date:20110617

The only places where Yahoo has imagery that Bing doesn't are the following:

1. Small parts of Pampanga: rural eastern parts of San Fernando; Sta.
Ana; northern parts of San Simon. This area is partially covered by
the mid-res SPOT5 imagery though.

2. Southern parts of Samal City including Talikud Island. No
alternative imagery here.


On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:04 PM, maning sambale
emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote:
 According to this article:
 http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2011/06/yahoo-maps-apis-service-closure-announcement-new-maps-offerings-coming-soon/

 Since OSM is using Yahoo! imagery via it's Maps APIs, we might not
 have access to this imagery by September 2011.

 Question.
  - Have we maximize Yahoo! imagery already?
  - Are there areas where Yahoo! is available but no Bing in the PH?

 --
 cheers,
 maning

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

2011-06-17 Thread Francis Davey

2011/6/17 Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com:

 The goal of that statement was to allow any contributions that have been
 derived from our PhotoMaps under our current licence (which is what imposes
 the CC-BY-SA redistribution condition) can remain in the OSM db.  Not being
 a lawyer, I'm not going to comment on how the statement may or may not
 achieve that; I'm not qualified to interpret it.  All I can do is make it
 clear that it was drafted to explicitly allow derived data to stay in the
 database.  I've seen the background correspondence about it, and I know the
 lawyers involved were well aware of the CTs, the OdBL, the future licence
 terms, etc, when they drafted it.

Thanks for that.

Speaking as a lawyer for a moment - and trying to be helpful, though I
detect some irritation at what I am saying - as a matter of strict
reading, the first statement of Ben's in this thread quite clearly
states that OSMF may continue to use nearmap data but may not licence
it under ODbL. In particular the clarification paragraph contains
the sentence:

The OSMF are making a change to the contributor terms which makes
them incompatible with the requirement, under our community licence,
that derived works be distributed only under CC-BY-SA.  We are not
able to change our licence to allow distribution of derived works
under unspecified future licences.

Which is about as categorical as it can be. Some responses to my email
explaining this haven't been happy with that conclusion and have
complained about it, but the fact that information is unwelcome and
unwanted doesn't make it untrue.

Now, people don't always write what they mean. And some of the rest of
what Ben says appears (confusingly) to contradict that plain statement
at the end and the way in which the lawyer drafted paragraphs operate.
As a matter of law (and here Australian law is similar enough to
English law that I am confident it is right for there as here),
provided Ben appears to have the authority to speak on nearmap's
behalf, what he says in this email is quite enough to rely on. A court
would read the entirety of the correspondence and conclude that,
however confused his first statement, what he says later on makes it
clear precisely what he is trying to do.

If any other project wants to do this in the future having them say:
we are happy for you to keep any data that has already been
contributed to the map and for you to relicense it under any licence
selected in accordance with your existing contributor terms would be
entirely sufficient.

So, thank you Ben for the additional clarification and thank you
everyone else for bearing with my trying to nail this down. I know it
appears annoying and pedantic to some, but if you care about legal
issues at all that is how it has to be some times.

-- 
Francis Davey

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote:
 The goal of that statement was to allow any contributions that have been
 derived from our PhotoMaps under our current licence (which is what imposes
 the CC-BY-SA redistribution condition) can remain in the OSM db.  Not being

I'm still finding it a bit hard to understand exactly what is meant by
can remain in the OSM db. Is the following statement correct?
Nearmap-derived contributions prior to June 17 were licensed
CC-BY-SA*, and will remain part of the main, actively developed and
distributed OSM database even when it changes to ODbL, and Nearmap is
fine with that. However, they refuse to allow any contributions under
the new Contributor Terms, because those call for unspecified future
relicensing.

Also, a question I should probably know the answer to: is  ODbL
considered compatible with CC-BY-SA? Can you relicense something that
is CC-BY-SA as ODbL? (I guess the answer must be yes, but could
someone confirm?)

Steve
* Or ODbL, depending on the contributor and time.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

2011-06-17 Thread Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer

Hi Dermot,

 That's not a bad start - but if I play spot-the-missing-bit, it looks
 to me that you aren't prepared to trust 2/3 of the community to decide
 that (for reasons not yet forseen) a licence other than the two you
 list and which may not be copyleft/sharealike.

Please note that the CT do not guarantee a 2/3 majority of the community. Only 
a part of the community is entitled to vote.

I would also like to repeat what I wrote in an earlier email to this list: 
The process of updating the CT and of responding to criticism 
within the community is far more important to me than the actual result of 
this update.

Shortly after I wrote these words, a respected community member attacked me as 
being blinded by ideology. He never apologised, and no one contradicted him. 
This personal attack is the main reason why I am now completely unwilling to 
accept the CT as long as I see peoblems in it.

Olaf

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap


Hi,

On 06/17/11 11:18, John Smith wrote:

Only if the amount of data traced is not substantial.


CC-by-SA makes no such distinction, it's either cc-by-sa or it's not
cc-by-sa, so which license can tiles be put under?


Sorry, I thought you had asked about tracing from tiles.

Tiles can be put under CC-BY-SA with no problem; in fact the main OSM 
tileserver is likely to do that.


A database created by tracing from these tiles might however be subject 
to the limitations I have outlined in my previous email. Whether or not 
CC-BY-SA makes such a distinction or not is not relevant. I tried to 
explain this by referring to the related case of patents (here, too, 
CC-BY-SA makes no distinction), but I understand it is a difficult 
concept to grasp.


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 18 June 2011 00:06, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Hi,

 On 06/17/11 11:18, John Smith wrote:

 Only if the amount of data traced is not substantial.

 CC-by-SA makes no such distinction, it's either cc-by-sa or it's not
 cc-by-sa, so which license can tiles be put under?

 Sorry, I thought you had asked about tracing from tiles.

 Tiles can be put under CC-BY-SA with no problem; in fact the main OSM
 tileserver is likely to do that.

 A database created by tracing from these tiles might however be subject to
 the limitations I have outlined in my previous email. Whether or not
 CC-BY-SA makes such a distinction or not is not relevant. I tried to explain
 this by referring to the related case of patents (here, too, CC-BY-SA makes
 no distinction), but I understand it is a difficult concept to grasp.

Database restrictions don't concern me, as there is no DB directives
or similar in most of the world, and I don't find any of this
difficult to grasp, but I do keep getting conflicting answers from
those promoting the new license.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 18 June 2011 00:54, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:44 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 On 18 June 2011 00:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 I am not trying to apply patents to OSM. I am trying to use the example of
 patents to prove to you that your reasoning either something is CC-BY-SA or
 it isn't is, in this simplicity, invalid; that there may well exist
 limitations external to the license that limit what you can or cannot do
 with the CC-BY-SA licensed entity.

 Sorry if I didn't explain myself properly, I meant if you apply
 CC-by-SA you are allowed or limited by that license only, if there is
 further restrictions you would have to use something other than
 cc-by-sa (such as CC-by-ND) to enforce this, OR use a contract.

 If you are given a CC-BY-SA licensed work, they you are limited by by
 the CC-BY-SA license on the copyrightable aspects only. Other aspects
 like trademarks or patents that are inherent in the work are already
 limited irrespective of the CC-BY-SA license. The person who gave you
 the CC-BY-SA licensed work does not have to enforce you to follow
 trademark or patent restrictions, by contract or another copyright
 license.

I'm aware of the patent/trademark issues, I wish Frederik hadn't
brought this up as it only serves to side track things, because unless
he plans to constantly patent tiles we can ignore that side of things
completely.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap



Because you want to sell/offer s service in the EU, enter one of the 
countries and numerous other reasons. As long as you don't make the 
derived database available or publish the contents in some form -in- the 
EU you are not in trouble, just if.


Simon


Am 17.06.2011 16:54, schrieb John Smith:

..
This could be hard, especially since OSM-F isn't complying with
Chinese law, so why would others comply with EU law unless they were
in the EU?




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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 18 June 2011 01:10, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:

 Because you want to sell/offer s service in the EU, enter one of the
 countries and numerous other reasons. As long as you don't make the derived
 database available or publish the contents in some form -in- the EU you are
 not in trouble, just if.

Depending how much China wants to crack down, any OSM-F member could
probably be thrown in a Chinese jail for failure to comply with
Chinese laws, what's your point?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 17 June 2011 16:48, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 On 06/17/11 16:39, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
 1. IIRC the newer versions of CC-By-SA include statements to ensure
 that the content is not protected by database rights, patents or DRM,
 which would prevent their uses.

 News to me. Do you have a pointer?

Some secondary sources (i.e. not license text), it looks like it may
apply only to some ports of version 3 and is considered for version 4,
but there's something even in version 2 ports:

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/f/f6/V3_Database_Rights.pdf
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-November/005026.html

For example the pdf says (about european ports):
In other words, the sui generis license should not extend the
restrictions of the CC license conditions to things (facts, ideas,
information, etc.) not protected by copyright.

But also says:

2. Unconditional waiver of the of the sui generis database rights
under the national law implementing the European Database Directive at
the end of section 3 of the licenses:
  Where the licensor is the owner of the sui generis database rights
under the national law implementing the European Database Directive,
the licensor will waive this right.

and the person making the tiles is probably not the owner (but in case
of tiles.openstreetmap.org it might be).

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

2011-06-17 Thread Dermot McNally

On Friday, 17 June 2011, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer o...@amen-online.de wrote:

 Please note that the CT do not guarantee a 2/3 majority of the community. Only
 a part of the community is entitled to vote.

I read your other mail on that topic. I don't personally have any
objection to addressing weaknesses in the definition of active
contributor. Given the likely slight impact on the outcome of any
vote I wouldn't even object to including a time-limited right to vote
for all past contributors (though see below), though we would need to
be careful then about whether we would require 66% of former
contributors to say yes or just 66% of those who ultimately cast a
vote. The former would become unworkable as more and more inactive
mappers became unreachable.

As to the definition of former contributor - in a post-CT-adoption
OSM that would probably mean excluding those never to have agreed to
the CT (in other words, restrict voting rights to those who still have
data in OSM). It remains to be seen whether the difference will prove
a significant one.

 Shortly after I wrote these words, a respected community member attacked me as
 being blinded by ideology. He never apologised, and no one contradicted him.
 This personal attack is the main reason why I am now completely unwilling to
 accept the CT as long as I see peoblems in it.

With reference to Rob's reply on this issue, and assuming his quote to
be in-context (it certainly matches my recollection), I agree with his
interpretation. The quote does not attack you as blinded by
ideology. As such, that post, which I also agree to be well-argued,
should have no bearing on your attitude to CT.

Dermot

-- 
--
Igaühel on siin oma laul
ja ma oma ei leiagi üles

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 17 June 2011 17:17, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 17 June 2011 16:48, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 On 06/17/11 16:39, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
 1. IIRC the newer versions of CC-By-SA include statements to ensure
 that the content is not protected by database rights, patents or DRM,
 which would prevent their uses.

 News to me. Do you have a pointer?

 Some secondary sources (i.e. not license text), it looks like it may
 apply only to some ports of version 3 and is considered for version 4,
 but there's something even in version 2 ports:

 http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/f/f6/V3_Database_Rights.pdf
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-November/005026.html

 For example the pdf says (about european ports):
 In other words, the sui generis license should not extend the
 restrictions of the CC license conditions to things (facts, ideas,
 information, etc.) not protected by copyright.

Actually, ignore the above fragment.


 But also says:

 2. Unconditional waiver of the of the sui generis database rights
 under the national law implementing the European Database Directive at
 the end of section 3 of the licenses:
  Where the licensor is the owner of the sui generis database rights
 under the national law implementing the European Database Directive,
 the licensor will waive this right.

 and the person making the tiles is probably not the owner (but in case
 of tiles.openstreetmap.org it might be).

 Cheers


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

2011-06-17 Thread ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:01 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 18 June 2011 00:54, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:44 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 On 18 June 2011 00:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 I am not trying to apply patents to OSM. I am trying to use the example of
 patents to prove to you that your reasoning either something is CC-BY-SA 
 or
 it isn't is, in this simplicity, invalid; that there may well exist
 limitations external to the license that limit what you can or cannot do
 with the CC-BY-SA licensed entity.

 Sorry if I didn't explain myself properly, I meant if you apply
 CC-by-SA you are allowed or limited by that license only, if there is
 further restrictions you would have to use something other than
 cc-by-sa (such as CC-by-ND) to enforce this, OR use a contract.

 If you are given a CC-BY-SA licensed work, they you are limited by by
 the CC-BY-SA license on the copyrightable aspects only. Other aspects
 like trademarks or patents that are inherent in the work are already
 limited irrespective of the CC-BY-SA license. The person who gave you
 the CC-BY-SA licensed work does not have to enforce you to follow
 trademark or patent restrictions, by contract or another copyright
 license.

 I'm aware of the patent/trademark issues, I wish Frederik hadn't
 brought this up as it only serves to side track things, because unless
 he plans to constantly patent tiles we can ignore that side of things
 completely.

Let me try copyright-only examples.

I can take up the full text of all of the works of William
Shakespeare, compile it into a book with annotations, and release the
book under CC-BY-SA. Now since the original text by Shakespeare is
already in the public domain, I can copy those parts from the book
without following the book's CC license. In this case, the CC license
has no way to restrict me from doing that.

Here's another example. All English Wikipedia articles are licensed
CC-BY-SA. Most articles have images. Some images are *not* licensed
CC-BY-SA. In fact, many of such images are included in the article
under fair use reasoning. That doesn't give the reader the license to
use such images under CC-BY-SA simply because they were included in
CC-BY-SA-licensed articles.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

2011-06-17 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer

2011/6/17 Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com:
 On Friday, 17 June 2011, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer o...@amen-online.de wrote:

 I read your other mail on that topic. I don't personally have any
 objection to addressing weaknesses in the definition of active
 contributor.


If we take the voting issues seriously we should also have a voting
system that is open (i.e. transparent, open source, registers
transactions, ...), breaks usernames down to natural persons (would
probably require external verification services or maybe a system like
CaCert where mappers can certify/authenticate each other by personal
contact and passport verification).

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

2011-06-17 Thread Robert Kaiser


Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer schrieb:

The first problem is that the right to vote depends upon being allowed to
contribute.


It it defined anywhere what contribute means? I have heard statements 
before that sending messages, e.g. in here, also counts as a 
contribution, as does replying to a request to vote. IMHO, if you log 
into your user account (e.g. because you got a message about a vote), 
that's already contribution. But I wonder if the CTs define that 
clearly anywhere (sorry, no time to find and read them right now).


Robert Kaiser



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

[OSM-legal-talk] active contributor

2011-06-17 Thread Richard Weait

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
 Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer schrieb:

 The first problem is that the right to vote depends upon being allowed to
 contribute.

 It it defined anywhere what contribute means?

From the contributor terms v1.2.4

 An active contributor is defined as:

a natural person (whether using a single or multiple accounts) who has 
 edited the Project in any three 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 to a request to vote 
 within 3 weeks.

I've always equated edited the project with submitted a changeset.
 Submitting a changeset is something the OSM values and is relatively
easy bar to reach.  I would also certainly consider some exceptions.

1) Spammers, once in a while, submit diary entries full of spam links.
2) Some accounts have submitted changeset of bad data in the form of
either vandalism, or map spam.
3) Hypothetically, a contributor could upload gpx tracks and never edit.

I suggest that 1) and 2) are not active contributors.  I think 3)
could be valuable, but is not necessarily a contributor.  Does anybody
know if there are any accounts / users in category 3?

Thoughts?

p.s. I've changed the subject: for this sub-thread.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

The CT/License Vote was IMHO not meant to be a serious democratic
process. Instead a majority was searched for a OSMF decision:
cynism on
like non anonymous voting for a single party in some countries
where your lose your job if voting against -fill in your favorite dictator-
cynism off
As long as the majority is massive, the result needs not to
be validated, although theoretically this voting system
is very subject to manipulation as it is.
Note that I do not accuse ANYONE of manipulation at all.
But  the voting process as carried out -while probably well 
representing a majority in favor of CT/ODBL- deserves
understatement on
no beauty price for democratic quality 
understatement off

Gert

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: M∡rtin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: vrijdag 17 juni 2011 17:47
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

2011/6/17 Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com:
 On Friday, 17 June 2011, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer o...@amen-online.de wrote:

 I read your other mail on that topic. I don't personally have any
 objection to addressing weaknesses in the definition of active
 contributor.


If we take the voting issues seriously we should also have a voting
system that is open (i.e. transparent, open source, registers
transactions, ...), breaks usernames down to natural persons (would
probably require external verification services or maybe a system like
CaCert where mappers can certify/authenticate each other by personal
contact and passport verification).

cheers,
Martin

___
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

[OSM-legal-talk] application of ODBL to an extarct of OSM obtained via jxapi

2011-06-17 Thread David Groom


Word in quotes below relate to the meanings given them by ODbL

Assume I use jxapi to download an extract of the main OSM database .  Is the 
downloaded extract a Derivative Database, or since the download was 
provided by OSM does the downloaded data qualify as simply a Database?


Regards

David





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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] application of ODBL to an extarct of OSM obtained via jxapi

2011-06-17 Thread Richard Weait

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:09 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
 Word in quotes below relate to the meanings given them by ODbL

 Assume I use jxapi to download an extract of the main OSM database .  Is the
 downloaded extract a Derivative Database, or since the download was
 provided by OSM does the downloaded data qualify as simply a Database?

Does not §4.4b answer this[1]?

  b. For the avoidance of doubt, Extraction or Re-utilisation of
the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents into a new database is
a Derivative Database and must comply with Section 4.4.

As a practical matter, we almost always deal with the OSM db in terms
of a smaller extraction.  We create tiles for a few blocks with many
object types, or tiles with only country boundaries and oceans
covering the whole planet.  Planet files and planet history files
are probably the most frequent use that considers the complete db at
one time.  So it might be a derivative database of OSM, but it seems
indistinguishable from the OSM database broken into a manageable
chunk  ;-)

Why?  Do you have a specific use in mind?

Best regards,
Richard

[1] http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 18 June 2011 05:25, davespod osmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm wrote:
 In a similar vein, I think OSMF and any other publisher of OSM-derived map
 tiles under CC-by-SA would be well advised to be explicit about what it is
 they are licensing under CC-by-SA. In other words, they should follow the
 advice here (under Be specific about what you are licensing):

As I said before, you can easily do this with copyright, use CC-by-ND
instead of CC-by-SA, but if something is licensed as CC-by-SA it can
legally be derived from as long as the resulting work is also
CC-by-SA.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities

2011-06-17 Thread Gehling Marc

Hello, 

I would suggest that images are updated from countries that are currently inan 
upheaval as Egypt, Tunisia, Libya


Am 16.06.2011 um 23:09 schrieb Steve Coast:

 Hi
 
 I'm speaking personally and there are no guarantees here but I'd like to get 
 input on what areas you would like Bing to prioritise for aerial and/or 
 satellite imagery in the coming year. Please mail sco...@microsoft.com with 
 the area in question (I'd love to accept bounding boxes but don't really have 
 the time so cities/countries are the best).
 
 I will pass this on to the right people and we may or may not be able to help.
 
 Thanks
 
 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] SOS. no green area in map using StyleSheet mapnik

2011-06-17 Thread Saphy Mo

Hallo,

I used Mapnik and osm.xml as default StyleSheet. There are not any green ara on 
the map. Please let me know, where can I get a better StyleSheet like map of 
OpenStreetMap.org ?

Please see the Attachment.

Thanks,
Saphy
attachment: Meta_12_2136_1397.png___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Source tags and changesets (was ... ODbL ...)

2011-06-17 Thread Pieren

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:

 That sounds like a great idea.  (Does Merkaartor have support for this?)


'source' in the changeset has the disadvantage that it disappears  from the
planet dumps or simple API extracts. This can be a legal issue for some
sources (it is in France with the cadastre). I hope the next API will
provide some more clever solution than the current one where we attach the
source 'cadastre' in all objects in France coming from there (which explains
the current statistics: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/source#values
).

It also depends on how people are contributing. As already mentionned, it is
easy if you have a unique source only. And the amount of available sources
and their quality varies from country to country. Again, in France, we have
a very good source for roads, geometry and accuracy - the cadastre - but
very poor about the content (landuse, access restrictions, etc) which is
then compensated by local survey or aerial imagery. The result is that many
contributions are often a mix of different sources.

About the source, another equal importance information is its freshness. We
can see edits changing 2 years old surveyed data based on 5 years old Bing
imagery ...

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Users who disagree to ODbL but want PD / CC0

2011-06-17 Thread Simon Ward

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 04:29:51PM +0100, Thomas Davie wrote:

 On 16 Jun 2011, at 16:04, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
 
  No, it would be simpler for OSM.

 If you're willing to public domain your work, you're willing to give
 it to anyone under any terms.  Why would you not contribute under the
 new CTs if you're willing to accept any terms?

The CTs constitute an agreement between the contributor and OSMF. The
ODbL also includes a contractual element. For whatever reason, people
may not wish to even enter such a relationship. A plain licence for the
data does not involve a contractual relationship as far as my
understanding of copyright (and I assume database right) licensing goes.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Something between a changeset and a comment

Is there a way you can contribute the data to Factual, or Needlebase,
or one of those other data sharey platforms? They have good tools for
visualising data online.

Steve

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
 Dear All,

 Have you ever wondered about a changeset comment from a particular
 mapper, but found that browsing through a changeset was a little more
 involved than you had hoped?  Me too.  I've always wanted some kind of
 a summary, of what is being done in a changeset, or various places.  I
 still wonder.  But until somebody solves those problems, I've been
 creating some daily summaries of mapping activity, by day and by
 mapper.  Have a look.

 http://rweait.dev.openstreetmap.org/daily

 The results are in html files for browsing, and in csv if you want to
 do something interesting with the raw numbers.  I thinkit would be
 cool to see a bunch of histograms from this data.  Anybody want to try
 that?

 The html columns are sortable, but there is a known bug that means the
 username column only sorts in a weird, non-sorty way.  Enjoy the other
 columns.

 Best regards,
 Richard

 ___
 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] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 17/06/11 09:34, Steve Bennett wrote:
 
 Also, a question I should probably know the answer to: is  ODbL
 considered compatible with CC-BY-SA? Can you relicense something that
 is CC-BY-SA as ODbL? (I guess the answer must be yes, but could
 someone confirm?)

The answer is no, unless the person who holds the rights to the BY-SA
work explicitly chooses to separately licence it under the ODbL.

This is because BY-SA is a copyleft licence and so it doesn't allow the
work or its derivatives to be placed under another licence.

Data from an ODbL database may however be used to create a BY-SA
Produced Work.

- Rob.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Can I say yes to the ODbL if I can't account for 100% of my data?

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
 In my opinion, changeset-based sources also make it clear which edit was
 using which source. For example, since good Bing imagery has become
 available, I've developed a habit to trace the buildings in an area from
 Bing, then go out and survey the area in order to add house numbers and
 other attributes to the buildings (and make sure that the imagery wasn't
 bogus).

Seems like the way in which we work has a big impact on what method of
sourcing makes the most sense. Me, I mostly work off aerial imagery,
with a bit of local knowledge and the odd GPS trace. I don't work in a
particularly focused way - I might start with a GPS trace, then drift
off as I see interesting things to map. Others work obviously
completely differently.

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Source tags and changesets (was ... ODbL ...)

2011-06-17 Thread Jochen Topf

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:06:13AM +0200, Pieren wrote:
 [...]
 then compensated by local survey or aerial imagery. The result is that many
 contributions are often a mix of different sources.

Actually thats what OSM is all about. A mix of many different sources. Thats
why the source tag was moved from objects to changesets. And even there it
often doesn't make any sense.

The source tag can sometimes be some help in figuring out the history of an
object. After it was entered in OSM we have a complete history, before that the
source tag can sometimes help. But it is far less useful in practice than many
think. Exactly because the data almost always is a mix of many sources. In many
cases source tags on objects are even misleading, because people don't change
them when they change data, so the data only shows one source when it has many.
Its better to not have them at all.

OSM is not a collection of data of different sources, it is something new that
can only exist if people give up the idea that they own separable parts of it.
If somebody does not like the idea of his contribution going into the melting
pot as an unseparable part, he should not contribute.

Jochen
-- 
Jochen Topf  joc...@remote.org  http://www.remote.org/jochen/  +49-721-388298


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities

2011-06-17 Thread Jean-Guilhem Cailton


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Le 17/06/2011 08:15, Gehling Marc a écrit :

 I would suggest that images are updated from countries that are
currently inan upheaval as Egypt, Tunisia, Libya


Hi,

+1.

High resolution coverage of Libya, Tunisia and Algeria is currently
limited to only a few areas, mainly around capitals. Humanitarians
going to Libya, for instance, are likely to find very limited OSM data
outside of these areas.

Syria has a relatively good coverage, but with holes in populated
areas like Aleppo (largest city) and Homs (3rd largest city).

Coverage of Amman in Jordan is also missing.


Extending coverage of Bangladesh would also be useful for natural
disaster preparedness.


Best wishes,

Jean-Guilhem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk37FLAACgkQv8a3ilk56uIPRwCglAUD6VWp/1zsveSeRyZ3EjWX
+qAAnikuSUCW/RIS0IGsDkwr4fhVPDJH
=pdAu
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 17 June 2011 18:38, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
 Data from an ODbL database may however be used to create a BY-SA
 Produced Work.

So this means produced works can be traced into a cc-by-sa data set then?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Source tags and changesets (was ... ODbL ...)

2011-06-17 Thread Richard Mann

source tags are most useful if you think the source may be wrong
(out-of-date, out-of-position), or if you think there's dubiety about
the usability of the source. The rest of the time, it's probably just
background noise.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities


Hi,

On 06/17/11 08:15, Gehling Marc wrote:

I would suggest that images are updated from countries that are
currently inan upheaval as Egypt, Tunisia, Libya


What Would FakeSteveC say?

http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2011/04/know-your-osm-memes-4.html

Oh, that.

Jokes aside, I think the ideal use of aerial imagery in OSM is support 
for mappers on the ground. I.e. it is great to have aerial imagery where 
we *also* have local mappers in the area.


Aerial imagery as raw material for armchair mappers in Europe who enjoy 
tracing faraway countries is of lesser priority. I know from my own 
experience that such armchair mapping can be a lot of fun, and we have 
seen in Haiti that it can also be helpful, but I think this is not the 
main mode of operation we're striving for.


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Source tags and changesets (was ... ODbL ...)

2011-06-17 Thread Pieren

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org wrote:

 On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:06:13AM +0200, Pieren wrote:
  [...]
  then compensated by local survey or aerial imagery. The result is that
 many
  contributions are often a mix of different sources.

 Actually thats what OSM is all about. A mix of many different sources.
 Thats
 why the source tag was moved from objects to changesets. And even there it
 often doesn't make any sense.

 I meant :
The result is that many contributions in France are often a mix of
different sources within the same changeset.

But I agree with you that another issue is the maintenance of this
information.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Source tags and changesets (was ... ODbL ...)

2011-06-17 Thread SomeoneElse


On 17/06/2011 06:35, Ed Avis wrote:
This is not really a technical question but one of convention: are 
per-changeset

source tags generally accepted practice in the project these days?


I suspect that it varies by community.  My experience locally is that 
on-the-ground mappers tend to use per-item or per-tag-where-appropriate 
source tags; the most prolific local armchair mappers tend to credit 
OSSV in a per-item source tag but that non-local armchair mappers might 
use a changeset source tag or something in chocolate teapot territory 
like a word in a changeset description.


Newbies of course don't do either because no-one's told them to (and we 
can't blame them for that).



And is
there a way to retrospectively add tags to existing changesets?


I think that the answer to that one is no (I asked a while back).

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Source tags and changesets (was ... ODbL ...)

2011-06-17 Thread SomeoneElse


On 17/06/2011 09:42, Jochen Topf wrote:
The source tag can sometimes be some help in figuring out the history 
of an

object. After it was entered in OSM we have a complete history, before that the
source tag can sometimes help. But it is far less useful in practice than many
think. Exactly because the data almost always is a mix of many sources. In many
cases source tags on objects are even misleading, because people don't change
them when they change data, so the data only shows one source when it has many.
Its better to not have them at all.


I'd agree that people sometimes don't update source tags on objects; 
just recently a non-local armchair mapper updated a bunch of stuff 
locally and did exactly that (they apparently put a source tag on a 
changeset, but as that's not visible against the object that's not 
actually useful).


I'd disagree that it's better to not have them at all though - the 
more information about what's there and who added it the better.  When I 
create Garmin maps I currently do the following:


o Ways and nodes from old out of copyright maps are labelled as such, so 
that e.g. footpath data inferred from there can be updated with actual 
rights of way


o Ways and nodes added with a remote source or by prolific tracers from 
OSSV and Bing are labelled as such, because any on the ground stuff 
will have been missed there


o Ways and nodes added by, er, users with historical accuracy problems 
are marked as such so that they can be explicitly checked.


So yes, sources get combined (and you'll see lots of semicolons in 
source tags from me reflecting that) but personnally I find source tags 
on OSM items extremely useful.


Cheers,
Andy


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Kothic JS - a full-featured JavaScript map rendering engine using HTML5 Canvas

2011-06-17 Thread Serge Wroclawski

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
 The time to get a map is on the order of 5-8 minutes for me...

 5-8 minutes?? For me, it's more like 10 seconds. Opera, on a
 university internet connection.

It's much faster now, but yes, it was 5-8 minutes. Now it takes about
16 seconds.

 I'd be interested to know how much time it's taking to retrieve the
 data, compared to rendering time.

I'm sure it's the retrieval time.

This is a fairly fast machine.

- Serge

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

2011-06-17 Thread Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer

Hi Grant,

 Please list the problematic language you are referring to... Your
 email on the 18th of Jan or your email in reply to Kai on the 6th Feb.

I see several small problems in the CT and two bigger problems. The bigger 
problems are related to the definition of active contributor.

The first problem is that the right to vote depends upon being allowed to 
contribute. I have been repeatedly asked to trust the OSMF that they would 
never prevent people from contributing (and thereby loosing their right to 
vote), because this would destroy the community and so be against the interest 
of the OSMF. At the same time, I am currently prevented from contributing, 
even though I have publicly stated several times that I support the planned 
license change and only see problems in the CT, and even though I am willing 
to license my contributions under very broad terms to the OSMF.

The second problem is that the group entitled to vote is defined in a very 
restricting way. For example, someone who contributes for a period of 25 years 
and does all contibuting during holidaytime (e.g. in January and in July only) 
is never entitled to vote. The idea of giving only a part of the community the 
right to vote sees very unfair to me.

An easy way to fix these problems would be to simply give all past 
contributors the right to vote, unless they fail to respond to an email that 
asks them to confirm their wish to still have the voting right. This could be 
combined with a minimum threshold (e.g. a minimum total amount of 
contributions or of contribution days/months).

I will not discuss the minor problems now, because I fear personal attacks 
from people who have a different motivation for contributing if I point these 
out. If the OSMF is willing to adress the major problems, then I might also 
contribute some ideas about how to fix the minor issues, but I will not do so 
while the threat to remove me from the community by force is still active.

Olaf

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities

2011-06-17 Thread Toby Murray

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:19 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
 when all the nearmap-derived data is removed

It seems like you missed an email a couple of days ago?

Current NearMap derived data does not need to be removed from OSM
during the license change.

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-June/058733.html

Toby

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap


Hi,

On 06/17/11 16:20, John Smith wrote:

Patents don't apply here


I am trying to make a general point about the scope of CC licenses, to 
which the patents example is relevant.


Do you or do you not agree, that if a picture describing a patent is 
made available under CC-BY-SA (and NOT CC-BY-ND), one's ability to 
implement the procedure described in the picture, and thereby create a 
derivative work of the picture, would be limited?


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 06/17/11 16:06, John Smith wrote:
 So once again I'm met with silence and can only assume that produced
 works licensed under cc-by or cc-by-sa can be derived from,

Do read the discussions I had with odc-discuss when someone asked about
this before:

http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2010-July/000275.html

http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2010-August/000282.html

 unless the
 ODBL prevents this in which case tile users must agree with a contract
 preventing them from doing this activity,

If you miraculously manage to create a Derived Database from the
Produced Work, you know the requirements due to the advertising on the
Produced Work (which BY-SA handles under the BY part of the licence).

- Rob.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 18 June 2011 00:30, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Hi,

 On 06/17/11 16:20, John Smith wrote:

 Patents don't apply here

 I am trying to make a general point about the scope of CC licenses, to which
 the patents example is relevant.

 Do you or do you not agree, that if a picture describing a patent is made
 available under CC-BY-SA (and NOT CC-BY-ND), one's ability to implement the
 procedure described in the picture, and thereby create a derivative work of
 the picture, would be limited?

There is 4 types of IP law (5 in the EU with the 5th being DB
directive), contract, patent, copyright, trademarks. You can't apply
patents laws against copyright and vice versa, so no you are wrong on
this matter, or it's a very very poor example.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 18 June 2011 00:32, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
 On 06/17/11 16:06, John Smith wrote:
 So once again I'm met with silence and can only assume that produced
 works licensed under cc-by or cc-by-sa can be derived from,

 Do read the discussions I had with odc-discuss when someone asked about
 this before:

Which is mostly about database directive, which only applies to a
limited region.

 If you miraculously manage to create a Derived Database from the
 Produced Work, you know the requirements due to the advertising on the
 Produced Work (which BY-SA handles under the BY part of the licence).

Without a contract it wouldn't be enforceable outside the EU, you
would need at the very minimum a copyright license like cc-by-nd,
especially on those that plan to distribute tiles as PD/CC0.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

Hi,
(this is offtopic, I know)

On 17 June 2011 16:06, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 On 06/17/11 11:18, John Smith wrote:

 Only if the amount of data traced is not substantial.

 CC-by-SA makes no such distinction, it's either cc-by-sa or it's not
 cc-by-sa, so which license can tiles be put under?

 Sorry, I thought you had asked about tracing from tiles.

 Tiles can be put under CC-BY-SA with no problem; in fact the main OSM
 tileserver is likely to do that.

I have two doubts here.  I understand the produced work can be put
under a By-SA license but database rights may still apply.  But:

1. IIRC the newer versions of CC-By-SA include statements to ensure
that the content is not protected by database rights, patents or DRM,
which would prevent their uses.  Does that mean that only the older
licenses can be used for produced works?

Looking at GPLv3 and other licenses it is becoming more common for
licenses to assure that the content is not restricted by those
additional rights, and it makes sense because in some way those
additional rights make the works not free.

2. What happens if a person in country A with database rights
publishes a tileset and licenses it under CC-By-SA to a person in
country B without database rights?  The second person is then as far
as I can see not bound by database rights or a contract.  Is that
incorrect?

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap


Hi,

On 06/17/11 16:35, John Smith wrote:

I am trying to make a general point about the scope of CC licenses, to which
the patents example is relevant.

Do you or do you not agree, that if a picture describing a patent is made
available under CC-BY-SA (and NOT CC-BY-ND), one's ability to implement the
procedure described in the picture, and thereby create a derivative work of
the picture, would be limited?


There is 4 types of IP law (5 in the EU with the 5th being DB
directive), contract, patent, copyright, trademarks. You can't apply
patents laws against copyright and vice versa, so no you are wrong on
this matter, or it's a very very poor example.


I am not trying to apply patents to OSM. I am trying to use the example 
of patents to prove to you that your reasoning either something is 
CC-BY-SA or it isn't is, in this simplicity, invalid; that there may 
well exist limitations external to the license that limit what you can 
or cannot do with the CC-BY-SA licensed entity.


Once you accept that, I can continue my argument; but if you try to hold 
on to the simplistic either something is CC-BY-SA or it isn't 
assumption then it makes no sense.


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 18 June 2011 00:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 I am not trying to apply patents to OSM. I am trying to use the example of
 patents to prove to you that your reasoning either something is CC-BY-SA or
 it isn't is, in this simplicity, invalid; that there may well exist
 limitations external to the license that limit what you can or cannot do
 with the CC-BY-SA licensed entity.

Sorry if I didn't explain myself properly, I meant if you apply
CC-by-SA you are allowed or limited by that license only, if there is
further restrictions you would have to use something other than
cc-by-sa (such as CC-by-ND) to enforce this, OR use a contract.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

2011-06-17 Thread Francis Davey

2011/6/17 andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com:

 2. What happens if a person in country A with database rights
 publishes a tileset and licenses it under CC-By-SA to a person in
 country B without database rights?  The second person is then as far
 as I can see not bound by database rights or a contract.  Is that
 incorrect?


Strictly: what matters is where B carries out acts that might be those
exclusive to the database right owner. It doesn't matter where B lives
or where B receives a licence, but where B extracts or re-utilizes the
tileset. If B does those in a country without the sui generis database
right, then B obviously does not have to worry about infringement. The
tileset is still subject to A's database rights in those countries
that recognise it and thus would need A's permission (which CC-BY-SA
does not, I think, give).

CC-BY-SA is not intended to be a contract, so there's no contractual
relationship between A and B, though its easy enough for one to be
implied in some jurisdictions.

-- 
Francis Davey

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap


Hi,

On 06/17/11 16:39, andrzej zaborowski wrote:

1. IIRC the newer versions of CC-By-SA include statements to ensure
that the content is not protected by database rights, patents or DRM,
which would prevent their uses.


News to me. Do you have a pointer?

It is true that CC-BY-SA, for as long as I can think, has had a section 
that said something like you may not slap on restrictions that diminish 
the rights granted by the license, or something. That was meant against 
DRM, or against a simple I sell you this CC-BY-SA map tile but only if 
you sign the additional contract here that says you may not distribute 
it or so.


But that applied only the the rights granted by the license; and the 
rights granted by the license were basically to do stuff that is 
normally restricted by *copyright*.


Stuff that is normally restricted by patents (for example) was never 
covered by CC-BY-SA in the first place, so the you may not add 
restrictions rule didn't apply.



2. What happens if a person in country A with database rights
publishes a tileset and licenses it under CC-By-SA to a person in
country B without database rights?  The second person is then as far
as I can see not bound by database rights or a contract.  Is that
incorrect?


This is a difficult issue and I am in no way certain, but the reverse 
engineering discussion has at the very least brought the result that you 
cannot wash away database right by going via another country, i.e. if 
you take something to which database rights apply in Europe, then go to 
the US and publish it there as PD, then someone else from Europe takes 
the US product, then the database rights will magically reappear, i.e. 
even though something could legally be PD in the US, someone in Europe 
might be prohibited from using it.


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap




Am 17.06.2011 16:39, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:

...

2. What happens if a person in country A with database rights
publishes a tileset and licenses it under CC-By-SA to a person in
country B without database rights?  The second person is then as far
as I can see not bound by database rights or a contract.  Is that
incorrect?


...

I'm sure that our legal experts will step in if this isn't correct :-).

While in your example the person in country B can probably legally 
ignore the terms of the ODBL (publisher in A however must include a 
notice pointing to the ODBL and so on), it doesn't make a database 
generated from that tileset legal in country A. Since at least most 
European countries (this is very generalised) consider an Internet 
publication the same as a national publication, any publisher of such a 
database would have to take precautions to  block access in the EU (and 
countries with similar database protection regulations) or risk getting 
in to trouble.


Simon


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 18 June 2011 00:50, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:


 Am 17.06.2011 16:39, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:

 ...

 2. What happens if a person in country A with database rights
 publishes a tileset and licenses it under CC-By-SA to a person in
 country B without database rights?  The second person is then as far
 as I can see not bound by database rights or a contract.  Is that
 incorrect?

 ...

 I'm sure that our legal experts will step in if this isn't correct :-).

 While in your example the person in country B can probably legally ignore
 the terms of the ODBL (publisher in A however must include a notice pointing
 to the ODBL and so on), it doesn't make a database generated from that
 tileset legal in country A. Since at least most European countries (this
 is very generalised) consider an Internet publication the same as a national
 publication, any publisher of such a database would have to take precautions
 to  block access in the EU (and countries with similar database protection
 regulations) or risk getting in to trouble.

This could be hard, especially since OSM-F isn't complying with
Chinese law, so why would others comply with EU law unless they were
in the EU?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:44 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 18 June 2011 00:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 I am not trying to apply patents to OSM. I am trying to use the example of
 patents to prove to you that your reasoning either something is CC-BY-SA or
 it isn't is, in this simplicity, invalid; that there may well exist
 limitations external to the license that limit what you can or cannot do
 with the CC-BY-SA licensed entity.

 Sorry if I didn't explain myself properly, I meant if you apply
 CC-by-SA you are allowed or limited by that license only, if there is
 further restrictions you would have to use something other than
 cc-by-sa (such as CC-by-ND) to enforce this, OR use a contract.

If you are given a CC-BY-SA licensed work, they you are limited by by
the CC-BY-SA license on the copyrightable aspects only. Other aspects
like trademarks or patents that are inherent in the work are already
limited irrespective of the CC-BY-SA license. The person who gave you
the CC-BY-SA licensed work does not have to enforce you to follow
trademark or patent restrictions, by contract or another copyright
license.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 17/06/11 15:39, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
 
 1. IIRC the newer versions of CC-By-SA include statements to ensure
 that the content is not protected by database rights, patents or DRM,
 which would prevent their uses.  Does that mean that only the older
 licenses can be used for produced works?

They just say that they only cover copyright (see 1.h in BY-SA 3.0
Unported).

But do look at how the DbCL interacts with the ODbL in Produced Works.
There isn't a copyright clash.

 Looking at GPLv3 and other licenses it is becoming more common for
 licenses to assure that the content is not restricted by those
 additional rights, and it makes sense because in some way those
 additional rights make the works not free.

Copyright makes the work non-free, but the GPL uses that. :-)

And GPL 3 says: “Copyright” also means copyright-like laws that apply
to other kinds of works, such as semiconductor masks..

It also includes a patent licence.

So the GPL includes, rather than excludes, those rights in order to
ensure that they do not restrict the work. This is the ODbL's strategy
as well.

Some people disagree with this for coherent philosophical reasons. I
disagree with them. :-)

 2. What happens if a person in country A with database rights
 publishes a tileset and licenses it under CC-By-SA to a person in
 country B without database rights?  The second person is then as far
 as I can see not bound by database rights or a contract.  Is that
 incorrect?

Copyright may apply in country B.

There will be pathological cases where copyright, database right, and
contract law do not apply. At the moment, only the first is used though,
so there will be even less coverage.

(IANAL, TINLA.)

- Rob.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities

2011-06-17 Thread Kate Chapman

Hi Frederik,

Yes I agree that the arm chair mapping isn't the best method of
collection.  Though in some areas it will be difficult to ever have
mappers on the ground without imagery.  The cost of a GPS is
prohibitive in many places.

I've been working with some rural areas in Indonesia and it was much
easier to show individuals how to use the imagery than buy everyone a
GPS.  Well costwise that is.  We ended up only purchasing GPS for
those areas that didn't have decent imagery.

Best,

Kate

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Hi,

 On 06/17/11 08:15, Gehling Marc wrote:

 I would suggest that images are updated from countries that are
 currently inan upheaval as Egypt, Tunisia, Libya

 What Would FakeSteveC say?

 http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2011/04/know-your-osm-memes-4.html

 Oh, that.

 Jokes aside, I think the ideal use of aerial imagery in OSM is support for
 mappers on the ground. I.e. it is great to have aerial imagery where we
 *also* have local mappers in the area.

 Aerial imagery as raw material for armchair mappers in Europe who enjoy
 tracing faraway countries is of lesser priority. I know from my own
 experience that such armchair mapping can be a lot of fun, and we have seen
 in Haiti that it can also be helpful, but I think this is not the main mode
 of operation we're striving for.

 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-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities

On 18 June 2011 01:18, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote:
 Hi Frederik,

 Yes I agree that the arm chair mapping isn't the best method of
 collection.  Though in some areas it will be difficult to ever have
 mappers on the ground without imagery.  The cost of a GPS is
 prohibitive in many places.

For other features, such as rivers and coast lines, arm chair mapping
is probably the best bang for the buck, since it's difficult if not
impossible to do this on the ground, that's before the amount of
labour is taken into account to get this data.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 18 June 2011 01:46, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
 Let me try copyright-only examples.

 I can take up the full text of all of the works of William
 Shakespeare, compile it into a book with annotations, and release the
 book under CC-BY-SA. Now since the original text by Shakespeare is
 already in the public domain, I can copy those parts from the book
 without following the book's CC license. In this case, the CC license
 has no way to restrict me from doing that.

 Here's another example. All English Wikipedia articles are licensed
 CC-BY-SA. Most articles have images. Some images are *not* licensed
 CC-BY-SA. In fact, many of such images are included in the article
 under fair use reasoning. That doesn't give the reader the license to
 use such images under CC-BY-SA simply because they were included in
 CC-BY-SA-licensed articles.

The problem here isn't cc-by-sa, it's bigger picture stuff, from what
I understand/have been led to believe, the ODBL doesn't limit what
license produced works can be published under, outside of the EU there
is limited or no database rights, so if tiles are produced and
published under PD/CC0/CC-by/CC-by-SA there is no limitation on
deriving, selling etc etc those tiles, other than what those copyright
licenses limit you to do, obviously deriving cc-by-sa tiles would need
to be under a cc-by-sa license etc.

I don't wish to complicate this issue, but I'm led to believe that a
lot of database rights are yet to have precedents, I think this would
be pointless conjecture at this time.

Frederik and others were trying to claim there was some kind of
implied limit on derivatives, even in non-EU countries, which comes
back to my original question about minimum license, or websites
needing to have a binding contract on the end user to limit or prevent
turning information on tiles back into some kind of vector data set.

Then you have a whole other argument over what constitutes a produced
work and so on.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities


Hi,

On 06/17/11 17:18, Kate Chapman wrote:

Yes I agree that the arm chair mapping isn't the best method of
collection.  Though in some areas it will be difficult to ever have
mappers on the ground without imagery.  The cost of a GPS is
prohibitive in many places.


Oh I wasn't referring to any kind of armchair mapping. I think it's ok 
if you map something in the vicinity of where you live, or at least 
where you are; if it is something that you have some first-hand 
knowledge of, rather than just an image.


The less desirable kind of armchair mapping, in my eyes, is when someone 
maps an area he's never been to. (I'm guilty of that too.)


Bye
Frederik


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:07 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 18 June 2011 01:46, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
 Let me try copyright-only examples.

 I can take up the full text of all of the works of William
 Shakespeare, compile it into a book with annotations, and release the
 book under CC-BY-SA. Now since the original text by Shakespeare is
 already in the public domain, I can copy those parts from the book
 without following the book's CC license. In this case, the CC license
 has no way to restrict me from doing that.

 Here's another example. All English Wikipedia articles are licensed
 CC-BY-SA. Most articles have images. Some images are *not* licensed
 CC-BY-SA. In fact, many of such images are included in the article
 under fair use reasoning. That doesn't give the reader the license to
 use such images under CC-BY-SA simply because they were included in
 CC-BY-SA-licensed articles.

 The problem here isn't cc-by-sa, it's bigger picture stuff, from what
 I understand/have been led to believe, the ODBL doesn't limit what
 license produced works can be published under, outside of the EU there
 is limited or no database rights, so if tiles are produced and
 published under PD/CC0/CC-by/CC-by-SA there is no limitation on
 deriving, selling etc etc those tiles, other than what those copyright
 licenses limit you to do, obviously deriving cc-by-sa tiles would need
 to be under a cc-by-sa license etc.

 I don't wish to complicate this issue, but I'm led to believe that a
 lot of database rights are yet to have precedents, I think this would
 be pointless conjecture at this time.

 Frederik and others were trying to claim there was some kind of
 implied limit on derivatives, even in non-EU countries, which comes
 back to my original question about minimum license, or websites
 needing to have a binding contract on the end user to limit or prevent
 turning information on tiles back into some kind of vector data set.

 Then you have a whole other argument over what constitutes a produced
 work and so on.

I don't think you're going to get clear answers about these specific
cases. It will take a court decision to provide precedent rulings on
such things.

And this is not a problem specific to ODbL. Even CC licenses have
unresolved problems, like a question I thought of regarding how a
person in country A will be able to use a work released under a CC
license that was ported to country B. Should the person in country A
follow provisions in CC-license-ported-to-B even if that doesn't apply
to his jurisdiction? Can he use the work in CC-license-ported-to-A? Or
can he revert to the unported CC license?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:07 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
 Then you have a whole other argument over what constitutes a produced
 work and so on.

It's a novel concept, to be sure. but if you want to understand it
better you can always ask the licence's authors on odc-discuss.

- Rob.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 18 June 2011 02:26, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
 I don't think you're going to get clear answers about these specific
 cases. It will take a court decision to provide precedent rulings on
 such things.

Well the copyright side of things seems pretty simple, especially if
people are using CC0/PD, and if there is no contract with the end user
that also is pretty simple, as contract law also doesn't apply. The
only thing left would be database rights, but as was pointed out, it
seems CC is planning to waive DB rights in future CC licenses, but I
haven't paid much attention to this because it doesn't apply to me,
but I thought some of the current EU specific CC licenses waived DB
rights.

 And this is not a problem specific to ODbL. Even CC licenses have
 unresolved problems, like a question I thought of regarding how a
 person in country A will be able to use a work released under a CC
 license that was ported to country B. Should the person in country A
 follow provisions in CC-license-ported-to-B even if that doesn't apply
 to his jurisdiction? Can he use the work in CC-license-ported-to-A? Or
 can he revert to the unported CC license?

You are assuming CC licenses are the only issue, what about tiles
published under CC0/PD, none of the above would apply.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On 18 June 2011 02:40, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
 On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:07 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 Then you have a whole other argument over what constitutes a produced
 work and so on.

 It's a novel concept, to be sure. but if you want to understand it
 better you can always ask the licence's authors on odc-discuss.

Why isn't there a concise reference on all this?

Surely this sort of thing has been asked enough to warrant it, along
with all the other common questions, chances are then they wouldn't
keep getting asked multiple times.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities

2011-06-17 Thread Kate Chapman

Right, what I was trying to propose was if making imagery available would
spark community in some places.

Kate
On Jun 17, 2011 12:23 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Hi,

 On 06/17/11 17:18, Kate Chapman wrote:
 Yes I agree that the arm chair mapping isn't the best method of
 collection. Though in some areas it will be difficult to ever have
 mappers on the ground without imagery. The cost of a GPS is
 prohibitive in many places.

 Oh I wasn't referring to any kind of armchair mapping. I think it's ok
 if you map something in the vicinity of where you live, or at least
 where you are; if it is something that you have some first-hand
 knowledge of, rather than just an image.

 The less desirable kind of armchair mapping, in my eyes, is when someone
 maps an area he's never been to. (I'm guilty of that too.)

 Bye
 Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Something between a changeset and a comment

2011-06-17 Thread yvecai


A xml extract of the changeset of the user would be great :) Maybe heavy?
Yves

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:

Dear All,

Have you ever wondered about a changeset comment from a particular
mapper, but found that browsing through a changeset was a little more
involved than you had hoped?  Me too.  I've always wanted some kind of
a summary, of what is being done in a changeset, or various places.  I
still wonder.  But until somebody solves those problems, I've been
creating some daily summaries of mapping activity, by day and by
mapper.  Have a look.

http://rweait.dev.openstreetmap.org/daily



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities

2011-06-17 Thread yvecai

Not so badly mapped, but Switzerland seriously lack of images (except 
the R-Pod project). Given the currency rate, it may not be the good year 
to buy ortho from SwissTopo. I wouldn't call that a priority though.


Yves

On 16. 06. 11 23:09, Steve Coast wrote:

Hi

I'm speaking personally and there are no guarantees here but I'd like 
to get input on what areas you would like Bing to prioritise for 
aerial and/or satellite imagery in the coming year. Please mail 
sco...@microsoft.com with the area in question (I'd love to accept 
bounding boxes but don't really have the time so cities/countries are 
the best).


I will pass this on to the right people and we may or may not be able 
to help.


Thanks

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

2011-06-17 Thread davespod

Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:

Let me try copyright-only examples.

I can take up the full text of all of the works of William
Shakespeare, compile it into a book with annotations, and release the
book under CC-BY-SA. Now since the original text by Shakespeare is
already in the public domain, I can copy those parts from the book
without following the book's CC license. In this case, the CC license
has no way to restrict me from doing that.

I prefer a musical analogy: a publisher can licence a particular recording
of a song without licensing the underlying composition. So, just because
they give you permission to distribute the recording, and even remix it or
use samples in your own published composition, that does not mean you have
permission to make your own recording of the song and publish it (even if
you only derived the lyrics and melody from the recording and have never
seen the original score). Nor indeed does it mean you have permission to
write down the lyrics and publish them.

If I understand things correctly, a composer could licence, using a
non-public licence grant, an artist to perform and record their song. The
artist could then legitimately licence their recording of the song under
CC-by-SA. The composer would still be able to keep all their rights
reserved. However, the artist would be well advised to be explicit that it
was only the recording they had licensed (and not the composition).

In a similar vein, I think OSMF and any other publisher of OSM-derived map
tiles under CC-by-SA would be well advised to be explicit about what it is
they are licensing under CC-by-SA. In other words, they should follow the
advice here (under Be specific about what you are licensing):

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Before_Licensing

David

P.S. I realise this does not address the question of the extent to which the
underlying OSM data is, or can be, protected in Australia. But that is a
complex question and, as ever, there is no substitute for professional legal
advice specific to one's own proposal - especially if one's proposal is to
breach the spirit of OSM's licence :)

P.P.S. IANAL TINLA

--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Statement-from-nearmap-com-regarding-submission-of-derived-works-from-PhotoMaps-to-Opp-tp6477002p6488532.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-talk] SOS. no green area in map using StyleSheet mapnik

2011-06-17 Thread yvecai

With Mapnik, you'll need the complete polygon in your datasource to 
render it.
Maybe you can find some help here: 
http://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/mapnik-users


Yves

On 17. 06. 11 09:32, Saphy Mo wrote:

Hallo,

I used Mapnik and osm.xml as default StyleSheet. There are not any 
green ara on the map. Please let me know, where can I get a better 
StyleSheet like map of OpenStreetMap.org ?


Please see the Attachment.

Thanks,
Saphy


___
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] Bing aerial imagery priorities

2011-06-17 Thread Matthias Julius



Steve Coast st...@asklater.com schrieb:

I'm speaking personally and there are no guarantees here but I'd like
to 
get input on what areas you would like Bing to prioritise for aerial 
and/or satellite imagery in the coming year.

Large areas of Switzerland have pretty low resolution.  A couple cities have 
really good coverage.  But, in between it is poor.  I am particular interested 
in the area around Thun.

Matthias


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

Re: [OSM-talk] bulk_upload.py consistently results in 500 server error

2011-06-17 Thread KKL Import


Can somebody please help? How come a perfectly legal osmChange, containing just 
a single way, is being rejected time and again?

I attach the HTTP traffic captured by wireshark.

Thank you,
dimka

From: kkl_imp...@hotmail.com
To: nice...@att.net; talk@openstreetmap.org
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 20:38:45 +
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] bulk_upload.py consistently results in 500 server error








 
 On 6/16/2011 2:29 PM, KKL Import wrote:
  Up to some point everything was fine, all the nodes got uploaded, and
  also half of the ways, but then it started to return the 500 Internal
  Server Errormessage.
 
   I have seen this behavior once.   A possible solution is to change the 
 fragment to work around the problem:
 
 From
  def getItemLimit(self):
  # This is an arbitrary self-imposed limit (that must be below 
 the changeset limit)
  # so to limit upload times to sensible chunks.
  return 1000
 
 TO
 
  def getItemLimit(self):
  # This is an arbitrary self-imposed limit (that must be below 
 the changeset limit)
  # so to limit upload times to sensible chunks.
  return 500
 

In fact, I've changed this to 10 and even 1 (!) - same behaviour.
  

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
  POST /api/0.6/changeset/8462736/upload HTTP/1.1
Host: api.openstreetmap.org
Accept-Encoding: identity
Content-Length: 27538
content-type: text/xml
authorization: Basic a2tsX2ltcG9ydDpvcGVuc3RyZWV0bWFw
user-agent: bulk_upload.py/22614 Python/2.7.2

osmChange generator=bulk_upload.py version=0.6createway 
changeset=8462736 id=-416042 version=1 visible=true
nd ref=1322351442 /
nd ref=1322351443 /
nd ref=1322351444 /
nd ref=1322351446 /
nd ref=1322351448 /
nd ref=1322351450 /
nd ref=1322351460 /
nd ref=1322351461 /
nd ref=1322351462 /
nd ref=1322351463 /
nd ref=1322351464 /
nd ref=1322351466 /
nd ref=1322351468 /
nd ref=1322351470 /
nd ref=1322351473 /
nd ref=1322351476 /
nd ref=1322351485 /
nd ref=1322351486 /
nd ref=1322351487 /
nd ref=1322351489 /
nd ref=1322351491 /
nd ref=1322351493 /
nd ref=1322351494 /
nd ref=1322351496 /
nd ref=1322351497 /
nd ref=1322351498 /
nd ref=1322351507 /
nd ref=1322351511 /
nd ref=1322351513 /
nd ref=1322351515 /
nd ref=1322351517 /
nd ref=1322351518 /
nd ref=1322351519 /
nd ref=1322351520 /
nd ref=1322351521 /
nd ref=1322351522 /
nd ref=1322351534 /
nd ref=1322351537 /
nd ref=1322351540 /
nd ref=1322351541 /
nd ref=1322351542 /
nd ref=1322351543 /
nd ref=1322351544 /
nd ref=1322351545 /
nd ref=1322351546 /
nd ref=1322351547 /
nd ref=1322351548 /
nd ref=1322351561 /
nd ref=1322351563 /
nd ref=1322351565 /
nd ref=1322351566 /
nd ref=1322351567 /
nd ref=1322351568 /
nd ref=1322351569 /
nd ref=1322351571 /
nd ref=1322351572 /
nd ref=1322351574 /
nd ref=1322351584 /
nd ref=1322351585 /
nd ref=1322351587 /
nd ref=1322351590 /
nd ref=1322351593 /
nd ref=1322351595 /
nd ref=1322351596 /
nd ref=1322351597 /
nd ref=1322351599 /
nd ref=1322351601 /
nd ref=1322351609 /
nd ref=1322351611 /
nd ref=1322351614 /
nd ref=1322351617 /
nd ref=1322351620 /
nd ref=1322351622 /
nd ref=1322351624 /
nd ref=1322351625 /
nd ref=1322351626 /
nd ref=1322351627 /
nd ref=1322351636 /
nd ref=1322351640 /
nd ref=1322351644 /
nd ref=1322351646 /
nd ref=1322351648 /
nd ref=1322351649 /
nd ref=1322351650 /
nd ref=1322351651 /
nd ref=1322351652 /
nd ref=1322351653 /
nd ref=1322351671 /
nd ref=1322351675 /
nd ref=1322351677 /
nd ref=1322351679 /
nd ref=1322351680 /
nd ref=1322351681 /
nd ref=1322351682 /
nd ref=1322351685 /
nd ref=1322351689 /
nd ref=1322351690 /
nd ref=1322351694 /
nd ref=1322351714 /
nd ref=1322351715 /
nd ref=1322351717 /
nd ref=1322351719 /
nd ref=1322351721 /
nd ref=1322351724 /
nd ref=1322351729 /
nd ref=1322351733 /
nd ref=1322351737 /
nd ref=1322351740 /
nd ref=1322351752 /
nd ref=1322351755 /
nd ref=1322351759 /
nd ref=1322351764 /
nd ref=1322351767 /
nd ref=1322351770 /
nd ref=1322351774 /
nd ref=1322351777 /
nd ref=1322351780 /
nd ref=1322351781 /
nd ref=1322351792 /
nd ref=1322351796 /
nd ref=1322351798 /
nd ref=1322351800 /
nd ref=1322351802 /
nd ref=1322351804 /
nd ref=1322351805 /
nd ref=1322351807 /
nd ref=1322351809 /
nd ref=1322351811 /
nd ref=1322351825 /
nd ref=1322351826 /
nd ref=1322351827 /
nd ref=1322351829 /
nd ref=1322351831 /
nd ref=1322351833 /
nd ref=1322351835 /
nd ref=1322351837 /
nd ref=1322351839 /
nd ref=1322351842 /
nd ref=1322351849 /
nd ref=1322351851 /
nd ref=1322351853 /
nd ref=1322351856 /
nd ref=1322351858 /
nd ref=1322351861 /
nd ref=1322351863 /
nd ref=1322351864 /
nd ref=1322351865 /
nd ref=1322351867 /
nd ref=1322351869 /
nd ref=1322351881 /
nd ref=1322351882 /
nd ref=1322351883 /
nd ref=1322351884 /
nd ref=1322351885 /
nd ref=1322351886 /
nd ref=1322351888 /
nd ref=1322351890 /
nd ref=1322351892 /
nd ref=1322351894 /
nd ref=1322351900 /
nd

[OSM-talk] bulk_upload.py consistently results in 500 server error

2011-06-17 Thread KKL Import



Hi all,



I am doing a large upload (~600k nodes, ~4k ways, 280 relations) using the 
bulk_upload.py script.



Up to some point everything was fine, all the nodes got uploaded, and also half 
of the ways, but then it started to return the 500 Internal Server Error 
message.

  

Attached is the osmChange document which gets sent to the server and causes the 
error.

  

Please note that I have run the entire upload on the dev server first 
without any such problems. There were '500 server error messages but 
after rerunning the script several times the upload went through.

Now it doesn't get through - in a consistent manner.

  

All the empty changesets are the result of the above error being returned.





The progress can be seen here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/kkl_import/edits

  

We (Israel community) are discussing the upload here:

http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=12489

  

Any help would be greatly appreciated,

  

dimka

OSM - Israel

  


  

8458053.osc
Description: Binary data
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] active contributor

2011-06-17 Thread Michael Kugelmann


Am 17.06.2011 20:47, schrieb Richard Weait:

3) Hypothetically, a contributor could upload gpx tracks and never edit.

[...]

I think 3) could be valuable, but is not necessarily a contributor.
Does anybody know if there are any accounts / users in category 3?


while a holiday last year i occasionally met a guy who addressed me on 
OSM at a touristical viewpoint due to a OSM button on my backpack. This 
guy is a geocacher and therefor walks around a lot with a GPS device. 
While a short discussion on OSM he told me that he uploads its tracks to 
supoort the project but boes not edit the data at all. So category 3) is 
really existing.



Best regards,
Michael.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] application of ODBL to an extarct of OSM obtained via jxapi

2011-06-17 Thread David Groom

- Original Message - 
From: Richard Weait rich...@weait.com
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. 
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org

Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] application of ODBL to an extarct of OSM
obtained via jxapi

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:09 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net
wrote:

Word in quotes below relate to the meanings given them by ODbL

Assume I use jxapi to download an extract of the main OSM database . Is
the
downloaded extract a Derivative Database, or since the download was
provided by OSM does the downloaded data qualify as simply a Database?

Does not §4.4b answer this[1]?

Without wishing to state the obvious, if I thought 4.4b answered my 
question, then I wouldn't have asked the question on this list.

I understood that if I was the one who carried out the extraction then the 
database created would be a derivative database, but it wasn't clear to me 
whether if the Extraction or Re-utilisation of  the whole or a Substantial 
part was carried out by the licence holder (ie OSMF) whether this simply 
created a new database, rather than a derivative.

David

  b. For the avoidance of doubt, Extraction or Re-utilisation of
the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents into a new database is
a Derivative Database and must comply with Section 4.4.

As a practical matter, we almost always deal with the OSM db in terms
of a smaller extraction.  We create tiles for a few blocks with many
object types, or tiles with only country boundaries and oceans
covering the whole planet.  Planet files and planet history files
are probably the most frequent use that considers the complete db at
one time.  So it might be a derivative database of OSM, but it seems
indistinguishable from the OSM database broken into a manageable
chunk  ;-)

Why?  Do you have a specific use in mind?

I'm just trying to become familiar with the new terminology we are likely 
soon to be dealing with.

David

Best regards,
Richard

[1] http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/

___

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities

2011-06-17 Thread David Murn

On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 09:16 -0500, Toby Murray wrote:
 On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:19 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
  when all the nearmap-derived data is removed
 
 It seems like you missed an email a couple of days ago?
 
 Current NearMap derived data does not need to be removed from OSM
 during the license change.

It sounds like you mis-read the email.

It does not 'need' to be removed, NearMap have simply said it CAN be
relicenced, depending on the user who derived the data.

Unless a user can guarantee that their edits were 100% based on nearmap
and used no other CC source (unlikely for Australian users), they cant
accept the CTs, which means all their edits must be removed.  I know
that Ive used CC data (other than nearmap) a handful of times in the
last few years, but like most people, Im unable to tell you which of my
2000+ changesets is affected and which isnt.

David



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

Re: [OSM-talk] transparent road layer

2011-06-17 Thread ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen

Thanks for the summary.

On 16 June 2011 16:32, Rob Truxler rtrux...@gmail.com wrote:
 geoiq has a nice road layer that is very simple, no icons, just white roads 
 with legible labels. Depending on your application, the simplicity of the 
 acetate road layer can be appealing:
 http://a3.acetate.geoiq.com/tiles/acetate-roads/z/x/y.png
  (45 KB)

This looks quite nice but has problems with text encoding in names
(non ascii characters display as boxes, 1 box per UTF8 byte) and data
is outdated.  I'd also make the highways more transparent and only
leave the labels fully opaque.

 With the help of Ant and Deborah from MapQuest I was able to get the URL of 
 mapquest's transparent road layer that's part of their hybrid layer:
 http://vtiles01.mqcdn.com/tiles/1.0.0/vy/hyb/z/x/y.(gif|png)
  (25 KB)
 Note: looking at just a couple of these tiles, I'd recommend using the gif 
 format since the tiles are about half the file size and the PNG doesn't 
 appear to have any alpha anti-aliasing

This in turn seems to use data from a different source than OSM.

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities

2011-06-17 Thread Hendrik Oesterlin

Steve Coast wrote on 17/06/2011 at 08:09:37 +1100
subject [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities :

 I'm speaking personally and there are no guarantees here but I'd like to
 get input on what areas you would like Bing to prioritise for aerial 
 and/or satellite imagery in the coming year. Please mail 
 sco...@microsoft.com with the area in question (I'd love to accept 
 bounding boxes but don't really have the time so cities/countries are 
 the best).

 I will pass this on to the right people and we may or may not be able to
 help.

 Thanks

 Steve

New Caledonia and its islands would need some more high res imagery...

-- 
Sincerely 
Hendrik Oesterlin - New Caledonia


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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] ODbL fase 4 aanstaande zondag

 In plaats van hakken in het zand zoek ik liever met anderen naar een 
 constructieve omgang.

Maar het zijn altijd dezelfden die een constructieve omgang zoeken, namelijk
de mensen met een bepaalde passie voor het vak/de hobby met een redelijke 
instelling of, 
-zoals ik het liever zeg- door de knieën gaan.
En het zijn ook steeds dezelfden die misbruik maken van die constructieve 
houding en
daarnaast tevens rekenen van de gegarandeerde 80% van de mensen die gewoon 
klikken op wat er gevraagd wordt
om een democratische meerderheid  te verwerven.
En van name mensen met een politieke achtergrond (en daar ben/was ik er zelf 
ook een van) 
verwacht ik oppositie tegen deze pseudo-democratie.

Op zich had ik niet zoveel problemen met ODBL sec, maar met name met de CT.

En in de situatie waarin ik doneer (uren, werk informatie etc) , en de OSMF 
dmv de 
CT zich opstelt als nemer, voel ik behoorlijk in de kuif gepikt.

Dus zet ik zo nu en dan de hakken in het zand, tot hier en niet verder.

En omdat ik OSM niet nodig heb, kan ik mij dat eenvoudig permitteren.

Overigens ben ik niet van plan om mijn data via de PD omweg alsnog
te doneren. Misschien in de toekomst, als er een echte PD fork is
met enig bestaansrecht. Die fork zal ik niet oprichten, daarvoor
mis ik de software capaciteiten en de tijd mij die eigen te maken.

Tot die tijd zal OSM(F) de consequenties moeten nemen van de genomen stappen.

Regards,

Ing.  Gert Gremmen, BSc


 Before printing, think about the environment. 



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: dbuss...@goudappel.nl [mailto:dbuss...@goudappel.nl] 
Verzonden: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:53 PM
Aan: OpenStreetMap NL discussion list
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] ODbL fase 4 aanstaande zondag

Hoi Gert,

sommige van je bezwaren deel ik.
Dat was ook de reden dat ik zo lang heb gewacht de machtiging aan OSMF een 
willekeurige licentie (in de praktijk de ODBL) te gebruiken te accepteren, als 
statement in het proces.
Echter, in de praktijk veranderd bijna niets, daarom heb ik het nu ook wel 
geaccepteerd.
In plaats van hakken in het zand zoek ik liever met anderen naar een 
constructieve omgang.

Is het technisch mogelijk om via de API een planet-file te construeren met
a) van alle objecten de laatste versie geedit door iemand die public domain 
heeft aangevinkt, of
b) een synthetische versie te construeren alleen met edits van pd-gebruikers

Hiervan zouden wij dan wekelijks shapes kunnen maken en ter download aanbieden 
die 100% public domain zijn, zonder dat osm schade neemt. Met name creeer je zo 
geen branch, alles blijft wel in osm. Hoe meer mensen dan public domain 
kiezen in hun gebruikersaccount hoe beter de kwaliteit van dit uittreksel wordt.

Groeten,

   Dirk

 -we deze maar ook een andere licentie niet kunnen handhaven -er nooit 
 problemen zijn geweest met cc-by-sa -ik eigenlijk wil dat OSM PD 
 wordt, of liever helemaal niks -ik niet acceptabel vindt dat 0.1 % van 
 OSM  (OSMF) de community in gijzeling neemt -er nooit een moment 
 geweest is dat OSM open stond voor iets anders dan
ODBL
 -de licentie onnodig autoritair, formeel en juridisch geformuleerd is 
 -ik een hekel heb om juridisch te worden gebonden voor dingen die 
 IKkado
geef 
 (stel je kan schilderen en geeft een schilderij aan iemand kado, zou 
 jij accepteren dat die iemand daar een  onherroepelijke licentie bij 
 wil afsluiten en anders het schilderij weggooit ?) -er nu grote 
 verwarring en twijfel heerst in de community -dit project waarvan het 
 nut twijfelachtig is de community schade heeft aangericht -vanaf het 
 begin duidelijk was dat het er moest komen en alle middelen heeft 
 ingezet om de publieke mening te beinvloeden -de licentie niets 
 bijdraagt aan de kwaliteit van OSM
 
 
 
 
 Gert
 
 
 
 
 P Before printing, think about the environment. 
 
 
 
 -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
 Van: Floris Looijesteijn [mailto:o...@floris.nu]
 Verzonden: Thursday, June 16, 2011 2:35 PM
 Aan: OpenStreetMap NL discussion list
 Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] ODbL fase 4 aanstaande zondag
 
 Dag Gert,
 
 Dat is natuurlijk je goed recht maar kun je dan ook aangeven waarom 
 precies niet?
 Ik weet dat er verschillende redenen spelen bij de nee-stemmers, dus 
 ik
ben
 benieuwd naar de jouwe.
 
 Ik hoop dat we nog kunnen voorkomen dat we jou en jouw werk kwijtraken.
 
 Groet,
 Floris
 
 2011/6/16 ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl:
  nee, ik kan niet akkoord gaan met de CT/ODBL.
  Als dit het afscheid van OSM moet betekenen, dan zij het zo.
  Ik meld mij wel weer aan bij een goede fork zoals Commonmaps, maar 
  misschien zijn er ook anderen.
 
  Gert Gremmen
  -
 
  Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)
  P Before printing, think about the environment.
 
 
 
  -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
  Van: Frank Steggink [mailto:stegg...@steggink.org]
  Verzonden: Thursday, June 16, 2011 12:58 PM
  Aan: talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
  Onderwerp: Re:

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] ODbL fase 4 aanstaande zondag

2011-06-17 Thread ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen

Dank je Henk.

 

Er is een fundamenteel verschil van appreciatie met

de gang van zaken tussen ons.

Jij ziet de zaken vanuit het perspectief van het resultaat (voor OSM).

Ik zie het vanuit de gang van zaken voor de community.

Het huidige OSMF is dusdanig pragmatisch dat het werkelijk 

elk principe overboord zou gooien  als daarmee een bepaald

resultaat zou kunnen worden bereikt. Wat dat ook zou kunnen

zijn. 

Vergelijk het in NL met de samenwerking van VVD /CDA met

Geert Wilders. Het resultaat is niet eens zou erg, maar de wijze waarop

tart elk gevoel voor rechtvaardigheid en respect.

Terug naar OSM en de manier waarop CT/ODBL ons zijn opgedrongen.

Kijk nu eens naar elke publicatie over de nieuwe licentie. Werkelijk

overal wordt alleen maar gepoogd aan te geven hoe noodzakelijk dat is

zonder enig argument behalve:

 

Bedrijven en instellingen die graag OSM data willen gebruiken, maar 

daarvan afzien vanwege de CC-licentie. Dit omdat de definitie 

van afgeleid werk voor hun niet werkt.

 

Wat betekent dat precies: niet werkt; een eufemisme voor hebben we liever 
niet ?

Dan passen ze hun business model toch aan, of gaan naar de concurrent !

 

Op odbl.de vindt je dat zelfs terug in de gebruikte kleuren, en de suggestie

rechtsboven over hoe de nee stemmers te beïnvloeden met email.

Er staat nog net niet dat je je ze moet  bedreigen. En argumenten

vindt je daar al helemaal niet.  Zelfs niet het ultieme het werkt niet.

 

Het is uiterst tendentieus, te beginnen enkele maanden na de

de eerste maal in Hilversum toen jij ons over de nieuwe licentie 

informeerde. Je was nog niet eens in het OSMF. 

Ik gaf je het voordeel van de twijfel die dag omdat

JIJ het was die ons bijpraatte (vanwege Assen).

Het merkwaardigste van de nieuwe licentie is dat het niet meer

gaat over open data maar over  dat onder CC-BY-SA misschien sommige 

commerciële partijen  (zie jou inzet) zouden afhaken.

Sinds wanneer laat de Open Data community zich beïnvloeden door

de commercie ?  Integendeel, als een commerciële partij laat weten

een probleem te hebben met onze ideeen, dan is dat een teken dat we op de juiste

koers zitten. Wij wilden toch wat anders dan Nokia en Microsoft ?

Wij wilden toch innoveren en nieuwe kansen creëren voor 

partijen die op een andere basis met data omgaan ?

 

Als OSM haar koers laat afhangen van of marktpartijen commercieel

gewin zien in het gebruik van onze data, zijn we het onderscheid kwijt

en dan zal blijken  dat Google CC het gewoon beter kunnen.

OSM is nog maar heel klein, in NL en Duitsland misschien best aardig,

maar in Frankrijk bijvoorbeeld is OSM belachelijk leeg. Geen partij

voor Google CC.

 

 

Wat er nu gaat gebeuren -als dit proces  is afgesloten- is nog ongewis,

maar ik voorspel weinig goeds voor OSM.

IHA als pragmatisme de toon gaat voeren.. 

 

En dan ben ik nog niet eens begonnen over BING en de redenen van MS

om haar luchtfoto's aan ons ter beschikking te stellen

 

Wij zullen het nooit eens worden Henk, maar dat geeft ook niet.

 

En oh ja, vergeet niet dat het het  OSMF is die zal besluiten om mijn 

edits te verwijderen, niet ik.

 

Gert

 

Van: Henk Hoff [mailto:toffeh...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: vrijdag 17 juni 2011 19:08
Aan: OpenStreetMap NL discussion list
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] ODbL fase 4 aanstaande zondag

 

Gert,

 

Ik vind het erg jammer dat je niet akkoord gaat met de Contributor Terms van 
Openstreetmap. Temeer ik nu je argumentatie lees. Ik neem toch even de vrijheid 
om hierop te reageren. Zie inline.

 

2011/6/16 ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl

Ik vindt een nieuwe licentie onnodig omdat

-we deze maar ook een andere licentie niet kunnen handhaven

 

Verklaar. Dit snap ik niet. Zeer waarschijnlijk ligt jouw bezwaar ook bij de 
huidige CC-BY-SA licentie

 

-er nooit problemen zijn geweest met cc-by-sa

 

Helaas. Ik kom net weer van een business-conferentie af. Er diverse 
bedrijven/instellingen die graag OSM data willen gebruiken, maar daarvan afzien 
vanwege de CC-licentie. Dit omdat de definitie van afgeleid werk voor hun 
niet werkt. De ODbL concentreert zich op de data en daarmee kan men veelal wel 
mee uit de voeten.

 

-ik eigenlijk wil dat OSM PD wordt, of liever helemaal niks

 

Dat je persoonlijke mening. Maar als dat een reden is, waarom ben je uberhaupt 
bij OSM gekomen, gezien de huidige CC-BY-SA licentie?

 

-ik niet acceptabel vindt dat 0.1 % van OSM  (OSMF) de community in 
gijzeling neemt

 

Verklaar. Er zijn verschillende polls en stemmingen geweest. Zowel onder de 
OSMF leden als ook onder de brede community. In alle gevallen was daar een 
duidelijke meerderheid voor de ingeslagen weg. Wanneer we nu naar de acceptatie 
van de CT kijken, kan ik constateren dat ruim 98% heeft ingestemd. Iets meer 
dan 1% heeft geweigerd (waaronder dus jij). Hoezo gijzeling?

 

-er nooit een moment geweest is dat OSM open stond voor iets

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] ODbL fase 4 aanstaande zondag

2011-06-17 Thread Frank Steggink


Gert,

Jij wilt een argument voor de ODbL en tegen de CC? CC is bedoeld als 
licentie voor zaken waarop _auteursrecht_ berust. Dat geldt niet voor 
_data_, aangezien hier geen _creatieve_ inspanning geleverd hoeft te 
worden. (Vandaar 'creative' in Creative Commons). De huidige situatie 
betekent dus dat iedereen die er zin in heeft een graai kan doen in OSM 
en de data kan gebruiken _zonder_ hiervoor verantwoording hoeft af te 
leggen, of zich ergens aan hoeft te houden. Voor hen is de CC niets 
anders dan iets om een bepaald deel van zijn lichaam mee af te vegen, 
voor wat data betreft.


Uiteraard geldt dit niet als er data creatief is toegevoegd, d.w.z. 
easter-eggs. Dat is de enige manier om auteursrechtschenders te kunnen 
betrappen en er wat aan te doen. Ik vind het stuitend als zou blijken 
als hier op grote schaal (en ook op kleine schaal) sprake van zou zijn 
in OSM. Het doel is juist om de situatie waarheidsgetrouw vast te 
leggen. Het doet afbreuk aan de database. Het tagging schema valt hier 
m.i. niet onder, want dat is ook gericht op de feitelijke beschrijving 
van de situatie.


Bovenstaande geldt alleen alleen in jurisdicties waarin feitelijke data 
niet als een creatief werk wordt gezien, waaronder de EU. In de EU en 
andere jurisdicties (niet in de VS, vziw) bestaat wel het 
databankenrecht. De ODbL is ervoor geschreven om duidelijk te maken dat 
de OSM data hieronder hoort te vallen. Dan is er tenminste een contract, 
waar de partij die een extract uit OSM haalt zich aan dient te houden.


Dit hele verhaal staat los van PD. Als jij PD zo belangrijk vindt, en 
zelfs vindt dat OSM maar PD moet worden, wat maakt het jou dan uit dat 
de OSMF probeert de ODbL in te voeren, met daaraan de Contributor Terms 
om een zekere mate van vrijheid in de toekomst te garanderen? OK, het is 
niet helemaal wat jij wilt, maar het is in ieder geval een stap in de 
richting, een stap die toekomstvast is. Ik zie jou tegenstem puur als 
een politieke stem omdat iets niet helemaal gaat zoals het jou zint.


Zelf ben ik ook pro-PD, en dat heb ik ook aangevinkt. Voor mij was dat 
juist dé reden om te denken dat die CT mij niet zo boeit. Als iemand 
anders mijn data wil hebben, be my guest. Verder vind ik ook dat, 
ondanks dat de tekst redelijk zwaar op de maag valt, er voldoende 
waarborgen in de CT zitten dat de OSM-data niet plotsklaps in verkeerde 
handen komt te vallen, of onder een gesloten licentie wordt geschoven.


Ik vind de vergelijking met de huidige politieke situatie redelijk ver 
gaan. Dat slaat nergens op. Er zijn in OSM geen politieke partijen, en 
verder heeft OSM lang niet zo'n impact op het dagelijkse leven als onze 
volksvertegenwoordiging (alhoewel ik mijzelf niet vind 
vertegenwoordigd). Als jij, en andere tegenstanders, graag zou hebben 
gezien dat de zaken anders waren, dan hadden jullie je beter moeten 
organiseren. Voor wat ik proef in de eindeloze discussies, is dat jullie 
kamp feitelijk een kruiwagen vol kikkers is. De een wil alleen pro-PD, 
terwijl de ander absoluut niet wil afwijken van CC-BY-SA? Hoe kun je dan 
een vuist vormen? Juist, dat gaat niet.


Verder weet je ook dat, als je zo politiek geëngageerd bent, dat 90% van 
de mensen mak stemvee is. Die zijn helemaal niet in de discussie 
geïnteresseerd, maar hopen alleen dat de trein blijft rollen (ofwel dat 
de beschikbaarheid van OSM-data in de toekomst blijft gewaarborgd). Als 
de OSMF in het theoretische geval zou voorstellen om een veel beperktere 
licentie te presenteren, moet je dan eens opletten. Dan komt een deel 
daarvan ook wel in actie.


Ach, ik laat het hierbij zitten. Het is duidelijk dat jij de hakken in 
het zand zet en geenszins van plan bent om je mening bij te stellen. Ik 
wil nog wel even zeggen dat ik niet blij ben met de gang van zaken. Ik 
vind, evenals jij, dat er sprake is van verwarring en twijfel, maar m.i. 
is die juist door het anti-ODbL/CT kamp gezaaid.


Groeten,

Frank

On 11-06-17 08:28 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:


Dank je Henk.

Er is een fundamenteel verschil van appreciatie met

de gang van zaken tussen ons.

Jij ziet de zaken vanuit het perspectief van het resultaat (voor OSM).

Ik zie het vanuit de gang van zaken voor de community.

Het huidige OSMF is dusdanig pragmatisch dat het werkelijk

elk principe overboord zou gooien als daarmee een bepaald

resultaat zou kunnen worden bereikt. Wat dat ook zou kunnen

zijn.

Vergelijk het in NL met de samenwerking van VVD /CDA met

Geert Wilders. Het resultaat is niet eens zou erg, maar de wijze waarop

tart elk gevoel voor rechtvaardigheid en respect.

Terug naar OSM en de manier waarop CT/ODBL ons zijn opgedrongen.

Kijk nu eens naar elke publicatie over de nieuwe licentie. Werkelijk

overal wordt alleen maar gepoogd aan te geven hoe noodzakelijk dat is

zonder enig argument behalve:

“Bedrijven en instellingen die graag OSM data willen gebruiken, maar

daarvan afzien vanwege de CC-licentie. Dit omdat de definitie

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] ODbL fase 4 aanstaande zondag

2011-06-17 Thread Frank Steggink


Gert,

Ik ga toch maar happen. Zie inline.

Frank

On 11-06-17 08:51 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:


Oh ja henk je vroeg om een verklarinen

Zie inline

*Van:*Henk Hoff [mailto:toffeh...@gmail.com]
*Verzonden:* vrijdag 17 juni 2011 19:08
*Aan:* OpenStreetMap NL discussion list
*Onderwerp:* Re: [OSM-talk-nl] ODbL fase 4 aanstaande zondag

Gert,

Ik vind het erg jammer dat je niet akkoord gaat met de Contributor 
Terms van Openstreetmap. Temeer ik nu je argumentatie lees. Ik neem 
toch even de vrijheid om hierop te reageren. Zie inline.


2011/6/16 ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen 
g.grem...@cetest.nl mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl


Ik vindt een nieuwe licentie onnodig omdat

-we deze maar ook een andere licentie niet kunnen handhaven

Verklaar. Dit snap ik niet. Zeer waarschijnlijk ligt jouw bezwaar ook 
bij de huidige CC-BY-SA licentie


Inderdaad, alleen een commerciële organisatie met een duidelijk 
verdienmodel heeft het


geld om een licentie te handhaven. Dat geld hebben we niet dus is ODBL 
alleen maar een speeltje


voorde regelneven onder ons. Vandaar mijn inzet voor PD.

[FS] Misschien moet het handhaven ook maar worden gecrowdsourced. De 
OSMF kan wel donaties / leden gebruiken. Je bent van harte welkom ;)
OSM is te omvangrijk om een ongeleid projectiel te zijn. Vroeg of laat 
hebben die de neiging om neer te storten, dus ben ik allang blij dat er 
een stel regelneven is opgestaan om dit te voorkomen. Als die er niet 
zouden zijn, en er is helemaal geen structuur / richting in OSM, dan zou 
ik me wel drie keer hebben bedacht om mijn kostbare tijd daarin te steken!


-er nooit problemen zijn geweest met cc-by-sa

Helaas. Ik kom net weer van een business-conferentie af. Er diverse 
bedrijven/instellingen die graag OSM data willen gebruiken, maar 
daarvan afzien vanwege de CC-licentie. Dit omdat de definitie van 
afgeleid werk voor hun niet werkt. De ODbL concentreert zich op de 
data en daarmee kan men veelal wel mee uit de voeten.


Business conferentie, wat doe je daar eigenlijk Henk. OSM gaat niet 
over business maar over open data.


Daar hoort je focus te liggen. Je bent daar gewoon ingepakt. Heb je 
één argument


behalve “niet werk” en “uit de voeten”

[FS] De bekendheid vergroten van OSM? Mag het alleen door niet-zakelijke 
gebruikers worden gebruikt? De huidige licentie is notabene CC-BY-SA, en 
niet CC-BY-NC-SA.


-ik eigenlijk wil dat OSM PD wordt, of liever helemaal niks

Dat je persoonlijke mening. Maar als dat een reden is, waarom ben je 
uberhaupt bij OSM gekomen, gezien de huidige CC-BY-SA licentie?


Wist ik veel wat CC-BY-SA was, ik ging voor de kaart ! Bovendien

was de tendens veel meer PD like.

[FS] Die tendens is me nooit zo opgevallen. Sommigen wel, maar ik geloof 
dat de meerderheid dit niet wil (en een veel grotere meerderheid het 
niet kan schelen).


Overigens ben ik wel erg benieuwd naar de PD support, en ik vind dat de 
OSMF deze data moet vrijgeven. Er is geen enkele reden om dit verborgen 
te houden!


-ik niet acceptabel vindt dat 0.1 % van OSM (OSMF) de community in
gijzeling neem

Verklaar. Er zijn verschillende polls en stemmingen geweest. Zowel 
onder de OSMF leden als ook onder de brede community. In alle gevallen 
was daar een duidelijke meerderheid voor de ingeslagen weg. Wanneer we 
nu naar de acceptatie van de CT kijken, kan ik constateren dat ruim 
98% heeft ingestemd. Iets meer dan 1% heeft geweigerd (waaronder dus 
jij). Hoezo gijzeling?


Als ik morgen met 12 andere leden zeg dat OSM voortaan PD wordt heb ik 
dan de mogelijkheid


om leden uit te sluiten die niet accoord gaan ? Heb ik de macht over 
de user accounts ? Heb ik de domeinnaam ?


[FS] Alsof de OSMF over één nacht ijs gaat. Dit proces duurt al een jaar 
of 6. Als iemand een beter alternatief zou hebben, dan zou dit zeker 
opgepakt zijn. Dat jij het hier niet mee eens bent, wil niet zeggen dat 
dat ook voor de andere 399.999+ gebruikers geldt.


-er nooit een moment geweest is dat OSM open stond voor iets
anders dan ODBL

Er zijn diverse opties bekeken. De ODbL is momenteel de beste keuze.

CC-by-SA 3.0 ? PD ? wat is daar eigenlijk mis mee ?

[FS] CC-BY-SA: zie andere e-mail. PD: een stap te ver voor velen 
(wederom: meer informatie van de OSMF gewenst).


-de licentie onnodig autoritair, formeel en juridisch geformuleerd is

Kijk eens naar de officiele tekst van CC-BY-SA: 
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode


Dat is een CC-BY-SA _licentie_ vgl de ODBL _licentie_ geen CT die ik noem.


[FS] Jij hebt het over de licentie en noemt niet de CT specifiek.


-ik een hekel heb om juridisch te worden gebonden voor dingen die
IK kado geef
(stel je kan schilderen en geeft een schilderij aan iemand kado,
zou jij accepteren dat die iemand daar een onherroepelijke
licentie bij wil afsluiten en anders het schilderij weggooit ?)

Prima. Maar wat is het verschil met de huidige situatie?

De CT

[FS]

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] ODbL fase 4 aanstaande zondag

2011-06-17 Thread Henk Hoff

Tsja, wat moet ik daar allemaal op antwoorden.

Ik laat het even bij deze vraag:

Heb je één argument

behalve “niet werk” en “uit de voeten”


Ja hoor, meerdere. Lees ze na op
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable

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

Re: [talk-au] [OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote:
 The goal of that statement was to allow any contributions that have been
 derived from our PhotoMaps under our current licence (which is what imposes
 the CC-BY-SA redistribution condition) can remain in the OSM db.  Not being

I'm still finding it a bit hard to understand exactly what is meant by
can remain in the OSM db. Is the following statement correct?
Nearmap-derived contributions prior to June 17 were licensed
CC-BY-SA*, and will remain part of the main, actively developed and
distributed OSM database even when it changes to ODbL, and Nearmap is
fine with that. However, they refuse to allow any contributions under
the new Contributor Terms, because those call for unspecified future
relicensing.

Also, a question I should probably know the answer to: is  ODbL
considered compatible with CC-BY-SA? Can you relicense something that
is CC-BY-SA as ODbL? (I guess the answer must be yes, but could
someone confirm?)

Steve
* Or ODbL, depending on the contributor and time.

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

Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:42 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
 That is the reason why very little effort has been expended mapping
 Australia lately, until we know what skeleton of data we'll have left to
 work with after the changeover.

 If you want to map for OSM at the moment, your best bet is to map
 offline using something like JOSM, then save all your edits to be
 uploaded when the licence issue has been sorted out, otherwise you might
 find youre spending hours fixing up the map only to find all your work
 removed or broken when other users data is removed.

So is there some sort of secret Australian cabal that I should know
about? Do you guys have a mailing list? I sure don't see much of this
kind of discussion on this list...

Steve

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

Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries

On 17 June 2011 18:38, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:42 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
 That is the reason why very little effort has been expended mapping
 Australia lately, until we know what skeleton of data we'll have left to
 work with after the changeover.

 If you want to map for OSM at the moment, your best bet is to map
 offline using something like JOSM, then save all your edits to be
 uploaded when the licence issue has been sorted out, otherwise you might
 find youre spending hours fixing up the map only to find all your work
 removed or broken when other users data is removed.

 So is there some sort of secret Australian cabal that I should know
 about? Do you guys have a mailing list? I sure don't see much of this
 kind of discussion on this list...

It's hardly a secret, in fact one of the guiding emphasises is on transparency.

http://groups.google.com/group/osm-fork?pli=1

Although I disagree with mapping offline, that would seem to be the
most likely approach to people duplicating effort.

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

[talk-au] Nearmap will still be very useful.

2011-06-17 Thread Nick Hocking

Since (for the areas it covers) Nearmap is likely to be to most up-to-date
imagery available, we can use it to spot where new roads have sprung up in
towns that do not currently have an active mapper driving around.  We can
then schedule a trip to said town to remedy the situation.

For other stuff, like buildings and houses etc, Bing imagery will usually be
more than adequate.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [Talk-de] Nochmal Kindle

2011-06-17 Thread Philip Gillißen

Hallo Jens!

Danke für die Überlegungen, die du angestellt hast, finde ich sehr wichtig.
Vielleicht hilft das diesem etwas verrückten Projektchen weiter.


Jens Poenisch wrote:
 
 Navigation über Inhaltsverzeichnis ist möglich, ebenso natürlich 
 Vorwärts-/Rückwärtsblättern - wir benötigen aber 4 Navigationsrichtungen.
 
 Vorstellen könnte ich mir Kartenblätter im Format 600x(800-X) und in einer
 Zeile der Höhe X die Navigationslinks, wobei jedes Kartenblatt samt
 Navigation eine eigene Datei bekommt.
 

Wie wäre es denn mit der Idee, sich an dem Vorbild der analogen Straßenkarte
zu orientieren? Wenn ich den ADAC Straßenatlas aufklappe, habe ich an jeder
kante der seite eine seitenzahl, die mir angibt, wo ich hinblättern muss, um
diese Karte an dieser Stelle fortzusetzen. In Ost/West-Richtung ist dies
meistens die nächste/vorherige Seite, in Nord/Süd-Richtung gibt es dann
größere Sprünge.
Ich kenne die Seitennavigation vom Kindle nicht, aber wäre das nicht eine
Idee zur Navigation?

Gruß, Philip




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Nochmal-Kindle-tp6482741p6485962.html
Sent from the Germany mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Talk-de] Wanderwegeverlauf und Kartenwerk der Landesvermessung

2011-06-17 Thread Sven Geggus

Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:

 Langer Rede kurzer Sinn: ich würde keine der Marken, Bildmarken oder 
 Wort-/Bildmarken in einer Karte, Legende oder irgendwas ähnliches 
 verwenden, und genauso natürlich auch Logos von anderen Organsisationen 
 nicht, auch wenn die vielleicht es nicht ganz so übertreiben wie der 
 franz. Wanderverband.

Ehrlich gesagt sollte man gerade bei solch offensichtlicehm Blödsinn mutger
sein. Wenn man eine solche Karte unter openstreetmap.de ablegt ist das
Maximum was passieren kann ist dass der FOSSGIS e.V. eine kostenpflichtig
Abmahnung erhält. Das ist zwar nicht schön aber das überlebt man.

Ich kann mir ehrlich gesagt schon nicht vorstellen, dass ein Verein soweit
gehen würde einen anderen Verein kostenpflichig abzumahnen, aber selbst wenn
wäre der Shitstorm den das entfachen würde unterm Strich vermutlich sogar
postitiv fürs Projekt als ganzes.

Gruss

Sven

-- 
I'm a bastard, and proud of it
  (Linus Torvalds, Wednesday Sep 6, 2000)

/me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web

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

[Talk-de] Refreshzyklen von OpenCycleMap

2011-06-17 Thread Dennie Reinhold

Hallo allerseits,

kurze Frage bzgl. der Refresh-zyklen von OpenCycleMap. Laut Theorie 
aktualisiert OCM die Kacheln innerhalb a few days; jedoch präferiert nach der 
Nutzungsintensität der einzelnen Kacheln.

Nun habe ich aber mittlerweile zwei Radrouten im Süden Deutschlands schon vor 
ca. einem Monat (Hohenlohe-Radweg bei Heilbronn) und vor zwei Wochen 
(Queichtalradweg bei Germersheim) teilweise editiert bzw. gefixt bzw. 
vervollständigt. 

Nur, bis heute sehe ich davon nüchds. :(

Hängen da in letzter Zeit zu viele Kacheln in der Warteschleife?
Wie sind da Eure Erfahrungen?

Schöne Grüße,
Dennie
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [Talk-de] Refreshzyklen von OpenCycleMap

Deine Erfahrungen decken sich mit meinen (schon das ganze Jahr), hab 
auch schon 2 Monate gewartet bevor etwas auf irgendeinem Zoomlevel 
gerendert wurde, mehrere Wochen ist der Normalfall (und auf allen Stufen 
kanns man eh vergessen). Was auch typisch ist, ist dass wenn gerendert 
wird, es mit veralteten Daten passiert (also Kachel wird neu gerendert, 
aber die Daten sind mehr als eine Woche alt).


Ich gehe davon aus, dass das ganze System einfach massiv überlastet ist 
(es stellt sich natürlich die Frage was dann die Karte eigentlich auf 
der OSM Website macht, dass ist aber ein anderes Thema), und der normale 
Updatezyklus gar nicht mehr funktioniert.


Simon

Am 17.06.2011 12:46, schrieb Dennie Reinhold:

Hallo allerseits,

kurze Frage bzgl. der Refresh-zyklen von OpenCycleMap. Laut Theorie aktualisiert OCM die 
Kacheln innerhalb a few days; jedoch präferiert nach der Nutzungsintensität 
der einzelnen Kacheln.

Nun habe ich aber mittlerweile zwei Radrouten im Süden Deutschlands schon vor 
ca. einem Monat (Hohenlohe-Radweg bei Heilbronn) und vor zwei Wochen 
(Queichtalradweg bei Germersheim) teilweise editiert bzw. gefixt bzw. 
vervollständigt.

Nur, bis heute sehe ich davon nüchds. :(

Hängen da in letzter Zeit zu viele Kacheln in der Warteschleife?
Wie sind da Eure Erfahrungen?

Schöne Grüße,
Dennie
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de



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

Re: [Talk-de] Refreshzyklen von OpenCycleMap

2011-06-17 Thread Dennie Reinhold

Danke Simon.

Ich habe indes sogar das Gefühl, OCM sei in den letzten beiden Wochen nochmals 
langsamer geworden als zuvor schon. Fürs Radln benutze ich gerne meine 
iPhone+GeoGuide-Kombination. Mit letzterem kann man im Voraus einer Tour die 
entsprechenden Kacheln herunterladen (was eben schnell mal mehrere hundert MB 
sind). Vor einem Monat war das recht schnell gemacht, heute früh hingegen habe 
ich nach einer Std. laden abgebrochen. Eine Woche zuvor ähnliches.

Hm, also sehr sub-optimal, v.a. aber auch extrem schade. Immerhin ist für 
Radfahrer die OCM (eigentlich) eine klasse Geschichte (auch weil man nicht nur 
nehmen, sondern auch immer etwas zurückgeben kann). 

Fragt sich nur, ob es da in naher Zukunft eine Aussicht auf Lösung gibt/geben 
kann...

Grüße,
Dennie

 Deine Erfahrungen decken sich mit meinen (schon das ganze Jahr), hab auch 
 schon 2 Monate gewartet bevor etwas auf irgendeinem Zoomlevel gerendert 
 wurde, mehrere Wochen ist der Normalfall (und auf allen Stufen kanns man eh 
 vergessen). Was auch typisch ist, ist dass wenn gerendert wird, es mit 
 veralteten Daten passiert (also Kachel wird neu gerendert, aber die Daten 
 sind mehr als eine Woche alt).
 
 Ich gehe davon aus, dass das ganze System einfach massiv überlastet ist (es 
 stellt sich natürlich die Frage was dann die Karte eigentlich auf der OSM 
 Website macht, dass ist aber ein anderes Thema), und der normale Updatezyklus 
 gar nicht mehr funktioniert.
 
 Simon
 
 Am 17.06.2011 12:46, schrieb Dennie Reinhold:
 Hallo allerseits,
 
 kurze Frage bzgl. der Refresh-zyklen von OpenCycleMap. Laut Theorie 
 aktualisiert OCM die Kacheln innerhalb a few days; jedoch präferiert nach 
 der Nutzungsintensität der einzelnen Kacheln.
 
 Nun habe ich aber mittlerweile zwei Radrouten im Süden Deutschlands schon 
 vor ca. einem Monat (Hohenlohe-Radweg bei Heilbronn) und vor zwei Wochen 
 (Queichtalradweg bei Germersheim) teilweise editiert bzw. gefixt bzw. 
 vervollständigt.
 
 Nur, bis heute sehe ich davon nüchds. :(
 
 Hängen da in letzter Zeit zu viele Kacheln in der Warteschleife?
 Wie sind da Eure Erfahrungen?
 
 Schöne Grüße,
 Dennie
 ___
 Talk-de mailing list
 Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
 
 
 ___
 Talk-de mailing list
 Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


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

Re: [Talk-de] Refreshzyklen von OpenCycleMap