[OSM-talk] Trying to find Russian user Usm78

[Steve Coast]

If anyone’s able to connect me…

   https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Usm78

Last edited around 2015.

thanks…

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] SOTM Africa

[Steve Coast]

I’m confused why you think all board members are volunteers? That feels like a 
convenient fiction.

Best

Steve

From: Jorden Verwer 
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2019 11:52:00 PM
To: Steve Coast 
Cc: talk@openstreetmap org Talk ; 
osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] SOTM Africa

Hello Steve,

It's good to hear that you had a nice time in Ivory Coast and that SOTM
Africa appears to have been a success. For me, as a passive OSMF member
who only attended SOTM once and rarely participates in discussions
outside of the AGM, I can only respect people who spend way more time on
OSM than I do - and that obviously includes you. I also think it's
generally a good idea for as many board members as possible to attend
SOTM conferences.

What I'm not so sure I agree with you on is your proposal to make
attendance of at least one OSMF board member mandatory. The board
consists of volunteers, and for any board member there can be very valid
reasons why they can't or won't attend. As a consequence, this may apply
to all board members simultaneously in some situations. What would the
effect of your proposal be in such a situation? Can the planned SOTM
conference not take place then and there? Will the board be penalized?
Neither option seems to be all that desirable, so instead I'd propose
that OSMF board member attendance be highly recommended, but not
required.

Oh, and I should probably not get involved in this, so against my better
judgment I'll quote the page Christoph linked to:
"We expect this to be the official election campaign process. We won't
restrict members to continue to talk on our members' mailing list nor
will we restrict candidates to continue discussions, but we don't
encourage them to do so. The official answers and questions thereof
should be what voters use to judge."

Regards,

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

[OSM-talk] SOTM Africa

[Steve Coast]

Today I attended SOTM Africa in Grand-Bassam, Cote d’Ivoire.

It was a genuinely wonderful experience both for me personally and for OSM. It 
was organized by both locals and many francophones. People attended from a 
diverse set of African countries and beyond, and they’re doing an enormous 
amount of work to make the map in Africa better. The conference had multiple 
tracks and many great talks and people. I want to thank them for what I saw.

One of the tangential things that grabbed me was http://africabees.com/ - using 
drones to map places in a distributed way. Not to distract from 
https://www.opendronemap.org/ which was also represented and awesome.

Every SOTM should have at least one board member present. I’ve already sent my 
board 2019 questions in, but, I think sending board members to all the SOTM 
conferences is an obvious thing and I’d push for if elected. It’s something 
that should be required. I’m very happy to be wrong but I didn’t meet or see 
any OSMF board members who attended. It’s confusing, what is more important 
than attending SOTMs for the board? We can do better.

In any case, please consider attending remote SOTMs, even if it’s a long 
journey. The positivity and energy was wonderful to experience and it comes on 
top of a wonderfully different culture.

Best

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

[OSM-talk] Addressing SIG

[Steve Coast]

Hello

Maps have three basic components: Display (does it look nice?), Routing (Can I 
get from a to b?) and Geocoding (Where is this address?).

OSM is extremely good at the first one, and pretty good at the second one. But 
it’s pretty deficient in the third area: address data.

The question is, how can we fix this? Addresses are a big, big problem in terms 
of how much data we need to go collect. There are a few ways forward with 
outside commercial or government data, but they tend to be difficult because 
the data is patchy or licensed in ways that aren’t very compatible with OSM.

It seems like it would be a good idea to think about this from the bottom up in 
a community way, and this doesn’t really exist in OSM right now. It seems like 
we need better feedback loops to:


  1.  Community can see where the address data is (and isn’t), because it’s not 
very obvious today when using osm.org
  2.  Make the tools to add address data better so that it’s easier to fix.

To that end, here’s a tile server that highlights address data:

   
http://ec2-52-50-19-165.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com/#10/39.7561/-104.9574

It shows roads with address data normally and kind-of hides other roads, to 
make it obvious that “something is wrong with this map”. We could have a tag 
(maybe it exists already) that says “this road doesn’t have addresses” and/or a 
tag that says “this road is complete”. (right now it’s just got Colorado and 
Utah in it).

When OSM started, the map looked very broken and incomplete because there was 
missing data all over the place. This created a large incentive to go fix the 
map. The idea with this tileserver is to do the same thing and make the map 
look broken to create a large incentive to fix it. If we, one day, switched the 
main osm.org site to using this rendering then it would create an urgent need 
to find all the addresses in the places where they exist. It could also be done 
on a temporary basis for a few weeks, or on a per-country basis or some other 
slow introduction to see if it worked. It’s just an idea.

On the tools side, there’s much that can be done to make collecting and 
entering addresses easier. I’ve been collecting UI/UX changes to tools (e.g. iD 
or Go Map!) that would make addresses better:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Address_SIG

It also seems worthwhile to create a group of people interested in addressing 
in OSM (an address special interest group or working group) to push these ideas 
forward so that we can “finish” OSM by getting all the addresses done.

What do you think?

Best

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapzen is shutting down

[Steve Coast]

A few of us are working on this -

https://www.maphaven.com

Map services with the profits going to open mapping.

Steve


On Jan 7, 2018, at 4:04 PM, Tobias Zwick 
> wrote:

Hey guys

Some of you already read it on weekly, Mapzen is shutting down. This is
very sad news for the new year, as they were working on many promising
open-source services around OpenStreetMap.
I don't have the best overview, but their main product was the vector
map, so amongst the most important projects were

+ tangram and tangram ES (GL vector maps for web, embedded, mobile etc)
 https://github.com/tangrams

+ vector-datasource (Vector tile service)
 https://github.com/tilezen

+ Valhalla (routing engine)
 https://github.com/valhalla

+ Pelias (geocoder)
 https://github.com/pelias/pelias/

(did I forget anything?)

With the company being in dissolution and the developers forced to find
other jobs, all the work done in the last few years might be for the
birds if these repositories will no longer maintained.

I read we do not have to worry about the Valhalla team and project, they
found a new home at MapBox.

Also, I read today that the maintainers of Pelias announced this week,
that they will not shut it down. Full statement here:
https://github.com/pelias/pelias/tree/master/announcements/2018-01-02-pelias-update

But the future of Mapzen's main product, both the vector tile server and
tangram is what I am worried for. With Mapzen's tile services shutting
down along with everything else, the demos [1] will not work anymore and
people who want to use tangram will need to set up an own tileserver for
that, which is something the fewest would do with the easy alternative,
MapBox (and others? Or are there no more other competitors?).

Perhaps some people from the team/company are on this list and can share
their view on how or if these projects can continue and maybe how we as
a community could help.

Greetings
Tobias

P.S: Not sure if I should post this also on the dev mailinglist?

[1] http://tangrams.github.io/tangram/

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Stats site kickstarter

[Steve Coast]

The technical work to open source it is not huge (which is part of the reason 
why it’s only a $1k kickstarter) but it involves cleaning up the code, moving 
the repo, clicking some buttons on GitHub. The work to fix the code and the 
hosting is where most of the cash goes.

The social work *to actually get it running* as an open project means finding 
developers, finding sysadmins and servers to do all the data processing (which 
isn’t trivial, there’s a fair chunk of processing there that happens every 
week) would mean far more time than the technical work. Note – I’m not 
proposing to do any of this if the kickstarter is successful. This is what 
you’d have to do if it *isn’t* successful. Since I don’t want to do this, I’ll 
just press delete.

I don’t really see the point of the former without the latter. If I can’t raise 
a tiny amount like $1k to do this, then that’s a clear indication that the 
universe doesn’t care, and it would also be unlikely for volunteers to 
magically do all this work.

To me, it’s really an experiment in micro-funding. There are lots of little 
projects that use OSM that are built and run by volunteers using free or cheap 
resources. And that’s great. Is there also space for tiny things to get funded 
enough? I don’t know, let’s see. Because if that space does exist then you 
maybe can do things like hire other skills (like interaction designers or 
whatever) to make the thing ten times better.

What I’d like to do is put all my work through kickstarter to either fund or 
kill the variety of little sites I have. It seems like an efficient way to do 
it, but maybe I’m wrong.

Best

Steve



On 4/12/17, 10:57 AM, "Hakuch" <hak...@posteo.de> wrote:

On 12.04.2017 18:45, Steve Coast wrote:
> Ten years ago, I’d probably do the work for free to open it etc, but 
don’t have the time now.

Just to understand: whats the problem/work of just opening it? Is it
because of libs which are not open source? I just feel a little
blackmailed at the moment and Iam interested to understand the
circumstances.



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

[OSM-talk] OSM Stats site kickstarter

[Steve Coast]

I’m attempting to raise $1k in a week via Kickstarter [1] to fix the 
OpenStreetMap Stats site[2] I built last year.

The site lets you explore OSM data by country, time and data type:

Sadly, it’s suffered bit rot and some countries are broken and not updating. 
The $1k goes toward fixing, open sourcing and hosting it for a year or two. 
Else, it gets canned.

So far, it’s raised $174 with 6 days to go.

Steve

[1] - https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/237731198/openstreetmap-stats-2017
[2] - https://osmstats.stevecoast.com/
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] Communications manager

[Steve Coast]

> On Apr 1, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Luis Villa <l...@lu.is> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:55 AM Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com 
> <mailto:st...@asklater.com>> wrote:
> 
> > On Apr 1, 2016, at 12:42 AM, Paul Norman <penor...@mac.com 
> > <mailto:penor...@mac.com>> wrote:
> >
> > On 4/1/2016 12:22 AM, Greg Morgan wrote:
> >> I would think that the US Board should add another board member to be a 
> >> communications manager.  I now understand why corporations have paid staff 
> >> that do nothing but manage all these communication options.
> >
> > Why would this need to be a board member as opposed to another volunteer 
> > managing communications without being a board member?
> 
> Because volunteers tend to be terrible at doing work that isn’t fun.
> 
> Good thing board members are paid, then! Oh, wait ;)

Being on the board has a bunch of prestige and you can leverage it in to a job 
and VC money. Being an unpaid guy answering 1,000 emails a day on “what is a 
map?” has fewer benefits.

> Seriously, I'm with Paul- a designated group of volunteers who actually 
> enjoys and wants to do this would create a lot of value. (Casually engaged 
> people like me would get a lot out of it.)

I completely agree, which is why we tried it before. It’s just very hard 
compared to just paying people.

Steve___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Communications manager

[Steve Coast]

> On Apr 1, 2016, at 12:42 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:
> 
> On 4/1/2016 12:22 AM, Greg Morgan wrote:
>> I would think that the US Board should add another board member to be a 
>> communications manager.  I now understand why corporations have paid staff 
>> that do nothing but manage all these communication options. 
> 
> Why would this need to be a board member as opposed to another volunteer 
> managing communications without being a board member?

Because volunteers tend to be terrible at doing work that isn’t fun.

Steve
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Slack

[Steve Coast]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slack_(software) 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slack_(software)>

> On Mar 27, 2016, at 12:02 AM, Maarten Deen <md...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> 
> On 2016-03-26 20:59, Steve Coast wrote:
>> Ok so look, Slack took over the world. And it turns out it’s pretty
>> good and useful. Let’s have an official OSM slack.
> 
> Maybe I'm living under a rock, but I only know Slack as a short for 
> Slackware, a Linux distribution.
> 
> What is this and why do I need this? Maybe a little explanation?
> 
> Regards,
> Maarten

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] Slack

[Steve Coast]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slack_(software) 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slack_(software)>

> On Mar 27, 2016, at 12:02 AM, Maarten Deen <md...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> 
> On 2016-03-26 20:59, Steve Coast wrote:
>> Ok so look, Slack took over the world. And it turns out it’s pretty
>> good and useful. Let’s have an official OSM slack.
> 
> Maybe I'm living under a rock, but I only know Slack as a short for 
> Slackware, a Linux distribution.
> 
> What is this and why do I need this? Maybe a little explanation?
> 
> Regards,
> Maarten

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Slack

[Steve Coast]

I’d love to. I have been looking and found the basic xmpp gateway, I’d 
appreciate help if you’re interested?

I also love what tmcw did with the bot too.

Best

Steve

> On Mar 26, 2016, at 5:14 PM, Toby Murray <toby.mur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I believe there are slack bots that can connect slack and IRC. Not
> sure how well they work when there is a lot of traffic on both sides.
> But is it something we would want to look at?
> 
> Toby
> 
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com> wrote:
>> Thanks I added it to the wiki.
>> 
>> Steve
>> 
>> On Mar 26, 2016, at 2:07 PM, althio <althio.fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Created a few days ago for SotM-WG:
>> https://osmfoundation.slack.com/
>> 
>> - althio
>> On mobile, please excuse brevity.
>> 
>> On Mar 26, 2016 9:05 PM, "Steve Coast" <st...@asklater.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Ok so look, Slack took over the world. And it turns out it’s pretty good
>>> and useful. Let’s have an official OSM slack.
>>> 
>>> —
>>> 
>>> Due Diligence:
>>> 
>>> https://www.google.com/#q=slack+site:wiki.openstreetmap.org
>>> https://www.google.com/#q=slack+site:lists.openstreetmap.org
>>> 
>>> I’ve found two OSM-related slacks. Someone owns openstreetmap.slack.com
>>> and there is also osmus-slack.herokuapp.com as a front door to the US slack.
>>> The former I can’t find a lot about. The latter is mentioned here:
>>> 
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maryland
>>> 
>>> And it has a neat thing to throw out invites to people. There’s also a
>>> neat bot that it looks like tmcw wrote:
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/osmlab/osm-slackbot
>>> 
>>> —
>>> 
>>> I’m proposing that a) we have a global slack and b) it be ‘official’
>>> whatever that means. Having not been able to find this, I invite everyone
>>> over to:
>>> 
>>> https://awesomestreetmap.slack.com
>>> 
>>> So unless there is a secret slack somewhere that I missed, or something, I
>>> need help:
>>> 
>>> * Come join this slack, send me an email for an invite
>>> * Can someone please add the osmbot to this slack?
>>> * Can someone please make the magic “send me an invite thing” for this
>>> slack?
>>> * Please help edit http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Slack and also make
>>> slack a prominent part of other methods of communication
>>> * Please announce this on your favorite existing mailing list, forum or
>>> IRC channel
>>> 
>>> I realize that I’m inviting a discussion about how slack is an evil
>>> company or that we should all just use IRC, and those are fine arguments I
>>> don’t have the energy for.
>>> 
>>> Best
>>> 
>>> Steve
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> talk mailing list
>>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Slack

[Steve Coast]

Thanks I added it to the wiki.

Steve

> On Mar 26, 2016, at 2:07 PM, althio <althio.fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Created a few days ago for SotM-WG:
> https://osmfoundation.slack.com/ <https://osmfoundation.slack.com/>
> - althio
> On mobile, please excuse brevity.
> 
> On Mar 26, 2016 9:05 PM, "Steve Coast" <st...@asklater.com 
> <mailto:st...@asklater.com>> wrote:
> Ok so look, Slack took over the world. And it turns out it’s pretty good and 
> useful. Let’s have an official OSM slack.
> 
> —
> 
> Due Diligence:
> 
> https://www.google.com/#q=slack+site:wiki.openstreetmap.org 
> <https://www.google.com/#q=slack+site:wiki.openstreetmap.org>
> https://www.google.com/#q=slack+site:lists.openstreetmap.org 
> <https://www.google.com/#q=slack+site:lists.openstreetmap.org>
> 
> I’ve found two OSM-related slacks. Someone owns openstreetmap.slack.com 
> <http://openstreetmap.slack.com/> and there is also osmus-slack.herokuapp.com 
> <http://osmus-slack.herokuapp.com/> as a front door to the US slack. The 
> former I can’t find a lot about. The latter is mentioned here:
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maryland 
> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maryland>
> 
> And it has a neat thing to throw out invites to people. There’s also a neat 
> bot that it looks like tmcw wrote:
> 
> https://github.com/osmlab/osm-slackbot 
> <https://github.com/osmlab/osm-slackbot>
> 
> —
> 
> I’m proposing that a) we have a global slack and b) it be ‘official’ whatever 
> that means. Having not been able to find this, I invite everyone over to:
> 
>   https://awesomestreetmap.slack.com <https://awesomestreetmap.slack.com/>
> 
> So unless there is a secret slack somewhere that I missed, or something, I 
> need help:
> 
> * Come join this slack, send me an email for an invite
> * Can someone please add the osmbot to this slack?
> * Can someone please make the magic “send me an invite thing” for this slack?
> * Please help edit http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Slack 
> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Slack> and also make slack a prominent 
> part of other methods of communication
> * Please announce this on your favorite existing mailing list, forum or IRC 
> channel
> 
> I realize that I’m inviting a discussion about how slack is an evil company 
> or that we should all just use IRC, and those are fine arguments I don’t have 
> the energy for.
> 
> Best
> 
> Steve
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk 
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk>
> 

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

[OSM-talk] Slack

[Steve Coast]

Ok so look, Slack took over the world. And it turns out it’s pretty good and 
useful. Let’s have an official OSM slack.

—

Due Diligence:

https://www.google.com/#q=slack+site:wiki.openstreetmap.org 

https://www.google.com/#q=slack+site:lists.openstreetmap.org 


I’ve found two OSM-related slacks. Someone owns openstreetmap.slack.com 
 and there is also osmus-slack.herokuapp.com 
 as a front door to the US slack. The former 
I can’t find a lot about. The latter is mentioned here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maryland 


And it has a neat thing to throw out invites to people. There’s also a neat bot 
that it looks like tmcw wrote:

https://github.com/osmlab/osm-slackbot 

—

I’m proposing that a) we have a global slack and b) it be ‘official’ whatever 
that means. Having not been able to find this, I invite everyone over to:

https://awesomestreetmap.slack.com 

So unless there is a secret slack somewhere that I missed, or something, I need 
help:

* Come join this slack, send me an email for an invite
* Can someone please add the osmbot to this slack?
* Can someone please make the magic “send me an invite thing” for this slack?
* Please help edit http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Slack 
 and also make slack a prominent part 
of other methods of communication
* Please announce this on your favorite existing mailing list, forum or IRC 
channel

I realize that I’m inviting a discussion about how slack is an evil company or 
that we should all just use IRC, and those are fine arguments I don’t have the 
energy for.

Best

Steve___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Talk-us] Slack

[Steve Coast]

Ok so look, Slack took over the world. And it turns out it’s pretty good and 
useful. Let’s have an official OSM slack.

—

Due Diligence:

https://www.google.com/#q=slack+site:wiki.openstreetmap.org 

https://www.google.com/#q=slack+site:lists.openstreetmap.org 


I’ve found two OSM-related slacks. Someone owns openstreetmap.slack.com 
 and there is also osmus-slack.herokuapp.com 
 as a front door to the US slack. The former 
I can’t find a lot about. The latter is mentioned here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maryland 


And it has a neat thing to throw out invites to people. There’s also a neat bot 
that it looks like tmcw wrote:

https://github.com/osmlab/osm-slackbot 

—

I’m proposing that a) we have a global slack and b) it be ‘official’ whatever 
that means. Having not been able to find this, I invite everyone over to:

https://awesomestreetmap.slack.com 

So unless there is a secret slack somewhere that I missed, or something, I need 
help:

* Come join this slack, send me an email for an invite
* Can someone please add the osmbot to this slack?
* Can someone please make the magic “send me an invite thing” for this slack?
* Please help edit http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Slack 
 and also make slack a prominent part 
of other methods of communication
* Please announce this on your favorite existing mailing list, forum or IRC 
channel

I realize that I’m inviting a discussion about how slack is an evil company or 
that we should all just use IRC, and those are fine arguments I don’t have the 
energy for.

Best

Steve___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Legal Research

[Steve Coast]

> On Feb 23, 2016, at 9:11 AM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Paul Norman  > wrote:
> On 2016-02-22 12:38 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
> As has been mentioned before, the LWG and OSMF were and are involved in this 
> process. 
> 
> The OSMF is not formally involved in the process, through the LWG or 
> otherwise.
> 
> As mentioned earlier, LWG and OSMF chose not to participate directly with the 
> law clinic and the students. Members of the LWG (Alyssa) and OSMF (Mikel, 
> Martijn) are involved in the process that OpenStreetMap US is kicking off. 
> LWG and OSMF have repeatedly been invited to participate. If other members 
> are not interested in this process, that's OK.

There were reasons why not, as has been pointed out. It’s not lack of interest 
or mysterious. If anything I think most of us want to see it happen, just under 
a fair, open and balanced process.

Best

Steve___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Legal Research

[Steve Coast]

> On Feb 21, 2016, at 5:27 PM, Ian Dees <ian.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com 
> <mailto:st...@asklater.com>> wrote:
> Ian
> 
> I was just emailed privately to say there's hesitation to release the 
> original briefing since they’ve moved beyond that. But I’m not sure that’s 
> better, since it sounds like there is no documentation and it’s still the 
> same agenda.
> 
> It's pretty hard to argue about openness with "I was just emailed privately", 
> isn't it?

Well, it’s your board president emailing me privately which is a reasonable 
thing to do, just like I asked you last week to chat on the phone Ian. Usually 
you can figure stuff out better that way. :-)

My guess is you didn't read the original brief before agreeing to be the client 
for the work?

I think I’ve said all I need to, it’s all out in the open and you have other 
transparency issues to work on anyway apparently that Clifford raised.

Best

Steve___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Legal Research

[Steve Coast]

Ian

I was just emailed privately to say there's hesitation to release the original 
briefing since they’ve moved beyond that. But I’m not sure that’s better, since 
it sounds like there is no documentation and it’s still the same agenda.

Also, I’m on the LWG and I saw the emails to the OSMF so I’ve seen all that 
too. If anything, it makes it more worrying. All of this has been brought up 
privately, it’s not new. You’re kind of skipping over why this isn’t a LWG or 
OSMF project. Can we not pretend that there was no feedback from them that was 
ignored?

This project would be great if some combination of the following happened:

a) the LWG ran it
b) the process to design the work we need was open (instead of sharing the 
results in the spring)
c) other companies and the community were involved, actively
d) we could also attract independent lawyers, since in the end we need real 
opinion anyway

I don’t think any of that is happening, which is a shame.

I think what’s happening, and I’m happy to be wrong, is that this is off and 
secret to make sure it doesn’t get overrun by crazy people on the mailing list. 
And that’s a legitimate concern. But the way it’s happening is to exclude 
everyone else too.

If the original briefing document is to be kept secret then whatever the new 
briefing is should be documented and open. This is fairly basic stuff, and it’s 
why, as far as I can tell, the OSMF and LWG didn’t get involved.

This really has the potential to be a great project of obvious benefit, but 
only if it’s open.

Best

Steve

> On Feb 21, 2016, at 4:38 PM, Ian Dees <ian.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> I assure you that there is nothing secret about this process, its intentions, 
> or the result. If you read the blog post (0) and the wiki page (1) that 
> Alyssa posted you will find as much information as we have right now. Heck, 
> you can even come talk to us face to face at the town hall and ask us 
> questions there. We will continue to post about our progress and I'm sure 
> we'll have at least one more town hall in the future.
> 
> As has been mentioned before, the LWG and OSMF were and are involved in this 
> process.
> 
> (0) https://openstreetmap.us/2016/02/law-clinic/ 
> <https://openstreetmap.us/2016/02/law-clinic/>
> (1) 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/2016_Law_Clinic
>  
> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/2016_Law_Clinic>
> On Feb 21, 2016 18:16, "Steve Coast" <st...@asklater.com 
> <mailto:st...@asklater.com>> wrote:
> It should be pointed out again that this research, based on a - still secret 
> - brief by a company, didn’t happen via the LWG.
> 
> Hopefully one day we’ll be able to build an open process using real lawyers, 
> instead of secret agendas pushed via students.
> 
> Best
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
>> On Feb 21, 2016, at 3:58 PM, alyssa wright <alyssapwri...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:alyssapwri...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Exciting news here! The OSM US board has partnered with the cyber law clinic 
>> at Harvard University Law School for some cyber 
>> <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cyber> law research. 
>> 
>> We are working with two talented young women who bring legal learning and 
>> perspective to OpenStreetMap questions. This is smart research that we hope 
>> is just the beginning of engaging university students outside of geography 
>> and computer majors (which IS most of us anyway).
>> 
>> We'll be sharing the semester research in the Spring but if you want to 
>> learn more posthaste join us for a Town Hall 
>> <https://plus.google.com/u/1/events/cek2evvdtmimm0e3ontdnucends?hl=en> next 
>> Wednesday. To whet the legal scholars out there you can also check out the 
>> blog announcement <https://openstreetmap.us/2016/02/law-clinic/> starring 
>> our newly elected OSM US pet representative.
>> 
>> We're also accepting nominations for next year's OSM US pet mascot. 
>> 
>> Let us know if you have any questions!
>> Best, 
>> Alyssa. 
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us 
>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us 
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
> 

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Legal Research

[Steve Coast]

It should be pointed out again that this research, based on a - still secret - 
brief by a company, didn’t happen via the LWG.

Hopefully one day we’ll be able to build an open process using real lawyers, 
instead of secret agendas pushed via students.

Best

Steve


> On Feb 21, 2016, at 3:58 PM, alyssa wright  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Exciting news here! The OSM US board has partnered with the cyber law clinic 
> at Harvard University Law School for some cyber 
>  law research. 
> 
> We are working with two talented young women who bring legal learning and 
> perspective to OpenStreetMap questions. This is smart research that we hope 
> is just the beginning of engaging university students outside of geography 
> and computer majors (which IS most of us anyway).
> 
> We'll be sharing the semester research in the Spring but if you want to learn 
> more posthaste join us for a Town Hall 
>  next 
> Wednesday. To whet the legal scholars out there you can also check out the 
> blog announcement  starring our 
> newly elected OSM US pet representative.
> 
> We're also accepting nominations for next year's OSM US pet mascot. 
> 
> Let us know if you have any questions!
> Best, 
> Alyssa. 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[OSM-talk] license changes

[Steve Coast]

Any license change process, or anything remotely close to it, should be open 
and transparent. It should involve the community from the start and any company 
that wants to participate too.

This is painful, and it takes a long time to do. But it’s the right way to do 
it. And it’s what we did when we switched from CC to ODbL.

...

Recently a few people came up with a proposal to engage some various academic 
law students to provide analysis around the ODbL. This by itself is useful and 
interesting and to be applauded.

Unfortunately this had to be done in only a couple of days and thus the LWG 
didn’t get a chance to analyze it. It was presented to the OSMF instead as the 
law students need a client for whom to work, and they needed a client quickly 
as term is starting. It was hoped the OSMF would be that client. There was a 
briefing document on what the students should work on - the questions they 
would like them to answer. The document wasn’t written by the LWG or OSMF.

I and others were against this for a number of reasons: It was rushed. Few 
people were involved. The community were absent as were a broad set of 
companies. The briefing document appeared focused around companies customers 
and changing the license around geocoding rather than broader issues. It 
mentioned forking OSM and building scenarios around that. OSMF decided against 
it.

This legal work is apparently going forward now with the OSMF-US as the client.

…

It’s fair that within the OSMF or LWG or any group there might be differences 
of opinion, and those opinions not plastered over the internet. And it’s fair 
that they may need to consider some things, some times, in secret. That’s why I 
asked all those involved if there was a problem making this public (nobody 
objected), and it’s why there are no names named.

Here’s what I’m worried about: In a few weeks or months someone might be able 
to wave around a headline saying “{Famous University} law students and OSMF-US 
say ODbL needs changing to allow X, Y or Z”. Or. "{Famous University} law 
students say we can fork OSM and change the license”.

That would be possible if they’ve specifically been asked that and been 
presented a very specific viewpoint, perhaps from one commercial point of view.

I ask that this whole process be opened up to both the community and other 
companies with an interest in OSM so that it is fair, balanced and not subject 
to any real or perceived biases. Most of all, it shouldn’t happen secretly away 
from the community and then just the results presented as a fait accompli. We 
should actively recruit people to be part of this kind of work instead of 
keeping it quiet.

My understanding is that the ship has sailed and the students have started 
working with the scenarios they have been given. Hopefully I’m wrong, but if 
this is the case and the work has started, then I ask that OSMF-US throw out 
the results since the LWG, the community and other companies have not been 
involved at all in what the students are to be asked.

The OSMF-US and/or those involved are creating some communication channels for 
the work that is happening. It is a question for next months meeting whether 
the community will be allowed in to those channels or if there will be an 
announcement. It makes me and others uncomfortable that this is a question at 
all, as does waiting another month, or weeks, or whatever the timeframe is and 
then being presented with the results on how to change the license. You should 
know this work is happening, what has been asked and why, otherwise this isn’t 
a very open project.

Lastly, please come help with the LWG. More people involved in what’s happening 
can only strengthen OSM and help us do more.

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

[Talk-us] license changes

[Steve Coast]

Any license change process, or anything remotely close to it, should be open 
and transparent. It should involve the community from the start and any company 
that wants to participate too.

This is painful, and it takes a long time to do. But it’s the right way to do 
it. And it’s what we did when we switched from CC to ODbL.

...

Recently a few people came up with a proposal to engage some various academic 
law students to provide analysis around the ODbL. This by itself is useful and 
interesting and to be applauded.

Unfortunately this had to be done in only a couple of days and thus the LWG 
didn’t get a chance to analyze it. It was presented to the OSMF instead as the 
law students need a client for whom to work, and they needed a client quickly 
as term is starting. It was hoped the OSMF would be that client. There was a 
briefing document on what the students should work on - the questions they 
would like them to answer. The document wasn’t written by the LWG or OSMF.

I and others were against this for a number of reasons: It was rushed. Few 
people were involved. The community were absent as were a broad set of 
companies. The briefing document appeared focused around companies customers 
and changing the license around geocoding rather than broader issues. It 
mentioned forking OSM and building scenarios around that. OSMF decided against 
it.

This legal work is apparently going forward now with the OSMF-US as the client.

…

It’s fair that within the OSMF or LWG or any group there might be differences 
of opinion, and those opinions not plastered over the internet. And it’s fair 
that they may need to consider some things, some times, in secret. That’s why I 
asked all those involved if there was a problem making this public (nobody 
objected), and it’s why there are no names named.

Here’s what I’m worried about: In a few weeks or months someone might be able 
to wave around a headline saying “{Famous University} law students and OSMF-US 
say ODbL needs changing to allow X, Y or Z”. Or. "{Famous University} law 
students say we can fork OSM and change the license”.

That would be possible if they’ve specifically been asked that and been 
presented a very specific viewpoint, perhaps from one commercial point of view.

I ask that this whole process be opened up to both the community and other 
companies with an interest in OSM so that it is fair, balanced and not subject 
to any real or perceived biases. Most of all, it shouldn’t happen secretly away 
from the community and then just the results presented as a fait accompli. We 
should actively recruit people to be part of this kind of work instead of 
keeping it quiet.

My understanding is that the ship has sailed and the students have started 
working with the scenarios they have been given. Hopefully I’m wrong, but if 
this is the case and the work has started, then I ask that OSMF-US throw out 
the results since the LWG, the community and other companies have not been 
involved at all in what the students are to be asked.

The OSMF-US and/or those involved are creating some communication channels for 
the work that is happening. It is a question for next months meeting whether 
the community will be allowed in to those channels or if there will be an 
announcement. It makes me and others uncomfortable that this is a question at 
all, as does waiting another month, or weeks, or whatever the timeframe is and 
then being presented with the results on how to change the license. You should 
know this work is happening, what has been asked and why, otherwise this isn’t 
a very open project.

Lastly, please come help with the LWG. More people involved in what’s happening 
can only strengthen OSM and help us do more.

Steve
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Law clinic

[Steve Coast]

Thanks Ian
Could you please share with the community the full briefing document, since OSM 
US is the client?
Best
Steve




On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:08 PM -0800, "Ian Dees" <ian.d...@gmail.com> wrote:










On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com> wrote:
...
Hi Steve,
OpenStreetMap US did speak with a law clinic this past week. For now, we are 
acting as the point of contact and have been (and will continue to be) in 
contact with the Licensing Working Group and OSMF. As we understand more how 
this process works we'll be sure to get feedback from as much of the community 
as we can. My hope is that this is a first step in a long and helpful 
relationship between the OpenStreetMap community and a wider array of law 
professionals.
-Ian





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

Re: [Talk-us] Law clinic

[Steve Coast]

Thanks Ian
Could you please share with the community the full briefing document, since OSM 
US is the client?
Best
Steve




On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:08 PM -0800, "Ian Dees" <ian.d...@gmail.com> wrote:










On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com> wrote:
...
Hi Steve,
OpenStreetMap US did speak with a law clinic this past week. For now, we are 
acting as the point of contact and have been (and will continue to be) in 
contact with the Licensing Working Group and OSMF. As we understand more how 
this process works we'll be sure to get feedback from as much of the community 
as we can. My hope is that this is a first step in a long and helpful 
relationship between the OpenStreetMap community and a wider array of law 
professionals.
-Ian





___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[OSM-talk] Community Conference

[Steve Coast]

I’ve heard from a few people thinking of organizing an OpenStreetMap conference 
focused on the community, very different from what SOTM has become.

I’m curious what people here think of the idea?

Best

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Steve Coast]

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Tom Lee  wrote:
> 
> > He’s clearly not suggesting that.
> >
> > He’s suggesting that if you want to put geocodes in OSM that you go do 
> > that, and create a community around it, rather than this method of “change 
> > the license or we won’t do anything” which Fred feels is hijacking.
> 
> If I misunderstood, I apologize. Frederik's email discussed the burden of 
> maintaining address data, the relative lack of interest in addresses within 
> the OSM community, and the implicit obligation to contribute labor to the 
> data's maintenance; and it didn't mention licensing at all. That's why I read 
> it the way I did. But perhaps it will be best to let him clarify his own 
> words.
> 
> In that same spirit of clarification: at no point in this thread have I asked 
> for a change to the license.

Sorry “add a guideline or we won’t do anything”.[1]

It’s the threat he’s probably reacting to. It would just be more efficient all 
around to build the community since whether you get your data in OSM by force 
or by happy local community editors you still need a community at the other end 
to maintain it, right?

Best

Steve

[1] - 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2015-October/008288.html___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Steve Coast]

Tom looks like I misread Fred a little, apologies.

Steve

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 9:28 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> 
> Martin,
> 
> On 10/14/2015 11:18 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>frankly, if there was a halfway usable repository of open
>>addresses that could be merged with OSM for those who want it, and if
>>open addresses become available for regions where OSM already has
>>addresses, I'd not be opposed to dropping the addresses from OSM in
>>those regions.
>> 
>> Really? I've always thought our user's ground truth would be trumping
>> data we'd import, i.e. we'd request from importers not to drop features
>> that are already there, but to conflate in the opposite way, drop from
>> the external data set the stuff that we already have, before importing
>> the rest. Did I read you right? Can you explain why you changed your mind?
> 
> You read me right and Michal did too.
> 
> Yes, I always said that we would want to be able to import Open Data at
> the processing stage (i.e. into Nominatim etc.) instead of importing it
> into OSM, so Michal is right.
> 
> This of course has the drawback that you can't edit the government data
> sets, and this is why Tom Lee would prefer to import the government data
> sets into OSM to make them accessible for editing.
> 
> To which I replied that I would prefer to have this data in a non-OSM
> editable repository, rather than in OSM, because I feel that there is a
> disparity between the amount of address data and the number of mappers
> actually interested; I would prefer if those who want a crowd-sourced
> address data set would not burden OSM with that. Tom wrote that there's
> not enough manpower in openaddresses to actually edit the data, and I
> cautioned him against assuming that the OSM manpower would automatically
> be available for editing addresses.
> 
> Now if there *was* a crowd-sourced address collection project, then I
> would not object to OSM deferring to that for addresses. If, say region
> X made their address data openly available, it would be possible to
> conflate that with the (supposedly better) stuff we already have in OSM,
> add the result to the crowd-sourced address collection project, and drop
> it from OSM. If the alternatives are to either add the gov't data to OSM
> or move existing OSM address data into a separate project, I'd clearly
> prefer the latter, although I recognize that there might be people who
> would like to keep "their" address data in OSM. It is something that
> would have to be discussed.
> 
> It might be possible to piggyback the crowd-sourced address collection
> project onto OSM  but I would really think that if crowd-sourced address
> collection is not viable as a project in its own right (because of lack
> of people willing to give away their spare time to improve it), then it
> will not be viable in OSM either - only that the situation would be less
> obvious.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> 
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Steve Coast]

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Tom Lee  wrote:
> 
> Frederik. I think it's a bit ungenerous to suggest that getting open address 
> data into OSM constitutes "hijacking" the project.

He’s clearly not suggesting that.

He’s suggesting that if you want to put geocodes in OSM that you go do that, 
and create a community around it, rather than this method of “change the 
license or we won’t do anything” which Fred feels is hijacking.

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

Re: [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap US elections: October 12 townhall with candidates

[Steve Coast]

Picking up on the SOTM point - SOTM US isn’t for the community, it’s a 
corporate showcase. That’s not a bad thing, it’s just probably not what OSMFUS 
should be focused on.

A more interesting question is what should OSMFUS try to do to build editors in 
the US, and what metric should we use (presumably active editor headcount)?

What we’ve tried so far:

* SOTM getting bigger every year
* We tried paid ambassadors at CloudMade, running mapping parties with some 
success but the timeframe was very long to see people turn in to editors.
* We've tried making the web editor nicer multiple times (potlatch, mapzen, iD 
etc) and that doesn’t lead to meaningful growth in editors.
* Mapping parties appear to have some traction, but take a long time
* Getting schools involved appears to work briefly, then everyone goes home or 
to the next class
* Competitions to map areas (google also tried this for mapmaker)

All of these are good things to go do, they just don’t seem to impact active 
editing very much.

It feels like we should try some different things (ideas?) on a per-state 
basis. For example, we run 100 mapping parties in Idaho and we engage 100 
schools in Tennessee and so on so there’s distance between them and we can 
really measure the effectiveness of anything.

Some ideas to try:

* Linux User Group outreach (do these still exist? Very successful back in the 
day)
* Mass media (billboards, newspaper stories, magazine advertising)
* Tighter partnerships with existing orgs (USGS?)
* More scoreboards & leaderboards. We seem to have some success with ranking 
people and places against each other (e.g. Wyoming is more mapped than Nebraska)

Best

Steve

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 8:44 AM, Michael Reichert  wrote:
> 
> Dear US electorate,
> 
> Am Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:16:50 -0700 schrieb Alex Barth:
>> And - it's not to late to run for elections! Get your name up on the
>> list by October 10th.
>> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/
> United_States/Elections/2015#Candidates
> 
> And this is my censorious analysis reviewing all candidates:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Nakaner/diary/36098
> 
> *Summary* I think that some candidates are suitable and some are not 
> suitable. It looks as the number of edits and the time since the first 
> map edit is proportional to the suitability of each candidate (with some
> exceptions).
> 
> You, the US community, have got some very great candidates which have
> recognized the bad situation the US community is in (see posting by
> Martijn van Exel). These candidates have realized that the board has to
> change its focus and focus on the community all over the country and not
> the so-called "community" attending SotM US. A good map needs a large and
> active community and not an annual conference which is present in the
> media and tweets 1440 times per day.
> 
> Reading some of the manifestos, I threw my hands up in horror. Some
> candidates have less experience – neither in editing nor in OSM-related
> coding. I believe that following fictional conversation might have
> happened:
> "I want to join OSM." – "Well, you just have to run for OSM US board
> elections. You'll get to know the US community after election and learn
> mapping after election, too."
> 
> I myself wonder if these people just want to become a board member to 
> have a nice entry in their CV. If someone is really crazy about OSM, he/
> she invests more time into OSM than just uploading 40 changesets.
> 
> This user diary entry is not neutral and shows my European-based opinion.
> That's why editing/coding experience is a very important criteria from my
> point of view. I don't pussyfoot aroung, I clearly write what's in my 
> mind.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Michael aka Nakaner
> 
> 
> PS I have already watched the first half of the virtual townhall.
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Increasing the number of US Mappers

[Steve Coast]

I actually really like the idea of State mailing lists, could work, worth a try.

Steve

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 6:30 PM, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> 
> 
> To me, one of the biggest things is about having all mappers act
> reasonably toward each other.  We have some people that I'd describe as
> "lone wolf mappers".  If they just add things, that's fine.  But if they
> are retagging motorways as trunk, or deleting railroads, or otherwise
> being hostile, it's a huge turnoff for others to be part of the
> community.  In contrast, there are a lot of people that talk with the
> other local mappers and it's far more friendly.
> 
> So I have two concrete suggestions:
> 
> - in each state, have a state mailinglist, limited to people who
>  actively map in the state, because they live there, or because they
>  drive there to work.  Explicitly discourage non-locals from joining.
>  These lists would have more of a "people you might meet for a geobeer
>  session someday" flavor, rather than people you've never met and
>  won't.
> 
> - have project leadership be much more aggressive about requiring people
>  that make edits other than local additions to engage with commenter
>  and be part of the community, or be banned.  a few prolific editors
>  that annoy many others are a net minus to the community, and I think
>  that's pretty clear by now.
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Steve Coast]

Tom

Isn’t the problem one of imports? The debate on importing 200M points would be 
entertaining.

Steve

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 10:12 AM, Tom Lee  wrote:
> 
> > I think I agree with everything but this - I still don’t think it’s good 
> > enough. Of course, I also want it to be better - but that cogent argument 
> > thing you mentioned is missing either way.
> 
> I and many others have been investing considerable energy into the 
> OpenAddresses project because of ambiguity surround ODbL's implications for 
> geocoding. OA is now over 200M address points collected from government 
> sources under open licenses; OSM currently has 56M features with 
> `addr:housenumber`.
> 
> Obviously, not all of those 200M points belong in OSM. But many of them do. 
> OpenAddresses does not have the toolchain or community needed to improve and 
> maintain that data. Ultimately, those datasets should enter a collaborative 
> space where they are accessible to and improvable by all. In the 
> not-too-distant future, I suspect I will need to adjust a point when the 
> local pizza place has their drone drop my order on the roof 
> .
>  I want to do that work once in OSM, not a hundred times in a hundred 
> different closed geo databases.
> 
> OSM is already good enough to make geocoding services better for many 
> geography types and locations. The plausible mechanism by which it becomes 
> self-sufficient and then great at geocoding is through network effects and 
> concrete needs, not through individual pizza purchasers complying with the 
> Terms of Service printed on the box containing their dinner. 
> 
> To me, this means making sure OSM-enabled geocoding services can be 
> constructed alongside proprietary data; and that their results can be used by 
> enough people to make the project's improvement matter to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Simon Poole  > wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 12.10.2015 um 23:43 schrieb Mr. Stace D Maples:
>> ..
>> Neither of the projects was scrapped because we couldn’t use OSM for the 
>> project, but because we couldn’t determine IF WE COULD use OSM for our 
>> particular uses.
>> 
>> ...
> 
> And you or your legal department approached the licensor of the data and 
> asked for an opinion on your use of the data?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Steve Coast]

Stace

Regarding your first email on this topic you said - 

"to built a geocoding platform on Open Source software and Public Domain data 
that could be used to geocode research data”

Could you give an example of what the geocodable string would look like (just 
make one up)? Is it like  “1 Alpha Street, Fooville” or is it more like 
“Smallville, AK” ?

If it’s address data - are you aware that OSM doesn’t actually contain much at 
all and thus can’t help you?

If it’s not address data - are you aware that there are multiple PD sources for 
non-address level geocoding?

Because either way I’m having trouble understanding why OSM is in the way to 
achieving what you’re trying to do?

Best

Steve

> On Oct 12, 2015, at 2:08 PM, Mr. Stace D Maples <stacemap...@stanford.edu> 
> wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Alex. 
> 
> Clarity is exactly what is needed. Ambiguity = IRB Death. I’m going to be 
> going through the OSM Licensing/Copyright Guidelines more closely over the 
> next week and will comment outside this thread, if I have comments. 
> 
> For the record, I hardly think solving things like diarrhoeal disease (2nd 
> leading cause of death in children, globally) and tracking human rights 
> abuses in repressive regimes are a 1% problems. 
> 
> In F,L,
> Stace Maples 
> Geospatial Manager 
> Stanford Geospatial Center
> @mapninja 
> staceymaples@G+
> Skype: stacey.maples
> 214.641.0920
> Find GeoData: https://earthworks.stanford.edu 
> <https://earthworks.stanford.edu/> 
> Get GeoHelp: https://gis.stanford.edu/ <https://gis.stanford.edu/>
> 
> "I have a map of the United States... actual size. 
> It says, "Scale: 1 mile = 1 mile." 
> I spent last summer folding it." 
> -Steven Wright-
> 
> From: Alex Barth <a...@mapbox.com <mailto:a...@mapbox.com>>
> Reply-To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." 
> <legal-talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>>
> Date: Monday, October 12, 2015 at 12:32 PM
> To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk@openstreetmap.org 
> <mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>>
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com 
> <mailto:st...@asklater.com>> wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 9, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Alex Barth <a...@mapbox.com 
>> <mailto:a...@mapbox.com>> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com 
>> <mailto:st...@asklater.com>> wrote:
>> If you want all these rights, you can just pick up the phone and pay HERE or 
>> TomTom for them, they’d love to hear from you.
>> 
>> What's more interesting than sending people to HERE and TomTom is making 
>> them contributors to OpenStreetMap, no?
> 
> Absolutely, but at what cost?
> 
> OSM solved 95% or 99% of our problems. Should we fundamentally change OSM to 
> claim the last 1% so someone can make slightly more money or complete an 
> academic project? I don’t think that’s a worthwhile tradeoff. I’m super happy 
> with the 99% we achieved already.
> 
> I'm very happy about what we have achieved too. I don't think we're solving 
> 95% of our problems with OSM though.
> 
> "our problems" would of course need more definition and I'm running the risk 
> here of misinterpreting what you said. I'm thinking about all the cases where 
> OSM isn't used yet, all the mapping that isn't happing in OSM yet. OSM has 
> the potential to fundamentally change how we capture and share knowledge 
> about the world but we aren't anywhere near the full impact we should be 
> having. 300,000 active mappers is impressive but the world is much bigger. At 
> a time where the internet that was supposed to be Open is turning more and 
> more into a closed game of big players and growth for OSM is linear - what's 
> our plan? Fixing the license surely can't be the extent of our plan, but we 
> need to be able to have a frank conversation about how licensing is hurting 
> use cases and engagement on OSM, without second guessing people's intentions 
> and without just showing them the door to TomTom and HERE. In that context I 
> find comparing ODbL to Public Domain absolutely useful.
> 
> I think Stace's comments give a great glimpse into licensing pain points in 
> the academic community in the US and the guideline Simon pulled together is 
> going to fix some of the issues he's brought up. Having clarity how data 
> linked to OSM does not extend the ODbL's share alike to that data should go a 
> long way to address some of the concerns he raised.
> 
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

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

[OSM-legal-talk] OSM's future Was: Re: Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Steve Coast]

> On Oct 12, 2015, at 1:32 PM, Alex Barth  wrote:
> "our problems" would of course need more definition and I'm running the risk 
> here of misinterpreting what you said. I'm thinking about all the cases where 
> OSM isn't used yet, all the mapping that isn't happing in OSM yet. OSM has 
> the potential to fundamentally change how we capture and share knowledge 
> about the world but we aren't anywhere near the full impact we should be 
> having. 300,000 active mappers is impressive but the world is much bigger. At 
> a time where the internet that was supposed to be Open is turning more and 
> more into a closed game of big players and growth for OSM is linear - what's 
> our plan?

Yes - we discovered that OSM is linear at CloudMade and our VCs were worried 
too, but that’s not quite the same thing as it being a problem for OSM.

> Fixing the license surely can't be the extent of our plan, but we need to be 
> able to have a frank conversation about how licensing is hurting use cases 
> and engagement on OSM, without second guessing people's intentions and 
> without just showing them the door to TomTom and HERE. In that context I find 
> comparing ODbL to Public Domain absolutely useful.

This isn’t the way the world is going.

It used to be a decade ago there were two globalish maps, NavTeq and TeleAtlas. 
Now there are five - Nokia, TomTom, Google, Waze and OSM. My bet is we’ll have 
10 or 20 maps in a while, of which OSM is only one.

The cost to produce them is dropping dramatically and the incentive to do so is 
growing dramatically. Think cell phones we didn’t have 10 years ago and the 
number of companies that want to control a map. Note that with each additional 
map created, the value per map drops too. Thus OSMs dollar value is actually 
declining over time. One can argue whether it’s price or value or both.

Thus - Stace or anyone else now have 5 options for maps today and some of them 
even have the geocoding he wants (which the whole bogus argument is predicated 
upon, since we don’t have any geocoding data in the first place). This is much 
better than only having 2 options a few years ago.

If we want a PD OSM, someone should go build it. It wouldn’t be hard or take 
long. One would probably be done in less than 3 years... maybe only 2 - it 
wouldn’t take the 11 years OSM did to get to the same place since one don’t 
have to learn or prove anything. And one wouldn’t have to sit here arguing 
about anything, one could use that time building things. Even more importantly, 
one could use learnings outside of OSM like the things that Waze did extremely 
well - far better than OSM or anyone else - and one can do all this almost for 
free.

Best

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Steve Coast]

> On Oct 12, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> At the time, no-one was doing serious geocoding off OSM data - it wasn't
> good enough. 

I think I agree with everything but this - I still don’t think it’s good 
enough. Of course, I also want it to be better - but that cogent argument thing 
you mentioned is missing either way.

Best

Steve


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM's future Was: Re: Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Steve Coast]

> On Oct 12, 2015, at 4:24 PM, Alex Barth  wrote:
> How is it a bad thing that OSM is used in more places where it can't be used 
> today and hence grows?

It isn’t, as we discussed before. It’s - again - a question of what changes at 
what cost as discussed. In the past it’s mostly been about fundamentally 
changing the license so we can help a couple of people which is kinda 
disproportionate.

> The lack of clarity around use cases like geocoding infects other datasets 
> with ODBL is killing the incentives for businesses, NGOs and government to 
> contribute to OSM.

All you have to do is present some evidence for this beyond one academic 
project this week.

If it were me I’d go get an open letter drafted from the top 10 or 20 real 
users of OSM (mapbox, telenav, maps.me, mapzen, navmii...) and get their CEOs 
or GCs to sign off on it, about how the license is stopping them. But I don’t 
think you can. I think it’s much, much easier to get agreement on the lack of 
turn restrictions in the data, or the lack of point geocodes, I think we’d all 
sign that letter.

> Let's clarify the important use cases, leave share alike intact and we all 
> have a better OSM. Looking back over to the other thread, I don't think we're 
> that far off from each other: 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2015-October/008283.html 
> 
I think we’re agreed on that, it’s just not where the conversations over time 
have ranged, just one email ago you wanted to compare OSM and PD again :-)

I’d like to bet you a steak dinner on what happens after this change. It feels 
like you’re saying that large numbers of governments, NGOs and businesses (from 
above) are going to show up and start putting all their geocoding data in OSM. 
If that’s correct let’s agree a date and amount of data under/over.

Best

Steve___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Steve Coast]

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Alex Barth <a...@mapbox.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com 
> <mailto:st...@asklater.com>> wrote:
> If you want all these rights, you can just pick up the phone and pay HERE or 
> TomTom for them, they’d love to hear from you.
> 
> What's more interesting than sending people to HERE and TomTom is making them 
> contributors to OpenStreetMap, no?

Absolutely, but at what cost?

OSM solved 95% or 99% of our problems. Should we fundamentally change OSM to 
claim the last 1% so someone can make slightly more money or complete an 
academic project? I don’t think that’s a worthwhile tradeoff. I’m super happy 
with the 99% we achieved already.

As a sidenote, we should think about etiquette for how many employees from one 
firm contribute to discussions: It would not be fair for volunteers to be 
spammed by companies & their customers. I propose companies appoint one person 
to round up feedback per organization?

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Steve Coast]

I designed a license concept that’s relevant as an alternative way of thinking 
about this:

http://stevecoast.com/2015/09/30/license-ascent/

On a different note: It’s a false dichotomy to compare OSM and Public Domain, 
it’s really about comparing buying a proprietary map (which the OP didn’t 
mention that I saw) and OSM. If you want all these rights, you can just pick up 
the phone and pay HERE or TomTom for them, they’d love to hear from you. From 
that standpoint OSM looks wonderful of course.

Best

Steve

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Mr. Stace D Maples  > wrote:
> One other question, and I’m just curious, not trying to start a flame war. 
> Isn’t some of the data in OSM from public domain datasets? If so, what is the 
> OSM rationale for placing a more restrictive licensing model on that data?
> 
> Well, this issue is actually a "religious" war most commonly known as the BSD 
> vs. GPL debate.
> 
> Personally, I take issue with your statement that ODbL is a "more 
> restrictive" license than public domain. It all depends on your definition of 
> "restrictive" vis-a-vis "freedom". Public domain or CC-BY-style licensing 
> (aka BSD style) does provide the immediate user with a lot more rights than a 
> share-alike license like ODbL or CC-BY-SA (aka GPL style). However, those 
> rights are only guaranteed for the immediate user. The immediate user can add 
> his own improvements to it and then make those improvements proprietary—a 
> usage right that's allowed. Unfortunately, other users cannot make use of 
> those improvements.
> 
> On the other hand, a share-alike license aims to be a more sustainable model. 
> It restricts the immediate user on only one aspect: the right to make a 
> share-alike content/data/IP proprietary is explicitly disallowed. This 
> ensures that any improvements are shared back to the community, unlike with 
> the BSD-style licensing.
> 
> For me, share-alike licensing for OSM data is a net positive. This licensing 
> ensures that nobody can take the data, improve it to make it even more 
> valuable and then make it proprietary.
> 
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work

[Steve Coast]

Steve Coast http://stevecoast.com/ <http://stevecoast.com/> +14087310937

> On Sep 23, 2015, at 11:22 PM, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote:
> 
> Now obviously it does limit in some aspects the T an OSM based
> geo-coding service can use for its business and it might actually force
> such a service provider to differentiate between geo-coding for public
> vs in-house use.  But then it isn't as if you are completely free to do
> what you want with a lot of other data sources either. 

Another good point: If the OSM license has some edge case problem, it’s still 
far better than proprietary licenses which are the alternative.

I’m calling it "edge case” if the SNIFF TEST in my prior email is not met, 
maybe it’s just as well to call it the “EDGE CASE TEST”, which is similar if 
not identical to the MANY TEST.

Just trying to pull the discussion toward black & white tests which we can 
actually pass or fail, happy to see other suggestions.

Best

Steve___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] license test

[Steve Coast]

A constructive way forward may be to set out some tests that should be met for 
any license change for any issue. Maybe this exists already and I missed it. 
I’d suggest three tests below, but maybe someone here has better ones. I’m not 
sure *who* should judge this. Maybe a vote of some kind.

SPIRIT - Does the suggested change maintain the spirit of the license?

(Doesn’t require much elaboration I think, maybe I’m wrong)

HARM - Does the suggested change not harm the community or data?

(This is the most squirrely, maybe it can be nailed down. I took it 
from Lawrence Lessig’s supreme court copyright case where the judges asked him 
to show the actual harm the DMCA (would have) caused.)

EFFORT - Does the suggested change merit the effort required?

(The last license change was a monumental effort)

Perhaps we could replace the HARM test with the MANY test:

MANY - Does the suggested change help the many or the few?

Best

Steve Coast http://stevecoast.com/ <http://stevecoast.com/> +14087310937___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Portal for end users

[Steve Coast]

> On Sep 15, 2015, at 1:21 AM, Simon Poole  wrote:
> Over the years the expectation has been that somebody would take OSM
> data and create such an end user portal, but as we know, that has never
> happened outside a couple of aborted or zombie projects (three that come
> to mind are MapQuest, bing and skobbler, but I'm sure there have been more).
> 
> I once asked around what the original vision was for OSM, but nobody
> seemed to be sure if originally the intention was to cater for
> end-users, it definitely hasn't been the case for the majority of the
> roughly 10 years the project has been around.

It was. Why that didn’t happen is a long story.

As for the rest of the email - a kickstarter project would probably work, but 
not by committee.

> In any case the main problem is that it is not possible to build a sane
> commercial business plan around providing such a portal and that
> providing maps is just one (now days small, thanks to OSM) part of what
> a viable map portal/app would need to offer as Frederik has already
> pointed out (note this is not limited to OSM, one of the reasons for the
> rapid dispatching of Here/Navteq by Nokia was the failed attempt to
> provide exactly such a end-user service).
> 
> Naturally the main competitor for an audience is google which is likely
> sinking billions into google maps with nearly no direct income from the
> service (google doesn't actually disclose any specific numbers, what is
> however known is their advertising revenue vs. other sources). I think
> it is clear that competing on a commercial footing is just completely
> out of the question and -not- going to happen, so Frederik is being a
> bit misleading if he points to that as a realistic possibility.
> 
> What is largely unexplored is a non-commercial operation at the level
> that would be necessary to provide the missing bits and pieces. Given
> the intolerance of the masses for a less than google like perfection
> (see the issues Strava is having and that with an audience that
> historically has been sympathetic to OSM) and the problem that you have
> at least one viable commercial operator in the market, obtaining
> sufficient funding is likely to be -very- difficult.
> 
> Simon
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Etsy

[Steve Coast]

Thank you!

Steve




On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 11:42 AM -0700, Etsy Legal le...@etsy.com wrote:












Hi Steve,I'm sorry for any delay in response. OSM attribution is live to 
everyone now. The only exception we've just found about are maps in very old 
versions of the apps for certain push notifications, however we will be 
removing those next Monday.Please let me know if you have any further questions.


Regards,
Danny
Etsy Legal
https://www.etsy.com/help


―――


This message is a private conversation between you and Etsy. Please respect 
this confidentiality and refrain from distributing this communication without 
permission from Etsy. If you feel this message was sent to you in error, please 
delete it and let us know. Thank you.


On June 25, 2015, Steve Coast  wrote: 

No I don’t think so - it’s standard mapbox 
maps.

Apparently the bug forum isn’t where you submit bugs, so copying etsy support.

Etsy support, please attribute our maps:

https://www.etsy.com/teams/7720/bugs/discuss/16484376/

Best

Steve




On Jun 24, 2015, at 4:43 PM, Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com wrote:

Steve,
Anyway we can see the map without making a purchase?

Mike

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
https://www.etsy.com/teams/7720/bugs/discuss/16484376/

Attribution missing, doesn’t even appear in the popup.

Best

Steve


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Etsy

[Steve Coast]

No I don’t think so - it’s standard mapbox maps.

Apparently the bug forum isn’t where you submit bugs, so copying etsy support.

Etsy support, please attribute our maps:

 https://www.etsy.com/teams/7720/bugs/discuss/16484376/ 
 https://www.etsy.com/teams/7720/bugs/discuss/16484376/

Best

Steve




 On Jun 24, 2015, at 4:43 PM, Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Steve,
 
 Anyway we can see the map without making a purchase?
 
 Mike
 
 On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com 
 mailto:st...@asklater.com wrote:
 https://www.etsy.com/teams/7720/bugs/discuss/16484376/ 
 https://www.etsy.com/teams/7720/bugs/discuss/16484376/
 
 Attribution missing, doesn’t even appear in the popup.
 
 Best
 
 Steve
 
 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk 
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
 
 

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

[OSM-talk] Etsy

[Steve Coast]

https://www.etsy.com/teams/7720/bugs/discuss/16484376/ 
https://www.etsy.com/teams/7720/bugs/discuss/16484376/

Attribution missing, doesn’t even appear in the popup.

Best

Steve___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is a right mess (was: Craigslist OpenStreetMap Rendering Issue)

[Steve Coast]

Fair point, I meant in the context of the list, as I thought others did too.

Steve




On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 6:07 PM -0700, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com 
wrote:










On 6/3/15, Steve Coast  wrote:

 On Jun 2, 2015, at 6:22 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
 On Jun 3, 2015 8:06 AM, pmailkeey .   wrote:
  OSM's k=v design is completely a serious and unnecessary flaw. [...] OSM
  is 90% argument, 5% dead-end discussions and 5% progress. The whole is
  not a marketable product; it's not fit to be rated as 'beta'. Is this a
  significant cause of ex-mappers ? It's a flipping brilliant project but
  sadly lacking a great leader.

 It seems you are deeply unsatisfied with how OSM works. And your broad
 assertions such as that OSM is not fit or is 90% argument are
 completely unfounded.


 I don’t know; there are a bunch of fairly key and active OSM people who
 unsubscribed from the lists precisely because they felt it was mostly
 circular argument.

Yes, people leave mailing lists because of the endless arguments and
constant bike-shedding. But that does not constitute 90% of OSM. I am
willing to bet that majority if not 90% of OSM activity is of mappers
actually mapping. Mailing list discussions is a really small slice of
the overall OSM activity.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is a right mess (was: Craigslist OpenStreetMap Rendering Issue)

[Steve Coast]

 On Jun 2, 2015, at 6:22 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Jun 3, 2015 8:06 AM, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com 
 mailto:pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote:
  OSM's k=v design is completely a serious and unnecessary flaw. [...] OSM is 
  90% argument, 5% dead-end discussions and 5% progress. The whole is not a 
  marketable product; it's not fit to be rated as 'beta'. Is this a 
  significant cause of ex-mappers ? It's a flipping brilliant project but 
  sadly lacking a great leader.
 
 It seems you are deeply unsatisfied with how OSM works. And your broad 
 assertions such as that OSM is not fit or is 90% argument are completely 
 unfounded. 
 

I don’t know; there are a bunch of fairly key and active OSM people who 
unsubscribed from the lists precisely because they felt it was mostly circular 
argument.

Maybe it’s like San Francisco - everything was built decades ago and now it’s 
illegal to build things, so we just argue over whether the golden gate should 
have a suicide-proof railing or if rich people should be allowed to live in the 
mission or not.

Best

Steve___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM 250 is online

[Steve Coast]

Congratulations on 250!

 On May 8, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Manfred A. Reiter ma.rei...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 250, is now available online in 
 English, giving as always a summary of all things happening in the 
 openstreetmap world: http://www.weeklyosm.eu http://www.weeklyosm.eu/
 
 Enjoy!
 
 -- 
 ## Manfred Reiter - -
 ## www.weeklyOSM.eu 
 http://www.weeklyosm.eu/___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] GeoHipster comment on OSM

[Steve Coast]

 On May 1, 2015, at 7:09 AM, Tom MacWright t...@macwright.org wrote:
 
 Perhaps TeleNav or Bing's lawyers are brave enough to say ODbL is not a 
 problem, or they guess that those entities could absorb the lawsuit. They are 
 the only lawyers who take this stance, and they haven't tested it - neither 
 company provides permanent OSM-derived geocoding.

Maybe. Either way, if somebody’s product strategy is driven by legal then 
something is wrong.

Imagine a startup environment: huge risks with capital and everything else 
anyway, why wouldn’t legal be another risk?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] GeoHipster comment on OSM

[Steve Coast]

I love Gary - I think it’s great that OSM is getting to the point that people 
will write 100 page critiques of it. We must be doing something right. :-)

I actually tried on the single point of contact issue, I think it’d be a great 
idea for OSM to have a 1-800 (or similar) number. Even manned by volunteers. 
But at the time, companies are evil and all that so it didn’t go anywhere.

ODbL critique is the usual thing; people want to take OSM and merge it with 
other people’s datasets without giving back, perhaps for good reasons. That’s 
not an ambiguity, it’s the whole point. There are edge cases and complexities 
like geocoding, but as far as I can see some lawyers can work with it, cautious 
lawyers tend to make it a big issue. It’s a shame some organizations are 
trapped by cautious advice like that - I’ve worked in organizations with more 
positive advice around OSM and it means you can go a lot further.

Best

Steve


 On Apr 30, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Nicholas G Lawrence 
 nicholas.g.lawre...@tmr.qld.gov.au wrote:
 
 http://geohipster.com/2015/04/27/gary-gale-dear-osm-its-time-to-get-your-finger-out/
  
 http://geohipster.com/2015/04/27/gary-gale-dear-osm-its-time-to-get-your-finger-out/
  
 Anyone read this blog piece by Gary Gale?
 Is it worth commenting on?
  
 “To my mind there’s two barriers to greater and more widespread adoption, 
 both of which can be overcome if there’s sufficient will to overcome them 
 within the OSM community as a whole. These barriers are, in no particular 
 order … licensing, and OSM not being seen as (more) conducive to working with 
 business.”
  
 1) Gary criticises OSM for not having a single point of contact for business 
 to liaise with.
  
 Exactly why this is necessary is a mystery to me. If business wants to make 
 use of OSM data, they can download the planet file just like anyone else. If 
 business wants to contribute data, or donate equipment or sponsor events, 
 those things are also possible.
  
 2) Gary criticises the ODbL for ambiguities in the share-alike clause.
  
 Maybe this needs clarification, but personally I think the share-alike clause 
 is a good thing.
  
 Fundamentally though, Gary seems to be under the impression that OSM has a 
 driving need to “compete” with other providers of geospatial data, and that 
 if OSM hasn’t “won the race” then it is failing somehow. Which I think 
 reveals a vast ignorance of the motivations of the majority of OSM volunteers.
  
 Anyway, I wondered if anyone else had seen the post.
  
 Cheers,
 Nick
 ***
 WARNING: This email (including any attachments) may contain legally
 privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected by
 copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was
 intended to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No one
 is allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, print
 or copy this email without appropriate authority.
 
 If this email was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake,
 please telephone or email me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of
 this email and delete it and any copies of it from your computer
 system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and 
 any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this email is not
 waived or destroyed by that mistake.
 
 It is your responsibility to ensure that this email does not contain 
 and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by 
 third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with
 your computer system).
 
 Opinions contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the
 opinions of the Department of Transport and Main Roads,
 or endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure.
 ***
 
  
 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk 
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-us] OSM on Science Friday

[Steve Coast]

It was fun to do. Went to a studio and had some last minute problems with an 
ISDN line going down or something just before broadcast.

Steve


 On Feb 24, 2015, at 8:47 AM, Eric Christensen e...@christensenplace.us 
 wrote:
 
 I meant to pass this along last week but...
 
 There was a discussion about maps on mobile devices on last week's Science 
 Friday (on NPR).  While they started discussing Google Maps the aim quickly 
 turned to OSM.
 
 http://sciencefriday.com/segment/02/20/2015/forecasting-the-future-of-maps.html
 
 --Eric
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] Routing on osm.org

[Steve Coast]

+1 this is awesome

Steve

 On Feb 16, 2015, at 12:10 PM, Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de wrote:
 
 Am 16.02.2015 um 20:20 schrieb Rob Nickerson:
 Congratulations to all those who were involved in getting directions/routing 
 on openstreetmap.org :-)
 +1!
 
 
 Cheers,
 Michael.
 
 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM services

[Steve Coast]

Mapwarper is fun.

Would be great if the interface was a little more streamlined (flip through 
maps quickly) and allowed me to pick points between images as well as image - 
ground.

Steve


 On Jan 25, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Tim Waters chippy2...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 cheers! 
 
 Glad that mapwarper proved a little bit useful, it was built for OSM.
 
 Tim


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

[OSM-talk] OSM services

[Steve Coast]

Today I ran a mapping party and everything worked. GPS upload, editing, 
rendering and even the third party map warper.

Thanks to everyone who made that possible, it’s awesome.

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

Re: [Talk-us] GIS Colorado Winter Meeting

[Steve Coast]

Is it free to attend?

Steve

 On Jan 22, 2015, at 10:10 AM, Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Is anyone on this list attending the GIS Colorado Winter Meeting in
 Fort Collins?  I will be delivering a half hour presentation on
 OpenStreetMap including its history, growth rate, types and format of
 data, how the data can be used by GIS professionals, how to
 contribute, and the positive impact OSM is having on the World (e.g.
 HOT).
 
 My presentation will be an expanded version of the one I gave at
 Colorado State University during GIS Day.
 
 Mike
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Coloado mapping party on Saturday

[Steve Coast]

Come help map a new park:

http://www.meetup.com/OSM-Colorado/events/219878946/

Steve

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Balance of power (was: Re: How to vote to match your view)

[Steve Coast]

We can agree to disagree that taking access away to a resource like Twitter is 
okay. It doesn't feel ok in an open project, and the solution of emailing a 
committee to send a tweet feels cumbersome. The actual solution of grouptweet 
feels like it works for everyone, including giving the accountability you 
wanted. Still sad you left over it.

Steve

 On Dec 6, 2014, at 8:35 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 
 [Apologies to talk@ readers for this follow-up to a post on osmf-talk@. I'm 
 not an OSMF member and therefore can't post to osmf-talk@, but as I'm being 
 spoken about over there, I'd appreciate the opportunity to respond.]
 
 Steve Coast wrote:
 See, there was no group that mobbed Richard out the board. The CWG
 took away Twitter access from everyone without any consultation,
 thinking Ivan's tweet was mine. I asked for it back, used every
 channel as I outlined. Richard sadly quit feeling CWG was being
 overpowered by the board but that's not what happened. The CWG took
 Twitter away from the people using it without talking to anyone, then
 was surprised this wasn't okay.
 
 For the record:
 
 Communications Working Group didn't think Ivan's tweet was yours. We 
 genuinely didn't know who had sent it. (From what I remember of the content 
 of the tweet, it didn't appear to be from a native English speaker, and at 
 first I thought it might have been Emilie.)
 
 At the time, CWG was aiming for a step change in our communications. In 
 particular, we were aiming to follow up our very successful switch2osm 
 campaign, and were in the early stages of planning a second campaign aimed at 
 recruiting new mappers.
 
 A large part of that was professionalising our message - bringing sharper 
 focus to OSM's outbound communications, to consistently push the message that 
 mapping was accessible, enjoyable, and made a difference. Basic marketing and 
 not the sort of thing that should come as a surprise to anyone.
 
 To get this focused message across, we needed to ensure that everything going 
 out on our Twitter, Facebook and Google+ accounts was in line. In an ideal 
 world we would like to have drawn up simple house style and messaging 
 guidelines (again, marketing 101) for those with access.
 
 However, our hand was forced by this badly phrased tweet, from persons 
 unknown, endorsing a map which failed to attribute OSM (years later, I can't 
 even remember what map it was!). Changing the Twitter password and asking 
 those who wanted a message to go out to contact us, which is what we did, 
 seemed the easiest and most sensible short-term measure.
 
 Unfortunately you decided to take this as a personal affront, when no such 
 affront was intended, and to campaign volubly for CWG's work to be overruled 
 because of this.
 
 There is absolutely no personal animus in this. Sure, I disagree with you on 
 many things, but you're an engaging guy to chat to over a pint and I have no 
 doubt we'll do so again some time. But let me make it clear that I did not 
 quit because CWG was being overpowered by the board. I quit because it was 
 clear that there was no likelihood of improving OSM through the Foundation, 
 in any fashion, when well-intentioned, industrious, and skilled volunteer 
 work could be overturned by emotive say-so.
 
 I see no sign that this has changed, and that is why I have no intention of 
 rejoining the Foundation.
 
 As a postscript, I believe switch2osm was the last substantial marketing 
 effort that OSMF has done. All the good publicity for OSM since then has been 
 from third parties, particularly Mapbox. Progress in OSM happens despite the 
 Foundation, not because of it.
 
 Richard
 
 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Unelected OSMF advisers

[Steve Coast]

The only advice to the board I offered was to ask Fred to limit the quantity 
and length of his essays as we couldn't keep up. But that's not new or unique 
advice.

I think Mike's been pretty helpful personally.

I'd stay away from the elected/unelected thing, since almost all of the 
important roles in osm are unelected?

Steve

 On Nov 17, 2014, at 7:41 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 
 I am a little concerned that the (already overwhelming) task of fixing OSMF, 
 which has been entrusted to a board of seven good people, is being made still 
 harder by people in mysterious unelected roles offering their advice.
 
 I know of at least two: Mike Collinson is chair of the (AIUI moribund) 
 'Management Team'. Steve Coast is 'chairman emeritus' - I'm not sure whether 
 Simon Poole has also been offered this title. I believe (but don't know) 
 there may be others who receive copies of, and can send, management emails 
 but aren't elected in any way.
 
 Two requests:
 
 First, for the sake of openness, it would be good to see these relationships 
 documented on the OSMF website.
 
 Second, while the new board decides on its direction, a period of 
 self-imposed silence by these people would be considerate. Frederik, Kathleen 
 and Paul have been newly elected to do a difficult job. Their work will be 
 made all the more difficult by a cacophony of advice from those without a 
 mandate.
 
 This isn't personal - I like Mike very much, while I think it's fairly 
 comprehensively documented that Steve and I don't get on - but it seems, to 
 me, common decency that if you ask someone to do a job, you give them the 
 time and space to do it.
 
 Richard
 
 
 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Steve's better map

[Steve Coast]

I think it's sad that someone with the talent and skills that Simon has, spends 
their precious time on this.

It's flattering, and as Nassim Taleb said the difference between love and hate 
is very very small. But, imagine what Simon could achieve by spending that time 
and energy on making the world better.

Steve

 On Oct 31, 2014, at 2:44 PM, Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de wrote:
 
 Am 31.10.2014 12:56, schrieb Simon Poole:
 I commented on the better map vision here
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonPoole/diary/25975 .
 I really recomend to read this blog, very clear words. Thanks Simon!
 
 And I also advocate to read the newest blog from Simon:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonPoole/diary/25977
 
 
 Best regards,
 Michael.
 
 
 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[OSM-talk] A Better Map

[Steve Coast]

Why are we here on these mailing lists? Why do we spend so much time making 
maps? I think ultimately because it’s fun. It’s a neat hobby and we’re making 
the world a slightly better place.

You need the right environment for things to be fun. Someone has to install the 
toys in the playground. Someone needs to pay for the slides and install the 
swings so that the kids can run around. Then someone else needs to fix them 
when they fail and make sure you don’t break your neck unexpectedly.

In the past I’ve tried hard to make OSM a fun playground, by doing things like 
taking all the warning labels off and letting people do whatever they like. 
Things like open tagging or letting anyone edit, which were crazy ideas in 
2004. I’ve also at times been responsible for it not being fun. Partly because 
I was a kid learning the hard way and partly because sometimes you need to make 
decisions.

I agree that in some ways OSM isn’t a fun playground right now. But that 
doesn’t mean it can’t be again.

We had a lot of fun with our swings and our slides. But now there are a lot 
more people to join the fun from far away places and we’re older. Maybe we now 
prefer bumper cars and video games to the old swings and slides.

We should keep the swings and the slides. People new to the playground will 
still enjoy them. But we should also build a bumper car arena and maybe a video 
game arcade. Sometimes we might go back and play on the slide too. We need some 
new skills to build these new toys.

Together, we need a mission and then a couple of course corrections to make it 
happen.

I think addressing should be our mission. We built the worlds best display map 
already. We won. If you print out any OSM map of practically anywhere, it’s the 
best. But we can’t find anything on it without comprehensive and global 
addressing information. It’s the hidden data behind the map we now need to go 
after. All the other things we need to do are also good things. Diversity in 
all it’s forms, faster servers, better tools, easier documentation and more.

A clear mission provides a framework and guidance for achieving those things. 
“Map more stuff” got us very, very far. But now, we should focus on what’s 
stopping us replacing proprietary maps. And that is addressing.

How would we go achieve that?

There are two basic fixes. Make the board functional and give the board 
bandwidth.

The board is too big. It grew for good reasons but now it’s just hard to 
achieve anything. Seven people mean that if everyone speaks for five minutes in 
a conversation on some issue, you use over half an hour. In an hour-long 
meeting that means you can barely discuss two things. Ignoring all the other 
issues, just the pure mechanics shows you how hard it is to talk through 
something let alone achieve a consensus. The board needs to be 3 people. 5 at 
maximum.

Being on the board is a difficult job, especially as a volunteer. Most people 
aren’t used to such roles. They may think like I did that they need to please 
everybody all the time. They aren’t able to attend meetings because they have a 
day job and other life commitments. The board needs to meet in person regularly 
with a facilitator and also have guidance about what it means to be on a board. 
We can’t expect volunteers to naturally figure all this stuff out by themselves 
and then also devote the time to also achieve goals.

The board needs paid staff. There are a variety of things those paid staff can 
do which the board can decide. It’s clear that there are things that volunteers 
don’t have fun doing and therefore they don’t happen at all, but are still very 
important for a functioning organization. Having paid staff isn’t about 
deprecating volunteer involvement, it’s about plugging the gaps. It’s not a 
perfect solution but the alternative is to rely on companies to do many of 
these things, and that really isn’t perfect either.

In terms of the mechanics,

1. Change the mission statement of OSM to be something like “The world’s best 
addressable map”
2. The board figures out how to voluntarily shrink to 3-5 people, and, meets in 
person 2-4 times a year
3. Consulting with the community on exact roles and remit, hire 1-3 people [*]

Together, we could do this in 6-12 months and finish addressing in 1-3 years. 
At that point we wouldn’t have just made the world slightly better, we would 
have put a big dent in the universe. Nobody would use a closed map ever again, 
and it would be people like you that made it happen.

So why don’t we go do that?

—

A digression.

In Peter Thiel’s book “Zero-to-One” he catalogs the fate of HP’s board. HP used 
to be a very innovative place and then it wasn’t any more. Thiel posits that 
there were two board factions at a critical time. On the one hand there were 
people who wanted to chart out things to build and then go build them. On the 
other hand there was a group who felt the board wasn’t competent to do that, 
and they should focus on 

[Talk-us] OSM Attribution

[Steve Coast]

It looks like Square is using OSM from MapBox in receipt emails without 
attribution on the map, or on the website anywhere:

https://www.google.com/#q=openstreetmap+site:square.com

I’m going to reach out as I know some people there.

Steve___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] attribution

[Steve Coast]

I just had a tornado warning and some exciting weather above my house, and 
noticed this map;

http://kdvr.com/weather/maps-and-radar/interactive-radar/

no attribution.

There’s another;

http://kdvr.com/weather/maps-and-radar/watches-warnings/

Where OSM is buried in the terms link.

Does this frustrate anyone else?

Steve
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] attribution

[Steve Coast]

Huh my mistake - the bottom of the map is off the bottom of the screen on my 
tablet and mac so it just looks like a fullscreen map.

It would be great if OSM received the same attribution as everyone else on that 
map, wouldn’t it?

Steve



On Jun 6, 2014, at 2:41 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:

 Steve - it's attributed, click on the Terms  Feedback link on the page.
 
 For our plans to improve this see 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21847
 
 Thanks -
 
 Alex
 
 
 
 On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
 I just had a tornado warning and some exciting weather above my house, and 
 noticed this map;
 
 http://kdvr.com/weather/maps-and-radar/interactive-radar/
 
 no attribution.
 
 There’s another;
 
 http://kdvr.com/weather/maps-and-radar/watches-warnings/
 
 Where OSM is buried in the terms link.
 
 Does this frustrate anyone else?
 
 Steve
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
 

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] attribution

[Steve Coast]

The KDVR iOS app has OSM and zero attribution sadly.

Steve


On Jun 6, 2014, at 2:47 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:

 Huh my mistake - the bottom of the map is off the bottom of the screen on my 
 tablet and mac so it just looks like a fullscreen map.
 
 It would be great if OSM received the same attribution as everyone else on 
 that map, wouldn’t it?
 
 Steve
 
 
 
 On Jun 6, 2014, at 2:41 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
 
 Steve - it's attributed, click on the Terms  Feedback link on the page.
 
 For our plans to improve this see 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21847
 
 Thanks -
 
 Alex
 
 
 
 On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
 I just had a tornado warning and some exciting weather above my house, and 
 noticed this map;
 
 http://kdvr.com/weather/maps-and-radar/interactive-radar/
 
 no attribution.
 
 There’s another;
 
 http://kdvr.com/weather/maps-and-radar/watches-warnings/
 
 Where OSM is buried in the terms link.
 
 Does this frustrate anyone else?
 
 Steve
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
 
 

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] HRS.com uses OpenStreetMap-data without credit

[Steve Coast]

Huh?

Steve

 On May 12, 2014, at 4:50 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
 
 Nils, noch ein Update. HRS hat sich jetzt gemeldet und ich werde
 vermutlich später diese Woche mal ein Gespräch mit ihnen führen.
 
 Gruss
 
 Simon
 
 ___
 legal-talk mailing list
 legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

[Steve Coast]

http://stevecoast.com/2014/04/28/attribution-is-it-time-to-name-and-shame/

--
OpenStreetMap is the global, open and free map dataset that anyone can use. It 
is created by a huge community of volunteers who pour their time and energy in 
to the project. It’s also fun, beautiful and cool.

So it’s sad that people don’t want to respect the license. It asks two very 
simple things:

Please say you’re using OSM. This is very simple.
If you change the map, please give the changes back. This is called 
“share-alike”.
Compared to paying a lot of money for incredibly license-restricted data, you’d 
think people would be ok with these requirements.

Sadly, this isn’t the case.

There are those who are now willfully disregarding our tiny little 
requirements. It’s being framed as some gigantic and unreasonable proposition, 
asking to say where the data came from or giving data back when you fix things. 
As if it’s completely bananas to ask such a thing. As if Linux or Wikipedia 
should be disaster ghost towns while asking for exactly the same thing of their 
users.

This is just baloney. The real comparison should be; if you don’t like the 
license you’re free to use expensive and complicatedly-license data. That’s 
your option. Those guys are just a phone call away, and will be happy to sell 
you data. You’d probably find that they have very strong attribution 
requirements, just like OSM does.

It is the ultimate disrespect to the volunteers who built the data to not even 
attribute their contributions. It’s even worse that there are some who’re 
trying to also own OSM for themselves by taking away the share-alike 
requirement.

Is the license perfect? I’m afraid not. Specifically we need more clarification 
around the technical implementation and use of geocodes, especially in relation 
to other datasets. It’s hard today to technically comply with some of those 
edge cases.

But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re speaking here about the simple 
ask, that if you use OSM you please say clearly on the map that it is OSM. 
You’re getting a great dataset, for free, under an open license, that millions 
of people are contributing to. We’re not asking for $100,000 license fees, 
we’re just asking that you say who we are.

It’s the ultimate human need; I was here. I did this.

How could you deny people that?

Apparently, easily and willfully. People within the OSM community have been 
frustrated and trying to fix it for some time. If we were a proprietary map 
supplier we’d revoke a license or jump to legal options.

We are much nicer than that. I propose a four stage plan, organized on OSM’s 
legal mailing list and tracked on the wiki:

A polite email, linking to our requirements
A week later: Another polite email, warning of what’s to come.
A week later: Another polite email, same as above
A week later: Very public naming and shaming on OSMs various social media 
channels and blogs
Most people who miss our requirements are making a simple error. This is a 
process that gives three opportunities and an entire month to correct the 
mistake. This is not a brand new idea or process. The FSF and others have named 
 shamed (and have even went further) for GPL violations in the past.

In a narrow way, this all a good thing. It shows the growth and maturity of the 
project, that there are those out there that want to own it or take all the 
advantages without even saying where the data came from. But in the end, we 
have to defend ourselves for what little, tiny things we ask.___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

[Steve Coast]

On Apr 28, 2014, at 1:26 PM, Jake Wasserman jwasser...@gmail.com wrote:
  Let's just not pretend the requirements are simple, tiny, or little, 
 but are instead complex and sweeping.
 
My comparison was to proprietary vendors. Have you ever read one of their 
contracts?

 In any case, I agree with the larger point that OSM data users must comply 
 with the rules as they exist and we should publicly call out their violations.

Good :-)

Steve___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] No new information on the SOTM since January 2014

[Steve Coast]

Exactly, thanks Kathleen.

The OSMF has decided to not do anything this year; it hasn’t even met face to 
face like we did every other year to thrash through issues and plan things. I’m 
not entirely sure if this is good or bad. My gut feeling is that pushing 
everything possible down to working groups etc is a mistake, but maybe I’m 
wrong.

What I see is what the more functional OSMF US is able to achieve with fewer 
resources. Those guys are inspirational and should be a model for us. I get to 
see it a little more up close since I work with Martijn than perhaps most 
people do; they manage to organize regular meetings and build things while the 
OSMF board decides which open source telephony solution is ideal.

Steve

PS I’m not lumping in sysadmin or development with the OSMF here, they’ve 
always run their own show or been ad-hoc, and it appears work with the 
occasional massive outside investment (e.g. iD)




On Apr 5, 2014, at 7:11 AM, Kathleen Danielson kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com 
wrote:
 On Apr 5, 2014 9:15 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
   SOTM EU and US, combined with the OSMF focus on being more of a 
   theoretical body have reduced the profit and motivation in doing a SOTM 
   to approximately zero. I hope it still happens, but I'd be surprised.
 
  it wasn't so long ago [1] that people were writing they'd heard
  comments that OSM had been devised by Steve as a way to make a heap
  of money from other peoples' effort, and there was recurring
  criticism that he was behaving in some sort of sinister way. so it's
  saddening, and not a little hypocritical, for steve to come out with
  the same sorts of evil board conspiracy theories now.
 
 Matt,
 
 Steve was merely expressing his doubt that the conference would come 
 together. He cast no aspersions on the Board that I could see and just 
 described the landscape of conferences as he sees it. Suggesting that this is 
 somehow a conspiracy theory is a stretch, and seems like you're just 
 looking for an excuse to dump on Steve.
 
 Feel free to respectfully disagree with Steve, me, or anyone on these 
 threads,  but calling someone hypocritical is unkind and unproductive.
 
 Everyone-- please keep all comments on these mailing lists respectful of all 
 of your fellow community members. They are one of our main communication 
 channels and if they aren't a safe space for collaboration and discussion 
 then we're depriving ourselves of our greatest asset: each other.
 
 Kathleen
 
 
  the truth, as always, is more prosaic: back in September 2013, the
  SOTM working group reported The time of one state of the map (and
  therefore all the sponsors) is over, so we need to think about the
  role in the conference(s) in funding the operations of the OSMF and
  server system. Previously it has been our main annual source of
  income. [2]. as a result, other funding options were explored, and
  the board minuted The OSMF funding model for 2014 and beyond is based
  on a combined model  OSMF organised conferences (State Of The Map)
  should continue to be at least self-financing. [3] in response.
 
  the suggestion that the SOTM working group members are not motivated
  is a new one to me. the last report from SOTM working group itself [4]
  did not say anything of the sort. if any of them are reading this and
  are feeling unable to continue, then - please! - let us know. i'm sure
  alternative plans can be made, and i understand how hard it is to push
  through to finishing something which has sapped all of your energy
  (see the license change saga).
 
  so, did OSMF reduce the profitability of SOTM - no. did OSMF reduce
  the motivation of SOTM organisers - no. i, also, hope that SOTM
  happens, and i hope it is very successful.
 
  OSMF working groups are made up of members of the community - like
  yourself - and if you feel strongly about some issues then i urge you
  to offer your assistance to a working group, or join one. the OSMF
  board is democratically elected and, although it's a lot of work, you
  might consider running at the next AGM (iirc, at SOTM14).
 
  cheers,
 
  matt
 
  (opinions above are solely my own except for quotations drawn from the
  sources below)
 
  [1] 
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2007-March/000217.html
  [2] 
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EZHwUhWoRJ__DzmIW-FgzEKktji9AZQ1K_UDFx_PXrc/pub
  [3] http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_Minutes_2013-12-10
  [4] 
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LVGogPGbFT88bfNY1MpK5PRZA9qi1Ys6QFz0Cl7OYcY/pub
 
  ___
  talk mailing list
  talk@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
 
 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk

Re: [OSM-talk] No new information on the SOTM since January 2014

[Steve Coast]

I hasten to add - I’m not sure by “decision” this was a minuted formal 
resolution to scale everything back, but it’s certainly the observable result 
of the new opinions on the board.

Steve


On Apr 5, 2014, at 8:19 AM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:

 Exactly, thanks Kathleen.
 
 The OSMF has decided to not do anything this year; it hasn’t even met face to 
 face like we did every other year to thrash through issues and plan things. 
 I’m not entirely sure if this is good or bad. My gut feeling is that pushing 
 everything possible down to working groups etc is a mistake, but maybe I’m 
 wrong.
 
 What I see is what the more functional OSMF US is able to achieve with fewer 
 resources. Those guys are inspirational and should be a model for us. I get 
 to see it a little more up close since I work with Martijn than perhaps most 
 people do; they manage to organize regular meetings and build things while 
 the OSMF board decides which open source telephony solution is ideal.
 
 Steve
 
 PS I’m not lumping in sysadmin or development with the OSMF here, they’ve 
 always run their own show or been ad-hoc, and it appears work with the 
 occasional massive outside investment (e.g. iD)
 
 
 
 
 On Apr 5, 2014, at 7:11 AM, Kathleen Danielson kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 On Apr 5, 2014 9:15 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
   SOTM EU and US, combined with the OSMF focus on being more of a 
   theoretical body have reduced the profit and motivation in doing a SOTM 
   to approximately zero. I hope it still happens, but I'd be surprised.
 
  it wasn't so long ago [1] that people were writing they'd heard
  comments that OSM had been devised by Steve as a way to make a heap
  of money from other peoples' effort, and there was recurring
  criticism that he was behaving in some sort of sinister way. so it's
  saddening, and not a little hypocritical, for steve to come out with
  the same sorts of evil board conspiracy theories now.
 
 Matt,
 
 Steve was merely expressing his doubt that the conference would come 
 together. He cast no aspersions on the Board that I could see and just 
 described the landscape of conferences as he sees it. Suggesting that this 
 is somehow a conspiracy theory is a stretch, and seems like you're just 
 looking for an excuse to dump on Steve.
 
 Feel free to respectfully disagree with Steve, me, or anyone on these 
 threads,  but calling someone hypocritical is unkind and unproductive.
 
 Everyone-- please keep all comments on these mailing lists respectful of all 
 of your fellow community members. They are one of our main communication 
 channels and if they aren't a safe space for collaboration and discussion 
 then we're depriving ourselves of our greatest asset: each other.
 
 Kathleen
 
 
  the truth, as always, is more prosaic: back in September 2013, the
  SOTM working group reported The time of one state of the map (and
  therefore all the sponsors) is over, so we need to think about the
  role in the conference(s) in funding the operations of the OSMF and
  server system. Previously it has been our main annual source of
  income. [2]. as a result, other funding options were explored, and
  the board minuted The OSMF funding model for 2014 and beyond is based
  on a combined model  OSMF organised conferences (State Of The Map)
  should continue to be at least self-financing. [3] in response.
 
  the suggestion that the SOTM working group members are not motivated
  is a new one to me. the last report from SOTM working group itself [4]
  did not say anything of the sort. if any of them are reading this and
  are feeling unable to continue, then - please! - let us know. i'm sure
  alternative plans can be made, and i understand how hard it is to push
  through to finishing something which has sapped all of your energy
  (see the license change saga).
 
  so, did OSMF reduce the profitability of SOTM - no. did OSMF reduce
  the motivation of SOTM organisers - no. i, also, hope that SOTM
  happens, and i hope it is very successful.
 
  OSMF working groups are made up of members of the community - like
  yourself - and if you feel strongly about some issues then i urge you
  to offer your assistance to a working group, or join one. the OSMF
  board is democratically elected and, although it's a lot of work, you
  might consider running at the next AGM (iirc, at SOTM14).
 
  cheers,
 
  matt
 
  (opinions above are solely my own except for quotations drawn from the
  sources below)
 
  [1] 
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2007-March/000217.html
  [2] 
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EZHwUhWoRJ__DzmIW-FgzEKktji9AZQ1K_UDFx_PXrc/pub
  [3] http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_Minutes_2013-12-10
  [4] 
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LVGogPGbFT88bfNY1MpK5PRZA9qi1Ys6QFz0Cl7OYcY/pub
 
  ___
  talk

Re: [OSM-talk] No new information on the SOTM since January 2014

[Steve Coast]

Matt

Why don’t we focus on the substance raised, rather than framing everything as 
Steve sitting around sending volumes of flak your way which let’s face it isn’t 
very accurate.

The board doesn’t do nearly as much as it used to, some members of it are 
disengaged to say the least, and there are a number of reflections on that, 
some already raised. Is this a good or bad thing? What metrics are good metrics 
to judge the board? If we look at those same metrics for OSMF US, where do they 
sit?

If the board doesn’t push to run great conferences and secedes that, doesn’t 
meet face to face and has email discussions about telephony options or whether 
meetings are even possible… what *does* it do? Why should we keep it around?

Steve



On Apr 5, 2014, at 12:01 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Kathleen Danielson
 kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On Apr 5, 2014 9:15 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
 SOTM EU and US, combined with the OSMF focus on being more of a
 theoretical body have reduced the profit and motivation in doing a SOTM to
 approximately zero. I hope it still happens, but I'd be surprised.
 
 it wasn't so long ago [1] that people were writing they'd heard
 comments that OSM had been devised by Steve as a way to make a heap
 of money from other peoples' effort, and there was recurring
 criticism that he was behaving in some sort of sinister way. so it's
 saddening, and not a little hypocritical, for steve to come out with
 the same sorts of evil board conspiracy theories now.
 
 Matt,
 
 Steve was merely expressing his doubt that the conference would come
 together. He cast no aspersions on the Board that I could see and just
 described the landscape of conferences as he sees it.
 
 okay. i read it very differently, where OSMF focus on being more of a
 theoretical body is very much an aspersion, although an oblique one.
 
 in follow-up emails, i definitely take the OSMF has decided to not do
 anything this year and ... while the OSMF board decides which open
 source telephony solution is ideal as aspersions, as in [1], where
 Steve seems to be trivialising the OSMF board, or falsely representing
 the views of its members.
 
 Suggesting that this
 is somehow a conspiracy theory is a stretch, and seems like you're just
 looking for an excuse to dump on Steve.
 
 i'm sorry it seems that way. perhaps a bit more background would have
 been in order, but i was trying to keep the length of the email under
 'essay' length.
 
 i remember very well when Steve himself was the target of such
 aspersions, as i was trying to point out, and as in [2]. therefore it
 is saddening to me that the difficult experiences he had, both before
 the OSMF board and on it, don't appear to prevent him from creating
 difficult experiences for the current board.
 
 Feel free to respectfully disagree with Steve, me, or anyone on these
 threads,  but calling someone hypocritical is unkind and unproductive.
 
 i apologise profoundly for any offence that i caused Steve. i was
 trying to find a word to adequately express the dichotomy between
 rightly criticising those who are seem to be negative towards the
 board while in office and seeming to be negative towards the board
 when not. in any case, it is the action, not the person, that i was
 trying to call out.
 
 as to being productive - i think is important to say that getting
 involved in OSMF is the most productive way to effect change. casting
 oblique aspersions is not only negative, but likely to attract more
 negative responses. perhaps i should have heeded Steve's advice to
 prospective board members:
 
 ... the main thing you should be prepared for isn't so much the time
 commitment but the fact that it's a thankless task. You will have to
 make choices between two equally bad options and take the flak for
 it. [3]
 
 i just didn't think, when i was discussing my candidacy with him
 before the 2011 AGM, that so much of the flak would be coming from
 him.
 
 cheers,
 
 matt
 
 [1] 
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2012-October/001858.html
 [2] NOTE: i include this because it emphatically demonstrates the
 level of frustration which can be experienced when one is confronted
 by people being negative, or downplaying one's efforts:
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2007-July/015267.html
 [3] 
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2011-August/001214.html
 
 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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

Re: [OSM-talk] No new information on the SOTM since January 2014

[Steve Coast]

SOTM EU and US, combined with the OSMF focus on being more of a theoretical 
body have reduced the profit and motivation in doing a SOTM to approximately 
zero. I hope it still happens, but I’d be surprised.

It might be better to run a SOTM South America, or something.

Steve



On Apr 4, 2014, at 2:06 PM, wn reader wnrea...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hello,
 
 since the release there is no new information. There are no application 
 forms, only slightly from last year. Did I consider great if there really 
 will be a SOTM. The arrival is causing great cost, so a rejection in the next 
 few months would be very detrimental to all.
 
 But I would appreciate more if the organizations could allay my concerns.
 
 Marc
 
 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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

Re: [OSM-talk] iD usability study: Looking for test persons

[Steve Coast]

Hi Jan

It would be interesting to see relative use cases too, e.g. the same tasks in 
different editors, and their relative usability. Potlatch appears to still win 
in some areas, and it would be nice to have data to back that up either way.

Steve


On Mar 22, 2014, at 6:15 AM, Jan B antof...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,
 
 I want to inform you of a usability study of the iD editor that I'm
 currently planning to execute for my Master's thesis in cartography at
 TU Vienna.
 
 The goal is to test the usability of iD by having volunteer test persons
 complete a number of beginner tasks on it. From the tests I will draw
 conclusions that will hopefully help improving the usability of iD.
 
 I'm looking for test persons who are not familiar with editing with iD
 yet. The test is supposed to take place in or around Hamburg, Germany.
 So if you'll happen to be around Hamburg in April by any chance, you are
 invited to take part in the test.
 
 If you're interested, please take a look at the pre-test online survey,
 in which I ask you a few questions and in which the procedure is
 explained in more detail, too.
 http://cartography.tuwien.ac.at/limesurvey/index.php/216311/lang-en
 
 Of course I will make the results available to the community as soon as
 the research is completed.
 
 Feel free to ask me any questions you have; looking forward to exciting
 test sessions.
 
 Cheers
 jan
 
 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike

[Steve Coast]

I disagree. This is about money; my personal belief is that CloudMade would 
have made more dollars without having to ShareAlike. More business models open 
up, and it wouldn’t have had to deal with the community. Indeed I imagine this 
was a topic of continual discussion.

The ODbL requires only two things and my understanding is that MapBox disagree 
with both of them, or at least Alex does. This shouldn’t be surprising, they 
hinder making money, like it did for CM.

But in those cases, we’re talking about competition in the market via data sets.

My personal belief, not speaking for them, is that Telenav has a different 
focus, in that free-to-the-consumer turn-by-turn navigation doesn’t have these 
impediments. Therefore it would in theory not be an issue in our case to 
attribute and ShareAlike. Like in my original slides about OSM from years ago - 
it’s about moving up the stack and competing at a higher level, not competing 
over data itself (where attribution and ShareAlike are relevant). Instead, 
going all-in on OSM and focusing on the product and user experience. Remember, 
these problems only occur if you don’t want to use OSM, but want to use it with 
other datasetsets that you don’t want to contribute back.

As for legal opinions on the ODbL you should understand that weaker (or, 
really, any) lawyers don’t like new things. New un-tested things have the 
potential to blow up in your face and throw you in court. Therefore the 
calculus is different when you are small and court is a scary place, compared 
to if you’re a big company say like Microsoft and you’re in court all the time. 
In my time I’ve met plenty of lawyers who’re fine with the ODbL and it 
shouldn’t be characterized that all lawyers everywhere somehow have major 
problems with it. The community norms (and the new ones the LWG is apparently 
putting together I heard) help very much here, and of course there are always 
issues with any license.

Whether the ODbL is good or bad for OSM is a different question. The ODbL was a 
very fun multi-year process that I happen to have been deeply involved in. It 
would be nice if there was data to suggest that one license is measurably 
better than another (for OSM). Instead, we have a large collections of 
anecdotes (not data) like “nobody uses OpenBSD because of the license” or 
“Linux wins because of the license”.

We’ve had beliefs like that in the past. For example “lots more people would 
edit with nicer tools”. This is a belief I shared. So, multiple times, we’ve 
built nicer tools. And it’s turned out that there is some small grain of truth 
to that but it’s not really comparable to the effort involved. I was wrong.

Alex makes a bunch of these statements like that, I’ll pick three that jump out:

1) the assumption that share-alike encourages contribution is a myth”
2) The reality is that OpenStreetMap is only used extensively in situations 
where the share-alike license does not apply, for instance, map rendering.
3) OpenStreetMap's current licensing is stunting our growth

And respond:

1) Data would be useful either way
2) I’d say that’s because OSM doesn’t contain a lot of address or navigation 
data (which, as it happens, is where the money is), not because of the license.
3) My personal belief is it might stunt CloudMade or MapBox, but not Telenav or 
MapQuest, and, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats doesn’t show a lot of 
evidence of being stunted.

ct.

I’ll sum by saying that when you’re picking licenses you’re really picking 
business models. We should be very careful when considering license changes and 
make sure any choice is backed by the best data we can get, not anecdotes or 
nice sounding stories. The ODbL has got us this far, and all the graphs are 
up-and-to-the-right. Exponential curves are powerful. Lastly, consider the 
weight of effort thousands of people put in to mapping before you to get us 
here, and what terms they did it under.

Steve





On Mar 14, 2014, at 1:18 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
 Alex Barth writes:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21221
 
 Another aspect of where the ODbL hurts us: Because we are using a
 restrictive license, we cannot argue against other parties that use a
 restrictive license. Look at New York State's GIS
 Clearinghouse. Individuals not welcome. For-profit corporations not
 welcome. OpenStreetMap users  not welcome. NY government entities?
 Welcome! Non-profits? Welcome!
 
 We can't argue against that on principle because we're just as bad.
 
 -- 
 --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
 Crynwr supports open source software
 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 talk...@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org

[Talk-us] Meetup sponsorship

[Steve Coast]

Hi

I had a number of threads with people on Telenav sponsoring meetup groups. The 
process has now been worked out (much more smooth) and I wanted to make sure I 
closed the loop with everyone. So if I've missed you please drop me a line.

Thanks

Steve
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Telenav giving away iPad Mini or Galaxy Note to Editor with the Most Edits Made By March 10

[Steve Coast]

From;


http://stevecoast.com/2014/02/11/telenav-giving-away-ipad-mini-or-galaxy-note-to-editor-with-the-most-edits-made-by-march-10/

As many of you probably know, I’m heading up OSM initiatives over at Telenav, 
the Bay Area-company that develops GPS navigation apps like Scout.

For three years, Telenav has been dedicated to helping the community through 
map updates. Today, we’ve kicked off a contest to see if we can help drive even 
more edits over the next 30 days. Anyone can win and it’s pretty easy to enter.

All you need to do is sign up here to register for the contest and make as many 
quality edits as you can by the end of March 10th!

We’re asking that editors focus on the U.S. and to make edits either through 
OpenStreetMap.org or Battle Grid. We have created a point system for edits and 
the person with the most points between now and March 10 will win either an 
iPad Mini or a Samsung Galaxy Note (your choice!).

Good luck and happy editing!

Steve___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Meetup group sponsorship

[Steve Coast]

Hi

Do you have a meetup.com group primary for running OSM events within the United 
States?

Have you organized two or more events in the last 6 months?

If you can answer “yes to these two questions then Telenav would like to help 
fund your meetup.com costs; please drop me a line at ste...@telenav.com

Thanks

Steve
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] 2013-2014 OSM US Election Results

[Steve Coast]

Congrats to the new board!

Steve



On Oct 15, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
 The election for 2013-2014 is complete and the new board consists of:
 
 Mele Sax-Barnett
 Kathleen Danielson
 Ian Dees
 Martijn van Exel
 Alex Barth
 
 The formal roles (President, VP, etc.) will be determined by the new
 board during their first meeting, and will be announced shortly after
 that meeting.
 
 I served as the election manager and checked the vote. Our independent
 election observers were Henk Hoff and Michael Collinson, and they have
 confirmed that the vote was fair and correctly counted.
 
 Thanks to all who participated
 Richard Welty
 
 Elections for OpenStreetMap US Board of Directors 2013/2014
 
 Results
 
 Alex Barth  60
 Martijn van Exel54
 Ian Dees43
 Kathleen Danielson  41
 Mele Sax-Barnett34
 --
 Steve Coast 31
 Alyssa Wright   31
 Steven Johnson  29
 Jessica Breen   25
 Randy Meech 22
 
 
 This post may also be found on the OSM US blog:
 http://openstreetmap.us/2013/10/election-results/
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] GIS in the Rockies

[Steve Coast]

I'm not at the conference but may be around in the evening tomorrow.

On Oct 9, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Miketho16 miketh...@gmail.com wrote:

 Any folks at GIS in the Rockies in Denver today and tomorrow?
 Mike
 
 
 T-Mobile, America's First Nationwide 4G Network
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] OSM US chapter election manifestos

[Steve Coast]

I was asked to run by a couple of people, and, I'm curious what people think 
the issues are. Or, another way of looking at it, is crowd-sourcing a manifesto.

So, here's a form. People like you can write a sentence or two on what they 
think I should work on, if elected:


https://docs.google.com/forms/d/109xitiqMGKFl_E96mvJ3evzfRsWaThoGs2G94gs-Fcs/viewform

Thanks

Steve


On Oct 3, 2013, at 7:32 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:

 One of the requirements for nominees is that nominees must provide
 statements via links on the nominations wiki page. Currently there are 8
 names on the wiki, but only two who meet this requirement.
 
 The two candidates who have position statements at the time of this message
 are Martijn van Exel and Kathleen Danielson and their statements are at
 http://wiki.osm.org/User:Mvexel and
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KathleenLD/diary/20129 respectively.
 
 Given that voting begins soon, candidates probably want to provide these
 statements *soon* so we can decide whom to vote for.
 
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] OSM St Louis MeetUp Page

[Steve Coast]

Awesome, well done Rick :-)

Steve


On May 16, 2013, at 9:57 AM, Rick Marshall rick.marsh...@verticalgeo.com 
wrote:
 Fellow OSMers,
  
 We have finally created our own MeetUp Page for OSM St Louis. It is located 
 at:  http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-St-Louis-Mid-America-Mappers/ 
  
 We are planning our next meeting to be held Wednesday, May 29 from 
 6:00-8:00pm at the O'Fallon Family Sports Park in O'Fallon, Illinois. 
 We will plan to map the features of the O'Fallon Family Sports Park located 
 at: 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.59723lon=-89.93144zoom=16layers=M. 
 Meeting will start at 6. Light refreshments (chips and sodas) will be 
 provided. If you want more than light refreshments feel welcome to bring your 
 own food. We will MeetUp as a group at the Gazebo next to the water park in 
 the center of the Family Sports Park. The meeting will start with a short 
 overview of OpenStreetMap, group members will be given handouts to help with 
 the mapping process, and then we will focus on adding geometry and attribute 
 features to the OSM map of the O'Fallon Sports Park. The walking trails are 
 mapped, but the baseball and soccer fields, water park, concession stands, 
 and interior sidewalks are not. We will plan on regrouping again at 7:30 to 
 discuss our effort and view the new map. If you have a GPS bring it, but it 
 is not needed or required to have a GPS to attend the MeetUp.
 
 Hope to see you there!
 
 I am not sure how/where to add this to the OSM wiki pages.  Can someone point 
 me to where this announcement belongs?
 
 Thanks for everything.
 
 Rick Marshall
  
 Rick Marshall, PhD, GISP
 President
 Vertical GeoSolutions, Inc (VerticalGeo)
 130 Sawgrass Ln
 O'Fallon, IL  62269
 (618) 670-4259
 rick.marsh...@verticalgeo.com
 http://www.verticalgeo.com
 http://www.culturescapes.net
 Vertically Thinking Blog: http://verticalgeo.wordpress.com
 
 
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

Re: [Talk-us] OSM St Louis Announcement

[Steve Coast]

Awesome that you ran an event :-)


On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Rick Marshall rick.marsh...@verticalgeo.com 
wrote:

 We held our initial OSM St Louis meeting on January 31.  We had 7
 people attend and we had a great time discussing OSM.  As we were
 getting ready to start the meeting I ran across an old friend that has
 been a Board Member for many years in the St Louis Region American
 Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS) Group.  Today I
 received an E-Mail from the group's Board of Directors asking for a
 presentation on OSM and its capabilities.  This will be a very
 interesting mix of open source software/crowdsourced information meets
 the rigid standards of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
 professionals.  It could be an exciting opportunity to get some very
 technically capable professional mappers involved in OSM St Louis, or
 it could be a total disaster.
 
 Do any of you working with/in other OSM local groups or at OSM US have
 any experience with the ASPRS?  I have been a member of ASPRS for
 years and I am not sure how well they will receive the
 opensource/crowdsourced flavor of my presentation.  Randy Hale I know
 you are also a member of ASPRS.  Have you had any success in
 integrating both groups?
 
 Take care and I look forward to your input.
 
 Rick Marshall
 
 -- 
 Rick Marshall, PhD, GISP
 President
 Vertical GeoSolutions, Inc (VerticalGeo)
 130 Sawgrass Ln
 O'Fallon, IL  62269
 (618) 670-4259
 rick.marsh...@verticalgeo.com
 http://www.verticalgeo.com
 http://www.culturescapes.net
 Vertically Thinking Blog: http://verticalgeo.wordpress.com
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


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

Re: [Talk-us] parcel boundaries and associated data in OSM

[Steve Coast]

Brian

Personally I think it's brilliant you're working on this, and I'd love OSM to 
work hand in hand to make it happen. Ideally I'd love OSM to be the repository 
for this, it helps everybody.

There is speculation (but no actual statistically valid causation data) to 
suggest that imports somehow harm the community and, either way, it'd be 
great to find a way to help local communities help massage things as we pull it 
in.

At the end of the project, say in 2030 or something, it's going to have this 
level of detail anyway so, I say why not start now?

Best

Steve


On Feb 14, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Brian Cavagnolo bcavagn...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hey guys,
 
 In my research group (the Urban Analytics Lab at Berkeley's Department
 of City and Regional Planning), we use parcel data for land-use
 projection, accessibility, and visualization.  For example, over the
 past couple of years we worked with regional government agencies here
 in the Bay Area to put together a parcel-level urbansim
 (http://www.urbansim.org) land-use model for regional planning
 purposes.  We've also developed a prototype 3D visualization tool
 (http://www.urbansim.org/Documentation/UrbanVision) to visualize
 parcel data, and published on using OSM data for accessibility
 calculations [0].  If you poke around the Internet for references to
 our director Prof. Paul Waddell you'll get the idea.
 
 We really want a nationwide consolidated, standard parcel database to
 build upon.  Such products are available from numerous proprietary
 data vendors who make it their business to routinely gather and
 consolidate data from local government agencies around the country.
 Of course these are often expensive and have restrictions on
 redistribution.  Our federal government has been trying for sometime
 to create a nationwide public domain parcel database [1][2][3], but
 this has not happened.  Many states have managed to consolidate parcel
 data (e.g., Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey).  This is very
 helpful, but notable work is required to adapt tools or research from
 one state to another.  And our state along with many others has no
 such offering.  As a result, parcel data users for whom proprietary
 sources are too restrictive or expensive go about manually gathering
 the data from county agencies.  If the application doesn't span county
 lines, and if the county is open with their data, this may not be a
 problem.  But these two conditions are often not both met, driving a
 more intensive data gathering effort.  Such efforts are often
 duplicated for different projects.  We believe that this landscape of
 use and parcel data availability represents an opportunity to form a
 parcel data community concerned with building and maintaining an open
 nationwide (global?) consolidated parcel database.
 
 This idea is [obviously] inspired by OSM.  And my immediate thought
 was, Fun!  Let's add parcel data to OSM!  How do we do that?  This
 inquiry has of course led to numerous more detailed questions, the
 most fundamental one, of course, being: Is parcel data welcome in OSM?
 I've spent some time reading through the mailing list history.  In
 addition to gaining an appreciation for some of the issues regarding
 the management of parcel data, I promptly learned that this is a
 controversial question.  For each claim that a consensus exists
 against parcel data in OSM, a parcel data advocate seems to emerge.
 This leads to debate, which seems to focus on a specific set of issues
 that I have posed as specific questions below.  I've also dusted off
 and enriched the wiki page and associated talk page on the matter
 (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel).  My hope is that people
 can respond to these questions and we can reach a clear consensus on
 {whether,what sort of,conditions under which} parcel data is welcome.
 And of course feel free to bring up any issues that are not
 represented in this list.  Finally, even if you believe that parcel
 data does not belong in OSM, but that a nationwide open consolidated
 parcel database would be useful (and possible:) I'm super interested
 in this perspective.
 
 Is parcel data useful to OSM?
 
 Can parcel data possibly be kept up to date?
 
 Does parcel data meet the on the ground verifiability criteria?
 
 Can tools be adapted to accommodate parcel data density?
 
 Ciao,
 Brian
 
 [0] 
 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conferences/2012/4thITM/Papers-A/0117-62.pdf
 [1] http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=NI000560
 [2] http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11978
 [3] http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40717.pdf
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


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

Re: [Talk-us] parcel boundaries and associated data in OSM

[Steve Coast]

We can solve the problem by sitting around waiting for it to happen, or forcing 
the issue by going and doing this. I suggest the latter is better :-)

Steve



On Feb 14, 2013, at 12:49 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:

 PS:
 
 On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
 Brian
 
 Personally I think it's brilliant you're working on this, and I'd love OSM to 
 work hand in hand to make it happen. Ideally I'd love OSM to be the 
 repository for this, it helps everybody.
 
 +1 to you working on this. Collecting parcels is a great idea! I started 
 doing this late last year and got this far: 
 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsVnlPsfrhUIdEVZTzVFalFYYnlvTkc0R05wcUpsWVE#gid=0
 
 I don't agree that OSM is the place it should go at this point. At the very 
 least we need to solve the data density problems in our editors/viewers and 
 the area data type problem.
 
 In my mind this would be better in a GitHub repo with {Geo|Topo}JSON files 
 for each county.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Reaching out to Local User Groups

[Steve Coast]

Stupid suggestion - plot these on a map.

Would be interesting to see which high-populaion areas *don't* have a meet up 
and then see if we can organize something remotely and then some of us fly in 
for a weekend, if inclined, to kick things off.

Costs would be $200 for SWA flights plus $200 for hotels or something. I 
suspect we could find that kind of money somewhere to sponsor someone to do 
this.

Steve

On Feb 6, 2013, at 6:13 AM, Kathleen Danielson kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com 
wrote:

 I heard from a few of you, so thanks a ton! I just realized this will be a 
 lot easier if I give you the local groups I already have on my list. If you 
 organize *or are a member of* (or just know of) a local user group from 
 somewhere other than the areas listed below, please let me know ASAP! 
 
 New York
 Chicago
 Washington, DC
 Boston
 San Francisco (I'm combining this with Sunnyvale, but let me know if that's 
 incorrect and they are really two separate entities)
 Seattle
 St Louis
 Tampa
 Portland
 Cleveland
 Salt Lake City
 
 
 On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Kathleen Danielson 
 kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com wrote:
 Calling all OSM Local User Group organizers--
 
 Over the last several weeks I have reached out to many of you, but I am 
 certain that I missed a few. I am working on wrapping my initial findings on 
 the local OSM communities in the US, but I want to ensure that you're all 
 represented.
 
 If we have NOT directly connected about your local OSM group, please shoot me 
 a quick note to let me know that and I'll have some follow up questions for 
 you after that. Nothing taxing or time-consuming, I swear!
 
 Thanks!
 Kathleen
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

Re: [Talk-us] Reaching out to Local User Groups

[Steve Coast]

Great, good to hear.

I'm worried I said something the wrong way that made you guys feel defensive. 
Wasn't my intention if so. This is your baby, I just ran the first mapping 
party and we ran tons of them at CloudMade so I have opinions but I'm not 
trying to tell you what to do.

Steve


On Feb 6, 2013, at 11:37 AM, the Old Topo Depot oldto...@novacell.com wrote:

 We already did/do that :
 
 1.  Sunnyvale and SF Edit-a-thons used a Google Hangout so that I could give 
 a remote bootstrap to SF as they did not have a local leader.  Seemed to work
 2.  BiWeekly Mappy Hours are held, also via Hangout and are well attended and 
 also seem to work
 
 Google hangout is challenged wrt to scalability; it'd be good to have more 
 video participants.
 
 Local F2F is surely better; but remotes can be effective to spinup 
 remote/detached folks who then act as seeds/centers around which locals can 
 form.  Let's stay open to all the possibilities.  A little encouragement and 
 interaction seems to go a long way, even if beers are NOT involved ;-)
 
 On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Kathleen Danielson 
 kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com wrote:
 Re: Map -- All in good time. (Gotta write up my blog post first...)
 
 Re: Remote meetup deployment: I love that idea and think it would be an 
 awesome goal 6 months from now. I'd love to have built up a local OSM user 
 group organizer toolkit by then, so that we can give them some tried and 
 tested resources to keep things going. 
 
 Re: Sponsors-- might be something that corporate OSM users would like to 
 sponsor...
 
 
 On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
 Stupid suggestion - plot these on a map.
 
 Would be interesting to see which high-populaion areas *don't* have a meet up 
 and then see if we can organize something remotely and then some of us fly in 
 for a weekend, if inclined, to kick things off.
 
 Costs would be $200 for SWA flights plus $200 for hotels or something. I 
 suspect we could find that kind of money somewhere to sponsor someone to do 
 this.
 
 Steve
 
 On Feb 6, 2013, at 6:13 AM, Kathleen Danielson kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 I heard from a few of you, so thanks a ton! I just realized this will be a 
 lot easier if I give you the local groups I already have on my list. If you 
 organize *or are a member of* (or just know of) a local user group from 
 somewhere other than the areas listed below, please let me know ASAP! 
 
 New York
 Chicago
 Washington, DC
 Boston
 San Francisco (I'm combining this with Sunnyvale, but let me know if that's 
 incorrect and they are really two separate entities)
 Seattle
 St Louis
 Tampa
 Portland
 Cleveland
 Salt Lake City
 
 
 On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Kathleen Danielson 
 kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com wrote:
 Calling all OSM Local User Group organizers--
 
 Over the last several weeks I have reached out to many of you, but I am 
 certain that I missed a few. I am working on wrapping my initial findings on 
 the local OSM communities in the US, but I want to ensure that you're all 
 represented.
 
 If we have NOT directly connected about your local OSM group, please shoot 
 me a quick note to let me know that and I'll have some follow up questions 
 for you after that. Nothing taxing or time-consuming, I swear!
 
 Thanks!
 Kathleen
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
 
 
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 John Novak
 585-OLD-TOPOS (585-653-8676)
 http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnanovak/
 OSM ID:oldtopos
 OSM Heat Map: http://yosmhm.neis-one.org/?oldtopos
 OSM Edit Stats:http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?oldtopos

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

Re: [Talk-us] Reaching out to Local User Groups

[Steve Coast]

Hi Paul

I was basically alone starting the Seattle group for many months. We had a lot 
of churn (one person come one month, then a different person the next…)

It takes a long time, but it is worth it.

Also, I wouldn't bother reaching out to existing mappers as we never found that 
working well vs. spending the same time finding new people/groups.

One more thing - if you set up a meetup.com group you automatically will start 
to see curious people join up.

Steve


On Feb 6, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 
 On Feb 6, 2013 10:30 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
   I would like to organize one in Tulsa.
 
  What's stopping you?
 
 Pretty sure I would be alone on that given I haven't received responses from 
 any of the locally registered mappers.  I wish there was a way to see 
 locations of mappers beyond the first N closest and perhaps a way to filter 
 by date of last activity.
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

Re: [Talk-us] Reaching out to Local User Groups

[Steve Coast]

On Feb 6, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
 hrm.  imho, having outsiders parachute in to (kick-)start a local group 
 discourages local leadership.  The locals end up thinking, hey, they'll come 
 back and we can do it again some time.  No need for us to organize anything, 
 or something.  That's not our goal. :(

Right, but we also know what happens when we try nothing: nothing happens.

What we *really* want is data, rather than our opinions, on what works. But, 
that is hard and expensive to obtain :-)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Go Map!! is in the Apple app store

[Steve Coast]

yes;

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Go_Map



On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:34 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 Cool, getting my iPhone next week, so can't wait to try it out!
 
 Is it listed on the OSM wiki yet?
 
 
 On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Jeff Meyer j...@gwhat.org wrote:
 I'd like to highly recommend a brand-new, native, and free* iOS OSM editor: 
 Go Map!!
 
 https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=592990211mt=8
 
 The author is a member of the Seattle OSM community, so I'm biased, but I 
 think it rocks.
 
 Regards, 
 Jeff
 
 * as in free beer!
 
 -- 
 Jeff Meyer
 Global World History Atlas
 www.gwhat.org
 j...@gwhat.org
 206-676-2347
  osm: Historical OSM / my OSM user page
  t: @GWHAThistory
  f: GWHAThistory
 
 
 
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 talk...@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 Martijn van Exel
 http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
 http://openstreetmap.us/
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 talk...@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

Re: [Talk-us] Cleveland 2013 Meeting Recap

[Steve Coast]

Really awesome, well done.

Steve


On Jan 29, 2013, at 2:56 PM, william skora skorasau...@gmail.com wrote:

 Just an FYI, Cleveland had its first meeting of 2013 last week - here's a 
 recap of it -
 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/skorasaurus/diary/18494
 
 With pictures !
 
 Feel free to comment here or on the diary entry.
 
 Regards,
 Will
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

Re: [Talk-ru] [Talk-us] Go Map!! is in the Apple app store

[Steve Coast]

yes;

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Go_Map



On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:34 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 Cool, getting my iPhone next week, so can't wait to try it out!
 
 Is it listed on the OSM wiki yet?
 
 
 On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Jeff Meyer j...@gwhat.org wrote:
 I'd like to highly recommend a brand-new, native, and free* iOS OSM editor: 
 Go Map!!
 
 https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=592990211mt=8
 
 The author is a member of the Seattle OSM community, so I'm biased, but I 
 think it rocks.
 
 Regards, 
 Jeff
 
 * as in free beer!
 
 -- 
 Jeff Meyer
 Global World History Atlas
 www.gwhat.org
 j...@gwhat.org
 206-676-2347
  osm: Historical OSM / my OSM user page
  t: @GWHAThistory
  f: GWHAThistory
 
 
 
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 talk...@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 Martijn van Exel
 http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
 http://openstreetmap.us/
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 talk...@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

Re: [OSM-ja] [Talk-us] Go Map!! is in the Apple app store

[Steve Coast]

yes;

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Go_Map



On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:34 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 Cool, getting my iPhone next week, so can't wait to try it out!
 
 Is it listed on the OSM wiki yet?
 
 
 On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Jeff Meyer j...@gwhat.org wrote:
 I'd like to highly recommend a brand-new, native, and free* iOS OSM editor: 
 Go Map!!
 
 https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=592990211mt=8
 
 The author is a member of the Seattle OSM community, so I'm biased, but I 
 think it rocks.
 
 Regards, 
 Jeff
 
 * as in free beer!
 
 -- 
 Jeff Meyer
 Global World History Atlas
 www.gwhat.org
 j...@gwhat.org
 206-676-2347
  osm: Historical OSM / my OSM user page
  t: @GWHAThistory
  f: GWHAThistory
 
 
 
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 talk...@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 Martijn van Exel
 http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
 http://openstreetmap.us/
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 talk...@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

Re: [Talk-us] Go Map!! is in the Apple app store

[Steve Coast]

yes;

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Go_Map



On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:34 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 Cool, getting my iPhone next week, so can't wait to try it out!
 
 Is it listed on the OSM wiki yet?
 
 
 On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Jeff Meyer j...@gwhat.org wrote:
 I'd like to highly recommend a brand-new, native, and free* iOS OSM editor: 
 Go Map!!
 
 https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=592990211mt=8
 
 The author is a member of the Seattle OSM community, so I'm biased, but I 
 think it rocks.
 
 Regards, 
 Jeff
 
 * as in free beer!
 
 -- 
 Jeff Meyer
 Global World History Atlas
 www.gwhat.org
 j...@gwhat.org
 206-676-2347
  osm: Historical OSM / my OSM user page
  t: @GWHAThistory
  f: GWHAThistory
 
 
 
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 Martijn van Exel
 http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
 http://openstreetmap.us/
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

Re: [Talk-us] More on TIGER: Where it's likely safe to import

[Steve Coast]

Mike

Nice.

Could you use relative object density per little square as a proxy for
population density?

I ask because all the bright green areas near me are forests or old milk
farms. I don’t care. I want to see high density areas and attack those as a
priority since that’s where people are and where they go...

Steve

 *From:* Michal Migurski m...@teczno.com
*Sent:* January 3, 2013 7:03 PM
*To:* OpenStreetMap US Talk talk-us@openstreetmap.org
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] More on TIGER: Where it's likely safe to import

On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:40 PM, Michal Migurski wrote:

 On Dec 16, 2012, at 8:32 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:

 Have you looked into full history planet parsing to get a fuller
 picture of editing history? I took a stab at full history user metrics
 some time ago using osmjs;
 https://github.com/mvexel/OSMQualityMetrics/blob/master/UserStats.js -
 this produces one set of metrics for the entire .osh file you feed it
 but it may prove useful for future work. I haven't touched this in a
 while but it should still work :/

 I have downloaded a copy and given it a beginning look. I'm new to
parsing things of that magnitude; my first thought was to use the full
history file for creations/modifications/deletions on nodes and add that to
what I'm doing already for ways on the osm2pgsql tables. Does that sound
reasonable?

Over the holiday break, I've been grinding through the full history file.
I'll write more about the process and publish some raw data, but the short
version is that I've replaced the Green Means Go tiles with new versions
that incorporate edits to the underlying nodes, address some of the
feedback I've received, and show a slightly different map of the US.

New map:
http://www.openstreetmap.us/~migurski/green-means-go/

Old map:
http://www.openstreetmap.us/~migurski/green-means-go-2012-12-16/

Charlotte Wolter and NE2 both pointed out that Florida should see a lot
more post-import editing that I had originally shown, and in fact that's
what the map now shows:

http://www.openstreetmap.us/~migurski/green-means-go/#9/28.3213/-81.6257

http://www.openstreetmap.us/~migurski/green-means-go-2012-12-16/#9/28.3213/-81.6257

Urban fringe areas also show more edits, making them less attractive
targets for blind imports:

http://www.openstreetmap.us/~migurski/green-means-go/#10/37.7707/-122.3451

http://www.openstreetmap.us/~migurski/green-means-go-2012-12-16/#10/37.7707/-122.3451

I've also stripped away the US coastal territory based on NLCD water
designation, per SteveC's suggestion.

These massive edits to counties in Pennsylvania are interesting to me:

http://www.openstreetmap.us/~migurski/green-means-go/#8/40.918/-77.146

-mike.


michal migurski- contact info and pgp key:
sf/cahttp://mike.teczno.com/contact.html





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

Re: [Talk-us] parcel data in OSM

[Steve Coast]

On Dec 31, 2012, at 3:21 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:

 Hi,
 
 On 31.12.2012 06:49, Steve Coast wrote:
 Therefore I don't see why each
 country or state (i.e. Mass. and their own imports) can't have it's
 own solution which reflects the cultural realities there.
 
 Your argument seems to be, essentially, that the cultural reality there is 
 that they have no need for a crowdsourced map. If that is so, then maybe we 
 should just accept that, and move on to places where there is such a need?

I'm not saying we don't need a crowdsourced map, I'm saying that for address 
data as the last piece of the puzzle, we should import to save waiting a 
billion years, and then fix it where there are people interested in doing so.

 When you say that Waze has not failed, I wouldn't know - Waze has zero 
 publicity where I live, and their website offers a choice of United States - 
 Italy - Spain - Israel - Rest of world. It may be a big thing in the States 
 but over here it usually doesn't even get a mention when people are talking 
 about map data.

Waze, last time I looked, was 5 times larger than OSM. Today, probably 10.

 You're also talking of ten or twenty crowd-sourced maps of the world, and 
 making it sound like a threat to OSM.

It is. There may be no need for OSM if there are lots of crowd sourced maps 
which have better support. I would like people to use OSM. Today it's hard to 
convince any consumer they should do so over google or waze.

 I've heard that quite often. If only we import just a little more, then our 
 map will suddenly cross some usability threshold and we'll have more users 
 contributing quality data than we can wish for.
 
 I guess it's a matter of faith. I can't prove you wrong but there's no 
 evidence to support that hope either.

I'm ambivalent about pretty much any other import apart from addressing. I see 
addressing, in the USA, as a fundamental thing worth pulling in. From there, we 
fix it up just like we did with the road network.

If you want people to use the map, it needs addressing.

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

Re: [Talk-us] parcel data in OSM

[Steve Coast]

On Dec 31, 2012, at 9:15 AM, Jeff Meyer j...@gwhat.org wrote:
 My concern about this entire discussion is that the whole import vs community 
 argument is employed even when there is a community behind an import.

… by people outside that community living on a different continent.

I mean, I wish I had time to go on the Timbuktu mailing list and tell them what 
to do but I have no idea what it's like to map there. I know well how painful 
it is to map gigantic grid cities in the US, it's not as fun as the UK's little 
cul-de-sac exploration and the scale is just completely different.

Steve


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

Re: [Talk-us] parcel data in OSM

[Steve Coast]

On Dec 31, 2012, at 6:24 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:

 Steve Coast writes:
 Waze, last time I looked, was 5 times larger than OSM. Today, probably 10.
 
 Nobody ever tells me about Waze.

You live in upstate New York, dude. :-)

Steve


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

Re: [Talk-us] parcel data in OSM

[Steve Coast]

On Dec 30, 2012, at 9:01 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:

 Serge Wroclawski writes:
 Steve suggested we need addresses. He didn't ask for a crazy huge
 import.
 
 Well, he kinda did. The TIGER data has addresses. The original import
 didn't include them. We *could* triple the size of the data in the USA
 by creating address ways alongside the TIGER ways. Eventually we will
 triple it, if only by hand.
 
 The real question about this import (which is technically feasible),
 is whether we can fix the errors with less effort than it will take to
 input them by hand. Speaking as someone who has done importing and
 hand editing, I think we should do the import ... of course only in
 areas where there aren't already addresses.

There are some other angles to this.

* One, is this: Can we expect to reasonably map the United States with 
addressing in a reasonable amount of time?

Fred wrote an oblique blog post hoping that we will. That addressing is just 
like any other dataset that at first looked too hard (I don't know, footpaths 
or whatever). That is, it will get done quicker than you think. Fred lives in 
Germany and day-to-day finds a very different culture to the one I live in 
though. For example, mapping parties suck in the US because people drive and 
therefore don't go for a beer. We found this time and again. The culture has 
taken an age to mature here compared to Germany. The per-capita mapping is far 
lower than in Germany.

Fred would probably say, Stallmanesque, that our ideals are more important than 
skipping ahead and doing an import. That even if it takes another 20 years to 
get it all done, we should wait since that way we would be doing it the 'right' 
way. For some definition of 'right'. The problem is that the 
anarchic-libertarian ideals that have worked so well at those German stamtisch 
are just not working here, or in a bunch of other places. Therefore I don't see 
why each country or state (i.e. Mass. and their own imports) can't have it's 
own solution which reflects the cultural realities there.

As people have been pointing out here, it's kind of a false starting point 
/anyway/ since everything in the US practically started as an import anyway. So 
we can noodle with what reasonable amount of time means. To me, it means 
yesterday since this has already been going on far too long.

* Another is, the threat of importing crappy TIGER ranges is motivating people 
to go look at available county data. That is fantastic. So as Ian alluded to 
pushing the conversation forward is itself a motivator

* The most important though is to look at the realities of where we are.

OSM is the third-largest crowd-sourced map behind Google and Waze. Fred will 
jump in and say it isn't a competition and to a degree that is true. However 
the world is changing. It may be soon (say 1-5 years) that there aren't just 
three crowd sourced maps of the world, but there are ten. Or twenty. Your 
computer-illiterate relative really doesn't care what map they use, they just 
care that it is up to date. It's arguable that they will therefore go use the 
map that came with their car or their phone and contribute to that. There is 
enough spare attention in the world to easily sustain 10 or 20 global crowd 
sourced maps.

Skip back to Wikipedia. It took off by being both the place to contribute text 
(input) and also to read it (output). We've given up on the output part, that 
is the project thus far makes the website output (map style, user experience) 
useful to mappers and that's it. It's looking essentially impossible to break 
the core culture around how osm.org is built, maintained and operated but for 
the few highly-technical, competent and hard-working people who control it. 
Just look at the last major update, swapping one JS library for another JS 
library to show map tiles. It's technically elegant but it's completely 
irrelevant for, say, making the website easier to use, report a bug, get help 
or whatever.

I digress. The point is that we don't have the feedback loop that wikipedia 
did. Our output is intermediated by the hundreds of sites and apps which use 
OSM. We gave up on the output side, Wikipedia did not. And, incidentally, 
neither has Waze or Google.

The leap of faith you're asked to take is that wikipedia succeeded because it 
was free and open. I'm really not sure that's true. I wonder what would happen 
if we could rewind the clock and have Britannica or Encarta build similar 
websites back in 2002, or whatever. Would they have failed? I suspect not, 
actually. Just look at how Google and Waze have not failed.

Tying this together, I posit that to be bigger than just the worlds 
third-largest crowd-sourced map we have to a) be quick b) import data where we 
have failings and c) fix the output stage and tie it back to the input to fix 
the imports as required.

iD is a nice start, but potlatch has been nice enough for a long time. The 
issues are much plainer and in other 

Re: [Talk-us] More on TIGER: Where it's likely safe to import

[Steve Coast]

Nice.

Suggestions;

- kill water somehow
- Information density at low zoom levels implies that basically everywhere is 
green. But you zoom to the bay area and see this isn't the case. So, change the 
coloring? Modulate it by population density?

Steve

On Dec 16, 2012, at 8:32 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 OK this is plain awesome. Great work Mike.
 
 One note of caution though - the title may suggest that you can just
 go ahead and import away, but folks would still have to follow the
 import guidelines and contact the OSM community at large, come up with
 a solid proposal and discuss that, even if there is no local
 community. I know it says it on the tin, but it's kind of tucked away
 at the bottom.
 
 Have you looked into full history planet parsing to get a fuller
 picture of editing history? I took a stab at full history user metrics
 some time ago using osmjs;
 https://github.com/mvexel/OSMQualityMetrics/blob/master/UserStats.js -
 this produces one set of metrics for the entire .osh file you feed it
 but it may prove useful for future work. I haven't touched this in a
 while but it should still work :/
 
 On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Michal Migurski m...@teczno.com wrote:
 I pulled together some of the notes and imagery I've been posting here 
 recently:
 
http://www.openstreetmap.us/~migurski/green-means-go/
 
 It's a map of 1km×1km squares covering the continental United States. Green 
 squares show places where data imports are unlikely to interfere with 
 community mapping. Raw data is linked at the bottom.
 
 Three things that would make this better:
 
 - Regular updates with archived older versions.
 - Renders for specific counties, intended for local GIS communities.
 - Some awareness of full planet history.
 
 The OSM-US server has data for regular updates.
 
 -mike.
 
 
 michal migurski- contact info and pgp key:
 sf/cahttp://mike.teczno.com/contact.html
 
 
 
 
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
 
 
 
 -- 
 Martijn van Exel
 http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
 http://openstreetmap.us/
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


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

Re: [Talk-us] More on TIGER: Where it's likely safe to import

[Steve Coast]

On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Michal Migurski m...@teczno.com wrote:

 Information density: maybe a different grid for lower zoom levels, e.g. 5km, 
 10km, etc.? It would have the opposite effect of what's there now I think, 
 which is look at all that green!

I prefer modulating by population, since a sea of green in Wyoming (with 
apologies to those in Wyoming) really doesn't matter since nobody lives there. 
The question is, where is the population / edits ration low, not the absolute 
edits numbers.

Maybe ask people from CloudMade what they did 3 years ago.

Also, I wouldn't ask the question(s) in a vacuum. I suspect, but cannot 
confirm, that if you did a similar analysis of NT or TA data in the US you'd 
see exactly the same thing; a natural economic bias in the metrics to mapping 
places with high population density.

Steve




 -mike.
 
 On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:22 PM, Steve Coast wrote:
 
 Nice.
 
 Suggestions;
 
 - kill water somehow
 - Information density at low zoom levels implies that basically everywhere 
 is green. But you zoom to the bay area and see this isn't the case. So, 
 change the coloring? Modulate it by population density?
 
 Steve
 
 On Dec 16, 2012, at 8:32 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:
 
 OK this is plain awesome. Great work Mike.
 
 One note of caution though - the title may suggest that you can just
 go ahead and import away, but folks would still have to follow the
 import guidelines and contact the OSM community at large, come up with
 a solid proposal and discuss that, even if there is no local
 community. I know it says it on the tin, but it's kind of tucked away
 at the bottom.
 
 Have you looked into full history planet parsing to get a fuller
 picture of editing history? I took a stab at full history user metrics
 some time ago using osmjs;
 https://github.com/mvexel/OSMQualityMetrics/blob/master/UserStats.js -
 this produces one set of metrics for the entire .osh file you feed it
 but it may prove useful for future work. I haven't touched this in a
 while but it should still work :/
 
 On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Michal Migurski m...@teczno.com wrote:
 I pulled together some of the notes and imagery I've been posting here 
 recently:
 
  http://www.openstreetmap.us/~migurski/green-means-go/
 
 It's a map of 1km×1km squares covering the continental United States. 
 Green squares show places where data imports are unlikely to interfere 
 with community mapping. Raw data is linked at the bottom.
 
 Three things that would make this better:
 
 - Regular updates with archived older versions.
 - Renders for specific counties, intended for local GIS communities.
 - Some awareness of full planet history.
 
 The OSM-US server has data for regular updates.
 
 -mike.
 
 
 michal migurski- contact info and pgp key:
 sf/cahttp://mike.teczno.com/contact.html
 
 
 
 
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
 
 
 
 -- 
 Martijn van Exel
 http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
 http://openstreetmap.us/
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
 
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
 
 
 
 michal migurski- contact info and pgp key:
 sf/cahttp://mike.teczno.com/contact.html
 
 
 
 
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


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

Re: [Talk-us] King County Address Imports

[Steve Coast]

I'd like a look at the unincorporated data, which is where I live :-)

Steve



On Dec 17, 2012, at 1:04 PM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote:

 Now that King County, WA has given us access to use their GIS data as Jeff 
 Meyer reported, I have converted their address data for the entire county 
 into smaller blocks. These are available on my Dropbox account if anyone 
 would like to review the data. Just send me an email with your request. 
 
 The data is broken up by city and in Seattle, the data is further broken up 
 by neighborhood. The unincorporated areas are in one file.
 
 The following tags are populated for each address
 addr:city (except for unincorporated areas)
 addr:housenumber
 addr:postcode (zip5)
 addr:street (fully expanded)
 source = King County GIS
 We are not ready to start the import process at this time.  Final process 
 steps and training on how to properly import using JOSM are key steps we 
 expect to complete shortly.
 
 -- 
 Clifford
 
 OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

Re: [Talk-us] Mappy Hour suggestions?

[Steve Coast]

Try to find new audiences, this mailing list is saturated with your target 
market already. So, try google ads or a banner on osm.org. Work with existing 
local groups (e.g. the seattle group had no real heads up about at least 2 out 
of the 3 meetings).


On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:46 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:
 Hi all,
 We've done three mappy hours now I think? To me they are great fun and
 useful. That is not to say we can't improve. What are your
 suggestions? I am particularly interested in hearing from folks who
 have participated, but of course anyone is welcome to chime in.
 One thing I was thinking about was giving newcomers a chance to
 introduce themselves and / or ask any questions they have, start the
 mappy hour off with that perhaps.
 Thoughts?
 
 -- 
 Martijn van Exel
 http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
 http://openstreetmap.us/
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Google: pay for map and API

[Steve Coast]

You're just missing the point of press releases. It's not necessarily to make a 
logical point, it's to get press and therefore more users. Something that just 
says people should switch to OSM in the context of this kind of news will get 
press if executed well.

Steve


On Oct 28, 2011, at 4:55 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:

 I don't know what point we would make. GMaps users are not only paying
 for the map data they're using - which they can of course get for free
 at OSM - but also for a full-featured, well-documented, integrated API
 with routing, geocoding, vector overlays and what have you, allowing
 anyone who can find the pointy brackets on their keyboard to slap an
 interactive map on their website.
 This is something OSM does not offer, or claim to.
 
 On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:34 PM, malenki o...@malenki.ch wrote:
 Google demands (with several exceptions payment for using map and API:
 http://code.google.com/intl/uk-UK/apis/maps/faq.html#tos_pricing
 
 A press release from OSM would be a good idea.
 
 Thomas
 aka malenki
 
 
 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 martijn van exel
 geospatial omnivore
 1109 1st ave #2
 salt lake city, ut 84103
 801-550-5815
 http://oegeo.wordpress.com
 
 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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

[Talk-us] speak about OSM in Chicago on Tuesday

[Steve Coast]

Is anyone available to speak at ILGISA in Chicago on Tuesday? I can't make it, 
and it's a great audience.

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