Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com wrote: This document implies UNICEF doesn't even know OSM exists, which is just as worring as them funding Google's map making Well, has anyone from OSM spoken to them? Is there any kind of outreach program? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
Hi! Am 31.12.2009 14:29, schrieb Anthony: Maybe, but while the supply of people willing to become mappers is limited, it isn't fixed. I took a quick look at GMM, and it looks to me like it's not a bad introductory class for potential OSM contributors. GMM doesn't offer anywhere near as many features as OSM, and given their business model it seems unlikely to me that they ever will. And then, even if they do, there would be nothing stopping someone from contributing to OSM and then importing their contributions additionally into GMM. I believe that GMM can be a serious competition to OSM if it is simpler to use, easier to learn and thus more inviting to the casual newcomer. With GMM you have one way of mapping a simple item e.g. a bicycle track. Everybody can do it in ten minutes, no questions arise. With OSM you have two major tools, a huge load of tags, a wiki, a forum, several mailing lists, three different answers to the question, long discussions, pages of contradictory documentation, plenty of old discussions and after working through all this, you realize that the question has not been resolved yet. I can see how many people would prefer the simple way offered by Google. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
Hi, Nop wrote: I can see how many people would prefer the simple way offered by Google. I can see that too, and I think it is perfectly ok. We do not have to be *the* world-wide collaborative mapping platform. Offering service to those who like it simple is costly, and I am not convinced that if we have a limited supply of time and money available it would be a wise investment to use that to get people who like things simple on board. I'm not saying these people have nothing to offer; I just doubt whether the whole enterprise would yield more than it consumes. Let Google teach them how to map, and if they grow interested and suddenly desire more (and are willing to accept the fact that being able to do more also means having to deal with more complexity), then they can come to OSM. 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] Countering Google's propaganda
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: I believe that GMM can be a serious competition to OSM if it is simpler to use, easier to learn and thus more inviting to the casual newcomer. I'm still not convinced that competition is the proper term for it. With GMM you have one way of mapping a simple item e.g. a bicycle track. Everybody can do it in ten minutes, no questions arise. With OSM you have two major tools, a huge load of tags, a wiki, a forum, several mailing lists, three different answers to the question, long discussions, pages of contradictory documentation, plenty of old discussions and after working through all this, you realize that the question has not been resolved yet. Only if you care. If you want simple, you click edit on potlatch, you draw the way, you click on the car until it turns into a bicycle, and you select cycle track. Then those of us on the mailing list write 1000 emails about whether or not you were right, but you probably don't even notice it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
Hi! Am 01.01.2010 15:48, schrieb Anthony: Only if you care. If you want simple, you click edit on potlatch, you draw the way, you click on the car until it turns into a bicycle, and you select cycle track. Then those of us on the mailing list write 1000 emails about whether or not you were right, but you probably don't even notice it. Not at first. But you note later, when your edit has been changed into something that you don't understand or someone sends you a notice to do it some other way. :-( bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
Hi, Nop wrote: Not at first. But you note later, when your edit has been changed into something that you don't understand or someone sends you a notice to do it some other way. :-( But doesn't that happen with GMM a lot as well? Or that your edit is rejected altogether? Do we really have reason to believe that the average GMM mapper feels more confident (because of the easy rules) than the average OSM mapper? 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] Countering Google's propaganda
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: But you note later, when your edit has been changed into something that you don't understand or someone sends you a notice to do it some other way. :-( 1) I really don't think someone who wants simple is going to check back later to see whether or not the tags have changed. 2) I don't think they're going to care. I know I've had some roads I've made changed from secondary to primary or primary to secondary or something like that, and it doesn't bother me at all. I don't understand the whole primary/secondary/tertiary thing, so I'm happy when others fix my errors. 3) Hopefully that notice to do it some other way is friendly and helpful. If not, it's a whole different problem, which I'm not sure exists. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com wrote: And that's just fine, GMM getting more users doesn't make OSM worse. But there is a limited supply of people willing to become mappers. I see it as a case of market share (between GMM and OSM). I don't think that either Google or OSM are anywhere near exhausting that limited supply. When we have, say, 100,000,000 contributors each, then it'll become a worry. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
This discussion is concentrating on the merits of Google, but I am more concerned about the involvement of UNICEF and their apparent decision to encourage people to create mapping data for Google. I assume UNICEF has a variety of 'mapping data' or POI that it would like to see freely available, and surely UNICEF should have seen OSM has the best organisation to hold that data? A search of UNICEF's website shows some of UNICEF's views on mapping. Its a GIS related pdf (1.5Mb - July 09), which mentions several internet map suppliers, but not OSM. http://www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/files/2009_Global_DevInfo_Fina.pdf This document implies UNICEF doesn't even know OSM exists, which is just as worring as them funding Google's map making My view is the OSM foundation or some other official OSM group should be contacting and creating relationships with UNICEF (and others such organisations). If in the future they decide to once again sponsor Google's map making, they at least should be justifying why they are not supporting putting mapping data in the public domain. Importantly OSM and UNICEF would benefit from working together. Jason ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com wrote: And that's just fine, GMM getting more users doesn't make OSM worse. But there is a limited supply of people willing to become mappers. I see it as a case of market share (between GMM and OSM). I don't think that either Google or OSM are anywhere near exhausting that limited supply. When we have, say, 100,000,000 contributors each, then it'll become a worry. Maybe, but while the supply of people willing to become mappers is limited, it isn't fixed. I took a quick look at GMM, and it looks to me like it's not a bad introductory class for potential OSM contributors. GMM doesn't offer anywhere near as many features as OSM, and given their business model it seems unlikely to me that they ever will. And then, even if they do, there would be nothing stopping someone from contributing to OSM and then importing their contributions additionally into GMM. If that becomes something people might be interested in, all OSM would have to do is offer an easy way to export just one contributors contributions, in whatever format GMM uses for imports (right now I don't see anything, but in this hypothetical GMM has gotten it together and started offering the same features as OSM). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
2009/12/31 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com: This discussion is concentrating on the merits of Google, but I am more concerned about the involvement of UNICEF and their apparent decision to encourage people to create mapping data for Google. I assume UNICEF has a variety of 'mapping data' or POI that it would like to see freely available, and surely UNICEF should have seen OSM has the best organisation to hold that data? A search of UNICEF's website shows some of UNICEF's views on mapping. Its a GIS related pdf (1.5Mb - July 09), which mentions several internet map suppliers, but not OSM. http://www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/files/2009_Global_DevInfo_Fina.pdf This document implies UNICEF doesn't even know OSM exists, which is just as worring as them funding Google's map making My view is the OSM foundation or some other official OSM group should be contacting and creating relationships with UNICEF (and others such organisations). If in the future they decide to once again sponsor Google's map making, they at least should be justifying why they are not supporting putting mapping data in the public domain. Importantly OSM and UNICEF would benefit from working together. I emailed the author of the PSU course page on which the report bases the decision to support Google technologies, to let him know about OpenStreetMap. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com wrote: And that's just fine, GMM getting more users doesn't make OSM worse. But there is a limited supply of people willing to become mappers. I see it as a case of market share (between GMM and OSM). I don't think that either Google or OSM are anywhere near exhausting that limited supply. When we have, say, 100,000,000 contributors each, then it'll become a worry. Maybe, but while the supply of people willing to become mappers is limited, it isn't fixed. I took a quick look at GMM, and it looks to me like it's not a bad introductory class for potential OSM contributors. GMM doesn't offer anywhere near as many features as OSM, and given their business model it seems unlikely to me that they ever will. And then, even if they do, there would be nothing stopping someone from contributing to OSM and then importing their contributions additionally into GMM. If that becomes something people might be interested in, all OSM would have to do is offer an easy way to export just one contributors contributions, in whatever format GMM uses for imports (right now I don't see anything, but in this hypothetical GMM has gotten it together and started offering the same features as OSM). Just another thing that can be implemented in XAPI, extract type of feature by user to format of choise. The posibilities are there. Now how do we go about features that have been edited by multiple users? Will user A who added the road before B's edit accept B exporting it to GMM? Would C's edit after B's edit but before B's export make a difference? Does it matter that C have donated his data to PD or not? All issues like that must be handled before such export function fully implemented. And since GMM suports fewer features than OSM, than there are no point in doing a full export either. The point must be that OSM benefits from the data too, and I guess that giving people who want to contribute to the two projects the ability to do so with only one edit of the data this opertunity, than the one offering such export features will have the higher gain. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
Gervase Markham wrote: Oh, there's every chance it will be adopted. The issues with this clause have been raised on various discussion lists, but it doesn't look like there's going to be any change. Don't be too pessimistic! Matt and I hammered away at this one on IRC just before Christmas (*scrolls back*... looks like 22nd December) and we reckon we found a fix. Obviously it's up to OSMF what they decide to put in front of people, but I'm hopeful they'll adopt it. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Countering-Google%27s-propaganda-tp26827195p26971336.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] Countering Google's propaganda
Many here fail to see one of the weaknesses of GMM, maybe because they don't live in the areas not covered. GMM is not editable over the entire world, there are countries where all contributions will be verified (how?) before accepted on the live map, and countries that are completely closed for edits. A couple of months ago I tried to register on GMM to see how the tools was and completely failed, why? The register page said that my area was locked for edits (showing a completely blank map of the area), so I started to browse the help pages, which confirmed it, GMM is not editable worldwide, AND your ability to contribute are depending on your registered home country. OSM on the other hand are open to everybody to contribute everywhere from anywhere. I heard some say that you are limited to only a few types of roads and POIs in GMM, OSM have no limit in theory, though people are encouraged to settle on standard tags (which we can alter the definitions of or add more if we like), and have more types of data rendered on the live map if desired. I think that the limitations of GMM and the diversity of OSM will work as benefits and limits for both, some will be drawn to GMM while other to OSM, of various reasons. Instead of bashing on about Google do this and Google do that, why not try to see how we can improve OSM standing, so that more people will be drawn to OSM? Get more apps to use OSM, improve global coverage, get more usage of the wikipedia extension, whatever that make people aware of our qualities. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com wrote: And that's just fine, GMM getting more users doesn't make OSM worse. But there is a limited supply of people willing to become mappers. I see it as a case of market share (between GMM and OSM). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Aun Johnsen li...@gimnechiske.org wrote: Instead of bashing on about Google do this and Google do that, ... It's still interesting (for some) to keep an eye on what other projects are doing... why not try to see how we can improve OSM standing, so that more people will be drawn to OSM? Get more apps to use OSM, improve global coverage, get more usage of the wikipedia extension, whatever that make people aware of our qualities. +1 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote: And that's just fine, GMM getting more users doesn't make OSM worse. But there is a limited supply of people willing to become mappers. I see it as a case of market share (between GMM and OSM). I don't always believe in the benefits of competition to the world, but there are benefits in having competition, for both GM and OSM. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, John Smith wrote: That's Liz's dept, B*gg* I've lost the thread of this argument what am i supposed to be doing next? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
On Friday 18 Dec 2009 1:54:54 pm Liz wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, John Smith wrote: That's Liz's dept, B*gg* I've lost the thread of this argument what am i supposed to be doing next? slang goog - they are now saying that python sucks -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Senior Project Officer NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 3:57 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: The reduce the map frame size and put the ad along the bottom of the map, also when taking a screen shot of this they also add ads on the left hand pane. http://img193.imageshack.us/i/googleadsc.png/ Hmm, I can't get that bottom ad to appear, but it looks like searches like Melbourne or Sydney trigger that sidebar ad. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
2009/12/17 Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org The quality of OpenStreetMap's work speaks for itself, but it seems that we need to speak about it too - especially now that Google is attempting to to appear as holding the moral high ground by using terms such as citizen cartographer that they rob of its meaning by conveniently forgetting to mention the license under which the contributed data is held. But in the eye of the public, the $5 UNICEF donation to the home country of the winner of the Map Maker Global Challenge lets them appear as charitable citizens. We need to explain why it is a fraud, so that motivated aspiring cartographers are not tempted to give away their souls for free. I could understand that they sell it, but giving it to Google for free is a bit too much - we must tell them. I'm pretty sure that good geographic data available to anyone for free will do more for the least developed communities than a 50k USD grant. I answered this piece at ReadWriteWeb and I suggest that you keep an eye for opportunities to answer this sort of propaganda against libre mapping : http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_announces_map_contest_50k_for_adding_school.php#comment-175013 You can add this link in terms of moral high ground: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-tools-for-copenhagen-and-beyond.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
2009/12/17 Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com: 2009/12/17 Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org The quality of OpenStreetMap's work speaks for itself, but it seems that we need to speak about it too - especially now that Google is attempting to to appear as holding the moral high ground by using terms such as citizen cartographer that they rob of its meaning by conveniently forgetting to mention the license under which the contributed data is held. But in the eye of the public, the $5 UNICEF donation to the home country of the winner of the Map Maker Global Challenge lets them appear as charitable citizens. We need to explain why it is a fraud, so that motivated aspiring cartographers are not tempted to give away their souls for free. I could understand that they sell it, but giving it to Google for free is a bit too much - we must tell them. I'm pretty sure that good geographic data available to anyone for free will do more for the least developed communities than a 50k USD grant. I answered this piece at ReadWriteWeb and I suggest that you keep an eye for opportunities to answer this sort of propaganda against libre mapping : http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_announces_map_contest_50k_for_adding_school.php#comment-175013 You can add this link in terms of moral high ground: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-tools-for-copenhagen-and-beyond.html What a pity the whole basis for Copenhagen is a complete and utter sham, it's true global warming is man made, the moment some men started fudging the figures and lying about anything that disagreed with political agendas. Sure the world is warming, but probably not much more than the sun is increasingly outputing (0.7C per century)... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
2009/12/17 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: What a pity the whole basis for Copenhagen is a complete and utter sham, it's true global warming is man made, the moment some men started fudging the figures and lying about anything that disagreed with political agendas. Sure the world is warming, but probably not much more than the sun is increasingly outputting (0.7C per century)... Sorry, I forgot to add the magic word for people to google to find out the truth of it all: climategate... Even the Russians are now coming out and complaining about data being cherry picked to support political agendas... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:24 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: What a pity the whole basis for Copenhagen is a complete and utter sham, it's true global warming is man made, the moment some men started fudging the figures and lying about anything that disagreed with political agendas. Hi, can you take this to OSM-rants or something? Thanks. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
On Thursday 17 December 2009, John Smith wrote: What a pity the whole basis for Copenhagen is a complete and utter sham, it's true global warming is man made, the moment some men started fudging the figures and lying about anything that disagreed with political agendas. Sure the world is warming, but probably not much more than the sun is increasingly outputing (0.7C per century)... Oh look another non-scientist giving his authoritative opinions about climate science. THIS is what I want to hear on osm-talk. robert. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
Hi, Robert Scott wrote: Oh look another non-scientist giving his authoritative opinions about climate science. THIS is what I want to hear on osm-talk. I'd love to hear about the nationality of the US president, the veracity of the moon landing, and chemtrails as well. Oh, and someone in Ireland has just released a motor that produces more energy than it consumes. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
2009/12/17 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Hi, Robert Scott wrote: Oh look another non-scientist giving his authoritative opinions about climate science. THIS is what I want to hear on osm-talk. I'd love to hear about the nationality of the US president, the veracity of the moon landing, and chemtrails as well. Oh, and someone in Ireland has just released a motor that produces more energy than it consumes. You left out cold fusion, and nukes in the upper atmosphere... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
2009/12/17 Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk: On Thursday 17 December 2009, John Smith wrote: What a pity the whole basis for Copenhagen is a complete and utter sham, it's true global warming is man made, the moment some men started fudging the figures and lying about anything that disagreed with political agendas. Sure the world is warming, but probably not much more than the sun is increasingly outputing (0.7C per century)... Oh look another non-scientist giving his authoritative opinions about climate science. Well highschool students couldn't do much worst than some of the code the scientists came up with, hell they should have been given a failing mark on statistics to boot. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: The quality of OpenStreetMap's work speaks for itself, but it seems that we need to speak about it too - especially now that Google is attempting to to appear as holding the moral high ground by using terms such as citizen cartographer that they rob of its meaning by conveniently forgetting to mention the license under which the contributed data is held. By submitting User Submissions to the Service, you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display, distribute, and create derivative works of the User Submission. Nuff said. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
Frederik Ramm wrote: Oh, and someone in Ireland has just released a motor that produces more energy than it consumes. Apart from the massive D cell powering it, you mean? http://blogs.zdnet.co.uk/news-blog/#10014630 -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: The quality of OpenStreetMap's work speaks for itself, but it seems that we need to speak about it too - especially now that Google is attempting to to appear as holding the moral high ground by using terms such as citizen cartographer that they rob of its meaning by conveniently forgetting to mention the license under which the contributed data is held. By submitting User Submissions to the Service, you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display, distribute, and create derivative works of the User Submission. Compared to: You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. Most potential contributors will not read much beyond that and will likely conclude that there's not much to choose between Google and OSM anyway. And at least they've heard of Google... 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:41 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.orgwrote: The quality of OpenStreetMap's work speaks for itself, but it seems that we need to speak about it too - especially now that Google is attempting to to appear as holding the moral high ground by using terms such as citizen cartographer that they rob of its meaning by conveniently forgetting to mention the license under which the contributed data is held. By submitting User Submissions to the Service, you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display, distribute, and create derivative works of the User Submission. Compared to: You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. There's a big difference between giving rights only to Google and giving them to everyone. And the text you quote is only Draft 0.9. Considering that it's tantamount to requiring everyone to declare their contributions as public domain, I find it hard to imagine it'll be adopted. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
Instead of trying to counter the googlespeak wouldn't it be better to think about why they feel the need to do this kind of thing in the first place rather than sponsoring an OSM based venture. Similarly, why are companies like waze trying to start from scratch rather than using our data for realtime mashups? If it is because of the license then we should take the opportunity to make sure our new license is friendly to these kind of applications and uses as what is the point of creating a free map if only a minority of people are ever going to see it. Kevin 2009/12/17 Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org The quality of OpenStreetMap's work speaks for itself, but it seems that we need to speak about it too snip ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
2009/12/18 Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.com: If it is because of the license then we should take the opportunity to make sure our new license is friendly to these kind of applications and uses as what is the point of creating a free map if only a minority of people are ever going to see it. They want to be able to sell map data without giving anything away of real worth to anyone else, which if we wanted to support this kind of activity we would just spend out time giving data to Google for free. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
2009/12/17 Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org: held. But in the eye of the public, the $5 UNICEF donation to the home country of the winner of the Map Maker Global Challenge lets them SteveC has already mentioned this, but offering financial insentives, even if people can't profit from them directly, is most likely going to cause a lot of copyright infringement, I just started wondering how much of OSM's DB is going copied en mass to google as a result of this. Is anyone planning to keep an eye on this and/or file DCMA notices with Google for data copied into their database? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:53 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/12/18 Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.com: If it is because of the license then we should take the opportunity to make sure our new license is friendly to these kind of applications and uses as what is the point of creating a free map if only a minority of people are ever going to see it. They want to be able to sell map data without giving anything away of real worth to anyone else, which if we wanted to support this kind of activity we would just spend out time giving data to Google for free. Aw c'mon, Google Maps doesn't giv[e] anything away of real worth to anyone? Tell that to the millions of people who use it on a daily basis. A high quality, high performance, extremely reliable mapping platform. We all have ideological reasons for preferring OSM, but let's not kid ourselves: Google has a great product which they give away for free. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
2009/12/18 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: Aw c'mon, Google Maps doesn't giv[e] anything away of real worth to anyone? Tell that to the millions of people who use it on a daily basis. A high quality, high performance, extremely reliable mapping platform. That is one aspect of maps, but not the only aspect. The real worth is in the data, by hoarding they limit what you can do with the information underlying the tiles. We all have ideological reasons for preferring OSM, but let's not kid ourselves: Google has a great product which they give away for free. Erm lets not kid ourselves, they don't give it away, they use it to push advertising. The only revenue stream Google has been truly successful at is pulling in advertising dollars. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
2009/12/18 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: 2009/12/18 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: Aw c'mon, Google Maps doesn't giv[e] anything away of real worth to anyone? Tell that to the millions of people who use it on a daily basis. A high quality, high performance, extremely reliable mapping platform. That is one aspect of maps, but not the only aspect. The real worth is in the data, by hoarding they limit what you can do with the information underlying the tiles. We all have ideological reasons for preferring OSM, but let's not kid ourselves: Google has a great product which they give away for free. Erm lets not kid ourselves, they don't give it away, they use it to push advertising. The only revenue stream Google has been truly successful at is pulling in advertising dollars. Oh and your comments only apply to individuals, it costs a lot of money to license google tech for biz purposes, same can't be said for OSM... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 2:43 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: That is one aspect of maps, but not the only aspect. The real worth is in the data, by hoarding they limit what you can do with the information underlying the tiles. Uh...you're preaching to the choir, dude. Of course they hoard, of course that limits what you can do with the data - but that doesn't make them evil. We all have ideological reasons for preferring OSM, but let's not kid ourselves: Google has a great product which they give away for free. Erm lets not kid ourselves, they don't give it away, they use it to push advertising. A free magazine with advertising is still free. Free to air TV is still free. I'm not sure what your point is. The only revenue stream Google has been truly successful at is pulling in advertising dollars. Whereas if they made money selling maps, you would forgive them? So much hate... Oh and your comments only apply to individuals, it costs a lot of money to license google tech for biz purposes, same can't be said for OSM... Let me rephrase your argument: 1) OSM is better than Google 2) Therefore Google is teh devil. Like I said, no one around here will disagree with you on 1). But 2) does not follow. So they have proprietary data, which they sell (or give away with advertising) for profit. What, you're hating all businesses now? Remember, the only statement I was taking exception to was the notion that G provides nothing of value. When clearly millions of people would disagree with you. Just concede the damn point and we'll get back to arguing other stupid stuff. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
2009/12/18 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: Uh...you're preaching to the choir, dude. Of course they hoard, of course that limits what you can do with the data - but that doesn't make them evil. I never said hoarding was evil, I said it was greedy... A free magazine with advertising is still free. Free to air TV is still free. I'm not sure what your point is. You said they gave it away for free, but in the process your privacy is being eroded, mind you people give their passwords away for pens so most people probably will never understand or care about the consequences until it effects them personally in a negative way. Whereas if they made money selling maps, you would forgive them? So much hate... That's Liz's dept, I don't hate google for giving away maps, but please stop using the word free it's too ambiguous, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to mega corps... 1) OSM is better than Google 2) Therefore Google is teh devil. No, google is evil because of their lack of respect for privacy, you really need to stop trying to claim I think their evil because they give map tiles away to individuals. Like I said, no one around here will disagree with you on 1). But 2) does not follow. So they have proprietary data, which they sell (or give away You are the one push #2, stop putting words in my mouth, I may have issues with google but it's not for the reasons you are implying. with advertising) for profit. What, you're hating all businesses now? Again, you are putting words in my mouth, I have no problems with most of the companies involved with OSM, they all seems to support OSM in return one way or another. Remember, the only statement I was taking exception to was the notion that G provides nothing of value. When clearly millions of people would disagree I didn't say nothing of value, again putting words in my mouth and taking my comments out of context. I said nothing of real value, map tiles may have some inherient value but that isn't where the real value is, it's in the raw data and they most definently don't give that away for the most part. with you. Just concede the damn point and we'll get back to arguing other stupid stuff. Again you are implying stuff I never said, you need to refine your comments to what has been said not what you think I was implying... My comment was about them not releasing raw data, map tiles are only of limited use and is very limiting in terms of what could creatively be accomplished with real mash ups, not the limited subset google allows so they can push their advertising. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 3:00 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: You said they gave it away for free, but in the process your privacy is being eroded, mind you people give their passwords away for pens so most people probably will never understand or care about the consequences until it effects them personally in a negative way. So much hate... That's Liz's dept, I don't hate google for giving away maps, but please stop using the word free it's too ambiguous, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to mega corps... So much hate... No, google is evil because of their lack of respect for privacy, you really need to stop trying to claim I think their evil because they give map tiles away to individuals. Ok, I misunderstood. So your position is: 1) Google gives maps away, which people want. 2) In exchange for their privacy. 3) Which makes them evil. I agree with 1, probably 2, still making up my mind about 3. You are the one push #2, stop putting words in my mouth, I may have issues with google but it's not for the reasons you are implying. Just trying to understand. If I restate your views incorrectly and you correct me, then at least we're on the same page. I didn't say nothing of value, again putting words in my mouth and taking my comments out of context. I said nothing of real value, map tiles may have some inherient value but that isn't where the real value is, it's in the raw data and they most definently don't give that away for the most part. Maps have more than some value. Maps have enormous value, and have done so for centuries. Whether or not you get the data used to render the map in some digital form is still a smaller consideration. It's simply not correct to imply that the data is real value and the rendered form is some trifling concern. Do you disagree? I feel that having high quality rendered maps of an area is like a 9/10 and having the raw data to do cool stuff with is a 10/10. What would your numbers be? Again you are implying stuff I never said, you need to refine your comments to what has been said not what you think I was implying... You said They want to be able to sell map data without giving anything away of real worth to anyone else And I paraphrased that as the notion that G provides nothing of value. That seemed reasonable to me. You now propose that the difference between value and real worth is the raw data. That's ok. It's an unusual distinction, which I don't think I could have been expected to read into it, but no problem - sorry for the misunderstanding. My comment was about them not releasing raw data, map tiles are only of limited use and is very limiting in terms of what could creatively be accomplished with real mash ups, not the limited subset google allows so they can push their advertising. Out of curiosity, what advertising? The only advertising I see on google maps is businesses whose names match your search terms. Is that what you mean? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
2009/12/18 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: So much hate... So much ignorance, see I can do that too... So much hate... So much ignorance... Ok, I misunderstood. So your position is: 1) Google gives maps away, which people want. 2) In exchange for their privacy. 3) Which makes them evil. I agree with 1, probably 2, still making up my mind about 3. Again, swing and a miss... Collecting private information isn't inheriently evil, making comments about the only people who care about privacy is wrong doers is either stupid, ignorant or evil... Govts use the same tactics all the time, their happy to soak up as much information about individuals as possible, but when their private details leak they start filing lawsuits to hush things up, thankfully for the internet keeping things quiet about sensitive issues isn't as easy as it used to be... Mind you this is a big reason for most governments implementing or trying to implement some sort of internet filtering so they can attempt to try and gain control of the flow of information again... Just trying to understand. If I restate your views incorrectly and you correct me, then at least we're on the same page. You seem to be jumping to a lot of incorrect conclusions. So far you have yet to get things correct about my opinions on the matter actually. Maps have more than some value. Maps have enormous value, and have done so for centuries. Whether or not you get the data used to render the map in some digital form is still a smaller consideration. It's simply not correct to imply that the data is real value and the rendered form is some trifling concern. You're building your argument on a logic fallacy. We potentially are living in a wonderous age where raw information can be used in all sorts of new and interesting ways, rather than the stiffled view of the past that says people only need them to get from place A to B, what if you don't know where B is but you would still like to get there. SteveC has highlighted this type of useful type of mapping in the past, check out his presentation at the last State of The Map where he shows a map of London and he's giving the example of someone that wants to live X distance walking from work, except that's no longer a simple circle of fixed diameter, you might have access to public transport that will make small circles of area that extend outwards. Sure you can do some nasty hacking up on google to try and achieve that, but it screws up the place/street labels because you have to put your information on top of googles rather than using a base layer, putting your transportation layer on top and then the place/street labels above that. Do you disagree? I feel that having high quality rendered maps of an area is like a 9/10 and having the raw data to do cool stuff with is a 10/10. What would your numbers be? Because you are stuck in a specific mindset of what's possible with current technology and current artificial limitations of that technology. Map tiles are a very basic thing that people have come to expect in a certain way, like all commodities I don't rate this very high on the list of break through technologies. If I had to put a number on it it'd be about a 2 or 3 out of 10, the map data itself is obviously a 10 because once you have that you can do many many more things with it, like routing (and not being restrictively licensenced so you can't do real time updating of routing based on your current position if you stray from the set path the map gave you), selectively mapping or highlighting specific items (eg what the OSM cycle map does), the ability to fix mistakes on maps in a timely fashion, not being forced to fork out large amounts of money to do any of the previously mentioned things. You said They want to be able to sell map data without giving anything away of real worth to anyone else And I paraphrased that as the notion that G provides nothing of value. Which is incorrect, if I wanted to mean/say that I would have. That seemed reasonable to me. You now propose that the difference between value and real worth is the raw data. That's ok. It's an unusual distinction, which I don't think I could have been expected to read into it, but no problem - sorry for the misunderstanding. It's all about doing what isn't currently possible, most of the really great uses haven't even been realised by people yet, although things like 3D and 4D mapping will push things along a little, rather than being stuck with a flat 2D map that is almost no better than a street directory. You only have to look at what came out of people creating map mash ups with just tiles to realise how things could be if they had the ability to do mashups of the data and really take things to the next level. Out of curiosity, what advertising? The only advertising I see on google maps is businesses whose names match your search terms. Is that what you mean? Google puts ads along the bottom of the
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 3:34 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: list of break through technologies. If I had to put a number on it it'd be about a 2 or 3 out of 10, the map data itself is obviously a 10 because once you have that you can do many many more things with Ok, that explains that bit then. Google puts ads along the bottom of the map, not just the names of businesses which they don't earn money from. Oh? I don't see them here. Within the map window I see a copyright notice, but that's it. *shrug* Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
2009/12/18 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: Oh? I don't see them here. Within the map window I see a copyright notice, but that's it. The reduce the map frame size and put the ad along the bottom of the map, also when taking a screen shot of this they also add ads on the left hand pane. http://img193.imageshack.us/i/googleadsc.png/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
