Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
It's So Funny has not copied your data here, he has simply modified it (in this case, changing highway=residential to highway=unclassified). When the redaction bot is unleashed, if you have still not accepted the CTs (do you have a particular reason not to?), this data will be deleted. There is no problem here. Thanks Tom Davie On 29 May 2012, at 06:06, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.984706lon=4.351842zoom=18layers=M Look at Caracasstraat ! (among others in the region). Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com] Verzonden: maandag 28 mei 2012 21:53 Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen CC: talk@openstreetmap.org; osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!! On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: [ ... ] However, it was not meant that the data were simply to be copied, deleted and re-pasted into the map using a fake account. True. Copy / pasting is not the same as remapping from permitted sources. Could you provide a link or ID to one of the nodes, ways or relations that concern you? ___ 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] OSM : It's a shame !!!
On 2012-05-29 08:41, Thomas Davie wrote: It's So Funny has not copied your data here, he has simply modified it (in this case, changing highway=residential to highway=unclassified). When the redaction bot is unleashed, if you have still not accepted the CTs (do you have a particular reason not to?), this data will be deleted. There is no problem here. It's So Funny changed a way that was created by CeesW on 2012-01-09: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/144917597/history The previous way was deleted by CeesW in the same changeset. http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/7539781/history So the person to confront would be CeesW, not It's So Funny. Offending changeset seems to be http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10345339 Regards, Maarten On 29 May 2012, at 06:06, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.984706lon=4.351842zoom=18layers=M Look at Caracasstraat ! (among others in the region). Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com] Verzonden: maandag 28 mei 2012 21:53 Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen CC: talk@openstreetmap.org; osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!! On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: [ ... ] However, it was not meant that the data were simply to be copied, deleted and re-pasted into the map using a fake account. True. Copy / pasting is not the same as remapping from permitted sources. Could you provide a link or ID to one of the nodes, ways or relations that concern you? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
I've sent CeesW a message asking him to join the discussion here. Most of his other edits seem legit, but the comment on this changeset is somewhat remarkable: ... data reconciliation ODbl. Let's hope he explains himself. Greets, Floris Looijesteijn On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2012-05-29 08:41, Thomas Davie wrote: It's So Funny has not copied your data here, he has simply modified it (in this case, changing highway=residential to highway=unclassified). When the redaction bot is unleashed, if you have still not accepted the CTs (do you have a particular reason not to?), this data will be deleted. There is no problem here. It's So Funny changed a way that was created by CeesW on 2012-01-09: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/144917597/history The previous way was deleted by CeesW in the same changeset. http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/7539781/history So the person to confront would be CeesW, not It's So Funny. Offending changeset seems to be http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10345339 Regards, Maarten On 29 May 2012, at 06:06, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.984706lon=4.351842zoom=18layers=M Look at Caracasstraat ! (among others in the region). Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com] Verzonden: maandag 28 mei 2012 21:53 Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen CC: talk@openstreetmap.org; osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!! On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: [ ... ] However, it was not meant that the data were simply to be copied, deleted and re-pasted into the map using a fake account. True. Copy / pasting is not the same as remapping from permitted sources. Could you provide a link or ID to one of the nodes, ways or relations that concern you? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
On 2012-05-29 09:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 5/29/2012 3:00 AM, Maarten Deen wrote: On 2012-05-29 08:41, Thomas Davie wrote: It's So Funny has not copied your data here, he has simply modified it (in this case, changing highway=residential to highway=unclassified). When the redaction bot is unleashed, if you have still not accepted the CTs (do you have a particular reason not to?), this data will be deleted. There is no problem here. It's So Funny changed a way that was created by CeesW on 2012-01-09: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/144917597/history The previous way was deleted by CeesW in the same changeset. http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/7539781/history So the person to confront would be CeesW, not It's So Funny. Offending changeset seems to be http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10345339 I don't see anything wrong with CeesW's change either: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history AND has accepted the CT. The only thing cetest did was change unclassified to residential. This was kept by CeesW, but the whole area is a residential landuse, so I see no problem with that tag. The official stance from AND is that the data in the OSM database on march 1 2010 can be used under ODbL, but previously not-entered data from the original dataset is also not allowed to enter OSM under ODbL. That clarification came on april 5th (discussed on talk-nl): http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-nl/2012-April/013870.html This is months after the changes made by CeesW. So his actions (deleting and recreating) were extremly premature, in hindsight unnecessary and can be called strange at any point in time. You'd almost think it was an error on his part, but deleting and recreating the same ways in the one changeset does not support that view very much. Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
Apparently this ownership is more complex then at first sight. A way is defined by its nodes and its tags. Maarten only took a look at the tags. cetest did not only add a residential tag, but created the nodes (Version 1) that defines this particular way with GPS acquired data, later assisted by satellite data, even before Bing became available. way data: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history Nodes data (just one) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/44729547/history The whole area is full of this type of copyright breaches, and I did not investigate anywhere else. Next topic of action: Analyzing the bicycle routes that I personally biked (GPS available, though not uploaded) through large parts of the south west in Holland, will show if the new author actually drove the route, copied the data that I created, or just took the GPX files from the fietsersbond. Regards Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Maarten Deen [mailto:md...@xs4all.nl] Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:11 AM Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!! On 2012-05-29 09:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 5/29/2012 3:00 AM, Maarten Deen wrote: On 2012-05-29 08:41, Thomas Davie wrote: It's So Funny has not copied your data here, he has simply modified it (in this case, changing highway=residential to highway=unclassified). When the redaction bot is unleashed, if you have still not accepted the CTs (do you have a particular reason not to?), this data will be deleted. There is no problem here. It's So Funny changed a way that was created by CeesW on 2012-01-09: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/144917597/history The previous way was deleted by CeesW in the same changeset. http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/7539781/history So the person to confront would be CeesW, not It's So Funny. Offending changeset seems to be http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10345339 I don't see anything wrong with CeesW's change either: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history AND has accepted the CT. The only thing cetest did was change unclassified to residential. This was kept by CeesW, but the whole area is a residential landuse, so I see no problem with that tag. The official stance from AND is that the data in the OSM database on march 1 2010 can be used under ODbL, but previously not-entered data from the original dataset is also not allowed to enter OSM under ODbL. That clarification came on april 5th (discussed on talk-nl): http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-nl/2012-April/013870.html This is months after the changes made by CeesW. So his actions (deleting and recreating) were extremly premature, in hindsight unnecessary and can be called strange at any point in time. You'd almost think it was an error on his part, but deleting and recreating the same ways in the one changeset does not support that view very much. Regards, Maarten ___ 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] OSM : It's a shame !!!
If I remember correctly (someone correct me if I don't), a lawyer has agreed that it's okay to keep node positions and ways where a user would reasonably have created the same way from an ODbL compatible data source. So for example, in this case, the user could reasonably create the exact same way by tracing bing, and hence is fine in terms of copyright breach. The less destructive way to do this would be to simply mark the way as odbl=clean rather than deleting the original and creating a new one with the same node positions though. Thanks Tom Davie On 29 May 2012, at 09:43, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: Apparently this ownership is more complex then at first sight. A way is defined by its nodes and its tags. Maarten only took a look at the tags. cetest did not only add a residential tag, but created the nodes (Version 1) that defines this particular way with GPS acquired data, later assisted by satellite data, even before Bing became available. way data: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history Nodes data (just one) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/44729547/history The whole area is full of this type of copyright breaches, and I did not investigate anywhere else. Next topic of action: Analyzing the bicycle routes that I personally biked (GPS available, though not uploaded) through large parts of the south west in Holland, will show if the new author actually drove the route, copied the data that I created, or just took the GPX files from the fietsersbond. Regards Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Maarten Deen [mailto:md...@xs4all.nl] Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:11 AM Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!! On 2012-05-29 09:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 5/29/2012 3:00 AM, Maarten Deen wrote: On 2012-05-29 08:41, Thomas Davie wrote: It's So Funny has not copied your data here, he has simply modified it (in this case, changing highway=residential to highway=unclassified). When the redaction bot is unleashed, if you have still not accepted the CTs (do you have a particular reason not to?), this data will be deleted. There is no problem here. It's So Funny changed a way that was created by CeesW on 2012-01-09: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/144917597/history The previous way was deleted by CeesW in the same changeset. http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/7539781/history So the person to confront would be CeesW, not It's So Funny. Offending changeset seems to be http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10345339 I don't see anything wrong with CeesW's change either: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history AND has accepted the CT. The only thing cetest did was change unclassified to residential. This was kept by CeesW, but the whole area is a residential landuse, so I see no problem with that tag. The official stance from AND is that the data in the OSM database on march 1 2010 can be used under ODbL, but previously not-entered data from the original dataset is also not allowed to enter OSM under ODbL. That clarification came on april 5th (discussed on talk-nl): http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-nl/2012-April/013870.html This is months after the changes made by CeesW. So his actions (deleting and recreating) were extremly premature, in hindsight unnecessary and can be called strange at any point in time. You'd almost think it was an error on his part, but deleting and recreating the same ways in the one changeset does not support that view very much. Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
On 2012-05-29 10:43, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: Apparently this ownership is more complex then at first sight. A way is defined by its nodes and its tags. Maarten only took a look at the tags. cetest did not only add a residential tag, but created the nodes (Version 1) that defines this particular way with GPS acquired data, later assisted by satellite data, even before Bing became available. way data: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history Nodes data (just one) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/44729547/history Interesting. If you say you created them from GPS data, why do they have source=AND and an AND_nodes tag? That would be indicative of the AND import. But you did not import the AND data in that region by hand? The fact that the nodes were created on 2007-09-30 and the way was created on 2007-09-20 does indicate some editing. Regards, Maarten -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Maarten Deen [mailto:md...@xs4all.nl] Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:11 AM Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!! On 2012-05-29 09:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 5/29/2012 3:00 AM, Maarten Deen wrote: On 2012-05-29 08:41, Thomas Davie wrote: It's So Funny has not copied your data here, he has simply modified it (in this case, changing highway=residential to highway=unclassified). When the redaction bot is unleashed, if you have still not accepted the CTs (do you have a particular reason not to?), this data will be deleted. There is no problem here. It's So Funny changed a way that was created by CeesW on 2012-01-09: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/144917597/history The previous way was deleted by CeesW in the same changeset. http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/7539781/history So the person to confront would be CeesW, not It's So Funny. Offending changeset seems to be http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10345339 I don't see anything wrong with CeesW's change either: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history AND has accepted the CT. The only thing cetest did was change unclassified to residential. This was kept by CeesW, but the whole area is a residential landuse, so I see no problem with that tag. The official stance from AND is that the data in the OSM database on march 1 2010 can be used under ODbL, but previously not-entered data from the original dataset is also not allowed to enter OSM under ODbL. That clarification came on april 5th (discussed on talk-nl): http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-nl/2012-April/013870.html This is months after the changes made by CeesW. So his actions (deleting and recreating) were extremly premature, in hindsight unnecessary and can be called strange at any point in time. You'd almost think it was an error on his part, but deleting and recreating the same ways in the one changeset does not support that view very much. Regards, Maarten ___ 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] OSM : It's a shame !!!
At the time it was judged to be important to keep reference to the original and data. I remember copying lots of old AND tags onto my created roads. I think what should be leading here is the version number, as recorded by the server. Whatever excuse there may be, including reference to anonymous lawyers, it's simply a shame using cut and paste to change ownership of nodes and ways. It was me that basically change the majority of this area into a nice, well aligned and usable map from the mess (in terms of layout) we got from AND. It is up to the new author to use GPS or Bing and create a new way, using new nodes. That is the intend of OSM, it has always been that and it's not because some users are bad/lazy losers that cheating can be justified. Regards, Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Maarten Deen [mailto:md...@xs4all.nl] Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:04 AM Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!! On 2012-05-29 10:43, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: Apparently this ownership is more complex then at first sight. A way is defined by its nodes and its tags. Maarten only took a look at the tags. cetest did not only add a residential tag, but created the nodes (Version 1) that defines this particular way with GPS acquired data, later assisted by satellite data, even before Bing became available. way data: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history Nodes data (just one) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/44729547/history Interesting. If you say you created them from GPS data, why do they have source=AND and an AND_nodes tag? That would be indicative of the AND import. But you did not import the AND data in that region by hand? The fact that the nodes were created on 2007-09-30 and the way was created on 2007-09-20 does indicate some editing. Regards, Maarten -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Maarten Deen [mailto:md...@xs4all.nl] Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:11 AM Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!! On 2012-05-29 09:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 5/29/2012 3:00 AM, Maarten Deen wrote: On 2012-05-29 08:41, Thomas Davie wrote: It's So Funny has not copied your data here, he has simply modified it (in this case, changing highway=residential to highway=unclassified). When the redaction bot is unleashed, if you have still not accepted the CTs (do you have a particular reason not to?), this data will be deleted. There is no problem here. It's So Funny changed a way that was created by CeesW on 2012-01-09: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/144917597/history The previous way was deleted by CeesW in the same changeset. http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/7539781/history So the person to confront would be CeesW, not It's So Funny. Offending changeset seems to be http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10345339 I don't see anything wrong with CeesW's change either: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history AND has accepted the CT. The only thing cetest did was change unclassified to residential. This was kept by CeesW, but the whole area is a residential landuse, so I see no problem with that tag. The official stance from AND is that the data in the OSM database on march 1 2010 can be used under ODbL, but previously not-entered data from the original dataset is also not allowed to enter OSM under ODbL. That clarification came on april 5th (discussed on talk-nl): http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-nl/2012-April/013870.htm l This is months after the changes made by CeesW. So his actions (deleting and recreating) were extremly premature, in hindsight unnecessary and can be called strange at any point in time. You'd almost think it was an error on his part, but deleting and recreating the same ways in the one changeset does not support that view very much. Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
On 29 May 2012, at 10:15, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: At the time it was judged to be important to keep reference to the original and data. I remember copying lots of old AND tags onto my created roads. I think what should be leading here is the version number, as recorded by the server. Whatever excuse there may be, including reference to anonymous lawyers, it's simply a shame using cut and paste to change ownership of nodes and ways. It was me that basically change the majority of this area into a nice, well aligned and usable map from the mess (in terms of layout) we got from AND. It is up to the new author to use GPS or Bing and create a new way, using new nodes. That is the intend of OSM, it has always been that and it's not because some users are bad/lazy losers that cheating can be justified. I'm sorry that you feel it's cheating to take the path of least resistance to valid, ODbL licensed data, personally, I would rather this guy had taken a path of even less resistance – simply tagged the way odbl=clean. Thanks Tom Davie ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
That's some great imagery if he can read the name signs on that street... Greets, Floris Looijesteijn On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com wrote: If I remember correctly (someone correct me if I don't), a lawyer has agreed that it's okay to keep node positions and ways where a user would reasonably have created the same way from an ODbL compatible data source. So for example, in this case, the user could reasonably create the exact same way by tracing bing, and hence is fine in terms of copyright breach. The less destructive way to do this would be to simply mark the way as odbl=clean rather than deleting the original and creating a new one with the same node positions though. Thanks Tom Davie On 29 May 2012, at 09:43, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: Apparently this ownership is more complex then at first sight. A way is defined by its nodes and its tags. Maarten only took a look at the tags. cetest did not only add a residential tag, but created the nodes (Version 1) that defines this particular way with GPS acquired data, later assisted by satellite data, even before Bing became available. way data: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history Nodes data (just one) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/44729547/history The whole area is full of this type of copyright breaches, and I did not investigate anywhere else. Next topic of action: Analyzing the bicycle routes that I personally biked (GPS available, though not uploaded) through large parts of the south west in Holland, will show if the new author actually drove the route, copied the data that I created, or just took the GPX files from the fietsersbond. Regards Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Maarten Deen [mailto:md...@xs4all.nl] Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:11 AM Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!! On 2012-05-29 09:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 5/29/2012 3:00 AM, Maarten Deen wrote: On 2012-05-29 08:41, Thomas Davie wrote: It's So Funny has not copied your data here, he has simply modified it (in this case, changing highway=residential to highway=unclassified). When the redaction bot is unleashed, if you have still not accepted the CTs (do you have a particular reason not to?), this data will be deleted. There is no problem here. It's So Funny changed a way that was created by CeesW on 2012-01-09: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/144917597/history The previous way was deleted by CeesW in the same changeset. http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/7539781/history So the person to confront would be CeesW, not It's So Funny. Offending changeset seems to be http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10345339 I don't see anything wrong with CeesW's change either: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history AND has accepted the CT. The only thing cetest did was change unclassified to residential. This was kept by CeesW, but the whole area is a residential landuse, so I see no problem with that tag. The official stance from AND is that the data in the OSM database on march 1 2010 can be used under ODbL, but previously not-entered data from the original dataset is also not allowed to enter OSM under ODbL. That clarification came on april 5th (discussed on talk-nl): http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-nl/2012-April/013870.html This is months after the changes made by CeesW. So his actions (deleting and recreating) were extremly premature, in hindsight unnecessary and can be called strange at any point in time. You'd almost think it was an error on his part, but deleting and recreating the same ways in the one changeset does not support that view very much. Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
On 29 May 2012, at 10:27, Floris Looijesteijn wrote: That's some great imagery if he can read the name signs on that street... The fact that all the tags were ODbL safe had already been established – they were created by another user who had accepted. Thanks Tom Davie ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
On 29 May 2012, at 10:36, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: Off list ! No need to annoy the list with comments with suggestion on how to cheat even more. No, I'd rather keep it on list, as I'd really like people to know the quickest and best methods for keeping as much data as possible; keeping as much history as possible and keeping making progress with a great open map. I honestly don't care if one user considers the methods involved to be cheating because they're easier than another method. BTW I and FOSM and a few more would be happy in the end, because if all were like you ( I'll take a look at your edits later) OSM would soon stop to exist as the first lawyer would declare OdBL non applicable. Feel free to enjoy looking through massive piles of buildings and coastline rearrangement. Is your assertion here that FOSM would enjoy watching the destruction of a large, free, open database of map data? That doesn't exactly caste FOSM in the best light does it? I am stupid to advise OSM for free on how to keep their data really OdBL clean. No one asserted that you were stupid, you've made some pretty intelligent comments. Please don't spoil that by putting FOSM in a bad light and making rash ones now. Thanks Tom Davie ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
On 29 May 2012 11:28, Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 May 2012, at 10:27, Floris Looijesteijn wrote: That's some great imagery if he can read the name signs on that street... The fact that all the tags were ODbL safe had already been established – they were created by another user who had accepted. Acceptance of the Contributor Terms does *not* imply ODbL safety. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
I did not give you permission to share a private conversation on the list. That is also about copyrights, Davie. Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Thomas Davie [mailto:tom.da...@gmail.com] Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:43 AM Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen CC: talk Talk Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!! On 29 May 2012, at 10:36, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: Off list ! No need to annoy the list with comments with suggestion on how to cheat even more. No, I'd rather keep it on list, as I'd really like people to know the quickest and best methods for keeping as much data as possible; keeping as much history as possible and keeping making progress with a great open map. I honestly don't care if one user considers the methods involved to be cheating because they're easier than another method. BTW I and FOSM and a few more would be happy in the end, because if all were like you ( I'll take a look at your edits later) OSM would soon stop to exist as the first lawyer would declare OdBL non applicable. Feel free to enjoy looking through massive piles of buildings and coastline rearrangement. Is your assertion here that FOSM would enjoy watching the destruction of a large, free, open database of map data? That doesn't exactly caste FOSM in the best light does it? I am stupid to advise OSM for free on how to keep their data really OdBL clean. No one asserted that you were stupid, you've made some pretty intelligent comments. Please don't spoil that by putting FOSM in a bad light and making rash ones now. Thanks Tom Davie ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
On 29 May 2012 11:01, Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com wrote: If I remember correctly (someone correct me if I don't), a lawyer has agreed that it's okay to keep node positions and ways where a user would reasonably have created the same way from an ODbL compatible data source. I don't know if a lawyer has said that, but I think it's unlikely to apply to tracing from imagery, first because the node positions are so unlikely to match if recreated from imagery, and secondly because Potlatch, I think, now has a whole mode designed to get rid of original node positions and add new ones quickly. (It's still a huge simplification with many open questions -- what about the directionality of ways where the direction is not significant, i.e. no oneway=yes tag -- this information could constitute a protected database on its own but all the remapping methods retain such information.) Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
Hello, First of all, let me just say it is indeed impolite to share private conversation but I would love to see that tested in a court. That said, the whole point of people in FOSM waiting for OSM to fail is kind of annoying. I understand why the fork happened (doesn't mean that I agree with it); I understand why some people are reacting the way they do but I have to admit it is getting ridiculous. FOSM is a fork. It is a conscious statement that you wanted to break away. I am glad that you guys had that *freedom* in the first place (despite all the FUD that the new contributor terms won't allow forking) and I wish you the best of luck in this project as I wish the best of luck to other mapping projects like Common map for example. Now, you decided to leave the project so just leave it. I am not going to go to FOSM and ask for my data to be deleted playing on my moral right for example (even though sometimes I am seriously tempted to ask for my data to be removed out of exasperation due to the behaviour of some members of FOSM). If you strongly believe that ODbL won't stand the legal scrutiny, mount a legal challenge to it. Just do it. That said, you have to realize that ODbL is currently the licence that is being used more and more in France for OpenData and actually across the world having being reviewed by several legal departments. You may not agree with the way it was drafted but it seriously look like it has some legs. If you point out elements that have been copied, we will be happy to make sure that people is not copying from your data. Anyway up to a point, the data will be replaced and the very use of copyright on fact is tenuous at best. I think from that point of view, despite all the mistakes the foundation made during the process (we are after all volunteers), the foundation has shown lot of willingness to sort many issues; it just that at some points we can only agree to disagree hence why there was a fork. You are just trolling. You are not even constructive towards FOSM. From the way I look at it, FOSM is only a half hearted fork where there are only a few people actually contributing, the rest of them is just sulking that OSM didn't go their way. Maybe it is time to be more constructive towards the choice that you made. From that point of view, I really appreciate the work of some people in FOSM who are actually being constructive. In short, feel free to complain when your data is *REALLY* used wrongly. Else, put up or shut up regarding the ODbL. If you really believe that it is not going to work, mount a proper legal challenge. Emilie Laffray On 29 May 2012 10:53, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: I did not give you permission to share a private conversation on the list. That is also about copyrights, Davie. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
On Tuesday 29 May 2012, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: I did not give you permission to share a private conversation on the list. That is also about copyrights, Davie. Public interest defence trumps this. Next! robert. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
Emilie, I defend 2 legal interests: Mine : I invested time work and money, that I co-licensed under CC-by-SA to the previous OSM OSM: by keeping the OSM database clean of tainted data If you call that trolling .. Sometimes I think that people are called trolls because they defend statements other do not agree with. Sorry Emilie, it's a pity if that creates some loss of data, but you should take it like a man, and accept the consequences of the route OSM took. Put the liability on those who are responsible for that ! Gert Van: Emilie Laffray [mailto:emilie.laff...@gmail.com] Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:19 PM Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen CC: Thomas Davie; talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!! Hello, First of all, let me just say it is indeed impolite to share private conversation but I would love to see that tested in a court. That said, the whole point of people in FOSM waiting for OSM to fail is kind of annoying. I understand why the fork happened (doesn't mean that I agree with it); I understand why some people are reacting the way they do but I have to admit it is getting ridiculous. FOSM is a fork. It is a conscious statement that you wanted to break away. I am glad that you guys had that *freedom* in the first place (despite all the FUD that the new contributor terms won't allow forking) and I wish you the best of luck in this project as I wish the best of luck to other mapping projects like Common map for example. Now, you decided to leave the project so just leave it. I am not going to go to FOSM and ask for my data to be deleted playing on my moral right for example (even though sometimes I am seriously tempted to ask for my data to be removed out of exasperation due to the behaviour of some members of FOSM). If you strongly believe that ODbL won't stand the legal scrutiny, mount a legal challenge to it. Just do it. That said, you have to realize that ODbL is currently the licence that is being used more and more in France for OpenData and actually across the world having being reviewed by several legal departments. You may not agree with the way it was drafted but it seriously look like it has some legs. If you point out elements that have been copied, we will be happy to make sure that people is not copying from your data. Anyway up to a point, the data will be replaced and the very use of copyright on fact is tenuous at best. I think from that point of view, despite all the mistakes the foundation made during the process (we are after all volunteers), the foundation has shown lot of willingness to sort many issues; it just that at some points we can only agree to disagree hence why there was a fork. You are just trolling. You are not even constructive towards FOSM. From the way I look at it, FOSM is only a half hearted fork where there are only a few people actually contributing, the rest of them is just sulking that OSM didn't go their way. Maybe it is time to be more constructive towards the choice that you made. From that point of view, I really appreciate the work of some people in FOSM who are actually being constructive. In short, feel free to complain when your data is *REALLY* used wrongly. Else, put up or shut up regarding the ODbL. If you really believe that it is not going to work, mount a proper legal challenge. Emilie Laffray On 29 May 2012 10:53, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: I did not give you permission to share a private conversation on the list. That is also about copyrights, Davie. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
Hello, I will retract the troll bit as you seem actually to be enthusiastic but you seriously have to work on the perception that you give to people in the first place. Goodwill is something difficult enough to accrue in the first place. However, I will not retract the fact that I consider that you are a bit disingenuous in your behaviour. Emilie Laffray On 29 May 2012 11:48, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: Emilie, ** ** I defend 2 legal interests: ** ** Mine : I invested time work and money, that I co-licensed under CC-by-SA to the previous OSM OSM: by keeping the OSM database clean of tainted data ** ** ** ** If you call that trolling …… Sometimes I think that people are called trolls because they defend statements other do not agree with. ** ** Sorry Emilie, it’s a pity if that creates some loss of data, but you should take it like a man, and accept the consequences of the route OSM took. Put the liability on those who are responsible for that ! ** ** Gert ** ** ** ** ** ** *Van:* Emilie Laffray [mailto:emilie.laff...@gmail.com] *Verzonden:* Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:19 PM *Aan:* ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen *CC:* Thomas Davie; talk@openstreetmap.org *Onderwerp:* Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!! ** ** Hello, ** ** First of all, let me just say it is indeed impolite to share private conversation but I would love to see that tested in a court. That said, the whole point of people in FOSM waiting for OSM to fail is kind of annoying. I understand why the fork happened (doesn't mean that I agree with it); I understand why some people are reacting the way they do but I have to admit it is getting ridiculous. FOSM is a fork. It is a conscious statement that you wanted to break away. I am glad that you guys had that *freedom* in the first place (despite all the FUD that the new contributor terms won't allow forking) and I wish you the best of luck in this project as I wish the best of luck to other mapping projects like Common map for example. Now, you decided to leave the project so just leave it. I am not going to go to FOSM and ask for my data to be deleted playing on my moral right for example (even though sometimes I am seriously tempted to ask for my data to be removed out of exasperation due to the behaviour of some members of FOSM). If you strongly believe that ODbL won't stand the legal scrutiny, mount a legal challenge to it. Just do it. That said, you have to realize that ODbL is currently the licence that is being used more and more in France for OpenData and actually across the world having being reviewed by several legal departments. You may not agree with the way it was drafted but it seriously look like it has some legs. If you point out elements that have been copied, we will be happy to make sure that people is not copying from your data. Anyway up to a point, the data will be replaced and the very use of copyright on fact is tenuous at best. I think from that point of view, despite all the mistakes the foundation made during the process (we are after all volunteers), the foundation has shown lot of willingness to sort many issues; it just that at some points we can only agree to disagree hence why there was a fork.** ** You are just trolling. You are not even constructive towards FOSM. From the way I look at it, FOSM is only a half hearted fork where there are only a few people actually contributing, the rest of them is just sulking that OSM didn't go their way. Maybe it is time to be more constructive towards the choice that you made. From that point of view, I really appreciate the work of some people in FOSM who are actually being constructive. ** ** In short, feel free to complain when your data is *REALLY* used wrongly. Else, put up or shut up regarding the ODbL. If you really believe that it is not going to work, mount a proper legal challenge. ** ** Emilie Laffray On 29 May 2012 10:53, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: I did not give you permission to share a private conversation on the list. That is also about copyrights, Davie. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, First of all, let me just say it is indeed impolite to share private conversation but I would love to see that tested in a court. That said, the whole point of people in FOSM waiting for OSM to fail is kind of annoying. I think someone has given you the wrong impression about FOSM. It's a free-standing fork of OSM that differs only in that it continues to use CC-BY-SA. We consider this to be a better license for contributors and we feel that contributors are the most valuable part of the equation. Sadly, OSM does not appear to value or care for contributors interests as much as I once hoped it would. Nobody expects OSM to fail. I was the first to point out to Steve Coast, in 2006, that OSM was already an unstoppable train. Not even the stress caused by the license change could prevent it's success. I understand why the fork happened (doesn't mean that I agree with it); I understand why some people are reacting the way they do but I have to admit it is getting ridiculous. FOSM is a fork. In many ways OSM is the fork. It is the project that is unsatisified with the status-quo. Although it has not yet managed to publish anything under ODbL and I wouldn't bet money on it achieving that objective any time soon. It is a conscious statement that you wanted to break away. I am glad that you guys had that *freedom* in the first place (despite all the FUD that the new contributor terms won't allow forking) and I wish you the best of luck in this project as I wish the best of luck to other mapping projects like Common map for example. Now, you decided to leave the project so just leave it. We all have the same goals. Free and open mapping data. Your language suggests you are trying to push people away. While there is indeed a license fork, there has never been a need for a fork of the community. You will recognise many fosm contributors as being major characters in the OSM community. I am not going to go to FOSM and ask for my data to be deleted playing on my moral right for example (even though sometimes I am seriously tempted to ask for my data to be removed out of exasperation due to the behaviour of some members of FOSM). Please explain more about the behaviour of fosm members? We don't have members as such, but I get what you mean. As far as I can see fosm contributors are a very happy and contented bunch. Especially when compared to some of the rhetoric on this list. If you strongly believe that ODbL won't stand the legal scrutiny, mount a legal challenge to it. Just do it. That said, you have to realize that ODbL is currently the licence that is being used more and more in France for OpenData and actually across the world having being reviewed by several legal departments. You may not agree with the way it was drafted but it seriously look like it has some legs. If you point out elements that have been copied, we will be happy to make sure that people is not copying from your data. Anyway up to a point, the data will be replaced and the very use of copyright on fact is tenuous at best. I think from that point of view, despite all the mistakes the foundation made during the process (we are after all volunteers), the foundation has shown lot of willingness to sort many issues; it just that at some points we can only agree to disagree hence why there was a fork. You are just trolling. You are not even constructive towards FOSM. From the way I look at it, FOSM is only a half hearted fork where there are only a few people actually contributing, the rest of them is just sulking that OSM didn't go their way. There's nothing half-hearted about fosm. Many of the people involved in it have been working with OSM since the very early days and are unlikely to go away. Some of OSMs most prolific contributors now contribute exclusively to fosm. Maybe it is time to be more constructive towards the choice that you made. From that point of view, I really appreciate the work of some people in FOSM who are actually being constructive. In short, feel free to complain when your data is *REALLY* used wrongly. Else, put up or shut up regarding the ODbL. If you really believe that it is not going to work, mount a proper legal challenge. No doubt, if the license change and redaction is not handled properly then it will end up in the courts. We will all lose if that happens. The laywers will be the only ones that win from that outcome. Emilie Laffray On 29 May 2012 10:53, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: I did not give you permission to share a private conversation on the list. That is also about copyrights, Davie. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
Hello, Please, do not respond further to this thread. Any further comments will receive individual moderation. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron From: Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com To: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:43 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!! Hello, I will retract the troll bit as you seem actually to be enthusiastic but you seriously have to work on the perception that you give to people in the first place. Goodwill is something difficult enough to accrue in the first place. However, I will not retract the fact that I consider that you are a bit disingenuous in your behaviour. Emilie Laffray On 29 May 2012 11:48, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: Emilie, I defend 2 legal interests: Mine : I invested time work and money, that I co-licensed under CC-by-SA to the previous OSM OSM: by keeping the OSM database clean of tainted data If you call that trolling …… Sometimes I think that people are called trolls because they defend statements other do not agree with. Sorry Emilie, it’s a pity if that creates some loss of data, but you should take it like a man, and accept the consequences of the route OSM took. Put the liability on those who are responsible for that ! Gert Van:Emilie Laffray [mailto:emilie.laff...@gmail.com] Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:19 PM Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen CC: Thomas Davie; talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!! Hello, First of all, let me just say it is indeed impolite to share private conversation but I would love to see that tested in a court. That said, the whole point of people in FOSM waiting for OSM to fail is kind of annoying. I understand why the fork happened (doesn't mean that I agree with it); I understand why some people are reacting the way they do but I have to admit it is getting ridiculous. FOSM is a fork. It is a conscious statement that you wanted to break away. I am glad that you guys had that *freedom* in the first place (despite all the FUD that the new contributor terms won't allow forking) and I wish you the best of luck in this project as I wish the best of luck to other mapping projects like Common map for example. Now, you decided to leave the project so just leave it. I am not going to go to FOSM and ask for my data to be deleted playing on my moral right for example (even though sometimes I am seriously tempted to ask for my data to be removed out of exasperation due to the behaviour of some members of FOSM). If you strongly believe that ODbL won't stand the legal scrutiny, mount a legal challenge to it. Just do it. That said, you have to realize that ODbL is currently the licence that is being used more and more in France for OpenData and actually across the world having being reviewed by several legal departments. You may not agree with the way it was drafted but it seriously look like it has some legs. If you point out elements that have been copied, we will be happy to make sure that people is not copying from your data. Anyway up to a point, the data will be replaced and the very use of copyright on fact is tenuous at best. I think from that point of view, despite all the mistakes the foundation made during the process (we are after all volunteers), the foundation has shown lot of willingness to sort many issues; it just that at some points we can only agree to disagree hence why there was a fork. You are just trolling. You are not even constructive towards FOSM. From the way I look at it, FOSM is only a half hearted fork where there are only a few people actually contributing, the rest of them is just sulking that OSM didn't go their way. Maybe it is time to be more constructive towards the choice that you made. From that point of view, I really appreciate the work of some people in FOSM who are actually being constructive. In short, feel free to complain when your data is *REALLY* used wrongly. Else, put up or shut up regarding the ODbL. If you really believe that it is not going to work, mount a proper legal challenge. Emilie Laffray On 29 May 2012 10:53, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: I did not give you permission to share a private conversation on the list. That is also about copyrights, Davie. ___ 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] OSM : It's a shame !!!
The node referenced created by cetest will not survive redaction (and I assume the rest of data to be similar), and neither do the edits on the way indicate anything other than normal editing (see http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=7539781). I am slightly at a loss to see what exactly Gert is complaining about. Simon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
On 05/29/2012 12:48 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: Sorry Emilie, it’s a pity if that creates some loss of data, but you should take it like a man I'm afraid she won't. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
HI there, I thought FOSM was off topic, where are all the moderators to stop this thread? I never wanted to leave osm, osm made me leave. I never wanted to fork osm, osm forked itself to some new license. lets keep the facts straight, people just wanted to continue with the same system as before, osm is the one that changed. mike On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote: That said, the whole point of people in FOSM waiting for OSM to fail is kind of annoying. I understand why the fork happened (doesn't mean that I agree with it); I understand why some people are reacting the way they do but I have to admit it is getting ridiculous. FOSM is a fork. It is a conscious statement that you wanted to break away. I am glad that you guys had that *freedom* in the first place (despite all the FUD that the new contributor terms won't allow forking) and I wish you the best of luck in this project as I wish the best of luck to other mapping projects like Common map for example. -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
After having been banned from OSM for not signing the CT, my contributions, that have been well received by the community in the past have been removed by the april 1st license shift. The Foundation has called anyone in the community to reduce lost by remapping the concerned areas. However, it was not meant that the data were simply to be copied, deleted and re-pasted into the map using a fake account. This seems to be the case however, where my contributions were shamelessly copied and pasted back into the map. Of course I kept a dump from before april 1st where my name is linked to a number of roads in a specific area showing I denied the CT. And if I download the same area in OSM of today I find that this area has NOT been changed for a fraction of an inch. The old and new area projected on different layers in JOSM fit exactly on each other, even at the highest magnification available (15 cm = 1 inch on screen) The user involved is called It's so funny and I believe that fake account with obfuscated characters was not chosen for nothing, because it cannot be retrieved in OSM, at least not using JOSM Show info , and osm.org does not provide a contact info (otherwise I would have contacted this user first). However, it means that the current copy of the OSM database is not ODBL compliant anymore because parts of it remain clearly CC-by-SA , and these areas are plain copies of the work I carried out. This is sooo low. OSM, how low can you get ! Providing all the tools to check for ODBL compatibility and accepting copy and paste just like that by any stupid looser contributor. Why is there no tool for checking on copy paste copyright infringement... Because no-one meant to check on that ? user: cetest Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl www.cetest.nl Kiotoweg 363 3047 BG Rotterdam T 31(0)104152426 F 31(0)104154953 Before printing, think about the environment. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: [ ... ] However, it was not meant that the data were simply to be copied, deleted and re-pasted into the map using a fake account. True. Copy / pasting is not the same as remapping from permitted sources. Could you provide a link or ID to one of the nodes, ways or relations that concern you? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
Hi Gert, First, I'd like to make a semantic point – you were not banned from OSM for not signing up to the CTs, you are still welcome to contribute, as long as you contribute in a way that's compatible with the new license. More importantly though, what's happened here is absolutely reprehensible. They've violated your copyright, and endangered the whole project. Do you have a link to the changeset in which your data has been copied? I'm sure people will be more than willing to revert the change, and construct data from the sources we can use. Thanks Tom Davie On 28 May 2012, at 20:42, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: After having been banned from OSM for not signing the CT, my contributions, that have been well received by the community in the past have been removed by the april 1st license shift. The Foundation has called anyone in the community to reduce lost by remapping the concerned areas. However, it was not meant that the data were simply to be copied, deleted and re-pasted into the map using a fake account. This seems to be the case however, where my contributions were shamelessly copied and pasted back into the map. Of course I kept a dump from before april 1st where my name is linked to a number of roads in a specific area showing I denied the CT. And if I download the same area in OSM of today I find that this area has NOT been changed for a fraction of an inch. The old and new area projected on different layers in JOSM fit exactly on each other, even at the highest magnification available (15 cm = 1 inch on screen) The user involved is called “ It’s so funny” and I believe that fake account with obfuscated characters was not chosen for nothing, because it cannot be retrieved in OSM, at least not using JOSM “Show info” , and osm.org does not provide a contact info (otherwise I would have contacted this user first). However, it means that the current copy of the OSM database is not ODBL compliant anymore because parts of it remain clearly CC-by-SA , and these areas are plain copies of the work I carried out. This is sooo low….. OSM, how low can you get ! Providing all the tools to check for ODBL compatibility and accepting copy and paste just like that by any stupid looser contributor. Why is there no tool for checking on copy paste copyright infringement… Because no-one meant to check on that ? user: cetest Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl www.cetest.nl Kiotoweg 363 3047 BG Rotterdam T 31(0)104152426 F 31(0)104154953 Before printing, think about the environment. ___ 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] OSM : It's a shame !!!
I was under the impression that OSM is riddled with data that is not .odbl compliant. In some of my personal mapping my sources may not have been fully personal observation which is more or less what I understand .odbl requirements to be which is why I requested my contributions be deleted since I couldn't remember absolutely which were which. My more recent updates are .odbl compliant. The CANVEC imports I did could be quickly redone. In fact I note that some bright spark has been reimporting CANVEC 7 information over CANVEC 6 so suddenly there are lots of duplicates that the bots don't pick up because the source is different. Cheerio John On 28 May 2012 15:53, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: [ ... ] However, it was not meant that the data were simply to be copied, deleted and re-pasted into the map using a fake account. True. Copy / pasting is not the same as remapping from permitted sources. Could you provide a link or ID to one of the nodes, ways or relations that concern you? ___ 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] OSM : It's a shame !!!
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 7:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: Why is there no tool for checking on copy paste copyright infringement… I have some stuff in the works, but it is taking a long time to process all this data. but dont worry, anyone who is copying and pasting will be caught. mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
At 2012-05-28 12:42, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: After having been banned from OSM for not signing the CT, my contributions, that have been well received by the community in the past have been removed by the april 1st license shift. No. I don't understand why the responses so far haven't mentioned the most glaring reason for this. The license-compliance redaction has not yet begun! Even your data that haven't been touched still remain because they have not yet begun the process of removing the non-compliant data (thankfully). -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.984706lon=4.351842zoom=18layers=M Look at Caracasstraat ! (among others in the region). Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com] Verzonden: maandag 28 mei 2012 21:53 Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen CC: talk@openstreetmap.org; osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!! On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: [ ... ] However, it was not meant that the data were simply to be copied, deleted and re-pasted into the map using a fake account. True. Copy / pasting is not the same as remapping from permitted sources. Could you provide a link or ID to one of the nodes, ways or relations that concern you? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
