Re: [talk-au] What A Day
On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 13:02:14 +0100 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: 3) (ok, three things), there is no map hosted as fosm.org at the moment, there are people working on rendering (such as bigtincan) and I'm happy to encourage such diversity as it makes the project stronger. I'm trying to keep the core of fosm small and tight. I don't want to create features like user dairies else I'd be accused of forking the community. We all have the same goals, some people just want to license them differently. So we would like a little code change and remove the 'map' link at the top, with some text info to sharedmap.org and bigtincan It will reduce some confusion. Liz ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] What A Day
The quiet and languid mailing list of normally laid back Australians exploded into vitriolic exchanges after a non-Australian hijacked a thread on the list. A number of listees found themselves offended by rash statements and then attempts were made to claim that white was black and black was white. I understand that this mail will not be read by the offending poster*, as I would happily say that I am a friend of John Smith. I don't always agree with him, but certainly we can discuss our differences without the need for alcohol to keep the peace. I am quite disturbed by the failure of the offending poster to even follow the thread of his own argument. Sadly, I have to deal with people like this every day, as I do see a large number of elderly and dementing people in my job. My biggest concern is quite different. What provoked this virtual visit to the list? Why are rabble rousing Australians such a threat to a world wide project? I thought that it came from our ability to think for ourselves and make our own decisions, but the accusation was made that we were drawn to our ways by the influence of a single Pom. I have no recall of the offending poster appearing on the list before, but do not claim to have searched the archives to support this hypothesis. So what has caused this earthquake and corresponding tsunami? * ie, the one who caused offence ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:05:28 -0700 Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: If you go look at talk@ you'll find a lot of history from the people who now inhabit this list. In fact, several of them have either been banned or moderated. big snip of trash I've known them for a lot longer than you have it seems, and as I mention they've been kicked, banned or moderated before. I have not been kicked, banned or moderated, not on any list in my life. Am I missing out on something here? Why am I discriminated against? I can confirm that other mappers have received emails telling them that their views are well known, and don't require repeating. Likewise I can confirm that All Blokes is not a pseudonym of John Smith. And to return to the topic I'm hardly mapping anything now - since the big argument blew up I have little interest and decided to do some other things. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:32:58 +1000 Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote: On 15/06/2011, at 3:15 PM, John Smith wrote: The current boundaries will be removed in the near future, so if I were you I wouldn't spend to much time fussing over them. Some of these boundaries have been edited to include highway=* and waterway=* tags (mainly in areas with (at the time) no good imagery). How easy is it to get a list of these ways? Now that better imagery is available, most of those places don't have better imagery, certainly not the places I did. And as they won't be pulled from fosm why should I be concerned? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:10:47 +1000 Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote: And as they won't be pulled from fosm why should I be concerned? Did you get out of bed on the wrong side this morning? Not everyone here has decided to give up on OSM. I'm going to decide once I see what the map looks like after changeover - in the meantime I'll keep mapping here. Rudeness won't get you anywhere. I am not permitting an irrevocable licence on my contributions. I never was, so I didn't contribute map updates to Garmin or Sensis or Google. I was invited to join a CC-by-SA project, was aware of which licence was appropriate for me at the time of joining, and will not be part of the obscure and doubtbul licence project. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:12:25 +0100 Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: We have people subverting our CC-BY-SA license right now!!1! *zomg* And they wouldn't be abusing our ODbL license in future. Case: UN: http://www.unitar.org/unosat-releases-new-maps-over-haiti I viewed these maps and understand why you have made the claim that the licence has been subverted, with no attribution given, assuming that the finding of the displaced person camps and damaged bridges etc was OSM volunteer work. I've not seen this example mentioned in the LWG or Board minutes, so I don't know when you contacted UNITAR / UNOSAT to have this clarified. I cannot however, follow your logic that it won't happen with a differently licensed map. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:12:24 +0800 James Andrewartha tr...@student.uwa.edu.au wrote: Sadly, that's not how I understand it - particularly the terms in place between OSM and the individual ... at the relevant time. bit says to me that retrospective signing of the CTs to cover old contributions isn't allowed. James Andrewartha the last time I read the CTs (which have several versions), there was a clear reference to me having the rights to the data and perpetually licensing those rights to another organisation That would stop me signing up whether I used Yahoo! or Bing or NearMap. Indeed it would put a query on a lot of stuff I obtained by sending out GPS devices with random others to collect tracks. Ben, thanks for the offer, but worded as it is I still don't find that compatible with OSMF's terms and conditions. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Most insanely dissected street ?
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:44:12 +1000 (EST) John Berkers be...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Hi, We've got a few roads around here (Narre Warren South/Lynbrook) that are split and not yet joined. One such road is Glasscocks Road, which runs from Dandenong Frankston Road, through through Lynbrook and Narre Warren South to Clyde Road in Berwick. It is currently in three parts, and you can visualise where it is planned to go in future. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-38.0687lon=145.2707zoom=14layers=M It looks like there are a few hold-out land owners that have not yet sold their properties for redevelopment, but as soon as they do, the road will get filled in. I'm not sure about property numbering at this point. There are portions of Glasscocks Road with houses on, some portions without. Regards, when the Northern Distributor was built in Wollongong, it carved through a number of streets. I think Cross Street Corrimal has a number of pieces now unconnected. For numbering absurdity - the Sturt Highway wins. Numbers out of Adelaide increase to about 231000 after Paringa. We took photos at about 217000. In Vic I didn't note a house number from the driver's seat. At Gol Gol the numbers are about 8000 and decrease until Euston, except in each town they start again at 1 and 2 for each side of the road. No numbers Euston to Balranald, Hay and Darlington Point. Houses in Balranald and Hay are numbered ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wiki censorship
On Tue, 17 May 2011 22:53:42 +1000 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Sugar coat it all you want, but what action did you take against anyone else involved? Without wasting my time looking at the wiki this business is as well organised as a schoolyard Set of rules made by one group, complaints handled by same group, prosecution handled by same group, judgement made by same group, punishment handled by same group. Whether something is attended or not attended is at a whim. I still do not have an answer other than I'm busy right now concerning a mapper who admitted to copying from google and whose edits have not been reverted - a 12 month period since I first contacted the mapper concerning their edits in Australia. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Reassurance and Licensing
On Wed, 4 May 2011 20:29:22 +1000 Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/05/2011 5:18 PM, David Murn wrote: Well, I have yet to hear any Australians complain about the freedom of the data, other than being incompatible with the new one-of-a-kind licence that OSM is wanting to use. I'm not objecting to freedom of data. The comment I objected to is the one that said if it is good enough for the Australian government, then it must be good enough for all Australians, with no need to examine it further. In which case the comment is taken somewhat out of its context The start is the ODBL faction asserting that CC-by-SA is unsuitable for data, or proven unusable for data. The Commonwealth of Australia has assessed licences under which to release geographic data, and chosen initially CC-by-SA and then CC-by. I am aware that the bureaucracy is very slow in its movements and very conservative, and that the Commonwealth of Australia can afford as many lawyers as it likes to examine the situation. My assertion is that those who know Australian copyright law, know what changes are likely in the near future to that law (not to legal judgements) have chosen CC licensing for geographic data, so the assertion from ODBL camp that the CC licence is not suited to data is proven to be false in this instance. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Barrier Reef Island Geographic Offset
Brampton Island http://osm.org/go/vIwcP8wt- Also saw the same for Lady Musgrave Island. I've not made any alterations, because I do not have any idea whether the possibly traced outline or the ABS boundaries are correct. Liz ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Reassurance and Licensing
On Tue, 3 May 2011 18:28:09 +0100 Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 27 April 2011 05:42, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir maxi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: Wait, why did the Australian government stop using CC-by-SA and move to CC-by? I actually wasn't aware of this, maybe because CC-by-SA adds needless restrictions and ambiguity on using the data? Basically yes - having to choose between the different variants was causing alot of confusion to individual authors; see recommendations 6.3-6.7 @ http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/gov20taskforcereport/chapter5.htm The AU government also provides the data under other specific terms on request. Mike of LWG has made a formal request. Notes in today's LWG meeting minutes. I can't see them on http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes yet The draft minutes are out: -- Section 8... * Imported Dataset Licensing ** Australia Gov allows specific licensing. In mid December 2010 Mike wrote a formal letter to the following address but has not received a reply. He will follow up. Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Attorney General’s Department, National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600 AUSTRALIA -- Questions / comment likely best addressed to Mike on this item. / Grant Mike and Grant obviously have zero understanding of the bureaucracy guarding the data. I refer them to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtEkUmYecnk which clearly describes the length of the process. Being realists at this end, we have the data, we accept the licence from the Commonwealth of Australia. Just remind yourselves that if CC-by and CC-by-SA are good enough for our government, they are good enough for us, without spending any money on lawyers to help us make the decision. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] New Logo in the Wiki
On Sun, 01 May 2011 10:52:52 +1000 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you are correct. Have you ever tried to join a committee and been rebuffed? For the past 2 years Ive been a secretary of a national non-profit organisation in my country. I think that many have been in director positions in non-profit organisations, and are aware of the matters that David has mentioned. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Tragedy of the commons...
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:11:29 +0100 Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: FOSM.org is hosted on a virtual machine of hypercube provided for XAPI. Without any explanation I was banned from the FOSM when I stated this. Regards Grant OSM Sysadmin team. Banned from the mailing list for OSM_Fork. If there was no explanation you may rationalise that there was cause and effect. They may simply be concomitant. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Reassurance and Licensing
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:17:33 +0100 Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: Unfortunately there are some very vocal (anonymous) members of the Australian community who seem intent on creating a virtual Us vs Them conflict in the community with exaggerated claims and mistruths. We aren't anonymous. We have names, and we do know each other. Whether we share our names with persons outside Australia is our business. There is definitely a major problem with the future of OSM in Australia. Writing nincompoop essays on this mailing list about we are here to help you does not convince us otherwise. Bluntly, CC-by-SA for geodata is fine here. It's good enough for our government, it's good enough for us. (Au government now is using CC-by for data). We believe in Share-Alike. Actually, we have been brought up to believe in share alike and helping each other, and that might be part of the reason you reach a brick wall on the change to a complex legal licence. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] How many NearMap users do you think have accepted the new CTs and ODbL?
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:24:09 +1000 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: Using my australian test extract from 21/03/2011, I found that 3390 users have made edits in the area of interest (the Australian extract available on osmaustralia.org). Of these 3390 users, 536 have used the tag source=nearmap at least once. Of these 536 users, 134 have agreed to the ODbL+CTs. In my recent foray into Victoria, I found spots which must have been mapped from Nearmap, judging from the quality of the mapping and the lack of street names or POIs. I haven't done any check to see if those mappers have attributed Nearmap on a changeset or otherwise. I believe 536 mappers is a minimum who have used Nearmap. And if I take 134 as the numerator, and 3390 as the denominator, then I get 4%. This represents a large community who have decided that they are staying CC-by-SA. Some of those mappers aren't local and don't count - like stae**er who traced parts of remote Australia from Google, admitted it and still hasn't had any attention to his edits from the DWG, although I pointed out that he had edited over the whole world from his armchair, and the source of those was likely to be Google as well. Rosscoe cleaned up Crystal Brook, I cleaned up Marree, and Halls Creek remains polluted. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Comment from another user looking at sign-up screen
It asks you to agree. It doesn't ask you to accept or decline as you wish - and doesn't say what will happen if you decline. Contributor terms Please read the agreement below and press the agree button to confirm that you accept the terms of this agreement for your existing and future contributions. Then anonymous user is reading the entire agreement and finds in the very fine print you can click accept or decline but still doesn't say what happens if you decline He is now reading the CTs and finds them internally contradictory in that (1) give non-exclusive licence (2) you agree not to assert your moral rights I don't think he will agree to the CTs. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Does FOSM really work?
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:58:08 +1000 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 April 2011 08:09, Kevin Sheather mobilesheath...@bigpond.com wrote: I have tried to use FOSM but with no success. I have opened an account and logged in but none of the links seem to work with the exception of the Attribution link that takes me back to an OSM Wiki page. The Potlatch link produces a mostly blank page with not a map in sight. Is it designed to operate on Windows Explorer 9? I've only used FOSM with JOSM, I've found it a little slow in downloading data, but it does work for me. Although it doesn't seem to have the same 0.25 of a degree limit when downloading, so in rural areas it actually makes life easier. I've used with merkaartor. But I couldn't be bothered to map right now, as I guess I would like a fosm tile server. When we hear back from 80n about fosm timeline we can consider setting up au-nz tile server if needed ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tragedy of the commons...
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:18:41 +1000 Alex (Maxious) Sadleir maxi...@gmail.com wrote: Also, I hear that Kiwi OSM surveyors are having just as much trouble convincing OSM-F that their government too has done the due diligence on Creative Commons for geodata: http://brainoff.com/weblog/2011/04/11/1635#comment-222869 the comments are now error 403 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] the 70% , was Re: License graph
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:43:06 +0100 Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com wrote: We will not lose any data from these people whether they agree or not, so they're safe and should be counted in the stats. Are we counting humans or data? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License graph
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:51:06 +0200 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: One small plea: Could you refrain from saying the camp that wants to move to the ODbL. It sounds like it's a small bunch of people when indeed it is the overwhelming majority. well that's just meadowdust. The ODbL camp did not even get a majority of the OSMF members to vote in favour of the method of changeover. To make your majority you add in X thousand who joined late and didn't get a vote, and subtract Y thousand who haven't yet made an edit. The reason Australians are better at detecting this form of deceit, is that Australia is the modern home of the gerrymander, and we are very familiar with how politicians arrange things to stay in power. Of course, those who can remember a bit further back, recall that Frederick Ramm is in favour of Public Domain, and not ODbL. Perhaps if you explain just how your support was bought it would make more entertaining reading that your recent posts. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] the 70% , was Re: License graph
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:44:48 -0400 Gerald A geraldabli...@gmail.com wrote: I don't believe he meant to imply that they would be automatiically marked as accepting; but rather that their acceptance or rejection wouldn't have a data impact. And thus the meaning of the question Are we counting humans or data? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License graph
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:33:36 +0200 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: SteveC said he'd let me pilot his private jet if I say yes. As you are going to be waiting a long time to collect, could you actually explain why you have gone from being a Public Domain activist to an ODbL activist. I'm quite sure the PD club were asked to make a new mailing list to take Public Domain discussions off legal-talk, and that you were part of that PD club. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] PD tick box
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:40:45 +0200 Fabio Alessandro Locati fabioloc...@gmail.com wrote: In all the countries I know of ticking a checkbox is comparable to sign a printed contract, so I thin is pointless to have a written contract or a CopyPast thing ;) add Australia to your list of places where ticking a checkbox is NOT comparable to signing a printed contract. Quotation from an Australian Copyright Council Information sheet G102v01 Elements of a contract The following elements must be present before you have a contract (a legally binding agreement): • an offer; • acceptance; • benefit to all parties (“consideration”). Sometimes, a party does not want to accept the terms initially offered and makes a “counter-offer”, which may then be further negotiated. A contract is not binding until an offer is accepted without further conditions. Terms and conditions are generally set at the time of acceptance and cannot later be changed or revoked without all parties agreeing to the new terms. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] PD tick box
I know, English is not my native one, but how it is related with checkbox as agreeing with printed contract? When you check that box, you agree that contract is final and valid. If you don't want to acept the terms, you simply don't check it. Or I don't get secret lawyers language? :) Cheers, Peter. A tickbox does not contain all the parts of a full contract. A contract does not need to be on paper, but it means that 'you and I together agreed on these terms'. I gave the 'elements' or things that must be present for a valid contract, a tickbox does not necessarily contain them all. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:22:22 -0700 (PDT) Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: To answer my own question - I guess that 'reasonably calculated to make...' suggests you should include an attribution notice and ask downstream users to respect it - although it doesn't mandate any particular choice of licence. So we would still have the attribution requirement as now. That's also my understanding (but that one's been hashed out on talk-gb ad tediosum). So the new licence is not clear to a majority of mappers concerning these points - derived works, produced works, need for attribution. So why are adopting something that we don't understand? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License graph
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:49:19 -0500 Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote: As a side question: how many users still need to either accept or decline? A lot. If you look at the two files that I am using to pull data from, you will see the users_agreed.txt file has a header in it explaining that there are 286,582 users that signed up before the new CT was put into place for new users last year. Just under 11,000 have voted. So 3.8% of those who can vote have voted. Toby So no data yet can be said to reach statistical significance. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:29:29 +0100 Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: This licence change now gives every mapper the means of undermining the map through withholding of their own data, once freely given and now very likely a foundation of data created by other mappers, also in good faith. I understand that many mappers feel they _can't_ relicense some or all of their work, and that's a really tough situation. But mappers who just plain _won't_ agree to leave their data in, even though there is no legal obstacle to it, should strongly consider whether they are being true to the community they claim to be a part of. Please consider the corollary to this Why does the ODbL faction not start with a fork of ODbL compliant data? Why do they need to force a split of the existing CC-by-SA data? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:11:11 +0200 Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, David Murn wrote: Out of interest Grant, what other large-scale open source projects have changed their licence the way that OSM has? In fact, changed their licence full-stop..? Wikipedia went from GFDL to CC-BY-SA. Wikipedia went from GFDL to a GFDL/CC-BY-SA dual license - with the help of the FSF. If OSMF wanted to go from CC-BY-SA to a CC-BY-SA/ODbL dual license, that would greatly simplify things. Yes, that would make great sense, but I would like to see some more expert opinions, expecially the people who build this entire open source thing to begin with. Did anyone ever contact Eben about this new license? The gpl was the basis for the creative commons, and you are saying it is not good enough, so I think you should be able to convince him as a lawyer about this. If this new thing is really needed, then it should be easy to convince the experts about it. Here are two points I would like to see : 1. a porting of the new terms to other languages and jurisdictions. 2. a review and blessing of the new contract by the software freedom law center, the open source institute and the creative commons There is not even a porting of the new terms and license and contract to other jurisdictions, or translations. At least creative commons has tried to port itself to other places You are asking people to agree to some contract that is not translated into their language and may not be applicable in their jurisdiction, they might even be minors, I find this needs to be looked at carefully. Lets get the license and contract submitted to license-rev...@opensource.org, and to cc-commun...@lists.ibiblio.org, for even a discussion outside this little circle, even an opinion from Lawrence *Lessig* or Eben Moglen softwarefreedom.org, would greatly interest me. It should be possible to get bessings from legal experts and license experts in the world of open source and free software. It should be possible to get this contract reviewed and approved by OSI as well. I personally will wait and see what people who I trust and respect have to say about this topic who are not involved and not partial, some type of neutral and calm review of the entire situation. This entire discussion has gotten very emotional and personal, lets get some neutral third party expert opinions. mike So has anyone asked the FOSS gurus of licensing? I have never seen it mentioned while I was subscribed to legal-talk. I am quite prepared to start writing emails (phrased neutrally) requesting an opinion if these people have not been asked before. If then the opinion is that the new licence has merit, we then need work on how the contract provisions fit in with other legal codes not just those derived from either the Westminster or Napoleonic codes. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:34:20 +1000 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 20:10 +0100, Grant Slater wrote: I am sure there are going to be a few cases where difficult decisions are going to have to be made. We will not have been the only open source project to have had to make these sorts of decisions. Out of interest Grant, what other large-scale open source projects have changed their licence the way that OSM has? In fact, changed their licence full-stop..? David OpenOffice.org has had a major fork just recently. The LibreOffice fork has chosen different licensing arrangements, including the contributors retaining their own copyright. http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/ and interestingly this assessment of how LibreOffice is going http://webmink.com/2011/02/11/is-libreoffice-open-by-rule/ We can also note how the new fork is handling their compound licensing issue. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:42:00 +0100 Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 April 2011 08:31, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: So has anyone asked the FOSS gurus of licensing? I have never seen it mentioned while I was subscribed to legal-talk. I am quite prepared to start writing emails (phrased neutrally) requesting an opinion if these people have not been asked before. If then the opinion is that the new licence has merit, we then need work on how the contract provisions fit in with other legal codes not just those derived from either the Westminster or Napoleonic codes. How long have you been in this discussion, Elizabeth? Quite a while, according to my recollection. Given that you seem to now see a requirement for this kind of validation, I find it strange that you wouldn't have sought it at a much earlier stage than this. Normally abject opposition should come after, not before, neutral appraisal of the proposal, shouldn't it? Dermot So as you have forgotten the beginning, Australian mappers have a number of difficulties with the proposed new licence and contributor terms. That is, a majority of Australian mappers. We have estimated our exposure in our continent to the risk of data loss as very high (i forget the proportion, someone will give you the information if you want confirmation). Where I stand, I do not see a minority against the new licence. It may well be parallax error at my end, or it may be the same at your end. However, I am unable to sign up to the contributor terms. I cannot sign over my work because some of it is in breach of those terms. I am not withdrawing my stuff because I wish to vandalise the map. I have used a number of sources which are CC-by-SA, and that prohibits me from signing. Certainly we should consider Mike's idea, and not hide behind our existing ideas. Will you be writing the emails to the people Mike mentioned? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 18:02:16 +0200 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: We have a situation where those who have spent time with it, and talked to lawyers and all, are positively sure that we do not have a working status quo. Doing nothing is not an option. In licensing terms, this house is on fire. Day after day we're violating our own license and making promises that we cannot keep. Can you swap the flowery language for facts? Please give examples. I assure you, that my government has chosen CC licences for the release of its own data, and that they can spend far more on lawyers than OSMF ever will. I cannot believe that the house is on fire. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:20:27 -0400 Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: I think Frederick gave you the best answer possible. It's not that the community was *asked* by some overarching committee, but instead that it just floated up. Like a turd in the toilet. Frankly, I never thought it would come to actually deleting data. I always thought that that was OBVIOUSLY so insane that *somebody* would have killed the idea of relicensing. The trouble is, is that, just as no one person is responsible for creating the idea, no one person has the ability to kill it. Maybe SteveC, but he's convinced that Google is going to steal our data. As if our data had any value once separated from the community that keeps it alive. -russ One of my questions, waiting a very long time for an answer, is What are the instructions of the OSMF Board to the Licensing Working Group A corporate structure sets up committees. The Board gives the committee a set of instructions. The committees are answerable to the Board. Now was the instruction find out if we need a new licence, and if so look around for one or was it find a way to put the OSM data under this new licence. From there it will be quite evident exactly which group of persons made this decision. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 23:50:03 +0100 Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: If this is what you have been complaining about then you have half missed the point. There are people who have chosen NOT TO USE OSM because of legal ambigutity and points in the CC-BY-SA license which we (some?) in the community chose to ignore. Thanks for that Grant. Those people have a right to do so, and they are free to do so. I'm glad you are not forcing people to use OSM. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 01:38:30 +0200 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: So I chose a slightly humorous response, treating Anthony as if he really were an innocent newbie. I didn't expect that I would have to explain the humour, but I guess I should have known better. Humour is quite language specific. I don't expect you to get Strine jokes. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:49:20 +0200 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Eric Marsden wrote: It is not clear to me, from your message or from what I have read on the wiki, whether choosing Decline is a irreversible decision, or whether one would still be able later to accept the licence + CT. Decline is reversible. Accept isn't. Once we've got you, we'll never let go. Bye Frederik This is not a simplistic legal question at all. Where I am, right now, a contract has to have certain features to be valid. It must be agreed to by both parties, and there shall not be coercion, and it must not be unconscionable. So a shrink-wrap or click-through licence is not enforceable. We have already one example of a person who has mistakenly agreed, and who has notified OSMF, and will have to be released from the contract. So instead of claiming that every yes is permanent, protocols will need to be made for these circumstances. As OSMF has delved into contract law with the ODbL, the various contract laws of hundreds of nations worldwide will have to be considered. Hopefully they fall into major groupings to make your task easier. Liz ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war, Mitrovica
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 04:08:56 -0700 (PDT) ThomasB toba0...@yahoo.de wrote: Mitrovica was deleted by uboot http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7348595 could you please stop publicly blaming others for mistakes that you personally has made? ubot has deleted 15 ways and add some 60. The other edits were DupNode fixes. You personally have deleted the streets there http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/98163924/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/98171028/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/96950414/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/96577541/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/97831272/history do you want me to continue? There is a logic error here. How does removing duplicates remove an entire city of streets? Mike has reimported the streets overnight, using the original data, and they are slowly being rendered. The most polite thing that I think may have happened is for two duplicate node removers to have decided to attack the area at once. The result was devastation of the map in that area. I don't like 'duplicate node removing' scripts or bots. Duplicate nodes may well have a function, or may not be duplicate at all. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 20:36:34 +0200 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 04/15/2011 05:55 PM, Kai Krueger wrote: I thought that the new CTs were supposed to fix this issue [...] I have answered on legal-talk. Bye Frederik Frederick, it has occurred to me that if you are unhappy with what is discussed on talk, you could unsubscribe. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] question for folks working on routing engines
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:36:55 -0400 Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: this occurred to me while surveying speed limits in a somewhat rural part of the US. are any of the routing engines looking at the surface tag as part of their decision making? i ask this because in NY, the default speed limit in rural areas is 55 on all roads. there are numerous unpaved roads (dirt, gravel) which do not have posted speed limits, but where driving at 55 is not reasonable unless you're a rally driver and the road is closed. i want to tag these accurately, and am doing so, but i should think that the routing engines ought to avoid, when possible, this combination or others like it: highway=unclassified name=Mead Road maxspeed=55 mph surface=dirt richard Navit considers the highway type and the surface type. Exactly what speed you expect to do for those parameters is user configurable in a config file. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[talk-au] Fw: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: Hoping you can point me in the right direction.
Someone local to this guy want to speak with him? Begin forwarded message: Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:58:25 -0700 From: Steve Coast st...@asklater.com To: t...@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: Hoping you can point me in the right direction. Original Message Subject:Re: Hoping you can point me in the right direction. Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:00:51 +1000 From: R Lynch r.ly...@ddsnsw.com.au To: Steve Coast st...@asklater.com Sorry yes thank you Sent from my iPhone On 12/04/2011, at 8:10 AM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com mailto:st...@asklater.com wrote: you mailed the OSMF board which isn't set up or designed to help with what you want, we have mailing lists with people who can help you though, so I'm offering to connect you to them On 4/11/2011 3:11 PM, R Lynch wrote: Steve, Sorry im lost, What do you mean mailing list? Robert Sent from my iPhone On 12/04/2011, at 7:40 AM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com mailto:st...@asklater.com wrote: Robert Can I forward this to our mailing lists? Steve On 4/10/2011 7:44 PM, Robert Lynch wrote: Hi Steve, My name is Robert Lynch and I am the owner of a few small transport companies in Australia. Over the past 12 months I have been building a new transport, logistics and recruitment software to Launch in Australia. As part of this software we are looking for routing solutions and direct guidance for the drivers and a few other unique developments for this industry. Currently there is nothing like this in the market place and can be quickly replicated for other areas around the world. What i would like to do is speak with someone to see how we can partner up through a Joint venture or any other means. I hope to hear from you soon *_Robert F. Lynch_* *Head office: 1300 400 450* *Direct line: (02) 8093-1207* *Fax:(02) 8093-1243* *Mobile:0403 753 371* mime-attachment.png */PART OF THE DYNAMIC GROUP OF COMPANIES/* We now do Point-to-Point in Sydney: *www.dynamicexpress.com.au;* http://www.a-p-m.com.au/ Formally All Purpose Messengers; Delivering Excellent since 1954*/__/* This email and any attached files are confidential. They are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by return email, and delete the original. All outgoing emails and attached files are virus scanned, but we do not represent that this email and any attached files are free from computer viruses or other defects. Further, we do not accept any liability for any damage caused by this email or attachments mime-attachment.jpg mime-attachment.jpg mime-attachment.png mime-attachment.jpg Original Message Subject: Re: Hoping you can point me in the right direction. Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:00:51 +1000 From: R Lynch r.ly...@ddsnsw.com.au To: Steve Coast st...@asklater.com Sorry yes thank you Sent from my iPhone On 12/04/2011, at 8:10 AM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: you mailed the OSMF board which isn't set up or designed to help with what you want, we have mailing lists with people who can help you though, so I'm offering to connect you to them On 4/11/2011 3:11 PM, R Lynch wrote: Steve, Sorry im lost, What do you mean mailing list? Robert Sent from my iPhone On 12/04/2011, at 7:40 AM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: Robert Can I forward this to our mailing lists? Steve On 4/10/2011 7:44 PM, Robert Lynch wrote: Hi Steve, My name is Robert Lynch and I am the owner of a few small transport companies in Australia. Over the past 12 months I have been building a new transport, logistics and recruitment software to Launch in Australia. As part of this software we are looking for routing solutions and direct guidance for the drivers and a few other unique developments for this industry. Currently there is nothing like this in the market place and can be quickly
Re: [talk-au] ABS CodePlay
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 15:21:59 +1000 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: An Australian Bureau of Statistics initiative to help drive collaboration between students, developers and national and international statistical agencies. http://data.gov.au/2770/contest-abs-codeplay/ that link is to a comment spot rather than to information have you got another link? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:50:22 +0100 Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: But your suggested course of action has me confused - you are happy to make contributions under the new CT and intend to do so, but yet you wish to vote against the change. Your choice, I supposed. There are 2 distinct items to be considered, the input conditions (Contributor Terms) and the output conditions (ODbL). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:10:19 +0100 Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: I am sure there are going to be a few cases where difficult decisions are going to have to be made. We will not have been the only open source project to have had to make these sorts of decisions. The OSM Foundation being the legal entity which represents us will have to decide case by case (and possibly a changeset by changeset) when presented with these sorts of difficult choices. I did read the conditions on sign-up. OSM Foundation being the legal legal entity which represents us did not appear. The only correct statement remains that OSMF owns the servers. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:24:28 +0100 Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: So by all means state your opinion and by all means share your opinions with other mappers. But if, once a consensus is clear, The Community comes out in favour of the change, many of us will think very ill of people who still choose to pull out the bottom brick from the wall and go home. Because that's not the kind of community I've had the privilege to belong to. Consider the corollary to your statement please, because that is where I find myself. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
How else would you define the foundation? The OSMF is a not-for-profit company registered in England and Wales, the foundation has no paid staff and it is made up exclusively of unpaid volenteers. The OSMF board is made up of democratically elected volenteers. I am not an OSMF apologist, the OSMF definitely does have warts like: Where are the Board Minutes for the last few months? or what happend to the GPS2Go program?... and other gripes... But I am reminded they are volenteers, if I want a better service, I could offer to help rather than chastice their fumblings. Regards Grant aka Firefishy. Part of Sysadmin Team, LWG Member, Data Working Group, Server order guy, van driver and mapper. I joined and later made a deliberate decision to leave. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:10:40 +0200 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: We're not sacrificing countries. We saw that we have built our project on (legal) sand, and we're moving to rectify the situation. The patient may lose some tissue about this but he will live, and after the wounds have healed, will be healthier than before. I'm talking all flowery because this is the talk list. If you want hard facts, go to legal-talk. Or you are talking all flowery because you have no hard facts. Yesterday I read on this list that an alternate plan of action is under consideration - quite seriously. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] stat pr0n
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 18:53:51 +0100 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 13/04/11 15:01, Mikel Maron wrote: Sure. But I would love to see more detailed stats, and awards/badges integrated into user pages. There are easy ways to do this on non-osmf servers, and integrate into user pages. Before anybody sprints off too far down this road I will just point out that he sysadmins are extremely allergic to the web site relying on anything that is not running on an OSMF server. Tom Allergy? So they need desensitisation treatment? My apologies, I thought it was a desire for centralised control. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Edit war, Mitrovica
Mitrovica is in Kosovo. Kosovo and Serbia do not agree on Kosovo's independence. A particular mapper has deleted the city of Mitrovica from OSM (most edit wars change the names). It is alleged [#flossk] that this is the second time. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.876398563385lon=20.8690881729126zoom=14 I am neither Serb nor Kosovar. Name changing is understandable, but deliberately removing streets etc is vandalism. I am asking openly for the mapper to revert the edit right now, but I have already notified a member of the data working group because I believe this to be a serious transgression. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] How to tag reaches (segments of a waterway)?
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 18:22:49 +1000 Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to map some named reaches (straight portion of a stream or river, as from one turn to another;) part of a major river. The river (e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-33.50134lon=150.8778zoom=15layers=M ) currently has both a riverbank area drawn, and a way down the middle of the river. To make things even more complicated, the way running down the middle of the river has both waterway tags and administrative boundary tags. I'm thinking the ideal way to map this (reaches + river + admin boundary) would be split the way into segments for each reach, tag each segment as waterway=reach, name=Foo Reach, then collect up the river segments into a relation which contains waterway=river, name=Bar River, and just leave the riverbank area as is. Not sure what to do with the admin boundary tags though. I'm not sure what's best though. Any thoughts? Thanks. I'd be looking at another word for reach. I'm not making any suggestions, but it isn't a simple English term, and using difficult terms makes the cross-language stuff hard. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] How to tag reaches (segments of a waterway)?
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:23:57 +1000
{withheld} pheasant.cou...@gmail.com wrote:
Bearing in mind reach is also the nautical term for a tack, is it
worth considering Andrew's source map might be documenting the lines
of sailing between navigation markers (or indeed landmarks) which are
no longer even well-known? [Disclaimer: I-am-not-a-sailor.] They may
not even document current-day navigation channels, if that part of
the river required dredging to keep such open in the past.
In other words I am wondering whether it might be best to add the new
names completely independently of both the waterway and the
administrative boundary. Maybe create a tag like
waterway:navigation, perhaps for the new feature, perhaps?
Justification for independence: these things are straight segments
which rationalise a natural (i.e. curved) waterway for boating
purposes... therefore are not the waterway itself. Similar argument
for them not being the administrative layer (although they might be -
can this be checked in any way?)
My 2c.
Stuck in my mind is Madmen's Bend at Hay, which refers to a part of
the river, and it is not a /reach/, but also warrants its name
recording as the sign nearby is recording the name.
http://billiau.net/zoph/photo.php?album_id=144_order=date_off=1246
Have we got some other word for the smaller part of the waterway?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 16:58:04 +1000 Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: If you still consider importing this data without permission was in the best interest of the project, I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree. Others can make up their own mind. and we have had to edit the data and correct it, so what is in the OSM database is not what we got from BP or Shell ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Nearmap
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 08:19:39 +0100 Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 7 April 2011 06:58, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 April 2011 12:57, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: If the Australian issue is so important, as others have suggested why isnt OSMF seeking to make a rapid agreement with NearMap as was done with Bing? This really needs to be done. Is wonder if this is just due to a shortage of time that the LWG hasn't included this as yet? Absolutely and it is a important to LWG too. We have had discussions with NearMap in the past. Last discussion with NearMap was passing the revised Contributor Terms 1.2.4 to NearMap for their legal review, we are currently waiting on them. Regards Grant LWG Member. Grant, that sounds like here are the terms, take it or shove it you may or may not understand the vernacular, we will but I don't see any evidence of cooperatively trying to reach a solution. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OpenStreetMap] OpenStreetMap is changing the licence
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 11:48:55 +1000 Leon Kernan lker...@gmail.com wrote: More importantly is it a official OSMF or semi-official LWG email, or just some pro-ODbL people spamming everyone? Pretty sure it's the last one. I received it a few weeks back, even through i'd put a note on my OSM user page saying i didn't want it. I'm sure i've seen something on the OSM wiki about it, and there is the following on the top right of the odbl.de page: i'm sure its spam, and I haven't received it yet, so I can't give the sender the forks in a virtual manner ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 11:53:02 +1000 Leon Kernan lker...@gmail.com wrote: Supposedly it sends you to this flippant page if you decline the CT: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributor_Terms_Declined I think the lolcat picture on that page tells us exactly what they think of those of us that won't / can 't / don't want to accept their terms. Certainly helps give the impression of a professional organisation... (not) I don't see a lolcat on that page, was it on another page? Certainly the lolcat on the front page of the osm wiki makes me wonder about the IQ of the page writers ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 04:47:39 -0700 (PDT) All Blokes speed_13...@yahoo.com.au wrote: I was very keen and learning ...had done a few edits not many but I was planning on getting right into it. I don't agree with the new licensing and have just been sitting on the side reading. It's sad that this is happening A vibrant aussie community has gone down the drain within the last 12 months. I have spent 3 1/2 years (nearly) adding big tracts of eastern australia to the osm map, and now think I will do something else with my spare time. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 07:30:29 +1000
{withheld} pheasant.cou...@gmail.com wrote:
Whilst I agree / commiserate with your basic point (been there;
done that; spent the fuel), don't you still have the raw traces
from your device? I certainly do, and consider at no point have I
ever given up my rights to them.
I couldn't see any point in keeping those traces at the time, so a
couple of years OSM work of mine will be lost to OSM.
That is annoying. I feel for you; as I nearly did the same thing; and
in fact have lost some information as well,but obviously not quite so
severely.
I have the vast majority of mine. I removed them from OSM already, and
have them roughly sorted by year.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 23:27:57 +1000 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Also the locations have been fixed for numerous locations so if you ever get in contact with anyone please let them know about OSM having more accurate data than they offer, I think 30km out is still the worst case. The locations have had to be corrected in almost every case that I have passed by, and the Victorian Police Stations also. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 10:40:15 +1000 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 April 2011 09:28, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: If the data owner doesn't grant permission under an acceptable licence then we shouldn't relying on one interpretation of very recent Australian case. Especially since there are other areas of law that may come into play here. Actually the court case was a few years ago I think, this was an appeal against the earlier ruling. The Court system has affirmed the original decision. Copyright (Au) depends on thinking about the input, and cannot be derived from machine generated data. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 19:31:53 +1000 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com didn't write: (Michael Collinson did) For clarity: - This will only affect (77,000) contributors who registered before May 2010 and who have not accepted the new terms as part of the voluntary re-licensing program. those who see a big hole in the numbers total contributors at May 2010 ~250,000 Those who have signed up ~9,000 Those who have not signed up ~77,000 the gap I guess refers to accounts which have been completely idle and will be prevented from editing (source, LWG minutes 5th April 2011) I still have trouble understanding how 9,000 of 86,000 is a large majority. Those who signed up after May 2010 got no option, so they can't be construed as supporting either side. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Okay, this is just cool (Lockport, NY)
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 11:24:32 +0200 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: without their database (i.e. georeferenced images made available through the streetview api) you would never be able to find your house in billions of fotos, nor know where a certain foto was taken for 99,9% of their fotos (which are not taken in the small world of your personal knowledge). I am not a lawyer, and I am not sure whether streetview fotos are protectable or not (and whether they are actually protected in the current form they are made available), but I think that you see it in a too simplistic way. While I'm not in the habit of collecting information from Google StreetView, it is fair to say that if I go to the public library and in the thousands of volumes there I find one with the assistance of the old card catalogue and the Dewey assignment of books, then no one is concerned about my use of the library database to find my book. The law then states how much I can copy (this varies in different countries, I give no example) out of that particular book. The Google StreetView database isn't in Europe, it doesn't have any special conditions attached to its use, so how will using that database to find my particular building in a photograph be relevant to the the information contained in the photograph? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Okay, this is just cool (Lockport, NY)
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 12:03:16 +0200 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/4/3 Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net While I'm not in the habit of collecting information from Google StreetView, it is fair to say that if I go to the public library and in the thousands of volumes there I find one with the assistance of the old card catalogue and the Dewey assignment of books, then no one is concerned about my use of the library database to find my book. because they consent the use of the database to find books. Also Google Streetview consents the use of their database, but they have ToS associated with that use, and if you use their db, you agree to be subject to their ToS. But is that legally binding? Click Through licence agreements are not binding everywhere, so actually, I don't agree to be subject to their ToS. The Google StreetView database isn't in Europe, it doesn't have any special conditions attached to its use, it has. At least if there aren't for Streetview in particular, the ones of Googlemaps in general do apply. You of course think like an engineer, and I don't. You know quite well that I meant that there was no European Database Rights attached to the database, and you deliberately ignore that to strike what you believe will be a killer blow. What you state might be true under European law, but it doesn't work where I am. I can do as Pieren states, and that is interpret information I see in those photographs and reuse the information I interpret. There's no special account here of the click-through licence (mainly because the contract is one-sided and non-negotiable), and the database has no particular protection in the law. I still would rather take my own photographs. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tag for true OSM data?
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:20:22 + (UTC) Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: I think you can assume that if no 'source' tag is set, the feature is done by traditional OSM mapping (survey, or GPS trace, or local knowledge, or perhaps tracing from aerial imagery). The use or not of source was found to mean two different things with Au mappers. Group G were using the absence of source as meaning GPS mapped Group T were using the absence of source as meaning Traced so that the decision was made to encourage Au mappers to set the source tag on all items. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Analysing the OSM community
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:32:21 +0100 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: On 28/03/2011 15:30, Maurizio Napolitano wrote: I found today this article A qualitative enquiry into OpenStreetMap making Author: Yu-Wei Lina *Single Article Purchase:* US$41.00 I didn't find the abstract meaningful as it was full of politically correct speak. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Analysing the OSM community
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:09:30 +1100 Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:32:21 +0100 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: On 28/03/2011 15:30, Maurizio Napolitano wrote: I found today this article A qualitative enquiry into OpenStreetMap making Author: Yu-Wei Lina *Single Article Purchase:* US$41.00 I didn't find the abstract meaningful as it was full of politically correct speak. Having read the first page and skimmed the rest it seems to be a sociological investigation, sample size 16, discussing the user base of a FLOSS project rather than the developer base. A more correct email subject would be Discussing the OSM community ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Analysing the OSM community
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:07:25 +1300
Robin Paulson robin.paul...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 March 2011 12:26, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking as someone with a background in science I think I agree
with Elizabeth's interpretation.
I get the impression the study is much more subjective than solid,
the sample size far too small to get any meaningful results other
than this needs more research dollars to further define etc etc.
ah, you mean the language is elitist and highly complicated? yes, i
would agree - welcome to academia. i'm not sure what the catch phrase
of the angry redneck ('politically correct') has to do with that
though
big SNIP
You have jumped in again. The paper describes what it describes, and
from the small sample set makes some good points, but we don't see the
reasoning behind the choice of the sample set, which by its nature has
to have excluded a number of user groups.
Discussion of that point, or acknowledgement of the difficulties
inherent in making the choice, would have added to the paper.
The study is subjective because it is in sociology, and that is a
feature of that sort of research, where students just don't have access
to the resources needed to survey a few million or even a few thousand
people.
I'm not concerned about complicated themes and complicated
theories. I've been through enough of the tertiary education system
that I should be able to cope with sociology.
I object to the overuse of jargon in the abstract.
The abstract should be meaningful to the average university graduate.
Writing the abstract in jargon, while it seems 'exact', is a means of
isolating various parts of the education community from each other, and
discouraging the spread of knowledge. I guess its an antithesis of
FLOSS.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licensing Working Group
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:25:21 + Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 25/03/11 14:13, Simon Poole wrote: I've personally been in contact with quite active mappers that months after August 2010 didn't realize that they could actually sign up to the CTs (this includes mappers that participated in the OSMF vote on the license change!). To this date the headline text on the web site still doesn't make it clear that you can actually make you cross and be done with it (it actually implies wasting more time on endless discussions). That's because we haven't yet reached the point where we are actively asking existing existing contributors to signup - once we do they will be emailed to ask them to consider doing so. Tom Such behaviour suggests ambivalence on the part of the organising committee. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Licensing Working Group
The LWG has posted draft minutes on the OSMF wiki. https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_109hj8txbg3 I hope there are no errors in these figures for later correction. From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats the total number of users is approaching 375,000. From the LWG minutes, 163,732 users have not made any edits at all and 9277 users have signed up to the ODbL and CTs. 9277 / (37-163732) = 4.5% ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A reliable process for handling OSM license violations
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:01:43 +0100 Matthias Meißer dig...@arcor.de wrote: Might be the legal talklist a better place to discuss this very specific topic? I guess there are more users that are familar with the process itself. Matthias The LWG minutes indicate that Mike is to ask the community for comment. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] the coastline
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:59:20 - Andy Robinson ajrli...@gmail.com wrote: I'd place the coastline at the low water mark because you know then that its always true. The coastline at the high water mark is only true a couple of times a day or whatever. Then it needs a high_water_mark way adding and ideally rendered in the long run. Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Robin Paulson [mailto:robin.paul...@gmail.com] Sent: 21 March 2011 21:46 To: OSM Talk Subject: [OSM-talk] the coastline i've recently been doing some mapping around auckland, adding coastal walkways. one in particular i walked on sunday has two routes: one at the foot of the cliffs, one on the road at the top of the cliffs. the lower route is under water when the tide is in, so walkers are advised to follow the road route. so, i added the route, and it is now under water: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-36.927322lon=174.709115zoom=18layers=M this seems wrong, drawing a route which is then under water, but the alternative of moving the path is also wrong. so, what do we do? the question becomes (in my mind): why do we have a single way mapped 'coastline'? this implies the boundary between land and water is static, but of course it moves - a number of times per day. i like the possibility of a high water mark and a low water mark, used together to entirely replace the natural=coastline tag. perhaps some of you have some ideas around this also? thanks, -- the Coastline has been defined as high water mark. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline I don't see that redefining it is going to be helpful Robin's point stands - should we mark the low water mark and the high water mark and render the littoral zone differently? I guess it is part of the micro-mapping initiative which is popular on the tagging list. From a safety point of view, I'd rather know that the path is under water. Then I can examine the coast and the tide tables (or ask) and make a decision on walking it. I certainly don't want a router taking me through there as the shortest or fastest walk. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A reliable process for handling OSM license violations
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:49:25 +0100 Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: We need a reliable process for dealing with these. Currently, the License Working Group has been doing some work but it feels that it is not dealing with the issues adequately and some issues not at all. What should we do? Honestly I would have expected some suggestions from the LWG, rather than just the list of what happens now. What were the suggestions at the meeting(s)? The minutes suggest that this has been on the table for some time, so surely there are some suggestions already. I would have no difficulty in advising someone that they had used material without attribution, and have definitely already done so with two open source projects. However, do not think that I will do so under a different licence where I am not the actual copyright holder. If OSMF wishes to hold the copyright, OSMF can deal with the problems. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cost of tolls
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 11:00:13 +1100 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 20:52 -0300, Diego Woitasen wrote: This is the matrix showing how the tolls are calculated: http://www.westlinkm7.com.au/cmsAdmin/uploads/Tollmatrix_Janto_Mar2011.pdf What do you think about something like: cost:car_2axle = $X cost:car_3axle = $X cost:motorbike = $X cost:truck_2axle = $X . . . cost:truck_Naxle = $X So, what value do you put into there? The price per km/mile, the maximum price, the minimum price? As pointed out in the pdf above, in our case depending on what roads you use to enter/leave the tollway and depending on how close you are to the city, the toll varies per kilometre travelled. David and a date for the costings because they always are going up then which electronic tags can be used instead (for example E-tag) This information is not best stored in the OSM database. A link to the current information or not at all. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[talk-au] Need a laff?
If you need a laff, try the wiki page on countryside http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Countryside ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] GPS jamming
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/11/3161861.htm ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] odbl
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 09:24:50 +0100 Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: Would you ask a question specific to the US on talk-au (or any other country-specific list)? Why do people have the impression that subsribing to legal-talk is somehow more difficult than subscribing to talk? It makes much more sense to have a central list where important community matters are discussed. The idea that all 'tagging' has to go to tagging list or all 'licence' to legal list divides the community. Talk is a central point which should have no such rules as not here. I can understand that trying to discuss tagging matters on legal-talk should be heartily discouraged, but once we have a number of lists covering every sub-branch of discussion we lose our community. All of the lists suffer from endless discussion of the same points with very little action ever occurring - and reading the amateur lawyers on legal-talk arguing with the professional lawyers is a form of amusement that I don't need. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:23:22 +0100 ant antof...@gmail.com wrote: So the only situation I'd enforce a turn restriction in is when the road is tagged bicycle=lane. Otherwise I'd ignore it. I'm not sure in which country you are living, but in mine (au) a signed turn restriction applies to all vehicles. Riding a pushbike I can do a right hand turn where right hand turns are prohibited by doing a hook turn, but that is the only way around the restriction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_turn ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] odbl
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 13:01:57 +0100 Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: All of the lists suffer from endless discussion of the same points with very little action ever occurring - and reading the amateur lawyers on legal-talk arguing with the professional lawyers is a form of amusement that I don't need. But if legal-talk didn't exist wouldn't all these discussions you don't want to see be on this list? You can make that argument if you like. legal-talk does exist, and no one is proposing to shut it down. This is the description of this list, from the mailman list talkOpenStreetMap user discussion It doesn't finish with unless there is another list which might cover the situation. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] odbl
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 03:45:45 -0800 (PST) Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Joseph Reeves wrote: without explaining in layman's terms what this means. http://old.opengeodata.org/2008/01/07/the-licence-where-we-are-where-were-going/index.html Follow-ups to legal-talk please, so that those here who have made their mind up one way or the other don't have to read the whole caboodle all over again. cheers Richard Once again, there is not any hope that a clear explanation in Plain English will appear to a request on legal-talk. There is not a prohibition on asking these questions on /talk/, just a determined effort by a small number of people to ensure that discussion on /talk/ is limited, which is not part of the description of /talk/. The fact that the question appears each month, from somebody new, shows me that the question never gets answered in a satisfactory manner. There are still a large number of unanswered questions. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 13:34:17 +0100 Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: Steve Bennett wrote: Anyway, just did a quick test ... I'm shocked. That's almost the exact route I took yesterday. Same test here and same result... The differences being the result of a couple of mistakes in the map, which I'm going to correct very soon. I'm pleased with MapQuest Open's bicycle default routing algorithm. The relief avoidance weighting is rather extreme - it will make rather large detours to get around molehills... I tried it and it would send me down the main road and not the back roads I usually use. I know I cycle a few kms further but the diversion is preferable for safety. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] odbl
On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 22:17:33 +0100 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: John, john whelan wrote: The intention is to try to understand a bit more about it. The legal-talk mailing list is an excellent place to ask questions about ODbL. Bye Frederik /sarcasm ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bike / Pedestrian directions on the MQ Open sites
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:36:32 +1100 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 7:12 AM, ant antof...@gmail.com wrote: very nice! I've checked some of my daily bicycle routes. Of four routes two are perfect, and two have become too long--obviously in favour of the use of cycleways. Don't forget that although cycleways are preferable, cycling on roads is still possible and avoiding it usually isn't worth a 10% increase of distance. Interesting, my threshold would be closer to 40 or 50%. You're saying you'd rather ride 20km on roads rather than 22km on bike path? I wonder how they can cope with such a range in preferences. Steve and I ride 30% more to avoid traffic (and improve fitness, of course) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Another large edit gone wrong (McDonald's)
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 23:14:53 + Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: The name of the company is McDonalds, so anything belonging to them should be McDonalds's. The correct grammar for that would be McDonalds' ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] temp name change
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 07:47:08 +1100 Jim Croft jim.cr...@gmail.com wrote: Apparently from Yorkeshire, All the world is queer save thee and me, and even thou art a little queer. -- Robert Owen, 1828 This is how my dad used to quote it. Jim Nov 26 03, 6:19 PM On Monday, February 21, 2011, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 22:21:49 +1100 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Just out of curiosity, am I the only normal person on this email list? Steve everyone's odd except thee and me and even then i'm worried about thee sorry i can't recall the exact words of the quote nor do i know the original source thanks Jim ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Zero tolerance on imports
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:01:59 +0100 Frank Steggink stegg...@steggink.org wrote: Which I think is basically why the airports import didn't get reverted. There was bad data but also a lot of good data and no better option for separating the two than just leaving it all in the map. This should have been taken care of before the import. Anyways, if it is obvious which airports are misplaced, they should be moved or deleted. It's not obvious It is also about the lack of a hierarchy of 'airports' in which a dirt strip is imported the same as a large international airport. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] temp name change
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 22:21:49 +1100 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Just out of curiosity, am I the only normal person on this email list? Steve everyone's odd except thee and me and even then i'm worried about thee sorry i can't recall the exact words of the quote nor do i know the original source ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] temp name change
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/18/3142067.htm anyone fixing this on the map? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:56:03 +1100 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:25 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Nope I meant what I said, access:caravan=* same with access:4wd=* As I understand it, foot, motorcar, bicycle, hgv etc are all considered subtags of the access tag. So, for consistency, it would be caravan=no, just like it's foot=no, motorcar=no... Steve a complete subtag like caravan=no will cause misunderstandings with those highway tags which mark a cycleway as part of the way sample highway=secondary cycleway=lane caravan=no will the caravan=no belong on the cycleway or will it belong on the main way? however highway=secondary cycleway=lane access:highway:caravan=maybe would be clear. This discussion just informs us that the access tagging system has faults. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 20:56:54 -0500 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Since giving long ground-level ways nonzero layers screws up every place they cross another way, it seems clear what should be done. -1 is used for rivers commonly over long distances where traced and no idea where the bridges actually are. whether the river is at or below ground level is another opinion which varies in different environments ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Relicensing per changeset?
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:07:48 +1100 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 00:04 +, David Groom wrote: I just want to draw attention to the survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WFVK6XS , the link was mentionedn Richard Weait's email to this list on 1 Feb, but I have to admit that I missed it the first time I read his posting Out of interest, who runs this survey and who is (or when will we be) allowed to know the results? David and can I do it 20 times as Jane Smith? seeing it asks for a name ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] 12nm territorial borders - useful or rubbish?
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:44:38 +0100 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/2/14 ed...@billiau.net: I've been thinking about the 12nm territorial borders on sea that we have in many places, notably in Europe. Many of them seem to have been auto-generated by simply placing a buffer around the coastline. My first question is, do they really have legal significance? They they do have legal significance (the original nautical borders/territorial waters, usually 12 nautic miles, sometimes more as stabilized in international treaties) 1) are the sources of the lines marked? I agree that if you imported them from a reliable source and you are sure you did all the transformations correctly, you should mark the source in the changeset comment, so the information is stored in the db. 2) are the positions of the lines rated as to certainty? 3) how would a mapper reviewing them decide where to work next? IMHO he'd better not touch them unless he is sure. It's the same as with every border: hard to see on the ground, but useful to have in the db 4) should they be rendered in mapnik? IMHO yes, but that's up to the style sheet maintainer 5) should they be in a file formatted for garmin users? this can be decided by who creates the garmin map 6) how do we communicate the accuracy to garmin users? like we do it with all other stuff. Of course you shouldn't rely on them when their exact position is mission critical. Cheers, Martin I know you are the man with the answer to every question, but you have missed one ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Power-user GPS app for Android?
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:49:40 +0200 Ivan Petrushev ivanat...@gmail.com wrote: Can you suggest me a power-user GPS application for Android? I've recently switched from my Sony Ericsson K800 to Android and really miss MapNav. Most of the android apps I've tried are really naive - there is a map, and there is a dot representing your position, and this is all. Some of them have online routing via Cloudmade or other service. Not something really impressive. There are two cases I'll be using that app for: A) collect data for OSM B) when on a trip - checking and correcting OSM data For A) - I don't want anything with a embedded OSM editor! I like to make marks (in the app), take photos and then later enter all data in JOSM. I'm often in regions with no access to Internet. So I need all maps to be prepared before and use them offline. Preferably use vector maps because of the scaling and routing. Also if using routing (and it is new to me and I don't find it really a-must) it should be offline routing. About tracks - I keep lots of tracks, some of them with 5k+ nodes. I need to be able to easily tell which track is what. MapNav was a perfect app with tons of options, but it won't run on Android. There are certain emulators but none of them get to run it smoothly. That's why I search for something that is android-native, but so far I haven't hit anything worthy. I've checked OsmAnd and it has troubles saving tracks. I've checked Maverick and it has troubles saving POIs. I've created a list of features that I need and a list of features that it will be nice to have but not mandatory. MUST HAVES - Tracks -- record track points by distance traveled (for example every 50 m) or by time (for example every 10 s). Combination of two can be possible with AND or OR. -- save and load tracks -- view saved tracks in list select active track -- export/import track formats - at least GPX -- display and update active track on the map -- ability to easily pause track recording (for example when you are standing still at one place) - Marks -- ability to quickly add new mark (or call it POI if you like) around my current location -- ability to add new mark with specific coordinates (useful for geocaching) -- easily export and import marks - Main display -- display current speed -- display distance between current position and a selected target position -- display distance between random two points - Map sources -- offline maps easily created -- OSM -- downloading Google Earth (or other sources) tiles from Internet OPTIONALS - Tracks -- show altitude and speed profiling of a track -- edit track nodes (for example cut nodes out of the track, or split track in two) -- rename saved tracks -- list saved tracks with details (like length, timestamp of first node, timestamp of last node) and sorting -- display more than one track over the map at once - Marks -- ability to take photo and geotag/add it to a mark - Main display -- display current coordinates and altitude -- number of points in active track -- ability to show a ruler on the map -- display satelite status - Navigation -- ability to calculate route from point A to point B w/o Internet You might need two apps :( Navit will store for offline use, can record a track and routes with some caveats no POI feature / cannot view saved tracks / cannot pause track recording ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] 12nm territorial borders - useful or rubbish?
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:05:15 +0100 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/2/15 Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net: 2) are the positions of the lines rated as to certainty? I know you are the man with the answer to every question, but you have missed one yes, I was not sure if I understood that one right. Is the question if there can be certainty about the correctness of these lines, or is it whether the certainty is marked on the lines? Case 1 could be regarded as a pointless question if asked by someone who is a long time member of Openstreetmap. Of course you can be certain of nothing and everybody can modify everything. You can also not be certain that the original data was transformed and imported correctly. that was not my question that question sparked me into considering a fuller set of questions Case 2 would require a lot of research (basically for all of those lines plus all modifications), which I have not done. cheers, Martin The questions are not absolute - they address areas which OSM may not have yet considered, like considering the degree of certainty of information. You mentioned that the Italian nautical border was obtained from statute, which sounds definitive, and then noted that the datum may have needed correcting, because if in statute before 1984 WGS84 would not have existed. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Path with Pit Stops
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 19:33:52 +0100 Esben Stien b...@esben-stien.name wrote: Is there some kind of application that can help me with plotting the smartest route in a set of points, if you're supposed to visit all the points? Imagine a salesman, who has to visit 10 locations. Is there some software that can assist me in visiting these 10 locations the smartest and shortest way?. Any pointers?. There would be thousands of solutions to this puzzle, as it is a task usually given to Computer Science students in the first year of their course. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:36:53 +0100 Kay Drangmeister k...@drangmeister.net wrote: However: OSM data integrity is at stake, and you are endangering it, willfully and knowingly. While you seem to understand the reasoning behind the OSM contribution policy, you fail to obey it. You are endangering the work of thousands of people. You are not in a position to do so. So, by all means, I want you to be banned from our project. Let's get this completely fair, and remove all the work of others who have been caught tracing from Google, admitted it when challenged, and only the work which was challenged has been removed. Work which may also be traced from Google because it also was a long way from the person's home, and not been specifically challenged, is still there in the OSM database. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:59:45 + Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: On 10/02/11 19:37, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:36:53 +0100 Kay Drangmeisterk...@drangmeister.net wrote: Let's get this completely fair, and remove all the work of others who have been caught tracing from Google, admitted it when challenged, and only the work which was challenged has been removed. Work which may also be traced from Google because it also was a long way from the person's home, and not been specifically challenged, is still there in the OSM database. Sounds to me like you're either admitting that you have traced from Google or you know people who have. In either case that traced work needs to be deleted, and serial tracers need blocking like Anthony. The distances are not any kind of excuse. If you are implying that most people trace from Google, then I am convinced you are wrong. Of course you could be less of an argumentative pain-in-the-arse and either put up or shut up. I have made public, further back in the lists, the 'name' of the person who did this. I'll save you the trouble of searching the archives. It was 'staehler'. I found his work in Australia, which was copied, and wrong. I asked him, he admitted it and agreed to remove it. Months later I found more of his work elsewhere in Australia, again flagrantly wrong, because I was doing survey work on the ground. He then tried to lay the blame on others for not having reverted his work for him (Frederick Ramm, actually). Australian mappers - mostly Rosscoe, carefully unpicked his Australian work. When I have looked through staehler changesets I see that he has mapped in many continents. So for procedural fairness, all of his work should go. His name is public on these lists, with my name pointing him out as copying, and copying from Google, as that was the only place with those wrong street names. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What the license change is going to do to the map
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 12:43:42 -0500 Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Joseph Reeves iknowjos...@gmail.com wrote: But that's got nothing to do with the licensing change - that's an issue of you ripping off Google Maps. It has nothing at all to do with me ripping off Google Maps. And regardless of the *reason* the contributions are deleted, the *impact* is going to be the same. Bottom line, due to the board's utter lack of comprehension with regard to copyright law, they have deemed it necessary to decimate the map. That's true of the ODbL switch, and that's true of the deletion of my contributions. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.0748lon=-82.5394zoom=14layers=M I don't think it is related to copying from google maps either. I have had public and private correspondence with a mapper who had copied inaccurate stuff from GoogleMaps from his armchair in another continent. After months Australian mappers have removed most of the tainted data from the Australian continent because the mapper was not able / willing to do so. It required two public challenges to get action on the matter. Other work by that mapper covers other areas well away from his home and is also likely to have had the same source- could the Board please just remove all that mappers edits too? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[talk-au] time change on bing
obvious time change between two sets of photos here http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2cp=-31.607381813961595~143.33909511566418lvl=17dir=0sty=hwhere1=Wilcannia%2C%20NSWq=Wilcannia%20NSW ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] (magical?) road detector
I will be very happy to hear of any complaints/requests/places where you think the detector should work but it fails/any other feedback. Thanks, Ido I've made one attempt only at tracing a dirt road in dry country with the detector. I found its usefulness less than zero, as the system told me that too many tiles were involved and quit. Zooming in is not always practical to spot these roads, where the pattern recognition is a very long straight feature on a photograph, and same colour as the surrounds for a dirt road in dry country, and a dark colour for a railway. Having spotted the road then it is easier to find in zoomed images when looking for curved bits through (dry) waterways. I went back to doing it by hand, so for me it had a uselessness of less than zero. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Relicensing per changeset?
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 13:45:52 -0500 Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: A small thing perhaps, but the next step requested by the board prior to 31 March is Phase 3, which adds the decline option to the current accept option. I expect that the improved CTs (1.2.4) will be available at the same time, pending the required translations. March 31 is not a switch over date, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan In that case I've missed some meeting minutes, because that is not what I last read. Mushroom theory confirmed. My understanding (shared by some others) was that Phase 3 was to start 1st April 2011, that is if not accepting new terms, no editing. the Implementation Plan referenced above doesn't seem to have adding the Decline button in it, but it is an important step. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] magical road detector to play with
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 21:19:17 +0200 Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: For example, when you spider the web and find references to 5, 20 and 48 Lion Street, Pretoria, then it may help the user who is mapping that street. Perhaps it's a cul de sac and now he doesn't need to travel all the way down it to see where the range ends. the real estate sites are excellent for the names of new streets, the number ranges etc. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OT] questionario su diritto d'autore nell'era digitale
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 01:38:02 +0100 Maurizio Napolitano napoo...@gmail.com wrote: My spoken Italian is much better than my written Italian, which isn't any advertisement, so I used Google translate http://tinyurl.com/6emlz6h ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
