[OSM-talk] Bangalore mapping Party
Hey guys .. I am almost done packing my GPS device off to bangalore . http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Inpycon_2010_Bangalore OSM Mapping party is happening right in the Python Conference at MS Ramaiah Inst of Technology , Bangalore , India . We also have a talk on OSM and Python http://in.pycon.org/2010/talks/27-openstreetmap.org-and-python Regards, Pavithran -- pavithran sakamuri http://look-pavi.blogspot.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset ignoring API limits?
Isn't the limit per upload not per changeset? On 9/24/10, MP wrote: > I looked at changeset > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5853571 and I noticed > the page says "Has the following 79290 nodes: ... Has the following > 15862 ways:" > > Isn't there supposed to be a limit of 5 elements per changeset > (this one contains about 95000 elements)? > > I looked at http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/capabilities and I see there > line: > > ... so the limits weren't changed > > Does anybody know how it is possible for that changeset to bypass > these API limits? Or is it some bug in the element-counting code? > > Martin > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- Sent from my mobile device ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Hurricane hits MapQuest
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Hurricane wrote: > Howdy! [ ... ] > [A full press release (where I got this info) is here. http://company.mapquest.com/2010/9/23/mapquest-continues-to-open-up/ Wait, wait, wait a second Hurricane. You seem to have promoted everything in the press release except one item. You've been hired at MapQuest. Congratulations! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset ignoring API limits?
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:43 PM, MP wrote: > I looked at changeset > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5853571 and I noticed > the page says "Has the following 79290 nodes: ... Has the following > 15862 ways:" > > Isn't there supposed to be a limit of 5 elements per changeset > (this one contains about 95000 elements)? > > I looked at http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/capabilities and I see there > line: > > ... so the limits weren't changed > > Does anybody know how it is possible for that changeset to bypass > these API limits? Or is it some bug in the element-counting code? There are definitely race conditions in the API which allow more than 50,000 elements per changeset in certain instances. I've never seen 95,000 though. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset ignoring API limits?
Hi, On 23 September 2010 22:43, MP wrote: > I looked at changeset > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5853571 and I noticed > the page says "Has the following 79290 nodes: ... Has the following > 15862 ways:" > > Isn't there supposed to be a limit of 5 elements per changeset > (this one contains about 95000 elements)? Honestly I don't know (yes, there's supposed to be a limit), but here's another one that made me wonder: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5007703 Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Changeset ignoring API limits?
I looked at changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5853571 and I noticed the page says "Has the following 79290 nodes: ... Has the following 15862 ways:" Isn't there supposed to be a limit of 5 elements per changeset (this one contains about 95000 elements)? I looked at http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/capabilities and I see there line: ... so the limits weren't changed Does anybody know how it is possible for that changeset to bypass these API limits? Or is it some bug in the element-counting code? Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Measuring the OpenStreetMap Economy
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 15:05, SteveC wrote: > When I see announcements flying around like MapQuests $1M commitment > to OSM, or CloudMades $12M VC round it begs the question of how big > is the OSM economy? This is somewhat orthogonal to your question, but I think a much interesting question to ask is what's the overall economic impact of OpenStreetMap? The money that companies like MapQuests and CloudMade are making is always going to by a tiny fraction of what OpenStreetMap is saving people who would otherwise not have gotten their job done. The social and economic impact that Wikipedia had was to turn situations where you'd previously have had to ask an expert, buy Britannica, or go to the library. Similarly, how much of the existing market is being displaced by OpenStreetMap, and how much is being created? I bet it's a whole lot more than $20 million. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Anthony wrote: >> I guess clause 2 is redundant. It would be sufficient to simply say >> "contributors agree to license their contributions under the DbCL". > > Except that Clause 3 contains " or another free and open license." How is that relevant? I think you missed the point. DbCL says this: "The Licensor grants to You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable copyright license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. These rights include, without limitation, the right to sublicense the work." Clause 2 says: "Subject to Section 3 below, You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. These rights include, without limitation, the right to sublicense the work through multiple tiers of sublicensees. To the extent allowable under applicable local laws and copyright conventions, You also waive and/or agree not to assert against OSMF or its licensees any moral rights that You may have in the Contents." --- Taking it piece by piece: "Subject to Section 3 below" - so Clause 2 only grants a subset of DbCL; "irrevocable copyright license" -> "irrevocable license" - probably not significant since copyright is mentioned 9 words later; "through multiple tiers of sublicensees." - provides a minor bit of clarification, but legally redundant; "To the extent allowable under applicable local laws and copyright conventions, You also waive and/or agree not to assert against OSMF or its licensees any moral rights that You may have in the Contents." OK, maybe that has some non-redundant effect in some jurisdictions. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Measuring the OpenStreetMap Economy
On Sep 23, 2010, at 9:43 AM, Nic Roets wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:05 PM, SteveC wrote: >> Once you have the criteria of what goes in to the measuring pot of the "OSM >> economy" you further have large error bars on the data for each thing. For >> example, are those freelancers going to tell you what kind of money they're >> making? > > It's almost pointless to count actual revenue. The reason why no one > started a new competitor to NA / TA in the mid-noughties, was that the > intense competition would reduce revenue making it unprofitable. (Ok > Google started to compete with NA / TA, but they cleverly combined it > with other things like streetview). I disagree. The lack of competition is the sunk capital in creating the map. There's lots of room for a third player, and some people tried. But the cost of mapping the whole US or Europe is large, and the risks high. > > Most open source / open content projects are a bit like a security > guard or an external auditor. If all goes well, it will appear to > casual observers that their only function is to consume oxygen. But > take them away and you get chaos. > > A better exercise would be to take the page rank of osm.org and > compare it with the market cap of a website with the same page rank. Now that's a neat idea. Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Measuring the OpenStreetMap Economy
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:05 PM, SteveC wrote: > Once you have the criteria of what goes in to the measuring pot of the "OSM > economy" you further have large error bars on the data for each thing. For > example, are those freelancers going to tell you what kind of money they're > making? It's almost pointless to count actual revenue. The reason why no one started a new competitor to NA / TA in the mid-noughties, was that the intense competition would reduce revenue making it unprofitable. (Ok Google started to compete with NA / TA, but they cleverly combined it with other things like streetview). Most open source / open content projects are a bit like a security guard or an external auditor. If all goes well, it will appear to casual observers that their only function is to consume oxygen. But take them away and you get chaos. A better exercise would be to take the page rank of osm.org and compare it with the market cap of a website with the same page rank. Or compare the number of tags in our database with the number of tags in the NA / TA databases and their values on the balance sheets of their parents. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Measuring the OpenStreetMap Economy
When I see announcements flying around like MapQuests $1M commitment to OSM, or CloudMades $12M VC round it begs the question of how big is the OSM economy? Purely as an academic exercise it's interesting to think of OSM as an ecosystem around which people find work and provide goods and services. But also perhaps it would be a nice exponential graph to show as a slide along with user growth. We have some limit cases. In 2004 when founded, the economy was approximately zero. Or was it? Do we measure volunteer hours? How about the power and bandwidth the servers are burning? Or is that negligible compared to the other large numbers thrown around? Today I would estimate we have about 5 people freelancing on OSM work worldwide. Perhaps 50 that do OSM work as part of their job, say writing a plugin or using the data. Full-time employees working explicitly on OSM? Perhaps 50 again. These are all guesses with some rough education behind them. These numbers would probably follow the kind of growth curves that various projects around linux did, rather than wikipedia I'm guessing. Because wikipedia was much more about the destruction of value around britannica and others, and the secondary service and otherwise market around wikipedia is pretty small (I think?). Unless you count MediaWiki itself. Once you have the criteria of what goes in to the measuring pot of the "OSM economy" you further have large error bars on the data for each thing. For example, are those freelancers going to tell you what kind of money they're making? Still, an interesting thought exercise. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Anthony wrote: > My question is why do the contributors have to allow OSMF to license > their contributions under BY-SA and ODbL (and DbCL, don't forget about > DbCL). Why can't the contributors do that themselves? And actually, BY-SA *contains* permission to license derivatives under BY-SA. ODbL *contains* permission to license derivatives under ODbL. DbCL *contains*...well it contains clause 2! I guess clause 2 is redundant. It would be sufficient to simply say "contributors agree to license their contributions under the DbCL". ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 09/23/2010 01:52 PM, Anthony wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:12 AM, Rob Myers wrote: >>> >>> On 09/20/2010 05:14 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: I'm asking about Clause 2: specifically, why does OSMF need special rights over contributors' data? >>> >>> OSM(F) needs to be able to place contributions under BY-SA now and later >>> under the ODbL. >> >> Why do they need to do this? > > So that the data(base) can be switched to ODbL. > >> Specifically, why can't the contributors >> do this themselves? > > They are agreeing to the change. Your explanation makes no sense. My question is why do the contributors have to allow OSMF to license their contributions under BY-SA and ODbL (and DbCL, don't forget about DbCL). Why can't the contributors do that themselves? Yes, the contributors (at least, some of them) are agreeing to the change. But why is the change need to be implemented the way it is being implemented). >>> OSM(F) may also need to relicence the data again in future, as Clause 3 >>> indicates. Clause 2 makes this possible. >> >> I understand that explanation. But not the other one. > > From the point of view of two or five years ago, this is the future. Clause 3 allows OSMF to relicense the data in the future without getting permission in the future. To the extent "this is the future", that doesn't apply, because you are trying to get permission *now* for relicensing *now*. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] MapQuest Continues to Open Up!
Howdy! I wanted to let your radars pick up some interesting news from MapQuest: As of early this morning (it's 6am in Denver ;)), MapQuest announced the beta launch of four new European mapping sites built on OpenStreetMap data! I've got to say, it's super cool to see it's powered by Nominatim and features like draggable routes! And-- you can send your maps to Facebook, your GPS and email. Woohoo! You can check out the sites at http://open.mapquest.fr http://open.mapquest.de http://open.mapquest.it and http://open.mapquest.es These sites are in addition to http://open.mapquest.co.uk which was launched earlier in the summer. [A full press release (where I got this info) is here. And the dev blog gives more information on the above mentioned features! Cheers, Hurricane___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Think before you bot
This is just a general plea to those using bots. Please use your immense powers with extreme caution. There seems to me to have been an increase in bot edits lately, and some of them are becoming very bold. I've seen "shop=pet_supplies" changed to "shop=pet" and some similar examples of late, that seem to me to be a bit too bold (though I've not requested most of them be reverted, because I don't feel bold enough to categorically state they are wrong). I've just seen an edit changing all amenity=retirement_home to amenity=nursing_home. There is a difference (nursing is always available in a nursing home - it's even documented on the wiki!). The author of the bot was very quick to respond and is about to revert, when I contacted him, so all credit to him. But I would like to urge all bot-inclined folk to stop and think _before_ you bot. Before you make bold assumptions about what mappers meant by using an unusual tag, try checking with some of them first. (Even if you believe it is wrong to use tags without putting them in the wiki, you will be creating incorrect data if you change them to "approved" tags with different meanings!) In other words, follow: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits/Code_of_Conduct Thanks David -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Think-before-you-bot-tp5562977p5562977.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-legal-talk] Can someone summarise arguments for/against clause 2 of CTs?
On 09/23/2010 01:52 PM, Anthony wrote: On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:12 AM, Rob Myers wrote: On 09/20/2010 05:14 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: I'm asking about Clause 2: specifically, why does OSMF need special rights over contributors' data? OSM(F) needs to be able to place contributions under BY-SA now and later under the ODbL. Why do they need to do this? So that the data(base) can be switched to ODbL. Specifically, why can't the contributors do this themselves? They are agreeing to the change. OSM(F) may also need to relicence the data again in future, as Clause 3 indicates. Clause 2 makes this possible. I understand that explanation. But not the other one. From the point of view of two or five years ago, this is the future. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] Potlatch Error Message
Hi I've increasingly been getting this error in Potlatch: Since you started editing, someone else has changed way 1234567. From previous times, I'm pretty sure that hasn't happened, so I'm guessing it's getting confused with my edits. Is there anyway to prevent this from happening? The Overwrite option doesn't seem to work & the Download theirs options just seems to erase much of my previous edit. Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
