date:20110711

[OSM-talk-be] Problems with JOSM's unwanted behaviour.

2011-07-11 Per discussione Gerard Vanderveken


Hi,

(Warning: long and difficult subject matter ahead! :-)  )

I love to work with JOSM, but I have two problems with JOSM.

- When you start drawing a way somewhere in a node, JOSM always assumes 
you want to continue some way already present.
This is very annoying and unproductive, because this is nearly always 
not what you wanted or intended.


- When you split a way, the old id (and by consequence its history) are 
always in the first part, and the second part gets a new id.
This way the history and id can be left by the smallest part. It should 
always assigned to the  biggest part.


Togheter this combination defeats totally the wiki nature of OSM by 
disguising  the history of one road to some totally unrelated road in 
the neighbourhood, also making changes to roads the user never intended 
to edit.

An example is in changeset
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7203063
First there was the Verstrekenstraat.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/98440181
When the user TAA tried to add a track,
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/82861117
from this crossing
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/298362740
JOSM maked this as a continuation of the Verstrekenstraat
It was then splitted and adapted to track by the user who didn't want 
this long Verstrekenstraat.
But as this road had the node, where the drawing took place, as starting 
node, the track end became the new starting node of the resulting way 
and got after the split the id of the Verstrekenstraat.
After the split, (because the user wanted to add a track and not make a 
long Verstrekenstraat), JOSM moved the existing id (and history) to the 
new drawn track and maked a new road out of the already existing 
Verstrekenstraat by giving it a 0 id. In the history of the track , you 
see the original way of the Verstrekenstraat.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/82861117/history

An example of a node to test this unwanted behaviour is: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/803205990 Suppose you want to 
add a track into the wood as a dead end. You select the node and then 
clicks the way drawing tool. Do a click in the wood (direction SE) and 
then escape to end drawing the segment and then you end up with an 
extended path of Voetweg 48.

Oh no, I wanted to add a track! Why is it not a blank road?
Oh, never mind, we split the result at the starting node and change 
properties of the new added part, which has now inherited the id and 
history of Voetweg 48. And on top of that the original Voetweg 48 will 
get id 0 and be presented from now on in the database as a new way 
created by you, while you even had no intention to modify it in the 
first place!!

BTW, also relations are inherited, making tails on it after the split.
I find this behaviour totally undesiable!

Another example to what mess this can lead is the Jachtdreef in 
Jezus-Eik (it still needs correction)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/51768961/history 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/108859153/history

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/97836493/history

Conclusion:
- JOSM should only make continuations of ways on request by the user, eg 
by selecting them together with the ending node to draw from.
- For the sake of history, JOSM should give the existing id to the 
largest part of the road of a split and not defaulting to the first part.


As stopgap for the second point, I try to do a reverse of the road 
before and after the split, when I notice that the first part is very 
small..


What do you think?

I opened a ticket for this, at JOSM, but it seems a 'feature' and not a 
bug and the developer won't fix.

http://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/6567
Comments invited!

Regards,
Gerard.
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Problems with JOSM's unwanted behaviour.

2011-07-11 Per discussione Gerard Vanderveken


Renaud MICHEL wrote:


On lundi 11 juillet 2011 at 12:22, Gerard Vanderveken wrote :
 

- When you start drawing a way somewhere in a node, JOSM always assumes 
you want to continue some way already present.
This is very annoying and unproductive, because this is nearly always 
not what you wanted or intended.
   



Press Ctrl while clicking on the end note, JOSM will start a new way.

No, this leads to a double node and the way is not connected to the 
crossing.


You can also start your new way at the second node, and then connect it to  
the end of the  other way.


I think I've seen JOSM doing  a continuation that way to, but it doesn't 
seem to happen in the example node.
However when you need to make a way between two crossings, it can come 
from either side.


- When you split a way, the old id (and by consequence its history) are 
always in the first part, and the second part gets a new id.
This way the history and id can be left by the smallest part. It should 
always assigned to the  biggest part.
   



For that, I temporarily reverse the way to have the history on the good 
part, then reverse both part back (but this is only important for ways where 
the orientation matters, like oneways or rivers).
 

That's what i try to do, when paying attention to it, but I feel JOSM 
should do it automatically.
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Problems with JOSM's unwanted behaviour.

2011-07-11 Per discussione Renaud MICHEL

On lundi 11 juillet 2011 at 13:03, Gerard Vanderveken wrote :
 Renaud MICHEL wrote:
 Press Ctrl while clicking on the end note, JOSM will start a new way.
 
 No, this leads to a double node and the way is not connected to the
 crossing.

Right, I didn't pay attention this.

But If you click on the last node of your way, then press Alt while adding 
the next node, then you end up with a new way that share its first node with 
the previous way.

 For that, I temporarily reverse the way to have the history on the good
 part, then reverse both part back (but this is only important for ways
 where the orientation matters, like oneways or rivers).
 
 That's what i try to do, when paying attention to it, but I feel JOSM
 should do it automatically.

JOSM can't know what part of the way should keep the history, so the best he 
can do automatically is to always assign the history in a consistent way.

The other solutions is to ask the user which part of the way should retain 
the history, maybe there is a plugin to do that, but I personally prefer the 
way it works now.

-- 
Renaud Michel

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Problems with JOSM's unwanted behaviour.

2011-07-11 Per discussione Lennard

 But If you click on the last node of your way, then press Alt while adding
 the next node, then you end up with a new way that share its first node
 with
 the previous way.

Exactly, and that was what he was told in the ticket.

I entirely disagree with the suggestion to disable autocontinuation, and
am very content with the way JOSM currently works in that respect.

The example in the ticket (starting from a node in the middle of a way
produces a continuation) is convoluted as well. It *doesn't* do a
continuation of that way. That's also impossible in the data model.

In the example (in the ticket) that node is also the endpoint of *another*
way, and it does do a contination of *that*. However, it's made out to
appear that selecting a non-endpoint node of a way and then drawing from
that will produce a continuation. Not so.

In short: use the modifier key when drawing a new way from an existing
endpoint node. Don't go through all the hoopla of extending a way, then
splitting it, deleting the tags, applying new tags. That only makes life
difficult and indeed obfuscates the way history.

-- 
Lennard


___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Problems with JOSM's unwanted behaviour.

2011-07-11 Per discussione Lennard

In the example (in the ticket) that node is also the endpoint of
 *another*
way, and it does do a contination of *that*. However, it's made out to
appear that selecting a non-endpoint node of a way and then drawing from
that will produce a continuation. Not so.

 No, you didn't understand the examples. I never sayed that a road was
 boken up in the middle and then continued. It is just when you start a

I was not saying that either.

[...]
 This is exactly what happens when editing at node 803205990.

This is exactly what I described.

 As most often, you intend to add a new road, the default behaviour
 should be like that.

I think it comes down to being of another mindset. For me, clicking an end
node to continue that way seems the natural thing to do. If it so happens
that end node is part of a crossing, so be it. I have to remember to use
ALT if I want to start a new way at the crossing.

Of course, I could be entirely spoilt from having worked this way in JOSM
for years. I thought Potlatch did the exact same thing. What is the
handling in Merkaartor for this situation?

 (Count once your ways when editing and compare extended existing versus
 added new ways)

That's not a fair comparison.

Often enough when adding new ways, you are *not* at a junction with
another way endpoint. You might be starting a new way in the middle of
nowhere, or branching off of another way, but *not* at a junction.

In my experience, when adding new ways, starting one at an 'endpoint
junction' is the exception.

 The splitting and additional obfuscating happens, while this seems the
 obvious way for most users of getting out of this unexpected alongation.
 For some messy results see my examples Verstrekenstraat and Jachtdreef.

I can actually agree with your other point, being that when splitting a
way, the existing ID should stay with the longest fragment. You might
modify your JOSM ticket to emphasize that part, or perhaps even better:
start a new ticket with just that request (with a reference to the current
ticket).

-- 
Lennard


___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Problems with JOSM's unwanted behaviour.

2011-07-11 Per discussione Gerard Vanderveken

Lennard wrote:

In the example (in the ticket) that node is also the endpoint of
*another*
way, and it does do a contination of *that*. However, it's made out to
appear that selecting a non-endpoint node of a way and then drawing from
that will produce a continuation. Not so.

No, you didn't understand the examples. I never sayed that a road was
boken up in the middle and then continued. It is just when you start a

I was not saying that either.

[...]

This is exactly what happens when editing at node 803205990.

This is exactly what I described.

I don't want to go into this futher, but your interpretations of my
examples were not right: Quotes:
- The example in the ticket (starting from a node in the middle of a way
produces a continuation) is convoluted as well.
- However, it's made out to appear that selecting a non-endpoint node of
a way and then drawing from that will produce a continuation. Not so.

As most often, you intend to add a new road, the default behaviour
should be like that.

I think it comes down to being of another mindset. For me, clicking an end
node to continue that way seems the natural thing to do. If it so happens
that end node is part of a crossing, so be it. I have to remember to use
ALT if I want to start a new way at the crossing.

Of course, I could be entirely spoilt from having worked this way in JOSM
for years. I thought Potlatch did the exact same thing.

No, it does not ! Tested with the example node and an unnamed new road
was created (you need shift to start drawing from the selected node) in
Potlatch 2.

Can you even do continuation of an existing road in Potlatch?

What is the
handling in Merkaartor for this situation?

According to the docs, you have the choice by having the node selected
or not, when creating a new road..

http://merkaartor.be/wiki/merkaartor/Documentation#Creating-a-new-way
and the paragraph below
http://merkaartor.be/wiki/merkaartor/Documentation#Continuing-an-existing-way-at-either-end

JOSM will always make a continuation unless stopped by the ALT-key.

(Count once your ways when editing and compare extended existing versus
added new ways)

That's not a fair comparison.

Often enough when adding new ways, you are *not* at a junction with
another way endpoint. You might be starting a new way in the middle of
nowhere, or branching off of another way, but *not* at a junction.

In my experience, when adding new ways, starting one at an 'endpoint
junction' is the exception.

This makes it even more execptional and illogical, that when you are
drawing, you get always a new way and suddenly a new way fails and your
added way is incorporated in an existing way.
But OK, narrow down the counts just for the cases in which JOSM would
be doing automatic prolongation and I'm still confident that you would
see you are more using the ALT key then not, when adding way segments.

The splitting and additional obfuscating happens, while this seems the
obvious way for most users of getting out of this unexpected alongation.
For some messy results see my examples Verstrekenstraat and Jachtdreef.

I can actually agree with your other point, being that when splitting a
way, the existing ID should stay with the longest fragment. You might
modify your JOSM ticket to emphasize that part, or perhaps even better:
start a new ticket with just that request (with a reference to the current
ticket).

I won't .
If no other users are asking, the developer won't change its point of
view or anything in JOSM regarding these two problems..
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

2011-07-11 Per discussione Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer

Hi Tom,

  Where do I find the sysadmin policy for evaluating whether a blocking
  request is considered „unreasonable“?
 
 There isn't one. I'm not entirely sure what it would say if it existed
 as it is hard to write such things down in concrete terms as it is by
 definition a very subjective judgement.

Hm, some of the sysadmins claimed that the problems in the CT should not be 
fixed because the sysadmins would never be unreasonable. Now you tell me that 
you did not even come to a common understanding would the word reasonable 
should mean. My conclusion is that I should simply ignore this argument by the 
sysadmins.

  I have been repeatedly told that making the voting right dependent upon
  the edit right is not a problem and that the CT do not need to be fixed,
  because the sysadmin team will always be reasonable. At the same time,
  the same people tell me that it is entirely reasonable to block my edit
  right and to thus remove my voting right. I see a contradiction here.
  
  I (and several others) have explained the problem again and again.
 
 My problem is that the CTs seem, to me, to be making a reasonable effort
 to describe a workable way to determine who is an active contributor and
 all I've seen in response is ever more implausible scenarios which
 involve some large number of people collaborating maliciously over a
 long period of time to somehow subvert that definition.

I do not assume malice. I simply assume that people do not care about the harm 
that their actions are doing to the community.

 If you have a better way of defining active contributor that is
 workable then please tell us what it is.

I see no reason to limit the voting right to people who fit the definition of 
active contributors.

  I once made a constructive proposal for one potential way to fix the
  problem, which was met both with well-grounded criticism and with
  personal attacks. Hardly anyone of the people who criticised my
  suggestion have made any efforts to seriously work towards alternative
  solutions to the problem, and those who did were themselves ignored.
 
 What exactly was this constructive proposal?

I have made two different proposals:

1. Enforce an agreement to the ODbL (and maybe to all other share-alike 
licenses), but ask again if a move to a non-share-alike license is planned in 
the future. Add a provision for non-responding people (i.e. opt-out rather 
than opt-in).

2. Do not make the voting right dependent upon actions of the sysadmins.
Do not take away the voting right from people who once held it. Only allow to 
clean up the database of possible voters by removing non-responding people.

There are also a number of other ways to fix the problem, but I see no point 
in spending a lot of time explaining and discussing if the OpenStreetMap teams 
with power (i.e. sysadmins and license WG) simply do not care.

The license WG insist on not guaranteeing me a voting right. The sysadmins 
insist on blocking my edit right until I accept this. But I insist that this 
is no way to treat the mappers, who are the life of OpenStreetMap.

Olaf

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

2011-07-11 Per discussione Tom Hughes


On 11/07/11 09:20, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:


If you have a better way of defining active contributor that is
workable then please tell us what it is.


I see no reason to limit the voting right to people who fit the definition of
active contributors.


The main reason is that otherwise it will effectively become impossible 
to change the license because there will, over time, obviously be an 
ever growing group of people who are no longer involved, interested 
and/or contactable and once they become a majority the clause would in 
effect become null and void because it would be impossible to exercise.


If that is your aim, to ensure that the license can never be changed 
again, then fine - that is a perfectly respectable position to take.


It would be dishonest to try and get that to happen via the back door 
though, by supporting a vote but ensuring that it will in practice be 
impossible.


Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

2011-07-11 Per discussione Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer

Hi Kai,

 One could have given voting rights to all people who have once reached
 active contributor status and retain sufficient interest in the project
 to keep their email address up to date and respond to the vote within 3
 weeks.

I agree.

 However, Frederick is correct, that this kind of change to the CT (i.e.
 definitions of who is allowed to vote and how)  is indeed very hard, as it
 would be incompatible with the current CT, as it is a global change rather
 than a change just effecting the local contributor.

I see no problem here.

The CT require both a positive vote in the OSMF and a 2/3 majority of a 
narrowly defined subgroup of the community.

The new CT could require a positive vote in the OSMF and a 2/3 majority of the 
whole community.

For a license change, we would then need a positive vote in the OSMF, a 2/3 
majority of a narrowly defined subgroup of the community, and a 2/3 majority 
of the whole community.

The new CT could require a positive vote in the OSMF and a 2/3 majority of the 
whole community.

 What could however be done without requiring to reask everyone to update to
 the latest CT, would be to include a sentence in that clause along the line
 that OSMF may only ban you from editing if there is clear indication of
 vandalism to the data or if other technical missuse can be shown. Thus
 political banning of people who don't agree with the OSMF will no longer be
 allowed and thus couldn't affect who is eligible for voting. Then one
 wouldn't need to rely on the sysadmins being reasonable and the sysadmins
 would not be in the awkward position of having to decide if OSMF is being
 reasonable or not.

This would be another possible way forward.

But more important is whether there is a willingnes to fix the problem.

Olaf

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

2011-07-11 Per discussione Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer

Hi tom,

 The main reason is that otherwise it will effectively become impossible
 to change the license because there will, over time, obviously be an
 ever growing group of people who are no longer involved, interested
 and/or contactable and once they become a majority the clause would in
 effect become null and void because it would be impossible to exercise.

I have made many suggestions how this problem can be avoided. I have made two 
such suggestions in the very email you are replying to.

 If that is your aim, to ensure that the license can never be changed
 again, then fine - that is a perfectly respectable position to take.

 It would be dishonest to try and get that to happen via the back door
 though, by supporting a vote but ensuring that it will in practice be
 impossible.

No, this is not my position. We do you suspect me of it?

If you are not interested in trying to understand the problems both in the CT 
and in the behaviour of the sysadmins, then this is perfectly understandable.

But it is dishonest to interpret a small part of my email in a way that 
directly contradicts the rest of my email.

Olaf

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

2011-07-11 Per discussione Tom Hughes


On 11/07/11 09:35, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:

Hi tom,


The main reason is that otherwise it will effectively become impossible
to change the license because there will, over time, obviously be an
ever growing group of people who are no longer involved, interested
and/or contactable and once they become a majority the clause would in
effect become null and void because it would be impossible to exercise.


I have made many suggestions how this problem can be avoided. I have made two
such suggestions in the very email you are replying to.


Those suggestions were about changing the definition of an active 
mapper, not about doing away with the requirement for being active.


I have no problem with suggestions for changing the definition of an 
active mapper, though I personally don't think the current definition is 
a major problem and I also think that most of your attempts to show how 
that will disenfranchise people are very contrived and unlikely to be a 
significant issue in reality.


I'm not the person you need to convince about that though anyway.

I was simply trying to explain why that one specific point of yours, 
that you don't think voting rights should be limited to active 
contributors, was IMHO a bad idea.


Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing

2011-07-11 Per discussione Andrew Harvey

It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can
upload to OSM.

We as a community can't verify this.
http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html mentions nothing, all
we have is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bing_license.pdf
which we can't verify as authentic.

But even if it is and can be proved to be authentic, unless Microsoft
also state that OSM has permission to license traced data it out to
others as CC-BY-SA, simply saying yes you can trace and upload to OSM
isn't enough in my opinion. As this would be a license specific to
OSM, and wouldn't allow others who use OSM data to use the bing data.

That is, if OSM were as rigorous as Debian we wouldn't allow this as
it is in violation of point 8 of the DFSG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines

I would love to have these issues proved unfounded, but until then, I
don't use bing at all, and am hoping the areas of OSM I'm interested
in don't become too polluted by bing data.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing

2011-07-11 Per discussione John Smith

On 11 July 2011 19:55, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
 It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can
 upload to OSM.

All we have is SteveC's word that this is what happened, to the best
of my knowledge Bing themselves near released anything definitive on
their own website.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing

2011-07-11 Per discussione Grant Slater

On 11 July 2011 10:55, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
 It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can
 upload to OSM.

 We as a community can't verify this.
 http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html mentions nothing, all
 we have is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bing_license.pdf
 which we can't verify as authentic.


The official Bing blog:
http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx
published by Brian Hendricks - Bing Maps Product Manager

 But even if it is and can be proved to be authentic, unless Microsoft
 also state that OSM has permission to license traced data it out to
 others as CC-BY-SA, simply saying yes you can trace and upload to OSM
 isn't enough in my opinion. As this would be a license specific to
 OSM, and wouldn't allow others who use OSM data to use the bing data.


The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing
license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.)
The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the
condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM.

Regards
 Grant

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing

2011-07-11 Per discussione Andrew Harvey

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
The official Bing blog:
http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx
published by Brian Hendricks - Bing Maps Product Manager

Oh, yes. That's right. I don't think it's perfect, but better than
nothing. I think it could have been handled better at Microsoft's end
though, i.e. directly posting the Terms PDF.

But even if it is and can be proved to be authentic, unless Microsoft
also state that OSM has permission to license traced data it out to
others as CC-BY-SA, simply saying yes you can trace and upload to OSM
isn't enough in my opinion. As this would be a license specific to
OSM, and wouldn't allow others who use OSM data to use the bing data.

The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing
license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.)
The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the
condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM.

I can see that the assumption of tracing aerial photography to create
a vector representation of the data is creating an entirely new work
is potentially problematic. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that
you would want the copyright holder to state that they disclaim any
copyright on such traced data just to be sure. Just take a look at
this case as an example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster#Origin_and_copyright_issues

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing

2011-07-11 Per discussione Grant Slater

On 11 July 2011 11:30, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater
 openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:

 The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing
 license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.)
 The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the
 condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM.

 I can see that the assumption of tracing aerial photography to create
 a vector representation of the data is creating an entirely new work
 is potentially problematic. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that
 you would want the copyright holder to state that they disclaim any
 copyright on such traced data just to be sure. Just take a look at
 this case as an example
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster#Origin_and_copyright_issues


Richard Fairhurst wrote a good piece on the legals around aerial
imagery in 2009
Aerial photography, cock fighting and vodka bottles -
http://www.systemed.net/blog/legacy/100.html

/ Grant

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing

2011-07-11 Per discussione ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen

What is worrying me is that the LWG (=OSMF=COMMUNITY)
requires any contributor (us) to sign up using a CT,
where  BING can get away with a simple blog page.

I *can* understand that, because it's not OSM that is addressed
in this blog, but the individuals (us) making contributions.

The permission to use BING imagery is given to us in a vague
blog entry on the page below.
http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-
maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx

We had better print this page and keep it's URL firmly !


In order to safeguard the OSM community, I want to suggest
that the LWG pays as much attention to BING complying with our CT
as to the us (=community)
and demand a firm license addressing each OSM user, signed up
to OSM to ensure it's legal position for the time he is using BING !

As I see it now, this blog is of no legal value, and any user
might be sued for license violation. Not to speak about the
consequences once BING imagery based data needs to be removed.


The fact that Steve Coast actually pays his home with BINGS
salary, does not create much of an insurance to us.

Giant companies as Google and Microsoft are known to change
their opinions fast as soon as their interest changes and no-one
is there to protect us when things go wrong. 

GEODATA is a big business and I would not be surprised
if MS one day decides that OSM is theirs, due to more
then a substantial part is based on BING imagery, without
sufficient legal foundation. 
I trust MS to have the legal force to make sure it takes
less than a week to accomplish that.


Gert

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
 The official Bing blog:

http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-
maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx
 published by Brian Hendricks - Bing Maps Product Manager

Oh, yes. That's right. I don't think it's perfect, but better than
nothing. I think it could have been handled better at Microsoft's end
though, i.e. directly posting the Terms PDF.

 But even if it is and can be proved to be authentic, unless Microsoft
 also state that OSM has permission to license traced data it out to
 others as CC-BY-SA, simply saying yes you can trace and upload to OSM
 isn't enough in my opinion. As this would be a license specific to
 OSM, and wouldn't allow others who use OSM data to use the bing data.


 The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing
 license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.)
 The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the
 condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM.

I can see that the assumption of tracing aerial photography to create
a vector representation of the data is creating an entirely new work
is potentially problematic. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that
you would want the copyright holder to state that they disclaim any
copyright on such traced data just to be sure. Just take a look at
this case as an example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster#Origin_and_c
opyright_issues

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing

2011-07-11 Per discussione Simon Poole




Am 11.07.2011 12:10, schrieb Grant Slater:


The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing
license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.)
The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the
condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM.
.
The last time I read Nearmaps ToS I believe they were in fact -not- 
claiming any rights in
traces from their imagery, but requiring you to enter in to a contract 
with them (via
acceptance  of the ToS) that you would only license the data you 
generated in a specific

way.

But I might be mistaken. In any case as has been discussed here before, 
the level of protection
of photographic imagery differs so strongly from jurisdiction to 
jurisdiction, that it doesn't
seem wise to me to bet on there being no rights from the original source 
remaining in traces.


Simon



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Question regarding compatibility of CC BY SA license versions

2011-07-11 Per discussione Holger Schöner

Hello,

[I am sorry if this is a FAQ, but this matter is urgent, and a cursory web
search has not provided sufficient information for me to answer these
questions]

I am in negotiation with a provider of aerial images (for Austria), who
wants to allow OpenStreetMappers to use these aerial images. So far, the
terms clearly do not allow this, but the provider is willing to change the
terms. He has made a new draft, where he restricts use of the images data
directly, but allows derivative works, provided they be placed under CC BY
SA 3.0 Österreich/Austria.

I assume that the Austrian version of CC BY SA is compatible with the
(generic/unported?) one OSM uses currently? (Can someone confirm this?)

What about the compatibility of Versions 2.0 and 3.0? If we are allowed to
redistribute derived work in Version 3.0, can we do so also in Version 2.0,
as this is what OSM requires currently in my understanding?

[Another issue of course is that we should be allowed dual licensing
including ODbL, but I already clarified this to the image provider]

Is there any other thing I should ensure being present in the license
granted, to be usable by us?

Regards,
-- 
Holger Schöner - nume...@ancalime.de

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au

2011-07-11 Per discussione 80n

Sorry this was supposed to be copied to legal-talk, not the osm-fork list.
Apologies.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:35 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.bizwrote:

 **
 If it is UK Ordnance Survey data that is the issue, we now have direct
 clarification from them that they have no objection to continued
 distribution of data derived from their OS OpenData under under the ODbL. At
 the moment, this excludes Code-Point Open, (postcode) data. Hope that helps.


 The statement from the OS did not specify what content license was to be
 used for their content.  They did not explicitly mention that their content
 could be included using the DbCL.

 My understanding is that the OpenData license would be the one that was
 applicable unless a more permissive license was *explicitly* granted by
 them, which it was not.

 Is this a correct reading of how things stand at the moment or have OS
 subsequently clarified that they are happy for their content to be licensed
 using DbCL within a database that is protected by ODbL?





___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question regarding compatibility of CC BY SA license versions

2011-07-11 Per discussione Richard Weait

2011/7/11 Holger Schöner nume...@ancalime.de:
 Hello,

 [I am sorry if this is a FAQ, but this matter is urgent, and a cursory web
 search has not provided sufficient information for me to answer these
 questions]

 I am in negotiation with a provider of aerial images (for Austria), who
 wants to allow OpenStreetMappers to use these aerial images. So far, the
 terms clearly do not allow this, but the provider is willing to change the
 terms. He has made a new draft, where he restricts use of the images data
 directly, but allows derivative works, provided they be placed under CC BY
 SA 3.0 Österreich/Austria.

 I assume that the Austrian version of CC BY SA is compatible with the
 (generic/unported?) one OSM uses currently? (Can someone confirm this?)

 What about the compatibility of Versions 2.0 and 3.0? If we are allowed to
 redistribute derived work in Version 3.0, can we do so also in Version 2.0,
 as this is what OSM requires currently in my understanding?

 [Another issue of course is that we should be allowed dual licensing
 including ODbL, but I already clarified this to the image provider]

 Is there any other thing I should ensure being present in the license
 granted, to be usable by us?

New data and sources must currently be compatible with CC-By-SA, and
ODbL.  Preferably also CT/ODbL.

CC BY SA 3.0 Österreich/Austria is not sufficient permission because
of the requirement for ODbL, but also because OSM is currently
CC-By-SA v2.0.  CC-By-SA does have an or later clause, but does not
permit or earlier.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbl and collective databases

2011-07-11 Per discussione David Groom

- Original Message - 
From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. 
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org

Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbl and collective databases

David,

David Groom wrote:
This seems to be quite different to my interpretation, and it would be 
good to have some clarification, as the definition is quite fundamental 
to a number of use cases of OSM data.

You can always make an excerpt from an ODbL licensed database, which
will then be an ODbL licensed database in its own right. That's the
classic derived database thing.

Well that's what I asked to this list on 17 June [1] , and you will see from 
the only answer received (which incendtally was from a member of the LWG) 
that an except of an ODbL database will always be a Derivative Database, and 
not an ODbL licensed database in its own right.

Its why I asked the question.

Now I'm happy to believe that RW was wrong, but it would have been helpful 
if someone had pointed that out before now.  It actually makes a lot more 
sense, its a lot easier to see how Collective Databases can come about, and 
it helps with a lot of use cases of OSM, but it does rely on the fact that 
an except from an ODbL database can be an ODbL database in its own right, 
which three weeks ago I was told could not be the case.

Regards

David.

[1] 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-June/006236.html

While you have to retain attribution saying you derived this from X, in
every other aspect your new, derived database stands on its own feet,
and the ODbL applies to it in exactly the same fashion as it did to the
original database.

Therefore, whenever the ODbL says this database, that could either be
the full OSM database; or you could make an excerpt from OSM, licensed
under ODbL, which would then again be this database in a smaller 
context.

Apart from the attribution thing, the excerpted database is not
different, legally, from the mother database; there is nothing in ODbL
that refers to that mother database in any way.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09 E008°23'33

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au

2011-07-11 Per discussione Steve Coast

I'm speaking strictly personally here, posting to talk@ and opengeodata.

OSM often crosses bridges in it's growth. Mostly they're technical, like 
introducing color maps, rendering new things or speeding up the system. We have 
a much more ugly bridge to cross in front of us.

Would you want to be part of a community which includes people explicitly 
working to disrupt it, trolling it and breaking data? Would you want to be part 
of a community where people are literally scared for their jobs when thinking 
about helping run it?

Over the last few days there has been a bunch of discussion on talk-au which 
you can read in the archives, though for your own sanity you might want to skip 
it.

For the most part the posts revolve around the OSMF, the LWG and the license 
process. I considered my presence there over the last few days as both a last 
ditch attempt to salvage the data and more importantly the community that's 
there. As RichardF pointed out, their license acceptance rate is about half 
what most EU communities have achieved. I would say that the people on that 
list feel disaffected with the process and their representation in it.

Despite multiple attempts at trying to have a reasonable dialog over both what 
happened and what we can do about it, mostly I've been met with extreme 
animosity.

Most of that comes from people either banned from the main lists, been 
deleted/blocked from OSM or been moderated or who have publicly stated they're 
here to disrupt the project.

I've tried to get many people involved posting there in what I thought was a 
worthwhile effort, in effect to save that list. Almost everybody declined to do 
so. Only RichardF braved it and was met with a predictable response. Frederik 
has given up and from my reading of his email considers talk-au dead (I think 
you should make that email public). I find that understandable.

I've been trying to find someone to moderate the list along the Etiquette 
guidelines on the wiki. Mikel has given up, understandably, and he leads the 
main moderators. We found one native Australian to moderate but they backed out 
because they literally feared for their job safety, that the people who now 
inhabit the list would make life with their employer difficult. Thus, they 
declined to do so after initially accepting. I actually am convinced that was 
the right decision and the people on that list are capable of it.

I don't think anyone I know in OSM would want to be part of a community like 
that. I think it's a sad low point in what otherwise is a wonderful project to 
be involved in.

Let me be more clear, *I* don't want to be part of a community that accepts 
this. Who in their right mind would want to be a part of a community run by 
people explicitly out to disrupt, fork and troll?

In the best traditions of open projects our ideas and code are Free. It's not 
clear that our time and server resources should be. Unlike our ideas and code, 
they're finite and open to abuse. Make no mistake that our time and resources 
are being used explicitly to destabilize the very project which provides them. 
Used by mostly anonymous or pseudonymous people who as I say have been kicked, 
banned or explicitly stated they want to destabilize OSM.  

This is not about censorship. If you read the lists, you'll find we've made 
available repeatedly both the methods and the people to help resolve issues. 
These people are free to fork the project and the data, it's all available for 
download. They have their own mailing lists. Are there genuine questions about 
license, it's implementation and so on? Absolutely. But level-headed discussion 
is not welcome on talk-au for the most part. There are a few people who can 
discuss this stuff impersonally there but it's a small part of the list.

Now - why are we at this point?

The OSMF and the working groups, the apparatus of how a chunk of this project 
is set up, are unable to deal with direct threats like this, even if it's been 
going on for a year or more. One of the main forks of OSM (if you can call it 
main, it doesn't yet display a map) is run by an ex-board member. When you have 
someone like that working together with those who've explicitly declared they 
want to disrupt OSM, it's very hard for a young, open and democratic 
organization to deal with. For the most part we have no idea how many of these 
people are even real too, it's been suggested that a few of the pseudonyms are 
in fact just one person creating them on the fly.

We simply don't have the tools for it. Until last week we had no moderation at 
all, and that took many, many months (perhaps years) to set up. The board meets 
too infrequently to be able to respond to people explicitly working for its 
downfall, which perhaps is a little ironic. The working groups likewise I don't 
think have the bandwidth as they currently operate. Generally in an otherwise 
do-ocracy there is a lack of people who feel they have the authority to take on

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-talk-fr] South Sudan, the world's newest Country

2011-07-11 Per discussione Vincent Privat

Is there only someone right ? *Le Monde* suggests today there are still some
disagreements on the exact border location [1] [2].

Vincent

[1]
http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2011/07/09/le-sud-soudan-proclame-son-independance_1546977_3212.html#ens_id=1067666
[2]
http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2011/07/09/quelles-relations-entre-le-soudan-et-le-nouvel-etat-du-sud-soudan_1546677_3212.html

---

Y-a-t'il seulement un bon tracé ? Deux articles du Monde soulignent
aujourd'hui des désaccords entre les 2 Etats sur le tracé exact de la
frontière [1] [2].

Je cite:
*Les dirigeants du Nord et ceux du Sud ne se sont toujours pas mis d'accord
sur un ensemble de questions sensibles, dont les plus importantes concernent
le tracé de la frontière*
*La question ... n'est pas réglée... Il en va de même pour plusieurs
portions litigieuses de la nouvelles frontières entre les deux pays.*

Vincent
[1]
http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2011/07/09/le-sud-soudan-proclame-son-independance_1546977_3212.html#ens_id=1067666
[2]
http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2011/07/09/quelles-relations-entre-le-soudan-et-le-nouvel-etat-du-sud-soudan_1546677_3212.html

Le 9 juillet 2011 14:15, RatZilla$ ratzil...@gmail.com a écrit :

 Hi all,

 Successfully convert UNITAR datasets with ogr2osm from Ivan Sanchez:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ogr2osm

 But it seems to have a gap of 8kms from the actual border ??
 Who is right ? I think it's Unitar because some river are right placed.

 I'm available for sharing OSM's converted datasets for quality control
 and discussions.

 Gaël

 ---

 Conversion réussie des jeux de données UNITAR avec ogr2osm d'Ivan Sanchez
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ogr2osm

 Il y a un décalage de 8kms avec la frontière actuelle dans OSM ??
 Je pense que le tracée UNITAR est le bon car il correspond avec les
 cours d'eau déjà mappés.

 A votre disposition pour la mise à dispo des jeux de données UNITAR
 convertis en .osm pour le contrôle qualité et les discussions.


 Gaël

 ___
 Talk-fr mailing list
 talk...@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

1 2 3 >

1 - 100 di 252 matches

Mail list logo