Re: [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 10:16 +0100, Dave F. wrote: On 11/07/2011 17:56, Mikel Maron wrote: Everyone This thread was on the topic of the atmosphere of the Australian community and talk-au, -Mikel on behalf of Talk Moderators Then, as a moderator, you should give Steve C. a warning for polluting this general talk forum with irrelevant waffling. Incase you havent learnt, the moderation is there to stop anyone else drowning out SteveC on the list. In one foul swoop, Richard has destroyed my interest in OSM.. 5 years of mapping contributions, code contributions, discussion contributions, and we get treated like this. I have deleted all my accounts, all my subscriptions, and am in the process of deleting 12 months of GPX traces and OSM files that Ive built up from my round-australia travels, mostly on highways which have never been mapped, and wont be mapped unless someone else takes the week-long roadtrip. Some non aussies came onto the aussie list and stirred up a few big arguments, so you ban the aussies, rather than the international pests. What you should have done, was blocked everyone non-aussie from the list, or at least bothered to look at the history (or ask ANYONE) who uses the list. Then, when a few people criticized him for his decision, he disappears. Seriously Richard, I hope you burn in hell for the destruction youve caused and continue to cause to the OSM project. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 15:02 +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I think it's reasonably obvious by now that the two sides in this debate
aren't ever going to be reconciled.
I guess that depends on your definition of reconciled.
It's not exclusively an .au problem, but it is mostly. If you look at
any of the analysis done recently, Australia simply hasn't taken to
ODbL+CT in the way that other countries have.
... [ODbL figures] ...
That's pretty stark.
Steve and Sam might have between them put their finger on why it's
different
(http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2011-July/008268.html). I'm
sure personalities also have something to do with it, as they do with
any open source project. Regardless, it's unquestionable that it _is_
different in .au.
I think the biggest problem people in .au had was that there were some
issues which were specific to the Australian usage of OSM (imports of
gov data, etc). Those who sought to change the licence claimed to be
listening to people, but when Australian mappers raised issues, we were
simply told 'bad luck youre only a tiny percentage of the data'.
Part of the problem that has arisen is that our data would be affected
more than most by the removal of CCBYSA imported data. Some people
looked at this as simply a data loss in a remote part of the world, the
same way most of us wouldnt care if a big import from Africa was due to
be removed for the same reason.
The OSMF has always accepted that some users wont accept the licence
(whether on principle or because of the sources they wish use) and this
loss of mappers will be acceptable for the future progression of OSM.
From the OSMF perspective, they feel this is a required step to move on.
From the Aussie perspective, it feels like its acceptable to lose our
contributions, or at least easier to remove them than to work to resolve
any minor attribution issues that we ('we' meaning a few users
knowledgable about the licence) have raised.
So, I think, we need to get away from this idea that a fork is a bad
thing. It isn't. There are two divergent communities, and it doesn't do
either side any good to try and hold them together when they're so opposed.
It doesnt do either side any good to cut ties and drift our separate
ways either. Just because you dont get along with someone on a desert
island, it doesnt mean you isolate yourself on the other side, your
strength together will be much more than your individual strength.
FOSM appears to be slowly becoming established, both technically and as
a brand, and that's good. Benefiting from all the OSM code and
ecosystem, plus the free gov.au data, is a pretty good headstart for a
new forked project and I'd be amazed if it couldn't succeed given that.
The problem for OSM will be when all the incompatible CCBYSA data is
removed, and that 'headstart' is more like fosm being a late starter in
the race while the other runner is contemplating cutting his foot off at
around the time the two racers are level.
So please, let's stop hitting each other over the head with this. OSM
can exist with ODbL, FOSM can exist with CC-BY-SA; people will choose
which one to contribute to (or, indeed, both).
You are covering one point of the equation, the contributors. What
about the map users? Sure, its great to have a massive network of
contributors, but if the data being contributed isnt being used or isnt
complete enough to be used, then you'll lose the masses. The masses
dont want to add nodes and new roads, they want to replace garmin maps
with OSM maps, so they can drive for their job or their holiday. They
dont care about what licence is on the maps, they just want the most
complete maps they can get. If that means a choice of OSM or OSM - 52%
who in their right mind would choose the smaller dataset?
The fact that you might lose 100 mappers, might not really affect the
project, the fact of losing a whole country of consumers, might.
David
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 06:53 +0200, Mike Dupont wrote: Besides all the flames and smoke, what are the real issues here? I think that we dont need to continue this endless discussion. Lets just stop the fighting and do something more productive. I think a main issue here, comes down to what services do we need to fork away from the ODbL OSM but still retain the community that exists. Both groups can utilise the same community (mailing lists, IRC, even mapping parties) for discussions regarding tagging or international mapping variances, infact I think they are some of the most interesting discussions here. Both groups can pretty much share the same toolsets. ie just because you favour fosm over osmf or vice versa, that doesn't mean you should stop using and contributing to things like mapnik, osmosis and mkgmap. I think there needs to be a clear statement made by one of the 'democratically elected' members that despite any forks in the licence, the project and community share a common goal and can share some resources, even if we're unable to share data. I also think that a lot of the arguers on these lists need to understand this too. I find that now we have the fosm going, there should be less reasons to fight, everyone has basically what they need. Of course it could be better. I only hope with time that feelings will ease and each branch of the fork will become successful on its own strength. I think both projects serve their own market of users and will continue to build on their individual strengths. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
Hi Nick, Just a quick note that my understanding is those figures are generated based on v1 history, none of the bot edits would have been v1 unless they created a new entity, not just a new/modified tag. David On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 15:09 +1000, Nick Hocking wrote: Hi Mark, Yes if we were to revert out the non compliant imports, the bot that just added the maxspeed tag on a HUGE number of ways, and also the maxspeed:source tag, and also revert out the bot that modified that last tag to be source:maxspeed, then the numbers may be completly different. cheers Nick ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] missing messages
You may have messages filtered, but I indeed have noticed a lot of missing messages, and often messages that are missing but arrive a few hours late, after Ive already seen the responses to them. I have no blocks or filters, that would be stupid since I am actually interested in following all sides of this issue. I can think of a number of people who dont offer much to the conversation (sorry Fred), who possibly would be worth filtering, but I think everyones opinion is worth reading, even if I might disagree with it. I agree it is difficult as you point out when messages are missed, to keep up with all the important points in the conversation. This seems to be one of the problems with using email and mailing lists for this form of communication, when it works its great, but its easy to miss one message and not be aware of it until everyone else has replied to it. David On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 23:18 -0700, Steve Coast wrote: It's been pointed out that I'm not replying to hundreds of messages from John Smith, Anthony and friends. I don't see them as they're automatically deleted. I find life is better without having the trolls fill my inbox. However, if I have missed any reasonable points in there then feel free to repost them, just don't put those guys email addresses in the to/from/cc fields... Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ATTN Steve Coast st...@asklater.com RE Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 00:51 -0700, All Blokes wrote: I would not in any way presume to speak for any other Australians other than myself, but I object most strenuously to the implication that I have in some way been perverted by 80n or any other person at all. FWIW, Id like to point out that after 3 years mapping with OSM, I knew of fosm for several months before I learned who 80n is, and that he ran it. I was disgruntled with the OSM process and was looking for alternatives. Many names were thrown around, fosm being one of them. Several weeks after becoming a member, the first I became aware of the fact that 80n ran the server was after asking for help and someone directing me to him. I think your threat to come out to Australia and debate this in the pub with 80n as if that would sway people frankly is pretentious I think Steve has some understated feeling of how important 80n is. Steve may feel that with himself being the 'figurehead' of OSM, he feels that 80n is the figurehead of everyone against the change. He is not, he is simply one of many who didnt just dislike the change, he actively did something about it. If you care to come out you will be welcome but if you want to debate 80n this forum is your best chance and It does not appear, to me FWITW that you are doing so well at making your points against him. Seriously, Id like to see that. We could even arrange for a few copyright lawyers to come along, so that maybe Steve will understand the law is different in different places, he apparently needs to hear it from a lawyer or he wont believe it. I wonder how many lawyers it would take to convince him. David You've been very successful at perverting certain sections of the community, Australia being a good example as the checks and balances of normal community communication are harder because of the timezone differences and costs of flying. Essentially, people in Australia don't get to hear from the rest of us on the phone or in the pub and we let you spam the lists for a long time. So to an outsider it can look like you're this rational guy who used to be on the board and so on. I've heard about the various conspiracy theories you've been peddling personally off-list too. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 08:11 -0700, Steve Coast wrote: Why did you stop then? Is there no aerial imagery where you are other than nearmap? Theres this thing in Australia called loyalty. You seem to understand very little about Australian culture. Its almost the height of rudeness after someone sets up a business to donate goods to your project, to then turn around and say 'unless you change your business model, we dont want anything to do with you anymore'. With the amount of effort that has been gone to to secure the data used in Australia to be suitable for OSM, only to have some UK mob make changes to spit in the face of all our donors, its very little wonder why the masses here have little respect for those who cause trouble after we'd gone to such lengths to ask everyone to be compatible with OSM. David On 7/7/2011 8:03 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: ...I believe we should spend energy enlightening aerial providers (or wait for them to catch up) Yup, I'm waiting... (I just wanted to point out why I have stopped contributing - it's not in protest, and not because I've been perverted by 80n. Thanks for your responses anyway.) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
As others have said.. 1) Ive moved to fosm since the lockout 2) Im feeling pretty disillusioned at the whole thing, and seriously wonder if its not worth just paying 5 bucks for a map that I cannot share, rather than deal with the politics of a staggered mapping project 3) Ive made a couple of edits, but really am feeling like theres so much duplicated work now that its almost just not worth bothering Sadly, I think others are starting to fall into these groups too, which is a pity as Ive just discovered some huge unmapped areas around the snowy mountains that I have lots of GPX tracks from (but unfortunately almost zero aerial imagery, from nearmap, bing, any of them). Its hard to get motivation to do work, in the knowledge that either a) work will be deleted or b) someone will have a huge headache trying to merge any work if it is duplicated. David On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 22:35 +1000, Chris Barham wrote: Hi Andrew, On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 21:29, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: snip Are you moving to the fosm db? If so, great! Less problems with trying to merge your data into fosm, and we can all get back to mapping. Do you have any concerns over the switch? I have concerns. The FAQ here gives valid reasons to fork an open source project: http://fossfaq.com/questions/52/what-does-it-mean-to-fork-an-open-source-project and the multiple forks of OSM may have ignored the advice to only fork When you have exhausted all other options. Forks are not a guaranteed success. They may have good reasons, ideals and differing opinions, but the parent project has a brand, and for OSM it's a powerful one. As an example everyone has heard of MySQL, but what about Maria? Mysql - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysql#Forks_of_MySQL Personally I don't care about the licence. I feel that the forks and this resulting dilution of effort will become a drain on all the projects (united we stand/divided etc etc), and have become a shouting match where the 'political' goals of the forked projects are trumpeted over the stated reason for the thing being there - an open map. Cries of We're more open don't help when you can't rustle up the hosting fees or development volunteers. So a fork must become popular. More popular than other forks or the parent project. Was this the real reason for your post with mention of FOSM (and no other OSM spin-offs), and seeding fear uncertainty and doubt regarding *possible* data deletion.. you were recruiting? I'd like to think all this rather dull licence bickering will play out and OSM will continue and strengthen. It's sad that people with agendas are talking up the 'possible' deletion of data, and rushing off to fork. That energy could have been used towards working on ways of keeping or replacing the data in OSM. A satisfactory local example where things turned out well is where Nearmap made it's generous offer to allow pre-existing data to remain under the new licence. However on this list there was little rejoicing, there was a lot of picking over the actual wording of their offer; looking at the legal-eze, hairsplitting terminology or imagined loopholes in order to justify the fork projects existence. Have fun. Cheers, Chas ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Very cheap Garmin Vista Hcx - legit?
The URLs you sent didnt work here, but personally Ive bought a few GPS receivers from dealextreme.com Theyre a hong kong based business but have free shipping and low prices. I think my GPS data logger cost about $15 there. Most of their LCD GPS units simply run windows CE so you simply have to root them and install your choice of nav software. Much cheaper than buying a brand-name Garmin. Infact, my dealextreme GPS has outlasted 2 navmans and a garmin that have given up over the years. David On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 10:05 +1000, Christopher Barham wrote: Hi Is anybody good at spotting eBay scams? This dude has 64 new Garmin Vista HCx's on eBay for about $120 less than comparable offers. Apart from zero feedback and the price, it looks legit to me. Hmm - any thoughts on a possible GPS bargain? (I was thinking it could be ok as Canada is awash with Garmin's and it's paypal protected.) iPhone URL: New Garmin Etrex Vista Hcx Handheld GPS Receiver Browser URL: New Garmin Etrex Vista Hcx Handheld GPS Receiver Chas ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Sister Projects
On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 23:35 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/7/5 Matthias Meisser dig...@arcor.de: Am Dienstag, den 05.07.2011, 19:48 +0200 schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: Maybe we can also open a discussion about this related projects list. IMHO googlemapmaker - although having a similar approach - is not related to OSM. I'd delete all of the projects there that have a no in the license column, i.e. all copyrighted. IMHO OSM is not related to projects that collect proprietary data. Sure, maybe we find a better topic than 'related' or sister projects. Maybe 'other VGI' or something more strict? Why on earth should we give references to proprietary data projects like mapmaker in our wiki? So the project doesnt appear to outsiders like we got our head stuck in the sand? We're not giving advertising space, we're giving one row in a comparison column. Can you suggest another way of showing the comparison between OSM and other similar projects/sites, without mentioning those projects/sites? Besides, if that page only showed projects which follow the same licence as OSM, the page would be pretty much empty, even the forks who are almost identical to the OSM project in every way, wouldnt meet that criteria. I guess you could always just do what advertisements do and refer to 'the other leading map program', without referring to it by name. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Yahoo aerials will not be available after September 13, 2011
Maybe someone should suggest to SteveC if he's looking for spots Bing can update, is the parts that yahoo are removing. Oh well, as long as OSM still has Microsofts products to help, everythings all good.. Microsoft will never change/shutdown their service once theyve burned the bridges with every other provider. Hopefully it wont be a complete failure when all the OSM eggs in the MS basket fall apart. David On Sun, 2011-06-26 at 02:11 +1000, John Smith wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com Date: 26 June 2011 00:22 Subject: [OSM-talk] Yahoo aerials will not be available after September 13, 2011 To: Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com Cc: t...@openstreetmap.org, annou...@openstreetmap.org On 6/25/2011 10:05 AM, Grant Slater wrote: On 25 June 2011 15:00, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 6/25/2011 9:59 AM, Grant Slater wrote: On 25 June 2011 14:56, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.comwrote: Andrew-2 wrote: It says Yahoo is the main imagery source but it isn’t beginners’ level material any more and soon won’t be available at all. First I've heard of this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Aerial_Imagery The aerial imagery being available or that Yahoo is retiring their aerial imagery service/API? The latter. I would have expected something on the talk list. Yes makes sense. Go ahead. I would also recommend CC'ing announce@. You know as much as I do. But read the linked: http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2011/06/yahoo-maps-apis-service-closure-announcement-new-maps-offerings-coming-soon/ / Grant Done, though I'm not subscribed to announce so it may not go through. ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 20:50 +1000, John Smith wrote: On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote: On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote: did you see this? http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution? I just noticed that osm.org is missing attribution. I pointed this out once and the response was that osm.org doesnt need attribution because there is a logo in the top-left corner. I guess the same logic could be applied here, since the name 'OpenStreetMap' is on the fosm.org page. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 17:22 +0200, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: @Eugene Please do not extend the discussion with incompatible examples. My example fits exactly the description of what is called forking: Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29 http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToFork Software forks are generally a bit different. Imagine if Linus proposed to change the Linux kernel licence to BSD-style (but with a caveat that he could change it again to anything he personally decides at any time in the future), then emailing all contributors and asking them to accept the new licence or their work will be reverted. Also requiring all patches to be submitted through a website which only allows submissions once you accept the new terms. Say he then tells people all non-compliant code will be removed in 4-8 weeks unless they agree to the new licence, but says anyone is welcome to continue using the existing code under the existing licence, Say if it gets to the 8 week mark and he decides 'well 90% of people have clicked the agree button, therefore Ill just assume the other 10% no longer have email and would have said yes'. Now, say half a dozen developers decided to take the GPL codebase, call it FreeLinux and continue development, while encouraging anyone who ever contributed to the project under GPL and wants to continue using that licence, to come over to their project. That situation is far more compatible with whats currently happening. Im sure in that instance, you would support the continued codebase under the licence youve used for many years, that is compatible with other licences you use, and which wont have big chunks removed from it sometime indefinitely in the near future. Or would you blindly follow the 'official' codebase accepting the decisions of the leaders without thinking for yourself? David On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: The rotten thing here is that the ODBL fork has hijacked the domain name and servers, because of mainly because a majority let them do it. So I feel it very unfair to call the continuation of OSM under CC-BY_SA, in additon of being obliged to seek new resources (servers ,domain name and community) are called a competitor with the aim of dividing the community. Uh huh. So I suppose if there were a successful plebiscite in a country wanting to change their form of government from presidential to parliamentary (or vice versa) then that's a rotten thing unless the winning side leaves the territory to the losing side and create a new country with a new name? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Flash cookies
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 12:08 +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Markus Lindholm wrote: But there's no need to store them on the client, as all users have to log in the preferences can be stored server-side. Atleast I throw away all cookies when I close the browser. That works for osm.org but not on a third-party Potlatch deployment, where it would require the user to authenticate with OSM on opening Potlatch rather than on first save - not so friendly. It also means that your settings are saved per machine rather than per user, so if Im editing on my laptop then change to my desktop, my potlatch settings may be different even though Im editing with the same user account. Maybe with this new legislation, its worth looking at some option in the user settings, whether to pass stored settings from the server to potlatch or whether to use cookies. Everytime I edit, Im asked to authenticate with OSM before opening potlatch, is that not normal? On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 12:15 +0100, Chris Hill wrote: Further discussion should probably go onto @legal-talk, IMHO. Is that the new mailing list users are being directed to for all threads longer than 5 messages now? Maybe it should be directed to talk-eu since it only affects the EU? Maybe it should be directed to talk-dev since it might be a situation for the developers to make some changes. Or, maybe its of enough interest to enough people that it should stay in general discussion. Seriously, its starting to get seriously tiring when everyone tries to divert every thread to legal-talk and Im pretty sure those users on that list would be getting tired of seeing messages that dont belong on that list. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 21:17 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: I wonder what would happen if someone involved in running Google Map Maker were to post a similar message. Hey, don't like how things go in OSM? Why not come to Google Map Maker where all license issues are solved! Except that a) Map Maker never had any compatability with any version of OSM b) Users who used OSM for the past few years dont necessarily want licence issues 'solved' (especially if the only difference they see is a degraded map) c) fosm isnt a wholey different project in the same way MapMaker is. fosm is a copy of OSM, and the two will parallel each other until the time that OSM splits off with a new licence change. If you think of fosm as the continuation and OSM as the fork with 'all licence issues solved', youre more on-track to the situation The day after the changeover occurs, the world will look at OSM and fosm and theyll see one is a small subset of the other, until the time that the main OSM project can come close to making up for the data that has had to be removed. Joe user (especially Joe user who might use map maker) doesnt give a rats about licence terms, all they care about is seeing complete maps. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 13:49 -0700, Steve Coast wrote: Personally I hope as soon as possible. I suspect it will be nice to give you 'no' guys some time to reconsider, as some already have. Such a pity you dont extend the same feelings to those 'yes guys' who wish to change their acceptance. Except that changing from no to yes is generally upto the mapper, those who wish to change the other way are trying to protect themselves and the OSM project from liability. Surely with the whole purpose of the licence change being to purge any non-compatible data, these requests should be taken seriously, not in the way they generally have been, with refusal. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 16:25 -0700, Steve Coast wrote: Well there's one other aspect which is there are chunks of data only available to OpenStreetMap and nobody else. Does the data exclusively available under the ODbL outweigh the data exclusively available under CC? Since not even OSM uses the ODbL yet, I find it totally amazing that any other entity would be. Also.. On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 16:35 -0700, Steve Coast wrote: Why do you feel you have a liability? Because I have used data from a source which cannot be relicenced. Id feel the same way if Id taken OSM data and put it into another external project, which was then planning to change its licence and take the OSM data along with it. Personally, I dont have a liability as I was aware early enough that my contributions couldnt be relicenced. Unfortunately some people have accepted the CTS without fully understanding that they didnt have the rights to relicence the data. The fact of having each individual user accept contributor terms, means that effectively you have passed the liability directly onto the user who contributed the 'offending' data rather than the foundation who refuse to remove the data in the first place. David On 6/22/2011 4:22 PM, David Murn wrote: On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 21:17 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: I wonder what would happen if someone involved in running Google Map Maker were to post a similar message. Hey, don't like how things go in OSM? Why not come to Google Map Maker where all license issues are solved! Except that a) Map Maker never had any compatability with any version of OSM b) Users who used OSM for the past few years dont necessarily want licence issues 'solved' (especially if the only difference they see is a degraded map) c) fosm isnt a wholey different project in the same way MapMaker is. fosm is a copy of OSM, and the two will parallel each other until the time that OSM splits off with a new licence change. If you think of fosm as the continuation and OSM as the fork with 'all licence issues solved', youre more on-track to the situation The day after the changeover occurs, the world will look at OSM and fosm and theyll see one is a small subset of the other, until the time that the main OSM project can come close to making up for the data that has had to be removed. Joe user (especially Joe user who might use map maker) doesnt give a rats about licence terms, all they care about is seeing complete maps. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Is it a temporary file or Derivative Database under ODbL
On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 22:49 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Just like we have a tagging list for tagging-specific discussions. So if someone decided to change every highway=track into highway=unclassified or decided to mass-change aerodrome into airport, would that be an issue for tagging (since it was a change of tag) or would it be an issue for general talk (since it is a major change that affects potentially every user of the system)? I'm relatively sure that 99.5% of readers of this talk list will never create a Garmin map with SOTM contours, and are quite uninterested in the finer details of what exactly a temporary file means in legal terms. Im pretty sure that 99.5% of users would never be sued if they put an OSM map onto their website without proper attribution too, that doesnt mean that we shouldnt talk about it, or move the conversation to some obscure list where even the name is enough to scare interested people away. I for one am interested to know the answer to these sorts of questions, since it appears that this huge licence has been written but very little consideration has been given to the finer details, until they get pointed out 1000 times. At which point someone either makes a concession to the masses or an insult to those users who pointed out the problems. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 06:55 -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Ok. How do you fancy volunteering to be the person who posts the concrete information, then? You seem to be under the impression that magic communication fairies will crop up and make everything ok. It doesn't work like that. Everyone here is a volunteer. If you're not happy with the effort that other volunteers are making, you should volunteer yourself. Maybe you dont understand the role of office-bearers of a 'non-profit' foundation. Sure, they are volunteers, but if they dont have the time to do the job they volunteered for properly, then it only hurts the community they claim to serve. We're not asking the volunteers to write a novel for each statement they make during a meeting, we're asking them to document clearly and concisely what they decide and what they actually do at meetings instead of documenting major decisions or action items with a 3 or 4 word summary note in the minutes. Maybe if the role of communication by volunteers is such a major burden, an individual could even take on a paid role with the foundation to be a community liason officer so that we the community know what the foundation is upto and how/why they make the decisions they do. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] JohnSmith edits on 19 June 2011
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 09:29 +1000, Mark Pulley wrote: Quoting John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 20 June 2011 02:11, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Please clarify for us the sources of these edits? What does it matter since I'm never going to agree to the CT... Now you're being rude. Actually, I would suggest it is Richard who is being rude in this situation, or is this a new policy to ask people publically to confirm any sources for edits they have made without a source tag (or with a source tag that I doubt). In the interests of consistency Richard, would you also like to contact the following members who have made edits on June 19th around Sydney and who also failed to include a source tag for their edits: Franc, gopher, dexgps? It does matter - if you don't put a comment Are you also raising this issue with everyone who uses potlatch in live edit mode, or is JS just easy pickings today? then it could be construed that your edits were copied from other sources. If you actually did survey it, then why not say so? Also, if you abandon OSM for FOSM, if this data is contaminated, it will also contaminate FOSM (assuming FOSM will be using OSM CC-BY-SA data). One can only assume that the edits were copied or derived from some source, otherwise it would be a creative art and out-of-place for OSM. What do you mean 'contaminated'? It may surprise you to know that some data that 'contaminates' OSM with regards to the ODbL, can safely exist in current OSM and FOSM with no legal problems. If this data came from a CC-BY-SA source and he hasnt accepted the CTs, then where is the problem? Can you seriously sit there with a straight face, while OSM data is on the edge of being devastated in this country and find the most pressing issue is someone not adding a source tag for a single barrier node (plus some other minor edits)? One wonders whether you would raise the same issue about any other users if they hadnt dissented so much against the foundation, political trolling at its best. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities
On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 09:16 -0500, Toby Murray wrote: On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:19 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: when all the nearmap-derived data is removed It seems like you missed an email a couple of days ago? Current NearMap derived data does not need to be removed from OSM during the license change. It sounds like you mis-read the email. It does not 'need' to be removed, NearMap have simply said it CAN be relicenced, depending on the user who derived the data. Unless a user can guarantee that their edits were 100% based on nearmap and used no other CC source (unlikely for Australian users), they cant accept the CTs, which means all their edits must be removed. I know that Ive used CC data (other than nearmap) a handful of times in the last few years, but like most people, Im unable to tell you which of my 2000+ changesets is affected and which isnt. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 14:09 -0700, Steve Coast wrote: I'm speaking personally and there are no guarantees here but I'd like to get input on what areas you would like Bing to prioritise for aerial and/or satellite imagery in the coming year. There are numerous programs that exist which show the density of mapping in certain areas. Maybe it would be useful to find the more heavily mapped areas that dont have coverage? Please mail sco...@microsoft.com with the area in question (I'd love to accept bounding boxes but don't really have the time so cities/countries are the best). This almost seems backwards. If youre given a city/country, dont you have to then find it so you can figure out a bounding box anyway? Personally, Id like to see the coverage extended along the east coast of Australia, in many areas the coverage seems to cover huge regional areas but then stops short of the townships. Id also like to throw in a vote for imagery of the alpine snowy mountains here too. I think its also worth looking at what areas are covered by NearMap but arent covered by bing, as when all the nearmap-derived data is removed, many mappers will want some sort of imagery to replace it (even if it is much lower quality). David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities
On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 13:52 +1000, John Smith wrote: On 17 June 2011 13:19, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: There are numerous programs that exist which show the density of mapping in certain areas. Maybe it would be useful to find the more heavily mapped areas that dont have coverage? That's making assumptions that larger towns are mapped already, however when I go looking there is plenty of towns very poorly mapped that have no aerial imagery available. Simply searching for place=city/town/village and even checking the population tag on those nodes, its not too difficult. Major and semi-major transport corridors would be good as well. +1 Personally, Id like to see the coverage extended along the east coast of Australia, in many areas the coverage seems to cover huge regional areas but then stops short of the townships. eg Lightning Ridge http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-29.4282lon=147.9793zoom=14layers=M Im also thinking Batemans Bay in NSW. Murramarang and Monga National Parks are almost completely covered by aerial imagery, but the coverage stops about 3km away on each side of the town of Batemans Bay. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 11:14 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:15 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: The current boundaries will be removed in the near future, so if I were you I wouldn't spend to much time fussing over them. Oh? Do tell? All ABS boundaries (infact all .au government provided data that has been imported.. toilets, bbqs, hospitals/police stations) will be removed because theyre all distributed under CC licence, which is not compatible with the licence OSMF are trying to introduce at the moment. That is the reason why very little effort has been expended mapping Australia lately, until we know what skeleton of data we'll have left to work with after the changeover. If you want to map for OSM at the moment, your best bet is to map offline using something like JOSM, then save all your edits to be uploaded when the licence issue has been sorted out, otherwise you might find youre spending hours fixing up the map only to find all your work removed or broken when other users data is removed. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 14:21 +1000, Nick Hocking wrote: Ben said, I say again: that's exactly what it was intended to achive and it was written by our lawyers to do just that. :) Thanks Ben, That makes it crystal clear that nearmappers can accept the CT's. Well, mappers who exclusively used nearmap anyway. Unfortunately, as Ben has pointed out many times, the problem isnt that NearMaps terms have created a problem, it is the fact that the new OSM terms are incompatible with the licence most commonly used for this information. While its great that NearMap sourced data can be used, this doesnt mean the incompatibility problems of other data sources are no longer relevant. CC-by-SA data continues to be incompatible with the new terms, and that is not the fault of people who have given their data to be used in the OSM project. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 14:49 -0400, Josh Doe wrote: Perhaps it is trivial, but I have yet to hear of anyone working on a script or even pseudocode as to how the cleanup will be performed. Seems like an important item to address IMHO. -Josh According to the implementation plan, sometime after Phase 4 is implemented, the question will be asked of the community: What do we do with the people who have declined or not responded? So, never fear, in a few weeks, they (presumably the OSMF) will (apparently) start asking us (the community) what to do with the now invalid data. You didnt actually think they'd plan ahead, after all theyve only had 2 years and a million other people ask that same question. I for one am very interested to see how the question is asked and how it is responded to, like I think we all are. I guess we just have to wait for the phases to kick through before we (the community) have any idea what theyre planning. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 23:54 +0200, Henk Hoff wrote: During the time of the OSMF-membership vote, there was also a vote initiated by the community, which can be seen here: http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w Outcome: 75% would accept the new license, 11% undecided, 14% not (at that time) You say '75% would'. How many of those 75% have made edits using a source that is CC-BY-SA? I think in principle nearly 100% of OSM users support the continuation of OSM as its own entity, but only 2% acknowledge that they cant relicence that which they do not own in the first place. I suspect the numbers are significantly higher. One sample I derived from a small criteria in Australia, showed that nearly 25% of users who agreed to the ODbL and CT have used CC-BY-SA sources (based on their use of the source= tag). I can only imagine this number would increase if I extended this search to look for more than 2 source tags, or looked for other derived data (for example, CC-BY-SA tagged data that is split or joined). This means that even though 99% of people clicked 'accept' (a check in Australia actually shows the figure at closer to 15%), a large portion of that data is dirty and cannot be used in OSM under the new licence, even though the users who contributed it have decided to relicence it. If this situation was reversed and a major project derived data from OSM, and then in the future asked users to accept a new licence, would OSM have a problem with that? If not, why not.. If so, why is there a double standard? David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] [OSM-legal-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 10:39 +0800, James Andrewartha wrote: On 15 June 2011 09:36, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: Hi all As promised, with apologies for the delay, here is the statement from NearMap regarding submission of derived works of our PhotoMaps to OSM. Dear Ben, Thank you for providing this clear statement, for NearMap's contributions to the OpenStreetMap community, and for the generous decision to allow current NearMap-referenced data to remain in OSM. Does it? I haven't agreed to the CTs, therefore my NearMap tracings are CC-BY-SA, and hence will be purged from the database in Phase 5. Bens statement said: may be held and continue to be used by OSM under the terms in place between OSM and the individual In other words, nearmap allows you to make your own mind up in regards to derived data youve contributed. If you havent agreed to CTs, then your work will be removed, but if you wish to agree you are now not breaching any existing rights. So I guess that cuts down the amount of dirty data OSM will have in their DB, it doesnt remove it completely, but there seems to be no interest in a 100% clean db, as long as 99% is good enough. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Bandwidth limit/IP blocking - Error 303 on the OSM API?
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 22:18 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: Yes, you got blocked on 16th May by the looks of it. I don't think I did it so it was probably one of my colleagues. Is there not some sort of audit trail or changelog for when users get blocked? I think it would be useful if one could find out if theyre blocked or if there is some other server problem, without having to ask on the mailing list. Suggestions, work-arounds? Use the full history dump, as somebody has already suggested. Also, you can use the daily/minutely diffs if you want to keep up with 'real-time' map edits. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL site taken over by spam
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 16:12 -0700, Steve Coast wrote: I think I know why - its because I'm coming from a microsoft.com domain! It thinks I'm a bing crawler. I can't be bothered to join a mailing list to do this. Maybe someone on talk@ will care enough. In before Frederik.. but shouldnt this discussion be taken to talk-legal, like every other discussion of ODbL? David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Nearmap badly out of date
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 20:00 +1000, Nick Hocking wrote: A nearmapper has decided that badly out-of-date nearmap imagery was more authorative than my GPS traces (taken last weekend) and has For anyone interested in the area, NearMap imagery of the new suburbs (taken the Friday before Nicks 'authoritive' GPS traces) is now online. This new imagery also shows a lot more new roads in the new development, which no-doubt will be traced in the coming days as people discover the updated imagery covers undeveloped suburbs. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Nearmap badly out of date
In other news, someone somewhere did something, and someone somewhere should deal with it. Would you care to point out what the problems are, or heaven forbid fix them yourself? We've got this wonderful interface that anyone (even you) can use to change data in the database that people have incorrectly put in. Out of interest, what nearmap imagery is out-of-date? If someone has 'completed' a road which doesnt exist, then how did you map it as a new road? If youre going to talk vague cryptic hints, what exactly are you expecting out of it, since youre obviously not expecting anyone to give an opinion on the changes nor an opinion on the currency of imagery? Maybe youre expecting that a certain unnamed user will (if they happen to see your message) go through their recent edits looking for anything that doesnt match what youve mapped? If you dont educate new users who made mistakes, then what use are you, just a complainer with no interest in rectifying the situations? David On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 20:00 +1000, Nick Hocking wrote: A nearmapper has decided that badly out-of-date nearmap imagery was more authorative than my GPS traces (taken last weekend) and has completed a road that is not there any longer. It has been completely grassed over so that cars can not travel along it, for some time to come, and barricades have been placed at the ends. Well done guys, you are well on the way to making OSM as good as google maps. This reinforces my belief that imagery (whether Bing or nearmap) should never be used for anything that needs to be routable. I hope the user has the gumption to quitely revert his incorrect changes. I don't suppose anyone wondered why I would go so far out of my way to map all the new roads and then fail to drive the last bit of this one. He also found a bit of pavement that I has missed mapping so that was good. He used a bit of poetic licence to mark it one way. Even though there are no one way markings on the road itself, the topography indicates that it can ONLY be one way, so I think that this action was entirely appropriate even though it departs from map only what is on the ground. Nearmap ( near enough is good enough) Sorry Nearmap - I'm not having a go at your excellent imagery, just the way some people choose to use it. PS - I drove back out there again this morning to check on a street sign where I was sure I had a typo (and I did, although I now can't fix it). There were some more new roads open so I have mapped them as well. Sorry guys, nearmap will have to fly and process Canberra every week to keep up with an interested local mapper (and thats only for the road topology - names are something else again). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Canberra mapping - nearly up-to-date.
On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 17:03 +1000, John Smith wrote:
On 9 May 2011 01:28, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
These current edits are of value to OSM, newly developed roads in
developing suburbs ('some of which already have people living on them').
How can newly developed roads be mapped from Bing?
The newly developed roads he has done by survey, including street names.
I have extended and verified this coverage with the available nearmap
imagery. The same area in bing is shown as grassed paddocks. Check
around the following way and you can see the difference between
bing/nearmap for this area:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/41119687
David
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Canberra mapping - nearly up-to-date.
On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 21:53 +1000, John Smith wrote:
On 8 May 2011 21:41, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:
As usual - non trolls are welcome to let me know if I've missed anything (or
made some mistakes).
So people asking difficult, but honest questions are labelled trolls
so you don't have to answer?
All this looks like is vandalism and half baked edits that should be
reverted as you aren't adding value to the map, if you continue to do
so any one of several of us will start reverting all your change sets.
These current edits are of value to OSM, newly developed roads in
developing suburbs ('some of which already have people living on them').
The map looks a bit funny because what is mapped is all that is on the
ground currently. There are more roads planned which is obvious from
recent aerial imagery, even to the point of driveways being paved before
the roads however the roads are currently just dirt tracts at last view.
One comment I will make though, is that it appears from comparing your
edits with nearmap imagery of nov-2010, some new streets you mapped
continue on past the extent you mapped them. Did you consider mapping
the newer unopened streets with construction tags so theyre still
visible but unroutable?
New NearMap imagery was taken over the weekend in Canberra, so within a
week or two expect to see new high-res imagery of the new developing
suburbs and even more areas to map while our data is still of interest
to some.
David
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Canberra Mapping - out of date
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 21:22 +1000, Nick Hocking wrote: Unfortunately this has meant that Canberra OSM data is now badly out of date. I have recently heard of a situation where up-to-date Canberra data could have been *extremely* usefull to somebody. Just out of interest, I noticed youve been 'realigning' some nearmap sourced ways to bing imagery recently in my area. You claim to be making the map up-to-date, but are you aware that the Bing imagery for Canberra is from March 2001, while the latest nearmap source (which they were traced from and which you claim to be out-of-date) was acquired November 2010? This could almost be considered vandalism, what you are doing to the quality of the map data available for Canberra. Please dont touch any of my 'out-of-date' edits from the past 6 months to realign them with 10 year old aerial imagery. Also, if youre going to trace ways from Bing, why tag them as source=nearmap? Are you delibrately trying to muddy the waters? David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Canberra Mapping - out of date
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 12:19 +1000, John Smith wrote: On 6 May 2011 10:47, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: You mentioned previously that Bing was out of alinement by up to 100m, if this is the case it is a clear case of vandalism since he should be at the vest least realigning Bing imagery to GPS traces. The few times Ive used it, Ive found the accuracy to vary anywhere from 0-100m. The accuracy varies in local regions too, so while one part of a suburb might be offset 50m north-east of reality, another part of the suburb might be offset 50m south-east of reality, this means you constantly have to realign the imagery while working with it. I remember hearing once about someone writing some sort of plugin or database which kept a track of how offset parts of the bing imagery are, but never heard if it was successful or how extensive the coverage is. Given its age (over 10 years old in Canberra), and these nasty accuracy limitations anyone would be crazy to use it in preference to NearMap. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Canberra Mapping - out of date
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 14:02 +1000, Ian Sergeant wrote: On 6 May 2011 10:47, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: Given its age (over 10 years old in Canberra), and these nasty accuracy limitations anyone would be crazy to use it in preference to NearMap. Was surveying around Casey on the weekend. Impressed by the OSM coverage as always of the new areas. Casey was one of the areas I was talking about wanting to survey last year but it was already done before the construction fences were even taken down, street names and all (and a single GPS trace, now covered by dozens more). Still a just a cleared area on the bing imagery, but I still would have put it more recent than 10 years. Maybe 3 or 4? The Bing aerial imagery analyzer gives different results for different areas, youre right, some of the newer parts of gungahlin are only 3 years old, but the imagery around Tuggeranong which I quickly checked is showing as March 2001. Bing and Nearmap both seemed well aligned, but Nearmap with far superior imagery. In related news, NearMap are flying Canberra as I write this, so expect even more superior (and up-to-date) imagery online in the next couple of weeks, hopefully with a little more coverage of unmapped areas to go and explore. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Reassurance and Licensing
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 15:31 +1000, Ian Sergeant wrote: This is the Australian list, in case you didn't realise Ah, so you are speaking for all Australians! Well, I have yet to hear any Australians complain about the freedom of the data, other than being incompatible with the new one-of-a-kind licence that OSM is wanting to use. As I said, I'm glad you have such faith in your government institutions, but OSM was largely formed because of government restrictions over the use of its data (i.e OS copyright), and I think the OSM community has the demonstrated capacity and capability to make its own decisions, rather than having to follow what the Australian government or any other government specifies. A lot of data has been imported to the Australian OSM map from freely (as free as OSM has always been anyway) given government sources and datasets. I always assumed that it was groups like google, yahoo, bing and the like that we were trying to be more open than, not those who actually opened access to their data. So at least this Australian born, Australian resident, 5-year Australian OSM contributor doesn't necessarily think whatever is good enough for the Australian government is necessarily good enough for us all. What legal expertise do you have which you believes makes you think youve found problems that the government copyright lawyers didnt with the licence they chose? Do you also disagree with the licence that OSM has been distributed under for the past 5 years? After all, it is the same licence the Australian government (and apparently now NZ government) are using, and will continue to use. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Reassurance and Licensing
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 20:29 +1000, Ian Sergeant wrote: I'm not objecting to freedom of data. The comment I objected to is the one that said if it is good enough for the Australian government, then it must be good enough for all Australians, with no need to examine it further. That may be valid as someone's opinion, but to say it is the opinion of all Australians is just plainly false. It doesnt have to match the opinion of all Australians, as long as it matches the opinions of those who matter and would be deciding on these things (copyright lawyers, judges, etc). I always thought that in Australia we question our government's decisions, we don't always accept what they are doing is in the national best interest. They have given away valuable data under an internationally used licence. How is it not in the best interest? I'm sure they have considered the available licensing options, and given the current state of the law and licensing have given it their best shot. The government has a different decision making basis to what OSM does. I imagine there are more lawyers and legal advisors in the Australian government than there are involved in OSM too. Heck, even just within some departments like ABS Im sure the legal numbers and minds outweigh the OSM collective legal knowledge. I'm not arguing for any particular licencing outcome. If you want to have that discussion, I'm sure you can find someone who feels more strongly on the issue than I do. Im arguing for an outcome which is compatible with as many users as possible and that people already know and understand and have tested. Im also arguing for an outcome which wouldnt see the complete splintering of the project in the long-term. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Canberra Mapping - out of date
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 21:22 +1000, Nick Hocking wrote: Unfortunately this has meant that Canberra OSM data is now badly out of date. I have recently heard of a situation where up-to-date Canberra data could have been *extremely* usefull to somebody. As an active Canberra mapper, exactly which parts are 'badly out of date'? The only areas I can think of that you could be referring to are a couple of new land estates in Gungahlin. Since it was exactly this type of situation that prompted me to spend so much time mapping Canberra and keeping it very up-to-date, and despite my revulsion at having to work on a project while the three forkers are still in residence, this weekend I will bring Canberra up-to-date again. I may be wrong, but I think youll find theres more than 3 fork projects tentatively being planned. This data could not have been arm-chair mapped with nearmap (or Bing for that matter) but needs people out there actually mapping rather than incessantly bitching and moaning about things on these lists. Once again, can you suggest areas which arent covered by bing/nearmap that are out of date? Other than a couple of new land estates I cant think of any areas needing work, but it would be great if you could point some of us locals in the right direction, so that if there are unmapped areas there can be more than just your manhours spent alone on it, after all, that is a great thing about OSM is the teamwork to more completely map unmapped or out-of-date areas. I really wish that OSM-F would finalise the CT/licence implementation, (tomorrow would be good!) I think we've all been hoping for a finalisation one way or the other, or even a rough timeline which can be stuck to. The damage done to the project through this dragged out process and constantly moving the goalposts may be irrepairable. At best, only a few mappers may abandon the project, at worst we may have set precedent with data providers being wary of making concessions to open-data projects, having given away their data then be told 'thanks for your effort but were not interested anymore'. Not wanting to dishearten you, but currently the ODbL/CTs changeover is 2 weeks into phase 3 of 5. Phase 3 will take '5 or 10 weeks', Phase 4 will take at least 8 weeks (and apparently community consultation). If everything moves as quickly as is scheduled (considering its taken 12 months to reach this stage), the changeover might be complete by the start of summer. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Geofabrik Download Server Update
New Caledonia is not part of Australia. It is approx 2000km east of the closest point in Australia, about the same distance as New Zealand is. Does the Australia file (which doesnt seem to be on that linked page at the moment) cover the entire oceania region? Maybe its worth looking at putting up smaller filtered extracts (ie. only highway tagged ways or only amenity tagged features for the US users, this would reduce the extract size for those who only wish to use it for navigation or who simply want to keep their POI db up-to-date. David On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 10:11 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 05/03/11 07:07, Hendrik Oesterlin wrote: Would it be possible to add New Caledonia in .pbf to http://download.geofabrik.de/osm/australia-oceania/ I'd love to but before I start making smaller files for Australia I think I'll do something in the US. I suggest that for the time being you download the 160 MB full Australia file and cut out New Caledonia yourself with Osmosis. That may be a small waste of bandwidth, but someone in the southern US currently has to download 1.5 GB if they want to use one of my extracts! Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] NSW Dept of Lands aerial imagery...
On Mon, 2011-05-02 at 19:33 +1000, Andrew Harvey wrote: Sure if we can convince them to use more liberal licensing it would be great. Personally I would use it for areas not covered by nearmap. While not necessarily beneficial for future new OSM, it could be beneficial to any forks if they could be convinced to licence under the CC-BY licence they use for other data. In theory it should be a simple task for them to grant rights under a licence they already use in their department. I'm not sure how we can be heard from them though. I supposed we could try emailing bob.he...@lands.nsw.gov.au as it says on the page... Do we have anyone here (JS?) who has experience writing to these groups asking for permission? Im sure Ive seen template letters thrown around on here but cant remember who has been successful at it in the past. David On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 9:39 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: The NSW Dept of Lands seems to have quite a lot of aerial imagery (http://lite.maps.nsw.gov.au/), in their terms of use all copyrightable material is for personal or non-comercial use only, but doesn't seem to cover deriving data from their imagery, and what can be done with it afterwards. Does anyone have any thoughts on if they'd be favourable to allowing the community to derive map data at all? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] How many NearMap users do you think have accepted the new CTs and ODbL?
On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 23:18 +0800, Andrew Gregory wrote: Thankfully, I've been careful to use source=nearmap. I've also been making a point to go around and survey streets I've traced, check their alignment, name them and set source=survey. Unless youve realigned the ways based on GPS tracks after you traced from nearmap, tagging the ways as source=survey is incorrect. You can add a source:name=survey or similar, but if youve traced from a source, just because you verify it with another source if you havent made any changes Id suggest leaving source tag as is. In any case, I expect that when it comes time to actually apply the new license, any source=nearmap data will disappear leaving behind all my re-licensable data. That is what one would hope, but no-one has been able to give a straight answer. The problem with this, is how many source= tags do they have to check for and remove? The problem isnt specific to nearmap, it is a general problem for all data derived from sources using differing licences (for example, ABS, yahoo or data.gov.au, just in Australia). It is easier to simply remove every edit from a user than for them to automate the process of figuring out what was sourced from where. I short, I don't see any problems. All my current data conforms to the current license, and the data that doesn't conform to the new license is easily identifiable and removable. Is it easily identifiable by you or by an automated process also? Have you tagged every single edit youve made, when sourcing nearmap, with their source? I know personally Im sure theres been times when Ive made a quick edit in potlatch and not thought about changing the source tag. Hopefully some general visualisation tools will be developed well before the license change takes place. Again, that is what one would hope, but as no-one is quite sure what will be affected or how. Part of the problem also is that depending on when you agreed to the new licence and CTs, they have quite possibly changed since then, meaning that any visualisation of your data that is impacted when you accepted it, would possibly look different now, if the new wording became more compliant with sources you might have used. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] How many NearMap users do you think have accepted the new CTs and ODbL?
On Mon, 2011-05-02 at 12:40 +0800, Andrew Gregory wrote: Unless youve realigned the ways based on GPS tracks after you traced from nearmap, tagging the ways as source=survey is incorrect. You can add a source:name=survey or similar, but if youve traced from a source, just because you verify it with another source if you havent made any changes Id suggest leaving source tag as is. Yes, it's all based on surveys where I've gone there in person. (How else would I get the name?) As I said, when you get the name, you should use source:name=survey and leave the source=nearmap tag in-place unless after you survey you not only enter the name but also realign all the nearmap-sourced nodes to your GPS trace. I just can't see that happening. The damage to the map would be too big! In any case, how do you select the people whose data is to be deleted? The same list of unacceptable sources that is too hard to determine in the first place? Whatever criteria that would be required to identify users could just as easily be applied to ways and nodes, in a much more targeted and far less damaging way. Youve basically summarised the whole problem here. The damage to the map is significant (figures range from between 50-80% loss of data in Australia). The method being used to select the data to delete is to ask users to allow OSM to relicence their contributions. Anyone who doesnt agree, has their data deleted. This also affects any revisions made to existing data by users who HAVE agreed. The 'unacceptable sources' isnt so much a pre-determined list, in general in Australia it is any data that is released under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, which will soon be incompatible with the new licence that OSMF has drafted. One of the problems is that its not easy to determine which users are affected. Some data is obviously tagged as being sourced from somewhere, in these cases its easy to know if the data can remain or not under the new licence. But in Australia, a lot of users would have made edits (even minor edits) using CC-BY sources, such as the ABS data or simply using nearmap for a quick live edit on the OSM website, moving a toilet to the correct location without adding a source tag, for example. Well source=nearmap is easily identified by an automated process. It worked for you! As for ones I may have missed, well I will need to be trusted that I haven't missed any, in exactly the same way the other 3390-536=2854 users will have to be trusted that they've never used nearmap. My simple test was simply to demonstrate that a minimum of 25% of those who agreed are unable to. That figure might be higher, but it can be guaranteed that its not lower. The figures of 3390, 536 and 2854 represent total number of Australian mappers, total that have accepted and total that havent. This means that 2854 users' data wont be included in the 'new' OSM as OSM cannot relicence the data from the contributor. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] New Logo in the Wiki
On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 20:30 -0400, Russ Nelson wrote: Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you are correct. Have you ever tried to join a committee and been rebuffed? For the past 2 years Ive been a secretary of a national non-profit organisation in my country. If we had made decisions and communicate N. d with the group in the way OSMF has done, I can only imagine the outrage (it would be similar to the feelings of many here currently). If I wrote minutes as sparsely and incomplete as the various committees and groups write their minutes, I imagine the 2nd meeting it happened at, Id be asked if I needed help and would basically not have been allowed to get away with sloppy work again. I had gotten SO TIRED of people who complained that we weren't open enough or transparent enough. Had any of those people EVER come to us and asked if they could help us with anything? What do you think would have happened if OSI decided to do something like change their policies or their logo, with no discussion or announcement until someone noticed and asked what happened? The future belongs to those who show up, not those who whinge about work that has been done. Unfortunately, being involved in an OSMF (or SWG, LWG, DWG, etc) meeting isnt as easy as 'just showing up'. Infact, its not even really possible to be invovled by reading the minutes or the meeting notes. Those of us who wish to be involved, join public discussions and forums. Apparently those who are actually in the positions of power are no longer interested in public discussions and forums. Exactly how was anyone to have 'shown up' to discussions about a new logo, when the first that 99.9% of us became aware of the change was when someone asks HERE after its already been decided and changed. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Trolls
On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 20:09 +1000, Nick Hocking wrote: David Murn stated If anyone is interested, I can provide the simple C code I used to generate these numbers and/or a list of usernames/uids that are involved. Well. you'd be a right piece of work then. Right, get Nearmap to sue every OSMer in sight, that'd be real clever of them. Hang on.. maybe you were just tyring to outdo the other two aus-trolls in dispiciality inh wich case, congratulations... I believe that you have just taken a narrow lead. Im not sure what youre suggesting. NearMap has no interest in suing anyone, least of all OSM users since OSM is still under a compatible licence. What I was 'trying to do' was to point out that there needs to be a lot more care taken when asking users to relicence the data, and that the users whos names I could list should be taken off the list of those accepting the ODbL and CTs. PS - tomorrow I will find out all the ways in Canberra that I had to fix using nearmap, and replace them using compliant Bing imagery Make sure you also survey those roads then so you can replace the tags you delete while replacing the ways. If you delete a road which is tagged as maxspeed=60 and re-trace it from bing, youd better go survey it in person and re-add all the data youre removing, otherwise YOU are the one causing problems to the project. At the very least, can I ask that if youre going to trace from bing, that you keep an eye on the imagery alignment as in some parts of Canberra I have found the imagery to be upto 100m offset. One might almost consider your efforts vandalism, and a complete waste of time and effort when you could be tracing areas that arent mapped, and if you really want to replace all the work others have done, then at least wait until it has been removed (if it is removed) in future. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tragedy of the commons...
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 11:33 +0100, 80n wrote: There's no tileserver yet, that's a priority, there's no gratification if things are rendered. Is it possible to setup some sort of tiles@home-like system for fosm? That could be a way to reduce your load. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] How many NearMap users do you think have accepted the new CTs and ODbL?
I was wondering this question tonight. How many OSM users have accepted the new terms, without fully understanding that sources they have used in the past prohibit them from doing so. So, I wrote a little script to find out and the numbers are surprising. Using my australian test extract from 21/03/2011, I found that 3390 users have made edits in the area of interest (the Australian extract available on osmaustralia.org). Of these 3390 users, 536 have used the tag source=nearmap at least once. Of these 536 users, 134 have agreed to the ODbL+CTs. So, approximately 25% of users who have attributed nearmap (and to be fair, a lot more data has probably used nearmap without proper attribution), have agreed to have their edits released under the new terms. Of 3390 total users in our region, 487 have agreed to the terms. Interesting numbers that show that a lot of users have been mislead or misunderstand the consequences of accepting the changes. If anyone is interested, I can provide the simple C code I used to generate these numbers and/or a list of usernames/uids that are involved. This only shows where there is clear evidence of licence violations without having to look past the data's tags. Im sure if similar figures were generated based on users in nearmap coverage areas, the numbers would be similar. These numbers were also generated from an extract, and not a full history dump, so there may well be cases where tags have changed and would not be counted here. Food for thought David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Reassurance and Licensing
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 15:17 +0100, Grant Slater wrote: I am a volunteer member (like all the members) of the Licensing Working Group (LWG), OSM Sysadmin Team along with a few other OpenStreetMap groups. Does this mean we can ask (and receive definitive answers from) you the hard questions that have been asked numerous times and no-one has been in a position to ask? Or are you just another 'volunteer' who will pass the questions off to some hidden mailing list somewhere? The LWG is well aware of the NearMap licensing issue and we are trying to get it resolved as soon as we can but we are an all volunteer team with day jobs. I think youre looking at the problem too narrowly. Yes, the NearMap issue is a significant one to Australians, but it is only one of many numerous sources that all share the same common licence. The 'nearmap issue' is an issue affecting data from many sources, some private stakeholders and some government stakeholders. Are the efforts to 'resolve' the 'issues' looking at all Australian (and similarly NZ) data sources, or are efforts simply being used to sort out specifics with NearMap? The Contributor Terms v1.2.4 reduces the project's freedoms in an attempt to appease NearMap. Kind of like stabbing someone with a dagger, then pulling it out half-way and telling them they should be happy you even did that? Unfortunately there are some very vocal (anonymous) members of the Australian community who seem intent on creating a virtual Us vs Them conflict in the community with exaggerated claims and mistruths. We are one project and on the same team. I believe we all value the amazing project we have collaboratively built. Did you seriously write that with a straight face? Lets address the points.. There has been vocal opposition to the change to a licence incompatible with our data. This has come from government departments, businesses and educated users, not 'anonymous members'. The problem with the mistruths and claims, is that most people simply dont know, and in Australia if someone asks you a question, its generally polite to at least offer some advice rather than rudely ignore whoever is asking. There are people who are seeking to split the community, you are correct. These people are the ones who are bringing in a licence change and preventing those who dont agree from participating any longer in this 'amazing project we have *ALL* collaboratively built'. If youd followed discussions here from the past couple of days, youd see people actively encouraging the use of OSM services (in favour of forks) until the time at which we are permanently blocked from the collaborative project. The much-maligned OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSM-F, OSMF) is a not-for-profit company registered in England Wales as a legal entity to represent the project. The OSMF is not some nefarious entity out to steal all our precious geodata ZOMG. A non-for-profit company? It barely even legally qualifies as a non-for-profit (dis)organisation. Maybe youve also missed the detailed criticisms of the foundation from members here, who ARE involved with non-profits, things such as poor minute keeping and basic accountability. Your contempt for the citizens of this country and this region, while talking as a representative of a legal entity is part in parcel of what we are becoming used to. It is sad that people (or even entire committees) seem happy enough to tear this project apart from the inside, simply to achieve some goal which it seems even they cant quite decide upon. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] PD tick box
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 19:47 -0700, Steve Coast wrote: Today I watched a few people sign up for OSM and they all ticked the PD box without even looking at it, it was very entertaining. Many people have become accustomed to simply checking/accepting any terms and conditions displayed, for fear of not being able to proceed. Infact, my GPS unit upon power up displays a warning about copyright and using while driving which you must accept, as if you try to proceed without accepting, it instantly powers off. After all, have you ever seen an application which asked you to accept a licence, and proceeded anyway if you clicked refuse? David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License graph
Ive noticed a few discrepancies with the graph.. How come on the 2-day graph, the scale for decline goes 10300 to 10800 while on 5-day graph the range is 10200 to 10800. The accept scale is 0-100 on 2-day but 0-120 on 5-day. The upshot is that the 'accepted' value is 99.8% of the full range, while the 'declined' value is either 62% of the full range (or 75% in the case of 2-day graph). This has the affect of showing the accepted numbers looking higher, while infact, visual inspection of the graph shows the graphs working the other way. The top 2-day graph, shows the decline scale starting above the accept line for about the first 24hrs of the graph, but in the bottom graph indicates that the acceptance rate is much higher with a significant diversion in the lines, even though the numbers being represented are equal. If you want to represent these important figures in statistics, can you at least use a common scale to avoid distorting peoples views of the figures? Using deceptive graphing methods was a trick we were taught back in school as a child. It doesnt make your figures look any better, it just makes those educated enough to pick your graphs faults, not value any of it at all. David On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 00:06 -0500, Toby Murray wrote: I was actually thinking about doing that but went to bed last night after getting the first one up. At that point the point I believe the start point for the data was just barely off of the first graph. But I just added a 5 day graph. I will extend it as I get more data to show the long term trend. Toby On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Could you create a graph that shows the graph since you started collecting data in addition to or instead of just the last 48 hours? :-) This graph is very informative. On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure if anyone else is already doing this but two days ago I thought it would be fun (maybe even useful) to graph the number of users who have accepted/declined the new license/CT in anticipation of the next phase going into effect on Sunday. I hacked together a quick dirty script to use as a data source in the Zabbix instance I have set up at home. Zabbix is geared towards system monitoring so it is a little odd to graph something completely unrelated but it was available and easy to do and at the end of the day, a graph is a graph. Anyway, I didn't feel like sending out the URL to my private zabbix instance at home to the mailing list so I set up a cron job to periodically refresh a static image on a more legitimate server. It can be seen here: http://ni.kwsn.net/~toby/OSM/license_count.html Enjoy, Toby ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License graph
On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 17:25 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: It makes them readable. If you used the same scale you won't see the handful of no-votes against the 1 yes-votes. It appears the scales have changed, and the readability hasnt changed. If anything the 2 lines are now more distinct from each other than before. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] PD tick box
On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 10:27 -0500, Toby Murray wrote: For what it's worth, I just legally signed my state tax return with nothing but a checkbox on a web form... You mean all you had to do to do your tax, was check a checkbox and click accept? Or did you also provide information persuant to what was asked of you, in order to complete the process? This basically just shows the issues that will arise with the change to contract law. In your jurisdiction, what youve done may be legally acceptable, but in others it is not. I suspect that the number of places that have different contract laws is significantly higher than those places that dont recognise CC-BY-SA, but there must be a small select group for who the old licence doesnt work but the new one fits their requirement. Maybe we should all move to this magical place.. at least with that many mappers in one place, OSM might start being completed. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License graph
On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 18:35 +0100, Thomas Davie wrote: While I agree that there is a problem with the no votes disapearing if you show the whole graph, it would be useful to show the same *range* on each scale. I actually meant that the 2 graphs had different scales. When youre showing numbers upto 80, fair enough use a scale of 0-100, but dont use 0-100 on one and 0-120 on the other, and call it an even comparison. Skewing graphs is a 5th-grade maths lesson. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License graph
On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 11:53 -0700, Steve Coast wrote: ...which is ignoring the 70% or so of all of those people who never edited and can be switched over without incident. That sounds like the thinking of the parties in a real vote, 'if everyone who didnt vote, voted for us, we would have wiped the floor' Changing that 70% doesnt have any 'incident' but they can hardly be counted has casting their vote either way. This means that if 30% are active users, 3.8% means just over 12% of people have voted. David On 4/18/2011 11:49 AM, Toby Murray wrote: As a side question: how many users still need to either accept or decline? A lot. If you look at the two files that I am using to pull data from, you will see the users_agreed.txt file has a header in it explaining that there are 286,582 users that signed up before the new CT was put into place for new users last year. Just under 11,000 have voted. So 3.8% of those who can vote have voted. Toby ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 12:16 +0200, Michael Collinson wrote: If we make the numbers, then these new users are unaffected. If we do not, new users are still unaffected, they have agreed to the use of either CC-BY-SA or ODbL. What about a case for example of a mapper who wants to map the flood/cyclone disaster areas in Australia? The 'new mappers' are affected as they dont have the right to use any of our data sources as they have already agreed to incompatible terms. The 'old mappers' are affected because they have the right to use the disaster aerial imagery, but OSM has removed their right to contribute data back. Sure, in the long term, these 'new users' are unaffected, but if they want to use data sources right now, they may not be able to. But thats okay, Im sure Bing will start giving away 3cm imagery for our country soon (or maybe we should just settle with 15cm imagery (if lucky) that provides blotchy coverage like they give us at the moment, after all, if we're going to shoo away data providers who are giving us better quality information, then its about all we deserve to have as a community. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 17:09 -0700, Kai Krueger wrote: Dermot McNally wrote: FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can see as an outsider. No, the vote part really isn't that difficult. Wikipedia managed to hold a vote on their licensing change. I never followed the wikipedia change, but did they create a new untested licence? Did they ask users to agree to the licence over a 12 month period? How many changes/revisions did their licence undergo between being announced and finally being accepted? Im fairly sure the answers to these questions is significantly different to the answers in the OSM licence change situation. David Dermot McNally wrote: But mappers who just plain _won't_ agree to leave their data in, even though there is no legal obstacle to it, should strongly consider whether they are being true to the community they claim to be a part of. Until there is a clear vote of the community to determine what they want it is impossible to say which side of the debate is true to the community. At the moment, we simply don't know. And so it is unhelpful to accuse long time OSM enthusiasts as not being true to the community because they disagree with your opinion. Many of them have the community just as much at hart as the proponents. They just disagree or are unsure on the effects this change will have on it. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6278003.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 18:00 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 04/16/2011 05:40 PM, Graham Jones wrote: ... it is not clear whether OS Opendata in the UK, or Nearmap in Austrailia is compatible. I would have expected these issues to be resolved before forcing people to re-licence. Isn't it funny how, just over a year ago, we couldn't care less about anything the Ordnace Survey did, and suddenly we are a project that must choose their license according to what is compatible with OS? If OS used some obscure licence and someone suggested changing to it, then youd get people asking the same thing. The thing is, these services arent using obscure licences, theyre using a very common one. Becoming incompatible with CC-BY-SA doesnt just mean that you lose one source, or two sources, it means that you lose compatibility with hundreds. I say to you the same I said to Ian - even if OSMF would publish what mechanism they plan to use (and I'm pretty sure they don't have one yet), then that mechanism would not become part of the contract and it could be changed at any later time, say, after majorities in the OSMF board have changed after the next election or something. Silly me. Silly me for thinking that we here at OSM believed in the meaning of the O in OSM. Incase the OSMF board has forgotten, the O means Open, it doesnt mean you can pick and choose what they choose to allow the community to see. Wouldnt this have been a good thing to start planning, like, when it was first realised that it was needed? We've been complaining about these issues for years, and people like yourself have been telling dissenters to shut the hell up. Now that the time has come, the 'foundation' is only just realising the issues that the rest of us raised years ago and are now chasing their tails trying to setup these mechanisms in the space of a day or two rather than a year or two. I'm sorry but I think you can either trust people to do the right thing or not trust them, but nobody will give you a written statement (or if they do it won't be worth much). Isnt that a problem with contract law? OSMF could give you a written statement, which might be suitably legally compatible in 2 or 3 countries, but not in the rest of the world. Compare this to the current situation where the current licence is accepted around the world, with 2 or 3 exceptions. Wouldnt it be easier to resovle the issues in those couple of countries where they exist, than to find a contract which has to be worded properly (if thats even possible) to comply with every user's nation's laws. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 20:36 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 04/15/2011 05:55 PM, Kai Krueger wrote: I thought that the new CTs were supposed to fix this issue [...] I have answered on legal-talk. We dont care if you answered on a podcast sent to the moon. The question was asked here, and if you believe that discussion should belong on legal-talk, Ive got over 200 messages from the last 4 days that disagree and believe the issue is of great enough importance to not be hidden away. As much as you might like feeling superior that you read a legal list, most of us really couldnt give a toss, and simply want answers to our questions. If youre not prepared to answer them concisely (other than keeping on pointing at a mailing list archive) then would you please kindly sit down and STFU? I dont think Im the only one getting sick of you fobbing off tricky questions in the same generic way, if you dont know the answer, dont say anything and leave it up to those who DO know the answer. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 16:49 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Eric Marsden wrote: It is not clear to me, from your message or from what I have read on the wiki, whether choosing Decline is a irreversible decision, or whether one would still be able later to accept the licence + CT. Decline is reversible. Accept isn't. Once we've got you, we'll never let go. What about if you become aware that once youve got someone, who has agreed and who has contributed tainted data? Will you (or someone else wielding the magical OSMF+3 wand) reverse it? David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 20:10 +0100, Grant Slater wrote: I am sure there are going to be a few cases where difficult decisions are going to have to be made. We will not have been the only open source project to have had to make these sorts of decisions. Out of interest Grant, what other large-scale open source projects have changed their licence the way that OSM has? In fact, changed their licence full-stop..? David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 18:50 +0100, Dermot McNally wrote: But your suggested course of action has me confused - you are happy to make contributions under the new CT and intend to do so, but yet you wish to vote against the change. Your choice, I supposed. Its not terribly confusing from here. What he is suggesting, is creating an account to contribute 'clean' data, which he is prepared to agree to OSMF's terms about. What he is voting against, is OSMF using previously created data which is not practical to split the 'clean' from 'tainted'. I think thats the only logical course of action for long-term contributors who want to continue to contribute. There is no way you can say for sure 100% of your edits were clean, the best you can do is start again and ensure you only use compliant data sources. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 23:53 +0100, Dermot McNally wrote: On 14 April 2011 23:38, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: Its not terribly confusing from here. What he is suggesting, is creating an account to contribute 'clean' data, which he is prepared to agree to OSMF's terms about. What he is voting against, is OSMF using previously created data which is not practical to split the 'clean' from 'tainted'. He didn't say that - there is enough FUD in this discussion without inventing more. Lets break down my sentences, interlaced with what was originally said: DM is creating an account to contribute 'clean' data, which he is DM prepared to agree to OSMF's terms NE2 *create a new account, publicly linked to NE2, for contributions NE2 under the CT And.. DM What he is voting against, is OSMF using previously created data NE2 *hold off on accepting or declining with my NE2 account ... So, please feel free to tell me where I invented anything? David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 01:08 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, David Murn wrote: What about if you become aware that once youve got someone, who has agreed and who has contributed tainted data? Will you (or someone else wielding the magical OSMF+3 wand) reverse it? If data is tainted in a way that makes in incompatible with the currently used license then it will have to be removed in order not to put the project at risk (e.g. data copied from proprietary sources). This is independent of the license change. This was a question in regards to whether you will reverse the selection of someone accepting the new licence/terms, if you (or they) become aware the data is tainted. You clearly stated in your previous email that once the user has accepted there is no way to change the decision to decline, then here say that if that situation came up that it would have to be done. Is there anyone here who can answer these questions the same in sequential emails? While this isnt a licence specific question, its a question specific to the thread at hand about users accepting or declining to have their edits released under the new licence/terms. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 20:56 +0200, Michael Collinson wrote: If you were a contributor before this date and have not accepted yet, you will be asked to accept or decline the new terms. [..snip..] Even if you choose to decline the new terms, you will still be able to continue editing. With the ability to decline the licence now, will those who were presented with the CTs originally with only one option (to accept), be given the chance to indicate if they decline the change, ie. to change their vote, for example if they realise they have accepted the new terms when they have used incompatible data sources? If the CTs to be presented to the community are finally agreed upon, almost 12 months after the first people were asked to accept it, should those users who have previously accepted the licence, be contacted and be told that the final terms have been released, and they have the chance to read the latest revision and change their vote accordingly. Im not sure how legally binding it may be in some parts of the world, but Im fairly sure that most places in the world wont allow you to ask people to sign a contract then change the terms of that contract 100 times without letting the other party to the contract choose to opt out. It should be pointed out to users that while accepting the new terms is a requirement to continue editing OSM, that if a user has used incompatible sources for their edits, that they MUST NOT accept the terms. If OSMF is interested in keeping tainted data out of the system, this must be done, otherwise those who inadvertantly selected to accept the terms before fully understanding them, will have tainted the clean data in OSM. You can see up-to-date OpenStreetMap ODbL acceptance by region at any time by going to http://odbl.de . See world for the global picture. Can this page be updated to show users who have declined (other than those who just havent accepted yet)? I think it would be interesting to see those who have actively accepted, actively declined, and those users who are inactive. As part of the process, the legal wording of the Contributor Terms has been improved [3] on the basis of community feedback received and to make them more friendly to individual contributors. The human-readable version of the Contributor Terms is unchanged [4]. Does this mean what is being presented is the final CTs? Will no more community feedback be accepted or integrated into the terms? I think to some, the closure of any updates to the CTs, will be the straw to force them away from OSM, rather than any blocks on their edits. The fact that so many very important issues raised by community feedback remain unaddressed by the LWG, and the process being ended, to me shows that LWG and OSMF really couldnt care about the community feedback, and instead are only caring about the feedback that supports their point of view. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sports club
There is actually a proposal for project of the week for gyms. Apparently there are 66k pubs but only 400 gyms tagged in OSM. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Project_of_the_week/Proposals David On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 20:29 +, John-Michael Wiley wrote: I was trying to map a plaza today and I wanted to enter in a new node for a Sport club (workout facility with weights, fitness classes, tennis courts, etc…) I looked around the local area for other such facilities and the only one I could find had been tagged with sports=athletics. Is that the proper tagging for these private workout clubs? I saw a proposal for amenity=gym, but it had no responses. Does that mean it was rejected or just never considered. Thanks, J.M. Wiley ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 22:12 +1000, Ashley Kyd wrote: Hi all, Just trying to do a bit of research to catch up on the issues but found the wiki a bit unhelpful. I've started categorising data sources by license. If you have a spare moment or two and know of any I've missed, please pop by and see if you can tag a few more. Particularly, are there any other Australian data sources other than Nearmap that are CC BY-SA? Im pretty sure everything from data.gov.au and ABS is CC-BY-SA. Fairly sure most of the imports (such as BP and shell) were done from CC-BY-SA datasets too, although John Smith would be able to confirm/deny that. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 23:27 +1000, John Smith wrote: On 7 April 2011 23:03, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: I contacted the nowwhere.com.au/MapData-Sciences who are managers of the BP and Shell data in October 2010... ... Also the locations have been fixed for numerous locations so if you ever get in contact with anyone please let them know about OSM having more accurate data than they offer, I think 30km out is still the worst case. When I travelled to Perth, I found (and fixed) some fuel stations that were marked upto 100km from home. 'Eyre Highway, Cocklebiddy' for example refers to a road almost 400km between 3 roadhouses. Ive fixed a few of these, but like others I have a lot of corrections I found and tagged in my GPS, but which Im unsure about processing and uploading. (And thats not just my excuse for not wanting to look at 35mb worth of .gpx and .osm files) David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...
On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 22:09 +1000, Michael Hampson wrote: So is Phase 4 the end for those that don't agree? What happens to the data if we don't agree? and the data built on top of that data? Well, it depends what you read. According to the wiki, stage 4 is when OSM asks the community what will should happen for those who havent accepted the licence. One has to wonder if any of the comments from the past year or two will be taken into account when those in power decide to ask us mere mushrooms what we think. For clarity: - This will only affect (77,000) contributors who registered before May 2010 and who have not accepted the new terms as part of the voluntary re-licensing program. For clarity: (according to odbl.de) In Australia: - This will remove 57% of users - This will remove 67% of nodes, 66% of ways and 86% of relations In UK: - This will remove 65% of users - This will remove 40% of nodes, 40% of ways and 10% of relations In Europe: - This will remove 61% of users - This will remove 20% of nodes, 20% of ways and 15% of relations It is fairly clear that the Australian issue has very little value to those in Europe in control of the project at the moment. The fact that the number of users lost is in the same ballpark while the amount of data lost is significantly higher in our part of the world, seems to show the regions and the users whos interests they are looking out for. - Once a contributor has Accepted/Declined the new terms, they may continue editting normally. Even if they decline, they may continue editting normally until and if Phase 4 kicks in. Maybe I missed the announcement, but is there now an option to record that you decline the licence? David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OpenStreetMap] OpenStreetMap is changing the licence
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 09:17 +1000, Michael Hampson wrote: This came through over night. Is it a standard mailer going out to all? I received the same, so presumably yes. One has to wonder how many innocent users who dont want to be banished from the project, simply click 'agree' or follow the link, having no understanding of what theyre actually agreeing to, or whether they even have the rights to relicence their changes. To be done properly, there should have been a note added to that email to only agree to the terms if you know your edits are 100% clean, otherwise the liability falls back to you personally and not to the project if its found you have contributed infringing data. However, a note like this would only serve to educate the users and wouldnt be an encouragement to blindly accept, which some in control think is what should happen. David Original Message Subject: [OpenStreetMap] OpenStreetMap is changing the licence Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 16:09:39 +0100 From: wicking m-177534-5c8...@messages.openstreetmap.org To: mhamp...@fastmail.com.au Hi MCH, wicking has sent you a message through OpenStreetMap with the subject OpenStreetMap is changing the licence: == Hello MCH. As I’ve seen on http://odbl.de you’ve contributed quite a lot of data so I wanted to ask, if you already know, that OpenStreetMap is asking existing contributors to re-license their contributions under a new licence, which is more suitable for our data. (OSM wants to change the current Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 (CC-BY-SA 2.0) to Open Database License (OdbL) 1.0.) Maybe you’ve reasons why you did not accept it already. Perhaps you could tell me. You can read more about the licence change here: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License You can accept the new licence here (if you’re logged in): http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms I hope to hear from you. Erik from Berlin, Germany == You can also read the message at http://www.openstreetmap.org/message/read/177534 and you can reply at http://www.openstreetmap.org/message/reply/177534 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 03:19 +0100, Grant Slater wrote: For clarity: (according to odbl.de) In Australia: For pete's sake! Stop making up blatantly untrue stuff. Those are likely the precentages if we moved *today* without even formally contacting/emailing anyone. I never made anything up. The closest I came to 'making up' was being creative with the summary of 3 relevant regions and rounding the numbers up. The figures I quoted came from the URL I gave, and anyone is welcome to research this themselves. The webpage suggests that these are the accurate percentages (with upto 1 week delay). It is fairly clear that the Australian issue has very little value to those in Europe in control of the project at the moment. The fact that the number of users lost is in the same ballpark while the amount of data lost is significantly higher in our part of the world, seems to show the regions and the users whos interests they are looking out for. Please stop making grossly untrue statements. What is untrue? Again, I only summarised what the statistics show. The fact that these statistics go against the ODbL propoganda, doesnt make them grossly untrue, it just makes them at odds with what some may believe. If you have figures for Australia which disprove the numbers on odbl.de then feel free to use them and cite your source, if you cant disprove the numbers and simply feel that theyre grossly untrue, then maybe you need to comprehend the statistics better. If the Australian issue is so important, as others have suggested why isnt OSMF seeking to make a rapid agreement with NearMap as was done with Bing? David - Once a contributor has Accepted/Declined the new terms, they may continue editting normally. Even if they decline, they may continue editting normally until and if Phase 4 kicks in. Maybe I missed the announcement, but is there now an option to record that you decline the licence? Read the original mail that Mike posted to the DEV mailinglist... it is about planning the changes to the editor software before main announcements. As far as I could tell, this email to the dev list is for what happens if people have chosen to decline the licence. The last Id heard, it was not possible to decline the licence, only to accept it. The issue of accepting/declining the licence is what Im talking about here, not the issue of what to do in the future if someone has declined (if such a mechanism is put in place). David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Okay, this is just cool (Lockport, NY)
On Sun, 2011-04-03 at 12:03 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
The Google StreetView database isn't in Europe, it doesn't
have anyspecial conditions attached to its use,
it has. At least if there aren't for Streetview in particular, the
ones of Googlemaps in general do apply.
How do you assume that? Do the terms for google maps also apply to
google news and google images too? Google street-view is a different
product to google maps, it is a product they own and have created.
Google maps contains data that Google has licenced from other sources
(teleatlas, geoeye, europa, etc). This map data, Google cannot
relicence.
Google street-view is a google product, created by google, which they
own 100% of the rights to. The terms of use of both these products may
be similar, but given that the map data is covered under many different
terms, I doubt that all those restrictions have been placed on
street-view.
Based on andrzej's email correspondence, where it was pointed out that
the relevant point in ToS is in regards to 'mass downloads or bulk feeds
of any content', I assume this means that we cant automate the process
from googles resources (such as the bing street tracer), but that
individual use is fine ('checking the odd street name is okay').
From reading andrzej's email it seems as though Google would be happy to
help out, but they believe OSM is complete and up-to-date in the areas
they have coverage.
David
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Okay, this is just cool (Lockport, NY)
On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 22:51 +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote: Oandrzej zaborowski wrote: For the record, in East Europe where Google Street View has no coverage, there's a an almost identical service provided by Norc.ro, who explicitly allow usage in OSM. There's a similar service in Germany: sightwalk.de - they, too, have explicitly allowed the use of their images for OSM mapping. I wonder what would be involved in creating a public OSM-like streetview system.. would it even be possible to create enough of a standard to allow users to contribute their own streetview-like images or video streams in a way that the data could be freely available as in OSM? If we can have standards such as WMS that all aerial imagery suppliers can use, surely it shouldnt be too much more to create a public street-level imagery service. Another thought is some sort of free service like panaramio where Joe Public can upload georeferenced photos, that can be used in conjunction with OSM. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The Future of Areas
Is there a reason why you decided to split this proposal into a different page for each section (with 2-3 paragraphs per page) instead of just one large page like most other parts of the wiki? Im upto the 4th page and still dont quite understand what you're proposing. David On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 11:28 +0200, Jochen Topf wrote: Hi! Some people (including me) are not happy with the way we represent areas in OSM. There have been some discussions here and there, but not much was done. If we want to make progress on this issue we should document what the problems with the current approach actually are. Based on that we can develop and evaluate possible solutions. Frederik and I have written down some of the issues and ideas on these pages: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/The_Future_of_Areas . This is only a beginning to establish a place where the discussion can be documented and organized. Please add your concerns, problems, issues, proposed solutions, etc. Jochen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Splitting ways with ABS data, and the new OSM terms
On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 06:15 +1100, Ben Kelley wrote: Hi. I think this is an important question, but probably not something someone on this list can answer. I presume this issue is of concern more widely than Australia. Sadly, I dont think anyone can give a proper answer, whichever list the question was on. The Australian case is different because so much of our data has come from sources which arent compatible with the new terms. Basically almost anyone who has edited within Australia within the last couple of years (especially those edits with potlatch) has used the NearMap source or an ABS source, however they will agree to the terms under threat of not being able to continue to participate in the projcet, with no care for the licence of any edits they may have made. Generally people dont care about licence problems, they just get told they have to click a box to continue editing, so they do so. Honestly, how many people do you think that clicked the accept button, actually read the entire new licence and terms and checked that all their previous edits comply? The only purpose this serves, is to taint the project with data that may or may not have rights restrictions, but by the time that becomes an issue no-one will remember what was what. David On 12 March 2011 23:10, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote: As no-one has answered this question yet, I thought I'd better re-ask the question, as it will determine whether I can agree to the new terms or not. On 23/02/2011, at 4:27 PM, Mark Pulley wrote: Quoting Andrew Laughton laughton.and...@gmail.com: Anybody who has used nearmap or Government data sources for their mapping therefore cannot agree to the new terms, and all of their data is going to be removed on 1st April 2011. Presumably most of the current ABS data will disappear automatically (as a special user account was set up for the original uploading) but what happens if any of these ways are split? For example, if I split a way because part of the way follows a river, the new way will be counted as being created by myself, so if I agree to the terms, would I then need to delete them separately? (or go through all my edits to allow only some of them to be accepted?) Or am I prevented from agreeing to the new terms because I have split ABS ways? Mark P. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Licensing Working Group
On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 09:50 +, Grant Slater wrote: On 25 March 2011 05:49, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: The problem is, any fork under the existing licence can continue without problem. Any fork under the new licence, cannot use any data unless the user who contributed that data can/will give them 100% rights. Those against the ODbL can fork any time, and continue with the data under a CC licence without worrying about relicencing someone elses data. Those in favour of the ODbl have to ensure the data they hold can be relicenced. Not true. ODbL licensed data *can* be forked at any time without asking anyone for their blessing. I mis-worded it in my original email change 'under the new licence' with 'wanting to use the new licence'. Im not talking about ODbL data, Im talking about the current CC-by-SA data that exists. My point is that those who want to bring in the new licence, wouldnt succeed if they were forking and asking users to agree to their data being used in their (ODbL) fork. On an interesting side note, I note the main slippy map no longer has any attribution text, which Im sure it used to in the past. Is this a sign of things to come? David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licensing Working Group
On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 00:11 -0400, Russ Nelson wrote: Y'know, I'm not understanding something. People whinge about CC-By-SA not being free enough, and that OSM should be public domain. The proper response to them (which I think most people agree with) is: if you don't like the license, fork the project. So why aren't the ODbL folks being told the same thing? You want a different license? Hey, great, no problem, go ahead, create a fork of OSM. But don't expect us to follow you. The problem is, any fork under the existing licence can continue without problem. Any fork under the new licence, cannot use any data unless the user who contributed that data can/will give them 100% rights. Those against the ODbL can fork any time, and continue with the data under a CC licence without worrying about relicencing someone elses data. Those in favour of the ODbl have to ensure the data they hold can be relicenced. This doesnt allow for the fact of people who have simply clicked accept, without understanding that they might not have the rights to relicence data theyve contributed, so short of starting from scratch and explaining to every new user the exact conditions of their data contribution and use, the OSM data will never be 100% 'clean', but the struggle to go from 99% to 99.9% clean, will sadly reduce the quantity of data at the expense of the licence quality of it. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licensing Working Group
On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 13:16 +0100, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote: Exactly start an OSM Meetup group now? How to explain to them that if they make certain types of corrections, their work will be deleted? Are we forced to read every two months the same thread, the same approximations, the same lies, the same trolls on this list ? Dont worry, next Friday the licence change will be mandatory and there will be no more chance for consultation. The problem is that this whole process has dragged on for so long that every two months the same threads have been coming up, rather than being nipped in the bud quickly and moving the process along. It may dishearten you to know though, that the phase after that mandatory acceptance period is designated for this thread to recur again and investigate why users havent accepted the CTs (rather than working properly and taking that information under advice now). David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A reliable process for handling OSM license violations
On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 14:01 +0100, Matthias Meißer wrote: Might be the legal talklist a better place to discuss this very specific topic? I guess there are more users that are familar with the process itself. This isnt a legalese issue. Well, as much as someone stealing your car is a legalese issue. You dont need a lawyer to tell you that someone stealing your car is not a good thing. The 'very specific topic' is the theft of our (or OSMF's, depending on who you listen to) data. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Spam?] the coastline
On Tue, 2011-03-22 at 10:45 +1300, Robin Paulson wrote: the question becomes (in my mind): why do we have a single way mapped 'coastline'? this implies the boundary between land and water is static, but of course it moves - a number of times per day. The coastline is (as generally accepted on most maps) the mean high tide mark. There is no clear boundary for 'high tide' and 'low tide', since as you point out it moves, and depending on the tide height it may well vary dramatically from day-to-day. If you add say 50cm to a tide height, you might find the tide line may come inland 100m or more. i like the possibility of a high water mark and a low water mark, used together to entirely replace the natural=coastline tag. There is a proposal for marking high/low tide marks. Check out http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_cover perhaps some of you have some ideas around this also? You could add a layer tag possibly, and maybe even opening_hours or some other access type tag. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cost of tolls
On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 20:52 -0300, Diego Woitasen wrote: This is the matrix showing how the tolls are calculated: http://www.westlinkm7.com.au/cmsAdmin/uploads/Tollmatrix_Janto_Mar2011.pdf What do you think about something like: cost:car_2axle = $X cost:car_3axle = $X cost:motorbike = $X cost:truck_2axle = $X . . . cost:truck_Naxle = $X So, what value do you put into there? The price per km/mile, the maximum price, the minimum price? As pointed out in the pdf above, in our case depending on what roads you use to enter/leave the tollway and depending on how close you are to the city, the toll varies per kilometre travelled. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cost of tolls
On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 12:34 -0300, Diego Woitasen wrote: Hi, Mapping the tolls of a highway a found that there is no tag to assign the cost of the toll. I haven't found examples in taginfo or tagwatch. Are you using something for this? I know this is a little complex because the cost of the toll is different and depends in the size of the vehicle, the time of the day, etc. but may be we could do something. Here in Australia, we have many toll-roads where another part to the equation (time, size, etc) is how far you travel along the road. If you join the road at toll-point A and continue to toll-point B, its a different toll than A to C, or B to C. There are a couple of short roads which have a fixed value toll, but most toll-roads vary the toll depending on how far you travel. This is the matrix showing how the tolls are calculated: http://www.westlinkm7.com.au/cmsAdmin/uploads/Tollmatrix_Janto_Mar2011.pdf David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Timeline for phase3 and so on. (Re: odbl)
On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 09:03 +, Ed Avis wrote: I would hope that this new state of play has changed the timetable a little bit. Has the OSMF board discussed the new Creative Commons offer? I believe the board (or possibly lwg) has discussed it before, as Im fairly sure Ive seen it in minutes somewhere. However from memory it was mentioned in passing, to see how it would compare to the new licence being implemented, rather than a view to using it. I dont have a link or source for this though and would be more than happy to be corrected if indeed it is being looked at seriously. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] odbl
On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 03:45 -0800, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Joseph Reeves wrote: without explaining in layman's terms what this means. http://old.opengeodata.org/2008/01/07/the-licence-where-we-are-where-were-going/index.html Follow-ups to legal-talk please, so that those here who have made their mind up one way or the other don't have to read the whole caboodle all over again. What about the important reading who those havent made up their mind, or are worried about their liability if they agree to be bound by the new licence? Maybe what is needed, is a list for these discussions, which isnt so legal-focused, so that the laymen can actually understand what theyre involved in, or maybe instead of 100 people telling someone off for asking a question, one person could give a clear and precise answer and nip these threads in the bud from the start. Honestly, I couldnt give a rats rear-end if someone thinks that subsection 3.7b(c) should have its own title, or that the wording of 'OSM user' should be changed to 'OSM contributor' or the like. Whether that is what is discussed on legal-talk, I dont know as I dont subscribe, but given its name, its only natural to assume so.. What I care about is the big picture of what will happen to all our data and the project in general, looking toward the future. Given the entire project will undergo massive sweeping changes in only 3 weeks, shouldnt this issue be at the forefront of current OSM discussions, or will people start trying to sort out the problems after theyve happened, rather than stopping them in the first place? Im as tired as anyone about these endless threads, but until someone is prepared to give some clear cut answers to peoples simple honest questions, I fear they'll continue. Some have tried to give helpful answers, but others seem to get off on playing the power game and achieve nothing but division within our community. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Project of the week: Stationery
I think this could even be extended to newsagencies too? Most newsagencies in Australia are often dominated by stationary supplies. David On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 08:16 +0100, Matthias Meißer wrote: This week, we suggest to put your eyes on the local stationery shops http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Project_of_the_week Again, this is just a look what we can add and not a add XYZ immediately!. Feel free to notify your local groups if you like the idea. regards Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] all our addresses are belong to you
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 13:54 -0700, flambe...@gmail.com wrote: There are currently three (3) main files - one for the United States, one for Canada and one for Europe. This is great, but the US is 300m, Canada 34m and Europe 700m. The world population is just under 6.8 million. Is there any schedule when the other 85% of the world might be released, or is there simply so much data that larger regions will have to wait? David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Bulk loading all the Australian Statistical Geography Standard into the OSM - a query from the Australian Bureau of Statistics [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 15:12 +1100, {withheld} wrote:
However I still hold the community should accept the offer and be
grateful. Carping about internal politics just looks bad. And whiny. And
doesn't encourage anybody else ever offering similar largesse ever again.
Well, to be fair, the community would accept his data, but in 4 weeks it
will be removed from the OSM database and it will be unable to be
included in any future OSM.
Whether you think this is internal politics or not, it is the law and as
Marcus clearly explained what terms the data would be released under,
the fact that some within the OSM project have chosen to no longer
utilise data sources such as his is the problem, and theyre the ones you
should be talking to, not us.
David
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bulk loading all the Australian Statistical Geography Standard into the OSM - a query from the Australian Bureau of Statistics [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 10:38 +0800, Andrew Laughton wrote: Hi Marcus Unfortunately OSM has recently forced a change to it's licence agreement to a version where attribution is not required on any copies that are made of OSM data, probably to appease Microsoft and Bing maps who will then be free to charge for these maps, with no attribution at all. Unfortunately, as stated by others, this is currently the situation. The powers-that-be dont really follow this email list, so you would probably be better off contacting the OSM-talk list or the OSM legal list. While those in charge may not listen to us little folk, an organisation such ABS might have more pull. Knowing that the project might lose the tracing of some small contributors to forked sites, isnt quite as devastating as knowing government departments will prefer to use CC sites in preference to their OSM site. However another important thing to remember, is that although this major change is happening in just over 5 weeks, the Contributor Terms still havent been finalised. Really your best bet is to contact the legal list or the OSM legal working group, as the best anyone here can offer, is what we've pieced together from what little the foundation and legal team have allowed us mere users to know. David Anybody who has used nearmap or Government data sources for their mapping therefore cannot agree to the new terms, and all of their data is going to be removed on 1st April 2011. As you can imagine there are a lot of upset mappers, and there are alternative sites being set up where the original licence and data will be retained. There are a number of sites doing this including; http://fosm.org Creating a new Layer for your data would be a good move from the point of view of mappers, who could not change this data either deliberately or accidentally, and it would therefore be more reliable. Unfortunately these changes are recent and the alternative sites are still a work in progress, and not yet ready to adapt to new requirements. Having said that, go to http://fosm.org/p2/potlatchFosm.xml, and look at the Background drop down menu. It includes a number of options for background layers from a variety of sources. Also try http://www.openstreetmap.org, open up the edit tab, and select the checkbox option in the bottom left hand corner of the potlatch window, which then shows background layer options. I think all other editors also have these background options, and there are a number of editors out there. I would suggest to you that you make your data available in a format that is compatible with these other background sources, and host the actual data on your own servers. This would also have the advantage that your data will always be up to the minute if and when changes are made. It would then not take much for the mapping applications to import your data as a layer, and you would not need to chase up the different mapping sites and get them to include your data. It would also be a relativity small step to host your own map viewer, which could include your data as a layer as well as the option of google maps, bing maps, open street map, fosm or whatever as a reference to where the boundary's are relative to roads and creeks or coastlines. I do not know what the API's are, or even where to find them, but the nearmap http://www.nearmap.com/; people are active and if they cannot help you then I am sure they can point you in the right direction. Andrew. On 23 February 2011 09:01, Marcus Blake marcus.bl...@abs.gov.au wrote: To the Australian OSM community, The Australian Bureau of Statistics has recent published the first part of a new statistical geography, the Australia Statistical Geography Standard or ASGS for short. The boundaries are based on a new basic spatial unit called a mesh block which have been aggregated to create efficient spatial units for the dissemination and analysis of statistical data. They have been released in advanced of the 2011 Australian census and are fixed for the next 5 years. The attached links and PDF file provide additional information. The ABS Geography section is presently investigating the possibility of loaded the new Australian Statistical Geography Standard into the OSM database. As a starting point, I'd like to start a discussion about how this could be achieved, if it is possible at all. From the ABS point of view the principle reason for doing this is that an the OSM database would hold a copy of the official version of the boundaries and that this point of truth would be available for all OSM users and downstream distributors. It would therefore become one of the channels by
Re: [OSM-talk] Zero tolerance on imports
On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 19:40 -0800, Daniel Sabo wrote: Maybe you don't like it, but you are not the entire OSM community. Yes, in this case someone overwritten what I presume was good surveyed data with an import was stupid. But in general the fact that data was gathered by a government surveyor with tools an order of magnitude more accurate than ours does not, IMHO, make it less worthy of being in OSM. As was stated in the previous email, OSM isnt designed to simply be an API for people to load government data into. Your comment about the 'order of magnitude more accurate than ours', shows that maybe you need to read about the airport import, where some airports were added many kilometres away from their accurate location, or several cases reported here in the last few weeks of deleted surveyed data and tags, replaced with generic un-verified tags. Yes, some imports are good, especially when the community is consulted and comes up with a proper way to import/tag/maintain them, but if one individual just decides to use their own data sources, with their own tags without consultation with the community, it almost always leads to more damage than added value. Its no good doing an import that 'saves' 20 hours of handwork, if it takes 100 hours of handwork to correct it. One practical example of this, was when I made a cross-country trip last year, and found some fuel stations were mapped upto 100km away from their real location. Imagine if someone was relying on that data, in a remote area if could be life-endangering, or worse imagine if it was a hospital import. Some things Id rather not have mapped, than to have them mapped possibly inaccurately, or to at least have renderers show imported data with a warning to be wary of its accuracy. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Spam?]Re: Why isn't any XAPI server available ?
On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 09:54 +1300, Robin Paulson wrote: On 19 February 2011 12:06, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Your search - murn site:svn.openstreetmap.org - did not match any documents. i think this does not move us forward - david is as valued as anyone when making suggestions. slapping him down with an almighty and rather arrogantly communicated you (apparently) haven't made any code contributions doesn't help anyone, and probably makes him less likely to help, not more likely. Im a pretty thick-skinned aussie, and replied to him personally to let him know that my contributions have all been under my OSM username, not my real name, as although Ive made many code contributions, Ive never bothered to add my name to the list of authors claiming copyright. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Zero tolerance on imports
On Sun, 2011-02-20 at 15:35 -0800, Nathan Edgars II wrote: I find tracing endless residential subdivisions from aerials to be a chore and no fun. I know many who disagree, fortunately. Last year I was laid up in bed for around 3 months after surgery, just after hi-res aerial imagery became available for my area. I spent many many hours tracing unmapped areas, or even tracing paths and other data of value. Some people like to get out on-the-ground and map, but from my own experience, if you want to contribute to the project you'll do it however you can, whether that is tracing, walking tracks or driving around streets. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Spam?]Re: [Spam?]Re: Underground / hovering buildings
On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 11:16 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/2/18 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au: Because the use of (min_)levels,height is in use by 3D renderers and IMHO this min_level-part of the advanced building proposal is not working (is using wrong semantics), at least for the illustration you can find in the wiki. building_levels should be the amount of building levels. If a building forms a bridge like in the illustration, where adjacent buildings have 7 levels, the bridge has only 2 levels and the 5 levels below are void, the proposal states you should still apply building_levels=7 and count the voids as levels. This is against any common practise and definition in architecture, building law and the definition of building_levels in the wiki. The wiki page this was taken from, is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM-3D#Buildings The relevant section (for building:min_level) states: --- Explanation of building height tags For parts of building that are floating in air (actually, they are supported by other building parts that are fixed into ground), number of floors from ground that are not present. So if there is a passage under building, where 5 floors are missing, use building:min_level=5 Note that building:levels still counts floors from the ground, including also those nonexistent skipped floors, as can be seen in the explanatory picture number of levels is multiplied by 3 m to estimate the actual height --- So while it may not meet any building law or such, its use in this instance is simply as a rough guide instead of inputting an exact building height. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why isn't any XAPI server available ?
On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 16:59 +, Grant Slater wrote: The new java based XAPI is running and responding to test queries, but be warned it is still under active development. See: Am I missing something here...? People are complaining about how bogged down and slow the current service is, so its being re-written in java? Is there any language slower or more resource intensive than java? If the service isnt designed to be portable (it only runs on one system currently, in the world), then who cares about java, why isnt it written in optimized C or some other similarly lowish level language, rather than java? David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why isn't any XAPI server available ?
On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 23:33 +0100, Ulf Lamping wrote: Am 18.02.2011 22:47, schrieb David Murn: If the service isnt designed to be portable (it only runs on one system currently, in the world), then who cares about java, What makes you think, that it only has to be running on one system in the future? This is modern-day thinking. Modern solutions are to simply throw more money and hardware at a problem, where older techniques called for using the same hardware but making the code faster. That then means if you improve the hardware you get a double-increase in performance. The problem these days, is that code is moving to less optimized forms, because the newer hardware can handle it, where if it was written for old hardware, it wouldnt be getting as bogged down now. why isnt it written in optimized C or some other similarly lowish level language, rather than java? Maybe the person actually spending the effort (instead of complaining here), is better in writing java than C. Maybe an implementation in java is (potentially) more secure compared to a plain C implementation. Security is all well and good, but if the service is too slow to work for anyone, what good is an ultra-secure codebase? If you'll come up with an implementation in C that is more portable, robust, faster, ... Fine! Then it will probably be used instead of the Java one. Sounds like fun, Ive been busy writing tag stat programs and programs to generate map quality information or work on some SVN apps.. If there arent any programmers who know C who are interested in xapi, then that sounds like a fun task. I figured there'd be someone deeper in the coding group of the project, with more coding knowledge of OSM than myself, who'd be able to do it, hence why I save my work for the accessory apps. P.S: I've developed stuff in both ANSI-C and Java for several years ... Doesnt it make sense then that if people are complaining about the performance, it might be worth looking at changing? Its not like every user has to run the java code on their own system, it has to be no more portable than the postgres server running alongside it. While there may be cases for using java in a web-app, the same way there are cases for using flash, I dont think anyone would advocate re-writing xapi in flash, even if that was the only language they knew. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] temp name change
On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 10:36 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 9:17 AM, {withheld} pheasant.cou...@gmail.com wrote:
Please note the last line of that article: Both the town and Phil Down
will revert to their original names in a month.
Why bother?
Because it's fun.
The government making changes based on facebook polls, sounds scary not
fun.
David
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] [Spam?]Re: [Spam?]Re: Underground / hovering buildings
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 18:50 +0100, Pieren wrote: On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:10 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: Second, an underground building. Connects to other buildings that are at ground level and have basements. building=yes building:levels=2 building:min_level=-2 height=6 min_height=-6 Rather than this complicated proposal, why not simply building=underground ? (like the already existing parking=underground) Or make the underground a new generic key e.g. underground=yes Because the use of (min_)levels,height is in use by 3D renderers and doesnt simply show whether a building is above/below ground, but by how much, so that it can be rendered properly. I think your idea of having a simple tag to show whether it is above/below gruond is good, but theres no reason to remove the extra details, if the data is accurate and consistent across objects, ie its not much use if only one building uses the schema, but if a majority of buildings in an area do, 3D rendering can/will make use of their tags, as well as who knows what other future applications for example knowing the number of underground floors in every building could help during disasters. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 08:02 +0100, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Make a new specific tag (unsuitable_for_caravans=yes; source:unsuitable_for_caravans=survey), and document it on the wiki (with a photo of a sign). At least that's explicit and clear. I see the problem with my HGV proposal. On my cross-country trip, I saw a lot of areas marked as 'RV friendly'. Maybe we could use access:caravan=yes/no/designated, with an agreed upon default, ie. whether untagged roads should be considered caravan friendly or not. David On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:58 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Saw a couple of roads signed unsuitable for caravans which seems like council butt covering but I'm not sure how to tag it since it's a sign to discourage rather than to disallow. -- Sent from my mobile device ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans
On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 11:43 +1000, John Smith wrote: I agree with the access suggestion, eg access:caravan=yes/no/designated/unsuitable I now regret using 4wd_only, this should have be an access: tag instead, eg access:4wd=only/yes/no etc This should be quite easy to script a change for, as I dont think theres too many places where 4wd_only is used for anything other than an access restriction. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] [Spam?]Re: Underground / hovering buildings
On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 19:57 +1100, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 20:56:54 -0500 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Since giving long ground-level ways nonzero layers screws up every place they cross another way, it seems clear what should be done. -1 is used for rivers commonly over long distances where traced and no idea where the bridges actually are. Ive fixed quite a number of spots where keepright has picked up a river and highway on the same layer (=0), generally without a junction node. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Spam?]Re: [Spam?]Re: Underground / hovering buildings
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 14:04 +1300, Robin Paulson wrote: On 17 February 2011 12:21, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: Ive fixed quite a number of spots where keepright has picked up a river and highway on the same layer (=0), generally without a junction node. i wonder what would be the consequences of scripting this? if layer does not exist and bridge = yes then layer = 1 The occurances Im picking up, arent tagged as bridge, Ive had to split the ways from aerial imagery at start/end of the bridge and add the bridge/layer tag to the relevant part of the way. Theres no reason you couldnt automate something that for example when a road crosses a river, you create a bridge which is say 100m long in the middle of the way, split and tag that, and include the note.. note = layer set by a bot, please check manually David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
