Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
Hi, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Therefore distributing a Produced Work as public domain, with no attribution requirement, does _not_ fulfil your obligation to include a notice... reasonably calculated to make any Person... aware. So you can't do it. The most permissive licence which may be used for a Produced Work is attribution-only [...] Those still interested in this after nearly six weeks might want to compare Richard's above statement with Rufus Pollock's here: http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2010-July/000277.html (However, you are not required to impose any kind of licensing condition on the produced work (that's up to *You*) [...] So, for example, a rendered map from OSM could be incorporated into wikipedia (or anywhere else for that matter) without any problem -- or any need to even think about the ODbL -- as the ODbL does not impose any restrictions on the Produced Work.) I conclude that the situation is inconclusive. Bye Frederik ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
On 7 June 2010 16:39, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Richard, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Secondly, some people (e.g. Frederik) have raised a concern that it might be possible to create Produced Works without the attribution that Ordnance Survey requires, by licensing the Produced Work as public domain - which would not require recipients of the Produced Work to reproduce any attribution. I think this is entirely mistaken. It's not. The ODbL requirement on produced works only requires a statement along the lines of Image derived from OpenStreetMap, which is available under ODbL to accompany the produced work. It does not require the author to place any additional attribution to OS, or AFAIK any restrictions on the image's use by third parties. OS's current license requires this attribution on all works derived from their data. You can comply fully with the ODbL terms without doing this, hence the current OS license is not compatible with including their data in an ODbL licensed database. The point of ODbL is to have a single set of license terms that keeps you legal if you comply with them. We can't say you must comply with ODbL, and also check for any other restrictions that may apply to some of our source data. (You may argue that the link back to OSM in the ODbL statement is sufficient attribution, as OSM would include an attribution to OS in their sources page. But I think that's debatable, and is certainly something we should check with OS on. Moreover, is the ODbL statement on produced works necessarily viral -- does it need to be added to works derived from ODbL-produced works?) The insubstantial extraction allowance in ODbL essentially relies on individual items not being restricted by copyright -- a fact enforced by requiring contributors to license them under DbCL. This is another issue that I don't think OS will be happy with. (You might argue that the individual items aren't copyrightable anyway, but that's not a risk that OSM should be prepared to take.) In conclusion, I think we have the following potential problems if/when we more to the new license / contributor terms: * Current OS license most likely incompatible with ODbL * Current OS license most likely incompatible with DbCL * OS unlikely to agree to granting OSMF additional rights in the contributor terms The first two may well be solved by persuading OS to agree to dual license their data, though DbCL requires them to essentially give up copyright on individual items. The last one will probably need a change of policy by OSMF. I asked OS informally about the produced works issue some time ago and had the following in reply: You're quite correct about the attribution requirements not applying under the ODBL where a 'Produced Work' is created. As you'll have noticed, the ODBL relies heavily on some quite imprecise definitions and is not the easiest licence to work with. An important aim for the OS OpenData licence was simplicity, so we did not want to spell out the kind of complex exceptions for derivative uses of the data that appear in the ODBL. We're looking into how we might resolve the areas of incompatibility between the two. I doubt this represents a complete analysis of the license conditions, but it shows that they (a) regard the produced works attribution as an issue, and (b) would like to resolve it somehow. We can argue about these all we like here, but we really need an OSMF legal expert to investigate, and it would be sensible to get OS's official views on these issues too. Maybe we should also start a campaign to ask them to dual license under ODbL+DbCL as well as CC-By... -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: [...snip...] Maybe we should also start a campaign to ask them to dual license under ODbL+DbCL as well as CC-By... Right, there's no way we can ever discuss this licensing without getting one thing clear. The OS OpenData license is not CC-By 3.0 . It's not any kind of creative commons license. I would advise anyone who (mistakenly) thinks it is CC-BY to read the following licenses: http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/licence/docs/licence.pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode Notice how they involve different words in a different order. Notice also that one contains the phrase database rights and the other does not. The differences are significant in our context. So please, if anyone is going to make any comment on whether or not we can use data licensed under the OS OpenData license lets please have an accurate discussion based on the actual OS OpenData license. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: [...snip...] Maybe we should also start a campaign to ask them to dual license under ODbL+DbCL as well as CC-By... Right, there's no way we can ever discuss this licensing without getting one thing clear. The OS OpenData license is not CC-By 3.0 . It's not any kind of creative commons license. I would advise anyone who (mistakenly) thinks it is CC-BY to read the following licenses: http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/licence/docs/licence.pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode Notice how they involve different words in a different order. Notice also that one contains the phrase database rights and the other does not. The differences are significant in our context. So please, if anyone is going to make any comment on whether or not we can use data licensed under the OS OpenData license lets please have an accurate discussion based on the actual OS OpenData license. Cheers, Andy ...and what is interesting about the actual OS licence is that it is an open and generous licence in simple terms. It apparently only puts a single burden on the licensee, that is to properly acknowledge OS as a source in this and derived works. As a seperate issue, it also asserts that if you comply with their licence, then you have something that is aligned with CC-By 3.0. However, the terms of the OS are not bound to CC-By 3.0, so CC-By 3.0 licensing is a non-issue. Specifically, it is saying that as long as the OSM licence gives attribution to OS (and potentially the Royal Mail) and the OSM licence insists on that attibution to OS being maintained in derived works then there is not an issue. I struggle to see what is so difficult about the licensing. It seems to my naive view, that for the sake of a blanket attribution to OS in OSM licence, there is not a problem. If the OSM project cannot meet this simple requirement - a single line of text, then it should not be using OS derived work in any form because it is not arguing from a legal standpoint, but some other ideological view of information rights. This has the potential to effectively claim the work as wholly its own when in fact contributors have relied on the work of others. It may be a small point, but it seems to me that OSM should have no problem with being honest and open about its origins and should not be claiming OSM is the work of its contributors when this is not really the case. Spenny ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
On the contrary, OS have given explicit permission to distribute their data under CC-BY. I quote: This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under any Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence. This seems pretty unambiguous to me? It's true that they have their own licence, the OS OpenData licence, which is not the same as CC. (Of course it's different - it even has a different name!) But that licence gives you the option to distribute derived works under CC-BY. This is just as good as if OS had picked CC-BY directly. Is there some point that I and others are missing? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
On the contrary, OS have given explicit permission to distribute their data under CC-BY. I quote: This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under any Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence. This seems pretty unambiguous to me? It's true that they have their own licence, the OS OpenData licence, which is not the same as CC. (Of course it's different - it even has a different name!) But that licence gives you the option to distribute derived works under CC-BY. This is just as good as if OS had picked CC-BY directly. Is there some point that I and others are missing? It doesn't give explicit permission to distribute under CC-BY, (it actually gives much wider permission), it simply notes that using a CC-BY licence properly works for them. As far as I can see there is only one real condition in the licence - do what you want with the information, but you must give attribution to OS (by a single line of text), and insist that any derived works also give that attribution without misleading people that the work is endorsed by the OS. Simply put, if OSM puts a line in the relevant places that OSM: Contains Ordnance Survey Data (c) Crown Copyright and database right 2010 then there is no need to worry. The very clear and explicit wording of the OS licence leaves very little to be concerned about with that line in the appropriate places. Without that line, OSM should nto be using OS data in any way. Spenny ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
On the contrary, OS have given explicit permission to distribute their data under CC-BY. I quote: This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under any Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence. This seems pretty unambiguous to me? It's true that they have their own licence, the OS OpenData licence, which is not the same as CC. (Of course it's different - it even has a different name!) But that licence gives you the option to distribute derived works under CC-BY. This is just as good as if OS had picked CC-BY directly. Is there some point that I and others are missing? It doesn't give explicit permission to distribute under CC-BY, (it actually gives much wider permission), it simply notes that using a CC-BY licence properly works for them. As far as I can see there is only one real condition in the licence - do what you want with the information, but you must give attribution to OS (by a single line of text), and insist that any derived works also give that attribution without misleading people that the work is endorsed by the OS. Simply put, if OSM puts a line in the relevant places that OSM: Contains Ordnance Survey Data (c) Crown Copyright and database right 2010 then there is no need to worry. The very clear and explicit wording of the OS licence leaves very little to be concerned about with that line in the appropriate places. Without that line, OSM should nto be using OS data in any way. Spenny As an adendum to that, I think the wording on the mian OSM page is incorrect. It contains the attribution, but the words here: Our CC-BY-SA licence requires you to “give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilising”. Individual OSM mappers do not request a credit over and above that to “OpenStreetMap contributors”, but where data from a national mapping agency or other major source has been included in OpenStreetMap, ***it may be reasonable to credit them*** by directly reproducing their credit or by linking to it on this page. are not appropriate as they do not insist on the OS credit being retained in derived works. Spenny ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
...Ed Avis wrote on 08/06/2010 12:40: Ian Spencerianmspen...@... writes: This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under any Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence. It doesn't give explicit permission to distribute under CC-BY, (it actually gives much wider permission), it simply notes that using a CC-BY licence properly works for them. I think it certainly does give permission. See the bit with 'you may...' If they had written 'This means that you may turn up at Ordnance Survey headquarters with a can of spraypaint and write FREE DATA NOW on the door', well in that case, it would be giving permission to do that. If they say 'this means that you can do X', then they are giving you permission to do X! Sorry I was being annoyingly pedantic, in the sense that the permission was granted in the sense that it had already granted wider permissions than CC-BY, and that the CC-BY clause was a helpful footnote (This means that... is a lead into an explanation rather than the actual permission which was granted). The point I was making was that there is no need for dual licensing the terms of the licence are extremely broad and go far wider than CC-BY so it is pointless to be concerned to much about CC-BY. OSM already acknowledges the copyright source, but is ambiguous in the text. CC-BY 2.0 clearly states that: If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work... While it is implicit that the copyright notices should be maintained by the CC-BY text, the OSM licence text on the main page does not reflect that mandatory requirement, it appears to confuse copyright with attribution. Spenny ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: On the contrary, OS have given explicit permission to distribute their data under CC-BY. I quote: This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under any Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence. This seems pretty unambiguous to me? So? Who[1] cares if the OS licence is compatible with CC-BY? If they said it was compatible with the GFDL, the MIT licence or the XYZ licence that would all be fine and dandy but totally irrelevant to OpenStreetMap too. We don't use CC-BY. We aren't going to either. It's true that they have their own licence, the OS OpenData licence, which is not the same as CC. (Of course it's different - it even has a different name!) But that licence gives you the option to distribute derived works under CC-BY. This is just as good as if OS had picked CC-BY directly. Absolutely, 100% not. If they had picked CC-BY directly then there would be a list of additional terms required to be followed, especially around the form of attribution and statement of (and hyperlinking to) the licence. See 4.a in the CC-BY license, specifically sentences 2 and 4. These restrictions aren't part of the OS licence. Of course, if the only thing we were interested in was using the OS data under CC-BY then we wouldn't care about the difference between the situations of being released directly under CC-BY or being released under something that states compatibility with it. But that's not the position that we're in. Is there some point that I and others are missing? * We don't use CC-BY. * The OS data is released under a different license. * The OS Opendata licence is more permissive than CC-BY. * So discussing CC-BY doesn't help resolve any issues people may have with the OS Opendata license and the contributor terms / ODbL. I don't see why we'd need to discuss things in the context of CC-BY. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?, (Kai Krueger)
On 6 Jun 2010, at 22:31, Matt Amos wrote: +1... or -1 as well? not sure how the arithmetic of these is supposed to work. anyway, i agree with phil. cheers, matt On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Phil James peerja...@googlemail.com wrote: At risk of being a fly in the ointment, judging by the largely favourable responses to this idea, I for one would like to register myself as -1. Rant Please don't map an area if you are not familiar with it. I have done some armchair mapping, but only where I am familiar with the area, and feel I can add value to the data I am entering. If you are that desperate for a 'complete' map, go out and do more surveying, or just use OS or other commercially available products. I just feel that blatant, blind copying of OS data is prostituting what I thought Open Street Map was meant to be about./Rant OK, I've got my tin hat on: standing by for incoming... ;-) My strategy is to pick on an area (the four more easterly Suffolk districts initially in my case) and first ensure that all the roads from OS Streetview and OS Locator are included by tracing (I am a good way through that work now). When I have all of the OS road data into OSM I will then promote it within the local papers, both to let people know that it is there and to encourage people to use it, but also to encourage people to fill in the details. I will then fill in the pedestrian and cycling routes for individual places opportunistically when I get the chance to visit the place with a cycle and will be able to add this additional data in a single trip. Personally I think we will get a much better and more complete map faster by using all available resources; when people start using it then their will be increasing interest in fixing any omissions. So.. I think my recommendation is 'stick to your local area but greatly increase your definition of what is local to encompass at least one district or borough, and yes, do use the OS data that is available and then supplement it with the odd day-out to fill in more detail'. When you have completed your local districts then consider adopting a further one but preferably one that you know to some extent. As a company, ITO is very keen indeed to get full UK coverage of the road, pedestrian, cycle networks and schools etc into OSM, in particular for urban areas. We will be producing more tools over the coming weeks to help identify the level of completeness for different places, trends in completeness and others to help increase completeness. Regards, Peter Miller Phil. talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: -- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 12:07:33 +0100 From: Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com Subject: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV? To: 'talk-gb' talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Message-ID: 4c0b8175.30...@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Hello everyone, I would like to suggest as a sort of Project of the week for the UK for people to pick a random town or village somewhere in the UK that so far has poor coverage and trace it's roads from OS OpenData StreetView. Despite the various claims over the years that the UK road will be road complete by the end of the year, the UK is still a far distance off of that target. I have heard the numbers that so far we have on the order of 50% of named roads (people who are working on OS - OSM comparisons please correct me if I am wrong). Which is by no means a small feat of achieving, but also not as high as one would like it to be. So let us try and accelerate this a bit by everyone picking a small random town or village somewhere in the UK and trace the roads from StreetView. It probably only takes about 10 - 20 minutes for a small village and even a small town isn't too bad to do (if the weather is bad and you can't go out). So with the help of OS data, we can get a big step closer to where we would like to be and use it as a basis to continue to improve beyond the quality of OS data or any other commercial map provider. (If you are convinced already, then no need to read the rest of the email) I know that many people are opposed to armchair mapping or imports (and btw I am not proposing a full scale import here, but manual tracing instead) and so I'd like to counter some of the arguments most likely going to be brought up against this sort of non local tracing: 1) OS data might have mistakes, be outdated and generally not as good as what OSM aims for: Yes, no doubt OS has errors and can be outdated in many places by a couple of years ( I have found more than enough of those myself). Furthermore, all of the OS products released lack many of the properties we are interested in like one way roads, turn and other restrictions,
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: Is anybody sure that the OS's attribution requirements are adequately addressed by current practice, and when moving to ODbL later? Under ODbL it will be possible to use non-substantial amounts of data from OSM without any attribution (this is not disputed), and furthermore (this is disputed and the following is only the opinion of myself plus at least one member of the licensing working group) it will be possible to create a produced work from OSM data and license that under a license that does not require attribution, so attribution can become lost down the line. I don't think this matters; if someone else infringes the attribution requirement isn't that between them and OS? We have done our part. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
On 7 June 2010 13:08, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: Is anybody sure that the OS's attribution requirements are adequately addressed by current practice, and when moving to ODbL later? Under ODbL it will be possible to use non-substantial amounts of data from OSM without any attribution (this is not disputed), and furthermore (this is disputed and the following is only the opinion of myself plus at least one member of the licensing working group) it will be possible to create a produced work from OSM data and license that under a license that does not require attribution, so attribution can become lost down the line. I don't think this matters; if someone else infringes the attribution requirement isn't that between them and OS? We have done our part. I think this matters very much. If OSM is providing data under ODbL, it's asserting that the data can be used under ODbL without any further restrictions / requirements. You couldn't take a CC-By-SA work, combine it with some of your own stuff, and then offer at formally as CC-SA with an expectation that users would spot the By bit in some of your source data and voluntarily add the appropriate attribution. In the same way, we couldn't take OS OpenData and then offer our derived work under ODbL which has weaker attribution requirements in some circumstances. It's not a question of whether we (or any of our downstream users) might get sued by OS, it's a question of whether we can legally offer stuff that's derived from OS OpenData under ODbL. Moreover, it appears that the new contributor terms require contributors (or their data sources) to grant OSMF some sort of licence to enable OSM to be more easliy relicenced under a similar share-alike licence at a future date. Even if there's a way round the ODbL compatibility issue (maybe by OS agreeing to license their data under ODbL), I can't see OS agreeing to cede these additional rights to OSMF. Therefore as things stand at the moment with the license change plans, I think we'd need to remove anything that's been derived from OS OpenData products. Before we get too encumbered with OS OpenData, we *really* need a legal expert from OSMF and/or OpenDataCommons to look in to these issues, and let us know where we stand. Useful as they might be, maybe OSMF needs to rethink the additional grant of rights to OSMF by contributors. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:05:22 +0200, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: SNIP Before anyone starts massively using OS data for anything else than a comparison, I strongly suggest to get a very clear view of this, either by having the OS say yes ok or at least getting a statement from our own licensing working group. +1 I for one have still yet to trace anything from OSSV, even though I am desperate to do the local watercourses, because I am still unclear on this point. I am only a relatively minor contributor, but I want to be able to accept the contributor terms, should that ever time come, without hestiation and without deleting any of my work first. Perhaps I am overcautious and may eventually succumb to temptation on a bit of local tracing (where I am happy I could accept deletion if necessary), but I am mildly alarmed at the prospect of large-scale use of this data without a bit more clarity regarding the compatibility of ODBL. David (davespod) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
On 7 Jun 2010, at 14:12, David Ellams wrote: On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:05:22 +0200, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: SNIP Before anyone starts massively using OS data for anything else than a comparison, I strongly suggest to get a very clear view of this, either by having the OS say yes ok or at least getting a statement from our own licensing working group. +1 I for one have still yet to trace anything from OSSV, even though I am desperate to do the local watercourses, because I am still unclear on this point. I am only a relatively minor contributor, but I want to be able to accept the contributor terms, should that ever time come, without hestiation and without deleting any of my work first. Perhaps I am overcautious and may eventually succumb to temptation on a bit of local tracing (where I am happy I could accept deletion if necessary), but I am mildly alarmed at the prospect of large-scale use of this data without a bit more clarity regarding the compatibility of ODBL. The OS page on the wiki it has the following simple statement regarding the license with no caveats which sounds fine 'According to the OpenData License Terms and Conditions, all data can be safely assumed to be under a CC-by 3.0 license - the TC Explicitly say so.' http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata However. on the 'Closed issues' section of the ODBL license is states that ODBL may be incompatible with data supplied as CCBYSA and states that contributors using such resources 'should get the permission of the original data provider to relicense it to ODbL'. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Closed_Issues I note that the OS data is CCBY not CCBYSA which may be relevant to the issue, I don't know. I have also noted that the government clearly wants the data to be used and is unlikely to sue, however the Foundation have stated that they will remove all data that is derived from CCBYSA (and CCBY?) ! Are the license working group or the foundation researching this for us? The question is simple. Is the OS Open data compatible with ODBL and if not then are they following it up and how are the discussions going? Incidentally I see nothing about it in the license working group minutes relating to the OS data since it was released on 1 April. Regards, Peter Miller David (davespod) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
Peter Miller wrote: I note that the OS data is CCBY not CCBYSA which may be relevant to the issue, I don't know. I have also noted that the government clearly wants the data to be used and is unlikely to sue, however the Foundation have stated that they will remove all data that is derived from CCBYSA (and CCBY?) ! As usual with licence debates this is rapidly descending into more-heat-than-light territory. There are two issues which people have identified with including data derived from OS OpenData within an ODbL-licensed OSM. Firstly, the proposed Contributor Terms (which are _not_ the ODbL, they are OSMF's own contractual Terms Conditions) require that You agree to only add Contents for which You are the copyright holder. Clearly Bob Mapper is not the copyright holder of OS data. OS is. OSMF may therefore need to enhance the Contributor Terms to permit Bob Mapper to add such data. I suggest this should be done by a list of easements, i.e. permitted exceptions to the you are the copyright holder rule. This would also have the advantage that OSMF could review imports before they happen. For anyone who feels this is important, you should raise this directly with OSMF rather than relying on them to read every single interminable debate on every single mailing list. Secondly, some people (e.g. Frederik) have raised a concern that it might be possible to create Produced Works without the attribution that Ordnance Survey requires, by licensing the Produced Work as public domain - which would not require recipients of the Produced Work to reproduce any attribution. I think this is entirely mistaken. 4.3 in ODbL says if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice... reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database. Note that this is any Person that is exposed to in perpetuity, not any person who you distribute it to. If you give it to Bill and Bill gives it to Jim, Jim is still exposed to the work. Therefore distributing a Produced Work as public domain, with no attribution requirement, does _not_ fulfil your obligation to include a notice... reasonably calculated to make any Person... aware. So you can't do it. The most permissive licence which may be used for a Produced Work is attribution-only (as it should be), and that fulfils the OS's attribution requirements. cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
Richard, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Secondly, some people (e.g. Frederik) have raised a concern that it might be possible to create Produced Works without the attribution that Ordnance Survey requires, by licensing the Produced Work as public domain - which would not require recipients of the Produced Work to reproduce any attribution. I think this is entirely mistaken. [...] Even if that were the case as you say, OSM users under ODbL would still be granted permission to extract a non-substantial amount of data and use that without attribution. Does the OS's attribution requirement also make an exemption for non-substantial amounts, or do we simply assume that they wouldn't care because it is, well, non-substantial? Bye Frederik ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
Hello everyone, I would like to suggest as a sort of Project of the week for the UK for people to pick a random town or village somewhere in the UK that so far has poor coverage and trace it's roads from OS OpenData StreetView. Despite the various claims over the years that the UK road will be road complete by the end of the year, the UK is still a far distance off of that target. I have heard the numbers that so far we have on the order of 50% of named roads (people who are working on OS - OSM comparisons please correct me if I am wrong). Which is by no means a small feat of achieving, but also not as high as one would like it to be. So let us try and accelerate this a bit by everyone picking a small random town or village somewhere in the UK and trace the roads from StreetView. It probably only takes about 10 - 20 minutes for a small village and even a small town isn't too bad to do (if the weather is bad and you can't go out). So with the help of OS data, we can get a big step closer to where we would like to be and use it as a basis to continue to improve beyond the quality of OS data or any other commercial map provider. (If you are convinced already, then no need to read the rest of the email) I know that many people are opposed to armchair mapping or imports (and btw I am not proposing a full scale import here, but manual tracing instead) and so I'd like to counter some of the arguments most likely going to be brought up against this sort of non local tracing: 1) OS data might have mistakes, be outdated and generally not as good as what OSM aims for: Yes, no doubt OS has errors and can be outdated in many places by a couple of years ( I have found more than enough of those myself). Furthermore, all of the OS products released lack many of the properties we are interested in like one way roads, turn and other restrictions, POIs, foot and cycle ways and all the other things that make OSM data such a rich and valuable dataset. So yes, the OS data will clearly not replace any of the traditional OSM surveying techniques or be the end of things. But it can be a great basis to build upon. As a comparison, have a look (assuming you have a timecapsal ;-)) at what the data of e.g. central London looked like in 2007. It already had surprisingly many roads, but hardly any POIs or other properties that we aim for now. Most of that came later in many iterations of improvement. A single pass of OSM surveying is not any better than the OS data per se. Also given that the errors introduced by tracing OS data are exactly the same type of errors introduced by manual OSM surveying, i.e. misspellings in roads, missing roads, outdated roads, ... We need to have the tools to deal with this kind of maintenance anyway. It is the iterations that make OSM data what it is, not the first pass ground survey. Creating a blanket base layer from OS data allows us to much better focus on the aspects that do distinguish us from every other map data provider with having to waste as little as possible resources on the stuff everyone else has too. 2) large scale imports and tracing hinders community growth: This perhaps is the more important of the two arguments, as indeed what distinguishes us from everyone else is the community and without the community and its constant iterations and improvements, OSM data will bit rot just as much as all other data. However I don't think there is any clear evidence either way of what non local mapping does to communities and it remains hotly debated. The negative effects claimed are usually of the form a) The area looks complete, there is nothing more to do, so why bother. Or, it isn't as much fun to add a POI than a whole new village on a blank canvas. b) I put in all this effort into mapping an area and along comes an import and steam rollers all this into a mess, I am leaving. c) imports introduce a new class of bugs, e.g. duplicate nodes or broken connectivity that OSM mappers wouldn't so we don't have the tools to deal with these sort of errors correctly. b) and c) are specific to imports and thus manual tracing shouldn't suffer the same issues. a) may be the case, but it is clearly a case that we need to be able to deal with anyway, as more and more areas become complete by them selves. And looking at the better mapped areas, like Germany or some of the UK cities, I don't think there is any evidence that you can't attract new comers into already mapped areas. It is potentially also offset by all those people who simple want to use the data for something like embed a map into their blog or use OSM data on their Garmin, their phone, their game, their ... and will fix the odd bug they discover while doing so, but can't really as it simply isn't complete enough yet. Other examples of remote mapping have also been fairly successful. The most obvious one was Haiti. It's initial phase was entirely arm chair mapping and had no
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
Kai, I think this is a good idea, and a very well presented argument - a push to get UK OSM coverage up would make the uk dataset more useful (more chance of being able to search for an address etc.). I think it would be worth treating a 'blind' tracing (as opposed to tracing an area that you know, but have not surveyed) a bit like an import and adding a 'verified=no' tag. Then when someone on the ground visits the area they can update the 'verified' tag - we could even create a map overlay to highlight the unverified areas to encourage 'on the ground' surveys to add the extra detail that makes OSM maps more interesting than others. Regards Graham. On 6 June 2010 12:07, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone, I would like to suggest as a sort of Project of the week for the UK for people to pick a random town or village somewhere in the UK that so far has poor coverage and trace it's roads from OS OpenData StreetView. Despite the various claims over the years that the UK road will be road complete by the end of the year, the UK is still a far distance off of that target. I have heard the numbers that so far we have on the order of 50% of named roads (people who are working on OS - OSM comparisons please correct me if I am wrong). Which is by no means a small feat of achieving, but also not as high as one would like it to be. So let us try and accelerate this a bit by everyone picking a small random town or village somewhere in the UK and trace the roads from StreetView. It probably only takes about 10 - 20 minutes for a small village and even a small town isn't too bad to do (if the weather is bad and you can't go out). So with the help of OS data, we can get a big step closer to where we would like to be and use it as a basis to continue to improve beyond the quality of OS data or any other commercial map provider. (If you are convinced already, then no need to read the rest of the email) I know that many people are opposed to armchair mapping or imports (and btw I am not proposing a full scale import here, but manual tracing instead) and so I'd like to counter some of the arguments most likely going to be brought up against this sort of non local tracing: 1) OS data might have mistakes, be outdated and generally not as good as what OSM aims for: Yes, no doubt OS has errors and can be outdated in many places by a couple of years ( I have found more than enough of those myself). Furthermore, all of the OS products released lack many of the properties we are interested in like one way roads, turn and other restrictions, POIs, foot and cycle ways and all the other things that make OSM data such a rich and valuable dataset. So yes, the OS data will clearly not replace any of the traditional OSM surveying techniques or be the end of things. But it can be a great basis to build upon. As a comparison, have a look (assuming you have a timecapsal ;-)) at what the data of e.g. central London looked like in 2007. It already had surprisingly many roads, but hardly any POIs or other properties that we aim for now. Most of that came later in many iterations of improvement. A single pass of OSM surveying is not any better than the OS data per se. Also given that the errors introduced by tracing OS data are exactly the same type of errors introduced by manual OSM surveying, i.e. misspellings in roads, missing roads, outdated roads, ... We need to have the tools to deal with this kind of maintenance anyway. It is the iterations that make OSM data what it is, not the first pass ground survey. Creating a blanket base layer from OS data allows us to much better focus on the aspects that do distinguish us from every other map data provider with having to waste as little as possible resources on the stuff everyone else has too. 2) large scale imports and tracing hinders community growth: This perhaps is the more important of the two arguments, as indeed what distinguishes us from everyone else is the community and without the community and its constant iterations and improvements, OSM data will bit rot just as much as all other data. However I don't think there is any clear evidence either way of what non local mapping does to communities and it remains hotly debated. The negative effects claimed are usually of the form a) The area looks complete, there is nothing more to do, so why bother. Or, it isn't as much fun to add a POI than a whole new village on a blank canvas. b) I put in all this effort into mapping an area and along comes an import and steam rollers all this into a mess, I am leaving. c) imports introduce a new class of bugs, e.g. duplicate nodes or broken connectivity that OSM mappers wouldn't so we don't have the tools to deal with these sort of errors correctly. b) and c) are specific to imports and thus manual tracing shouldn't suffer the same issues. a) may be the case, but it is clearly a case that we need to be
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
If you are tracing from StreetView please, please, please properly source your ways: source=OS_OpenData_StreetView http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Attributing_OS Tim --- On Sun, 6/6/10, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote: From: Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com Subject: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV? To: 'talk-gb' talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Sunday, 6 June, 2010, 12:07 Hello everyone, I would like to suggest as a sort of Project of the week for the UK for people to pick a random town or village somewhere in the UK that so far has poor coverage and trace it's roads from OS OpenData StreetView. Despite the various claims over the years that the UK road will be road complete by the end of the year, the UK is still a far distance off of that target. I have heard the numbers that so far we have on the order of 50% of named roads (people who are working on OS - OSM comparisons please correct me if I am wrong). Which is by no means a small feat of achieving, but also not as high as one would like it to be. So let us try and accelerate this a bit by everyone picking a small random town or village somewhere in the UK and trace the roads from StreetView. It probably only takes about 10 - 20 minutes for a small village and even a small town isn't too bad to do (if the weather is bad and you can't go out). So with the help of OS data, we can get a big step closer to where we would like to be and use it as a basis to continue to improve beyond the quality of OS data or any other commercial map provider. (If you are convinced already, then no need to read the rest of the email) I know that many people are opposed to armchair mapping or imports (and btw I am not proposing a full scale import here, but manual tracing instead) and so I'd like to counter some of the arguments most likely going to be brought up against this sort of non local tracing: 1) OS data might have mistakes, be outdated and generally not as good as what OSM aims for: Yes, no doubt OS has errors and can be outdated in many places by a couple of years ( I have found more than enough of those myself). Furthermore, all of the OS products released lack many of the properties we are interested in like one way roads, turn and other restrictions, POIs, foot and cycle ways and all the other things that make OSM data such a rich and valuable dataset. So yes, the OS data will clearly not replace any of the traditional OSM surveying techniques or be the end of things. But it can be a great basis to build upon. As a comparison, have a look (assuming you have a timecapsal ;-)) at what the data of e.g. central London looked like in 2007. It already had surprisingly many roads, but hardly any POIs or other properties that we aim for now. Most of that came later in many iterations of improvement. A single pass of OSM surveying is not any better than the OS data per se. Also given that the errors introduced by tracing OS data are exactly the same type of errors introduced by manual OSM surveying, i.e. misspellings in roads, missing roads, outdated roads, ... We need to have the tools to deal with this kind of maintenance anyway. It is the iterations that make OSM data what it is, not the first pass ground survey. Creating a blanket base layer from OS data allows us to much better focus on the aspects that do distinguish us from every other map data provider with having to waste as little as possible resources on the stuff everyone else has too. 2) large scale imports and tracing hinders community growth: This perhaps is the more important of the two arguments, as indeed what distinguishes us from everyone else is the community and without the community and its constant iterations and improvements, OSM data will bit rot just as much as all other data. However I don't think there is any clear evidence either way of what non local mapping does to communities and it remains hotly debated. The negative effects claimed are usually of the form a) The area looks complete, there is nothing more to do, so why bother. Or, it isn't as much fun to add a POI than a whole new village on a blank canvas. b) I put in all this effort into mapping an area and along comes an import and steam rollers all this into a mess, I am leaving. c) imports introduce a new class of bugs, e.g. duplicate nodes or broken connectivity that OSM mappers wouldn't so we don't have the tools to deal with these sort of errors correctly. b) and c) are specific to imports and thus manual tracing shouldn't suffer the same issues. a) may be the case, but it is clearly a case that we need to be able to deal with anyway, as more and more areas become complete by them selves. And looking at the better mapped areas, like Germany or some of the UK cities, I don't think there is any evidence that you can't attract new comers into already mapped areas. It is potentially also offset by
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
We've never bothered adding verified=no for tracing from Yahoo maps with Potlatch, or adding new roads in the city with only very rough GPS accuracy, or any of the other sources of OSM data, many of which are often worse in quality than the Ordnance Survey data (which, from all I've seen, is really very good). So we need not worry too much about marking objects as 'unclean' just because they were traced from OS. They are no more likely to need re-surveying than anything else on the map. However, where the OS data is conflicting with data already on the map, of course it makes sense to tag FIXME or similar to solve the puzzle on the ground. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
I've support this 'project of the week' and I've already tested the idea in a small area. If you look around the web for critical views on Openstreetmap it does look like the big chunks of missing streets puts people off. A few opinions to add. 1. If you know how to convert the shapefile, use Vector Map District instead of Streetview. [Link to Converting Guidehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Shapefiles ] 2. Use the newly created 'Ito _ OS locator layer' to get street names. Do this for areas that appear to have been completely 'street mapped'. [link to using Ito layer http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Locator_files] 3. Use the streetview layer as final comparison Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
Kai Krueger wrote: So let us try and accelerate this a bit by everyone picking a small random town or village somewhere in the UK and trace the roads from StreetView. How about concentrating on the stuff that you can't get from a ground survey? Woodland, most waterways, that sort of thing... Also, while the offset in the StreetView data is tiny compared to e.g. NPE, I'd suggest picking areas where it's possible to check the alignment of the background (perhaps from a couple of perpendicular major roads with lots of traces on). ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
I like the idea for a project of the week using OS OpenData StreetView, but would suggest that before we add lots of new roads we work hard to get roads which are already in OSM properly named. Firstly it is improving data which is already there, secondly it using a second, independent, data source. Not a patch on ground survey, but at least it means that editors of the data have to engage with the data sources and their discrepancies. I would not be happy at OSM becoming a largely a subset of Ordnance Survey data without more thought (but also see below). As for the status of noname roads, I have named perhaps 2000 or so in West London and Merseyside in the past few weeks. There are still substantial parts of the South East and North West with many unnamed roads. I have not estimated the number, but its still in the thousands. Unfortunately the noname map layer on the website has not been updated (along with other Cloudmade maps), so I'd suggest using beta.letuffe.org which has a noname overlay (link is to Wigan area). It is important not to forget that a mass import of the VectorMap District roads named from Locator will become possible within the next six months. I'm sure several people are looking at a) how to accurately name the VMD roads from Locator ; and b) how to find only those roads which are not already in OSM (e.g., by using the techniques of the French CORINE project). Once viable technical solutions to these issues are available we will be able to import ALL the missing roads SHOULD we wish to. Manual tracing of StreetView data should be considered in this context. Personally, I don't think mass imports of VectorMap District road data should be contemplated, at least for 6 months or so, for all the usual reasons (Pottery, Imports and the Community). However, availability outwith the planet database of those roads in VectorMap District and not in OSM could be used to enhance downstream applications, such as Garmin extracts, and specific map renders. In other words we should be able to generate GB road-complete products without risking some of the known effects on community building of armchair mapping. I think there is plenty of scope to think of other 'added-value' projects with the StreetView data, these are some off the top of my head: * Getting all schools in to coincide with publication of league tables (its another data source to cross-check) * Mapping all professional football grounds (see for instance Blundell Park) * Ditto for other sports (e.g., crags used for climbing, horse racecourses, ...). * Mapping landuse=residential for areas without streets (shapes can be used as a guide to poorly mapped areas) * Get all churches tagged with man_made=tower or man_made=spire if applicable so that we can do OSGB like renders * Get all bridges tagged and marked for major waterways. Bridges across large rivers are surprisingly poorly mapped. It ought to be possible to identify these and make our existing data better. * Replace larger expanses of water mapped from NPE or Yahoo with OSSV or OS VDM.I hope these thoughts are not too controversial. I must add that I am not a zealot for the no import cause, but I do recognise that there is a reasonable case for it. Regards, Jerry Clough From: Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com To: talk-gb talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sun, 6 June, 2010 12:07:33 Subject: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV? Hello everyone, I would like to suggest as a sort of Project of the week for the UK for people to pick a random town or village somewhere in the UK that so far has poor coverage and trace it's roads from OS OpenData StreetView. Despite the various claims over the years that the UK road will be road complete by the end of the year, the UK is still a far distance off of that target. I have heard the numbers that so far we have on the order of 50% of named roads (people who are working on OS - OSM comparisons please correct me if I am wrong). Which is by no means a small feat of achieving, but also not as high as one would like it to be. So let us try and accelerate this a bit by everyone picking a small random town or village somewhere in the UK and trace the roads from StreetView. It probably only takes about 10 - 20 minutes for a small village and even a small town isn't too bad to do (if the weather is bad and you can't go out). So with the help of OS data, we can get a big step closer to where we would like to be and use it as a basis to continue to improve beyond the quality of OS data or any other commercial map provider. (If you are convinced already, then no need to read the rest of the email) I know that many people are opposed to armchair mapping or imports (and btw I am not proposing a full scale import here, but manual tracing instead) and so I'd like to counter some
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
Hi, Kai Krueger wrote: I would like to suggest as a sort of Project of the week for the UK for people to pick a random town or village somewhere in the UK that so far has poor coverage and trace it's roads from OS OpenData StreetView. Is anybody sure that the OS's attribution requirements are adequately addressed by current practice, and when moving to ODbL later? Under ODbL it will be possible to use non-substantial amounts of data from OSM without any attribution (this is not disputed), and furthermore (this is disputed and the following is only the opinion of myself plus at least one member of the licensing working group) it will be possible to create a produced work from OSM data and license that under a license that does not require attribution, so attribution can become lost down the line. Before anyone starts massively using OS data for anything else than a comparison, I strongly suggest to get a very clear view of this, either by having the OS say yes ok or at least getting a statement from our own licensing working group. Because doing large-scale tracing and later having to remove it all sucks. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?, (Kai Krueger)
At risk of being a fly in the ointment, judging by the largely favourable responses to this idea, I for one would like to register myself as -1. Rant Please don't map an area if you are not familiar with it. I have done some armchair mapping, but only where I am familiar with the area, and feel I can add value to the data I am entering. If you are that desperate for a 'complete' map, go out and do more surveying, or just use OS or other commercially available products. I just feel that blatant, blind copying of OS data is prostituting what I thought Open Street Map was meant to be about./Rant OK, I've got my tin hat on: standing by for incoming... ;-) Phil. talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: -- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 12:07:33 +0100 From: Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com Subject: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV? To: 'talk-gb' talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Message-ID: 4c0b8175.30...@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Hello everyone, I would like to suggest as a sort of Project of the week for the UK for people to pick a random town or village somewhere in the UK that so far has poor coverage and trace it's roads from OS OpenData StreetView. Despite the various claims over the years that the UK road will be road complete by the end of the year, the UK is still a far distance off of that target. I have heard the numbers that so far we have on the order of 50% of named roads (people who are working on OS - OSM comparisons please correct me if I am wrong). Which is by no means a small feat of achieving, but also not as high as one would like it to be. So let us try and accelerate this a bit by everyone picking a small random town or village somewhere in the UK and trace the roads from StreetView. It probably only takes about 10 - 20 minutes for a small village and even a small town isn't too bad to do (if the weather is bad and you can't go out). So with the help of OS data, we can get a big step closer to where we would like to be and use it as a basis to continue to improve beyond the quality of OS data or any other commercial map provider. (If you are convinced already, then no need to read the rest of the email) I know that many people are opposed to armchair mapping or imports (and btw I am not proposing a full scale import here, but manual tracing instead) and so I'd like to counter some of the arguments most likely going to be brought up against this sort of non local tracing: 1) OS data might have mistakes, be outdated and generally not as good as what OSM aims for: Yes, no doubt OS has errors and can be outdated in many places by a couple of years ( I have found more than enough of those myself). Furthermore, all of the OS products released lack many of the properties we are interested in like one way roads, turn and other restrictions, POIs, foot and cycle ways and all the other things that make OSM data such a rich and valuable dataset. So yes, the OS data will clearly not replace any of the traditional OSM surveying techniques or be the end of things. But it can be a great basis to build upon. As a comparison, have a look (assuming you have a timecapsal ;-)) at what the data of e.g. central London looked like in 2007. It already had surprisingly many roads, but hardly any POIs or other properties that we aim for now. Most of that came later in many iterations of improvement. A single pass of OSM surveying is not any better than the OS data per se. Also given that the errors introduced by tracing OS data are exactly the same type of errors introduced by manual OSM surveying, i.e. misspellings in roads, missing roads, outdated roads, ... We need to have the tools to deal with this kind of maintenance anyway. It is the iterations that make OSM data what it is, not the first pass ground survey. Creating a blanket base layer from OS data allows us to much better focus on the aspects that do distinguish us from every other map data provider with having to waste as little as possible resources on the stuff everyone else has too. 2) large scale imports and tracing hinders community growth: This perhaps is the more important of the two arguments, as indeed what distinguishes us from everyone else is the community and without the community and its constant iterations and improvements, OSM data will bit rot just as much as all other data. However I don't think there is any clear evidence either way of what non local mapping does to communities and it remains hotly debated. The negative effects claimed are usually of the form a) The area looks complete, there is nothing more to do, so why bother. Or, it isn't as much fun to add a POI than a whole new village on a blank canvas. b) I put in all this effort into mapping an area
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?, (Kai Krueger)
+1... or -1 as well? not sure how the arithmetic of these is supposed to work. anyway, i agree with phil. cheers, matt On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Phil James peerja...@googlemail.com wrote: At risk of being a fly in the ointment, judging by the largely favourable responses to this idea, I for one would like to register myself as -1. Rant Please don't map an area if you are not familiar with it. I have done some armchair mapping, but only where I am familiar with the area, and feel I can add value to the data I am entering. If you are that desperate for a 'complete' map, go out and do more surveying, or just use OS or other commercially available products. I just feel that blatant, blind copying of OS data is prostituting what I thought Open Street Map was meant to be about./Rant OK, I've got my tin hat on: standing by for incoming... ;-) Phil. talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: -- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 12:07:33 +0100 From: Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com Subject: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV? To: 'talk-gb' talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Message-ID: 4c0b8175.30...@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Hello everyone, I would like to suggest as a sort of Project of the week for the UK for people to pick a random town or village somewhere in the UK that so far has poor coverage and trace it's roads from OS OpenData StreetView. Despite the various claims over the years that the UK road will be road complete by the end of the year, the UK is still a far distance off of that target. I have heard the numbers that so far we have on the order of 50% of named roads (people who are working on OS - OSM comparisons please correct me if I am wrong). Which is by no means a small feat of achieving, but also not as high as one would like it to be. So let us try and accelerate this a bit by everyone picking a small random town or village somewhere in the UK and trace the roads from StreetView. It probably only takes about 10 - 20 minutes for a small village and even a small town isn't too bad to do (if the weather is bad and you can't go out). So with the help of OS data, we can get a big step closer to where we would like to be and use it as a basis to continue to improve beyond the quality of OS data or any other commercial map provider. (If you are convinced already, then no need to read the rest of the email) I know that many people are opposed to armchair mapping or imports (and btw I am not proposing a full scale import here, but manual tracing instead) and so I'd like to counter some of the arguments most likely going to be brought up against this sort of non local tracing: 1) OS data might have mistakes, be outdated and generally not as good as what OSM aims for: Yes, no doubt OS has errors and can be outdated in many places by a couple of years ( I have found more than enough of those myself). Furthermore, all of the OS products released lack many of the properties we are interested in like one way roads, turn and other restrictions, POIs, foot and cycle ways and all the other things that make OSM data such a rich and valuable dataset. So yes, the OS data will clearly not replace any of the traditional OSM surveying techniques or be the end of things. But it can be a great basis to build upon. As a comparison, have a look (assuming you have a timecapsal ;-)) at what the data of e.g. central London looked like in 2007. It already had surprisingly many roads, but hardly any POIs or other properties that we aim for now. Most of that came later in many iterations of improvement. A single pass of OSM surveying is not any better than the OS data per se. Also given that the errors introduced by tracing OS data are exactly the same type of errors introduced by manual OSM surveying, i.e. misspellings in roads, missing roads, outdated roads, ... We need to have the tools to deal with this kind of maintenance anyway. It is the iterations that make OSM data what it is, not the first pass ground survey. Creating a blanket base layer from OS data allows us to much better focus on the aspects that do distinguish us from every other map data provider with having to waste as little as possible resources on the stuff everyone else has too. 2) large scale imports and tracing hinders community growth: This perhaps is the more important of the two arguments, as indeed what distinguishes us from everyone else is the community and without the community and its constant iterations and improvements, OSM data will bit rot just as much as all other data. However I don't think there is any clear evidence either way of what non local mapping does to communities and it remains hotly debated. The negative effects claimed are usually of the form a) The area looks complete, there is nothing more
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?, (Kai Krueger)
On 6 June 2010 22:13, Phil James peerja...@googlemail.com wrote: ...I just feel that blatant, blind copying of OS data is prostituting what I thought Open Street Map was meant to be about./Rant OK, I've got my tin hat on: standing by for incoming... ;-) Phil. I've got a lot of sympathy for that view. The UK map owes a huge amount to individuals trudging along the streets and footpaths/paths/etc of Britain. Mapping Parties have created community, and were responsible for the detailed mapping of many areas. But. OpenStreetMap is a project to create and provide free geographic data, such as streets maps, to anyone who wants them. That is why I contribute. Blatant, blind, copying of OS Data allows us to provide more detailed geographic data which satisfies the aim of the project. The OS data is been treated as a replacement and hard work isnt being deleted. The OS data is only being used to add data that is not currently present, or to mark up blunders. I have no emotional attachment to the data gathering process, whether it be Mapping Parties, Yahoo tracing, or imports. They are simply a means to an end, to be discarded if a better method comes along. The big question is whether importing OS Data means we'll never see the addition of data normally providing by OpenStreetMap streetwalkers. I'd like to think that an almost complete Streetmap will mean a massive increase in use of OpenStreetMap and those new users will add the missing POI. Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?, (Kai Krueger)
On 7 June 2010 05:18, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com wrote: The OS data is been treated as a replacement and hard work isnt being deleted. The OS data is only being used to add data that is not currently present, or to mark up blunders. Oops, That should have read The OS data is not being treated as a replacement. Thats what happens if you been up all night looking for bats! I'm now now off to get a good days sleep. Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
