Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: It is our main page and a closed project on the main page of OSM IMHO doesn't suit well. IMHO, a closed project on the main page is a good thing. What is the purpose of the OSM web site? It is partly to provide a way for end-users to view a map (although we provide a much simpler experience than other sites), but it is also to show people what can be done with OSM data. Those two goals have overlapped at times, but IMO the latter is more important: showcasing useful and innovative things that have been done with OSM data is more important than trying to split ourselves into open (terms and conditions will apply) and not. -dair ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Hi, Richard Fairhurst wrote: So I don't want OSM to get into arguments about opener than thou - Ok, then let's not use open. Let's just say some things (where you can look at how they're done as opposed to not being told) are better than others. Or is there anyone who disagrees - anyone who thinks it is better if we are not told how something works? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Dair Grant wrote: showcasing useful and innovative things that have been done with OSM data is more important than trying to split ourselves into open (terms and conditions will apply) and not. If it is there to show what can be done with OSM data, it does a very poor job. The only thing it shows is an inferior Google Map clone: pre-rendered tiles that cannot even be configured or modified in any meaningful way. It doesn't help to demonstrate the the advantages of having access to raw map *data* at all. In order to truly show what's possible, we would need to completely redesign that front page into a featured products catalogue that could list routing applications, Garmin converters, OSM clocks, renderers, paper maps and so on. This would, of course, include closed applications. As it is, that page doesn't really serve the purpose of presenting OSM products. Instead, it presents OSM data *itself* - with features such as changeset list, data layer, XML export, etc.. And for that purpose, we don't need closed rendering styles. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Hi, Frederik Ramm wrote: Ok, then let's not use open. Let's just say some things (where you can look at how they're done as opposed to not being told) are better than others. That was unnecessarily provocative, I admit. I think I will settle for the wording: relevant material available under free and open license And then wherever we list projects that use OSM data, just fill that out with a yes or no. I would like to make it more objective than free and open license, but if you put something like OSI license there then you focus too much on software, whereas the relevant material could also be a work of art licensed under CC. Plus, the wording free and open license is also what the OSMF license working group suggests for the ODbL contributor agreement, so it cannot be completely bogus, can it? (BTW I have no strong opinion on what to show on the main page and what not; I think it is ok to show non-open stuff on the main page but it should be made clear that it is non-open. If Google were to create a cool OSM based map rendering would we list it *without* pointing out that it is proprietary?) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: It needs to be one way or the other. Personally I think it _should_ be promoting map renderings, but on it's main map page it should be one that is truly open in the sense of OSM. This sense of OSM seems to have been redefined recently, to no longer mean community-based-mapping nor open-licensed-geo-data but instead something involving the software licences of whatever tool is used to process the data. Did I miss the memo? Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Tobias Knerr wrote: In order to truly show what's possible, we would need to completely redesign that front page into a featured products catalogue that could list routing applications, Garmin converters, OSM clocks, renderers, paper maps and so on. This would, of course, include closed applications. Sounds like a good idea. It doesn't have to be completely redesigned, just a link saying: And here's some other great ways in which OSM can be used... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM_based_Services Excuse my ignorance - OSM Clock? Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Dave F. wrote Tobias Knerr wrote: In order to truly show what's possible, we would need to completely redesign that front page into a featured products catalogue [...] It doesn't have to be completely redesigned, just a link saying: And here's some other great ways in which OSM can be used... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM_based_Services I'd prefer a somewhat nicer presentation than a raw table (and a more selective approach, the full list can always be accessible using a more ... link or something like that), but the wiki page would be a good first step. IIRC there already were some suggestions and designs a few months ago, either on this list or talk-de, but I'm currently unable to find them. Excuse my ignorance - OSM Clock? http://www.opengeodata.org/2009/11/25/openstreetmap-clocks/ Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: I think it's high time this was done. IMO, OCM should be removed from the main map options asked persuasively to rename themselves as they're not really open, are they? I'll ask you for one favour - when you are talking about me, please call me Andy and not some facessless entity. Not only is it polite, but it also makes things seem less hostile. As for the name, it was originally The OpenStreetMap Cycle Map and I pondered long and hard on the use of the word The in the title since that sounded a bit exclusive. Eventually I gave up worrying about it since there actually only *was* one OpenStreetMap-based cycling map and there's more important things in life to get on with. Then I wanted to move it out of my personal domain and the host I'd just signed up to gave me a free domain name with the package, so I tried www.ocm.org (as in the _OpenStreetMap _Cycle _Map) but of course it was taken so I setted for www.opencyclemap.org instead. It's a nice title for what it always has been, a cycle map based on OpenStreetMap data, and a daft play on the title of OpenStreetMap itself. And I started a trend, since many other projects based on OpenStreetMap data have since called themselves OpenWhateverMap too, and it's a shorthand for showing that these projects are based on OpenStreetMap in a geeky in-joke kind of way. But in the recent discussions on these lists nobody has actually enquired as to the meaning behind the name - nobody has asked me anything about it. Instead, people have invented their own false meanings behind it (that it's claiming to be open-source when it isn't), and then used those false meanings to go as far as petition me to change the name of my project, purely because they think it means something that it doesn't and they don't like it!? Unbelievable. Please, discussions should be as factual as we can make them, not based on rumours and myths. And I'm here and willing to answer questions *when asked*. On the subject of whether it's on the front-page of osm.org or not, again I think people who don't know the reasons behind it have invented their own (well, certainly nobody asked me for the truth). I agreed that it could be added, and that I would find a way to cover the costs (considerably more now than when I agreed to it), because it was a great example of the possibilities of OpenStreetMap data. It's not there to promote opencyclemap.org, as others have suggested - if it was, then wouldn't that theory be more plausible if there was a link, or even the name of the layer was opencyclemap? Sheesh. It's there to show off Open*Street*Map, to inspire people as to the possibilities of single-purpose custom renderings, and to show that OSM can be used with height data (an unsurprisingly common question). If you were to *ask me* about the front page, I'd want to see other layers being added - öpvnkarte for starters - but there are still few people willing/able to make global layers and find the (financial) resources to make them available. Calling on removing the cycle map layer - not because it sucks, not because it brings the project into disrepute, not because it can't handle the load, but instead purely because you have a difference of opinion on how important it is to have access to the stylesheets - well, that's the biggest case of cutting your nose off to spite your face that I've seen in a long while. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: As for the name, it was originally The OpenStreetMap Cycle Map and I pondered long and hard on the use of the word The in the title since that sounded a bit exclusive. Eventually I gave up worrying about it since there actually only *was* one OpenStreetMap-based cycling map and there's more important things in life to get on with. Then I wanted to move it out of my personal domain and the host I'd just signed up to gave me a free domain name with the package, so I tried www.ocm.org (as in the _OpenStreetMap _Cycle _Map) but of course it was taken so I setted for www.opencyclemap.org instead. It's a nice title for what it always has been, a cycle map based on OpenStreetMap data, and a daft play on the title of OpenStreetMap itself. And I started a trend, since many other projects based on OpenStreetMap data have since called themselves OpenWhateverMap too, and it's a shorthand for showing that these projects are based on OpenStreetMap in a geeky in-joke kind of way. Right, while I've got the soapbox out, (and while I'm not feeling as ill as I was over the last few days), let me do a bit more explaining about OpenCycleMap and its openness. I make the styles for OpenCycleMap. Just me. Dave helps out with the backend stuff that makes it all work, but I can point to the cartography and say I did that. And I like the fact that the colours are all mine, and so on, and I get enjoyment from it. It's my little project and my little claim to fame. I'm happy to listen to people who have suggestions for changes, but I don't want to disappoint people if they work on a patch and I don't want to accept it. And most of all, I don't want someone to make something that looks just like opencyclemap but with one or two changes and call it their own, or anyone to think that project B is mine when it isn't. Now people often come asking questions about how I made the cyclemap, and how I react depends on what they are doing. I've given people the stylesheets for the cyclemap before, so long as they aren't trying to make a rip-off. When people making other projects have asked how the transparency works, or how to do contours, or whatnot, I've explained how, and given them code if it helps them. So it's not like I'm figuring all this out and not giving back to the community - but I do it in a way that I'm happy with. And almost all of the cyclemap is in fact completely open-source - it's only really the choice of colours that isn't, and the void-filling code that isn't even mine to open-source. There was a topic recently about reverse-engineering the OpenCycleMap style. Please don't. We're standing on a great plain, 10,000km wide, of possibilities of using OpenStreetMap data. If I've cordoned off 5 square metres of that plain and I'm happy building sandcastles on my own then leave me in peace. If you have your own ideas about a cycling map based on OSM data, then I'd encourage you to make it; everything you need is available. And it's pretty easy to make another style that's better than OCM, or that takes a different approach, rather than simply deciding to copy my ideas. (As for the carefully-worded comment made in another thread that implied I would change the license of OCM, that's simply FUD. It'll stay CC-BY-SA even if OSM changes to ODbL.) I realise that for some people, this explanation will hold no water, and their righteous fury will still be burning. So what steps could you take to resolve the situation? You could ask for my reasons for keeping things under my hat (nobody did, but I've now told you anyway) and figure out if there is common ground - maybe some way of giving us both what we want. You could find out what is already open source - the osmosis tagtransform rules for OCM are PD, btw - not that anyone was asking. You could try to encourage or persuade me to change my mind - explain what would be the advantages from my side? Or you could cast scorn and hatred, righteous indignation and the like, spreading false rumours on the mailing lists and all that jazz, and make me feel like an outcast. I don't think that would be constructive, but who am I to say? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Hi, Andy Allan wrote: And most of all, I don't want someone to make something that looks just like opencyclemap but with one or two changes and call it their own But isn't that what is bound to happen? (At least if a fraction of the unhappiness about OCM translates in coding traction...) When people making other projects have asked how the transparency works, or how to do contours, or whatnot, I've explained how, and given them code if it helps them. So it's not like I'm figuring all this out and not giving back to the community - but I do it in a way that I'm happy with. That's about how I deal with my own proprietary things as well. And it's pretty easy to make another style that's better than OCM, or that takes a different approach, rather than simply deciding to copy my ideas. Well Richard F. tends to express things differently - at least he makes it sound as if creating a map (quote) as cartographically impressive, as technologically capable, and as downright _useful_ as OpenCycleMap is quite a feat. Small wonder that people think you must be hiding great secrets from them when you have such a wonderful product, and start talking about reverse engineering the stuff ;-) I have the lurking impression that some who call for OCM openness indeed are not so much after your methods and styles, but rather they want to have a say in how things get rendered (maybe force you to adhere to some Wiki vote!). That is, of course, out of the question and something we don't have on any OSM map - but somehow people seem to be able to work with it; I've never seen much scorn poured on the makers of the main Mapnik map even though they wouldn't accept any random patch either. (It would be interesting to set up a mechanism that allows a group of people to modify a Mapnik stylesheet, automatically, by votes, but not for the purpose of creating a good map.) explain what would be the advantages from my side? I think you probably have release more than enough open stuff to know about the motivations of doing so ;-) But I agree that once people start to *demand* you release something, that motivation tends to shrivel. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Richard, In my view, what matters is someone's _overall_ contribution to OSM, not their unquestioning adherence to the doctrine of free. I am not talking about classifying *people* into properly open and proprietary - I wanted to classify *projects*. The author of, say, openmtbmap can be the nicest guy major OSM contributor; if openmtbmap is - for whatever valid reason - not open in the sense of letting everyone else look into and use openmtbmap, then we should very clearly make this distinction, rather than act as if openmtbmap were as open as OpenStreetMap itself. The same author may have other projects which are properly open and which we would of course praise as such. Faced with one person who makes an enormous contribution to OSM, but chooses to keep one aspect of their contributions closed-source; and another whose main contribution is a lot of wiki voting, but has sent two preset patches, assiduously annotated with some inordinate licence preamble in capital letters - well, I couldn't criticise the former or deny them any respect. And applying pressure rather smacks of that Proper attribution lynch mob. I think it is really important to not take this to the personal level. Just because user X does something propietary with OSM data doesn't mean that he is less of a nice guy. However (on the other hand) just because he is a nice guy doesn't mean that something proprietary he produces should be treated as if it was part of the family. I'm doing business with OSM and I'm not ashamed to say that some things I do are proprietary. Others are open. I don't expect my proprietary stuff to feature prominently on the OSM web pages. I would not feel ostracised if OSM makes the distinction, saying about some these are cool projects that share the OSM spirit of openness and we fully embrace recommend them and about others these are other projects/services using OSM data but they are non-free. Hey, I managed a whole post about Not-properly-Open without mentioning the GPL. ...oh crap. Well, of course in my mind I'm not making the distinction between a) free/open and b) proprietary, but between a**) absolutely free and not requiring to sell your soul to RMS, a) free/open if you sell your soul, b) proprietary. But I felt that was too much to recommend in one go. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Dave F. wrote: John Smith wrote: 2010/1/2 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: I think it's high time this was done. IMO, OCM should be removed from the main map options asked persuasively to rename themselves as they're not really open, are they? What do you suggest they rename to? FreeCycleMap? :) Yeah, why not? Is there a wiki page that lists all the sites that use OSM data. I think OCM should be put there. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Frederik Ramm wrote: Just because user X does something propietary with OSM data doesn't mean that he is less of a nice guy. However (on the other hand) just because he is a nice guy doesn't mean that something proprietary he produces should be treated as if it was part of the family. But what's the family? People have written open-source OSM apps for closed platforms (Windows, OS X) and runtimes (Flash Player and formerly Java). Others spend time reverse-engineering closed formats (.img) for closed hardware (Garmin). I suspect the site JS has some hacks to make it render properly on (the closed-source) Internet Explorer. You could argue, and there are some reading this list who do, that these are therefore non-free and shouldn't be included in the OSM family. OSM's raison-d'etre is free geodata. Nothing else. If we start getting doctrinal about how we think people should interact with the data, I think OSM, as a project, becomes more insular and less viable. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Am 02.01.2010 14:57, schrieb Richard Fairhurst: Frederik Ramm wrote: Just because user X does something propietary with OSM data doesn't mean that he is less of a nice guy. However (on the other hand) just because he is a nice guy doesn't mean that something proprietary he produces should be treated as if it was part of the family. But what's the family? People have written open-source OSM apps for closed platforms (Windows, OS X) and runtimes (Flash Player and formerly Java). Others spend time reverse-engineering closed formats (.img) for closed hardware (Garmin). I suspect the site JS has some hacks to make it render properly on (the closed-source) Internet Explorer. You could argue, and there are some reading this list who do, that these are therefore non-free and shouldn't be included in the OSM family. This argument is a bit pointless, as you cannot draw the line where to stop it. Your graphic card BIOS is probably closed source, your harddisk BIOS is probably closed source, ... ;-) The question for me is simply: Does the project open it's *own* work or not? OSM's raison-d'etre is free geodata. Nothing else. If we start getting doctrinal about how we think people should interact with the data, I think OSM, as a project, becomes more insular and less viable. For me it's not about how people should interact, but just to make it clear what's open (in the sense of open source) and what is not. A good example: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Map_On_Garmin#Software has a column License, which makes it pretty clear. A bad example: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Map_On_Garmin/Download has no such column and it's a hassle to find out, which of the projects are open and which are not. Hint: a lot are not :-( Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
FreeCycleMap? :) Yeah, why not? What's your definition of Free? Beer, speech or freedom? Following your argument we'd have to call it NoUpFrontFinancialCostToTheUser(ApartFromBandwidth)CycleMap Or we channel the communities abilities into mapping rather than arguing about this ;-) 2010/1/2 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: John Smith wrote: 2010/1/2 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: I think it's high time this was done. IMO, OCM should be removed from the main map options asked persuasively to rename themselves as they're not really open, are they? What do you suggest they rename to? FreeCycleMap? :) Yeah, why not? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Joseph Reeves wrote: FreeCycleMap? :) Yeah, why not? What's your definition of Free? Beer, speech or freedom? Following your argument we'd have to call it NoUpFrontFinancialCostToTheUser(ApartFromBandwidth)CycleMap Or we channel the communities abilities into mapping rather than arguing about this ;-) I don't see how free speech is relevant in this case so - free beer. It can be called whatever they like - MyCycleMap perhaps. It doesn't have to declare itself in the name - explain what it's source is in an 'About...' dialog box along with an explanation about what it's keeping hidden. But, remove it from the main page where it appears comparable with OSM in the open sense, which it clearly isn't. My abilities have spent much time mapping over the previous week so I'm quite happy now, pointing out things that I think are out of proportion. Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
2010/1/2 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com But, remove it from the main page where it appears comparable with OSM in the open sense, which it clearly isn't. +1, IMHO it should not be an option on the main map page as it is less open than OSM. Instead we could have other projects there, that are as open as OSM (and that preferably cover the whole planet, don't know how much of those there are at the moment). I agree with Frederik that this is a discussion about the project, not about Andy and his other contributions. It is our main page and a closed project on the main page of OSM IMHO doesn't suit well. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: +1, IMHO it should not be an option on the main map page as it is less open than OSM. Instead we could have other projects there, that are as open as OSM (and that preferably cover the whole planet, don't know how much of those there are at the moment). Right. When you've come up with a map that's as cartographically impressive, as technologically capable, and as downright _useful_ as OpenCycleMap, come back and ask again, won't you? To me the front page of OSM seems like the ideal place to demonstrate look, this is what having open data enables you to do. But, hey, maybe fundamentalism is the in thing for 2010. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open-%28was%3A-Re%3A--Talk-GB--Yet-another-trunk-road-query---A495%29-tp26989214p26995050.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Sarah, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: More of (a) would be lovely. Speaking of it, is the source code behind the OSM Inspector available somewhere? It might provide very instructive to see how you do the data processing. There's nothing special about the inspector itself and if anyone is interested we can probably release that (just a bunch of Javascript and Mapserver style files). The data files which OSMI uses are somewhat of a side product of our Geofabrik-internal, daily gobble up data and process it into all sorts of things our customers want job. This job is not Open-anything (not only does nobody get the source, nobody gets a binary either); it would currently be a major pain to separate the stuff for paying customers bit from the stuff for OSMI bit. I have updated the OSMI wiki page accordingly. My main objective with this thread was a desire make it clear what is open and what isn't, and I hope the OSMI is now a good example of that. But since you ask about the data processing; what we basically do is convert OSM data into our own format (which is not much different from CSV) and then use all sorts of utilities to convert it into whatever we need. This is a constantly evolving process, and early on we heavily relied on PostGIS for processing, but found that too clumsy and we're now moving away from PostGIS for as many things as possible. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Hi, first of all, I wasn't intending this to become an opencyclemap bashing thread. I wasn't even aware that there is something non-open about opencyclemap; I was prompted by your quote of openmtbmap. I didn't have a hidden agenda - I'm not saying we should try to shame non-open solutions into submission. There are good and valid reasons for people to do things non-open. Your argument about flash players and JVMs leads nowhere; I am not talking about openness of the target infrastructure but openness of the process. If I let you see and use all aspects of my work but you still need to buy a processor from Intel in order to practically use my work, that does not make my work less open. Maybe instead of trying to define what counts as open, we could more easily say what is not open. If someone gives me a map rendered from OSM, but doesn't give me the style sheets or rule files or whatever so that I can see how he arrived at this map, then that map is most certainly not open. The process is secret. The map maker has maybe spent a lot of time figuring things out, and enjoys writing books or speaking at conferences about the cool aspects of his map that others cannot yet match, or tries to sell his consulting expertise. And it is his right to do so; and you are right in saying that in many cases such a non-open map will benefit the project more than no map at all. But that doesn't change the fact that the map is not open, and that others in the project who want to compete with that map will have to go through the same learning curve again instead of being offered the chance to stand on the shoulders of giants. But, hey, maybe fundamentalism is the in thing for 2010. I wonder why you seem so fundamentally opposed to what I'm saying. The OSM mission statement contains the idea of [using geodata] in creative, productive, or unexpected ways. There can be no doubt that someone who makes his stylesheet and processes available for others to build on acts in this spirit. It seems that my suggestion has conjured up images of some kind of openness police that will hunt down anyone who does something non-open, together with a mega-infectuous share-alike license that says that the second you even look at anything to do with OSM you have to upload your brain hard disk to Richard Stallman. (Or should that now be Jordan ;-) I assure you that this is not the case. As you know, I'm a PD advocate. Software I write, and data I contribute, is usually PD. As such, I tend to rely more on community norms and less on legal stuff: I make my things available for everyone, and I welcome it if others do the same. I will not hate someone who does not make his things available like I do, but I will probably be more willing to help a fellow free software author than someone who does proprietary stuff. All I'm trying to do is introduce proper labeling - what is open and what isn't - and create a little incentive for people to share the cool stuff they do with OSM. An incentive - not a rule. Sharing something is often more than just uploading it to SVN. You have to put in a bit of documentation, remove that commented-out code over there, polish the whole thing a little bit for its public appearance. Maybe even remove the drats, I don't know what this option does but it doesn't work without comments as they make you look silly ;-) That is extra work - work you don't have to do if you keep your stuff secret. All I want is to give people something in return - something like you get a silver star if you make a cool OSM-based application, and you get a gold star if you share it. I think it is good and right to make this distinction. I don't feel that this warrants the fundamentalism battle cry. Maybe some won't buy food labeled organic and others won't buy food not labeled so; but that doesn't make proper labeling fundamentalistic. Proper labeling is just that! As someone else pointed out, it is sometimes quite difficult to find out exactly how open something is. If everyone who announced some cool new OSM map or OSM editor or OSM web site could be encouraged to specify exactly which bits of his application are open and which aren't, that would make many things easier. The Garmin map page that Ulf mentioned, where you have a green/red source available column, is very much what I was thinking of - maybe green/red is too harsh and it should indeed be gold/silver, but the table overall does not create the impression that the non-open stuff is somehow despicable. If something like that could be made a habit in OSM - call a spade a spade, and say where something is open and where it has little black boxes full of secrets, that would go a long way to making me happy in this respect. (I'll review mentionings of Geofabrik services on the Wiki and amend them accordingly.) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
2010/1/3 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: The Garmin map page that Ulf mentioned, where you have a green/red source available column, is very much what I was thinking of - maybe green/red is too harsh and it should indeed be gold/silver, but the table overall does not create the impression that the non-open stuff is somehow despicable. Here is another such list: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM_based_Services Cheers Colin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: +1, IMHO it should not be an option on the main map page as it is less open than OSM. Instead we could have other projects there, that are as open as OSM (and that preferably cover the whole planet, don't know how much of those there are at the moment). Right. When you've come up with a map that's as cartographically impressive, as technologically capable, and as downright _useful_ as OpenCycleMap, come back and ask again, won't you? This is a classic example of someone whingeing after they were expecting to be lauded with praise palm leaves, as they rode through the city on a donkey, for doing something that no one told them or expected them to do. At the first sign of criticism they get all offended. When you've come up with a map that's as cartographically impressive, as technologically capable, and as downright _useful_ as OpenCycleMap, No one on this thread actually criticized OCM on this level, but since you bring it up I would say it's distinctly average: I mean, who, when planning a ride is desperate to deliver a letter to a letter box? It doesn't display at level 18 which can lead to confusion in city centres. It doesn't display the difference between paths footways. Bicycle parking labels on given a number of spaces if greater than 20. Personally I think knowing the number of smaller bike racks would be as, if not, more useful. It doesn't display certain areas such as leisure=nature_reserve Oh! it's not open so that others who want to help improve it can contribute. The one thing that is decent is the contour rendering. To me the front page of OSM seems like the ideal place to demonstrate look, this is what having open data enables you to do. But, hey, maybe fundamentalism is the in thing for 2010. We keep on being told in these forums that OSM is _not_ a map making exercise, that it is purely a database for making maps. Yet, in big letters on the front page it says Show me the map - get out of my way! It needs to be one way or the other. Personally I think it _should_ be promoting map renderings, but on it's main map page it should be one that is truly open in the sense of OSM. Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Frederik Ramm wrote: Your argument about flash players and JVMs leads nowhere; I am not talking about openness of the target infrastructure but openness of the process. I know you're not. Nonetheless neither you nor I have a monopoly on defining open. People on this list have, in the past, regretted that OSM is viewable on non-free browsers, and that the source code for routing software using OSM data does not have to be released (in an AGPL style). There are people who feel that OSM absolutely should not have a Flash-based editor on the Edit tab. I don't agree with them, but that's not to say they're wrong and I'm right. So I don't want OSM to get into arguments about opener than thou - gold stars or silver stars or the purple raspberry of Bad Closed Source No Donut. You have one definition; I have another; so does everyone on this list. We won't agree. If we start imposing additional demands over and above open geodata, then we shall talk ourselves to death as Google buries us with our own confusion. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
John Smith wrote: 2010/1/2 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: I think it's high time this was done. IMO, OCM should be removed from the main map options asked persuasively to rename themselves as they're not really open, are they? What do you suggest they rename to? FreeCycleMap? :) Yeah, why not? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Dave F. wrote: John Smith wrote: 2010/1/2 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: I think it's high time this was done. IMO, OCM should be removed from the main map options asked persuasively to rename themselves as they're not really open, are they? What do you suggest they rename to? FreeCycleMap? :) Yeah, why not? Is there a wiki page that lists all the sites that use OSM data. I think OCM should be put there. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Joseph Reeves wrote: FreeCycleMap? :) Yeah, why not? What's your definition of Free? Beer, speech or freedom? Following your argument we'd have to call it NoUpFrontFinancialCostToTheUser(ApartFromBandwidth)CycleMap Or we channel the communities abilities into mapping rather than arguing about this ;-) I don't see how free speech is relevant in this case so - free beer. It can be called whatever they like - MyCycleMap perhaps. It doesn't have to declare itself in the name - explain what it's source is in an 'About...' dialog box along with an explanation about what it's keeping hidden. But, remove it from the main page where it appears comparable with OSM in the open sense, which it clearly isn't. My abilities have spent much time mapping over the previous week so I'm quite happy now, pointing out things that I think are out of proportion. Cheers Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open (was: Re: [Talk-GB] Yet another trunk road query - A495)
Hi, I'm breaking this out of talk-gb and into talk. Richard Fairhurst wrote: Sadly [the openmtbmap author] refuses to open-source his code (http://openmtbmap.org/faq/#i-would-like-to-have-a-look-into-the-style-file-for-mkgmap), which is entirely his prerogative but a shame nonetheless. Maybe it is time for us at OSM to make a distinction between (a) open projects in the sense and spirit of OSM, where scripts, style files, and everything else is open and license-wise available for everyone to look at and build upon, and (b) proprietary projects, whether of commercial or private nature, which we are still happy to have using our data and which we will still linkt to and all, but which we do not consider part of the family. We cannot, and do not want to, trademark the words open, free and the like, but I think we could be a little bit more assertive about whom we consider to be a kindred spirit and who is doing his own thing, and apply the tiniest amount of pressure for people to upgrade from (b) to (a). I think many of us will be surprised how many cool OSM projects actually fall into the (b) category. To make it absolutely clear, this is not about forcing anyone to do anything, about licenses or anything - it is just about saying loud and clear what we like, and giving those who do what we like a pat on the back while telling those who don't that we would respect their great work even more if they were open like us. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open (was: Re: [Talk-GB] Yet another trunk road query - A495)
2010/1/2 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Maybe it is time for us at OSM to make a distinction between (a) open projects in the sense and spirit of OSM, where scripts, style files, and everything else is open and license-wise available for everyone to look at and build upon, and (b) proprietary projects, whether of commercial or private nature, which we are still happy to have using our data and which we will still linkt to and all, but which we do not consider part of the family. As a proud member of the (a) category[1], I'm all for it :) Cheers Colin 1 - http://mapnik-utils.googlecode.com/svn/sandbox/cascadenik/hike_n_bike/, http://gitorious.org/alpha-hillshading/alpha-hillshading/trees/master ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, I'm breaking this out of talk-gb and into talk. Richard Fairhurst wrote: Sadly [the openmtbmap author] refuses to open-source his code (http://openmtbmap.org/faq/#i-would-like-to-have-a-look-into-the-style-file-for-mkgmap), which is entirely his prerogative but a shame nonetheless. Maybe it is time for us at OSM to make a distinction between (a) open projects in the sense and spirit of OSM, where scripts, style files, and everything else is open and license-wise available for everyone to look at and build upon, and (b) proprietary projects, whether of commercial or private nature, which we are still happy to have using our data and which we will still linkt to and all, but which we do not consider part of the family. I think it's high time this was done. IMO, OCM should be removed from the main map options asked persuasively to rename themselves as they're not really open, are they? Fredrick - I think this needs a separate new topic. Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Colin Marquardt wrote: As a proud member of the (a) category[1], I'm all for it :) Cheers Colin 1 - http://mapnik-utils.googlecode.com/svn/sandbox/cascadenik/hike_n_bike/, http://gitorious.org/alpha-hillshading/alpha-hillshading/trees/master Err.. Sorry Colin, I read the readme other files but it looks like gobbledy-gook to me. Is there an explanation anywhere of what these do? Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
2010/1/2 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: I think it's high time this was done. IMO, OCM should be removed from the main map options asked persuasively to rename themselves as they're not really open, are they? What do you suggest they rename to? FreeCycleMap? :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Frederik Ramm wrote: We cannot, and do not want to, trademark the words open, free and the like, but I think we could be a little bit more assertive about whom we consider to be a kindred spirit and who is doing his own thing, and apply the tiniest amount of pressure for people to upgrade from (b) to (a). I think many of us will be surprised how many cool OSM projects actually fall into the (b) category. To make it absolutely clear, this is not about forcing anyone to do anything, about licenses or anything - it is just about saying loud and clear what we like, and giving those who do what we like a pat on the back while telling those who don't that we would respect their great work even more if they were open like us. Hm, maybe. But YMMV on what we like. In my view, what matters is someone's _overall_ contribution to OSM, not their unquestioning adherence to the doctrine of free. Faced with one person who makes an enormous contribution to OSM, but chooses to keep one aspect of their contributions closed-source; and another whose main contribution is a lot of wiki voting, but has sent two preset patches, assiduously annotated with some inordinate licence preamble in capital letters - well, I couldn't criticise the former or deny them any respect. And applying pressure rather smacks of that Proper attribution lynch mob. cheers Richard Hey, I managed a whole post about Not-properly-Open without mentioning the GPL. ...oh crap. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, I'm breaking this out of talk-gb and into talk. Richard Fairhurst wrote: Sadly [the openmtbmap author] refuses to open-source his code (http://openmtbmap.org/faq/#i-would-like-to-have-a-look-into-the-style-file-for-mkgmap), which is entirely his prerogative but a shame nonetheless. Maybe it is time for us at OSM to make a distinction between (a) open projects in the sense and spirit of OSM, where scripts, style files, and everything else is open and license-wise available for everyone to look at and build upon, and (b) proprietary projects, whether of commercial or private nature, which we are still happy to have using our data and which we will still linkt to and all, but which we do not consider part of the family. I think it's high time this was done. IMO, OCM should be removed from the main map options asked persuasively to rename themselves as they're not really open, are they? Fredrick - I think this needs a separate new topic. Cheers Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
