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Matt Amoszerebub...@gmail.com  wrote:

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Anthonyo...@inbox.org  wrote:

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Matt Amoszerebub...@gmail.com  wrote:

the ODbL is the only example i know of.


That's certainly a reason to be wary of it.


not really. it's on the cutting edge, but that's because we're trying
to do something that no-one else has done before: an attribution,
share-alike license for factual data.


You don't think one should be wary of the cutting edge?  If no one
else has done it before, there's probably a reason for that.


Yes, the reason is that nobody has ever made an open database of so many 
hand-collected small facts about the real work yet, OSM is a pioneer 
there and therefore needs new solutions that haven't existed before.


As Matt noted, there's a growing legal opinion that our current data is 
in fact in the PD, as the CC-BY-SA can't be legally applied to it. Is 
that the state you want to have in the future?


Robert Kaiser


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward

On 11 August 2010 01:55, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
 It would probably be pretty embarrassing for anybody who made that
 sort of error in judgment or declaration of ignorance, so they might
 be a little prickly about the subject or try to make it seem like
 someone else's fault rather than admitting their error.

Even if you have data compatible with the ODBL/CC-by-SA, it doesn't
mean the CTs are compatible... Who's fault is it exactly if we did
check if the license was ok but wasn't made sufficiently aware of new
CTs?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward

2010-08-10 Thread Brian Quinion

 Given that you can't (legitimately) sign up to the CT if you have used
 data which you are not the copyright owner how will we deal with the
 situation where someone who HAS imported external data signs up to the
 Contributor Terms?

 In some ways it is their own problem, they have warranted that they
 are the legal owner and accepted responsibility for any resulting
 copyright infringement but this seems a trifle unfair since they may
 not have understood the implications and it also still leaves OSMF to
 resolve the future copyright disputes.

 If you have derived data from a source that allows deriving to OSM
 then I'd say you are fine.  This would cover tracing from aerial
 imagery.  If we were dealing with the world of copyright and creative
 works this would be similar to taking a photograph of a bonsai plant
 after being granted permission to take the photograph.

 If you've imported data from a source that allows importation to OSM,
 again I'd say that you are okay.

 If you've imported data from a source based only on license
 compatibility in the last three years you'd have to have been
 uninformed or thoughtless to do it without giving the license upgrade
 some consideration as stated in the import guidelines since January
 2008.

My point was that people can easily get themselves into a situation
where they are legally liable by clicking the accept link and there is
insufficient warning.

IMO it should say in big letters 'If you have imported data for which
you are NOT the copyright owner you CAN NOT accept the Contributor
Terms' otherwise we are encouraging, even recommending that people
breach copyright.

There also needs to be a process for people who have signed the
contributor terms in error to un-sign or some way for them to be
assisted in removing their 'tainted' data so they are no longer in
breach.

--
 Brian

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change - moving forward

On 11 August 2010 02:13, Brian Quinion
openstreet...@brian.quinion.co.uk wrote:
 There also needs to be a process for people who have signed the
 contributor terms in error to un-sign or some way for them to be
 assisted in removing their 'tainted' data so they are no longer in
 breach.

This already came up on the talk-au list, a new contributor was asking
if they should have some/all of their contributions reverted because
they didn't realise tracing from Nearmap would cause them to be in
breach of contract...

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

[OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

2010-08-10 Thread SteveC

OSM is mostly a consensus-based community, or a do-ocracy. It was never a 
benevolent dictatorship, and I have given up (as far as I know, anyway) all 
power I have in OSM. I used to write the code, own the domain names, run the 
mailing list(s), run the servers, evangelize, talk to the press and so on. I've 
successively and successfully given up those rights to very capable 
individuals. However this has led to a power vacuum when it comes to making 
some key decisions because nobody, for example and in a sense, is in charge 
of everything. For the most part I've enjoyed giving up control and seeing the 
project blossom, because it wouldn't have if I hadn't.

However, things break down in a consensus-based community if you don't have a 
way to deal with malcontents.

As background to the topic of this post, there is a nice video on how open 
source projects can survive poisonous people on youtube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE

It's about an hour long so I've provided a summary I made while watching it 
again at the bottom of this post. It's thesis is that you need to understand 
the problem of poisonous people, fortify your project against them, identify 
who they are and ultimately remove them.

The talk above identifies people who are poisonous as those who appear with 
traits (amongst others) of obviousness that they will suck and drain your time, 
use silly nicknames/email addresses, are hostile, make demands and blackmail 
threats, make sweeping claims, refuse to acknowledge reasoned argument, make 
accusations of conspiracy and reopen topics continuously.

One quote from the talk in particular comes to mind: it's a technique that 
poisonous people can use to derail a consensus-based community from actually 
achieving consensus. You have this noisy minority make a lot of noise and 
people look and say 'oh wow there is no agreement on this' and if you look 
carefull the 'no agreement' comes from one person while seven or eight people 
actually agree

With that in mind, take a quick look at the recent discussions on the main 
mailing list link. I won't point to an individual thread or post, it's easy 
enough to figure out:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-August/thread.html

Without discussing the individuals or the topics of the conversations, it is 
clear to me we are infected by poisonous people. This is bad because as the 
talk above specifies in the 'comprehension of the problem' section, such people 
distract, drain, paralyze, slow cause needless infighting and destroy the 
attention and focus of a community.

I know this first hand. Many (if not most or all) of the key people in OSM are 
feeling drained, distracted and upset. Some are talking of hiatus or resign. 
These are the key people who write code, build things, maintain things and run 
our working groups.

There is a tipping point between which our working groups and individuals have 
the time and patience to deal with poisonous people and the work they cherish 
doing, which are the things that make OSM work every day.

The discussions have spilled over now from poisonous people merely making life 
difficult on the mailing list, to paralyzing the project and even 
systematically corrupting the data we serve out using bots. This is not to say 
there are not good points in the discussion, good points being dealt with by 
the License Working Group or others either in meetings or on the mailing lists, 
but these are being buried by poisonous people on the mailing list and 
elsewhere. Personal communication from multiple people, public discussion, 
phone calls and more have been tried without effect.

This destroys consensus-baesd community.

So we are at a point now in OSM, I believe, where a few poisonous people are 
wrecking the time, focus and goodwill of the majority of contributors, creating 
dissent out of nothing and even purposefully breaking our data. And we don't 
have a clear process to deal with all the factors. The Data Working Group is 
one piece of the puzzle, but is not responsible for curtailing the mailing list 
going in infinite circles.

Worse - it's giving the project a bad air to outsiders, both newbies and those 
outside the project. It's stopping people from becoming more involved.

Thus we need some kind of process for calling timeout on people in the project, 
blocking them for a limited time. This could range from electing individual 
mailing list admins with a remit of when to shut down discussions (much like an 
IRC chat admin(s)), to more clear and actioned policies on list etiquette (like 
forcibly keeping legal discussion to the legal list), to an ejection committee 
to me just appointing myself benevolent dictator and blocking people for a 
limited time out cooling off period based on advice from the community (a worst 
case option I'd like to avoid).

Let's be clear - we've tried all the nice things. We've sent nice emails. We've 
sent nice emails

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

2010-08-10 Thread steve brown

On 10 August 2010 17:19, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
 OSM is mostly a consensus-based community, or a do-ocracy. It was never a 
 benevolent dictatorship, and I have given up (as far as I know, anyway) all 
 power I have in OSM. I used to write the code, own the domain names, run the 
 mailing list(s), run the servers, evangelize, talk to the press and so on. 
 I've successively and successfully given up those rights to very capable 
 individuals. However this has led to a power vacuum when it comes to making 
 some key decisions because nobody, for example and in a sense, is in charge 
 of everything. For the most part I've enjoyed giving up control and seeing 
 the project blossom, because it wouldn't have if I hadn't.

 However, things break down in a consensus-based community if you don't have a 
 way to deal with malcontents.

 As background to the topic of this post, there is a nice video on how open 
 source projects can survive poisonous people on youtube here:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE

 It's about an hour long so I've provided a summary I made while watching it 
 again at the bottom of this post. It's thesis is that you need to understand 
 the problem of poisonous people, fortify your project against them, identify 
 who they are and ultimately remove them.

 The talk above identifies people who are poisonous as those who appear with 
 traits (amongst others) of obviousness that they will suck and drain your 
 time, use silly nicknames/email addresses, are hostile, make demands and 
 blackmail threats, make sweeping claims, refuse to acknowledge reasoned 
 argument, make accusations of conspiracy and reopen topics continuously.

 One quote from the talk in particular comes to mind: it's a technique that 
 poisonous people can use to derail a consensus-based community from actually 
 achieving consensus. You have this noisy minority make a lot of noise and 
 people look and say 'oh wow there is no agreement on this' and if you look 
 carefull the 'no agreement' comes from one person while seven or eight people 
 actually agree

 With that in mind, take a quick look at the recent discussions on the main 
 mailing list link. I won't point to an individual thread or post, it's easy 
 enough to figure out:

        http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-August/thread.html

 Without discussing the individuals or the topics of the conversations, it is 
 clear to me we are infected by poisonous people. This is bad because as the 
 talk above specifies in the 'comprehension of the problem' section, such 
 people distract, drain, paralyze, slow cause needless infighting and destroy 
 the attention and focus of a community.

 I know this first hand. Many (if not most or all) of the key people in OSM 
 are feeling drained, distracted and upset. Some are talking of hiatus or 
 resign. These are the key people who write code, build things, maintain 
 things and run our working groups.

 There is a tipping point between which our working groups and individuals 
 have the time and patience to deal with poisonous people and the work they 
 cherish doing, which are the things that make OSM work every day.

 The discussions have spilled over now from poisonous people merely making 
 life difficult on the mailing list, to paralyzing the project and even 
 systematically corrupting the data we serve out using bots. This is not to 
 say there are not good points in the discussion, good points being dealt with 
 by the License Working Group or others either in meetings or on the mailing 
 lists, but these are being buried by poisonous people on the mailing list and 
 elsewhere. Personal communication from multiple people, public discussion, 
 phone calls and more have been tried without effect.

 This destroys consensus-baesd community.

 So we are at a point now in OSM, I believe, where a few poisonous people are 
 wrecking the time, focus and goodwill of the majority of contributors, 
 creating dissent out of nothing and even purposefully breaking our data. And 
 we don't have a clear process to deal with all the factors. The Data Working 
 Group is one piece of the puzzle, but is not responsible for curtailing the 
 mailing list going in infinite circles.

 Worse - it's giving the project a bad air to outsiders, both newbies and 
 those outside the project. It's stopping people from becoming more involved.

 Thus we need some kind of process for calling timeout on people in the 
 project, blocking them for a limited time. This could range from electing 
 individual mailing list admins with a remit of when to shut down discussions 
 (much like an IRC chat admin(s)), to more clear and actioned policies on list 
 etiquette (like forcibly keeping legal discussion to the legal list), to an 
 ejection committee to me just appointing myself benevolent dictator and 
 blocking people for a limited time out cooling off period based on advice 
 from the community (a worst case

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

2010-08-10 Thread Richard Weait

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:36 PM, steve brown st...@evolvedlight.co.uk wrote:
[ ... ]
 I fully support what you have said. From the ubuntu community, their
 code of conduct works well http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct as
 it provides guidelines that can be adhered to, or conversely used to
 put those who damage the community on a timeout.

 It's worked well on a few occasions, and I think an OpenStreetMap
 version of the code of conduct that has to be signed up to would be
 beneficial.

Thank you Steve (s),

Steve Brown, The Ubuntu code of conduct refers, in footnote 2 to two
additional bodies.  Can you summarize the details and involvement of
Technical Review Board and the Community Council in code of conduct
issues in the Ubuntu Community?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

2010-08-10 Thread Serge Wroclawski

I suggested a Code of Conduct, and have been working with OSM US for
us to adopt one. We've written a draft and were waiting for the annual
meeting and the next board to take it up

I'd like to see the OSMF adopt something similar.

A moderation policy without a code of conduct is too potentially
fraught with danger.

- Serge

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...