date:20120128


Petr,


In a recent discussion on talk-cz Lukáš Matějka (LM_1) have suggested it
would be good to have an extra phase (couple of months) in which only
untainted edits would be accepted. This would prevent users to put their
time into something that will be gone after final cut-off and it would
probably accelerate the remapping efforts in problematic regions.


There is nothing fundamentally wrong or impossible about that.

But it does introduce more work for us (because we would have to 
implement a way for the API to reject changes to tainted objects).


I am unsure if adding such an extra phase of, say, three months would 
really bring a lot of benefit compared to the - much easier - potential 
decisions of delaying the planned changeover for three months.


Or, in other words, do you have reason to believe that a three-month 
only edits to non-tainted objects accepted phase would actually make 
people re-map more and better compared to the phase we are in now? And 
if so, why?


Bye
Frederik

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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL implementation plan - extra phase proposal

2012-01-28 Thread Petr Morávek [Xificurk]

Frederik Ramm wrote:
 Or, in other words, do you have reason to believe that a three-month
 only edits to non-tainted objects accepted phase would actually make
 people re-map more and better compared to the phase we are in now? And
 if so, why?

Can we agree on the fact, that some of the recent edits are done on
tainted objects that will go away in the final cut-off (together with
those fresh edits)?
I don't know all the reasons why people do these kind of edits,
presumable they don't know that the object is tainted (and that it means
their work is deemed to be deleted in the final cut-off), or they simply
refuse to believe that OSMF will delete so much data in their region.
And even if you know about this stuff, it's not always easy to exactly
identify the problematic objects and be really sure that your edit will
survive the cut-off. Furthermore the identification of problems requires
certain amount of human work, which seems quite irrational - why should
we waste precious human time for something that will be done
algorithmically by machines in the end anyway?

The extra phase would tell all of the contributors trying to edit
tainted objects something like: look, this data will soon go away
together with your current work, so either try to remap it to a
compliant state, or don't bother at all.
It will bring more articulate warning to contributors in problematic
regions and the rest can be at least really sure that their work won't
be for nothing. It's definitely better than a user going to bed one day
with a good feeling about their recent edits and waking up the next
morning seeing them gone.

In some regions people will be upset about not being able to do simple
edits, but I still think it's a better solution then the alternative.

Best regards,
Petr Morávek aka Xificurk



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The Copyright of Split Ways


Hi,

On 01/28/2012 11:08 PM, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote:

Thank you very much for the wise decision to postpone the license change until 
all open problems are solved.


Citation needed?


Generally,
- if the second-oldest node of a way is older than the way itself, the way 
probably was split. Its v1 belongs to the changeset where the second-oldest 
node was created.
- if the second-oldest node of a way is younger than the way itself, the way was probably 
re-created by other mappers and cannot be considered property of the v1 
mapper. Thus, it would make sense to assign copyright ownership to the v3 mapper (who has 
contributed the second-oldest node).


There's no reason for such vodoo logic. A way split or merge can be 
determined from looking at a changeset. A changeset in which a chain of 
nodes is removed from one way and added to another, new way denotes a 
split. It is possible to determine these automatically, without 
comparing the date of nodes; the only difficulty is that it requires 
looking at a full history file sorted by changeset rather than by object 
ID which means that considerable processing is required, for an outcome 
that is worth relatively little.


I'm sure it is going to be tackled one way or the other but it really 
isn't the big issue some people seem to make of it. Splitting ways is a 
common thing but it is only relevant for the license change if an agreer 
splits a way created by a decliner and vice versa. There are simply not 
so many cases of that to warrant all the brouhaha that is made.


Bye
Frederik

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over

2012-01-28 Thread Lester Caine

Michal Migurski wrote:

(*) There is no final algorithm. There is the best that OSMF can come up
with but it will have problems, and there*will* be things deleted which will be
reinstated later, and there*will* be things kept which have to be deleted later after a
complaint. In a way, the algorithm that OSMF comes up with is just a best guess, much like
the algorithm currently used by the OSM inspector.

Yeah, but it will come from the OSMF, which makes it authoritative. Unlike
every other tool that has been suggested and developed. Since the algorithm
will be so provisional at launch, there should be a parallel data and tile
service set prior to launch and an old data set and tile service post-launch.

Can I get a little clarity here ...

I am assuming that 'undecideds' have until the 1st April to finally make a
decision? Which is an utter pain for me since the main blocks I have left now
are undecides. The 'declines' can simply be dealt with except where they are
wrapped in a large 'undecided' as well.

Personally I would prefer to see anything left as 'undecided' simply switched to
a new user account called 'undecided'. If people have simply disappeared or are
simply not 'declining' just to be difficult, then they had their opportunity to
decline and didn't? So we just accept that work as clean.

We do need a clear statement on what WILL happen on the 1st April? but if that
is switch off day, then the 'decide by' day NEEDS to be earlier! If we are NOW
simply classifying 'undecided' as 'declined' which does seem to be the
recommendation, then what is the point of waiting for the outstanding users to
accept, anyway?

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over

2012-01-28 Thread Thomas Davie

On 28 Jan 2012, at 11:00, Lester Caine wrote:

 Michal Migurski wrote:
   (*) There is no final algorithm. There is the best that OSMF can come 
  up with but it will have problems, and there*will*  be things deleted 
  which will be reinstated later, and there*will*  be things kept which 
  have to be deleted later after a complaint. In a way, the algorithm that 
  OSMF comes up with is just a best guess, much like the algorithm 
  currently used by the OSM inspector.
 
 Yeah, but it will come from the OSMF, which makes it authoritative. Unlike 
 every other tool that has been suggested and developed. Since the algorithm 
 will be so provisional at launch, there should be a parallel data and tile 
 service set prior to launch and an old data set and tile service post-launch.
 
 Can I get a little clarity here ...
 
 I am assuming that 'undecideds' have until the 1st April to finally make a 
 decision? Which is an utter pain for me since the main blocks I have left now 
 are undecides. The 'declines' can simply be dealt with except where they are 
 wrapped in a large 'undecided' as well.
 
 Personally I would prefer to see anything left as 'undecided' simply switched 
 to a new user account called 'undecided'. If people have simply disappeared 
 or are simply not 'declining' just to be difficult, then they had their 
 opportunity to decline and didn't? So we just accept that work as clean.

Unfortunately, copyright doesn't work like that – to be allowed to copy 
something, you must have a license – they have not accepted the CTs, and thus 
not granted any license, so we can't use their work.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over

2012-01-28 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Hello all,

A brief interruption from your scheduled programming.

legal-talk is currently more administered than moderated because I don't
have the time to moderate it and no moderator has been appointed.

That notwithstanding, I would ask participants in this thread to refrain
from using emotive words like ridiculous, hypocrisy and vandalism.
Remember too that, though you might not agree with them, there are a lot of
people working hard on this, and just because your opinion differs on the
implementation, it doesn't actually mean they're bad people.

Thank you. :)

cheers
Richard
legal-talk admin



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Critical-Mass-for-license-change-over-tp5436116p5437827.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over


Hi,

On 01/28/2012 05:59 AM, Michal Migurski wrote:

I think that realistically, taking into account the time, manpower,
and other resources available, you can expect to have an
unambiguous plan in the form of a verbal description, or *maybe* at
most a script or program that enables you to generate an ODbL
planet from the full history file*. But certainly not a definitive,
fast, and planet-wide cleanmap, nor regular planet dumps with the
license change rules applied.


That's weird. What's going to happen on April 1, then?


It is not yet clear what form the algorithm will take. Technically, it 
could be something that takes a full history planet file or some other, 
specially created, extract and loads it into a new, initially empty, 
database; or it could be something that looks at (a copy of) the current 
database and selectively deletes stuff from that.


The code used by OSMF to make the switch can certainly be published but 
it is not necessarily something that you can quickly run on your 
machine; it is possible that the code is geared towards the OSM database 
in a way that makes it impractical for someone else to execute it.


Your message seems to imply that someone who is ready to make the 
modifications necessary for the license change to our database would 
automatically also have to have the technology to create something like 
a planet-wide cleanmap or planet dumps with the license change rules 
applied. This assumption is not true; even if the algorithm is ready, a 
planet-wide cleanmap would possibly require a full copy of the current 
database to be made on a separate server, dumps to be created from that 
and imported into a third server where they can be rendered.



Keeping in
mind that I am in support of the license switch, I think it's
completely reasonable to expect a technical plan for a switch just 60
days in the future.


You talk about reasonable - I talk about realistic.


Especially in the context of a thread starting by
the license group looking for feedback. The question was do we have
critical mass? - there's no way to answer that without a way to
measure impact.


It is worth noting that the 1st April goal was set by the OSMF board 
in their latest face-to-face meeting, not by the License Working Group. 
I am not party to these communications but I believe that the first LWG 
heard of that date was after the board meeting was over. I doubt that 
LWG have even been consulted beforehand. The first LWG meeting after 
that has the following in its minutes:


Board would like to set 1st April 2012 for cutting over to ODbL latest. 
LWG feels that with current status this is a practical goal for the 
community to work towards and resolves to meet this target...


The f2f meeting at which the 1st April goal was set seems to have been 
operating under the headline: Strategic planning for the coming year. 
Set high levels goals, align with some specific 'Big Audacious' actions 
for the Foundation



I agree these things would be nice to have but I don't see where
they should come from. Currently we don't even have the algorithm.


Then it sounds like nobody's ready for April; not the LWG, not the
Foundation, and not any of us.


Maybe that's why they called it Big Audacious ;). Sadly the OSMF board 
meeting minutes don't record who came up with 1st April and who 
supported the idea, else we could invite these individuals to discuss.



If anyone has the hardware and time and brain capacity to build
something that generates parallel planet files, my recommendation
is to start setting this up now, even though the final algorithm
might not be clear, so that once the algorithm is published you can
react quickly.


I donated money towards a new server just a short time ago. Might
that be useful for this purpose?


That's for OWG to decide but I don't think the new server is available 
for that.



there should be a
parallel data and tile service set prior to launch and an old data
set and tile service post-launch.


I think this depends on how the changeover is done. I certainly don't 
see an old tile service on the cards but copying over the currently 
existing tiles to some static storage should be possible. And an old 
data service *might* happen as a side effect *if* the license change 
should be done in a fashion where data is loaded onto a new server and 
that goes into production - then the old server could carry on read-only 
for a while. But it might just as well be that the old database is 
dropped and re-created or something, and in that case I don't see anyone 
making resources avaialble to carry on serving old data. Of course, if 
someone were interested enough, they could just take a planet file and 
load it up into a rails port of their own to serve old data.


There's a special mailing list called rebuild which has been created 
to discuss exactly how the database rebuild is going to be run. Anything 
we come up with on that list would have to be tried out of course

Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over

2012-01-28 Thread Lester Caine


Frederik Ramm wrote:


Personally, I don't believe in audacious goals; but then again I believe that
one should at least do what is possible to help. If we don't make April 1st then
we'll want to make May 1st or June 1st, and every minute we spend making
catalogues of things that someone should do and things that can reasonably be
expected is a minute not spent to actually achieve these things.


I think that it IS perfectly reasonable to make the 1st April the cut off date 
for 'acceptance' and any account that is not so flagged is then simply switched 
to declined if the legal beagles say that we can't simply recycle 'undecided'. 
It does at least give us a clean point at which we know that anything left IS 
fair game to be remapped. I'm currently holding fire on a number of large chunks 
from 80n and sherbourne but they are hiding stuff by Simon Ward who has 
declined. I don't get much time to add detail, so I would rather add clean new 
stuff than remap what MAY be allowed before 1st April anyway.


Cleaning out the tainted data is something that can then be organised on a 
cleaner basis since there is no maybe? It's the current uncertainty which is a 
lot more of a pain!


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over

2012-01-28 Thread Lester Caine


Richard Fairhurst wrote:

A brief interruption from your scheduled programming.

Haha. I'm an idiot. Sent to the wrong list.

*pours coffee on in effort to wake up*


I did wonder since I though we were being constructive on the thread you had 
posted to ;)


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over

2012-01-28 Thread Tobias Knerr

Lester Caine wrote:
 If we are NOW simply classifying 'undecided' as 'declined' which does
 seem to be the recommendation, then what is the point of waiting for the
 outstanding users to accept, anyway?

The point is that about 60 undecideds are still accepting the license
every day. If no one has got around to remapping that part of the map
yet then this late acceptance can still save a lot of work.

Look at this graph for a quick impression of the current agreement rate:
http://ni.kwsn.net/~toby/OSM/license_count.html

Tobias

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over

2012-01-28 Thread Mikel Maron

So look. There have been many reasonable questions and discussions on this 
topic, good. 
But moderation in still going to happen (is happening) on inflammatory posts 
and attacks. 

-Moderators
 
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron



 From: Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com
To: talk@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 1:49 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
 

andrzej wrote
Nick,
On 28 January 2012 05:43, Nick Hocking nick.hocking en gmail.com wrote:
 NE2/NE3 (Nathan) wrote

 This condescending tone isn't useful. We should all care about the
 entire map, not just our little area.
So which part of this quote do you not agree with?
 
It's the hypocrisy of one of the licence change whingers
telling someone like Frederik that he should
care about the entire map
This hyprocrisy beggers belief.
For about a year we have been inundated with whinging
about  you can't change the licence because I don't
agree with the decisions of the licence debate/votes.
Now, when we are finally about to resolve the tainted
data issues, all we see are the licence whingers desperately
wailing you can't change the licence for 60 or 70 years (1)
because we may lose some roads and I'm not about to do any hard
work to remap them for the project.
If the licence whingers could put a sock in it, that'd be great.
If they could help with the remapping that would be even better,
but I'm probably hoping for too much there.

(1)  I always exaggerate
___
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] Critical Mass for license change-over


On 27/01/2012 19:19, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

On 1/27/2012 12:44 PM, Michael Collinson wrote:

As the license change process evolved, concern was expressed that an
unacceptable amount of data might be lost from the current version of
the OSM database and consensus was reached that phase 5 [1] - the actual
license cut-over - should only happen when a critical mass was 
achieved.


The question I ask you is, do you agree that we have reached critical 
mass?


This cannot be answered until we know exactly what criteria will be 
used for determining taintedness. The current tools (all? based on 
WTFE) do not take into account splitting and merging of ways. If the 
OSMF decides to be more diligent and dig into the history, we have a 
big problem, since much of the remapping effort will have been based 
on assumptions that are no longer true. (It's possible that this is a 
much bigger issue in places like the U.S. where the initial street 
data was imported, and thus splits and merges of initially-untainted 
ways that contain untainted nodes are more common, so perhaps anyone 
looking at this issue should concentrate on these areas.)


In short, we cannot know if the data loss is acceptable without 
knowing what data will be lost. Will the OSMF follow the WTFE algorithm?


More than one person has expressed similar concern, I hope this 
adequately responds to everyone.


I cannot as yet speak for the OSMF board. However, the LWG position is that:

Reasonable efforts should now be made to remove the contribution value 
of non-agreeing mappers in a process that is both fair to non-agreers, 
for whatever reason, and to those that are continuing to map and that 
the process should be community-driven.


In other words, we (the LWG) should get out of the way unless we feel 
that non-agreers contributions are not being dealt with fairly. The 
resource we watch, and so far have seen no need to intervene on, is the 
What is clean? wiki page [1].


Reasonable efforts includes something which is practically and 
technically implementable. WTFE [2] is, as far as I am aware, the only 
quantitative heuristic to have been developed and, again as far as I am 
aware, follows the What is Clean? criteria.


I therefore we suggest that we now explicitly adopt the WTFE algorithm 
as criteria for any final rebuild, provided that incremental improvement 
can continue and also that folks can challenge any precepts on 
legal-talk.  That vastly reduces the uncertainty that several folks 
express as we can use the figures it produces for the basis of this 
discussion.


That leaves splits and merges as a potential uncertainty factor. My 
personal opinion here, and I stress personal, is that we make no 
adjustment for them and I'll be happy to discuss this further on 
legal-talk  I will however put the USA situation on the LWG agenda.



Mike

[1] 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F


[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WTFE







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

Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over

2012-01-28 Thread Greg Troxel


Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org writes:

 Hi,

 On 01/28/2012 05:59 AM, Michal Migurski wrote:

 Keeping in
 mind that I am in support of the license switch, I think it's
 completely reasonable to expect a technical plan for a switch just 60
 days in the future.

 You talk about reasonable - I talk about realistic.

It's realistic (and reasonable) to think it will take longer to figure
out the deletion rules.

It's not reasonable to have the deletion rule decision be delayed and
not also delay the actual deletion time.  The notion that deletion will
not happen until 60 days after the rules are published is an entirely
reasonable expectation.

While there may or may not be some good coming from the CT/ODBL, it's
clearly causing harm to the community, as there are a lot of upset
people (including a lot of agreers).  More clarity and attempt to
accomodate those people will positively increase the balance of
usefulness of the change minus the harm.

Your point about useful effort vs arguing is quite valid.  But when LWG
announces: first we're going to publish tainting rules, and then after
that we're going to set date - 4/1 is off the table, a lot of this
arguing will stop.



pgpR6t6zhcvwW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over

2012-01-28 Thread ant


Hi,

On 28.01.2012 01:48, Frederik Ramm wrote:


If anyone has the hardware and time and brain capacity to build
something that generates parallel planet files, my recommendation is
to start setting this up now, even though the final algorithm might not
be clear, so that once the algorithm is published you can react quickly.


Time is the scarcest resource here, at least for me, considering April 
1st. If we first determined what is tainted in dialogue with LWG, second 
developed the tools, and third set the deadline to allow for some 
remapping, we might finally reach critical mass, which in my opinion 
should be  99.9%.


cheers
ant

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over


Hi,

I certainly support your sentiment but I suggest 99% is too high.

We have, in rounded figures, 1,200M nodes in the database. [1]

Here are just three decliners [2] who definitely are not going to agree 
in any form,  have very high proportions of imported nodes and which 
WTFE is also certainly marking all or most for removal. I've also added 
in old anon contributions as we've probably already reached all those we 
can.


argath  7 025 025  100% POI import as far as I am aware
ABS20062 498 993  100% boundary import
anon edits  560 467   (may be too high as some previous anon 
mappers have actually agreed)
h4ck3rm1k3  348 274   High but unknown import proportion in a 
geographically concentrated area


This gives 10.4M nodes or roughly 0.86% of the entire database. Add in a 
few other smaller and harder to quantise examples from around the world 
and that is the one percent right there.


Caveat: I have done nodes because it is easiest, an analysis of highway 
ways might be better for the standard you are suggesting.


There is a trade-off. The longer we leave it the more unproductive 
over-editing occurs and many folks in problematic areas are not going to 
map what appears to be already there.


I'd certainly like to see these examples removed right now if the 
respective communities agree.  But that is only rational if we have 
consensus that critical mass is here.


Mike

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats

[2] http://odbl.de/world.html

On 27/01/2012 21:19, LM_1 wrote:

I would have higher standard for critical mass, definitely over 99 %.
There should be a prolonged (at least one year) period where it is
known what data can remain and what cannot to allow seamless switch.
Having two months to the planned switch and still not knowing the
exact algorithm to determine what stays seems just stupid.

Lukas (LM_1)

2012/1/27 Michael Collinsonm...@ayeltd.biz:
   

[cut]


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over

Well since you mentioned my name,  h4ck3rm1k3

wanted to point out my blog post :
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Michael%20DuPont/diary/15777

I do not want to harm the project or the people in Kosovo and Albania
where I personally did much work there.

And considering that the team there is very healthy and continuing in
Kosovo, I do not see any further personal work of mine being needed in
Kosovo, I am not going to waste any more time or money on Albania, I
do not see *any* chance there to start a community that is
sustainable.

you can re license *my* personal work, I don't care about that, and
imports, you will have to just review them yourselves.

dont expect me to be wasting time on understanding your new license
scheme or checking compatibility, and I am not going to agree to any
contributor terms.  working on hosting my own changesets in blogposts,
we will talk in some years about creative commons compatibility.

spent enough time on this license stuff, and wish you all the best of luck.

mike


On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
 Hi,

 I certainly support your sentiment but I suggest 99% is too high.

 We have, in rounded figures, 1,200M nodes in the database. [1]

 Here are just three decliners [2] who definitely are not going to agree in
 any form,  have very high proportions of imported nodes and which WTFE is
 also certainly marking all or most for removal. I've also added in old anon
 contributions as we've probably already reached all those we can.

 argath                  7 025 025  100% POI import as far as I am aware
 ABS2006            2 498 993  100% boundary import
 anon edits              560 467   (may be too high as some previous anon
 mappers have actually agreed)
 h4ck3rm1k3          348 274   High but unknown import proportion in a
 geographically concentrated area

 This gives 10.4M nodes or roughly 0.86% of the entire database. Add in a few
 other smaller and harder to quantise examples from around the world and that
 is the one percent right there.

 Caveat: I have done nodes because it is easiest, an analysis of highway ways
 might be better for the standard you are suggesting.

 There is a trade-off. The longer we leave it the more unproductive
 over-editing occurs and many folks in problematic areas are not going to map
 what appears to be already there.

 I'd certainly like to see these examples removed right now if the respective
 communities agree.  But that is only rational if we have consensus that
 critical mass is here.

 Mike

 [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats

 [2] http://odbl.de/world.html


 On 27/01/2012 21:19, LM_1 wrote:

 I would have higher standard for critical mass, definitely over 99 %.
 There should be a prolonged (at least one year) period where it is
 known what data can remain and what cannot to allow seamless switch.
 Having two months to the planned switch and still not knowing the
 exact algorithm to determine what stays seems just stupid.

 Lukas (LM_1)

 2012/1/27 Michael Collinsonm...@ayeltd.biz:


 [cut]



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



-- 
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over

Thanks Mike,  I will follow up on the blog post off list. Publicly, I 
would like to emphasise that the examples are highlighted only because 
the numbers are big and they need dealing. They should not be taken as 
any personal criticism.


Mike

On 28/01/2012 16:23, Mike Dupont wrote:

Well since you mentioned my name,  h4ck3rm1k3

wanted to point out my blog post :
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Michael%20DuPont/diary/15777

I do not want to harm the project or the people in Kosovo and Albania
where I personally did much work there.

And considering that the team there is very healthy and continuing in
Kosovo, I do not see any further personal work of mine being needed in
Kosovo, I am not going to waste any more time or money on Albania, I
do not see *any* chance there to start a community that is
sustainable.

you can re license *my* personal work, I don't care about that, and
imports, you will have to just review them yourselves.

dont expect me to be wasting time on understanding your new license
scheme or checking compatibility, and I am not going to agree to any
contributor terms.  working on hosting my own changesets in blogposts,
we will talk in some years about creative commons compatibility.

spent enough time on this license stuff, and wish you all the best of luck.

mike


On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Michael Collinsonm...@ayeltd.biz  wrote:
   

Hi,

I certainly support your sentiment but I suggest 99% is too high.

We have, in rounded figures, 1,200M nodes in the database. [1]

Here are just three decliners [2] who definitely are not going to agree in
any form,  have very high proportions of imported nodes and which WTFE is
also certainly marking all or most for removal. I've also added in old anon
contributions as we've probably already reached all those we can.

argath  7 025 025  100% POI import as far as I am aware
ABS20062 498 993  100% boundary import
anon edits  560 467   (may be too high as some previous anon
mappers have actually agreed)
h4ck3rm1k3  348 274   High but unknown import proportion in a
geographically concentrated area

This gives 10.4M nodes or roughly 0.86% of the entire database. Add in a few
other smaller and harder to quantise examples from around the world and that
is the one percent right there.

Caveat: I have done nodes because it is easiest, an analysis of highway ways
might be better for the standard you are suggesting.

There is a trade-off. The longer we leave it the more unproductive
over-editing occurs and many folks in problematic areas are not going to map
what appears to be already there.

I'd certainly like to see these examples removed right now if the respective
communities agree.  But that is only rational if we have consensus that
critical mass is here.

Mike

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats

[2] http://odbl.de/world.html


On 27/01/2012 21:19, LM_1 wrote:
 

I would have higher standard for critical mass, definitely over 99 %.
There should be a prolonged (at least one year) period where it is
known what data can remain and what cannot to allow seamless switch.
Having two months to the planned switch and still not knowing the
exact algorithm to determine what stays seems just stupid.

Lukas (LM_1)

2012/1/27 Michael Collinsonm...@ayeltd.biz:

   

[cut]



___
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] Kosovo, Albania, Montenegro, Macedonia


Hi Mike,

I read your  23 new ideas at http://fosm.ideascale.com/ and wish you 
luck with them. I've now read your blog post.


Once the license change is over, I am looking forward to engaging more 
with Creative Commons. In direct talks we had with them last year, they 
have definitely shifted from their stance that we should not use any SA 
license for data so I am hopeful that we may be able to achieve CC 
compatibility in a few years time.


On the direct issue of contributions, I'll be happy to take on checking 
license compatibility. I've considered approaching iMMAP but felt that 
might be considered rather hostile to you. Can I therefore try and limit 
asking your help to just three questions:


1) Are you happy if I write to iMMAP and ask their permission to use 
their data in OSM?


2) Are there any imports from other agencies in your contributions, (I 
got iMMAP from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kosovo_iMMAP_Import) ?


3) I quite understand and agree that you cannot accept the CTs, (item 4 
in your blog). But you also then say below I am not going to agree to 
any contributor terms, I guess that means even if we were able to get 
permission for the imports. If we were able to accurately identify your 
personal work and/or get the necessary permissions for imports, how 
could we proceed in a manner that is acceptable to you?  Would transfer 
of contributions, (probably specific change-sets or specific geographic 
areas), to another account be OK for you?


Kind regards,
Mike

On 28/01/2012 16:23, Mike Dupont wrote:

Well since you mentioned my name,  h4ck3rm1k3

wanted to point out my blog post :
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Michael%20DuPont/diary/15777

I do not want to harm the project or the people in Kosovo and Albania
where I personally did much work there.

And considering that the team there is very healthy and continuing in
Kosovo, I do not see any further personal work of mine being needed in
Kosovo, I am not going to waste any more time or money on Albania, I
do not see *any* chance there to start a community that is
sustainable.

you can re license *my* personal work, I don't care about that, and
imports, you will have to just review them yourselves.

dont expect me to be wasting time on understanding your new license
scheme or checking compatibility, and I am not going to agree to any
contributor terms.  working on hosting my own changesets in blogposts,
we will talk in some years about creative commons compatibility.

spent enough time on this license stuff, and wish you all the best of luck.

mike


On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Michael Collinsonm...@ayeltd.biz  wrote:
   

Hi,

I certainly support your sentiment but I suggest 99% is too high.

We have, in rounded figures, 1,200M nodes in the database. [1]

Here are just three decliners [2] who definitely are not going to agree in
any form,  have very high proportions of imported nodes and which WTFE is
also certainly marking all or most for removal. I've also added in old anon
contributions as we've probably already reached all those we can.

argath  7 025 025  100% POI import as far as I am aware
ABS20062 498 993  100% boundary import
anon edits  560 467   (may be too high as some previous anon
mappers have actually agreed)
h4ck3rm1k3  348 274   High but unknown import proportion in a
geographically concentrated area

This gives 10.4M nodes or roughly 0.86% of the entire database. Add in a few
other smaller and harder to quantise examples from around the world and that
is the one percent right there.

Caveat: I have done nodes because it is easiest, an analysis of highway ways
might be better for the standard you are suggesting.

There is a trade-off. The longer we leave it the more unproductive
over-editing occurs and many folks in problematic areas are not going to map
what appears to be already there.

I'd certainly like to see these examples removed right now if the respective
communities agree.  But that is only rational if we have consensus that
critical mass is here.

Mike

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats

[2] http://odbl.de/world.html


On 27/01/2012 21:19, LM_1 wrote:
 

I would have higher standard for critical mass, definitely over 99 %.
There should be a prolonged (at least one year) period where it is
known what data can remain and what cannot to allow seamless switch.
Having two months to the planned switch and still not knowing the
exact algorithm to determine what stays seems just stupid.

Lukas (LM_1)

2012/1/27 Michael Collinsonm...@ayeltd.biz:

   

[cut]



___
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] Kosovo, Albania, Montenegro, Macedonia

You can contact immap, feel free.
and some other contributors are  :

tpginc.net/gis/albania/albania.php
http://www.archive.org/details/AgimKompaniAlbaniaFiles
http://osmopenlayers.blogspot.com/2010/04/agim-komani-data-online.html

GNS http://earth-info.nga.mil/gns/html/
geonames

and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kosovo_Prishtina_Streets_Tracing
and some more sources :
http://www.disasterscharter.org/web/charter/activation_details?p_r_p_1415474252_assetId=ACT-286
http://www.mapaction.org/map-catalogue/maps.html?deployment_filter=191
http://www.zki.caf.dlr.de/applications/2010/Albania/181_en.html
http://www.madmappers.com/htm/Ru500kDVD.htm


see also
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/AlbanianFloodingCrisisCamp

and http://www.archive.org/details/Prizren_City_Data

and also we used kosovoguide.org and also inyourpocket.com

and maps on mapwarper
http://warper.geothings.net/users/436/maps

here are some of them  :
http://warper.geothings.net/uploads/2590/original/shkodra_-24.png
http://warper.geothings.net/uploads/2742/original/swsra9.jpg novo brdo

also we worked on brod, also using the russian maps and other sources.

also we have signatures from this guy for creative commons for shkoder.
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-March/003238.html

mike

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
 Hi Mike,

 I read your  23 new ideas at http://fosm.ideascale.com/ and wish you luck
 with them. I've now read your blog post.

 Once the license change is over, I am looking forward to engaging more with
 Creative Commons. In direct talks we had with them last year, they have
 definitely shifted from their stance that we should not use any SA license
 for data so I am hopeful that we may be able to achieve CC compatibility in
 a few years time.

 On the direct issue of contributions, I'll be happy to take on checking
 license compatibility. I've considered approaching iMMAP but felt that might
 be considered rather hostile to you. Can I therefore try and limit asking
 your help to just three questions:

 1) Are you happy if I write to iMMAP and ask their permission to use their
 data in OSM?

 2) Are there any imports from other agencies in your contributions, (I got
 iMMAP from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kosovo_iMMAP_Import) ?

 3) I quite understand and agree that you cannot accept the CTs, (item 4 in
 your blog). But you also then say below I am not going to agree to any
 contributor terms, I guess that means even if we were able to get
 permission for the imports. If we were able to accurately identify your
 personal work and/or get the necessary permissions for imports, how could we
 proceed in a manner that is acceptable to you?  Would transfer of
 contributions, (probably specific change-sets or specific geographic areas),
 to another account be OK for you?

 Kind regards,
 Mike

 On 28/01/2012 16:23, Mike Dupont wrote:

 Well since you mentioned my name,  h4ck3rm1k3

 wanted to point out my blog post :
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Michael%20DuPont/diary/15777

 I do not want to harm the project or the people in Kosovo and Albania
 where I personally did much work there.

 And considering that the team there is very healthy and continuing in
 Kosovo, I do not see any further personal work of mine being needed in
 Kosovo, I am not going to waste any more time or money on Albania, I
 do not see *any* chance there to start a community that is
 sustainable.

 you can re license *my* personal work, I don't care about that, and
 imports, you will have to just review them yourselves.

 dont expect me to be wasting time on understanding your new license
 scheme or checking compatibility, and I am not going to agree to any
 contributor terms.  working on hosting my own changesets in blogposts,
 we will talk in some years about creative commons compatibility.

 spent enough time on this license stuff, and wish you all the best of
 luck.

 mike


 On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Michael Collinsonm...@ayeltd.biz
  wrote:


 Hi,

 I certainly support your sentiment but I suggest 99% is too high.

 We have, in rounded figures, 1,200M nodes in the database. [1]

 Here are just three decliners [2] who definitely are not going to agree
 in
 any form,  have very high proportions of imported nodes and which WTFE is
 also certainly marking all or most for removal. I've also added in old
 anon
 contributions as we've probably already reached all those we can.

 argath                  7 025 025  100% POI import as far as I am aware
 ABS2006            2 498 993  100% boundary import
 anon edits              560 467   (may be too high as some previous anon
 mappers have actually agreed)
 h4ck3rm1k3          348 274   High but unknown import proportion in a
 geographically concentrated area

 This gives 10.4M nodes or roughly 0.86% of the entire database. Add in a
 few
 other smaller and harder to quantise examples from around the world and
 that
 is

Re: [OSM-talk] Kosovo, Albania, Montenegro, Macedonia

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
 3) I quite understand and agree that you cannot accept the CTs, (item 4 in
 your blog). But you also then say below I am not going to agree to any
 contributor terms, I guess that means even if we were able to get
 permission for the imports. If we were able to accurately identify your
 personal work and/or get the necessary permissions for imports, how could we
 proceed in a manner that is acceptable to you?

Well, you dont need to delete them.

 Would transfer of
 contributions, (probably specific change-sets or specific geographic areas),
 to another account be OK for you?

You can just reimport them or transfer them to some other contributor.

mike

-- 
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over

2012-01-28 Thread Russ Nelson

Michael Collinson writes:
  anon edits  560?467   (may be too high as some previous anon 

Why are we defending the copyright of people who are unwilling to fill
in the question mark in their copyright declaration:
Copyright 200X,?.  The U.S. courts won't defend your copyright if
you don't identify yourself. I expect that courts in most systems of
law won't. Why are we?

I appreciate that people have good and legitimate reasons for editing
anonymously. I hope they can appreciate that they shouldn't, then, be
allowed to retain copyright in those edits.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Kosovo, Albania, Montenegro, Macedonia

here is another important source for shkoder, I got this from the city :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79684542/Sistemi-i-Adresave-Bashkia-Shkoder-08-03-10

this is the third time i uploaded it, I dont know why it keeps disappearing.
mike

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Mike  Dupont
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
 You can contact immap, feel free.
 and some other contributors are  :

 tpginc.net/gis/albania/albania.php
 http://www.archive.org/details/AgimKompaniAlbaniaFiles
 http://osmopenlayers.blogspot.com/2010/04/agim-komani-data-online.html

 GNS http://earth-info.nga.mil/gns/html/
 geonames

 and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kosovo_Prishtina_Streets_Tracing
 and some more sources :
 http://www.disasterscharter.org/web/charter/activation_details?p_r_p_1415474252_assetId=ACT-286
 http://www.mapaction.org/map-catalogue/maps.html?deployment_filter=191
 http://www.zki.caf.dlr.de/applications/2010/Albania/181_en.html
 http://www.madmappers.com/htm/Ru500kDVD.htm


 see also
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/AlbanianFloodingCrisisCamp

 and http://www.archive.org/details/Prizren_City_Data

 and also we used kosovoguide.org and also inyourpocket.com

 and maps on mapwarper
 http://warper.geothings.net/users/436/maps

 here are some of them  :
 http://warper.geothings.net/uploads/2590/original/shkodra_-24.png
 http://warper.geothings.net/uploads/2742/original/swsra9.jpg novo brdo

 also we worked on brod, also using the russian maps and other sources.

 also we have signatures from this guy for creative commons for shkoder.
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-March/003238.html

 mike

 On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
 Hi Mike,

 I read your  23 new ideas at http://fosm.ideascale.com/ and wish you luck
 with them. I've now read your blog post.

 Once the license change is over, I am looking forward to engaging more with
 Creative Commons. In direct talks we had with them last year, they have
 definitely shifted from their stance that we should not use any SA license
 for data so I am hopeful that we may be able to achieve CC compatibility in
 a few years time.

 On the direct issue of contributions, I'll be happy to take on checking
 license compatibility. I've considered approaching iMMAP but felt that might
 be considered rather hostile to you. Can I therefore try and limit asking
 your help to just three questions:

 1) Are you happy if I write to iMMAP and ask their permission to use their
 data in OSM?

 2) Are there any imports from other agencies in your contributions, (I got
 iMMAP from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kosovo_iMMAP_Import) ?

 3) I quite understand and agree that you cannot accept the CTs, (item 4 in
 your blog). But you also then say below I am not going to agree to any
 contributor terms, I guess that means even if we were able to get
 permission for the imports. If we were able to accurately identify your
 personal work and/or get the necessary permissions for imports, how could we
 proceed in a manner that is acceptable to you?  Would transfer of
 contributions, (probably specific change-sets or specific geographic areas),
 to another account be OK for you?

 Kind regards,
 Mike

 On 28/01/2012 16:23, Mike Dupont wrote:

 Well since you mentioned my name,  h4ck3rm1k3

 wanted to point out my blog post :
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Michael%20DuPont/diary/15777

 I do not want to harm the project or the people in Kosovo and Albania
 where I personally did much work there.

 And considering that the team there is very healthy and continuing in
 Kosovo, I do not see any further personal work of mine being needed in
 Kosovo, I am not going to waste any more time or money on Albania, I
 do not see *any* chance there to start a community that is
 sustainable.

 you can re license *my* personal work, I don't care about that, and
 imports, you will have to just review them yourselves.

 dont expect me to be wasting time on understanding your new license
 scheme or checking compatibility, and I am not going to agree to any
 contributor terms.  working on hosting my own changesets in blogposts,
 we will talk in some years about creative commons compatibility.

 spent enough time on this license stuff, and wish you all the best of
 luck.

 mike


 On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Michael Collinsonm...@ayeltd.biz
  wrote:


 Hi,

 I certainly support your sentiment but I suggest 99% is too high.

 We have, in rounded figures, 1,200M nodes in the database. [1]

 Here are just three decliners [2] who definitely are not going to agree
 in
 any form,  have very high proportions of imported nodes and which WTFE is
 also certainly marking all or most for removal. I've also added in old
 anon
 contributions as we've probably already reached all those we can.

 argath                  7 025 025  100% POI import as far as I am aware
 ABS2006            2 498 993  100% boundary import
 anon edits              560

[OSM-talk] coping with outside data was: proprietary keys and values, machine readable vs. humans

2012-01-28 Thread Kytömaa Lauri

Some datasets outside OSM can contain data that OSM users and data
consumers might like to work with. Some have been imported as they
became available, whereas others were not. I don't believe we can 
keep doing that decision for all eternity, but no single actor can
implement the solution that might solve the conflict of needs. 

Again, this turned out longer than I had expected, but there's a 
thought buried in there in the lines below...

Fredrik Ramm wrote:
Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
 Much of that
 data is hard or impossible to update by OSM contributors but new 
 updates will be offered from the original sources.
That sounds like a perfect reason to not import.

Some of it is definitively good for an import, lots of it isn't:
for example administrative boundaries are valuable, even for mappers,
and not acquirable with a survey.

There has been some mentions of the idea of an OpenMetaMap; I believe
it's time to really think and discuss how the OSM toolchain could be 
used with data from different sources - in a transparent way. It has 
been mentioned several times that other datasets can be mixed in in 
the rendering - like the corine landcover data. For a GIS pro the 
value of OSM data is in the data contributed by our users - they often
have access to the other data sources and know which sets to look at 
for the best combination, and the pro-gis tools have layers and they 
can work to make a single map. 

However, a newbie who has just learned, for example, that they can get
fresh maps for their car GPS, all that other data that they could 
like, and would like to have, on their display (e.g. woods) - for them
that data _does_not_exist_. 

We can't expect everybody to learn about (eventually) hundreds of 
data sources and how to combine them in-whichever-tool-they-use, but
rather there ought to be (eventually) a way for consumers to select
a repository and be done with it in simple cases.

The first, and apparently, at the beginning the easiest solution is
to import everything - the cons have been discussed to death: lack
of maintenance, lack of resolution, death of community, nonexistent
automatic updating tools, and depending on the implemention, lack
of topological connectivity.

The second solution is don't import, write a wiki page. Some people 
will go digging for the datasets they want, and learn how their tools
can locally convert that data to compatible format. The cons are 
mostly the same, except that the original source might maintain the
data and that the local osm community keeps working on their own data
as they used to. An added con is, though, that most end users won't
use any of that data, and consider OSM as lacking ... the data that 
I need.

The third solution is to make the could-be-imported data available
as a layer users can draw on, acting only as a aid and verify layer.
It's like a local expert that tells you that the feature you see
in aerial imagery and which resembles a road, is really a road.
At this time, this is possibly the sanest way - but the end users
still mostly lack the data they need.

I don't think there has been any mentions of more solutions, but:

The fourth solution could be a way for people to distribute datasets
from outside sources in a format that is like the current osm data -
say, mkgmap would accept it just like any other *.osm file - but 
mangled just enough that nobody could upload it to the main DB. In
an ideal world, there might be a server API that delivers these with
conflicting OSM entities substracted; that is, given a Corine dataset
wood area that partially overlaps a wood already drawn into OSM with
more detail, the returned data would have an incision that _could_ be
topologically connected to the relevant OSM nodes - but only if the
tool want's to know about it. Combined with the third solution, this
might even make mappers more eager to map the corner of a wood they 
saw - they couldn't know if they whole element in some outside data 
source is, say, mainly coniferous, but even if they split and tag a
corner of it, they would know that the consumers would only see added
detail - and the rest as it was in the original data.

(Now you shout glad that you volunteer :) I don't even think this is
something any single developer could implement, and it might even have
consequences on the API. This message is about feedback.

I don't yet have any data to back this up, but I believe most OSM data
consumers are not the traditional GIS experts with Grassgis, QGIS and
spewing out svg's or pngs, but mostly users importing dumps and 
running a tile server or just mkgmap or other convert-to-navigation-
platform software.

I should not go into technical details; negative id's are already in
use for other things, and most current consumers would choke on
alphanumeric id's for these don't-you-dare-upload entities. All the
technical details would have to be discussed.

 Topological data and landuse
 data are some examples. Corine land cover will be updated

Re: [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over

2012-01-28 Thread Toby Murray

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:

 I therefore we suggest that we now explicitly adopt the WTFE algorithm as
 criteria for any final rebuild, provided that incremental improvement can
 continue and also that folks can challenge any precepts on legal-talk.  That
 vastly reduces the uncertainty that several folks express as we can use the
 figures it produces for the basis of this discussion.

 That leaves splits and merges as a potential uncertainty factor. My personal
 opinion here, and I stress personal, is that we make no adjustment for them
 and I'll be happy to discuss this further on legal-talk  I will however put
 the USA situation on the LWG agenda.

OK well this helps. After I sent my last message there was a
conversation on IRC about way splitting/merging... It might not be as
big of a deal as I thought. I'm not yet 100% convinced though.

And really it could affect how I remap interstates if such things end
up being taken into account. The easiest way to clean a dirty section
of interstate is to find an unmapped bridge near the beginning of the
way. Splitting the way will contain the dirtyness to the first part
which can then be easily removed and recreated. Now, this *could* be
used to hide license taint improperly. I do not believe I am doing so
in this situation since at the end of the day, this is all from TIGER
anyway and I am just redoing what the decliner did in the first place.
But this could be a problem in places where the base data isn't from a
PD source.

The other major thing that no existing tools take into consideration
is relations. They are mentioned on the What is clean? page but they
aren't being factored into any existing algorithms. Not the easiest
thing to show since some of them aren't even rendered on most maps...

Toby

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Leidsche Rijntunnel (A2 Utrecht) wordt eindelijk in gebruik genomen

2012-01-28 Thread Colin Smale

Hij is open! Ben er net twee keer doorheen gereden. Ik heb de tunnel in
OSM al geopend, samen met de nieuwe afrit 8 die ook al open is. Ik ga
straks even een viertal GPS tracks ertegenaan leggen.

De oude, tijdelijke rijbaan ligt er natuurlijk nog steeds, en is zelfs
nog een klein beetje open middels een doorsteek van de hoofdrijbaan voor
verkeer vanuit Breukelen naar Utrecht-Centrum moet (want de
parallelrijbaan is t.h.v. Maarssen nog eventjes gesloten). Ik geloof dat
het de bedoeling is dat de situatie na dit weekend redelijk op de
definitieve zal lijken - dan zal die doorsteek ook weg zijn. Op dit
moment heb ik de oude rijbaan omgetagd in service maar afhankelijk van
hoe het er maandag uitziet kan die weg of naar construction of wat dan
ook.

Colin

On 24/01/2012 19:26, Frank Steggink wrote:
Voor wie het heeft gemist, binnenkort zal eindelijk een stuk
highway=construction; construction=motorway van de kaart [1]
verdwijnen en worden omgezet naar een highway=motorway. Vorige week is
besloten om de Leidsche Rijntunnel in gebruik te nemen. Zie [2] voor
meer info. De hoofd- en parallelbanen zullen gefaseerd in gebruik
worden genomen, te beginnen met de meest westelijke tunnelbuis (lokaal
verkeer van noord naar zuid). Deze wordt a.s. weekend aangepast, zodat
deze geopend kan worden. De overige weekenden zijn 17 t/m 20 februari,
13 t/m 16 april en 15 t/m 18 juni.

Als iemand in de buurt van Utrecht in de gelegenheid is de situatie te
checken na a.s. weekend, dan graag. Mij gaat het pas het weekend erop
lukken.

Groeten,

Frank

[1] http://osm.org/go/0E6Dnlli-
[2]
http://rijkswaterstaat.nl/actueel/nieuws_en_persberichten/2012/januari2012/a2_leidsche_rijntunnel_in_vier_weekenden_geopend_start_eind_januari.aspx

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Leidsche Rijntunnel (A2 Utrecht) wordt eindelijk in gebruik genomen

2012-01-28 Thread Frank Steggink

Goede zaak, nu lopen we mijlenver voor op de kaartjesconcurrent, die de
vorige, verouderde situatie zelfs niet goed had! Viva crowdsourcing :)

Frank

On 28-1-2012 19:10, Colin Smale wrote:
Hij is open! Ben er net twee keer doorheen gereden. Ik heb de tunnel
in OSM al geopend, samen met de nieuwe afrit 8 die ook al open is.
Ik ga straks even een viertal GPS tracks ertegenaan leggen.

De oude, tijdelijke rijbaan ligt er natuurlijk nog steeds, en is zelfs
nog een klein beetje open middels een doorsteek van de hoofdrijbaan
voor verkeer vanuit Breukelen naar Utrecht-Centrum moet (want de
parallelrijbaan is t.h.v. Maarssen nog eventjes gesloten). Ik geloof
dat het de bedoeling is dat de situatie na dit weekend redelijk op de
definitieve zal lijken - dan zal die doorsteek ook weg zijn. Op dit
moment heb ik de oude rijbaan omgetagd in service maar afhankelijk
van hoe het er maandag uitziet kan die weg of naar construction of
wat dan ook.

Colin

On 24/01/2012 19:26, Frank Steggink wrote:
Voor wie het heeft gemist, binnenkort zal eindelijk een stuk
highway=construction; construction=motorway van de kaart [1]
verdwijnen en worden omgezet naar een highway=motorway. Vorige week
is besloten om de Leidsche Rijntunnel in gebruik te nemen. Zie [2]
voor meer info. De hoofd- en parallelbanen zullen gefaseerd in
gebruik worden genomen, te beginnen met de meest westelijke
tunnelbuis (lokaal verkeer van noord naar zuid). Deze wordt a.s.
weekend aangepast, zodat deze geopend kan worden. De overige
weekenden zijn 17 t/m 20 februari, 13 t/m 16 april en 15 t/m 18 juni.

Als iemand in de buurt van Utrecht in de gelegenheid is de situatie
te checken na a.s. weekend, dan graag. Mij gaat het pas het weekend
erop lukken.

Groeten,

Frank

[1] http://osm.org/go/0E6Dnlli-
[2]
http://rijkswaterstaat.nl/actueel/nieuws_en_persberichten/2012/januari2012/a2_leidsche_rijntunnel_in_vier_weekenden_geopend_start_eind_januari.aspx

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

[OSM-talk-nl] Fwd: Night of the living maps - in Netherlands?

2012-01-28 Thread Martijn van Exel

Wie kan Matthias helpen met onderstaande? Antwoord graag direct aan
hem, hij zal niet op talk-nl zijn geabbonneerd.

Martijn

-- Forwarded message --
From: Matthias Meißer dig...@arcor.de
Date: 2012/1/28
Subject: Night of the living maps - in Netherlands?
To: Martijn van Exel mve...@gmail.com

Hi Martjin,

I contacted you months ago for collecting all local user groups. Now
together with others, we got a similar idea:
www.nightofthelivingmaps.org

But of cause, we just created this framework and the event itself
consists of the local parties, where mappers can socialise and work.

So my question is, if you might translate the following text and
submit it to your local community, please?
I'm not sure if you already maintain a twitter account that I can follow?

bye
Matthias

Night of the living maps - virtual global mapping party 07.02.2012

Hello community,

since a few weeks, we had the idea for a global action, that we'd like
to announce today: www.nightofthelivingmaps.org

At Thursday, the 07.02.2012 we stay awake a whole night long, to trace
aerial imagery for the areas, that where we currently lack a lot of
informations: the countryside. Outside the big cities of your
counties.

Sadly we have no real big international events here at OSM, maybe we
can change that with this 'LAN party'?

So we please you, to ask your local OSM community, if they doesn't
want to start a small local party. It's not that much work, usually
you can get a room by univeristy/Hackerspace/local goverment/... for
free. Then you just need a few notebooks and Coffee to get the party
started ;)

We thought that it would be great, if you submit your changesets with
a comment starting with '#notlm...', so we are able to select them for
animations or just view where all of you are working.

Even if it's not the main goal to promote OSM and to attract newbies,
it would be great, if you could present your event to others. You will
find/can upload flyers and social media contacts right here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Night_of_the_living_maps/promotion

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Night-of-the-living-maps/163865540386200

https://twitter.com/NightOfTheMap

But there is still enough stuff to do, for all of us:

-translating the wiki page for your local community

-setup animation rendering/statistics

-maybe we can get a webcam wall or something similar?

-add a tipstricks page for your tips on good productivity and how to
surround the usual aerial tracing pitfalls

Of course we know, that using just Bing, is only #2 choice for adding
details to our database and that survey is what we all realy like. But
in this case, we believe, that it is a good compromise (see hints in
Wiki). Currently there seem to be no definitive answer if this
technique is right or wrong, maybe we can decide on this when years
passed and we can take a look back. So for now, let's just do what we
are good at: Create together a real good map :)

bye

Matthias

-- 
martijn van exel
schaaltreinen.nl

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

[Talk-br] sugestão de ferramenta

2012-01-28 Thread Séverin MENARD

Ola Stanislaw,

O QGIS é un SIG muito completo e o que você quer fazer se trata do mesmo
jeito que no ArcGIS, por exemplo. No seu exemplo :
- clique sobre a coluna que deseja modificar
- clique sobre a ultima icone na direita que você tem na parte baixa da
janela (Field calculator, esto come uma versão em inglès)
- no field calculator, clique o segundo checkbox para excolher uma
atualização de uma coluna
- selecione a coluna desejada
- no seu caso aparentemente não tem calculo nem informação a recuperar de
uma outra coluna, então na ultima zona vazia embaixo (Field calculator
expression), tecle o valor ou o texto (nesse ultimo caso entre ' ') que
você quer
- clique OK

Se quiser atualizar uma parte só dos objetos, faça uma query antes que
abrir a sessão de modificação


2012/1/21 talk-br-requ...@openstreetmap.org

 Enviar submissões para a lista de discussão Talk-br para
talk-br@openstreetmap.org

 Para se cadastrar ou descadastrar via WWW, visite o endereço
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
 ou, via email, envie uma mensagem com a palavra 'help' no assunto ou
 corpo da mensagem para
talk-br-requ...@openstreetmap.org

 Você poderá entrar em contato com a pessoa que gerencia a lista pelo
 endereço
talk-br-ow...@openstreetmap.org

 Quando responder, por favor edite sua linha Assunto assim ela será
 mais específica que Re: Contents of Talk-br digest...


 Tópicos de Hoje:

   1. sugestão de ferramenta (Stanislaw Pusep)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:25:19 -0200
 From: Stanislaw Pusep creakt...@gmail.com
 To: talk-br@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: [Talk-br] sugestão de ferramenta
 Message-ID:
CANgJoACMA-52JRrJDgGF=b93z5qkfzqlj_zwmfbzjy_6-s6...@mail.gmail.com
 
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

 Boa tarde, prezados!
 Estou com a seguinte tarefa incumbida: utilizando como referência a malha
 dos setores censitários do IBGE, taguear os mesmos manualmente. Nesta
 imagem:
 http://i.imgur.com/2x03u.png
 Tentei usar o Quantum GIS para isso: seleciono os setores desejados, abro a
 tabela de atributos, e preencho a coluna com o mesmo valor para todos os
 selecionados. Pois bem, isso não é nada prático, até por que QGIS é mais um
 visualizador do que editor...
 Alguém conhece um software que permita essa operação com relativa
 simplicidade: selecionar features e atribuir um valor para a mesma coluna
 de todos eles.
 Desde já agradeço!
 -- Próxima Parte --
 Um anexo em HTML foi limpo...
 URL: 
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-br/attachments/20120120/f802182e/attachment-0001.html
 

 --

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


 Fim da Digest Talk-br, volume 40, assunto 20
 

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

Re: [Talk-de] Automatisch erzeugte Changesets von ulfl

2012-01-28 Thread Manuel Reimer


Stephan Holl wrote:

Das hört sich ja nicht wirklich gut an! Ich werde schauen, was man da
noch retten kann... Ich habe die damals initial importierten Daten noch
liegen, helfen werden die allerdings wohl eher nicht.


Das kommt darauf an. Wenn der Umfang nicht so groß ist, dann ist ein manuelles 
Importieren mit euren Daten als Basis schon machbar. Automatisch ist allerdings 
in der Tat eher schwierig möglich. Die Daten wurden in der Zwischenzeit 
schließlich von Mappern auch erweitert.


Wenn der Worst-Case eintritt und nach der Umstellung in dem Gebiet große Flächen 
weiß sind, dann kann man nochmal drüber sprechen wie man die Lücken mit euren 
Daten wieder füllt.


Gruß

Manuel


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

Re: [Talk-de] Night of the living maps 07.02.2012 - Globale virtuelle Mapping Party

2012-01-28 Thread Manuel Reimer


Matthias Meißer wrote:

Wird es für das Event einen IRC-Channel geben, dass man sich zusammenschalten
kann? Wäre top für diejenigen, die im Alleingang, rein virtuell, teilnehmen
wollen.

Gute Idee, magst du den starten und im Wiki verlinken?


irc://irc.oftc.net/osm-notlm

Wo passt das im Wiki am ehesten?

Channel-Name ist für uns registriert und aktuell bin ich der einzige Operator im 
Channel. Da ich nicht die ganze Zeit dabei sein werde, sollten wir uns 
absprechen, wer noch alles Channel-Operator werden soll.


Gruß

Manuel


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

[Talk-de] Potlach 2 - kein bing-Hintergrund-Bild mehr bei Militaerflaechen

2012-01-28 Thread Bernhard Weiskopf

Das ist mir gestern aufgefallen und ist heute immer noch so.

Die Fläche ist grau, die Grenze zur scharfen Darstellung ist ziemlich genau
der Umriss, der in OSM eingezeichnet ist.

Weiß jemand, warum die (ohnehin nicht sehr scharfen) Bilder hier nun
gänzlich unbrauchbar gemacht wurden und ob dazu tatsächlich dazu die Daten
aus OSM verwendet wurden?

Angabe in Potlach 2:
Background © GeoContent / (p) Intergraph, © 2010 GeoEye, © 2012 Microsoft
Corporation, © 2010 Blom

Bernhard



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

Re: [Talk-de] neuer OSM-Kartendienst: OpenMapSurfer

2012-01-28 Thread Alexander Zipf


Hallo,

Vielen Dank für den guten Tip! Ja, zumindest Maxim wird bei uns ca. die 
nächsten Jahre am Thema WebMapping, Labeling etc. dran bleiben,
Da dürfte es noch div. Neuerungen geben. eins nach dem anderen...
Ideen sehr willkommen!

beste Grüße
az
http://openmapsurfer.uni-hd.de
http://giscience.uni-hd.de



*Peter Maiwald*
peter.maiwald at web.de  
mailto:talk-de%40openstreetmap.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BTalk-de%5D%20neuer%20OSM-Kartendienst%3A%20OpenMapSurferIn-Reply-To=%3C1327713457375-5437154.post%40n5.nabble.com%3E
   schrieb;  
mailto:talk-de%40openstreetmap.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BTalk-de%5D%20neuer%20OSM-Kartendienst%3A%20OpenMapSurferIn-Reply-To=%3C1327713457375-5437154.post%40n5.nabble.com%3E/Sa
 Jan 28 01:17:37 GMT 2012/

Openstreetmap.ru mit bing und transparentem mapsurfer layer ist in Städten
super.

Besonderen Sinn macht es meiner Meinung nach aber im nicht zugebauten
Gelände. Besonders in Wandergebieten würde ich mir eine Satellitenkarte mit
transparentem Wege- und Poilayer wünschen. Leider wurden z.B. in der
Sächsischen Schweiz keine Wanderwege (path) angezeigt. Und auch sonst keine
Pois, die den Wanderer erfreuen würden (Bänke, Kneipen...)

Ist eine Erweiterung in diese Richtung geplant?

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

Re: [Talk-de] Potlach 2 - kein bing-Hintergrund-Bild mehr bei Militaerflaechen

2012-01-28 Thread Volker Bihlmayr


Am 28.01.2012 09:56, schrieb Bernhard Weiskopf:

Das ist mir gestern aufgefallen und ist heute immer noch so.

Die Fläche ist grau, die Grenze zur scharfen Darstellung ist ziemlich genau
der Umriss, der in OSM eingezeichnet ist.
Kann das bei JOSM auch bestätigen (in meinem Fall Fliegerhorst 
Lechfeld). Die Fläche ist zwar nicht grau, aber definitiv unbrauchbar 
unscharf.

Weiß jemand, warum die (ohnehin nicht sehr scharfen) Bilder hier nun
gänzlich unbrauchbar gemacht wurden und ob dazu tatsächlich dazu die Daten
aus OSM verwendet wurden?

In meinem Fall ist die Grenze 100% deckungsgleich.
Die Daten der Bayerischen Vermessungsverwaltung (Bayern 2m) ist in 
diesem Fall eindeutig besser und auch noch hinreichend brauchbar und 
definitiv nicht zensiert.


Angabe in Potlach 2:
Background © GeoContent / (p) Intergraph, © 2010 GeoEye, © 2012 Microsoft
Corporation, © 2010 Blom

In meinem Fall:
© 2010 GeoEye, © GeoContent / (p) Intergraph, © 2010 BEV /(p) Intergraph 
© 2010 Blom ©2012 Microsoft Corporation




Bernhard



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

Volker

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

Re: [Talk-de] Datenimport nach OpenStreetMap

2012-01-28 Thread Chris


Am 26.01.2012 17:47, schrieb Frederik Ramm:

Hallo,

On 01/26/2012 03:42 PM, Chris wrote:

An dieser Stelle aber der Hinweis: Falls Deine POIs von Nutzern mit
Hilfe einer darunterliegenden Google-Karte eingezeichnet wurden (so a
la Du weisst, wo ein AED steht? Zoome einfach in dieser Google-Karte
an die richtige Stelle und klicke drauf...), so halten wir die Daten
in der Regel fuer ein von Google abgeleitetes Werk, an dem Du bzw. der
Erfasser nicht die alleinigen Rechte hat und das deswegen auch nicht
unter die OSM-Lizenz gestellt werden kann.


Dem ist so. Also hat sich der Import schon erledigt.


Wir hatten eine aehnliche Situation vor einigen Jahren mit dem Projekt 
OpenAddresses. Die hatten auch auf Basis von Google (Luftbild in dem 
Fall) erfasst und fanden selber nichts dabei; OSM war dann 
pingeliger und hat gesagt nee, Eure Daten wollen wir nicht. Das 
war ein bisschen eine bloede Situation damals, und ich persoenlich 
fand das etwas uebertrieben, aber OSM wollte da halt 100% clean 
sein. Mittlerweile ist die Situation mit OA ja anders, man editiert 
praktisch auf der OA-Plattform direkt OSM-Daten.


Bye
Frederik



Und was macht OA mit den zuvor erfassten Adressdaten, die nicht mit der 
OSM-Lizenz konform sind?


Gruß
Chris

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

Re: [Talk-de] Datenimport nach OpenStreetMap

2012-01-28 Thread Chris



Am 27.01.2012 15:40, schrieb Sven Geggus:

Chrisbo...@gmx.net  wrote:


Da stimme ich Henning zu. Meine POIs werden selbst von Freiwilligen über
eine mobile App gesammelt und an die Datenbank übertragen.

Blöde Frage warum dann eigenlich ein Import? Deine Freiwilligen tragen die
POI dann doch besser gleich direkt in OSM ein, denn dann kann es auch keine
Kollison mit bereits in OSM erfassten POI geben.

Sven

Da müsste ich den Entwickler der App nach seinen Beweggründen fragen. 
Ich vermute mal, dass ihm Google Maps/Google Geocoding API geläufiger war.


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

Re: [Talk-de] Potlach 2 - kein bing-Hintergrund-Bild mehr bei Militaerflaechen


On 28.01.2012 10:33, Volker Bihlmayr wrote:

Angabe in Potlach 2:
Background © GeoContent / (p) Intergraph, © 2010 GeoEye, © 2012 Microsoft


Das ist egal. Die Bilder sind sauber. Potlach hat aus irgendwelchen 
Gründen beschlossen diese Bereiche zu verschleiern.


Nimm halt einen vernünftigen Editor. Mit JOSM gibt es keine Probleme. Da 
wirst du auch nicht bevormundet.


http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=remotelat=48.1682lon=10.85822zoom=17

Stephan


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

Re: [Talk-de] Potlach 2 - kein bing-Hintergrund-Bild mehr bei Militaerflaechen

2012-01-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

Am 28. Januar 2012 09:56 schrieb Bernhard Weiskopf bweisk...@gmx.de:
 Das ist mir gestern aufgefallen und ist heute immer noch so.

 Die Fläche ist grau, die Grenze zur scharfen Darstellung ist ziemlich genau
 der Umriss, der in OSM eingezeichnet ist.


Habe mir daraufhin auch mal die Militärflächen hier in der Umgebung
angesehen und tatsächlich, ausserhalb der Stadt sind da
Phantasielandschaften (Wald mit Wegen, wo in Wahrheit ein
Militärflugplatz ist, und alle Wege komplett anders verlaufen, Wald
ist da auch schon seit Jahrzehnten keiner). Ich kann allerdings nicht
beschwören, dass da auf Bing vorher was zu sehen gewesen wäre, im PCN
(Luftbilder vom Staat), das wir hier vor allem nutzen, ist alles nach
wie vor gut erkennbar. Auch in der Stadt ist alles beim Alten (da sind
sehr viele Militärflächen die allesamt mit Details erkennbar sind bis
Zoom21).

Auch russische Einrichtungen sind (wenig verwunderlich) nicht
ausgeblendet bei Bing, s.z.B. die relativ neue Anlage um Don-2NP
(NATO-Name Pill Box, Gefechtsradar für die Verteidigung Moskaus):
http://binged.it/xoZdYq
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/7340394


Gruß Martin

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

Re: [Talk-de] Potlach 2 - kein bing-Hintergrund-Bild mehr bei Militaerflaechen

2012-01-28 Thread Robert S.

2012/1/28 Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de

 On 28.01.2012 10:33, Volker Bihlmayr wrote:

 Angabe in Potlach 2:
 Background © GeoContent / (p) Intergraph, © 2010 GeoEye, © 2012 Microsoft


 Das ist egal. Die Bilder sind sauber. Potlach hat aus irgendwelchen
 Gründen beschlossen diese Bereiche zu verschleiern.


Die Bilder sind NICHT sauber! Auch dein Ausschnitt ist verschleiert.

Microsoft hat alle möglichen militärischen Bereiche verschleiert.
Unabhängig vom Lieferanten der Luftbilder. Ich hatte mir letztens noch die
Region um den Fliegerhorst Geilenkirchen angeschaut, da war noch alles
erkennbar - jetzt ist der verschleiert. Selbst große Truppenübungsplätze
sind betroffen. Drolligerweise hat man selbst die ganz groben Grundbilder
verschleiert (Grafenwöhr).

Da hat man wohl in Redmond einen Anruf aus den Fünfeck oder dem
NATO-Hauptquartier bekommen...

Naja, wer sich für diese Bereiche interessiert nutzt dann eben Google,
den Lieferanten [1] oder gleich die amtlichen Dienste...

[1] http://geocontent.de/index.php?id=14
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [Talk-de] Potlach 2 - kein bing-Hintergrund-Bild mehr bei Militaerflaechen

2012-01-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

Am 28. Januar 2012 12:44 schrieb Robert S. osm-m...@autobahnen-europa.eu:
 Naja, wer sich für diese Bereiche interessiert nutzt dann eben Google,
 den Lieferanten [1] oder gleich die amtlichen Dienste...


wer weiss, wie lange man bei denen die Bilder noch bekommen kann. Für
westliche Einrichtungen bräuchten wir russische Bilder und vice versa
;-)

Gruß Martin

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

Re: [Talk-de] Potlach 2 - kein bing-Hintergrund-Bild mehr bei Militaerflaechen

2012-01-28 Thread Michael

Am Samstag, 28. Januar 2012, 12:20:29 schrieb Stephan Knauss:
 On 28.01.2012 10:33, Volker Bihlmayr wrote:
  Angabe in Potlach 2:
  Background © GeoContent / (p) Intergraph, © 2010 GeoEye, © 2012
  Microsoft
 Das ist egal. Die Bilder sind sauber. Potlach hat aus irgendwelchen
 Gründen beschlossen diese Bereiche zu verschleiern.
 
 Nimm halt einen vernünftigen Editor. Mit JOSM gibt es keine Probleme. Da
 wirst du auch nicht bevormundet.
 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=remotelat=48.1682lon=10.85822zoo
 m=17
 
 Stephan

Naja hier in Ddorf sind die ehemaligen Kasernen auch verschleiert.

Auch mit einem vernünftigen Editor. ;-)

Besonders witzig bei der Reitzenstein Kaserne [1] für die bereits seit 2009 
ein rechtskräftiger Bebauungsplan [2] besteht. Das Kasernengelände gehört seit 
2006 der Stadt. Da war also jemand ohne nähere Kentnisse am Werk.

Grüße Michael

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.26141lon=6.8836zoom=16layers=M
[2] 
http://www.duesseldorf.de/planung/stadtentw/entwicklungsgeb/17entwgeb_reitz/index.shtml
-- 
Arbeit um der Arbeit willen ist gegen die menschliche Natur.
John Locke

Molli http://molli.selfservix.org/

C-LFS http://c-lfs.selfservix.org/

Fellow der Free Software Foundation Europe

  /\ASCII Ribbon Campaign
  \ /No HTML/RTF in email
   x No Word docs in email
  / \Respect for open standards

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

Re: [Talk-de] Potlach 2 - kein bing-Hintergrund-Bild mehr bei Militaerflaechen

2012-01-28 Thread Jens Frank

Am 28. Januar 2012 12:44 schrieb Robert S. osm-m...@autobahnen-europa.eu:

 2012/1/28 Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de

  On 28.01.2012 10:33, Volker Bihlmayr wrote:
 
  Angabe in Potlach 2:
  Background © GeoContent / (p) Intergraph, © 2010 GeoEye, © 2012
 Microsoft
 
 
  Das ist egal. Die Bilder sind sauber. Potlach hat aus irgendwelchen
  Gründen beschlossen diese Bereiche zu verschleiern.
 

 Die Bilder sind NICHT sauber! Auch dein Ausschnitt ist verschleiert.


Bing liefert unverschleierte Bilder, wenn man die Kartenbeschriftung
aktiviert. Mit deaktivierter Beschriftung sind sie dann verschleiert. Da
sie die Beschriftung nicht als transparenten Layer anzeigen, vermute ich,
dass sie diese Kacheln noch einmal neu rendern werden.

In Faßberg bei Celle folgt die Verschleierung exakt dem landuse, in Roth
bei Nürnberg ist der verschleierte Bereich allerdings deutlich größer als
die landuses.

Grüße,

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

Re: [Talk-de] Potlach 2 - kein bing-Hintergrund-Bild mehr bei Militaerflaechen


On 28.01.2012 12:44, Robert S. wrote:

2012/1/28 Stephan Knausso...@stephans-server.de

Das ist egal. Die Bilder sind sauber. Potlach hat aus irgendwelchen
Gründen beschlossen diese Bereiche zu verschleiern.

Die Bilder sind NICHT sauber! Auch dein Ausschnitt ist verschleiert.


Ja? Also ich erkenne einen deutlichen Unterschied zwischen der 
Darstellung in Potlach und JOSM:


http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/5701/lechfeldpotlach.jpg

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2733/lechfeldjosm.jpg

Aber vielleicht liegt das ja an meinen Augen. Und im Cache lagen die 
Bilder sicher auch nicht. In München mache ich kein Photomapping.


Stephan


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

Re: [Talk-de] Potlach 2 - kein bing-Hintergrund-Bild mehr bei Militaerflaechen

2012-01-28 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Stephan Knauss wrote:
 Das ist egal. Die Bilder sind sauber. Potlach hat aus irgendwelchen 
 Gründen beschlossen diese Bereiche zu verschleiern.

You are certifiably insane.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Potlach-2-kein-bing-Hintergrund-Bild-mehr-bei-Militaerflaechen-tp5437617p5437881.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] Potlach 2 - kein bing-Hintergrund-Bild mehr bei Militaerflaechen

2012-01-28 Thread operivar


Am 28.01.2012 13:31, schrieb Stephan Knauss:

On 28.01.2012 12:44, Robert S. wrote:

2012/1/28 Stephan Knausso...@stephans-server.de

Das ist egal. Die Bilder sind sauber. Potlach hat aus irgendwelchen
Gründen beschlossen diese Bereiche zu verschleiern.

Die Bilder sind NICHT sauber! Auch dein Ausschnitt ist verschleiert.


Ja? Also ich erkenne einen deutlichen Unterschied zwischen der 
Darstellung in Potlach und JOSM:


http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/5701/lechfeldpotlach.jpg

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2733/lechfeldjosm.jpg

Aber vielleicht liegt das ja an meinen Augen. Und im Cache lagen die 
Bilder sicher auch nicht. In München mache ich kein Photomapping.


Stephan


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


Seltsam, denn bei mir ist es aber auch verschleiert. 
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/7/lechfeld.jpg/


Gruß
OPerivar

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

Re: [Talk-de] Potlach 2 - kein bing-Hintergrund-Bild mehr bei Militaerflaechen


On 28.01.2012 13:43, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

You are certifiably insane.


Thanks for letting me know.

Have to apologize. Potlach does not blur the background. Multiple 
reports of the blurred area exactly matching with landuse areas, 
combined with no trace of blurred imagery in the browser visiting Bing 
nor inside JOSM did lead me into thinking Potlach being involved.


I checked what images are requested and can confirm the blurred tiles 
are delivered by Microsoft servers.


Stephan

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

Re: [Talk-de] Regelmäßiger Datenimport nach OpenStreetMap

2012-01-28 Thread Tirkon

Chris bo...@gmx.net wrote:

ich verwalte in einer relationalen Datenbank mehrere Point-of-Interests. 
Diese möchte ich auch in OpenStreetMap bereitstellen.

Ich stehe blinden Datenimporten im fortgeschrittenen Zustand von OSM
kritisch gegenüber. Wenn überhaupt, sollten sie nur händisch mit
Einzelprüfung durchgeführt werden. Wenn diejenigen, welche die Daten
zur Verfügung stellen, dies mit dem Ziel tun, in Zukunft OSM zu nutzen
und damit zu publizieren, wird man leichter Mapper finden, die dabei
helfen.

Beispiel:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import_Rossmann_Filialen

Sodenn noch nicht geschehen, wird man sich nach dem Mappen von Wegen
und Gebäuden auf die POI konzentrieren und dies wesentlich präziser
und systematischer als ein blinder Import tun.


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

Re: [Talk-de] Frage zur konkreten Umsetzung bei der Lizenzumstellung

2012-01-28 Thread Christian H. Bruhn

am Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2012 um 16:18 schrieb Frederik Ramm:

 Was gibt es denn fuer Luecken, die wir im Moment nicht bemerken koennen,
 und wie koennen wir die bemerkbar machen?

Weil einige Mapper aus 'taktischen Gründen', oder weil sie es der OSMF
oder der Community 'zeigen' wollen, oder weil es sie Aufmerksamkeit
haben wollen, erst ganz zum Schluß zustimmen wollen und daher die
ganze Gegend rot ist und die wirklichen Problemfälle so nicht
auffallen.

Christian


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

Re: [Talk-de] Potlach 2 - kein bing-Hintergrund-Bild mehr bei Militaerflaechen

2012-01-28 Thread Bernhard Weiskopf

 Nimm halt einen vernünftigen Editor. Mit JOSM gibt es keine Probleme. Da
 wirst du auch nicht bevormundet.
 

http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=remotelat=48.1682lon=10.85822zoo
m=17

Da sehe ich gar kein Hintergrundbild. Dann ist das Bild von Bing bei Potlach
immer noch besser.

Ich nutze sowohl Potlach 2 als auch JOSM, je nachdem, was ich machen möchte.
Um mal eben schnell was einzutragen oder zu ändern ziehe ich Potlach 2 vor.

Bernhard



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

Re: [Talk-de] openlayers-api

2012-01-28 Thread Christian H. Bruhn

am Freitag, 27. Januar 2012 um 17:55 schrieb Pascal Neis:

 Ich würde dir empfehlen die Scripte selbst
 zu hosten. Also von der OpenLayers Webseite
 herunterladen und auf deinen eigenen Server
 zu packen/von dort einzubinden. Das erspart
 dir lange Wartezeiten und Ärger auf deiner
 Webseite. Allerdings musst du dich dann
 selbst um das Updaten deiner Version kümmern
 (wenn es ein Update bei Openlayers gibt).

Das mit dem Updaten sehe ich nicht als Problem, sonder eher als
Vorteil. In der Vergangenheit gab es schon ab und zu den Fall, daß die
eine oder andere Funktion mit der neuen Version nicht mehr ging.

Weiß jemand, ob es soetwas wie den Openlayerer [1] mit der aktuellen
OL-Version gibt?

Christian

[1] http://openlayerer.appspot.com/




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

Re: [Talk-de] Frage zur konkreten Umsetzung bei der Lizenzumstellung


Hi,

On 01/28/2012 07:17 PM, Christian H. Bruhn wrote:

Weil einige Mapper aus 'taktischen Gründen', oder weil sie es der OSMF
oder der Community 'zeigen' wollen, oder weil es sie Aufmerksamkeit
haben wollen, erst ganz zum Schluß zustimmen wollen und daher die
ganze Gegend rot ist und die wirklichen Problemfälle so nicht
auffallen.


Darauf sollten wir keine Ruecksicht nehmen, sondern die Daten dieser 
Leute jetzt neu mappen. Wer sagt denn, dass sie am Stichtag wirklich 
zustimmen? Und wenn sie am Stichtag nicht zustimmen, vielleicht tun sie 
es ja dann eine Woche spaeter noch, so dass man ihre Daten doch noch 
uebernehmen kann? Und wenn sie es eine Woche spaeter nicht getan haben, 
dann vielleicht in zwei...?


Wenn man einmal damit anfaengt, sich hinhalten zu lassen, dann kommt man 
*nie* dazu, die Sachen neu zu mappen.


Dann lieber gleich, und den grossen weissen Fleck gar nicht erst 
entstehen lassen, statt sich in die Hand von jemandem zu begeben, der 
politische Spielchen machen will.


Bye
Frederik

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

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

Re: [Talk-de] Potlach 2 - kein bing-Hintergrund-Bild mehr bei Militaerflaechen

2012-01-28 Thread Volker Bihlmayr


Am 28.01.2012 13:50, schrieb operivar:

Am 28.01.2012 13:31, schrieb Stephan Knauss:

On 28.01.2012 12:44, Robert S. wrote:

2012/1/28 Stephan Knausso...@stephans-server.de

Das ist egal. Die Bilder sind sauber. Potlach hat aus irgendwelchen
Gründen beschlossen diese Bereiche zu verschleiern.

Die Bilder sind NICHT sauber! Auch dein Ausschnitt ist verschleiert.


Ja? Also ich erkenne einen deutlichen Unterschied zwischen der 
Darstellung in Potlach und JOSM:


http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/5701/lechfeldpotlach.jpg

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2733/lechfeldjosm.jpg

Aber vielleicht liegt das ja an meinen Augen. Und im Cache lagen die 
Bilder sicher auch nicht. In München mache ich kein Photomapping.


Stephan


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


Seltsam, denn bei mir ist es aber auch verschleiert. 
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/7/lechfeld.jpg/


Gruß
OPerivar

@Stephan Knauss: Ich schrieb es ja oben auch, dass es bei mit bei JOSM 
ist und nicht Potlach (meine mail war schon eine antwort.

http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~bihlmayr/OSM/Bing_JOSM_01.jpg

achja, Lechfeld ist nicht München ;P

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

Re: [Talk-de] Potlach 2 - kein bing-Hintergrund-Bild mehr bei Militaerflaechen


On 28.01.2012 22:51, Volker Bihlmayr wrote:

@Stephan Knauss: Ich schrieb es ja oben auch, dass es bei mit bei JOSM
ist und nicht Potlach (meine mail war schon eine antwort.
http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~bihlmayr/OSM/Bing_JOSM_01.jpg


Ja, es kommt so von den Microsoft Servern. Beste Vermutung ist, dass es 
ein CDN ist und ich bei Potlach einen anderen Server bekommen hatte also 
mit JOSM. Für den Verdacht dass es Potlach sein könnte habe ich mich bei 
Richard entschuldigt.


Stephan


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

[Talk-de] sinnlose Änderungen durch Oberförster

2012-01-28 Thread Stephan Wolff


Moin,

der User Oberförster war am 26. und 27.1. wieder aktiv und hat in etwa
80 Changesets tausende Straßen um motorroad=yes ergänzt [1]. Ich gehe
davon aus, dass keine dieser Änderungen auf realen Beobachtungen
basiert.
Kann jemand die Changesets zurücknehmen?

Viele Grüße
Stephan

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Oberf%C3%B6rster/edits


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

Re: [Talk-de] sinnlose Änderungen durch Oberförster