Re: [Talk-GB] Fixing shop=yes, now it no longer renders on the default
Hi Robert, Looks interesting. I've signed in and had a look. However, the first one I looked at is a petrol station, and the wiki indicates that shop=yes is the correct tagging as an additional tag for amenity=fuel. Hence I suggest that these be omitted from the list requiring replacement. Cheers, Mike >I've never really used Maproulette before, but I thought this would be >a good opportunity to have a go. So here's my attempt at a challenge, >for anyone who is interested in using it: >https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/9051 . > >Robert. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Fixing shop=yes, now it no longer renders on the default OSM map
I am also a complete newbie to Maproulette, but have had a go at a couple of shop=yes near me. Some are easy enough, but others are rather tricky to tag correctly (surprise, surprise!), so I'll have to do some more research, both on the ground and in OSMWiki, to try to find an in-use tag that is appropriate. If you need to do a survey, I suggest that you don't hit any of the maproulette boxes, but back out and come back when you have done your survey. (or is that too obvious a response ? no offence intended) Regards, Peter On Thursday, 5 September 2019, 16:41:34 BST, Jez Nicholson wrote: giving it a go as a Maproulette newbie too. I have shop=yes on a number of locations where I know that there is a shop open, but i need to survey in person to check what it is. In Maproulette, would that be "Not an issue"? or "Too hard, can't see"? (not expecting Robert to know, but someone else might) On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 1:18 PM Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 12:40, Silent Spike wrote: > Perhaps a https://maproulette.org challenge would be a good way to track the > progress of this? I've never really used Maproulette before, but I thought this would be a good opportunity to have a go. So here's my attempt at a challenge, for anyone who is interested in using it: https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/9051 . Robert. -- Robert Whittaker https://osm.mathmos.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OSMUK Talent Directory ITTs
I have just sent out another Invitation To Tender (ITT) to the OSMUK Talent Directory for the opportunity to do a paid guest lecture at UCL in November or December. I'm more than happy to send it again in a couple of days to any new signups https://osmuk.org/join-our-talent-directory/ Regards, Jez ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps (Jez Nicholson)
On 05/09/2019 09:47, Jez Nicholson wrote: It would seem ridiculous for me to have to set up an account and> licence the underlying section of map to sell a single field But what> if I'm selling 15,000 fields?? etc., etc. Field boundaries don't change much over the years. If you use an OS map over 50 years old it is out of copyright, and can be marked up as the basis of a modern survey if needed. Get the person who drew the red line on a modern map to draw it again on an old map. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps
On 05/09/2019 10:49, David Woolley wrote: On 05/09/2019 05:48, Warin wrote: If they had derived their data from OSM .. then all would be fine. As I hinted before, the use of a red line, and a custom printout from an OS detailed map, suggests this is a map for legal purposes. For both the Land Registry and council planning applications, a red line is the convention for showing a property boundary. Or, in planning terms, the application boundary, which may not necessarily coincide with ownership boundaries. But yes, the red line convention is widely used and widely understood, so a red outline on a map tends to suggest that it was produced as a legal document. In which case, it will definitely be based on an underlying OS map. Until you can get lawyers, the Land Registry, and councils to accept OSM derived mapping, this sort of map is always going to be OS derived. Maps used for legal purposes are always going to be OS (or, maybe one day in the future, whatever other company the government decides to award the contract to). However useful OSM may be in everyday life, a map that anybody can edit clearly isn't going to be suitable as a legal record of anything. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Fixing shop=yes, now it no longer renders on the default OSM map
giving it a go as a Maproulette newbie too. I have shop=yes on a number of locations where I know that there is a shop open, but i need to survey in person to check what it is. In Maproulette, would that be "Not an issue"? or "Too hard, can't see"? (not expecting Robert to know, but someone else might) On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 1:18 PM Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) < robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 12:40, Silent Spike > wrote: > > Perhaps a https://maproulette.org challenge would be a good way to > track the progress of this? > > I've never really used Maproulette before, but I thought this would be > a good opportunity to have a go. So here's my attempt at a challenge, > for anyone who is interested in using it: > https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/9051 . > > Robert. > > -- > Robert Whittaker > https://osm.mathmos.net/ > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Fixing shop=yes, now it no longer renders on the default OSM map
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 12:40, Silent Spike wrote: > Perhaps a https://maproulette.org challenge would be a good way to track the > progress of this? I've never really used Maproulette before, but I thought this would be a good opportunity to have a go. So here's my attempt at a challenge, for anyone who is interested in using it: https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/9051 . Robert. -- Robert Whittaker https://osm.mathmos.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps
Ah, I see that was probably just the point Jez was making: I missed the " *tax* money " in his post. Sorry. On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 12:15, Edward Bainton wrote: > Jez wrote: > > i'm just trying to get on with my businessusing a resource bought > and paid for with my hard earned tax money > > My understanding, from a relative who did a lot of lobbying for libraries > on copyright and data law, is that electronic publishing has caused a total > revolution in how these things work. > > In the past the map you bought and paid for really was your resource. Fair > enough, copyright prevented you from just going into business and printing > off more copies to sell on, or even keep for your own use; but other than > that you could do what you liked with the property in your hands - > including trace round the field you want to sell to your neighbour. > > The recent change to electronic everything is that no one ever parts with > the resource at all - they make it available under licence (= a permission > to do with something what would ordinarily be forbidden). As a private > contract that you freely agree to, the licensor can put just about anything > in the terms they like and courts will enforce that agreement. > > Profit-making business will alway outgun the public/community/charity > sector in the lobby rounds, so legislation grants only highly restrictive > public-interest exemptions. In the case of OS that is especially galling, > given that it was public money that built the map. > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps
Jez wrote: > i'm just trying to get on with my businessusing a resource bought and paid for with my hard earned tax money My understanding, from a relative who did a lot of lobbying for libraries on copyright and data law, is that electronic publishing has caused a total revolution in how these things work. In the past the map you bought and paid for really was your resource. Fair enough, copyright prevented you from just going into business and printing off more copies to sell on, or even keep for your own use; but other than that you could do what you liked with the property in your hands - including trace round the field you want to sell to your neighbour. The recent change to electronic everything is that no one ever parts with the resource at all - they make it available under licence (= a permission to do with something what would ordinarily be forbidden). As a private contract that you freely agree to, the licensor can put just about anything in the terms they like and courts will enforce that agreement. Profit-making business will alway outgun the public/community/charity sector in the lobby rounds, so legislation grants only highly restrictive public-interest exemptions. In the case of OS that is especially galling, given that it was public money that built the map. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps
On 05/09/2019 05:48, Warin wrote: If they had derived their data from OSM .. then all would be fine. As I hinted before, the use of a red line, and a custom printout from an OS detailed map, suggests this is a map for legal purposes. For both the Land Registry and council planning applications, a red line is the convention for showing a property boundary. Until you can get lawyers, the Land Registry, and councils to accept OSM derived mapping, this sort of map is always going to be OS derived. (Actually, at least for the Land Registry, the outline on the map is only indicative, not definitive.) Another issue with the Land Registry is that all the outline data is combined into an index map that can be searched, but not viewed, by the public. Combining OS and OSM derived data might cause licensing issues for that. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps (Jez Nicholson)
5 Sep 2019, 00:40 by bainton@gmail.com: > Out of interest, is OS's position on derived data clearly the correct one > legally speaking? I note the wiki talks in terms of OS 'claiming' IP in the > derived data, not that it actually *is* their IP, so I wondered. > As far as copyright goes, this seems fairly logical - without having copyright on derived data one would be allowed to trace OSM/Google maps/other copyrighted map, get exact copy and claim that it is free from any copyright/database rights/any legal limitations. That seems to be an obvious truck-sized loophole that is probably not supposed to exist. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
