Re: [OSM-talk] routing across open spaces

[Anthony]

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:11 PM, David Murn  wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 18:21 -0500, Anthony wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:42 PM, David Murn  wrote:
>> > However, please understand that
>> > most of us use routing software, expecting it not to try and take
>> > shortcuts across unmapped areas.
>>
>> Who said anything about taking shortcuts across *unmapped* areas?  How
>> in the world would that work?
>
> I was using 'unmapped area', to mean an area marked as (for example)
> park, with no other features (ie, pond, trees, paths, barriers, roads)
> mapped.

A more accurate term for them would be "mapped areas".

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Osmosis exception

[Stephan Knauss]

Hi,

On 06.12.2010 19:58, Carsten Nielsen wrote:

Same situation with osmosis 0.38, only node no ways


on talk-de had been similar reports. Frederik mentioned he will replace 
the version on the server.



Stephan

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

Re: [OSM-talk] routing across open spaces

[David Murn]

On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 18:21 -0500, Anthony wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:42 PM, David Murn  wrote:
> > However, please understand that
> > most of us use routing software, expecting it not to try and take
> > shortcuts across unmapped areas.
> 
> Who said anything about taking shortcuts across *unmapped* areas?  How
> in the world would that work?

I was using 'unmapped area', to mean an area marked as (for example)
park, with no other features (ie, pond, trees, paths, barriers, roads)
mapped.

David


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 23:46:21 +0100
andrzej zaborowski  wrote:

> On 6 December 2010 23:23, Elizabeth Dodd  wrote:
> >> >> If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now.
> >> >
> >> > What about at changeover though?  Im pretty sure Steve asked this
> >> > question in relation to data in the future, not the present.
> >>
> >> It's incompatible even at present.
> >
> > could you please explain this reasoning?
> 
> The assumption (from Nearmap's terms of use) is that the results of
> tracing the imagery become CC-By-SA.  CC-By-SA is incompatible with
> the license you grant to the OSMF when you accept the new CT, I
> thought that was a generally accepted interpretation?  I mean
> regardless of what OSMF does with the data now or in the future.
> 
> Again this belongs on the other list but the misleading statement was
> made here.
> 
> Cheers

I disagree that the statement is misleading.
SteveB is a long standing contributor. He has used Yahoo! and NearMap
and also ground survey.
His contributions precede the arrival of the page which invited persons
to change to the new CTs.
That may not have been stated clearly in the subsequent mails, but was
noted in SteveB's original mail.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] routing across open spaces

[Anthony]

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Dave F.  wrote:
>> On 05/12/2010 22:07, Anthony wrote:
>>>  - which, if all they
>>> know about is the perimeter, is probably a good thing.
>>
>> Eh? I thought you said you'd "love it" if it cut directly across an area??
>
> No, I didn't.

Not in that context, anyway.

If all a router knows about is the perimeter, it shouldn't be cutting
through an area.  If it understands areas, and the area is tagged as
routable (implicitly or explicitly), then yeah, it should.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?

[Anthony]

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> PR is more important than legal. As most people on this list know, with
> CC-BY-SA being next to invalid for Geodata in the US, any of the big US
> players could long have taken our data an run. Why haven't they?

Because they also distribute the data outside the US?  Because "next
to invalid" isn't the same as invalid?  Because if a license is
invalid, then everything falls back to "all rights reserved"?  Because
they'd have to simultaneously take the position that their data is
protected but ours isn't?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Explicit tagging of name language

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 10:00:57AM +, Ed Avis wrote:
> 
> In an attempt to fix this I have asked the maintainer of
>  to add a data check.  Where a choice of languages
> exists for a name, then there should be one that corresponds to the main
> 'name' tag.  In other words for the example above there was name=Scotland but
> not any name:XX=Scotland.  One should be added indicating the language of this
> name, so that user interfaces can choose among the name:XX.  Of course if an
> object has just a single name tag to be used for all languages, that's fine.

This will atleast give bogus warnings with places like Brussels that
are bilingual, where name actually contains the name in both languages
(Dutch and French), and also has the language specific name for both
languages.


Kurt


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Working for Mapquest as of today

[Randy Meech]

Welcome! And not a moment too soon!

-Randy
On Dec 6, 2010 5:59 PM, "Emilie Laffray"  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am pleased to announce that I started working at MapQuest today. I want
to
> let the OSM community know how excited I am about this new opportunity. I
> will continue in my capacity as an elected member of the OSMF board, and
as
> Treasurer. I will be the technical product manager for the main site
search
> team.
> I will be sure to update my biography on the foundation web site in the
next
> few days. You know how busy it is when you start a new job!
>
> Emily Laffray
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Anthony]

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:
> The CT isn't a license, it's a terms of agreement. That means you've
> given OSMF a license to the data, and now you're asking them to revoke
> that license.
>
> This would be (moral if not legal) equivalent of someone offering up a
> program under the GPL and then saying "Nope, I want it proprietary".

Well, more like the moral/legal equivalent of seeing your name on a
list of people who offered up a program under the GPL and then saying
"Huh?  I don't remember ever doing that.  WTF?"

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Working for Mapquest as of today

[Katie Filbert]

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Emilie Laffray wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am pleased to announce that I started working at MapQuest today. I want
> to let the OSM community know how excited I am about this new opportunity. I
> will continue in my capacity as an elected member of the OSMF board, and as
> Treasurer. I will be the technical product manager for the main site search
> team.
> I will be sure to update my biography on the foundation web site in the
> next few days.  You know how busy it is when you start a new job!
>

Yay!!!  Congratulations!

-Katie



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


-- 
Katie Filbert
filbe...@gmail.com
@filbertkm
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] routing across open spaces

[Anthony]

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:42 PM, David Murn  wrote:
> However, please understand that
> most of us use routing software, expecting it not to try and take
> shortcuts across unmapped areas.

Who said anything about taking shortcuts across *unmapped* areas?  How
in the world would that work?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] routing across open spaces

[Anthony]

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Dave F.  wrote:
> On 05/12/2010 22:07, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Dave F.  wrote:
>>>
>>> As long as there are external ways connecting  to the area, a router
>>> should
>>> be able to find the appropriate entrances&  exits by tracking the
>>> perimeter.
>>> I thought they were already able to do that, but maybe not.
>>
>> Surely they can - just treat it like any other way.
>
>
>
>>   However, they
>> don't treat leisure=park as a routable feature
>
> All routers? All areas?

My understanding is that routers just ignore the area tags completely.
 So as far as the router knows, so a closed way marked with
highway=residential/area=yes is treated exactly the same as any other
way marked highway=residential.  In other words, it routes along the
perimeter, and not through the area itself

So allowing routing around the perimeter of an area marked
leisure=park would simply require treating leisure=park the same as,
say highway=pedestrian.

Not that I think this is a good idea.  It probably isn't.  But it's
certainly possible.

>>  - which, if all they
>> know about is the perimeter, is probably a good thing.
>
> Eh? I thought you said you'd "love it" if it cut directly across an area??

No, I didn't.

> They don't have to *follow* the perimeter just use it to find the best exit
> & then join it to the entrance to the area with a straight line.
>
> Are you certain no routers can do that?

Of course not.  I'm not even certain I know of all routers that exist.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Working for Mapquest as of today

[Mike Dupont]

Congrats! good luck!
mike

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Emilie Laffray
 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am pleased to announce that I started working at MapQuest today. I want to
> let the OSM community know how excited I am about this new opportunity. I
> will continue in my capacity as an elected member of the OSMF board, and as
> Treasurer. I will be the technical product manager for the main site search
> team.
> I will be sure to update my biography on the foundation web site in the next
> few days.  You know how busy it is when you start a new job!
>
> Emily Laffray
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>



-- 
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania
flossk.org flossal.org

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Working for Mapquest as of today

[Richard Weait]

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Emilie Laffray  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am pleased to announce that I started working at MapQuest today.

Congratulations, Emilie!

So you'll be working on search for the commercial site, not on the
Open Team.  Looks like MapQuest better look out.  I think
OpenStreetMap is taking them over.  ;-)

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

[OSM-talk] Working for Mapquest as of today

[Emilie Laffray]

Hello,

I am pleased to announce that I started working at MapQuest today. I want to
let the OSM community know how excited I am about this new opportunity. I
will continue in my capacity as an elected member of the OSMF board, and as
Treasurer. I will be the technical product manager for the main site search
team.
I will be sure to update my biography on the foundation web site in the next
few days.  You know how busy it is when you start a new job!

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

Re: [OSM-talk] routing across open spaces

[David Murn]

On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 21:57 +, Dave F. wrote:
> On 06/12/2010 21:42, David Murn wrote:

> > Okay, so are we going around the perimeter of the polygon or are we
> > taking a straight line cutting directly across an area?
> 
> I think you've deliberately not taken on board many of the points made 
> in this thread purely to be an argumentative PITA, so you're on your own.

I simply asked which of the two options you were proposing we should
use, and why you think the problems that have already been discussed and
agreed upon dont apply in your instance.  Other than because youre going
to write a perfect router that does magical

Ive taken a lot of the points onboard, infact, if you bother to read
back through the thread, youll find that I address almost every single
point individually.  A look back through the thread shows 37 emails, and
you joined the thread at number 31.  You'll also find that not only did
I take onboard the points, but we even worked out solutions to make
routers be able to route properly through these areas.  Im guessing
since you posted to the thread a week after it happened, that you must
have missed bits of it, and are using personal insults to make up for
your inability to read.

You suggested that "If there are obstructions, then they should be
mapped to make OSM more accurate..".  You obviously missed the whole
concept that routing around objects is easy when you know whats there,
the problem is, what do you do when its not mapped?  What if someone
only maps the area from aerial imagery and doesnt tag anything else?
What assumptions do you make, that the area is traversable?


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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 6 December 2010 23:23, Elizabeth Dodd  wrote:
>> >> If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now.
>> >
>> > What about at changeover though?  Im pretty sure Steve asked this
>> > question in relation to data in the future, not the present.
>>
>> It's incompatible even at present.
>
> could you please explain this reasoning?

The assumption (from Nearmap's terms of use) is that the results of
tracing the imagery become CC-By-SA.  CC-By-SA is incompatible with
the license you grant to the OSMF when you accept the new CT, I
thought that was a generally accepted interpretation?  I mean
regardless of what OSMF does with the data now or in the future.

Again this belongs on the other list but the misleading statement was made here.

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Glittermap

[yvecai]

   Just saw a tweet from Ed Parsons that might be relevant to glittermap!

   "Use with care animated pins http://goo.gl/a3Q8g, could be the mapping
   equivalent of "

So fun! Really addictive game, how can we feed them?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 22:45:00 +0100
andrzej zaborowski  wrote:

> >> If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now.  
> >
> > What about at changeover though?  Im pretty sure Steve asked this
> > question in relation to data in the future, not the present.  
> 
> It's incompatible even at present.

could you please explain this reasoning?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] routing across open spaces

[Dave F.]

On 06/12/2010 21:42, David Murn wrote:

On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 21:18 +, Dave F. wrote:

On 06/12/2010 21:06, David Murn wrote:

On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 20:56 +, Dave F. wrote:


- which, if all they
know about is the perimeter, is probably a good thing.

Eh? I thought you said you'd "love it" if it cut directly across an area??

They don't have to *follow* the perimeter just use it to find the best
exit&   then join it to the entrance to the area with a straight line.

And as was said during the thread, what happens if theres a lake, a
building, a playground, etc in the middle of the straight line?

As I said earlier in the thread, use multi-polygons. The router *should*
be able to get around it (see earlier in the thread about the maths
required to get around corners.

Okay, so are we going around the perimeter of the polygon or are we
taking a straight line cutting directly across an area?


I think you've deliberately not taken on board many of the points made 
in this thread purely to be an argumentative PITA, so you're on your own.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 6 December 2010 20:44, David Murn  wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 08:55 -0500, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
>> This should really be taking place on the legal list but nonetheless:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >  So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've "agreed to the
>> > new Contributor Terms". I have no recollection of having done so, and
>> > obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible
>> > with Nearmap.
>>
>> If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now.
>
> What about at changeover though?  Im pretty sure Steve asked this
> question in relation to data in the future, not the present.

It's incompatible even at present.

>
>> You're not "operating in a totally difference licensing mode", the
>> work is licensed under CC-BY-SA until the switchover.
>
> What happens at switchover though?  Does the work that he unwittingly
> contributed (but he now wishes to revoke, having become aware of his
> violation) get switched?
>
> If I was to put a tag into the database, which contained copyright
> information, and I wasnt aware it was copyrighted, should I not have the
> right to ask for the removal of that information?  Does the OSMF need a
> DMCA statement from anyone who has accidently contributed invalid data,
> which they refuse to remove.

I'm afraid the answer is you can delete the data yourself in that
situation.  So you actually have the right for the removal, but the
easiest way to do that is to delete the data yourself, and if for some
reason you don't want to do that or can't, then the Data Working Group
normally takes care of it if they become aware of the problem.

>
> I do agree that it would be good to have some indication on the main
> screen, as to whether you have accepted the licence or not.
>
>
>> The CT isn't a license, it's a terms of agreement. That means you've
>> given OSMF a license to the data, and now you're asking them to revoke
>> that license.
>
> ... because he has subsequently found out that he has no legal right to
> give that data to OSMF, and has infact commited an offence himself.  The
> data that he contributed, that he's asking them to revoke, was invalid
> in the first place.
>
> It does raise one interesting question though (which I believe SHOULD be
> on legal-talk but Ill ask here since it fits with the rest of the
> thread).  If a user becomes aware they have contributed data in this
> situation, and asks OSMF to remove the data or at least to not relicence
> the data, and OSMF doesnt remove or does relicence, does the fact the
> user asked for the data to be removed, remove any liability from the
> user for the violation?  Does this put OSMF in a liable position, by
> refusing to remove data that it knows is in breach of copyright and its
> own terms?

I guess it'd be up to Steve or the DWG to remove it even though the
contributions may be compatible with some future version of the CT,
but currently they're not and there's no way to unset the flag and no
way to register a new account with original contributor terms :(

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-talk] routing across open spaces

[David Murn]

On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 21:18 +, Dave F. wrote:
> On 06/12/2010 21:06, David Murn wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 20:56 +, Dave F. wrote:
> >
> >>>- which, if all they
> >>> know about is the perimeter, is probably a good thing.
> >> Eh? I thought you said you'd "love it" if it cut directly across an area??
> >>
> >> They don't have to *follow* the perimeter just use it to find the best
> >> exit&  then join it to the entrance to the area with a straight line.
> > And as was said during the thread, what happens if theres a lake, a
> > building, a playground, etc in the middle of the straight line?
> 
> As I said earlier in the thread, use multi-polygons. The router *should* 
> be able to get around it (see earlier in the thread about the maths 
> required to get around corners.

Okay, so are we going around the perimeter of the polygon or are we
taking a straight line cutting directly across an area?

> If it can't do this then it's not really fit for purpose & should be 
> avoided.

Its 'not really fit' for your specific purpose, that doesnt mean you
should be telling people to avoid it.  Should we avoid all routers that
dont take into account hgv and maxheight/maxwidth when routing, because
its not fit for purpose of driving a big-rig?

If you really want fuzzy routing in an application, feel free to add it,
thats the whole point of opensource.  However, please understand that
most of us use routing software, expecting it not to try and take
shortcuts across unmapped areas.  The biggest problem is if an area is
mapped, but the objects in that area arent.  If the objects in the park
were marked, including paths, then there would be no need for this
discussion in the first place.  This discussion came up with regards to
routing across a park area that has paths but where no paths are mapped.

> > What about if the 'straight line' crosses outside of the area, say for
> > example if you had an L-shaped area.
> 
> Have you actually read the whole of this thread?

Yes, I did, infact I was one half of the monologue when the thread first
started, so not only did I read the whole thread, I wrote half of it.

Youre the first person to mention a straight line cutting across the
area, since everyone explained the problems with it.

David


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

Re: [OSM-talk] routing across open spaces

[Dave F.]

On 06/12/2010 21:06, David Murn wrote:

On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 20:56 +, Dave F. wrote:


   - which, if all they
know about is the perimeter, is probably a good thing.

Eh? I thought you said you'd "love it" if it cut directly across an area??

They don't have to *follow* the perimeter just use it to find the best
exit&  then join it to the entrance to the area with a straight line.

And as was said during the thread, what happens if theres a lake, a
building, a playground, etc in the middle of the straight line?


As I said earlier in the thread, use multi-polygons. The router *should* 
be able to get around it (see earlier in the thread about the maths 
required to get around corners. Even without it should still be able to 
avoid blockages.


If it can't do this then it's not really fit for purpose & should be 
avoided.



   What
about if the 'straight line' crosses outside of the area, say for
example if you had an L-shaped area.


Have you actually read the whole of this thread?

Dave F.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] routing across open spaces

[David Murn]

On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 20:56 +, Dave F. wrote:

> >   - which, if all they
> > know about is the perimeter, is probably a good thing.
> 
> Eh? I thought you said you'd "love it" if it cut directly across an area??
> 
> They don't have to *follow* the perimeter just use it to find the best 
> exit & then join it to the entrance to the area with a straight line.

And as was said during the thread, what happens if theres a lake, a
building, a playground, etc in the middle of the straight line?  What
about if the 'straight line' crosses outside of the area, say for
example if you had an L-shaped area.

> Are you certain no routers can do that?

I think this is what it boils down to, that some routers may be able to
do it, but I suspect most cant/wont.  As a general rule, routers route
directly from one node to another. along a way and only leave that way
at a junction.  There is no reason you couldnt make a walking router,
which doesnt have the restrictions of having to follow a way, but at the
moment this isnt how most (all?) of them work.

David


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Glittermap

[Toby Murray]

Just saw a tweet from Ed Parsons that might be relevant to glittermap!

"Use with care animated pins http://goo.gl/a3Q8g, could be the mapping
equivalent of "

Toby


On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Steven Johnson  wrote:
> Yes, glitter today, dragons & sea monsters tomorrow.
> SEJ
> 
> "A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely
> of jokes." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 10:37:41 -0400
>> From: Donald Campbell II 
>> To: talk@openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] New: A black&white base layer
>>
>>
>> 
>
>
>>
>> Old fashioned piratey maps with dragons in the water...
>>
>> Flippin' SpongeBob maps!!
>>
>> This is really a great way to add more fun to the maps and get more people
>> excited about it especially graphic artist types who want to have a wide
>> range of work in their portfolios.
>>
>> It would also be great for advertisements and theme park type guides.
>>
>> There's of course the isometric map, the 8-bit map styles, etc...
>>
>> Has anyone already made a wacky OSM styles page?  I know there's the
>> featured images but things can get lost in the archive there.
>>
>> -Don.
>>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] routing across open spaces

[Dave F.]

On 05/12/2010 22:07, Anthony wrote:

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Dave F.  wrote:

As long as there are external ways connecting  to the area, a router should
be able to find the appropriate entrances&  exits by tracking the perimeter.
I thought they were already able to do that, but maybe not.

Surely they can - just treat it like any other way.





   However, they
don't treat leisure=park as a routable feature


All routers? All areas?


  - which, if all they
know about is the perimeter, is probably a good thing.


Eh? I thought you said you'd "love it" if it cut directly across an area??

They don't have to *follow* the perimeter just use it to find the best 
exit & then join it to the entrance to the area with a straight line.


Are you certain no routers can do that?

Dave F.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[David Murn]

On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 21:15 +0100, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Am 06.12.2010 17:58, schrieb Serge Wroclawski:
> > The LWG is part of the OSMF, and the OSMF is who runs this project.
> 
> The LWG is part of the OSMF, and the OSMF is part of the ~3 people 
> who runs this project :-)

If the OSMF board abandoned OSM, maybe a dozen people would notice the
difference.  If the contributors abandoned OSM, well, the outcome would
be obvious.  Before this whole licence thing blew up, how many people
even knew about OSMF?  If things were done right, and this issue hadnt
dragged on for 3 years, I suspect many of us possibly wouldnt have even
heard of OSMF, and would have simply continued contributing data.

The only action I can see the foundation has done in recent history, is
to disenfranchise users by dragging legalities out for far too long.
Sure, they might say theyve 'made progress' or 'formed working groups'
or whatever, but Im seeing very little progress and very little work
from the groups.

David


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 09:41:05 -0500
Richard Weait  wrote:

> We're* also expecting to implement a way for you to flag edits that
> shouldn't be promoted to CT/ODbL, so you'll be able to accept CT, and
> flag those changesets that are incompatible individually.  The bad
> ones won't be brought forward but your survey-based,
> direct-observation contributions will continue.  Many other benefits
> to this approach, but that's a discussion for another list.

this was mentioned on talk-au
and the impracticality of marking changesets was noted.
If work has a source tag then this is easy for a particular node or
way, but subject to vandalism by others.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Ulf Lamping]

Am 06.12.2010 17:58, schrieb Serge Wroclawski:

The LWG is part of the OSMF, and the OSMF is who runs this project.


The LWG is part of the OSMF, and the OSMF is part of the ~3 people 
who runs this project :-)


Regards, ULFL

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[David Murn]

On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 08:55 -0500, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> This should really be taking place on the legal list but nonetheless:
> 
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >  So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've "agreed to the
> > new Contributor Terms". I have no recollection of having done so, and
> > obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible
> > with Nearmap.
> 
> If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now.

What about at changeover though?  Im pretty sure Steve asked this
question in relation to data in the future, not the present.

> You're not "operating in a totally difference licensing mode", the
> work is licensed under CC-BY-SA until the switchover.

What happens at switchover though?  Does the work that he unwittingly
contributed (but he now wishes to revoke, having become aware of his
violation) get switched?

If I was to put a tag into the database, which contained copyright
information, and I wasnt aware it was copyrighted, should I not have the
right to ask for the removal of that information?  Does the OSMF need a
DMCA statement from anyone who has accidently contributed invalid data,
which they refuse to remove.

I do agree that it would be good to have some indication on the main
screen, as to whether you have accepted the licence or not.


> The CT isn't a license, it's a terms of agreement. That means you've
> given OSMF a license to the data, and now you're asking them to revoke
> that license.

... because he has subsequently found out that he has no legal right to
give that data to OSMF, and has infact commited an offence himself.  The
data that he contributed, that he's asking them to revoke, was invalid
in the first place.

It does raise one interesting question though (which I believe SHOULD be
on legal-talk but Ill ask here since it fits with the rest of the
thread).  If a user becomes aware they have contributed data in this
situation, and asks OSMF to remove the data or at least to not relicence
the data, and OSMF doesnt remove or does relicence, does the fact the
user asked for the data to be removed, remove any liability from the
user for the violation?  Does this put OSMF in a liable position, by
refusing to remove data that it knows is in breach of copyright and its
own terms?

What would happen if a user was tracing from google instead of nearmap,
and had accepted the CTs, would OSMF also refuse to change the flag, and
simply relicence the google-traced data along with everything else?

> This would be (moral if not legal) equivalent of someone offering up a
> program under the GPL and then saying "Nope, I want it proprietary".

Not quite, this would be like someone distributing a GPL program but
inadvertantly including firmware, and then after realising the firmware
was there, deciding the licence has to be changed, or even saying 'You
can have this program under GPL, but not this part which is
unfortunately copyrighted to someone else'.

> My suggestion to you personally, if you don't like the project's
> terms, then you should stop submitting data to it immediately.

And the 'illegal' data that has already been contributed, what of it?

> > From a pragmatic legal perspective, it seems to me that any
> > nearmap-sourced edits that I made while under the effects of the CT
> > are totally invalid anyway, so should be moved to a non-CT account.
> 
> I don't know anything about Nearmap, buf the data in OSM as of today
> is available under the CC-BY-SA license, and your usage is bound to
> that.

Thats all great for today, but the CTs arent about today, theyre about
the future, when there isnt a CC-BY-SA license.

> I'm not on the OSMF board, but if I were, I'd say that the dangers of
> revoking a license are so high that I'd be extremely hesitant to do
> so.

I guess it depends if the 'danger' is equal to the danger of having a
user inadvertantly contributing large chunks of data which is not
legally licenced to be in OSM.




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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[80n]

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> pec...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> License is fine. It is CT which in fact still allows OSMF to change
>> data license to any other "free license" (which could be strip "share
>> alike" and "attribution" requirements) what blocks usage. In fact,
>> there is NO license which allows such CT to coexist. Only PD, and
>> that's even not working in all countries.
>>
>
> I'm sure that if, at any time in the future, the OSM license needs to be
> changed, it will be into something that works in all countries.
>
> We don't know if it will ever be necessary; we don't know what that license
> might be; we don't even know which countries will be around then and what
> their legal systems will look like. Think long-term! This is not a clause
> aimed at next year.
>
>
>  I know that ODbL team talked about changing description of "free
>> license", but I don't see any official statements about that. I'm
>> afraid that PDists got their way all over again.
>>
>
> ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid. As for the
> distant future - we don't know who will be in OSM then, what their
> preferences will be, and wheter you and I will be alive then. I think it is
> ok to let those who *then* run OSM decide, instead of trying to force onto
> them what we today think is right.
>

I think the problem with this idea is that it opens the door for
carpetbaggers[1].  The purpose of share-alike licenses is to prevent the
freeness of people's contributions from *ever* being hijacked.

I, for one, certainly want to ensure that whoever runs OSM at some
indeterminate point in the future can not pervert the principle on which I
made my contributions.  Anything less is unacceptable and is disrespectful
to those who built OSM in the first place.

80n


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger#United_Kingdom



>
> And legal-talk is that way --->
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Osmosis exception

[Carsten Nielsen]

Same situation with osmosis 0.38, only node no ways

Carsten

Den 05-12-2010 20:50, Carsten Nielsen skrev:
I dont recall where I saw the "--read-bin" option but se it is also mentioned in the 
recent geofabrik blogpost http://blog.geofabrik.de/en/?p=75

and yes I have tried to replace it with the "--read.pbf" and the result is the 
same.

I have not tried with the 0.38 version of osmosis because, geofabrik menthion that it 
the 0.37 version should work, but I will give it a try.


Carsten

Den 05-12-2010 20:37, Stephan Knauss skrev:

On 05.12.2010 17:52, Carsten Nielsen wrote:

call "%OSMTOOLS%\Osmosis\osmosis-0.37\bin\osmosis.bat" --read-bin
"%DATADIR%\europe.osm.pbf" --bounding-polygon file="%DATADIR%\CTN OSM DK
mm.poly.txt" --write-xml file="%DATADIR%\denmark_mm.osm"
Any clues to why I dont get any ways in my OSM file ?


Have you tried the read-pbf task? I did a similar thing and it worked. You could also 
use a more recent version of osmosis.


Stephan

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



Ingen virus fundet i denne indkommende meddelelse.
Kontrolleret af AVG -www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.872 / Virusdatabase: 271.1.1/3298 - Udgivelsesdato: 12/05/10 
08:34:00




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



Ingen virus fundet i denne indkommende meddelelse.
Kontrolleret af AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.872 / Virusdatabase: 271.1.1/3298 - Udgivelsesdato: 12/05/10 
08:34:00

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

pec...@gmail.com wrote:

License is fine. It is CT which in fact still allows OSMF to change
data license to any other "free license" (which could be strip "share
alike" and "attribution" requirements) what blocks usage. In fact,
there is NO license which allows such CT to coexist. Only PD, and
that's even not working in all countries.


I'm sure that if, at any time in the future, the OSM license needs to be 
changed, it will be into something that works in all countries.


We don't know if it will ever be necessary; we don't know what that 
license might be; we don't even know which countries will be around then 
and what their legal systems will look like. Think long-term! This is 
not a clause aimed at next year.



I know that ODbL team talked about changing description of "free
license", but I don't see any official statements about that. I'm
afraid that PDists got their way all over again.


ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid. As for the 
distant future - we don't know who will be in OSM then, what their 
preferences will be, and wheter you and I will be alive then. I think it 
is ok to let those who *then* run OSM decide, instead of trying to force 
onto them what we today think is right.


And legal-talk is that way --->

Bye
Frederik

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Explicit tagging of name language

[john]

There are likely to be cases where two or more of the possible languages use an 
identical name for the same location or entity.  Plus, in addition to any 
official languages for a particular country, you may have additional languages 
spoken by the local people.  For example, the official language of France is 
French, but it has 24 regional languages in the European region of the country, 
and 51 additional regional languages in overseas territories, according to 
.  Trying to decide, on a 
location basis, which language a name=xxx tag belongs to won't be trivial.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Explicit tagging of name language
>From  :mailto:ka...@kairo.at
Date  :Mon Dec 06 09:50:25 America/Chicago 2010


Frederik Ramm schrieb:
> Erik,
>
> On 12/06/10 11:19, Erik Johansson wrote:
>> :-) Well does anyone have code to add name as "local language" in
>> postgis, what are the options? Lets not complicate your remark by
>> enumerating all multilingual areas in the world, where names means
>> power
>
> The question was about Nominatim originally. As far as I am aware,
> Nominatim already makes an effort to find out in which country something
> lies (so it can give the country in the result list) - so it should be
> trivial to employ a country->language code mapping and always assume
> that the given name is in the country's default language, no?

With some countries having up to 11 or so official languages (ever 
looked at South Africa?), I'm not sure that's so trivial.
Or would you able to tell me what language a name in Switzerland is in 
on a pure-logical basis (Switzerland has German, French, Italian, and 
Romansh/Rhaeto-Romanic that are all official languages)? Of course, a 
human can potentially take a good guess based on some knowledge of the 
languages, but machines have a hard time there...

Robert Kaiser





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

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[pec...@gmail.com]

2010/12/6 Serge Wroclawski :
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:42 AM, andrzej zaborowski  wrote:
>> On 6 December 2010 14:55, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
 Hi,
  So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've "agreed to the
 new Contributor Terms". I have no recollection of having done so, and
 obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible
 with Nearmap.
>>>
>>> If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now.
>>
>
>> But the Contributor Terms aren't compatible.  It's not some
>> theoretical issue, they are actually incompatible in that you can't
>> give OSMF the rights listed in CT to something licensed CC-By-SA (yes,
>> this belongs on the legal list but I wanted to correc this)
>
> Right; this is an issue with a few people in OSM who've integrated
> other datasets under a specific license, rather than either getting
> the other organization to make them available under a very permissive
> license, or else making the donation to OSM itself.
>

Serge, which part of "It isn't about license, it is about CT" you
don't understand?

License is fine. It is CT which in fact still allows OSMF to change
data license to any other "free license" (which could be strip "share
alike" and "attribution" requirements) what blocks usage. In fact,
there is NO license which allows such CT to coexist. Only PD, and
that's even not working in all countries.

I know that ODbL team talked about changing description of "free
license", but I don't see any official statements about that. I'm
afraid that PDists got their way all over again.

Cheers,
Peter.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:42 AM, andrzej zaborowski  wrote:
> On 6 December 2010 14:55, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>  So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've "agreed to the
>>> new Contributor Terms". I have no recollection of having done so, and
>>> obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible
>>> with Nearmap.
>>
>> If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now.
>

> But the Contributor Terms aren't compatible.  It's not some
> theoretical issue, they are actually incompatible in that you can't
> give OSMF the rights listed in CT to something licensed CC-By-SA (yes,
> this belongs on the legal list but I wanted to correc this)

Right; this is an issue with a few people in OSM who've integrated
other datasets under a specific license, rather than either getting
the other organization to make them available under a very permissive
license, or else making the donation to OSM itself.

I don't know the specifics of Nearmap but I'm aware of this issue in general.

>>> So:
>>> 1) Could someone please unset this flag for me: (User: stevage)
>>
>> Unsetting the flag has repercussions to the organization which I think
>> you should be aware of.
>>
>> The CT isn't a license, it's a terms of agreement. That means you've
>> given OSMF a license to the data, and now you're asking them to revoke
>> that license.
>>
>> This would be (moral if not legal) equivalent of someone offering up a
>> program under the GPL and then saying "Nope, I want it proprietary".
>
> With regards to what Steve submitted so far, yes, but he should be
> able to decide the terms for his new edits.

I think that this issue is really more cut and dry. Regarding data
he's entered which is licensed by a third party, the third party needs
to make the data available to OSM in a way that works with OSM's
chosen license model, or else the data needs to be removed from OSM.

That doesn't mean Steve needs to be alone; OSM could offer resources
to assist this effort.

> Or let's discuss the terms and come up with something that satisfies
> more people.  There is a very vocal group, including you saying that
> this is now "the project's terms" in ways that try to sound
> authoritative, but 1. these terms are still in flux which you know
> about, so what are the actual terms? the 1.0 or the 1.1 or the
> upcoming 1.2?

Google, Twitter and Facebook, the three largest sites in the English
speaking Internet, all have terms which change over time, and so does
OSM. And unlike those other organizations, you have direct ability not
only to accept or not accept the terms, but also to vote for the
organization's leadership, which AFAIK, isn't an option for Google
users.

> 2. assuming that the project is the community then the
> new terms are just the terms of a part of the project and what the
> "committee" up there decides doesn't automatically become fact.

The LWG is part of the OSMF, and the OSMF is who runs this project.

- Serge

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: "Serge Wroclawski" 

To: "Steve Bennett" 
Cc: "Open Street Map mailing list" 
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag



This should really be taking place on the legal list but nonetheless:

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:

Hi,
So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've "agreed to the
new Contributor Terms". I have no recollection of having done so, and
obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible
with Nearmap.


If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now.


Serge, are you sure about the advice you gave above?

Last I heard, use of NearMap imagery was incompatible with the CT's, and 
that position is also stated on the wiki at:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nearmap


David





Sadly, the GUI doesn't tell me when this flag was set,
nor does it provide a way to unset it. (I could also complain about
the fact that there are no indications anywhere else that you're
operating in a totally different licensing mode, but I'll leave it.)


You're not "operating in a totally difference licensing mode", the
work is licensed under CC-BY-SA until the switchover.


So:
1) Could someone please unset this flag for me: (User: stevage)


Unsetting the flag has repercussions to the organization which I think
you should be aware of.

The CT isn't a license, it's a terms of agreement. That means you've
given OSMF a license to the data, and now you're asking them to revoke
that license.

This would be (moral if not legal) equivalent of someone offering up a
program under the GPL and then saying "Nope, I want it proprietary".

Going forward, of course, you can choose your own terms, but you can't
retroactively revoke the license, because that's spelled out
explicitly in the license itself.

My suggestion to you personally, if you don't like the project's
terms, then you should stop submitting data to it immediately.


2) Could someone please tell me when it got set?

And for bonus points:
3) Could someone provide evidence that I did indeed set it? I think
the most likely explanation is that I did (I do recall visiting the
page on several occasions to read the terms, maybe I had a brainfart),
but I'm curious whether there is any kind of signature equivalent that
would hold up in court. A single bit in a database is not very
compelling.


Assuming this question was asked in good faith, then I can tell you
for sure that agreement to a license via a click is indeed valid. If
it weren't, then every time you agree to any web site or software's
terms of service via a single checkbox, then that would be invalid. I
notice you're using a Google email address- I'm sure you had to click
some terms at some point- same thing.

In this case, OSM knows you were authenticated, where you were
authenticated from, and when you clicked the button and submitted the
form.


Failing all that, I guess I create a new user account?


Sure, you could, but all new accounts require accepting the CT before
you can begin.


From a pragmatic legal perspective, it seems to me that any
nearmap-sourced edits that I made while under the effects of the CT
are totally invalid anyway, so should be moved to a non-CT account.


I don't know anything about Nearmap, buf the data in OSM as of today
is available under the CC-BY-SA license, and your usage is bound to
that.


Or, to save a lot of bother: just unset the flag.


I'm not on the OSMF board, but if I were, I'd say that the dangers of
revoking a license are so high that I'd be extremely hesitant to do
so. On the other hand, someone who might have a beef with OSM  and
doesn't want to accept the CT might set up such a situation to put
them in an impossible situation.

In other words, Steve, I think it was your talk I went to at SoTM,
regarding rendering. If it was, you seem like a nice guy. Please don't
make more trouble for OSM- if you don't like the CT, then just stop
contributing.

- Serge







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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 6 December 2010 14:55, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>  So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've "agreed to the
>> new Contributor Terms". I have no recollection of having done so, and
>> obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible
>> with Nearmap.
>
> If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now.

But the Contributor Terms aren't compatible.  It's not some
theoretical issue, they are actually incompatible in that you can't
give OSMF the rights listed in CT to something licensed CC-By-SA (yes,
this belongs on the legal list but I wanted to correc this)

>
>> Sadly, the GUI doesn't tell me when this flag was set,
>> nor does it provide a way to unset it. (I could also complain about
>> the fact that there are no indications anywhere else that you're
>> operating in a totally different licensing mode, but I'll leave it.)
>
> You're not "operating in a totally difference licensing mode", the
> work is licensed under CC-BY-SA until the switchover.
>
>> So:
>> 1) Could someone please unset this flag for me: (User: stevage)
>
> Unsetting the flag has repercussions to the organization which I think
> you should be aware of.
>
> The CT isn't a license, it's a terms of agreement. That means you've
> given OSMF a license to the data, and now you're asking them to revoke
> that license.
>
> This would be (moral if not legal) equivalent of someone offering up a
> program under the GPL and then saying "Nope, I want it proprietary".

With regards to what Steve submitted so far, yes, but he should be
able to decide the terms for his new edits.

>
> Going forward, of course, you can choose your own terms, but you can't
> retroactively revoke the license, because that's spelled out
> explicitly in the license itself.
>
> My suggestion to you personally, if you don't like the project's
> terms, then you should stop submitting data to it immediately.

Or let's discuss the terms and come up with something that satisfies
more people.  There is a very vocal group, including you saying that
this is now "the project's terms" in ways that try to sound
authoritative, but 1. these terms are still in flux which you know
about, so what are the actual terms? the 1.0 or the 1.1 or the
upcoming 1.2? 2. assuming that the project is the community then the
new terms are just the terms of a part of the project and what the
"committee" up there decides doesn't automatically become fact.  And
telling the other part of the project to go away you're not helping
OSM, so in your words "Please don't make more trouble for OSM", you
did seem like a nice guy at the SoTM.  (which is irrelevant, but
that's apparently the way to communicate)

Cheers

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

[OSM-talk] Announce: Bing Aerial image age viewer

[Martijn van Exel]

Hi all,

For those of you wondering when the Bing aerials were photographed for
your area (like me), I created a viewer for that.

Give it a try:
http://mvexel.dev.openstreetmap.org/bing/

It uses the date given in a Bing custom HTTP header, which is often
correct, but not always. Date error reports are accumulating here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Bing#Age_of_images

What I'd like to do:
* Add permalink for easy error reporting
* Cache the date tiles to reduce the number of requests to the Bing servers.

If someone would like to give these a go, ping me for source code etc.

Best,
Martijn

Martijn van Exel +++...@rtijn.org
laziness – impatience – hubris
http://schaaltreinen.nl | http://martijnvanexel.nl | http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
twitter / skype: mvexel
flickr: rhodes

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Explicit tagging of name language

[Robert Kaiser]

Frederik Ramm schrieb:

Erik,

On 12/06/10 11:19, Erik Johansson wrote:

:-) Well does anyone have code to add name as "local language" in
postgis, what are the options? Lets not complicate your remark by
enumerating all multilingual areas in the world, where names means
power


The question was about Nominatim originally. As far as I am aware,
Nominatim already makes an effort to find out in which country something
lies (so it can give the country in the result list) - so it should be
trivial to employ a country->language code mapping and always assume
that the given name is in the country's default language, no?


With some countries having up to 11 or so official languages (ever 
looked at South Africa?), I'm not sure that's so trivial.
Or would you able to tell me what language a name in Switzerland is in 
on a pure-logical basis (Switzerland has German, French, Italian, and 
Romansh/Rhaeto-Romanic that are all official languages)? Of course, a 
human can potentially take a good guess based on some knowledge of the 
languages, but machines have a hard time there...


Robert Kaiser





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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[David Fawcett]

I think that the pertinent question is whether Steve deliberately
accepted the CT and license or was he hijacked by a bad UI.

David.

PS.  Wow, reading all of the emails on this subject over the last
year, it is clear that this license issue and the way that it has been
handled is obviously the best thing that ever happened to OSM and the
OSM community!

Personally, I don't have any strong technical reasons to favor either
side the debate over the status quo license and the new license and
CT, but in observing how this whole debacle has been handled, my gut
is definitely against it now.



On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:
> This should really be taking place on the legal list but nonetheless:
>
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>  So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've "agreed to the
>> new Contributor Terms". I have no recollection of having done so, and
>> obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible
>> with Nearmap.
>


>

>> So:
>> 1) Could someone please unset this flag for me: (User: stevage)
>
> Unsetting the flag has repercussions to the organization which I think
> you should be aware of.
>
> The CT isn't a license, it's a terms of agreement. That means you've
> given OSMF a license to the data, and now you're asking them to revoke
> that license.
>
> This would be (moral if not legal) equivalent of someone offering up a
> program under the GPL and then saying "Nope, I want it proprietary".
>
> Going forward, of course, you can choose your own terms, but you can't
> retroactively revoke the license, because that's spelled out
> explicitly in the license itself.
>
> My suggestion to you personally, if you don't like the project's
> terms, then you should stop submitting data to it immediately.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Richard Weait]

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> Hi,
>  So, this is awkward.

> From a pragmatic legal perspective, it seems to me that any
> nearmap-sourced edits that I made while under the effects of the CT
> are totally invalid anyway, so should be moved to a non-CT account.

We're* also expecting to implement a way for you to flag edits that
shouldn't be promoted to CT/ODbL, so you'll be able to accept CT, and
flag those changesets that are incompatible individually.  The bad
ones won't be brought forward but your survey-based,
direct-observation contributions will continue.  Many other benefits
to this approach, but that's a discussion for another list.

* LWG have been discussing it, but the server team / community will
end up implementing it.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[John Smith]

On 6 December 2010 23:55, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:
> This should really be taking place on the legal list but nonetheless:
>
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>  So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've "agreed to the
>> new Contributor Terms". I have no recollection of having done so, and
>> obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible
>> with Nearmap.
>
> If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now.
>
> In other words, Steve, I think it was your talk I went to at SoTM,
> regarding rendering. If it was, you seem like a nice guy. Please don't
> make more trouble for OSM- if you don't like the CT, then just stop
> contributing.

The problem is by agreeing to the CT Steve has breached his contract
with Nearmap, which in turn is a breach of CT terms so legally he had
no right to agree to the CTs in the first place.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Serge Wroclawski]

This should really be taking place on the legal list but nonetheless:

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> Hi,
>  So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've "agreed to the
> new Contributor Terms". I have no recollection of having done so, and
> obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible
> with Nearmap.

If Nearmap is CC-BY-SA, they're compatible now.

> Sadly, the GUI doesn't tell me when this flag was set,
> nor does it provide a way to unset it. (I could also complain about
> the fact that there are no indications anywhere else that you're
> operating in a totally different licensing mode, but I'll leave it.)

You're not "operating in a totally difference licensing mode", the
work is licensed under CC-BY-SA until the switchover.

> So:
> 1) Could someone please unset this flag for me: (User: stevage)

Unsetting the flag has repercussions to the organization which I think
you should be aware of.

The CT isn't a license, it's a terms of agreement. That means you've
given OSMF a license to the data, and now you're asking them to revoke
that license.

This would be (moral if not legal) equivalent of someone offering up a
program under the GPL and then saying "Nope, I want it proprietary".

Going forward, of course, you can choose your own terms, but you can't
retroactively revoke the license, because that's spelled out
explicitly in the license itself.

My suggestion to you personally, if you don't like the project's
terms, then you should stop submitting data to it immediately.

> 2) Could someone please tell me when it got set?
>
> And for bonus points:
> 3) Could someone provide evidence that I did indeed set it? I think
> the most likely explanation is that I did (I do recall visiting the
> page on several occasions to read the terms, maybe I had a brainfart),
> but I'm curious whether there is any kind of signature equivalent that
> would hold up in court. A single bit in a database is not very
> compelling.

Assuming this question was asked in good faith, then I can tell you
for sure that agreement to a license via a click is indeed valid. If
it weren't, then every time you agree to any web site or software's
terms of service via a single checkbox, then that would be invalid. I
notice you're using a Google email address- I'm sure you had to click
some terms at some point- same thing.

In this case, OSM knows you were authenticated, where you were
authenticated from, and when you clicked the button and submitted the
form.

> Failing all that, I guess I create a new user account?

Sure, you could, but all new accounts require accepting the CT before
you can begin.

> From a pragmatic legal perspective, it seems to me that any
> nearmap-sourced edits that I made while under the effects of the CT
> are totally invalid anyway, so should be moved to a non-CT account.

I don't know anything about Nearmap, buf the data in OSM as of today
is available under the CC-BY-SA license, and your usage is bound to
that.

> Or, to save a lot of bother: just unset the flag.

I'm not on the OSMF board, but if I were, I'd say that the dangers of
revoking a license are so high that I'd be extremely hesitant to do
so. On the other hand, someone who might have a beef with OSM  and
doesn't want to accept the CT might set up such a situation to put
them in an impossible situation.

In other words, Steve, I think it was your talk I went to at SoTM,
regarding rendering. If it was, you seem like a nice guy. Please don't
make more trouble for OSM- if you don't like the CT, then just stop
contributing.

- Serge

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?

[Richard Weait]

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Andrew Harvey  
> wrote:
>> with and what they aren't. I don't think the Bing people have clearly
>> stated what they consider acceptable and what they don't.
>
> It would be a very strange world if Steve Coast announced that OSM
> could use Bing maps, and he meant something other than "trace streets
> and other objects from them, and license that data as CC-BY-SA".

"... and CT/ODbL in future"

Fixed that for you.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Explicit tagging of name language

[Brian Quinion]

On 6 December 2010 13:18, Ed Avis  wrote:
> Brian Quinion  brian.quinion.co.uk> writes:
>>This list is entirely of my own construction and probably misses
>>quite a few countries default languages.  I welcome any improvements!
>
> Shouldn't it be tagged as part of the map, rather than a separate file?

Feel free to move the data into the map - if this happens I will
probably write something to import it into the table.

--
 Brian

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Explicit tagging of name language

[Ed Avis]

Brian Quinion  brian.quinion.co.uk> writes:

>This is the approach I've already taken - the next version of
>Nominatim has a field country_default_language_code as part of the
>country details

OK I guess that takes care of it, so we don't need additional per-object tags.

>This list is entirely of my own construction and probably misses
>quite a few countries default languages.  I welcome any improvements!

Shouldn't it be tagged as part of the map, rather than a separate file?

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Explicit tagging of name language

[Vincent Pottier]

Le 06/12/2010 12:52, Steve Bennett a écrit :

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Ed Avis  wrote:
   

We could add per-country or per-geographical-area rules about what the 'default'
language is.  But that seems like the wrong answer, and would give the wrong
result in many cases.
 

Seems like the right answer to me. There are lots of things that would
benefit from this scheme: default speed limits, driving on left/right,
default access rights, etc etc...

   

Often, there is no sharp dividing line between one language area and another
 

So those areas should specify languages explicitly. Very many
countries have a single official language. Asking every mapper to add
this extra tag, rather than just the ones where it could be ambiguous,
doesn't make sense.

I have no idea if anyone's interested in implementing the "default"
system though.

Steve
   

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Defaults
--
FrViPofm

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Explicit tagging of name language

[Brian Quinion]

On 6 December 2010 11:41, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Erik,
>
> On 12/06/10 11:19, Erik Johansson wrote:
>>
>> :-) Well does anyone have code to add name as "local language" in
>> postgis, what are the options? Lets not complicate your remark by
>> enumerating all multilingual areas in the world, where names means
>> power
>
> The question was about Nominatim originally. As far as I am aware, Nominatim
> already makes an effort to find out in which country something lies (so it
> can give the country in the result list) - so it should be trivial to employ
> a country->language code mapping and always assume that the given name is in
> the country's default language, no?

This is the approach I've already taken - the next version of
Nominatim has a field country_default_language_code as part of the
country details
(http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/utils/nominatim/data/country_name.sql).
 This list is entirely of my own construction and probably misses
quite a few countries default languages.  I welcome any improvements!

This approach really only works for countries with a single primary
language, for instance it won't work well in Switzerland, but in
general people in countries with multiple primary languages are more
careful about how they tag languages so actually ti resolves most of
the problems.

Cheers,
--
 Brian

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Tom Hughes]

On 06/12/10 12:09, Steve Bennett wrote:

> 1) Could someone please unset this flag for me: (User: stevage)

This is really a policy issue I think.

> 2) Could someone please tell me when it got set?

2010-08-13 01:44:38.6323 UTC

> And for bonus points:
> 3) Could someone provide evidence that I did indeed set it? I think
> the most likely explanation is that I did (I do recall visiting the
> page on several occasions to read the terms, maybe I had a brainfart),
> but I'm curious whether there is any kind of signature equivalent that
> would hold up in court. A single bit in a database is not very
> compelling.

It's not a bit, it's a timestamp precisely because it does provide
better evidence. It also means it can be correlated with the logs, so
for example I can tell what IP address you made the change from.

Tom

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Explicit tagging of name language

[Shaun McDonald]

On 6 Dec 2010, at 10:10, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 12/06/2010 11:00 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
>> Given that, and the user's preferred languages [en, fr], what name should be
>> picked?  The program cannot know that the name 'Scotland' is in English
> 
> Why? Are there places in Scotland that have a Gaelic name in the "name" tag?
> 

Yes there is and technically should be.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/3493177 is an example where there is no 
other name tags.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/269271354 is an example where you have 
the name in English in the name tag, and no name:en tag.
And I have found one where name is in Gaelic, with a separate en tag, but no 
other name tags: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/380646

Shaun

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

[OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Steve Bennett]

Hi,
  So, this is awkward. According to my profile, I've "agreed to the
new Contributor Terms". I have no recollection of having done so, and
obviously I don't want to agree to them while they're incompatible
with Nearmap. Sadly, the GUI doesn't tell me when this flag was set,
nor does it provide a way to unset it. (I could also complain about
the fact that there are no indications anywhere else that you're
operating in a totally different licensing mode, but I'll leave it.)

So:
1) Could someone please unset this flag for me: (User: stevage)
2) Could someone please tell me when it got set?

And for bonus points:
3) Could someone provide evidence that I did indeed set it? I think
the most likely explanation is that I did (I do recall visiting the
page on several occasions to read the terms, maybe I had a brainfart),
but I'm curious whether there is any kind of signature equivalent that
would hold up in court. A single bit in a database is not very
compelling.

Failing all that, I guess I create a new user account?

>From a pragmatic legal perspective, it seems to me that any
nearmap-sourced edits that I made while under the effects of the CT
are totally invalid anyway, so should be moved to a non-CT account.
Or, to save a lot of bother: just unset the flag.

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Explicit tagging of name language

[Ed Avis]

Frederik Ramm  remote.org> writes:

>>We could add per-country or per-geographical-area rules about what the
>>'default' language is.
> 
>I guess those don't have to be "added", do they? Is it not implicit that 
>places in France will by default have the French name in their "name" tag?

Yes, but that still has to be added or tagged somewhere.  There is no
'default language' tag on the map currently, AFAIK.

>My guess is that a rule like I suggested would yield the correct answer 
>in 99.5% of cases. The remaining 0.5% should receive special tagging 
>because they are the exception; I don't think we should flood the whole 
>database with unnecessary duplication of values. (Where would it end? 
>Just because occasionally a famous street in France will be known to the 
>English by an English name, should every single street in France thus be 
>tagged "name:fr=..."?)

I am not suggesting that, just that where this particular object has both
name="Tour Eiffel" and name:en="Eiffel Tower", it should get also name:fr.
An object with just a single name tag does not present any problem for user
interfaces to choose which one to show.

You may be right that adding per-country rules would solve it in most cases.
I'm not dogmatic about avoiding such defaults or implicit information; nobody
suggests that every road on the map should be tagged to say drive-on-left or
drive-on-right.  However, I suggested using the existing tagging mechanisms
partly because this would not require any changes to existing software.  It is
sufficient to download an object by itself and that contains the info you need
to choose which name to show.  If regional defaults were introduced, every
user-facing program that wants to do localization would need to be modified
to understand the new scheme.

But also, I think that having defaults in this way makes errors more likely.
If a Gaelic-speaking part of Scotland has a place whose 'name' is in Gaelic,
then if this is just tagged as 'name=N' it is correct.  Not complete, perhaps,
but not wrong as far as it goes.  However if there is a default setting for
Scotland that says names are in English, this tagging is now giving incorrect
data about the language of this name N (even though N may well be correct by
the 'on the ground' rule).  Every mapper must be aware of the default for each
area.  So I think that rather than creating defaults, it is more robust to add
additional information to the small number of objects that need it.  Again,
this is only for those objects tagged with more than one name.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?

[Steve Bennett]

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> with and what they aren't. I don't think the Bing people have clearly
> stated what they consider acceptable and what they don't.

It would be a very strange world if Steve Coast announced that OSM
could use Bing maps, and he meant something other than "trace streets
and other objects from them, and license that data as CC-BY-SA".

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Explicit tagging of name language

[Steve Bennett]

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Ed Avis  wrote:
> We could add per-country or per-geographical-area rules about what the 
> 'default'
> language is.  But that seems like the wrong answer, and would give the wrong
> result in many cases.

Seems like the right answer to me. There are lots of things that would
benefit from this scheme: default speed limits, driving on left/right,
default access rights, etc etc...

>Often, there is no sharp dividing line between one language area and another

So those areas should specify languages explicitly. Very many
countries have a single official language. Asking every mapper to add
this extra tag, rather than just the ones where it could be ambiguous,
doesn't make sense.

I have no idea if anyone's interested in implementing the "default"
system though.

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Explicit tagging of name language

[Frederik Ramm]

Erik,

On 12/06/10 11:19, Erik Johansson wrote:

:-) Well does anyone have code to add name as "local language" in
postgis, what are the options? Lets not complicate your remark by
enumerating all multilingual areas in the world, where names means
power


The question was about Nominatim originally. As far as I am aware, 
Nominatim already makes an effort to find out in which country something 
lies (so it can give the country in the result list) - so it should be 
trivial to employ a country->language code mapping and always assume 
that the given name is in the country's default language, no?


Bye
Frederik


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Explicit tagging of name language

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 12/06/10 11:48, Ed Avis wrote:

We could add per-country or per-geographical-area rules about what the 'default'
language is.


I guess those don't have to be "added", do they? Is it not implicit that 
places in France will by default have the French name in their "name" tag?



But that seems like the wrong answer, and would give the wrong
result in many cases.  Often, there is no sharp dividing line between one
language area and another, so we do need to tag the language used at the level 
of
individual objects, and not as a set of defaults.


My guess is that a rule like I suggested would yield the correct answer 
in 99.5% of cases. The remaining 0.5% should receive special tagging 
because they are the exception; I don't think we should flood the whole 
database with unnecessary duplication of values. (Where would it end? 
Just because occasionally a famous street in France will be known to the 
English by an English name, should every single street in France thus be 
tagged "name:fr=..."?)


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Explicit tagging of name language

[Erik Johansson]

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Ed Avis  wrote:
> Frederik Ramm  remote.org> writes:
>
>>>Given that, and the user's preferred languages [en, fr], what name should be
>>>picked?  The program cannot know that the name 'Scotland' is in English
>>
>>Why? Are there places in Scotland that have a Gaelic name in the "name"
>>tag?
>
> There may be, but in the absence of other information, how would you write a
> program to work out that name=Scotland must be in English and not some other
> language?
>
> We could add per-country or per-geographical-area rules about what the 
> 'default'
> language is.  But that seems like the wrong answer, and would give the wrong
> result in many cases.

"In a few cases", the thing is you want to make those areas anyways
right? Then people who care about the area can go and fix them. I.e.
your welsh example would be fixed almost directly, except some corner
cases.
-- 
/emj

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Explicit tagging of name language

[Vincent Pottier]

Le 06/12/2010 11:22, MD a écrit :

Hi,

Ed Avis wrote:
[...]
   

I believe the answer, as so often, is to improve the tagging used so that
software has the information it needs.  In this case an explicit English-
language name should be added, so we have

 name=Scotland
 name:en=Scotland
 name:fr=Ecosse
 name:es=Escocia

(Another way to tag the same info would be to invent a new tag
'language_of_main_name=en' but this seems cumbersome and would not be understood
by existing software.)
 

This is also the solution I am using when tagging stuff in the German
Community of Belgium, where many places, streets, etc have both german
and french names. But this is indeed a problem in many areas - with
special focus on countries with more than one official language. (But of
course also - for example - in touristic places and elsewhere.)
The only objection I have is that it introduces some sort of redundancy
- even if small. I can't think of a better solution so far, though.

   

In the new year I plan to write a small tool to help fix these, prompting a
human being to decide or at least verify the language of each name.  Then an
additional name:XX tag will be added to the object.  Sound sensible?
 

Could be a solution, I think.

   
A solution could be by adding a tag on boundaries with something like 
"language:name=nn" as 'default language' for the tags name=* inside the 
boundary, and maybe a cascade system for some places where the langage 
at country level is nn and at regionnal level is mm.
It gives less work for the mappers, no redundancy but more work for 
nominatim.


I have tryied something in that way with a 'default' relation :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Defaults
--
FrViPofm


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Explicit tagging of name language

[Ed Avis]

Frederik Ramm  remote.org> writes:

>>Given that, and the user's preferred languages [en, fr], what name should be
>>picked?  The program cannot know that the name 'Scotland' is in English
>
>Why? Are there places in Scotland that have a Gaelic name in the "name" 
>tag?

There may be, but in the absence of other information, how would you write a
program to work out that name=Scotland must be in English and not some other
language?

We could add per-country or per-geographical-area rules about what the 'default'
language is.  But that seems like the wrong answer, and would give the wrong
result in many cases.  Often, there is no sharp dividing line between one
language area and another, so we do need to tag the language used at the level 
of
individual objects, and not as a set of defaults.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Explicit tagging of name language

[MD]

Hi,

Ed Avis wrote:
[...]
> I believe the answer, as so often, is to improve the tagging used so that
> software has the information it needs.  In this case an explicit English-
> language name should be added, so we have
> 
> name=Scotland
> name:en=Scotland
> name:fr=Ecosse
> name:es=Escocia
> 
> (Another way to tag the same info would be to invent a new tag
> 'language_of_main_name=en' but this seems cumbersome and would not be 
> understood
> by existing software.)

This is also the solution I am using when tagging stuff in the German
Community of Belgium, where many places, streets, etc have both german
and french names. But this is indeed a problem in many areas - with
special focus on countries with more than one official language. (But of
course also - for example - in touristic places and elsewhere.)
The only objection I have is that it introduces some sort of redundancy
- even if small. I can't think of a better solution so far, though.

> In the new year I plan to write a small tool to help fix these, prompting a
> human being to decide or at least verify the language of each name.  Then an
> additional name:XX tag will be added to the object.  Sound sensible?
Could be a solution, I think.

Michael

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Explicit tagging of name language

[Erik Johansson]

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 12/06/2010 11:00 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
>>
>> Given that, and the user's preferred languages [en, fr], what name should
>> be
>> picked?  The program cannot know that the name 'Scotland' is in English
>
> Why? Are there places in Scotland that have a Gaelic name in the "name" tag?

:-) Well does anyone have code to add name as "local language" in
postgis, what are the options? Lets not complicate your remark by
enumerating all multilingual areas in the world, where names means
power



-- 
/emj

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> The situation is sufficient for me to use Bing imagery for tracing. I'm not
> looking at the legal side of it, I'm just looking at the size of the PR
> disaster should Microsoft attempt to backtrack in any way.
>
> PR is more important than legal. As most people on this list know, with
> CC-BY-SA being next to invalid for Geodata in the US, any of the big US
> players could long have taken our data an run. Why haven't they? Because
> they fear a PR disaster.

I suppose I don't mind if a license is technically invalid because of
some obscure legal reason, I just think that the intent needs to be
there, publicly, officially, and clearly stated on what they are okay
with and what they aren't. I don't think the Bing people have clearly
stated what they consider acceptable and what they don't.

Another potential problem I see with Bing is, as far as I could tell,
this grant is only for OpenStreetMap. Does their permission extend to
other people who then use the OSM database? I feel this needs to be
made clear.

>
> But luckily this is something that everyone can decide for themselves - if
> you're happy with the situation, start tracing; if you're not, then don't.
> There's enough mapping to be done without reliance to Bing images.
>

Yes, though its a little more complicated than that. What if there is
data from GPS, data from NearMap and data from Bing. There is enough
diversity to find people who think one data source is superior with
the other and shouldn't be replace with the other. How do we decide
who's data is the best? I face this every day when I have to decide
whether to replace someones GPS survey data with NearMap derived
information. On one hand NearMap is a perfectly legitimate data source
and is in most cases probably more accurate that a consumer GPS. On
the other hand someone who likes the contributor terms may think that
their GPS data is superior and shouldn't be replaced with more
accurate NearMap derived information because the NearMap information
is incompatible with the contributors terms.

If we go along with everyone make up their own mind, clashes will erupt.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Explicit tagging of name language

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 12/06/2010 11:00 AM, Ed Avis wrote:

Given that, and the user's preferred languages [en, fr], what name should be
picked?  The program cannot know that the name 'Scotland' is in English


Why? Are there places in Scotland that have a Gaelic name in the "name" 
tag?


Bye
Frederik

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

[OSM-talk] Explicit tagging of name language

[Ed Avis]

This message explains a problem that user interfaces such as Nominatim have when
choosing the correct localized 'name' tag to show to the user, why I believe 
this
is caused by incomplete tagging, and a proposal to fix it.

I was surprised when searching on the OSM home page to find Edinburgh was not
in Scotland but in 'Ecosse'.  My preferred language is English, although I do
understand a few words of French, and I had set my browser language preferences
accordingly.  The browser sends an HTTP Accept-Language header giving English a
better score than French.  So why does Nominatim think I would prefer to see the
French name for the country?

It is because it sees some tags like (simplified to illustrate):

name=Scotland
name:fr=Ecosse
name:es=Escocia

Given that, and the user's preferred languages [en, fr], what name should be
picked?  The program cannot know that the name 'Scotland' is in English, so the
best course of action is to pick a name that the browser says it will accept.
If none of the names is tagged with an accepted language then it can fall back
to the ordinary 'name' tag as a last resort, but if some localized names are
there then they should be used.  The alternative would be no localization.

I have noticed similar problems when searching in the USA: someone added Serbian
Cyrillic names for the 50 states, which now pop up instead of the English names
because I have included Serbian in my language list, even though with tiny 
score.

I believe the answer, as so often, is to improve the tagging used so that
software has the information it needs.  In this case an explicit English-
language name should be added, so we have

name=Scotland
name:en=Scotland
name:fr=Ecosse
name:es=Escocia

(Another way to tag the same info would be to invent a new tag
'language_of_main_name=en' but this seems cumbersome and would not be understood
by existing software.)

In an attempt to fix this I have asked the maintainer of
 to add a data check.  Where a choice of languages
exists for a name, then there should be one that corresponds to the main
'name' tag.  In other words for the example above there was name=Scotland but
not any name:XX=Scotland.  One should be added indicating the language of this
name, so that user interfaces can choose among the name:XX.  Of course if an
object has just a single name tag to be used for all languages, that's fine.

What I plan to do is to work through these 'language unknown' warnings and,
with help from a tool, add explicit language tags.  I have manually fixed the
small number of cases in London but it gets more interesting in Wales (where
a user who understands both English and Welsh, but prefers English, will
currently be given the Welsh names) or Turkey (where a user preferring Turkish
to Greek will be given Greek names for many places).

In the new year I plan to write a small tool to help fix these, prompting a
human being to decide or at least verify the language of each name.  Then an
additional name:XX tag will be added to the object.  Sound sensible?

-- 
Ed Avis 


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