date:20110104

On 4 January 2011 18:40, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de wrote:
 you misunderstood. After 31st March you have to mandatory agree to CT in
 order to continue to EDIT.
 eg: After this date no NEW nearmap data could be inserted unless compatible
 with CT.

Which brings up the other point of contention about the 2/3rds of
active contributors that others have pointed out, namely that you lock
out people from contributing further that may object to further
license change there by being able to do things like vote stacking to
suit your agenda...

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:11 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 5 January 2011 01:02, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 But you are right in that there is a weakness because people are not
 guaranteed a right to contribute.
 []
 But what could we do?

 Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing
 terms.  Even an opt-out arrangement would be better than the current
 one, where 2 people with 1 edit each get to override 1 person with
 10,000 edits.

 +1

 On the surface that would seem to give a better indication of if a
 license change should be adopted or not, but I agree with Frederik's
 point that pointless or abusive edits shouldn't make someone be
 eligible as an active contributor either when it comes to influencing
 major changes... What if those 10,000 edits were duplicating ways
 simply to up their stats so as to have more influence over things...

Then you let them opt out and don't worry about it.  If their ways
aren't useful, then they don't have any more influence over things.  I
never suggest weighting votes by number of edits.  That wouldn't work
for much the reason you've explained above.  You can't come up with an
algorithm for measuring quality of edits, but if you let people
opt-out of changes, then the OSMF board can decide on the quality and
weight of those edits, and whether or not they outweigh the need to
switch to the new license.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline


Hi,

On 01/04/11 16:02, Anthony wrote:

But what could we do?


Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing
terms.


No, that is not acceptable to me. Someone who participates in OSM must 
have the willingness to accept what the majority wants, or else they 
should not participate in the first place.


I don't want provisional contributions that can be withdrawn at any 
later time. Such would only lead to a better to delete what others have 
done and re-make it than to build on their work attitude. Such an 
opt-out clause would mean: We're not a community building something 
together, we're a pot where everyone can temporarily put their personal 
contribution but remove it at any time.


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

Rob Myers wrote:
On 04/01/11 15:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
OS OpenData is AIUI compatible with ODbL and the latest Contributor
Terms.
[citation needed]
(http://fandomania.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/xfiles1.jpg)

I keep meaning to sit down and write a long blog post about this.

== ODbL ==

The OpenData licence requires attribution, and for that attribution to be
maintained on subsequent derivatives. ODbL provides that. (My reading of
ODbL 4.3 is that reasonably calculated imposes a downstream attribution
requirement on Produced Works: after all, if you wildly license your
Produced Work allows it to be redistributed without attribution of sources,
you haven't reasonably calculated that any person exposed to it will be
aware of the database and the licence.)

As it happens OS is planning to move to the Open Government Licence, and
this has an explicit compatibility clause with any ODC attribution licence.
(It also has sane guidance on attribution, e.g. If it is not practical to
cite all sources and attributions in your product prominently, it is good
practice to maintain a record or list of sources and attributions in another
file. This should be easily accessible or retrievable.)

Personally I find it helpful to consider OSM as a Derivative Database of an
ODbL-licensed OS OpenData; this makes it easy to follow through the
attribution requirements for anything OSM-derived that contains a
substantial amount of OS OpenData.

== Contributor Terms ==

AIUI the attribution requirement is also compatible with CT as of the 1.2.2
revision (https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfbpli=1). The
CTs need a bit of a polish for style (Francis Davey has made good
suggestions here) but the intention is clear enough.

The Rights Granted section (2) now begins Subject to Section 3 and 4
below. The and 4 is new (added at my request).

Section 4 is a promise of attribution, as required by the OpenData licence.
So you are not being asked to grant OSMF any rights that the OpenData
licence doesn't give you.

cheers
Richard

--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5889131.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Such an opt-out clause
 would mean: We're not a community building something together, we're a pot
 where everyone can temporarily put their personal contribution but remove it
 at any time.

On the rest, we're going to just have to agree to disagree.  But I
think this depiction of an opt-out clause is quite unfair.  An opt-out
clause doesn't allow you to remove your contributions at any time.  In
fact, it doesn't allow you to remove your contributions at all.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline


Hi,

On 01/04/11 15:17, John Smith wrote:

Or better yet, change active contributor to active participant and
include things like genuine mailing list posts or wiki edits or ...
rather than restricting interested parties to only those who can
edit...


I think that would be perfectly ok, albeit perhaps hard to define. (For 
example the evil OSMF could change the license on the Wiki so that Joe 
the would-be contributor cannot, for his moral reasons, participate on 
the Wiki any more etc.etc.)


The *main* reason for the active-contributor definition is that we need 
to exclude those who are dead, unreachable, or have lost interest, from 
the decision-making process. In my personal opinion, if someone should 
stop contributing to the data for some personal reason - e.g. he doesn't 
like the OSMF chairman's haircut - but that person still demonstrates 
some kind of interest in the project - e.g. by campaigning for a change 
of haircut on the mailing lists - then they should be included.


(I'd still like some wording that says they must have been active 
contributors at some time in the past - someone who joined the project 
*only* to discuss haircuts might not be the kind of contributor we seek.)


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 5 January 2011 01:49, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 As it happens OS is planning to move to the Open Government Licence, and
 this has an explicit compatibility clause with any ODC attribution licence.
 (It also has sane guidance on attribution, e.g. If it is not practical to
 cite all sources and attributions in your product prominently, it is good
 practice to maintain a record or list of sources and attributions in another
 file. This should be easily accessible or retrievable.)

That might work for ODBL which has attribution requirements, although
if produced works are exempt from attribution requirements and the CT
allows for license changes to non-attribution licenses how can you
link back to a list of sources to attribute?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 5 January 2011 01:54, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 I think that would be perfectly ok, albeit perhaps hard to define. (For
 example the evil OSMF could change the license on the Wiki so that Joe the
 would-be contributor cannot, for his moral reasons, participate on the Wiki
 any more etc.etc.)

Either way you look at it, someone contributing crap would be
eligible, while someone contributing reasonable content to the wiki
would be excluded. How is that reasonable?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-04 Thread Tobias Knerr

Anthony wrote:
 Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing
 terms.

It's my impression that this statement reflects the fundamental
philosophical reason why you seem to disagree with all versions of the
Contributor Terms so far: You insist on the idea of individual data
ownership.

The Contributor Terms are clearly based on the idea that we are building
a database together. It's not just several people's maps sitting next to
each other, it's a collective effort, with no clear separation between
my data, your data and their data.
As a consequence, aspects such as the license are subject to collective,
not individual, decisions.

I believe that this underlying spirit of the Contributor Terms fits the
reality of OSM. Already today, there's hardly a way I've created or
edited that hasn't been edited by others as well. And with the
increasing density of contributors, this effect will become even more
evident.

Working together like this means relying on others' contributions still
being there tomorrow, even if we change the license again. Therefore, I
could not support a regulation as requested by you, where an individual
mapper could pull out their contributions (and thus remove the
foundation for others' contributions) in the event of a license change.

Tobias

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 5 January 2011 02:16, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
 I believe that this underlying spirit of the Contributor Terms fits the
 reality of OSM. Already today, there's hardly a way I've created or

That's not the impression I get, take this comment for example:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2010-December/007385.html

The only difference between Anthony and others is the scale of what
they might think as their's it seems to me...

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline


John Smith wrote:
 That might work for ODBL which has attribution requirements, although
 if produced works are exempt from attribution requirements

They're not. ODbL 4.3 requires attribution on produced works.

 and the CT allows for license changes to non-attribution licenses

It doesn't. CT 4 promises attribution and, as part of the Terms themselves
rather than the licence, cannot be overruled by a future licence change.

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5889244.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-04 Thread Peter Miller

On 4 January 2011 15:49, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:

I keep meaning to sit down and write a long blog post about this.

== ODbL ==

As it happens OS is planning to move to the Open Government Licence, and
this has an explicit compatibility clause with any ODC attribution licence.
(It also has sane guidance on attribution, e.g. If it is not practical to
cite all sources and attributions in your product prominently, it is good
practice to maintain a record or list of sources and attributions in
another
file. This should be easily accessible or retrievable.)

== Contributor Terms ==

The Rights Granted section (2) now begins Subject to Section 3 and 4
below. The and 4 is new (added at my request).

Section 4 is a promise of attribution, as required by the OpenData licence.
So you are not being asked to grant OSMF any rights that the OpenData
licence doesn't give you.

cheers
Richard

Thank you for the details Richard. However... on this one I have decided to
stay out of any legal discussions and just wait for a clear statement
directly from the licensing group. To date I haven't had that clarification
and private discussions with a member of the group seems to indicate that
the OS would need to adopt Open Government License for it to work and I can
find no statement on the web to say that they are doing that..

As soon as I have confirmation from the license working group then I will
accept the CTs and will then concentrate on getting the foundation to sort
out its Articles of Association.

Regards,

Peter

--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5889131.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
 Anthony wrote:
 Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing
 terms.

 It's my impression that this statement reflects the fundamental
 philosophical reason why you seem to disagree with all versions of the
 Contributor Terms so far: You insist on the idea of individual data
 ownership.

Correct.  Sort of.  I insist on not using the idea of collective
ownership.  More on what I mean by that in my final paragraph.

 The Contributor Terms are clearly based on the idea that we are building
 a database together. It's not just several people's maps sitting next to
 each other, it's a collective effort, with no clear separation between
 my data, your data and their data.
 As a consequence, aspects such as the license are subject to collective,
 not individual, decisions.

That most certainly is not a natural consequence of a collective
effort, though.  When people collaborate on a film, for instance, they
are making a collective effort, but they don't then allow a majority
(or supermajority) to relicense the film under any license they deem
appropriate.

And besides, there is another alternative to individual ownership and
collective ownership, and that is no ownership.  If we don't want
individual ownership, that's fine with me, but that means the data
should be public domain.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-04 Thread David Groom

- Original Message - 
From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net

To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

John Smith wrote:

Thanks for the clarification. In your opinion, what would be the
minimum license rendered images could be licensed as?

An attribution-only licence - CC-BY, for example.

If attribution will also be required on tiles, you have a chain of
attribution that can be followed

Right, yes.

if data is licensed in future so
that at least produced data doesn't have an attribution requirement

I don't think it can be - the agreement between OSMF and the Contributor 
to

attribute is perpetual, rather than being subject to any future licence
change - but even if it were, CT 1.2.2 puts the onus on OSMF to remove the
data in the case of incompatibility, rather than on the Contributor to

Actually it does not put the onus on OSMF to remove the data.  It says they 
may remove the data, it doesn't say they will remove the data, or even 
that they will make any attempt to remove it.  Indeed I'm sure it has been 
argued by others that putting the onus on OSMF to remove the data is placing 
too high a burden on OSMF.

David

safeguard against all future possibilities.

Richard

--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5889351.html

Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-04 Thread David Groom

- Original Message - 
From: Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de

To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

Peter Miller writes:

I will currently be one of the people locked out because I have used the
Ordnance Survey open data which is apparently incompatible with the new
license. I have therefore not accepted the new terms because I can't.

Why did you not create a new account you will use only to commit data that 
is compatible with CT and ODbL?

Note that until the revised CT's are adopted, and the preamble to the CT's 
which state that they apply to  your existing  contributions it is 
impossible for someone, who in the past has contributed data which is 
incompatible with the CT's, to create a new account which complies with the 
CT's.

David

This still does not resolve the mashup of compatible and incompatible data 
you entered in the past. As it seams that incompatible sources are located 
to a specific geographical region you could select your other edits and 
upload them under a clean account.

Stephan

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-04 Thread David Groom

- Original Message - 
From: John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com

To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 5 January 2011 04:08, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de wrote:
Why did you not create a new account you will use only to commit data 
that

is compatible with CT and ODbL?

Perhaps because the current CT offered didn't distinguish that
contributions were per account, although I believe this oversight was
fixed in revisions, but hasn't been offered to existing or new
contributors, unless the sign-up process was changed recently.

It hadn't been changed as of lunchtime today.  However I do hope it is 
changed before 1 April.

David

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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
ODbL 4.3 requires that the source database be attributed, not any
data sources that went into making that database.

As I said, to understand the attribution chain in ODbL, I find it helpful
to consider OSM as a Derivative Database of OS OpenData (i.e. Extracting or
Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new
Database).

To take the example given in ODbL 4.3a, DATABASE NAME would be defined by
the database provider (in this case OSMF). For the Derivative Database that
comprises OSM original user contributions and some extracts from OS
OpenData, this name could include the attribution required by OS.

It also provides no explicit requirement for any downstream users to
attribute the source of the produced work

I think it's reasonably well attested that we disagree on that. :)

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases#Use_of_maps_in_Wikipedia_and_Wikitravel
would seem to contradict your later assertion that produced works
can only be licensed under an attribution license.

The reply in green (which I believe is from lawyers retained by OSMF at one
point, though not from ODC) says no license restrictions, yes, but it then
goes on to contradict itself by saying ...although notice must be given.
The latter sounds like attribution to me but, again, I think it's reasonably
well attested that we disagree.

That requirement is only for OSMF to provide attribution when they
distribute the OSM data. It does not force OSMF to require other
downstream data users to provide similar attribution when they
distribute derivative works / databases. So this clause would not
stop OSMF releasing the data as PD as long as OSMF still maintains
an appropriate attribution page themselves.

That is true. If OSMF wanted to release the data as PD, it would have to
delete any OS OpenData-derived content first.

Given the past few months I think it would be difficult for OSMF to argue
that it wasn't aware of the issue. So when David says It says they 'may'
remove the data, I'd add the follow-up ...and if they choose not to, they
are well aware they are likely to be sued, and on their heads be it.

cheers
Richard

--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5889691.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

I wrote:
As I said, to understand the attribution chain in ODbL, I find it
helpful
to consider OSM as a Derivative Database of OS OpenData (i.e.
Extracting or Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the
Contents in a new Database).

To take the example given in ODbL 4.3a, DATABASE NAME would be
defined by the database provider (in this case OSMF). For the
Derivative Database that comprises OSM original user contributions
and some extracts from OS OpenData, this name could include the
attribution required by OS.

...and what I should have made explicit is that this is, of course, what we
do already and which everyone (I presume including OS) seems very happy
with... although it isn't clear that it's strictly permitted by CC-BY-SA
2.0.

Our generally accepted attribution statement is (c) OpenStreetMap and
contributors.

Users can find out more about these contributors by going to
http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright .

Whether you need to expand contributors beyond this depends, as ever, on
the old substantial thing, and on that page we do in fact say: Where data
from a national mapping agency or other major source has been included in
OpenStreetMap, it may be reasonable to credit them by directly reproducing
their credit or by linking to it on this page. For example, the (IIRC)
Dundee cycle map which uses OSM data, including a fair amount of OS
OpenData-sourced material, does exactly that.

cheers
Richard

--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5889733.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-04 Thread James Livingston

On 4 January 2011 17:53, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 My first question is: which version of the CT is referred to there?
 Does this mean the totally broken v1.0, the partially broken proposed
 v1.2.2, or some hopefully non-broken v1.3?


I haven't been keeping track of this recently, partially due to travelling
and partially due to being completely sick of arguing this topic when no-one
seems to listen to what people say, but what version number is the current
one on the site?

What I see if I go to the acceptance page is still You agree to only add
Contents for which You are the copyright holder, which I can't do because I
have in the past imported data that I'm not the copyright holder for.


A few more questions:
1) If the board have decided the cutoff of April 1, why isn't this somewhere
obvious on osm.org?
2) If there a FAQ covering things like how do I split edits on my account
into those I can agree for and those I can't? and what licenses are the
CTs compatible with? ?
3) On the above, how do I split the edits on my account?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal-talk Digest, Vol 53, Issue 5

2011-01-04 Thread David Mirchin

 the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--

Message: 8
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 02:25:12 +1000
From: John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Message-ID:
aanlkti=mw=deskj2jq0x_acjkej=zqra+8cz9pxka...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 5 January 2011 02:22, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:

 John Smith wrote:
 That might work for ODBL which has attribution requirements, although
 if produced works are exempt from attribution requirements

 They're not. ODbL 4.3 requires attribution on produced works.

So statements by some people that tiles could be supplied as PD is false then?

 and the CT allows for license changes to non-attribution licenses

 It doesn't. CT 4 promises attribution and, as part of the Terms themselves
 rather than the licence, cannot be overruled by a future licence change.

That fails to address my point about being able to follow a chain back
to any attribution.

--

Message: 9
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 16:26:18 +
From: Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Message-ID:
aanlktik_pmz4f1kfwxzco-2cm1mv+=p=kptrcclow...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

On 4 January 2011 15:49, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:

 Rob Myers wrote:
  On 04/01/11 15:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
  OS OpenData is AIUI compatible with ODbL and the latest Contributor
  Terms.
  [citation needed]
  (http://fandomania.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/xfiles1.jpg)

 :)

 I keep meaning to sit down and write a long blog post about this.

 == ODbL ==

 The OpenData licence requires attribution, and for that attribution to be
 maintained on subsequent derivatives. ODbL provides that. (My reading of
 ODbL 4.3 is that reasonably calculated imposes a downstream attribution
 requirement on Produced Works: after all, if you wildly license your
 Produced Work allows it to be redistributed without attribution of sources,
 you haven't reasonably calculated that any person exposed to it will be
 aware of the database and the licence.)

 As it happens OS is planning to move to the Open Government Licence, and
 this has an explicit compatibility clause with any ODC attribution licence.
 (It also has sane guidance on attribution, e.g. If it is not practical to
 cite all sources and attributions in your product prominently, it is good
 practice to maintain a record or list of sources and attributions in
 another
 file. This should be easily accessible or retrievable.)

 Personally I find it helpful to consider OSM as a Derivative Database of an
 ODbL-licensed OS OpenData; this makes it easy to follow through the
 attribution requirements for anything OSM-derived that contains a
 substantial amount of OS OpenData.

 == Contributor Terms ==

 AIUI the attribution requirement is also compatible with CT as of the 1.2.2
 revision (https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfbpli=1). The
 CTs need a bit of a polish for style (Francis Davey has made good
 suggestions here) but the intention is clear enough.

 The Rights Granted section (2) now begins Subject to Section 3 and 4
 below. The and 4 is new (added at my request).

 Section 4 is a promise of attribution, as required by the OpenData licence.
 So you are not being asked to grant OSMF any rights that the OpenData
 licence doesn't give you.

 cheers
 Richard

Thank you for the details Richard. However... on this one I have decided to
stay out of any legal discussions and just wait for a clear statement
directly from the licensing group. To date I haven't had that clarification
and private discussions with a member of the group seems to indicate that
the OS would need to adopt Open Government License for it to work and I can
find no statement on the web to say that they are doing that..

As soon as I have confirmation from the license working group then I will
accept the CTs and will then concentrate on getting the foundation to sort
out its Articles of Association.

Regards,

Peter

 --
 View this message in context:
 http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5889131.html
 Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20110104/a6dee22c/attachment.html

--

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal-talk Digest, Vol 53, Issue 5

2011-01-04 Thread David Mirchin

 the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--

Message: 8
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 02:25:12 +1000
From: John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Message-ID:
aanlkti=mw=deskj2jq0x_acjkej=zqra+8cz9pxka...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 5 January 2011 02:22, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:

 John Smith wrote:
 That might work for ODBL which has attribution requirements, although
 if produced works are exempt from attribution requirements

 They're not. ODbL 4.3 requires attribution on produced works.

So statements by some people that tiles could be supplied as PD is false then?

 and the CT allows for license changes to non-attribution licenses

 It doesn't. CT 4 promises attribution and, as part of the Terms themselves
 rather than the licence, cannot be overruled by a future licence change.

That fails to address my point about being able to follow a chain back
to any attribution.

--

Message: 9
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 16:26:18 +
From: Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Message-ID:
aanlktik_pmz4f1kfwxzco-2cm1mv+=p=kptrcclow...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

On 4 January 2011 15:49, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:

 Rob Myers wrote:
  On 04/01/11 15:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
  OS OpenData is AIUI compatible with ODbL and the latest Contributor
  Terms.
  [citation needed]
  (http://fandomania.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/xfiles1.jpg)

 :)

 I keep meaning to sit down and write a long blog post about this.

 == ODbL ==

 The OpenData licence requires attribution, and for that attribution to be
 maintained on subsequent derivatives. ODbL provides that. (My reading of
 ODbL 4.3 is that reasonably calculated imposes a downstream attribution
 requirement on Produced Works: after all, if you wildly license your
 Produced Work allows it to be redistributed without attribution of sources,
 you haven't reasonably calculated that any person exposed to it will be
 aware of the database and the licence.)

 As it happens OS is planning to move to the Open Government Licence, and
 this has an explicit compatibility clause with any ODC attribution licence.
 (It also has sane guidance on attribution, e.g. If it is not practical to
 cite all sources and attributions in your product prominently, it is good
 practice to maintain a record or list of sources and attributions in
 another
 file. This should be easily accessible or retrievable.)

 Personally I find it helpful to consider OSM as a Derivative Database of an
 ODbL-licensed OS OpenData; this makes it easy to follow through the
 attribution requirements for anything OSM-derived that contains a
 substantial amount of OS OpenData.

 == Contributor Terms ==

 AIUI the attribution requirement is also compatible with CT as of the 1.2.2
 revision (https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfbpli=1). The
 CTs need a bit of a polish for style (Francis Davey has made good
 suggestions here) but the intention is clear enough.

 The Rights Granted section (2) now begins Subject to Section 3 and 4
 below. The and 4 is new (added at my request).

 Section 4 is a promise of attribution, as required by the OpenData licence.
 So you are not being asked to grant OSMF any rights that the OpenData
 licence doesn't give you.

 cheers
 Richard

Thank you for the details Richard. However... on this one I have decided to
stay out of any legal discussions and just wait for a clear statement
directly from the licensing group. To date I haven't had that clarification
and private discussions with a member of the group seems to indicate that
the OS would need to adopt Open Government License for it to work and I can
find no statement on the web to say that they are doing that..

As soon as I have confirmation from the license working group then I will
accept the CTs and will then concentrate on getting the foundation to sort
out its Articles of Association.

Regards,

Peter

 --
 View this message in context:
 http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5889131.html
 Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20110104/a6dee22c/attachment.html

--

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http

Re: [OSM-talk] Is there an Android OS app for osm?

2011-01-04 Thread Milo van der Linden

+1 for osmand. They are pretty active.

2011/1/4 Frank Fesevur f...@users.sourceforge.net:
 2011/1/4  nicholas.g.lawre...@tmr.qld.gov.au:
 Is there an Android OS app for osm?

 When you want to use your phone for mapping, you should definitily not
 forget OSMTracker.

 Searching for osm in the Market on my phone (results may vary
 because Market searches are phone abilty aware) results in 46 finds.

 Regards,
 Frank

 ___
 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] Which software are people using on Symbian?

2011-01-04 Thread André Riedel

GPSmid is a very good vector based osm programm for symbian mobile phones.
You can use it to display the map (offline), log a track, add notices,
simple online editing and offline routing.

Ciao André

2011/1/3 Jeremy Stocks jeremyl...@yahoo.com

 Hi there,

 +

 I'm a newbie to OSM but and oldie in GIS, and am trying to find a decent app 
 for my Nokia 6230 Nuron phone. I currently use Trek Buddy but I wondered what 
 others use?

 Jeremy.

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

[OSM-talk] new version of Bing Imagery Analyzer

2011-01-04 Thread Martijn van Exel

Hi all,

I pushed a new version of the Bing Imagery Analyzer to dev.

http://mvexel.dev.openstreetmap.org/bing/

Highlights:
* Fixed a bug that reported one zoomlevel less than is actually there.
* Transparency slider.
* The underlying tile.php now also supports TMS-type requests for easy
integration with OpenLayers.

I cleared the tilecache because of the bug, so initial loading may be
slower again.

Enjoy,
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

[OSM-talk] Which software are people using on Symbian?

2011-01-04 Thread Asztalos Attila


I still haven't found a proper free, offline, country-level OSM app for my S60 
3rd phone.
What I do use is We-Travel (www.we-travel.biz) - which does all that (including 
routing and voice navigation), however it certainly does have its own quirks 
therefore I can't quite call it proper.

 - Max


2011/1/3 Jeremy Stocksjeremyll33 at yahoo.com  
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

/

//  Hi there,
//
//  +
//
//  I'm a newbie to OSM but and oldie in GIS, and am trying to find a decent 
app for my Nokia 6230 Nuron phone. I currently use Trek Buddy but I wondered what 
others use?
//
//  Jeremy.
/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Which software are people using on Symbian?

2011-01-04 Thread Jozef Riha

I'm using mainly gpsmid on my e51 - does offline (vector) maps, can do
basic edits online, navigation, collects cellids, maps are
customizable using styles - what else should i want? on the other
hand.. you can't really go country-level without sacrificing some map
features.

jose

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Asztalos Attila
attila.aszta...@gmail.com wrote:
 I still haven't found a proper free, offline, country-level OSM app for my
 S60 3rd phone.
 What I do use is We-Travel (www.we-travel.biz) - which does all that
 (including routing and voice navigation), however it certainly does have its
 own quirks therefore I can't quite call it proper.

  - Max


 2011/1/3 Jeremy Stocks jeremyll33 at yahoo.com

 Hi there,

 +

 I'm a newbie to OSM but and oldie in GIS, and am trying to find a decent
 app for my Nokia 6230 Nuron phone. I currently use Trek Buddy but I wondered
 what others use?

 Jeremy.


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



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

[OSM-talk] Use of Bing imagery visualised - update

2011-01-04 Thread Steve Chilton

Updated and colour differentiated:
http://www.stevechilton.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/osm/buildingsBing.png

Cheers
STEVE

-Original Message-
From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Chilton
Sent: 23 December 2010 00:23
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [OSM-talk] Use of Bing imagery visualised

Have done a quick render to show the effect of using Bing imagery to get 
building outlines.
The two illustrations are for the Borough of Enfield (using today's geofabrik 
data file).
The larger shapes are predominantly those done earlier from OS OpenData.
The smaller shapes are a bunch of buildings traced from Bing imagery.
Whole Borough http://www.stevechilton.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/osm/buildings1.png
Detail http://www.stevechilton.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/osm/buildings2.png

Cheers
STEVE

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

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

[OSM-talk] FW: Workshop on Public Transport Geoinformation - Call for papers

2011-01-04 Thread Steve Chilton

Interested in mapping and transport?
See details below of a conference this July - 'User Issues in Geospatial Public 
Transport Information'
www.univie.ac.at/icacomuse


Cheers
STEVE

-Original Message-
From: David Forrest [mailto:david.forr...@glasgow.ac.uk] 
Sent: 20 December 2010 12:35
To: carto-...@lists.shef.ac.uk
Subject: [carto-soc] Workshop on Public Transport Geoinformation - Call for 
papers

The ICA Commission on Use  User Issues are seeking contributions for a 
workshop on User Issues in Geospatial Public Transport Information - see 
www.univie.ac.at/icacomuse

The workshop will be held in Paris, 1st  2nd July 2011 (immediately prior to 
the ICA Conference 4-8th July 2011).
It is planned to have a mixed programme of presentations, demonstrations and 
poster sessions:

* Paper presentations: 15 minute presentation + questions; 1000 word
  extended abstract required.
* Demonstrations of on-line transport information systems: 8 minute
  presentation + questions; 500 word abstract required.
* Poster sessions: 2 minute introduction to poster at start of
  viewing session; 500 word abstract required.

We also plan to incorporate some active user testing of the Public transport 
information available in Paris. Can you find your way or will you get lost?

  Key dates are:
15 February: deadline for submission of abstracts for papers, demonstrations 
and posters
15 April: notification of acceptance of papers, demonstrations and posters for 
presentation
15 May: deadline for early registration
1 June: deadline for submission of revised extended abstracts
1 June: deadline for submission of maps for Public Transport Map Exhibition
1  2 July: Workshop

We hope to gain the support of commercial providers to help offset costs. 
Offers or suggestions most welcome.

Please circulate this information widely to those with interests in Public 
Transport and User Issues.

Abstracts should be sent to: david.forr...@glasgow.ac.uk who can also be 
contacted for further information.

--
*
David Forrest PhD, FBCart.S
Senior Lecturer
School of Geographical  Earth Sciences
University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ
Tel: 0141 330 5401

For some a map is just a piece of paper
For others it is a passport to adventure

The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401




Distributed by CARTO-SoC, the Society of Cartographers Mailing List.
For more details about this List and the Society, visit our web site:
http://www.soc.org.uk

Join the Society on-line now: http://www.soc.org.uk/member.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] new version of Bing Imagery Analyzer

2011-01-04 Thread Alan Mintz


At 2011-01-04 02:43, Martijn van Exel wrote:
Hi all, I pushed a new version of the Bing Imagery Analyzer to dev. 
http://mvexel.dev.openstreetmap.org/bing/ Highlights: * Fixed a bug that 
reported one zoomlevel less than is actually there. * Transparency slider. 
* The underlying tile.php now also supports TMS-type requests for easy 
integration with OpenLayers. I cleared the tilecache because of the bug, 
so initial loading may be slower again. Enjoy, Martijn Martijn van Exel


Still maxing out at zoom level 20, not 22, though? People should realize 
that zoom 21 imagery is available in a lot of places.


--
Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net


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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phones do OSMers have?

2011-01-04 Thread Dave F.


On 04/01/2011 02:52, Anthony wrote:

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Dave F.dave...@madasafish.com  wrote:

Being curious in return, why are you curious?

Well, he does work for Microsoft...


Good point.

So his post is external marketing spam  should be deleted.

Dave F.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline


Hi,

On 01/04/11 13:31, John Smith wrote:

you misunderstood. After 31st March you have to mandatory agree to CT in
order to continue to EDIT.
eg: After this date no NEW nearmap data could be inserted unless compatible
with CT.


Which brings up the other point of contention about the 2/3rds of
active contributors that others have pointed out, namely that you lock
out people from contributing further that may object to further
license change there by being able to do things like vote stacking to
suit your agenda...


No Nearmap data can be added after April 1st but that doesn't have 
anything to do with your scenario. Anyone who has contributed to OSM in 
the past can continue to contribute provided that they accept the CT. If 
they cannot do that with their current account, they can create a new 
account. No *person* is barred from contributing.


But you are right in that there is a weakness because people are not 
guaranteed a right to contribute. We cannot guarantee that right of 
course - for example, in the totalitarian future, legal reasons might 
force OSMF to require that contributors sign some sort of indemnity form 
or something. Then OSMF would have to say only people who sign this 
form can continue contributing. Someone who doesn't sign, loses his 
active contributor status, and thereby his eligibility to vote. OSMF 
might also ban individuals for vandalism or other unruly behaviour. OSMF 
might also simply be overrun by contributions and technically unable to 
accept all contributions offered. - These are things that we must live 
with - we cannot say that OSMF must somehow always allow everyone to 
contribute. It's not practical.


But what could we do? Two ideas come to mind:

1. In the CT, put in a clause that basically says you grant OSMF all 
these rights on the condition that they always use these CT or a 
modified version that has been agreed upon by 2/3 of active 
contributors. This would make sure that even if OSMF is run over by 
criminals, there would be no incentive to try and change the CT in order 
to have it easier to change the license later.


2. Amend the definition of active contributor; instead of

a natural person (whether using a single or multiple accounts) who has 
edited the Project in any 3 calendar months from the last 12 months 
(i.e. there is a demonstrated interest over time); and has maintained a 
valid email address in their registration profile and responds within 3 
weeks.


put:

a natural person (whether using a single or multiple accounts) who has 
either (a) edited the Project in any 3 calendar months from the last 12 
months (i.e. there is a demonstrated interest over time) or (b) has met 
this requirement at an earlier time and explicitly asked within the last 
12 calendar months to be considered an active contributor; and has 
maintained a valid email address in their registration profile and 
responds within 3 weeks.


The wording is probably not perfect, but the idea is that once you've 
been an active contributor you can, if you want, keep that status up by 
simply asking for it. Sort of a keepalive signal. So if someone is 
hell-bent on participating in all future 2/3 decisions but doesn't want 
to contribute any more, they can simply put their name against a certain 
wiki page (or whatever mechanism is chosen) once a year instead of 
having to make one edit in three of twelve months.


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-04 Thread Peter Miller

I will currently be one of the people locked out because I have used the
Ordnance Survey open data which is apparently incompatible with the new
license. I have therefore not accepted the new terms because I can't. It is
possible that the OS situation will get resolved in the next few months but
there has been no progress in the past 9 months on the issue to my
knowledge.

I have contributed regularly since joining in October 2006.

Interestingly people who have registered very recently and who signed up
using the new terms and conditions do still have the OS Open data layers
available to them (OS StreetView and OS Locator)  even though these are the
data sources that are the reason why I can't sign up!

Incidentally, I have also been in private communication with the Foundation
in relation to their articles of association which need attention prior to
any license switch according to legal advice that we received some time ago.
There is a working group for the articles review but it apparently hasn't
actually done anything for the past 6 months .


Regards,


Peter Miller
ITO World Ltd
www.itoworld.com




On 4 January 2011 12:31, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 4 January 2011 18:40, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de wrote:
  you misunderstood. After 31st March you have to mandatory agree to CT in
  order to continue to EDIT.
  eg: After this date no NEW nearmap data could be inserted unless
 compatible
  with CT.

 Which brings up the other point of contention about the 2/3rds of
 active contributors that others have pointed out, namely that you lock
 out people from contributing further that may object to further
 license change there by being able to do things like vote stacking to
 suit your agenda...

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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 5 January 2011 00:09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 But you are right in that there is a weakness because people are not
 guaranteed a right to contribute. We cannot guarantee that right of course -

snip

 But what could we do? Two ideas come to mind:

Or better yet, change active contributor to active participant and
include things like genuine mailing list posts or wiki edits or ...
rather than restricting interested parties to only those who can
edit...

After all, OSM is supposedly an independent community, who is supposed
to be supported by OSM-F, even if there may be a split in future, that
doesn't nessicarily mean that various groups won't interact, even for
simple things like coming up with common tag/values etc...

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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phones do OSMers have?


Hi,

On 01/04/11 14:59, Dave F. wrote:

On 04/01/2011 02:52, Anthony wrote:

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Dave F.dave...@madasafish.com wrote:

Being curious in return, why are you curious?

Well, he does work for Microsoft...


Good point.

So his post is external marketing spam  should be deleted.


Oh come on, you two. First of all, contrary to what some people believe, 
working for a big company doesn't immediately erase all mental 
capabilities. Even someone working for Microsoft may be capable of being 
interested in things just like everyone else.


Second, there is neither a technical possibility to delete posts from 
a mailing list, nor do we have any moderation policy in place. If we had 
any moderation - something I always objected to -, then at least one of 
you wouldn't be allowed to post here any more.


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phones do OSMers have?

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Hi,

 On 01/04/11 14:59, Dave F. wrote:

 On 04/01/2011 02:52, Anthony wrote:

 On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Dave F.dave...@madasafish.com wrote:

 Being curious in return, why are you curious?

 Well, he does work for Microsoft...

 Good point.

 So his post is external marketing spam  should be deleted.

 Oh come on, you two. First of all, contrary to what some people believe,
 working for a big company doesn't immediately erase all mental capabilities.
 Even someone working for Microsoft may be capable of being interested in
 things just like everyone else.

You're right.  I didn't mean my post to imply anything of the sort,
but if it was taken that way I apologize.

I think working for Microsoft is great, and I hope Steve's question
has something to do with Microsoft wanting to make as great of an OS
for smart phones as it makes for desktops.  Again, I'm sorry I wasn't
more clear.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phones do OSMers have?

2011-01-04 Thread Milo van der Linden

A nokia 6600 running Symbian; A samsung innov8 running Symbian and a
Samsung Galaxy S running Frozen Yoghurt.

Yes, I have three ears ;-)


2011/1/4 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
 Hi,

 On 01/04/11 14:59, Dave F. wrote:

 On 04/01/2011 02:52, Anthony wrote:

 On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Dave F.dave...@madasafish.com wrote:

 Being curious in return, why are you curious?

 Well, he does work for Microsoft...

 Good point.

 So his post is external marketing spam  should be deleted.

 Oh come on, you two. First of all, contrary to what some people believe,
 working for a big company doesn't immediately erase all mental capabilities.
 Even someone working for Microsoft may be capable of being interested in
 things just like everyone else.

 Second, there is neither a technical possibility to delete posts from a
 mailing list, nor do we have any moderation policy in place. If we had any
 moderation - something I always objected to -, then at least one of you
 wouldn't be allowed to post here any more.

 Bye
 Frederik

 ___
 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-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 But you are right in that there is a weakness because people are not
 guaranteed a right to contribute.
[]
 But what could we do?

Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing
terms.  Even an opt-out arrangement would be better than the current
one, where 2 people with 1 edit each get to override 1 person with
10,000 edits.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline


Peter Miller wrote:
 I will currently be one of the people locked out because I have used 
 the Ordnance Survey open data which is apparently incompatible with 
 the new license.

OS OpenData is AIUI compatible with ODbL and the latest Contributor Terms.

cheers
Richard

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5888953.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-04 Thread Rob Myers


On 04/01/11 15:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:


Peter Miller wrote:

I will currently be one of the people locked out because I have used
the Ordnance Survey open data which is apparently incompatible with
the new license.


OS OpenData is AIUI compatible with ODbL and the latest Contributor Terms.


[citation needed]

(http://fandomania.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/xfiles1.jpg)

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 5 January 2011 01:02, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 But you are right in that there is a weakness because people are not
 guaranteed a right to contribute.
 []
 But what could we do?

 Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing
 terms.  Even an opt-out arrangement would be better than the current
 one, where 2 people with 1 edit each get to override 1 person with
 10,000 edits.

+1

On the surface that would seem to give a better indication of if a
license change should be adopted or not, but I agree with Frederik's
point that pointless or abusive edits shouldn't make someone be
eligible as an active contributor either when it comes to influencing
major changes... What if those 10,000 edits were duplicating ways
simply to up their stats so as to have more influence over things...

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

Re: [OSM-talk] new version of Bing Imagery Analyzer

2011-01-04 Thread Martijn van Exel

Alan,

You're right.
I fixed it. It would detect anything up to z22 now.

Martijn

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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phones do OSMers have?

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
 Specifically I’m wondering if everyone has androids because we’re all open
 source nuts or if it’s more balanced? Only the data will show.

I've got an Android of some kind.  While I'm willing to put up with
proprietary software (I run Windows on my desktop and Quickbooks for
my accounting business), I'm not willing to put up with a phone OS
which doesn't even allow me to install whatever software I want to
install.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] new version of Bing Imagery Analyzer

2011-01-04 Thread Alan Mintz


At 2011-01-04 07:13, Martijn van Exel wrote:

I fixed it. It would detect anything up to z22 now.


Nice :)  Are you aware that the imagery won't zoom past z20, though?

--
Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net


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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phones do OSMers have?

2011-01-04 Thread Phil! Gold

* andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com [2011-01-04 08:49 +0100]:
 AFAIK Maemo, Palm's Webos and Android are all about the same level of
 open, i.e. linux-based but including some closed source drivers or
 libraries.

I don't know much about Maemo phones, but Palm has a more open approach to
the OS than most (maybe all) Android manufacturers.  Apps for Android are
limited to the Java environment that Android provides and accessing the OS
requires jailbreaking the phone, which most manufacturers don't like.
Palm (now HP) allows access to the base OS as a policy, although the code
for their UI is still proprietary.

Mostly, what I like about having a Palm phone is not having to jailbreak
it in order to do (more or less) whatever I want to it.

-- 
...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A27F2  print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248  9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
--- --
It didn't take very much reductio to get right down to absurdum from where
you started.
   -- Mike Jones
 --- --

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

Re: [OSM-talk] new version of Bing Imagery Analyzer

2011-01-04 Thread Martijn van Exel

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. This is probably a setting in the
Bing Maps API, but I plan to swith the entire thing over to OpenLayers
anyway, so I don't want to look into that too much.

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



On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
 At 2011-01-04 07:13, Martijn van Exel wrote:

 I fixed it. It would detect anything up to z22 now.

 Nice :)  Are you aware that the imagery won't zoom past z20, though?

 --
 Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net


 ___
 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] Nominatim US places

2011-01-04 Thread Phil! Gold

* Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com [2011-01-03 22:19 -0500]:
 Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net writes:
  this is why i suggested adding a centroid tag to the boundary relations
  as a way to convey the place that is by convention considered the
  center of town.
 
 The word centroid seems best avoided.  It has a well established
 geometrical meaning and that isn't what we mean.   admin_centre seems
 fine for boundaries with admin_level tags.  Or just traditional_center
 for any boundary relation.

The boundary relation[0] has roles for both admin_centre and label, though
I don't know how many renderers are using them currently.  For some
reason, a lot of places (including the US) seem to have standardized on
using multipolygons instead of boundary relations for administrative
boundaries.  I'm still not sure why, since the boundary relation seems to
me to be a better fit for the data.

-- 
...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A27F2  print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248  9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
--- --
One man's constant is another man's variable.
   -- A.J. Perlis
 --- --

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline


Hi,

On 01/04/11 17:02, John Smith wrote:

On 5 January 2011 01:48, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org  wrote:

No, that is not acceptable to me. Someone who participates in OSM must have
the willingness to accept what the majority wants, or else they should not
participate in the first place.


Ummm where is the majority of OSM contributors that want to switch to
CT/ODBL and in the process loose lots of map data?

So far I've only seen a minor-majority of OSM-F members agreed to some
kind of process that might lead to a license change, and a majority of
OSM-F board members agree to a license change.


Luckily we're now all signing up to the CT which will, for the first 
time, establish a well-defined path for any future license change, so 
the situation you complain about will be the last of its kind.


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 The *main* reason for the active-contributor definition is that we need to
 exclude those who are dead, unreachable, or have lost interest, from the
 decision-making process.

 Those people aren't going to respond within three weeks to an email, are they?

Maybe they'll respond with an autoresponder, which just goes to show
why the active contributor definition was poorly drafted, but
presumably respond is going to be defined as clicking on some sort
of link somewhere, and not merely replying to the email.

It seems to me very accidental the way the active contributor
definition and the 2/3 majority interpretation combine.  Why not just
define active contributors as active contributors, say that you have
to attempt to send them an email at their last known email address and
give them at least 3 weeks from the time the email is sent to vote,
and then make the threshold 2/3 majority of voting active
contributrors?

Or better yet, drop the active from the active contributors, and
make inactive contributors eligible to vote as well.  They still won't
be counted towards the 2/3 requirement unless they actually show up
and vote, which is a good indicator that they're not dead,
unreachable, or have lost interest.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phones do OSMers have?

2011-01-04 Thread Robert Kaiser


Phil! Gold schrieb:

I got the Palm Pre because it's the most open platform I've seen short of
OpenMoko


Erm, haven't you heard any bit about Maemo/MeeGo yet? I don't think 
there's any other supported phone OS out there that is more open than 
Maemo or any in development more open than MeeGo (and yes, that includes 
Paml's WebOS).


Unfortunately, that survey doesn't differentiate between Nakia's plain 
noon-Symbian phones, their Symbian phones and their Maemo-powered 
smartphone (N900, more to come this year when MeeGo is ready).


Robert Kaiser


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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phones do OSMers have?

2011-01-04 Thread Robert Kaiser


andrzej zaborowski schrieb:

Note that that there will also be some folks that have a Nokia phone
because they're open souce nuts and use a Maemo-linux Nokia phone.
AFAIK Maemo, Palm's Webos and Android are all about the same level of
open, i.e. linux-based but including some closed source drivers or
libraries.


I have to disagree, as Android is quite closed compared to those other 
two, and Maemo/MeeGo is even (slightly) more open than WebOS (though I 
know a bit too little about WebOS to point to specifics, it can't get 
much more open then MeeGo is - even though still in development).


Robert Kaiser


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

Re: [OSM-talk] new version of Bing Imagery Analyzer

2011-01-04 Thread Peter

/me points at the code in https://github.com/PeterNL/bingocular

2011/1/4 Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org:
 Yes, thanks for pointing that out. This is probably a setting in the
 Bing Maps API, but I plan to swith the entire thing over to OpenLayers
 anyway, so I don't want to look into that too much.

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



 On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net 
 wrote:
 At 2011-01-04 07:13, Martijn van Exel wrote:

 I fixed it. It would detect anything up to z22 now.

 Nice :)  Are you aware that the imagery won't zoom past z20, though?

 --
 Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net


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


 ___
 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] What phones do OSMers have?

2011-01-04 Thread Nic Roets

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
 andrzej zaborowski schrieb:

 Note that that there will also be some folks that have a Nokia phone
 because they're open souce nuts and use a Maemo-linux Nokia phone.
 AFAIK Maemo, Palm's Webos and Android are all about the same level of
 open, i.e. linux-based but including some closed source drivers or
 libraries.

 I have to disagree, as Android is quite closed compared to those other two,

If you look at Android from the view point of the end user or the
hacker, it's quite closed. DRM, binary drivers, and the mobile
operators occasionally blocking tethering applications.

However, independent application developers with valid business models
love Android. Their applications aren't tied to a proprietary
operating system. There have been reports that it's even possible to
remove Google from the ecosystem, should they ever become evil.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

On 5 January 2011 03:03, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
 Actually it does not put the onus on OSMF to remove the data.  It says they
 may remove the data, it doesn't say they will remove the data, or even
 that they will make any attempt to remove it.  Indeed I'm sure it has been
 argued by others that putting the onus on OSMF to remove the data is placing
 too high a burden on OSMF.

Right, so the only way to avoid that for data with an attribution
requirement would be to limit future license changes to licenses that
at least have an attribution requirement.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phones do OSMers have?

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
 If you look at Android from the view point of the end user or the
 hacker, it's quite closed. DRM, binary drivers, and the mobile
 operators occasionally blocking tethering applications.

How are mobile operators blocking applications?  You mean blocking
them from the store?  Blocking them from the phone network?

They can't stop you from installing an apk, can they?

---

I'm definitely going to have to look into Maemo/MeeGo/WebOS, to see if
it's any easier to develop for than Android.  I do have some problems
with what hooks the Android OS does and doesn't provide.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Nominatim US places

2011-01-04 Thread Mike N.


The boundary relation[0] has roles for both admin_centre and label, though
I don't know how many renderers are using them currently.  For some
reason, a lot of places (including the US) seem to have standardized on
using multipolygons instead of boundary relations for administrative
boundaries.  I'm still not sure why, since the boundary relation seems to
me to be a better fit for the data.


I agree - the boundary relation + admin_centre role for the county seat 
or town center is the best fit.   I have applied this to several regional 
counties and will see how Nominatum is improved.




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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-04 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM)

On 4 January 2011 16:22, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
John Smith wrote:
That might work for ODBL which has attribution requirements, although
if produced works are exempt from attribution requirements

They're not. ODbL 4.3 requires attribution on produced works.

ODbL 4.3 requires that the source database be attributed, not any data
sources that went into making that database. It also provides no
explicit requirement for any downstream users to attribute the source
of the produced work, the source database, or the sources that went
into making that database in any derivative works they may create. The
OS OpenData license includes specific attribution wording that, under
ODbL, there would be no obligation to provide that specific wording
with a produced work, or any derivative works arising from it.

However, it may be argued that the indirect attribution on a produced
work, via the OSM link back to the OSM list of sources page would be
sufficient for OS OpenData. But that still doesn't get round the
problem of no attribution requirement on derivatives of produced
works. I guess the only way round this would be to argue that the
uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the
Produced Work part of ODbL 4.3 also extends to all derivatives of
produced works. But I think that's quite a stretch. The license
specifically states the Produced Work and not Produced Work and any
derivative works.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases#Use_of_maps_in_Wikipedia_and_Wikitravel
would seem to contradict your later assertion that produced works can
only be licensed under an attribution license. (Note that the clause
4.6 mentioned there has since been removed from ODbL.)

and the CT allows for license changes to non-attribution licenses

It doesn't. CT 4 promises attribution and, as part of the Terms themselves
rather than the licence, cannot be overruled by a future licence change.

That requirement is only for OSMF to provide attribution when they
distribute the OSM data. It does not force OSMF to require other
downstream data users to provide similar attribution when they
distribute derivative works / databases. So this clause would not stop
OSMF releasing the data as PD as long as OSMF still maintains an
appropriate attribution page themselves.

--
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

2011-01-04 Thread Stephan Knauss

Peter Miller writes: 


I will currently be one of the people locked out because I have used the
Ordnance Survey open data which is apparently incompatible with the new
license. I have therefore not accepted the new terms because I can't. 


Why did you not create a new account you will use only to commit data that 
is compatible with CT and ODbL? 

This still does not resolve the mashup of compatible and incompatible data 
you entered in the past. As it seams that incompatible sources are located 
to a specific geographical region you could select your other edits and 
upload them under a clean account. 


Stephan

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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phones do OSMers have?

2011-01-04 Thread john

Some phones are set up so that only apps digitally signed by the carrier can be 
installed.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] What phones do OSMers have?
From  :mailto:o...@inbox.org
Date  :Tue Jan 04 11:44:06 America/Chicago 2011


On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
 If you look at Android from the view point of the end user or the
 hacker, it's quite closed. DRM, binary drivers, and the mobile
 operators occasionally blocking tethering applications.

How are mobile operators blocking applications?  You mean blocking
them from the store?  Blocking them from the phone network?

They can't stop you from installing an apk, can they?

---

I'm definitely going to have to look into Maemo/MeeGo/WebOS, to see if
it's any easier to develop for than Android.  I do have some problems
with what hooks the Android OS does and doesn't provide.

___
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] Turn left restriction on two way highways

2011-01-04 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer

2010/12/30 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
 On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
 I know it may look like a lot of work adding all the no_left_turns, but it's
 the right way.

 I have to disagree. OSM happens to have started in the UK, but that
 doesn't mean that UK defaults make sense everywhere.


I agree with Nic. AFAIK there are no defaults in OSM, not UK ones, and
not others. Any not given Information is simply not yet entered.


 I think we definitely need to define defaults that make sense for each
 country, and formalise this in some way. Preferably in the database,
 perhaps as tags on the country boundary: default:no_left_turn=yes or
 something.


this makes evaluation immensely complicated. As of now, it would
simply break routing as long as this is not implemented.


 3. Tourists who map in Argentina may not do the right thing.

 It's far more important that people who live in the country have tags
 that are easy to use and make sense for them. Just witness the endless
 confusion and debates that (UK-specific) tags like
 highway=unclassified and highway=cycleway have caused for the rest
 of the world.


have they? I doubt that the problem came from UK-specificy, mostly it
came from users ignoring the wiki or asuming defaults that weren't
actually documented or missleading or underspecified wiki definitions.


 I'm actually starting to think it would make more sense for each local
 community to map using their own tag schema, and then to define
 cross-walks to allow the communities to join up.


I'd say this is another project, not OSM.


cheers,
Martin

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

[OSM-talk] Beta testers wanted for OpenMaps for iOS

2011-01-04 Thread Zsombor Szabó

We've been working on OpenMaps universal version (optimized for both
iPhone and iPad) for a couple of months now and we are ready to
release the first beta. If you have an iDevice and want to beta test
it then now it is the opportunity to apply. There are 3-5 positions
available.

Please email me your name, iDevice type, device's UDID and a short
introduction why you want to beta test OpenMaps. Also, it is a plus if
you read this article
http://mrgan.tumblr.com/post/972579129/beta-testing and still want to
beta test.

Best regards,
Zsombor Szabo
IZE, Ltd. - http://izeize.com/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phones do OSMers have?

2011-01-04 Thread Dave F.


On 04/01/2011 14:32, Anthony wrote:


You're right.  I didn't mean my post to imply anything of the sort,
but if it was taken that way I apologize.

I think working for Microsoft is great, and I hope Steve's question
has something to do with Microsoft wanting to make as great of an OS
for smart phones as it makes for desktops.  Again, I'm sorry I wasn't
more clear.


Anthony; I apologize, that through a pathetic misinterpretation by 
Fredrik, you've been tarred with my beliefs. It was not my intention. Sorry.


Fredrik; you really do need to learn how web forums work before posting 
such nonsense. Just because I post a reply that criticizes the OP 
doesn't mean the person I replied to directly agrees with my post (I 
mean, how could he?!).


I'm really fucking pissed off with you  your incompetent comments.

How dare you make wild assumptions that someone, without no indication 
whatsoever, has the same beliefs as me.


In future keep your gob shut until you know what you're talking about.

Dave F.







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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phones do OSMers have?

2011-01-04 Thread Floris Looijesteijn

Dave F. wrote:
.
 Fredrik; you really do need to learn how web forums work before posting
 such nonsense. Just because I post a reply that criticizes the OP
 doesn't mean the person I replied to directly agrees with my post (I
 mean, how could he?!).

 I'm really fucking pissed off with you  your incompetent comments.

 How dare you make wild assumptions that someone, without no indication
 whatsoever, has the same beliefs as me.

 In future keep your gob shut until you know what you're talking about.

What? Did I miss a message from Frederik? I think his remark was
completely fair.

Maybe you should take a deep breath before posting something like this.
There's a lot of people on this list...

Greets,
Floris

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

Re: [OSM-talk] What phones do OSMers have?

2011-01-04 Thread Dave F.


On 04/01/2011 22:51, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:


What? Did I miss a message from Frederik? I think his remark was
completely fair.


He inferred my comments  beliefs onto someone else. How is that fair?


There's a lot of people on this list...


Err... So?

Dave F.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Turn left restriction on two way highways

2011-01-04 Thread Steve Bennett

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:08 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 I agree with Nic. AFAIK there are no defaults in OSM, not UK ones, and
 not others. Any not given Information is simply not yet entered.

Are you not aware of this:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions

And:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Defaults

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Turn left restriction on two way highways

2011-01-04 Thread Alan Mintz


At 2011-01-04 11:08, =?UTF-8?Q?M=E2=88=A1rtin_Koppenhoefer?= wrote:

2010/12/30 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
 On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
 I know it may look like a lot of work adding all the no_left_turns, 
but it's

 the right way.

 I have to disagree. OSM happens to have started in the UK, but that
 doesn't mean that UK defaults make sense everywhere.


I agree with Nic. AFAIK there are no defaults in OSM, not UK ones, and
not others. Any not given Information is simply not yet entered.


There are defaults that are documented. Off the top of my head:

highway=*_link implies oneway=yes
junction=roundabout implies oneway=yes
no layer tag implies layer=0
no turn restriction at an intersection implies traffic can flow between the 
ways


Undocumented:
power=line implies layer=1 more than whatever it crosses (i.e. no crossing 
way error)




 I think we definitely need to define defaults that make sense for each
 country, and formalise this in some way. Preferably in the database,
 perhaps as tags on the country boundary: default:no_left_turn=yes or
 something.


Yes. Not just country, but at least one more level down.

--
Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net


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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] gemeentelijke herindeling

2011-01-04 Thread Frank Fesevur

Het CBS heeft kaarten beschikbaar gesteld:
http://twitter.com/statistiekcbs/status/21128028578910208 Misschien
heeft iemand er wat aan.

Gegroet,
Frank



Op 3 januari 2011 13:04 heeft Rob interru...@gmail.com het volgende
geschreven:


 Op 2 januari 2011 23:52 schreef Lennard l...@xs4all.nl het volgende:

 On 2-1-2011 12:19, Rob wrote:

 Per 1 januari zijn er weer verschillende gemeenten samengevoegd.
 De vraag is nu gaan we dit individueel oppakken of is er iemand die
 dit al op z'n todo lijst heeft staan ?

 Het stond op mijn todo, maar jij mag ook hoor.

 Neuh, be my guest ;)
 Toevallig zitten hier om de hoek 2 gemeentes die samengaan.

 Groeten
 Rob

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



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

Re: [talk-au] Locations of underground creeks

On 4 January 2011 15:51, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 Yer, but GPS's don't work underground.

AGPS does...

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

Re: [talk-au] Locations of underground creeks

On 4 January 2011 19:04, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 4 January 2011 15:51, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 Yer, but GPS's don't work underground.

 AGPS does...


or rather, some forms of AGPS do...

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

Re: [talk-au] Locations of underground creeks

2011-01-04 Thread Elizabeth Dodd

On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 19:04:58 +1000
John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 4 January 2011 19:04, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
  On 4 January 2011 15:51, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
  Yer, but GPS's don't work underground.
 
  AGPS does...
 
 
 or rather, some forms of AGPS do...
 
I'm waiting for this to actually become available
https://www.eglobaldigitalcameras.com.au/casio-exilim-ex-h20g-digital-camera.html
because it has GPS, INS and the firmware update will record gps tracks

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

Re: [talk-au] Locations of underground creeks

2011-01-04 Thread Elizabeth Dodd

On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 20:10:23 +1100
Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:

   Yer, but GPS's don't work underground.  
  
   AGPS does...

  
  or rather, some forms of AGPS do...

 I'm waiting for this to actually become available
 https://www.eglobaldigitalcameras.com.au/casio-exilim-ex-h20g-digital-camera.html
 because it has GPS, INS and the firmware update will record gps tracks

I didn't mention that I'm not volunteering for the job.

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

[talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

-- Forwarded message --
From: Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com
Date: 5 January 2011 00:13
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-t...@openstreetmap.org

I will currently be one of the people locked out because I have used
the Ordnance Survey open data which is apparently incompatible with
the new license. I have therefore not accepted the new terms because I
can't. It is possible that the OS situation will get resolved in the
next few months but there has been no progress in the past 9 months on
the issue to my knowledge.

I have contributed regularly since joining in October 2006.

Interestingly people who have registered very recently and who signed
up using the new terms and conditions do still have the OS Open data
layers available to them (OS StreetView and OS Locator)  even though
these are the data sources that are the reason why I can't sign up!

Incidentally, I have also been in private communication with the
Foundation in relation to their articles of association which need
attention prior to any license switch according to legal advice that
we received some time ago. There is a working group for the articles
review but it apparently hasn't actually done anything for the past 6
months .

Regards,

Peter Miller
ITO World Ltd
www.itoworld.com

On 4 January 2011 12:31, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 4 January 2011 18:40, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de wrote:
  you misunderstood. After 31st March you have to mandatory agree to CT in
  order to continue to EDIT.
  eg: After this date no NEW nearmap data could be inserted unless compatible
  with CT.

 Which brings up the other point of contention about the 2/3rds of
 active contributors that others have pointed out, namely that you lock
 out people from contributing further that may object to further
 license change there by being able to do things like vote stacking to
 suit your agenda...

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

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

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

[talk-au] Australia Post finds new routes around floods