Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 21:53, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote: On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote: The data is rendered from FOSM data. Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data. I'm told there is at least 500 changesets not from OSM... ___ 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 23 June 2011 21:53, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote: On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote: The data is rendered from FOSM data. Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data. I find this ironic, if not out right amusing, OSM-F tries to hide any kind of attribution, yet you expect others to more prominently attribute OSM-F, which only a very small percentage if that, of the content can be contributed from OSM-F members. So one rule for OSM-F, and another for everyone else, in other words either eat your own dog food, otherwise why should anyone else? ___ 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 23 June 2011 22:20, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) gra...@dalmuti.net wrote: But I do feel slightly uncomfortable that my edits, which I've now agreed should be licensed under ODbL, can currently be used by fosm to build a CC-by-SA competitor project which aims to divide our community. Erm how is this any better than companies sharing ODBL data and contributions either being exempt from sharing back or not being accepted because it isn't allowed by the CTs? Or how many people want OSM-F to run a PD project. ___ 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 24 June 2011 01:02, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote: Nearly all of the data was generated by OpenStreetMap contributors under the OpenStreetMap flag, so I think the attribution should be mostly to OpenStreetMap. For starters you are confusing OSM contributors with OSM-F who operates the website and what not, as for flags how about pitching a couple for companies either giving away data or giving away aerial imagery that can be derived from. None of which, not even contributors, get a mention where most maps attribute the companies that supplied data etc. ___ 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 24 June 2011 01:27, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote: So - what, you're saying we should be doing the whole list-ten-thousand-names-in-the-corner thing? I don't understand - what's your point? My point is, why should other sites be forced into attribution even OSM-F isn't willing to give it's own contributors, nor make it easy for people to find it without it being pointed out. That not all people who contributed that data agree to the odbl? No, but the vast majority of active mappers did. But they _all_ submitted it to a site under the understanding of a license that would attribute that work to OpenStreetMap. I didn't think that was even being called into question. Or will you just call anything into question to keep the disruption going? You seem to be the one disrupting things, as far as I'm concerned I attributed to FOSM who in turn attributes their sources. More importantly, if fosm is so much more legitimate and important than OpenStreetMap, why are you still over here taking a dump on our list? You're the one making a big song and dance about things. ___ 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 24 June 2011 01:41, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote: So because people have decided to start a voluntary project, they have to be answerable to absolutely everybody... everywhere... ever? No matter how unreasonable or logically warped they are (no names mentioned)? Everyone gets a veto on everything. Right? Every open source project I can think of has a fixed set of principals by which the code will be licensed under, and the license defines the sort of people that will join and help out, those requiring you to sign your rights away are usually typical of commercial projects, not open source ones. It's rare for projects to switch licenses once they've become established, otherwise you risk a fork splitting what community there is up. ___ 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 24 June 2011 01:49, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: 2011-06-23 John Smith: Which is derived from OpenStreetMap data. Therefore, the tiles are ultimately derived from OpenStreetMap data, too. Quoting CC BY-SA 2.0: As you said yourself above it's not reasonable to expect a lengthy attribution, especially when dealing with small screens, such as those on mobile phones. Don't play dumb. Putting *all* attribution elsewhere is legal. Putting only that part of the attribution elsewhere that you want to sweep under the rug is not legal. OSM-F doesn't put *ALL* attribution elsewhere. ___ 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 24 June 2011 02:00, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: There are two plausible legal interpretations: - the original author is OpenStreetMap - the original author are a lot of individuals You left off companies that have donated data. No matter which interpretation you choose, your website does not provide the legally required attribution for either interpretation. Well, OSM-F may facilitate, but they didn't create the data, and I don't plan to bother listing 1,000s of individual authors either. I'm not interested in talking about OSMF's legal choices with you. Oh so it's a case of do as I say, not as I do... ___ 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 24 June 2011 02:36, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: 1. Signing your rights away is not necessarily a bad thing. (The FSF asks you to do exactly that when contributing to GNU software projects, for good reasons, though others may rightfully disagree.) 2. Anyway, the OSM CT does not require you to sign away your rights. You just give OSMF a very broad license grant, just like what the Apache Software Foundation asks of its contributors. Those points aside, the license is usually fixed, some people who volunteer their free time, only do so based on a specific license, or similar. Some people prefer GPL some prefer BSD, but the 2 usually don't mix well because they have different ideals or goals. 3. Commercial projects are not necessarily bad things either. Comparing OSMF to a commercial entity (but the comparison is not correct, see #2 above) like it's a bad thing doesn't make sense. I didn't mean to imply there was anything wrong with them, however I don't usually like volunteering for large multinationals. ___ 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 24 June 2011 04:14, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: 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. As I pointed out before, OSM-F isn't the content creator, they merely facilitate, so the attribution should be for OSM Contributors, not OSM-F... ___ 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 24 June 2011 04:43, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: That said, I'm happy about FOSM, if I ever become a resident of the US and that legal opinion on this matter still holds up, I might pull its data and provide it under PD myself. Unlikely, maps were the first thing to be protected under copyright, and copyright law doesn't stipulate what form the maps have to be stored under, and maps are deemed a creative enterprise. If anything ODBL offers the easiest path way to PD data. ___ 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 24 June 2011 07:39, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: Well, it has been stated multiple times that it was a lawyer opinion that Francis Davey, who also claims to be a lawyer, gave an opposite opinion. CC-BY-SA didn't apply to our data, and factual databases aren't protected by Which is a false premise, map data isn't factual data and copyright on maps doesn't care if they are stored in a database or in print form, making maps takes creative effort, take 10 different mappers and give them the same sources and you will end up with different end results. CC-BY-SA be applicable to factual databases, but unfortunately also doesn't We're not dealing with a factual database, we're dealing with map data that just happens to be stored in DB form. ___ 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 24 June 2011 08:49, Julio Costa Zambelli julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote: On 23 June 2011 16:52, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: It's much closer to what's been happening in the Arab States this year: There are at least two big difference between revolutions in the Maghreb and Arab Countries, and the License discussion inside OSM. In this mailing lists it doesn't matter if a position is backed by one or ten thousand people, one persons email message weight the same as fifty thousand people shouting at Tahrir Square, even if that message has more in common with one crazy guy screaming about conspiracy theories outside ground zero. We are all going to receive it, the same for all of his/her following messages, at least till we run tired and unsubscribe from the list. And most importantly, there is zero intention of repression/censorship (I guess some of you will try to argue about this, but you all know that if some censorship had been applied when it could have been done, this discussion wouldn't be happening), so that one person can shout as much as he/she wants to, for as long as he/she wants to (probably till the License change is completed, so be prepared for many more messages). Now, taking it back to the mailing list and people responding, I think that many of us let Steve, Frederik, Richard and others do the job of answering John, 80n, etc. because we don't have the time and energy to do it. Luckily there is always people willing to do the hard work of pushing things So you quote one line and fail to point out what falsities I'm making. ___ 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 24 June 2011 14:32, Julio Costa Zambelli julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote: On 23 June 2011 23:58, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: So you quote one line and fail to point out what falsities I'm making. So that is what my message was all about? Thanks for clarifying it to me... You claimed I was making false claims without actually mentioning one of them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 02:30, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: I appreciate your appeal. In looking through the data it appears a lot of it has sense been field server. Since the original mapper traced the data from imagery. It seems kind of silly for that to cause the data to be deleted. OSM-F went down this path by their own choosing, how they handle data they haven't gained express permission from will indicate how far down the moral ladder things have sunk. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 02:30, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: I appreciate your appeal. In looking through the data it appears a lot of it has sense been field server. Since the original mapper traced the data from imagery. It seems kind of silly for that to cause the data to be deleted. To put this another way, what would happen if someone traced google imagery and it wasn't till after the street names had been applied that someone found about the tracing, because that's where things are at, since you have no more permission to keep data contributed than if it was contributed from a tainted source. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 03:37, Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com wrote: Well, in the case of Haiti this is exactly what happened a lot -- with Google's permission, though. Haiti is one small area, most of the time people that copy from google don't have permission. And having said that I want to point to my original post where I tried to emphasize that I respect the choices of the mappers. It's just that I'm guessing that not many who have declined or haven't decided but are leaning towards declining have thought of the humanitarian / global development / even poverty reduction side of their hobby. ... And if asked, not many of them would want to make life even more difficult to the world's underprivileged. Why don't you urge OSM-F to stick with the current license, after all it's the OSM-F pushing for a license change that will end up causing data loss. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 21 June 2011 23:31, Stephen Gower socks-openstreetmap@earth.li wrote: [Sorry to quote so much context - please do scroll down!) On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:16:03AM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: I think the question being asked arises from the following hypothetical chain of events: 1/ Person A has a database that he licenses under ODbL. 2/ Person B takes the database and creates a produced work [...] and also licenses the produced work (eg map tiles) under either (i) PD/CC0 or (ii) CC-By. 3/ Person C takes the produced work under PD/CC0 or CC-By, and creates a derivative work from it by 'reverse engineering' the map tiles to recover (some of) the data in the original database. [...] I think it's worth re-iterating the point made earlier: If Person A has publically expressed their desire that the database and copies of it remain under ODbL, and Person C is aware of this, then Person C needs to get their own legal advice. Person A, if asked about the possible loophole, should just repeat that their intention is that copies of the database should only be available under ODbL. Person A also should do as much as they can to make sure any potential Person C is aware of the intention. In the case of OSM, it helps that it's the largest open map data project - it's likely anyone thinking of creating a map data from tiles they somehow got hold of from Person B would investigate and discover OSM exists. I don't think intent alone is enough, if the intent is to limit derivative copies you need to stipulate that in your license to B, otherwise you know that C is able to do what ever he likes based on the license between B and C. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 19:55, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: I just wanted to make clear that our current data is submitted under CC-BY-SA (at least our community members declares so) but there is absolutely no prove that the data submitted can be CC-BY-SA. Well the assumption is that the data can be licensed as CC0/PD or CC-by-SA etc, but your statements are more against the CT than relevant to ODBL... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 20:16, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: Thinking of the example someone gave or the copyright in sound recordings being separate from the copyright in the music / lyrics, I'm guessing the answer is some sort of combination of 2 and 3; along the lines that person B needs to specify that while the images are under the license specified, the underlying data isn't. You are correct up until the assumption is that person C doesn't have access to the original data, instead they are deriving data from the produced images. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 20:24, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 11:37, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 20:35, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa. Oh and as for CTs, they don't guarantee attribution in future licenses, so that wouldn't be compatible with CC-by either... According to this recent post, LWG are saying that CC-By and CC-By-SA sources are both currently fine to use under the CTs: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-June/011931.html Since CC-by and CC-by-SA both require attribution than the CTs would have guarantee attribution, yet ODBL allows people to output PD tiles, which don't offer attribution. So for the above statement to be true they'd have to enforce attribution on produced works at the very least. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 20:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: While person C could indeed get access to the original data (which must be offered by B), in the hypothetical situation I envisaged, they choose not to do so. They obtain the produced work under PD/CC0 or CC-By without seeing the database it was produced from or agreeing to the ODbL. Doesn't hosting/offering the DB only come into play if they make changes to the data? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 23:20, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: I think what Robert is trying to say is that you only have to check for compatibility with the current license. But the current license is CC-By-SA, so CC-By-SA data would be okay. Since things seem to be going head first towards ODBL shouldn't that license also be considered when advising people about compatibility with the CT, otherwise it could be seen as very misleading and/or deceitful if they have full knowledge that it could mislead people. The ODBL and CT are being sold as a package deal, so that's how things should always be treated. with no midway point. Even with the current wording in the CT there is no guarantee that future license changes would definitely remove any data not compatible, so there and then that should be a show stopper over compatibility, the CT simply isn't compatible with any CC license other than CC0. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
I forgot to ask, do SVG files constitute a produced work? The kind OSM.org currently outputs as SVG maps. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 20 June 2011 00:53, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 19 June 2011 12:31, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: yet ODBL allows people to output PD tiles, which don't offer attribution. The ODbL requires attribution of the database. The database can contain other attribution. Have you forgotten the PD tiles thread that you and I participated in on this list? Here's a reminder: The problem is I keep getting conflicting information and being told it's possible to put tiles under any license, including CC0/PD. So you are saying that CC-by, or equivalent license, is the minimum compatible with the ODBL? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 20 June 2011 00:55, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: If however on the other hand if someone created an SVG file specially for the purpose of extracted OSM data and tags, it would be extremely difficult for them to argue that is a produced work and not a database. That's assuming a single party acting on bad faith, 2 independent parties operating independently would be able to claim otherwise. There is a simple guideline on the wiki: (from 2009) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline In other words CC-by-SA protects data better than ODBL. No. See above. You are assuming that a single party or both parties involved are operating under bad faith, in all likelihood there could be a range of places to source data from, even OSM.org for that matter, with a secondary party operating in the US. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[talk-au] ODBL and real life...
For the longest time it was claimed ODBL would better protect data than CC-by-SA in some jurisdictions, with the US being one of those. However the opposite seems true, since the above claim was based on the premise that creating maps wasn't a creative enterprise. The ODBL doesn't place a limit on what license produced works can be licensed as, they can be published as PD/CC0. In any case unless the copyright license contains no derivative clauses people are then able to derive data from produced works and that derived data can be used to build a vectorised database. There is one clause here where countries with database rights, when the data re-enters those countries the database right might re-apply, but this doesn't apply for countries like the US (or Australia for that matter). Although I'm told that the above section of Database Directive in EU is untested in court, and I think some CC licenses already waive database rights and going into the future I believe creative commons plan to include this in more licenses. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 19 June 2011 19:32, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote: Some of these boundaries have been edited to include highway=* and waterway=* tags (mainly in areas with (at the time) no good imagery). How easy is it to get a list of these ways? Now that better imagery is available, now would be a good time to move these tags onto new, more accurate ways, using imagery, prior to the boundaries disappearing (with the loss of other information e.g. names). (Even if the boundaries weren't disappearing, it would still be good to create new ways, as the boundaries often aren't accurate.) Assuming that the source tag was left it would be very trivial, you could use the XAPI to pull these. However, it's my experience a lot of these ways have been realigned to aerial imagery, which is what tends to break these boundaries so much. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
Forgot to mention that SVG files are most likely produced works, even those they aren't raster images, so converting to SVG and then back to map data would potentially be pretty trivial. In other words CC-by-SA protects data better than ODBL. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
On 20 June 2011 00:55, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: If however on the other hand if someone created an SVG file specially for the purpose of extracted OSM data and tags, it would be extremely difficult for them to argue that is a produced work and not a database. That's assuming a single party acting on bad faith, 2 independent parties operating independently would be able to claim otherwise. There is a simple guideline on the wiki: (from 2009) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline In other words CC-by-SA protects data better than ODBL. No. See above. You are assuming that a single party or both parties involved are operating under bad faith, in all likelihood there could be a range of places to source data from, even OSM.org for that matter, with a secondary party operating in the US. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] JohnSmith edits on 19 June 2011
What does it matter since I'm never going to agree to the CT... On 20 June 2011 02:11, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: JohnSmith your four changesets today are missing descriptive changeset comments. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/JohnSmith/edits The barrier here http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8480159 does not advise of the source you used. The connected way claims yahoo as source, but that seems unlikely at the Yahoo resolution there. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/35893671 The Warialda Creek edits http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8480260 also claim Yahoo as the source. Please clarify for us the sources of these edits? ___ 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] ODBL and real life...
On 20 June 2011 03:12, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: I am sure theortical (and legally risky) loopholes could be found for example as you describe above. We could have contructed painfully A simple admission that the previous email is a valid argument would have sufficed We have people subverting our CC-BY-SA license right now!!1! *zomg* And they wouldn't be abusing our ODbL license in future. Case: UN: http://www.unitar.org/unosat-releases-new-maps-over-haiti Nice spin on things, except they need to adhere to copyright like everyone else, however what I've pointed out is completely legit and has no recourse. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] JohnSmith edits on 19 June 2011
On 20 June 2011 14:49, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote: Maybe Richard should have asked him privately first - I was mainly responding to John's attitude that it didn't matter. Well, what does it matter now that they're going to start deleting non-CT data? Obviously there had to be some sort of source - the question is, what is it? Did he go there (quite possible, as I know John does go to that part of the country). A couple of the changes were from past surveys, but I just don't take as much pride or put as much effort in these days because community no longer seems to matter so why should I bother putting in extra effort? The possible contamination could be if he copied it from a copyright map. I am hoping that he didn't do this, but as his initial response to Richard's question was what does it matter, I thought that needed clarification. To the best of my knowledge, I've only used sources compatible with CC-by-SA. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 19:22, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: Tiles are clearly *maps* and so protected as artistic works under article 2(1) of the Berne Convention and therefore (one hopes) in every country which is a signatory to Berne which includes the US and the EU. What you can do with tiles will depend on how OSMF chooses to licence the OSM. Well one assumption I'm making is that everyone is adhering to the license restrictions placed on them, perhaps this would be easiler with a solid example. OSM-F continues to distribute map tiles under a CC-by-SA license and for the purpose of this example doesn't have a terms and condition using their website. Someone from the US comes along and derives some data from the tiles OSM-F produces. That same someone then distributes the resulting data under a CC-by-SA license. At any point is anyone in breach of copyright? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 19:48, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/6/18 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: Well one assumption I'm making is that everyone is adhering to the license restrictions placed on them, perhaps this would be easiler with a solid example. OSM-F continues to distribute map tiles under a CC-by-SA license and for the purpose of this example doesn't have a terms and condition using their website. Someone from the US comes along and derives some data from the tiles OSM-F produces. That same someone then distributes the resulting data under a CC-by-SA license. At any point is anyone in breach of copyright? Where do they do all these acts? Jurisdiction may matter. In the UK reconstructing a substantial part of the database from the tiles would almost certainly be an extraction and so potentially infringing the database right unless licensed etc. I think quite likely an infringement of copyright in the database in the UK as well. Quite possibly not an infringement of copyright elsewhere. I simply don't know about that. Generally doing something indirectly via other works cannot be used to launder an infringement in the UK. Well this is why I asked if the second party was in the US. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 20:26, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Is this similar?: Andy, in Australia, contributes CC-By or CC-By-SA data to CC-By-SA OpenStreetMap. Perhaps the data is Australian boundaries or something. Betty, in UK, creates CC-By-SA tiles that include that boundary data. Chuck, in USA, creates vectors from those tiles and later contributes them to OSM under CC-By-SA and CT/ODbL. All fair here? How would it change if Betty were in USA as well? Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 20:35, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 20:26, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Is this similar?: Andy, in Australia, contributes CC-By or CC-By-SA data to CC-By-SA OpenStreetMap. Perhaps the data is Australian boundaries or something. Betty, in UK, creates CC-By-SA tiles that include that boundary data. Chuck, in USA, creates vectors from those tiles and later contributes them to OSM under CC-By-SA and CT/ODbL. All fair here? How would it change if Betty were in USA as well? Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa. Oh and as for CTs, they don't guarantee attribution in future licenses, so that wouldn't be compatible with CC-by either... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 03:40, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: What if Betty changes country and decides to reside in France -before- publicating her tiles on a server located in the Bahama's and claiming CC0 ;) It's silly because some people injected a silly argument into it, but it would seem that ODBL opens up some pretty big loop holes that CC-by-SA doesn't, and we've been told time after time about how much better it is, CC-by-SA is working just fine, but ODBL won't. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 00:06, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 06/17/11 11:18, John Smith wrote: Only if the amount of data traced is not substantial. CC-by-SA makes no such distinction, it's either cc-by-sa or it's not cc-by-sa, so which license can tiles be put under? Sorry, I thought you had asked about tracing from tiles. Tiles can be put under CC-BY-SA with no problem; in fact the main OSM tileserver is likely to do that. A database created by tracing from these tiles might however be subject to the limitations I have outlined in my previous email. Whether or not CC-BY-SA makes such a distinction or not is not relevant. I tried to explain this by referring to the related case of patents (here, too, CC-BY-SA makes no distinction), but I understand it is a difficult concept to grasp. Database restrictions don't concern me, as there is no DB directives or similar in most of the world, and I don't find any of this difficult to grasp, but I do keep getting conflicting answers from those promoting the new license. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 00:54, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:44 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 00:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I am not trying to apply patents to OSM. I am trying to use the example of patents to prove to you that your reasoning either something is CC-BY-SA or it isn't is, in this simplicity, invalid; that there may well exist limitations external to the license that limit what you can or cannot do with the CC-BY-SA licensed entity. Sorry if I didn't explain myself properly, I meant if you apply CC-by-SA you are allowed or limited by that license only, if there is further restrictions you would have to use something other than cc-by-sa (such as CC-by-ND) to enforce this, OR use a contract. If you are given a CC-BY-SA licensed work, they you are limited by by the CC-BY-SA license on the copyrightable aspects only. Other aspects like trademarks or patents that are inherent in the work are already limited irrespective of the CC-BY-SA license. The person who gave you the CC-BY-SA licensed work does not have to enforce you to follow trademark or patent restrictions, by contract or another copyright license. I'm aware of the patent/trademark issues, I wish Frederik hadn't brought this up as it only serves to side track things, because unless he plans to constantly patent tiles we can ignore that side of things completely. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 01:10, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Because you want to sell/offer s service in the EU, enter one of the countries and numerous other reasons. As long as you don't make the derived database available or publish the contents in some form -in- the EU you are not in trouble, just if. Depending how much China wants to crack down, any OSM-F member could probably be thrown in a Chinese jail for failure to comply with Chinese laws, what's your point? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 05:25, davespod osmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm wrote: In a similar vein, I think OSMF and any other publisher of OSM-derived map tiles under CC-by-SA would be well advised to be explicit about what it is they are licensing under CC-by-SA. In other words, they should follow the advice here (under Be specific about what you are licensing): As I said before, you can easily do this with copyright, use CC-by-ND instead of CC-by-SA, but if something is licensed as CC-by-SA it can legally be derived from as long as the resulting work is also CC-by-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 17 June 2011 18:38, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: Data from an ODbL database may however be used to create a BY-SA Produced Work. So this means produced works can be traced into a cc-by-sa data set then? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 00:30, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 06/17/11 16:20, John Smith wrote: Patents don't apply here I am trying to make a general point about the scope of CC licenses, to which the patents example is relevant. Do you or do you not agree, that if a picture describing a patent is made available under CC-BY-SA (and NOT CC-BY-ND), one's ability to implement the procedure described in the picture, and thereby create a derivative work of the picture, would be limited? There is 4 types of IP law (5 in the EU with the 5th being DB directive), contract, patent, copyright, trademarks. You can't apply patents laws against copyright and vice versa, so no you are wrong on this matter, or it's a very very poor example. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 00:32, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 06/17/11 16:06, John Smith wrote: So once again I'm met with silence and can only assume that produced works licensed under cc-by or cc-by-sa can be derived from, Do read the discussions I had with odc-discuss when someone asked about this before: Which is mostly about database directive, which only applies to a limited region. If you miraculously manage to create a Derived Database from the Produced Work, you know the requirements due to the advertising on the Produced Work (which BY-SA handles under the BY part of the licence). Without a contract it wouldn't be enforceable outside the EU, you would need at the very minimum a copyright license like cc-by-nd, especially on those that plan to distribute tiles as PD/CC0. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 00:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I am not trying to apply patents to OSM. I am trying to use the example of patents to prove to you that your reasoning either something is CC-BY-SA or it isn't is, in this simplicity, invalid; that there may well exist limitations external to the license that limit what you can or cannot do with the CC-BY-SA licensed entity. Sorry if I didn't explain myself properly, I meant if you apply CC-by-SA you are allowed or limited by that license only, if there is further restrictions you would have to use something other than cc-by-sa (such as CC-by-ND) to enforce this, OR use a contract. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 00:50, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Am 17.06.2011 16:39, schrieb andrzej zaborowski: ... 2. What happens if a person in country A with database rights publishes a tileset and licenses it under CC-By-SA to a person in country B without database rights? The second person is then as far as I can see not bound by database rights or a contract. Is that incorrect? ... I'm sure that our legal experts will step in if this isn't correct :-). While in your example the person in country B can probably legally ignore the terms of the ODBL (publisher in A however must include a notice pointing to the ODBL and so on), it doesn't make a database generated from that tileset legal in country A. Since at least most European countries (this is very generalised) consider an Internet publication the same as a national publication, any publisher of such a database would have to take precautions to block access in the EU (and countries with similar database protection regulations) or risk getting in to trouble. This could be hard, especially since OSM-F isn't complying with Chinese law, so why would others comply with EU law unless they were in the EU? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities
On 18 June 2011 01:18, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: Hi Frederik, Yes I agree that the arm chair mapping isn't the best method of collection. Though in some areas it will be difficult to ever have mappers on the ground without imagery. The cost of a GPS is prohibitive in many places. For other features, such as rivers and coast lines, arm chair mapping is probably the best bang for the buck, since it's difficult if not impossible to do this on the ground, that's before the amount of labour is taken into account to get this data. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 01:46, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Let me try copyright-only examples. I can take up the full text of all of the works of William Shakespeare, compile it into a book with annotations, and release the book under CC-BY-SA. Now since the original text by Shakespeare is already in the public domain, I can copy those parts from the book without following the book's CC license. In this case, the CC license has no way to restrict me from doing that. Here's another example. All English Wikipedia articles are licensed CC-BY-SA. Most articles have images. Some images are *not* licensed CC-BY-SA. In fact, many of such images are included in the article under fair use reasoning. That doesn't give the reader the license to use such images under CC-BY-SA simply because they were included in CC-BY-SA-licensed articles. The problem here isn't cc-by-sa, it's bigger picture stuff, from what I understand/have been led to believe, the ODBL doesn't limit what license produced works can be published under, outside of the EU there is limited or no database rights, so if tiles are produced and published under PD/CC0/CC-by/CC-by-SA there is no limitation on deriving, selling etc etc those tiles, other than what those copyright licenses limit you to do, obviously deriving cc-by-sa tiles would need to be under a cc-by-sa license etc. I don't wish to complicate this issue, but I'm led to believe that a lot of database rights are yet to have precedents, I think this would be pointless conjecture at this time. Frederik and others were trying to claim there was some kind of implied limit on derivatives, even in non-EU countries, which comes back to my original question about minimum license, or websites needing to have a binding contract on the end user to limit or prevent turning information on tiles back into some kind of vector data set. Then you have a whole other argument over what constitutes a produced work and so on. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 02:26, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think you're going to get clear answers about these specific cases. It will take a court decision to provide precedent rulings on such things. Well the copyright side of things seems pretty simple, especially if people are using CC0/PD, and if there is no contract with the end user that also is pretty simple, as contract law also doesn't apply. The only thing left would be database rights, but as was pointed out, it seems CC is planning to waive DB rights in future CC licenses, but I haven't paid much attention to this because it doesn't apply to me, but I thought some of the current EU specific CC licenses waived DB rights. And this is not a problem specific to ODbL. Even CC licenses have unresolved problems, like a question I thought of regarding how a person in country A will be able to use a work released under a CC license that was ported to country B. Should the person in country A follow provisions in CC-license-ported-to-B even if that doesn't apply to his jurisdiction? Can he use the work in CC-license-ported-to-A? Or can he revert to the unported CC license? You are assuming CC licenses are the only issue, what about tiles published under CC0/PD, none of the above would apply. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 02:40, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:07 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Then you have a whole other argument over what constitutes a produced work and so on. It's a novel concept, to be sure. but if you want to understand it better you can always ask the licence's authors on odc-discuss. Why isn't there a concise reference on all this? Surely this sort of thing has been asked enough to warrant it, along with all the other common questions, chances are then they wouldn't keep getting asked multiple times. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 17 June 2011 18:38, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:42 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: 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. So is there some sort of secret Australian cabal that I should know about? Do you guys have a mailing list? I sure don't see much of this kind of discussion on this list... It's hardly a secret, in fact one of the guiding emphasises is on transparency. http://groups.google.com/group/osm-fork?pli=1 Although I disagree with mapping offline, that would seem to be the most likely approach to people duplicating effort. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[OSM-talk] Anyone know where this city is?
http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/2501/sancturymap.png Seems to look like an OSM map to me, I don't have access to all credits, so no idea if it was credited or not.. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Anyone know where this city is?
On 16 June 2011 20:37, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: JohnSmitty wrote: http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/2501/sancturymap.png Seems to look like an OSM map to me, I don't have access to all credits, so no idea if it was credited or not.. I'm pretty sure that's Google Maps in Lower Manhattan (completely sure about the location). It's a modified map, one such change is the bridge at the lower left side, it's been cut off ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities
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. Major and semi-major transport corridors would be good as well. 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 eg Lightning Ridge http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-29.4282lon=147.9793zoom=14layers=M ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities
-- Forwarded message -- From: Steve Coast st...@asklater.com Date: 17 June 2011 07:09 Subject: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities To: t...@openstreetmap.org Hi 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. 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). I will pass this on to the right people and we may or may not be able to help. Thanks Steve ___ 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
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
On 16 June 2011 01:47, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: It's only as the deadline draws near that those in favour of the change are trying to put the blame on the mappers for there potentially being a conflict. I find this irritating. No, this isn't a new thing, this has pretty much existed ever since people started to notice problems with the CTs and how much data would be incompatible. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Community important, license unimportant
On 16 June 2011 04:54, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: As usual, the majority is right, and the minority (both 20%'s!) are wrong. The question that we need to worry about is not the legal terms of the license, but instead: will changing the license hurt the community more than leaving it alone. I'm not sure anybody but me is worrying about that. There is one other thing to worry about as well, going ahead how much faith will people have in the OSM-F board. So I highly encourage everybody EVERYBODY to shut up, pay less attention to the licensing, and map. I wish it were that simple, for the longest time we were told to be careful of the sources of data we import from, now it seems it doesn't matter how murky the data is as long as people sign up to the new CTs. Many long term contributors have left, both because of the current process, how it's being handled and all the unanswered questions, they don't want to map if their work is going to be for nothing. In Brisbane, Qld there was a regular mapping party each month, that hadn't missed a month in about 13ish months but there hasn't been a mapping party in the last 6 months because of all this nonsense. I could keep going, but the community has already been gutted to a large extent. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 16 June 2011 15:01, Gary Gallagher g.null.dev...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for all the comments, I think I'll hold off. It does seem unfortunate that there is no basic work-flow to convert a boundary into a relation containing the ways that make it up. From what you've said Nick merging nodes still keeps them as separate ways just stacked on top of each other - which is what I'm trying to avoid. The boundaries should already be relations, but people tend to break them frequently. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[OSM-talk] Garmin to acquire Navigon
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheBoyGeniusReport/~3/8nAQktIAPQk/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-legal-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
-- Forwarded message -- From: Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz Date: 15 June 2011 06:30 Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-t...@openstreetmap.org As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will mean that anyone who has explictly declined the new contributor terms will no longer be able to edit, (unless they decide to accept). This currently numbers 406 in total compared to over 191,000 who now contribute under the new terms. They or our forking folks may wish to grab a planet dump now and another one just before the phase 5 cut-over to ODbL. Planet dumps are generally made every Wednesday as of 11:01 UK time and become available 3 days later. Next week's version will probably be made on Tuesday due to the coming UCL shutdown. I would emphasise there is currently no need to remove data from the live database since the license is still CC-BY-SA. I believe there is no urgency to do so until acceptances have been maximised, local issues that have a near term solution have been addressed and there is a sense of community consensus that it is time. The License Working Group will continue listening to all feedback. Regards, Mike License Working Group [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 15 June 2011 12:16, Gary Gallagher g.null.dev...@gmail.com wrote: I've been working on my suburb (Brunswick East), and keep coming across tangled messes of ways caused by the boundary data effectively floating above different ways. Roads are being connected to the boundary instead of the the road. The road or other way has been moved to create a clear path for the boundary and vice-a-versa. I presume the overlapping sections of the boundary could be merged with the underlying way. Has anybody had any experience doing this and what are the potential pitfalls? 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. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing Maps are amazing
On 13 June 2011 17:07, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: Jochen, I see attribution on my browser (bottom left corner). Rendering is, I think standard mapnik, looks ok to me. Andrew E, did you try my link and zoom over to Korea. I think you'll find all the OSM data there looking quite good. I only see attribution for Microsoft and MapData Sciences... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bing Maps are amazing
On 13 June 2011 18:01, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: If I recall correctly, the Mapnik “Openstreetmap Mode” requires Silverlight, so the link below might show you a different view if you don’t have it installed. Or perhaps I’m thinking of the Map App, if that is different? I'd forgotten about that and it never seemed to make sense to me just for showing tiles. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF ! + PD / CC0 projects
On 12 June 2011 19:29, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: I'm much more worried about the effects of a fork. If we spend time updating a number of forks, it will detract from time that we could have spent mapping. I was in that frame of thinking 3-6 months ago, but unless something radical occurs in a very short amount of time the damage will be very difficult to over come, each day that passes more long term contributors grow fed up of how the current process has been handled and leave, possibly forever. It's much better if we a democratic process and settle the license one and for all. If joining the OSMF is a requirement to vote, then so be it. It's only 25 bucks. Not only would you have to join, but get a more contributor orientated board elected. Currently it seems at present only companies are being listened to. At this point in time, I doubt the situation can be fixed, or even the effect mitigated since the trust in the current board is completely lacking. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Blue color in part of MAP by MAPNIK
Did anyone try to mark tiles as dirty, I've done this in the past and it seems to re-render properly, no idea why it occurs or why marking it as dirty fixes things, seems to be inconsistent so might be a mapnik bug. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[talk-au] Free ebooks
Earlier this week 4000 academic books were released for free, apparently there is quite a lot of GIS books in the mix: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/slashgeo/~3/j318KMk-yGU/Hundreds-Free-Geospatial-PDF-Books-National-Academies-Press ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On 5 June 2011 21:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Nick Hocking wrote: The only way, I see, out of this mess is for me to map a new set of residential roads, using my actual GPS tracks, alongside the nearmapped ones, make then properly routable, and maybe put a layer tag on them (for the moment) to ensure that routers don't confuse the issue. Well if you are prepared to do this work, and if it is clear that the other mapper doesn't support the license change, and if you think simply staying with the current status for a while is not an option (since you need to add road name), then I'd just delete the other person's data and replace it with yours. The map will not be worse for it, and the other mapper can hardly complain. He is yet to back up his claims about people using the data, so far I'm told the SES and other emergency services use their own GPS/mapping solutions. So unless he can backup his claims he's only going to be vandalising the map, and here you are cheering him along after you so carefully worded things earlier to try and prevent any kind of edit waring or map vandalisim. As others have pointed out, the best way to handle the change over would be to start a new database and copy data into it that is allowable. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On 5 June 2011 22:35, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, John Smith wrote: He is yet to back up his claims about people using the data I don't think it makes a difference. If I have one set of data with a questionable copyright situation and no street names, and another set of data with street names surveyed by someone who agrees to the CT, there's no reason to prefer the former. He made the same claim to talk-au without backing up his assertions when questions so his claims could be verified. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On 5 June 2011 22:48, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Where the claim was made has no relevance for my assessment that it does not make a difference. As I said, you tried so hard to word thing to reduce the change of an edit war and now you are cheering some along to do the exact opposite, so I'd say it makes a lot of difference at this point in time. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] level_crossing, leveled
On 26 May 2011 18:53, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: Unless you operate to peculiar safety standards, there'll probably be a stop sign on the track some way either side of the former crossing(probably set for the stopping distance of the heaviest train operating at linespeed, and taking the gradient into account - which could easily be a mile away). So there'll be quite a length of track that's disused. I'd probably tag the railway as abandoned, and remove the level crossing, if it looks like a permanent situation. I hit this when I first started mapping, there is a lot of track about the place, and the crossings are still there, but tarred over, rather than ripped up. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] anonymous edits
On 27 May 2011 03:51, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: Hi all, Consider the following application scheme: * a twitter user sends a geo-located tweet containing a specified hashtag, say #addosm and key-value pairs like amenity:pub;name:Red Devil;smoking:yes * a twitter scraper picks up the tweet, archives it and posts a new point using the twitter coordinate and the decoded k-v pairs, plus an additional tag source:twitter[@twitteruser] or something like that. This would be an easy way to add POIs on the go, and could be an interface for mobile applications to post new POIs. This would not be totally anonymous but it's close. What do you think, is this acceptable? A similar level of anonymity is reached by WheelMap.org that allows anonymous OSM edits through their web site via the OSM account wheelmap_visitor[2]. Not knowing who made edits to the phone directory was one reason given for copyright not to cover phone books in Australia, so anonymous edits have the ability to weaken copyright in some jurisdictions. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] anonymous edits
On 27 May 2011 04:19, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: Totally anonymous edits existed once in OSM, until 2007. See the first link in my original message (mysteriously not referred to in the message body..hm). They were abandoned for different reasons I believe, the wiki page gives some explanation. I'm aware, but knowingly allowing it to continue was my point, especially since steps were taken in the past to stop accepting them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[talk-au] Fwd: [Aust-NZ] Open public sector information principles launched [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
-- Forwarded message -- From: Bruce Bannerman b.banner...@bom.gov.au Date: 26 May 2011 15:26 Subject: [Aust-NZ] Open public sector information principles launched [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] To: OSGeo NZ/AU aust...@lists.osgeo.org Fyi http://www.cio.com.au/article/387826/open_public_sector_information_principl es_launched/?eid=-601uid=111064 An extract: == The Australian Information Commissioner, John McMillan, has launched the government's eight Principles on open public sector information. According to McMillan, the principles which have been developed by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) through a process of public consultation recognise government information as a national resource that should be published for community access and use. These Principles set out the central values of open public sector information that it be freely available, easily discoverable, understandable, machine-readable and reusable, McMillan said in a statement. === Bruce ___ Aust-NZ mailing list aust...@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/aust-nz ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Redistricting 2.0: Cloud Lets Voters Take Part
CWmike writes As the 2010 U.S. census results arrived, Los Angeles County's politicians started ramping up for redistricting — the once-a-decade, computing-intensive, often contentious process of geographically carving up the populace into discrete parcels of voters. In the past, such decisions were made by politicians using expensive computer systems and software. Participation in the process was limited to an elite few who could afford experts who understood redistricting's arcane rules and GIS technology well enough to game them. This year, however, it won't just be the politicians and special interest groups poring over the data and tweaking boundary lines. All 4.5 million registered voters in LA County have access to a cloud-based redistricting application called the Public Access Plan that lets voters view and modify existing maps and boundaries, submit comments, and even create and submit their own plans from scratch. LA County is among the first government entities to consider providing Web-based tools that allow for direct public participation. 'This notion of public access has changed quite dramatically,' says Tim Storey, a senior fellow at the National Conference of State Legislatures. 'Throwing that wide open is a big step.' The big question now is whether the public will use it. http://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/05/25/1719206/Redistricting-20-Cloud-Lets-Voters-Take-Part?utm_source=rss1.0utm_medium=feed Ok, not about Australian political boundaries, but why shouldn't our politicians be held to the same accountability. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] level_crossing, leveled
On 26 May 2011 05:10, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: HI all, What should be done with a level_crossing, when trains may cross no longer? The junction was a level_crossing, but has been repaved and re-sculpted. The rails are now covered by 0.3 - 0.4 m of asphalt which appears to have been laid directly over the tracks. So the railway hardware appears to still be there, but unusable. The rails continue both directions from the level_crossing. To this point, I have left the level_crossing tag in place; it can still serve as a waypoint, I suppose. Any thoughts or widely accepted customs regarding this? I usually tag them as level_crossings, but some kind of disused tag might be more suitable ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[talk-au] Kempsey, NSW
There is Bing imagery covering Kempsey, but a distinct lack of mapping, or was before I started adding them, but still plenty to do. I mentioned Tamworth a few weeks ago and within a day or so it had been mapped out extensively from Bing imagery. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Rendering your own maps
Over the past few days I've been documenting the exact steps needed to setup, run and maintain your own map rendering system. If the area is small enough you can even do it in a virtual machine, and a vmware image will be published at some point so all you need to do is download, run and tell it the area of the planet you are actually interested in. http://wiki.sharedmap.org/wiki/Rendering_At_Home We have been given permission from Archive.org to store map tiles on their systems, however scripts are still being tweaked to make this as simple and straight forward that anyone with a little technical experience would have no problems using. Some details about the current thoughts on how to best to achieve this based on a few limitations: http://wiki.sharedmap.org/wiki/ArchiveOrg This should make it possible and easy for anyone that wants tiles for a custom style sheet. We have a proof of concept map page running: http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html While there is tiles for most of the planet up to z6, as a test we published some z21 tiles for Sydney, only to find out the default style sheet does very poorly beyond about z18 with roads disappearing and all sorts of weird things, the only thing that still looked ok was polygons that get rendered. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] 3D Aerial Photos For the Common Man
An anonymous reader writes So you have a RC model aircraft snapping digital photos from the air, but how do you organize them all? This cheap cloud service from a European research giant will upload your photos and automatically convert them into 3D models you can navigate like a video game. And if you don't have a model aircraft, they got those on-the-cheap too. Let the overhead droning begin! http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/05/22/1820200/3D-Aerial-Photos-For-the-Common-Man?utm_source=rss1.0utm_medium=feed ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] A modest proposal fo OSM mailing list reform
On 21 May 2011 16:08, Sam Couter s...@couter.id.au wrote: John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 May 2011 13:52, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: Forums (IMO) are much superior to mailing lists for one simple reason If the forum software is a threaded one then it is really easy to avoid reading any drivel from the trolls. You just ignore the whole thread if the troll starts it or just ignore any parts of an otherwise useful thread if it becomes troll infested. While not a forum, you do realise you can do the same thing with a newsgroup interface? Any decent mail client will offer the same feature. Forums suck hardcore. They all have different feature sets, differently disabled UIs, they encourage terrible posting styles, and worst of all I have to go to them (and register separately at each one, log in each time I visit, manage yet another user profile, remember a whole new set of user identities for those I interact with, etc) if I want to read the content. With mailing lists on the other hand, the content conveniently comes direct to me, I get to choose what software has the interface I like, and it is impossible for censors to delete stuff before I get to see it. All that, and I still have a delete button for stuff I don't want to see. I was trying to avoid the discussion/flame war over mailing lists v forums v whatever. This is a very subjective thing, possibly due to when you started to use the internet and your personality/preferences etc etc etc If people want to use a forum like interface, gmane.org does that I believe. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] A modest proposal fo OSM mailing list reform
On 21 May 2011 16:11, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: If people want to use a forum like interface, gmane.org does that I believe. Actually gmane.org does a few different options, include a blog like interface... http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.region.au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] A modest proposal fo OSM mailing list reform
On 21 May 2011 13:52, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: Forums (IMO) are much superior to mailing lists for one simple reason If the forum software is a threaded one then it is really easy to avoid reading any drivel from the trolls. You just ignore the whole thread if the troll starts it or just ignore any parts of an otherwise useful thread if it becomes troll infested. With mailing lists it is easy to just not open a post from a troll but if someone else directly quotes a troll then it is a bit tricky to stop reading instantly. The trick is that the forum must be threaded. Of course the desperate trolls will then start to put their poison in the subject line and to increase their use of sock puppets so as to try to trick us into reading their garbage. At this point there, unfortunately, needs to be some form of moderation/banning (or CENSORSHIP as the trolls will bleat). While not a forum, you do realise you can do the same thing with a newsgroup interface? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mailing_lists#Reading_mailing_lists_via_newsgroup_interface ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wiki censorship
On 18 May 2011 22:56, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: Grant has absolutely no respect for user wishes, he's defaced my own wiki page, which I can no longer edit, after I left a note asking people not to edit my wiki page. What bollocks. I added a notice to the *discussion page* with evidence Yes and since it usually takes 2 to tango, so what actions were taken against others? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wiki censorship
On 18 May 2011 23:12, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 18 May 2011 14:02, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 May 2011 22:56, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: Grant has absolutely no respect for user wishes, he's defaced my own wiki page, which I can no longer edit, after I left a note asking people not to edit my wiki page. What bollocks. I added a notice to the *discussion page* with evidence Yes and since it usually takes 2 to tango, so what actions were taken against others? Please supply evidence. I have listed the people who have been complaining about you and you removing their complains from the discussion page. How about you start with the first person (Nop), he reverted it without any discussion, and you are the biggest hypocrite of them all, you seem to show no bounds when it comes to forcing your opinions of how people should communicate on others. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Wiki censorship
It seems if you are on the wining side of an argument you end up blocked, so I'm most likely going to start an aussie wiki and not care about the official wiki ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wiki censorship
Sugar coat it all you want, but what action did you take against anyone else involved? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Wiki censorship
On 18 May 2011 06:38, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: Set of rules made by one group, complaints handled by same group, prosecution handled by same group, judgement made by same group, punishment handled by same group. Grant has absolutely no respect for user wishes, he's defaced my own wiki page, which I can no longer edit, after I left a note asking people not to edit my wiki page. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Nearmap badly out of date
On 13 May 2011 15:38, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:24 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: That's before you consider the resolution, it's so high that railway lines and switching tracks are mapped so accurately people were suggesting to those that make train games they could use OSM data as the basis of their track data for more realistic simulations. Yeah, I've wondered for a while if people couldn't make interesting RTS type games using OSM data. Would be pretty cool to do a military/economic simulation on an area that you know... I think at least 1 flight sim already uses OSM data. ___ 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 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?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Canberra Mapping - out of date
On 8 May 2011 17:47, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 May 2011 10:33, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: 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. What's more of a shame is the fact existing roads are being remapped when there is tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of rural roads that could be mapped from Bing that isn't already mapped. Oh and if anyone is looking to redo vector data from Bing, Tamworth, NSW has a lot of poorly aligned roads based on survey data. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Canberra Mapping - out of date
On 5 May 2011 10:33, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: 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. What's more of a shame is the fact existing roads are being remapped when there is tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of rural roads that could be mapped from Bing that isn't already mapped. ___ 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 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. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Queensland border and the MacIntyre River...
The south bank of the main stream of the Murray River is the NSW/Vic border, but does anyone know where the NSW border lies with respect the MacIntyre River? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Queensland border and the MacIntyre River...
On 9 May 2011 13:39, 4x4falcon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: I'd say the centre of the main channel as the only sign I've ever seen there is half way across a bridge. The bridge at Texas has the sign on the southern side of the bridge, but the 'Welcome to Qld/NSW' sign is on the northern side. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Tom Tom selling customer data to the police in .au as well
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/08/tom_tom_oz_data_to_cops/ ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Breaking up is hard to do (was New Logo in the Wiki)
On 6 May 2011 22:16, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: The alternative would be to continue using CC-BY-SA in the face of objections, and continue to misleading users about the effectiveness of the license. Still this sad tired old line, please come up with new FUD to keep things interesting. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Breaking up is hard to do (was New Logo in the Wiki)
On 6 May 2011 15:25, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: has no clothes, and there are no little kids around to say Gee, this relicensing thing ... maybe it's not such a good idea? Plenty of people have been pointing this out, but those that should be listening aren't and as a result OSM has gone from almost exponential growth to stagnant growth to negative growth... The fact that people are turning away from OSM should be a huge wake up call, but sadly no one is listening... It's too late. You have to live with CC-By-SA, even if it's not perfect. It's all you've got. From what I gather about the ODBL, mind you I can't get consistent views on it which should be a big red flag, it's worst in general for those using the data, at present you only have to care about copyright, in future you will most likely have to get contracts with end users to be in line with the ODBL, to me this is not only going backwards, but it puts even more onus on people wanting to use OSM data to the point of being rediculous... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[talk-au] Fwd: [Aust-NZ] LINZ survey
-- Forwarded message -- From: Alister Hood alister.h...@synergine.com Date: 5 May 2011 11:58 Subject: [Aust-NZ] LINZ survey To: OSGeo NZ/AU aust...@lists.osgeo.org, nzopen...@googlegroups.com Hi everyone, First, apologies if you get this twice because you’re on both lists. I don’t think anyone has mentioned yet: if anyone is interested, LINZ is conducting “an online survey about the geospatial industry in New Zealand”, to “help inform LINZ's future geospatial product and service strategies”. The survey closes at midnight on 10th May. https://surveys.researchnz.com/RegisterLINZGeospatial Regards, Alister ___ Aust-NZ mailing list aust...@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/aust-nz ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Reassurance and Licensing
It's such a shame that your high regard for diverse opinions only seem to matter if they match yours. On 5/4/11, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 May 2011 20:40, Tim Challis tim.chal...@gmail.com wrote: Sarcasm aside. I am quite happy to go along with Liz' pronunciations to date. If she starts going mad with power and saying something in my name I am not happy with, I think I will let her know then. She said something in mine I wasn't happy with, and I did. Seems we are in much the same boat. But equally seriously, unless there is some kind of organisational structure in Australia, I don't think anybody should attempt to speak on behalf of the Australian community. While you might agree with Liz's pronoucement to date, I'm confident there is some diversity of opinion out there, and everybody is entitled to put their views as they see them. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- Sent from my mobile device ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Tag touristic street roads
On 2 May 2011 15:56, Gregor Horvath gre...@ediwo.com wrote: Hello, I could not find a wiki page nor relevant data on how to tag a touristic relevant road. There is the scenic=yes tag, but maybe only a part of the touristic road is scenic but the whole road (relation) may be of touristic interest (for example a mountain pass road in the alps) Is there a common scheme? I would think tourism=attraction on the relation would be correct but I could not find such tags for example in the Austrian data. I've been using a relation for the route, and using: type=route network=T ref=number/name ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
