Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build
On 16 November 2011 07:16, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: In the UK, issues due to the use of national mapping agency data have been resolved and in Australia we have had explicit permission to use the bulk of government-derived imports. That mostly completes our list of known specific import dataset-related issues from the Import Catalogue where we can actively help. If there are any more, New Zealand?, please let us know. yes, there has been permission given to publish LINZ data under CT and ODBL. i will see if i can dig up something more solid to refer to -- robin http://fu.ac.nz - Auckland's Free University ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build
Paul Norman penorman@... writes: I can't agree with that. In some circumstances a node can convey additional information by virtue of what it is a member of. If a node is a member of multiple ways it tells you that the ways join. Nodes that are members of relations are also similar. What you’re forgetting is that the ways will either be copyright-clean or will be removed anyway. -- Andrew ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build
Am 17.11.2011 08:37, schrieb Simon Poole: We (Switzerland and some parts of Germany) have for example started more or less systematic remapping of anonymous contributions. There is no real hope that a significant amount of this data will be re-licensed by the original mappers, and since these objects pre-date the introduction of history* (versions), they simply have to go. Richard Fairhurst pointed out to me that versions actually always existed, but were zapped during one of the API transitions. Net result is the same. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:16:47 +0100, Michael Collinson wrote: The numbers: http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/treemap.png - each square represents one user, weighted by size of contribution. Green=accepted, Red=Declined or has not responded. This displays an 800x600 grey image with black border for me. Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build
On 16 November 2011 08:07, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:16:47 +0100, Michael Collinson wrote: The numbers: http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/treemap.png - each square represents one user, weighted by size of contribution. Green=accepted, Red=Declined or has not responded. This displays an 800x600 grey image with black border for me. There was an issue with this week's planet + changesets export/dump. I have fixed it and the treemap will be fixed in around an hour. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build
-Original Message- From: Andreas Labres [mailto:l...@lab.at] Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build Hello, there is something wrong with the license status P2 shows... A node without tags holds only one information: its location (lat+lon). So for instance: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/246625694 was last edited by me (I put the node there), I agreed to the terms, but P2 showes this node in orange. This can't be true. I can't agree with that. In some circumstances a node can convey additional information by virtue of what it is a member of. If a node is a member of multiple ways it tells you that the ways join. Nodes that are members of relations are also similar. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Simon Poole wrote: That said, I believe P2 now has a tool that will completly replace a node with a new one at the same coordinates which is a bit of a fix for your specific issue. Just for clarification - what it actually does is remove the node (in a way) and create a new one at your _mouse_ position. You are choosing where to create the node. Neither the position nor the tags are inherited from the old node. (If you've not tried it: select old node, press O.) HI, does this mean that you can use this technique to lift data off any map, or just the old osm one? I am confused, for me it would be copying the position from somewhere. mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build
Just as a warning: replacing non-compliant nodes does not mean just placing another node adjacent to it. That's copying (or tracing). This O-trick suggestion invites our members to fraude. Using this O-trick violates the copyright of the previous owner, just as copying from google would violate their terms of service. When replacing (NOT copying) old CC data, you need to provide proof that the new geo data was obtained by NOT copying it from the old CC-BY-CA data, especially in this license case. This can be done for example by adding a source link to a GPS track or a clear link to BING imagery. Just make sure you DO trace from BING then, as referring to non-existant BING data may worsen the copyright status of this data. Note that the fact of copying a set of nodes this way would be easy to prove, as any arbitrary choice of a set of nodes describing a way will never resemble the original set, where randomly offsetting each node of the original will strongly resemble the original way. Gert Gremmen - Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest) Before printing, think about the environment. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Mike Dupont [mailto:jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com] Verzonden: woensdag 16 november 2011 20:14 Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions. Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Simon Poole wrote: That said, I believe P2 now has a tool that will completly replace a node with a new one at the same coordinates which is a bit of a fix for your specific issue. Just for clarification - what it actually does is remove the node (in a way) and create a new one at your _mouse_ position. You are choosing where to create the node. Neither the position nor the tags are inherited from the old node. (If you've not tried it: select old node, press O.) HI, does this mean that you can use this technique to lift data off any map, or just the old osm one? I am confused, for me it would be copying the position from somewhere. mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build
Gert Gremmen wrote: Using this O-trick violates the copyright of the previous owner, just as copying from google would violate their terms of service. As they have been for at least three years now, Gert, your opinions about Potlatch are 100% venting and 0% actual knowledge (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-December/032278.html, http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-January/032977.html, etc.) If you actually _used_ the software - which you've never shown any sign of doing and which I don't expect you to do any time soon - you would see that this is simply removing a finger movement from delete selected node, insert node at mouse position. The action is exactly the same, yet I don't hear you clamouring for the insert node function to be removed. It is a simple convenience for the mapper. As you would know if you actually used it, the node placement is entirely at the discretion of the mapper; Potlatch does not automatically place a node at the previous position or indeed anywhere. Just as with any other OSM editing, the mapper will usually be working from a background layer, such as Bing or a GPS track, and their placement will usually be based on this. And again, if you actually used the software, you would also find that Potlatch makes it very easy to add the source tag to a node or way during your edit, again with one single keypress. But why let the facts get in the way of a good rant, hey? Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OSM-Database-Re-Build-tp6997302p7001734.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build
It looks like we are going to need tools to look for checking relicensed nodes here. Do we have have CPU for that? I need hosting. thanks, mike On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Gert Gremmen wrote: Using this O-trick violates the copyright of the previous owner, just as copying from google would violate their terms of service. As they have been for at least three years now, Gert, your opinions about Potlatch are 100% venting and 0% actual knowledge (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-December/032278.html, http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-January/032977.html, etc.) If you actually _used_ the software - which you've never shown any sign of doing and which I don't expect you to do any time soon - you would see that this is simply removing a finger movement from delete selected node, insert node at mouse position. The action is exactly the same, yet I don't hear you clamouring for the insert node function to be removed. It is a simple convenience for the mapper. As you would know if you actually used it, the node placement is entirely at the discretion of the mapper; Potlatch does not automatically place a node at the previous position or indeed anywhere. Just as with any other OSM editing, the mapper will usually be working from a background layer, such as Bing or a GPS track, and their placement will usually be based on this. And again, if you actually used the software, you would also find that Potlatch makes it very easy to add the source tag to a node or way during your edit, again with one single keypress. But why let the facts get in the way of a good rant, hey? Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OSM-Database-Re-Build-tp6997302p7001734.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build
On 16.11.11 12:28, Simon Poole wrote: Currently there is no agreement on what exactly the rules/policy/algorithm will be to determine which objects or tags will survive the transition Sorry, but that's the core of the problem: this /has/ to be set first. ASAP. First we need the rules, then we can execute them. Doing thing's without knowing if they are necessary is stupid. That said, I believe P2 now has a tool that will completly replace a node with a new one at the same coordinates which is a bit of a fix for your specific issue. Throwing overboard the whole history just because nobody thought about it is not a great idea. Even further, there should be situations (according to Frederic's talk at FOSSGIS in Heidelberg) where the locals should decide if things should be kept or not. There should be set means to do this... It's somewhat strange that a timeframe is set without the prerequisites (the housework!) having been finished... /al ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build
You are right Richard. This O-trick actually is just a shortcut for delete and (re)place. Just the thread in which it is presented is a bit suspicious. The reason why anyone would want to remove a node and replace one at the same (or approximate) location escapes my logic. It disturbs history, and makes no contribution to the database at all. Unless the license issue of course And thank you for the compliment Richard (about the 0%) , I always appreciate comments from those who know better. Gert Gremmen - Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest) Before printing, think about the environment. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net] Verzonden: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 9:22 PM Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build Gert Gremmen wrote: Using this O-trick violates the copyright of the previous owner, just as copying from google would violate their terms of service. As they have been for at least three years now, Gert, your opinions about Potlatch are 100% venting and 0% actual knowledge (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-December/032278.html, http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-January/032977.html, etc.) If you actually _used_ the software - which you've never shown any sign of doing and which I don't expect you to do any time soon - you would see that this is simply removing a finger movement from delete selected node, insert node at mouse position. The action is exactly the same, yet I don't hear you clamouring for the insert node function to be removed. It is a simple convenience for the mapper. As you would know if you actually used it, the node placement is entirely at the discretion of the mapper; Potlatch does not automatically place a node at the previous position or indeed anywhere. Just as with any other OSM editing, the mapper will usually be working from a background layer, such as Bing or a GPS track, and their placement will usually be based on this. And again, if you actually used the software, you would also find that Potlatch makes it very easy to add the source tag to a node or way during your edit, again with one single keypress. But why let the facts get in the way of a good rant, hey? Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OSM-Database-Re-Build-tp6997302p7001734.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build
We (Switzerland and some parts of Germany) have for example started more or less systematic remapping of anonymous contributions. There is no real hope that a significant amount of this data will be re-licensed by the original mappers, and since these objects pre-date the introduction of history* (versions), they simply have to go. Obviously remapping doesn't not change the on-the ground geometry so it is likely that replacement nodes will be at the same or at least nearby locations, regardless of data source for the remapping (aerial images, GPS etc.). Simon Am 17.11.2011 07:07, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen: You are right Richard. This O-trick actually is just a shortcut for delete and (re)place. Just the thread in which it is presented is a bit suspicious. The reason why anyone would want to remove a node and replace one at the same (or approximate) location escapes my logic. It disturbs history, and makes no contribution to the database at all. Unless the license issue of course And thank you for the compliment Richard (about the 0%) , I always appreciate comments from those who know better. Gert Gremmen - Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest) Before printing, think about the environment. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net] Verzonden: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 9:22 PM Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build Gert Gremmen wrote: Using this O-trick violates the copyright of the previous owner, just as copying from google would violate their terms of service. As they have been for at least three years now, Gert, your opinions about Potlatch are 100% venting and 0% actual knowledge (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-December/032278.html, http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-January/032977.html, etc.) If you actually _used_ the software - which you've never shown any sign of doing and which I don't expect you to do any time soon - you would see that this is simply removing a finger movement from delete selected node, insert node at mouse position. The action is exactly the same, yet I don't hear you clamouring for the insert node function to be removed. It is a simple convenience for the mapper. As you would know if you actually used it, the node placement is entirely at the discretion of the mapper; Potlatch does not automatically place a node at the previous position or indeed anywhere. Just as with any other OSM editing, the mapper will usually be working from a background layer, such as Bing or a GPS track, and their placement will usually be based on this. And again, if you actually used the software, you would also find that Potlatch makes it very easy to add the source tag to a node or way during your edit, again with one single keypress. But why let the facts get in the way of a good rant, hey? Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OSM-Database-Re-Build-tp6997302p7001734.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build
-Original Message- From: Michael Collinson [mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz] Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 10:17 AM To: OSM Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build We suggest that re-mapping by individuals is more important initially than automated revert scripts as it puts back often more and better content than was taken out. We'd like therefore promote that and to concentrate on tools to help folks easily see what needs doing in their areas. Of course, it does not prevent the most obvious tasks like rolling back top-most edits where the editor has declined. Any different opinions on this? I have a couple of other questions to ask over the next week or so, but that is the main one to get things moving. Mike LWG On a related note, how do we deal with data which OSM does not have a license to distribute? Non-CT data will be a subcase of this, but the broader case also covers data taken from Google or a commercial map provider. Deleting the data with an editor does not remove it from the database. It remains distributed in the full history planets, through the API with /history and in the minutely diffs from when it was initially placed in the database. How do we get data removed from all of these sources? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
