date:20090228

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:


 CC-BY-SA says:

 You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
 digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a
 later version of this License with the same License Elements as this
 License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same
 License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Japan).

 slightly provocative
 Could we ask CC to declare that the new fabulous ODbL, after due revision
 and comments by the community, can be considered a Creative Commons
 iCommons
 licence for the purposes of the above - in much the same way as FSF
 permitted migration from GFDL to CC-BY-SA?
 /slightly provocative



It's my understanding that the ODbL is very different from a CC-BY-SA
license, so I think this would be a very unlikely thing to happen.

More importantly the Factual Information License, which is what contributors
will actually be signing up to, is totally unlike CC-BY-SA in every respect.

80n




 cheers
 Richard
 --
 View this message in context:
 http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22260709.html
 Sent from the OpenStreetMap - 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] A Creative Commons iCommons license


80n wrote:
 It's my understanding that the ODbL is very different from a CC-BY-SA
 license, so I think this would be a very unlikely thing to happen.

It's a share-alike licence with some attribution provision - I'd say that,
in fact, the two licences have pretty much the same intent. It's just that
one works for data and the other doesn't.

Two incompatible licences with the same intent is broadly why FSF agreed
to facilitate Wikipedia's migration to CC-BY-SA, too.

 More importantly the Factual Information License, which is what
 contributors
 will actually be signing up to, is totally unlike CC-BY-SA in every
 respect.

Right - so is the proposal that contributors actually sign up to FIL?
There's been some uncertainty over that in the past.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22260883.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - 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] A Creative Commons iCommons license

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:


 80n wrote:
  It's my understanding that the ODbL is very different from a CC-BY-SA
  license, so I think this would be a very unlikely thing to happen.

 It's a share-alike licence with some attribution provision - I'd say that,
 in fact, the two licences have pretty much the same intent. It's just that
 one works for data and the other doesn't.


It does have a share alike clause but it is different from the CC one.  As
it gives the user fewer rights it's hard to see how it would be compatible.

It does have an attribution clause but it is different from the CC one.  The
attribution is not to the original author.  Again fewer rights for the
contributor.


 Two incompatible licences with the same intent is broadly why FSF agreed
 to facilitate Wikipedia's migration to CC-BY-SA, too.


  More importantly the Factual Information License, which is what
  contributors
  will actually be signing up to, is totally unlike CC-BY-SA in every
  respect.

 Right - so is the proposal that contributors actually sign up to FIL?
 There's been some uncertainty over that in the past.


Database rights only exist for collections.  A single person's contribution
may not, on its own, be a database.  The only proposal I've seen, and it
appears to be a bit of an afterthought, is that contributors assign away
*all* their rights by agreeing to FIL.

I wonder if we are all discussing the wrong license?  The FIL seems to be a
much more important consideration for contributors than the ODbL.

80n





 cheers
 Richard
 --
 View this message in context:
 http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22260883.html
 Sent from the OpenStreetMap - 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] A Creative Commons iCommons license


80n wrote:
 It does have a share alike clause but it is different from the CC one.
 As it gives the user fewer rights it's hard to see how it would be 
 compatible.

In the analogue case, GFDL's share-alike is different from CC-BY-SA's, yet
the relicensing happened. The point is that compatible can actually be
decided by CC themselves.

This thing about ODbL giving the user fewer rights is an absolute canard
(quack). ODbL is not weaker copyleft than CC-BY-SA, it's simply expressed in
a way that is relevant to data. It provides the user with protection in
jurisdictions where copyright may not apply to data: CC-BY-SA doesn't. It
requires the producer of a derivative to publish the source: CC-BY-SA
doesn't.

Against this, ODbL clearly defines where the boundaries of sharealike lie in
relation to data. In some particular cases this could be viewed as fewer
rights. I actually don't see it that way. CC-BY-SA's application to data is
so unclear that the user effectively abrogates their rights in favour of the
guys with the best lawyers, who can pay to have it interpreted their way.
That isn't, by any stretch, more rights than ODbL - unless you're Google.

 It does have an attribution clause but it is different from the CC one.
 The attribution is not to the original author.  Again fewer rights for 
 the contributor.

Again, that's not true. ODbL simply says in 4.2c that you must c. Keep
intact any copyright or Database Right notices and notices that refer to
this Licence. That provides attribution to the copyright/db right holder,
i.e. the original author.

 [...]
 Database rights only exist for collections.  A single person's
 contribution
 may not, on its own, be a database.

That's definitely not true. A single person's contribution may certainly be
a database. The EU database right legislation makes no requirement for
multiple authorship and neither does ODbL.

 The only proposal I've seen, and it
 appears to be a bit of an afterthought, is that contributors assign away
 *all* their rights by agreeing to FIL.
 I wonder if we are all discussing the wrong license?  The FIL seems to be 
 a much more important consideration for contributors than the ODbL.

I definitely agree (yay) that the ODbL/FIL relationship needs much more
discussion than it's had to date.

I believe Jordan's original intent (but he can say this much better than me,
and contradict me if necessary) was that users' contributions could
individually be licensed under ODbL. Your contributions would be ODbL. My
contributions would be ODbL. OSM would aggregate them into one big ODbL
database. The multiple-attribution question is answered either by a
location (such as a relevant directory) where a user would be likely to look
for it (4.2d) being www.openstreetmap.org - or by users agreeing, as a
condition of contributing to OSM, that they choose not to place any
copyright or database right _notices_ on their contribution other than a
reference to ODbL.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22261200.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - 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] A Creative Commons iCommons license

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:


 80n wrote:
  It does have a share alike clause but it is different from the CC one.
  As it gives the user fewer rights it's hard to see how it would be
  compatible.

 In the analogue case, GFDL's share-alike is different from CC-BY-SA's, yet
 the relicensing happened. The point is that compatible can actually be
 decided by CC themselves.

 This thing about ODbL giving the user fewer rights is an absolute canard
 (quack). ODbL is not weaker copyleft than CC-BY-SA, it's simply expressed
 in
 a way that is relevant to data. It provides the user with protection in
 jurisdictions where copyright may not apply to data: CC-BY-SA doesn't. It
 requires the producer of a derivative to publish the source: CC-BY-SA
 doesn't.


I agree that ODbL does provide some additional rights, but it also removes
some rights and those are the ones that are are important to consider in the
context of an automatic relicensing.



 Against this, ODbL clearly defines where the boundaries of sharealike lie
 in
 relation to data. In some particular cases this could be viewed as fewer
 rights.


Indeed it is exactly this case I had in mind, where the license gives the
contributor fewer rights.  It creates a class of derivative works, called
Produced Works, that are not share alike.



 I actually don't see it that way. CC-BY-SA's application to data is
 so unclear that the user effectively abrogates their rights in favour of
 the
 guys with the best lawyers, who can pay to have it interpreted their way.
 That isn't, by any stretch, more rights than ODbL - unless you're Google.

  It does have an attribution clause but it is different from the CC one.
  The attribution is not to the original author.  Again fewer rights for
  the contributor.

 Again, that's not true. ODbL simply says in 4.2c that you must c. Keep
 intact any copyright or Database Right notices and notices that refer to
 this Licence. That provides attribution to the copyright/db right holder,
 i.e. the original author.


The attribution is to the owner of the database, not the author of the
work.  There is no requirement in ODbL to provide attribution to the authors
of the database's content.  Indeed the ODbL asserts that it provides no
protection over any of the content, just on the database as a collective
whole.  It makes the provision for the database content to be protected by
some other mechanism, such as copyright, but we see that the proposed FIL
license doesn't provide that protection.




  [...]
  Database rights only exist for collections.  A single person's
  contribution
  may not, on its own, be a database.

 That's definitely not true. A single person's contribution may certainly be
 a database. The EU database right legislation makes no requirement for
 multiple authorship and neither does ODbL.


Let me clarify.  The database right applies to a collection of facts.  An
individual contribution may not qualify as a database if it is not a
significant collection of facts, not because it is just one person.  Most
individual contributions will be insufficient *on their own* to constitute a
database.

If someone were to spend a few weeks mapping a town and then contribute that
town in one shot then that may be a database and so could be submitted to
OSM under an ODbL license.  But I don't think we want to encourage that kind
of behaviour.

The average contribution, a single editing session with JOSM or Potlatch,
would not constitute a database.




  The only proposal I've seen, and it
  appears to be a bit of an afterthought, is that contributors assign away
  *all* their rights by agreeing to FIL.
  I wonder if we are all discussing the wrong license?  The FIL seems to be
  a much more important consideration for contributors than the ODbL.

 I definitely agree (yay) that the ODbL/FIL relationship needs much more
 discussion than it's had to date.

 I believe Jordan's original intent (but he can say this much better than
 me,
 and contradict me if necessary) was that users' contributions could
 individually be licensed under ODbL.


If that were the case then the FIL license would not be necessary.

Your contributions would be ODbL. My
 contributions would be ODbL. OSM would aggregate them into one big ODbL
 database. The multiple-attribution question is answered either by a
 location (such as a relevant directory) where a user would be likely to
 look
 for it (4.2d) being www.openstreetmap.org - or by users agreeing, as a
 condition of contributing to OSM, that they choose not to place any
 copyright or database right _notices_ on their contribution other than a
 reference to ODbL.


Attribution to individuals is really really important to many contributors.
They give their time and effort, attribution is the *only* reward for these
people.  They want to be able to say I did that.






 cheers
 Richard
 --
 View this message in context:

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updates to ODbL related Wiki pages and outstanding issues

2009-02-28 Thread Mike Collinson

Legal review of Use Case doco with original Use Case text is now available at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases or go straight
to
http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/2008-02-28_legalreviewofosmlicenseusecases2.pdf

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Timeline can be deleted
and the link redirected to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan, I see
nothing that is not dated or duplicated. Sorry, I am not sure how to do this.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Open_Issues versus
Implementation_Issues. Some of are very general questions more related to the
license itself than our implementation. I've added some comments that may help
generate specific action items.

Mike

At 11:55 PM 27/02/2009, Peter Miller wrote:

I have been through the wiki pages that relate to the ODbL and updated
them where I can.

I have updated the name of the license to OdBL on all pages (I think).
I have updated the links to the license itself to point to
OpenDataCommons not OpenContentLawyer in all cases (I think).

I have also done some more work on the Use Cases page to make the
discussion points clearer. I have moved the legal council comments to
be directly below the Use Case is all cases and in some cases have
responded to questions. I have also moved the Wikimapia Use Case to
the negative Use Case list from the positive list. There is another
Use Case in the negative list relating to WIkipedia which I think
belongs in the Positive Use Case list but am waiting for any comments
on that one before moving it.

Here are the list of pages I believe are be relevant to the ODbL
license going forward.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Open_Data_Licence

Work that still needs to be done...

I don't have the knowledge to update the Time Line page
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Timeline ). I encourage
someone within the licensing team to update this page
and reconcile it with the new 'Implementation Plan' page
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan ).
In what way are these pages serving different purposes? Should one
be deleted and should any relevant content be transferred to the other?

A new blank 'Implementation Issues' page as been created (and is
referred to from the email announcement. Does this supersede the 'Open
Issues' page and should the content be moved to is from that page or
is it seen as being for something different? Could someone from the
license team clarify.

There are a number of important issues on the 'Open Issues' page
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Open_Issues ). I suggest
we build on this list in the coming days as required. I
have added an open question about 'who's feature is it' for license
transfer purposes. Are we to get any comment from the legal council or
the licensing team on any of these?

Regards,

Peter

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

[OSM-legal-talk] compatibility with CC licenses

2009-02-28 Thread John Wilbanks

merging several threads here

I am not speaking for CC the organization here - there have been no 
conversations to my knowledge about doing a compatibility check between 
ODbL and CC licensing. But, I would remind everyone that the current 
official CC policy on CC licenses and databases - indeed, on any legal 
tools other than PD for databases - is the science commons protocol on 
open access to data, which calls for the PD position only.

This position comes from a goal of promoting interoperability across 
domains of data. We started out endorsing the use of CC licenses on the 
copyrightable elements of databases but not the data itself. After 
about three years of research we decided that was a really Bad Thing if 
what we wanted was data integration.

The experience with GFDL and CC is instructive - even when freedoms are 
similar, license compatibility is hard. We are trying to promote a web 
of integrated data, where one can take gobs of clinical trial data and 
gobs of geospatial data and mash them together, and if each group has 
share alike licensing with slightly different wording, then 
interoperability fails. Not to mention what happens when you have to 
deal with things like patient privacy from open medical data mixing into 
the share alike requirements from non-medical data. We found that each 
community has its own norms and desires, and that embedding those norms 
into licenses was very likely to result in non-compatible legal code.

Please see 
http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/open-access-data-protocol/ 
for the formal position on these things.

jtw

ps - Jordan's PDDL was the first legal tool to comply with the protocol, 
and we're looking hard at creating some formal norms language and tools.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license

80n,

 Indeed it is exactly this case I had in mind, where the license gives the
 contributor fewer rights.  It creates a class of derivative works, called
 Produced Works, that are not share alike.

In my opinion, OSM's value is almost entirely in its being a database. 
If OSM were not a database, then any meaningful use of OSM I could think 
of would first require converting it into one! A license that protects 
this core capacity and makes sure that OSM data, when 
published/used/whatever as a database, remains free, does IMHO indeed 
capture the essential bit without wasting energy on the fringes.

You are right in saying that a Produced Work under ODbL does not carry 
the same restrictions as many believe it now has under CC-BY-SA, but I 
fail to see the use of implementing such restrictions. In my eyes, there 
is nothing worth protecting in a Produced Work when our data has 
lost its essential capability of being accessed as a database.

And the essential capability of database-ness is protected, as Richard 
pointed out, even if the data should be conveyed by means of a Produced 
Work.

Bye
Frederik

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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license

Hi

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
 FWIW, I do think that the ODbL Produced Work provisions _may_ need
 rewording. There seems to be a myth around here that a Produced Work can be
 public domain. Clearly it can't - not in the traditional sense of PD -
 because of 4.7 (the Reverse Engineering provision that dictates that the
 data is still copyleft). If there is any restriction on a work, it isn't PD.

I always thought that the reverse engineering provision would apply 
automatically through the database directive, so even if we allowed a 
Produced Work to be PD then reassembling them into a database would 
still make that database protected, but this was perhaps seen too much 
through European eyes.

Sadly, this makes it impossible to create a derived product from OSM-old 
and OSM-new because it could not be CC-BY-SA with that added 
restriction. So my before-after slippy map would have to be layered 
application.

Bye
Frederik

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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license

2009-02-28 Thread Rob Myers

 Very roughly (I'm generalising here), in both cases, Derivatives refer =
to a
 situation where the entire result is copyleft, Collectives refer to
 something where only part of it is.=20

A collective work includes the untransformed work.

A derivative work adapts it in some way.

One can claim copyright on either (IIRC), but as a pragmatic move
alternative licences tend to ignore collective works.

 Produced Works are a subclass of the
 latter, not a new class at all. The data component is still copyleft, a=
nd a
 stronger copyleft than CC-BY-SA gives, but other independently sourced
 components may not be.

Is this to handle the way people wish layers to work?

- Rob.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license

Hi,

Gustav Foseid wrote:
 The database directive does not stop you from making a geographic database,
 rendering it as a map and then releasing it under something like CC0. I am a
 bit unsure what kind of restriction the database directive could possibly
 have placed on that map.

Not on the map per se, but if you use the map to re-create the original 
database then - at least that's what I was thinking! - you are not using 
your own database but you are (again) using the database compiled by the 
original owner, so you need his permission to use it. This is - I 
thought - absolutely independent of the channel through which you 
received the original database.

Bye
Frederik

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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] compatibility with CC licenses

2009-02-28 Thread Simon Ward

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:42:57PM -0500, John Wilbanks wrote:
 I am not speaking for CC the organization here - there have been no 
 conversations to my knowledge about doing a compatibility check between 
 ODbL and CC licensing. But, I would remind everyone that the current 
 official CC policy on CC licenses and databases - indeed, on any legal 
 tools other than PD for databases - is the science commons protocol on 
 open access to data, which calls for the PD position only.
 
 This position comes from a goal of promoting interoperability across 
 domains of data. We started out endorsing the use of CC licenses on the 
 copyrightable elements of databases but not the data itself. After 
 about three years of research we decided that was a really Bad Thing if 
 what we wanted was data integration.

Interoperability of data would be nice, but as far as I am concerned
it’s not a primary aim unless the interoperability is with other
similarly free (freedom) and licensed such that further redistribution
is also free.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Lawyer responses to use cases, major problems

2009-02-28 Thread Simon Ward

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:58:04PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
 Having to grant access to pgsql data base
 ---
 
 In this use case we look at someone who does nothing more than taking 
 OSM data and rearranging it according to fixed rules, e.g. by running it 
 through osm2pgsql. The question we face is: Does this create a derived 
 database to which access has to be granted because of the share-alike 
 element of the license, or is it sufficient to say this is just the 
 planet file run through osm2pgsql?
 
 The lawyer's answer is: Need clarification here. From my reading, this 
 example would seem to constitute a Derivative Database under the ODbL.

It’s a database, derived from the original.  To me it’s a derived
database.  It does need clarifying to say just that.

   this could mean that 
 anyone running osm2pgsql importing minutely data updates would possibly 
 have to make available a ''psql dump of the whole planet'' for any 
 snapshot time where someone cares to request it.

So be it.

 The problem with the old license, the problem we're trying to solve 
 mainly, is that there were so many unresolved issues, that a strict 
 reading of the license could bring down most services overnight and 
 everyone depended on a relaxed reading. If things like the above are not 
 made very very clear and leave any room for interpretation then the new 
 license, again, has the potential to wreck many legitimate uses when 
 read strictly.

ODbL already defines derivatives, produced works and collective
databases separately, and is much more permissive for the latter two.
Distribute a derived database, share it please.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Lawyer responses to use cases, major problems

2009-02-28 Thread Jukka Rahkonen

Simon Ward si...@... writes:

  The lawyer's answer is: Need clarification here. From my reading, this 
  example would seem to constitute a Derivative Database under the ODbL.
 
 It’s a database, derived from the original.  To me it’s a derived
 database.  It does need clarifying to say just that.
 
this could mean that 
  anyone running osm2pgsql importing minutely data updates would possibly 
  have to make available a ''psql dump of the whole planet'' for any 
  snapshot time where someone cares to request it.
 
 So be it.


I agree that logically this is OK.  It is a database, derived from the original.
 I feel still that it is unreasonable to say that this kind of just imported and
hardly any modified dataset really is markable different from the original. 
 
I do regularly import some osm data into PostGIS and reproject it inside the
database.  Would it be enough to tell where to download the original OSM data
and what script to run, or should I really make a dump from my imported and
reprojected database tables if someone requests?  The result would be identical.

Where actually goes the limit between database and something else? I believe
that if I convert the data from osm format directly into ESRI Shapefiles then I
do not have a database, or do I?  But if I let ArcGIS to store the shapefile
data into its own personal geodatabase, then I would have a derived database
again?  How about if I store some attributes from osm data into Excel vs.
Access, the latter forms obviously a derived database while the first doesn't?






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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM 3D, featured image

2009-02-28 Thread Andy Robinson

OJ W wrote:
 Hi, this program has been suggested as a featured image:

 http://www.geographie.uni-bonn.de/karto/osm-3d/screenshots.en.htm

 but I can't decide which picture is best. can anyone help?

 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
   
Other than the terrain images most of the city views are pretty flat. 
Maybe ask them to produce a render of somwhere with plenty of OSM data 
and interesting terrain. Oh, and perhaps ask them to license that image 
CC-BY-SA or something.

Cheers

Andy

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

Re: [OSM-talk] cyclemap layer z18 trouble?

2009-02-28 Thread Andy Robinson

Richard Weait wrote:
 Anybody else having trouble with cyclemap at z18?

 For me, this link delivers only a blank white map area.  The browser
 claims to have finished loading.  Right-clicking on the map area does
 not offer view image.  

 I've tried this on Firefox/Linux and Epiphany/Linux and another
 browser/wine.  

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.652824lon=-79.383785zoom=18layers=00B0FTF

 Anybody else seeing this?  

 Best regards,
 Richard


 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
   
If you go to www.opencyclemap.org you will see lots of coming soon at Z18


Cheers

Andy

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

Re: [OSM-talk] rights of way and designation=*

2009-02-28 Thread Gustav Foseid

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Robert Vollmert
rvollmert-li...@gmx.netwrote:

 I've had a look at tagwatch (unfortunately not terribly up-to-date)
 and documented this suggestion and current use at
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation
 . Please flesh the page out! It'd be nice to have a list of sensible
 values there; also, should there be a :uk or uk: in the tag or
 value?


I think I was one of the first to mention uk (as in uk_row for the tag).
This was just to make the point that the tag could (and maybe even should)
be rather UK-specific, not necessarily that uk should be part of the name.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM 3D, featured image

2009-02-28 Thread MP

Nice images, but I found no software for generating the data (I'd like
to see another country in that way), so usability is somewhat limited.

But it could be nice image of what can be done, so I think we should
get one nice image from them to featured images. Maybe it'll inspire
someone to produce similar tool, but an opensource one.

Martin

 Other than the terrain images most of the city views are pretty flat.
  Maybe ask them to produce a render of somwhere with plenty of OSM data
  and interesting terrain. Oh, and perhaps ask them to license that image
  CC-BY-SA or something.

  Cheers


  Andy

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

Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true

2009-02-28 Thread David Earl

On 27/02/2009 22:42, Andy Robinson wrote:
 David Earl wrote:
 Clearly you have run out of mapping to find time to spot this :-D

Just monitoring the RSS feed for my area to spot breakages, which do 
happen from time to time.

 I recall the very early discussions and the first draft of Map Features 
 that we said it really didn't matter too hoots whether it was yes/true/1 
 as there was enough understanding in the value to know what it meant. 
 I'm still tagging most stuff with true and I can't give a reason why. 
 I'm not even remotely coding orientated so why I should have picked 
 true/false over yes/no I cannot say.

I don't much care either. I'm generally in the standards rather than 
the anarchist camp, but I don't care what things are called. I'm just 
as happy with true, yes or 1 in this case. The problem here is that most 
of the tools are the opposite, so chances are these changes are 
pointless and will tend to drift back again over time.

I'd still like to see a middle ground where tags can be added and 
amended at will but through a schema of some kind so the current 
position is documented and can be checked. But that's not what I was 
getting at here.

 But like you, the time making the change is wasted. Far more productive 
 to go and map something.

My point exactly.

David

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan


Ben Laenen wrote:
 Great use of the ellipsis. You may have missed that I actually had 
 some things to say there.

Yes, I'm sure you did. But what I was trying to say is that (IMO) the really
important bit is this:

 My hope basically when starting this thread was that these 
 fundamental issues would have been cleared up by now in 
 legal-talk or wherever since you now made the schedule available.

Seriously - who is this you?!!!

There is no you in OSM. There's a big us. It's an open source,
collaborative project. (I presume you can't mean the OSMF board in this
context as I'm not on it and haven't been for going on a year, as I'm sure
you checked on the OSMF website.)

I expect the OSMF people think they _have_ sorted out the fundamental
issues. Similarly, Potlatch does everything that I would ever need and I
never open another mapping program.

But, amazingly, some people have a different view and use this strange thing
called JOSM. Their definition of the fundamentals of mapping aren't the
same. That's good. We have thousands of mappers, of course they'll think
differently. And this is doubly true of licensing, which is always going to
be the single most controversial area in this or any open-source project.

So I want a very detailed answer, in your previous message, is the wrong
way to go about things. In my view, this could be a problem. Could we do
_this_ to solve it? is exactly the right way. Come and join in, it's fun.
:)

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22260658.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


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

[OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license


CC-BY-SA says:

You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a
later version of this License with the same License Elements as this
License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same
License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Japan). 

slightly provocative
Could we ask CC to declare that the new fabulous ODbL, after due revision
and comments by the community, can be considered a Creative Commons iCommons
licence for the purposes of the above - in much the same way as FSF
permitted migration from GFDL to CC-BY-SA?
/slightly provocative

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22260709.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license

Hi,

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
 Could we ask CC to declare that the new fabulous ODbL, after due revision
 and comments by the community, can be considered a Creative Commons iCommons
 licence

No, you'd never get Apple to agree.

Bye
Frederik


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

Re: [OSM-talk] cyclemap layer z18 trouble?

2009-02-28 Thread Dave Stubbs

2009/2/27 Richard Weait rich...@weait.com:
 Anybody else having trouble with cyclemap at z18?

 For me, this link delivers only a blank white map area.  The browser
 claims to have finished loading.  Right-clicking on the map area does
 not offer view image.

 I've tried this on Firefox/Linux and Epiphany/Linux and another
 browser/wine.

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.652824lon=-79.383785zoom=18layers=00B0FTF

 Anybody else seeing this?



The renderd process had crashed for some reason.. I've restarted it. I
deleted all the z18 tiles the other day because we're running out of
tile cache space (about 400GB)... a combination of that and the
process crash means that it's been churning out 404s for a while.
Anyway should all be working now.

Dave

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

Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true

2009-02-28 Thread Łukasz Jernaś

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:24 PM,  marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote:
 BTW, I added values-sections to the english, german and polish wiki-pages
 and stated that the semantics of other values are undefined and what cases
 may most likely happen.

Thanks, translated.

-- 
Łukasz

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

Re: [OSM-talk] permission to derive from Romanian streetview-alike?

2009-02-28 Thread Ciprian Talaba

I have created a new account called norcTracks
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/norcTracks, where I have uploaded
all the tracks donated by norc.ro. I managed to tag each track with
the city where the track belongs.

Besides the Romanian cities of: Bucharest, Constanta and the seaside
resorts, Iasi, Ploiesti, Pitesti, Targoviste, Brasov, the resorts on
Valea Prahovei, Cluj-Napoca and Timisoara there are tracks available
for the following cities:
- Wien
- Praha
- Bratislava
- Brno
- Kosice
- Krakow
- Warzawa
- Poznan
- Wroclaw
- Banská Bystrica

Hope it helps!

--Ciprian

On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Ciprian Talaba
cipriantal...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, we have permission to derive data from these images. Here is the email
I got from norc:

Dear Ciprian,
Of course you could freely use our data for all countries we have
data. We have more than the panorama gps tracks we have continuos gps
data collection between all
pano points. The logs are collected at 5Hz using U-blox 4t and 5t in
UBX raw mode. We are using high end antennas.
70% of our Romanian data is tracked using DGPS corrections with our
base in Bucharest (ashtech zx12) (we do not have logs from this base).
Also we are interested to use your data for our project, and in few
days we will release a version with your data. Here maybe we need some
guidance of how to handle your copyright.

We also have access to the logs, and I just started to convert them to GPX.
The logs will then be uploaded to OSM tagged with the corresponding city
name. The account will be announced here.

--Ciprian

On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 12:26 AM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote:

looks interesting:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Featured_image_proposals#StreetView_from_norc_with_OpenStreetMap

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

2009-02-28 Thread Ben Laenen

On Saturday 28 February 2009, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
  My hope basically when starting this thread was that these
  fundamental issues would have been cleared up by now in
  legal-talk or wherever since you now made the schedule available.

 Seriously - who is this you?!!!

With you I mean the people who are pushing ahead with this license 
change. The license plan didn't just come out of nowhere. I'm sure some 
people discussed it somewhere. So I mean those people.

 There is no you in OSM. There's a big us.

But just because there's a big us, is it too much to ask us 
for our opinion about the license change and for us to 
mention our concerns to the people mentioned above (from now on 
referred to as them)? I personally just don't like it that they 
just decided that in one month I have to immediately make a decision on 
relicensing my data. The implication of that question is too much to 
begin with, and as said I'm very wary that because I say yes I would 
pass the approvals across some kind of threshold which would delete say 
10% of all data and their derivative data which might include a lot of 
my work. I need to know first that that won't happen.


 So I want a very detailed answer, in your previous message, is the
 wrong way to go about things.

Well sorry, but I really do want it. Who comes up with it (it could be 
me) doesn't matter. This should really be resolved before getting to 
the question we will all get in a month.

Ben

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

[OSM-talk] OSM 3D, featured image // OpenStreetMap 3D Germany

2009-02-28 Thread Alexander Zipf

Hi there,

as the website already says: all data, images and videos are cc-by-sa.
The software was produced mainly in another project, so it can't be
open source for now.
The preprocessing and resultig structure of the data is very specialized
for our service infrastructure, database and use case and would probably
not be of that much value for others. Only if you would set up the whole
service infrastructure, which is a little demanding...
e.g. the processing of the Germany DEM alone (without buildings, POIs
etc.) needed more than 1300 CPU hours processing time. Thereofre it was
done on a computing-cluster...

Images: you can generate your own screenshots, by using the XNavigator
client, if you have a good bandwidth and a good computer with 3D
graphics card, Sun Java 1.6 etc. Maybe you put the ones you like best in
a Wiki-Space?
There are some more scenic cities in Germany, like Freiburg (or smaller
ones near the Alps) etc., we just had not time to make screenshots of
every city in Germany ;-)
but I put some more at this place (not yet on the website)
http://www.geographie.uni-bonn.de/karto/osm-3d/Screenshots/tmp/osm3d-germany.w3ds.Freiburg.PNG
http://www.geographie.uni-bonn.de/karto/osm-3d/Screenshots/tmp/osm3d-germany.w3ds.zaehringen.PNG
but larger cities with lot of OSM data tend to be use more space and
therfore are on flatter areas
and the smaller towns close to mountains may have less rich data (at
least with resepct to the tags we use so far for this first version),
but you can see the alps from munich etc.. maybe check also the videos.
The SRTM height data is not exaggerated at this time, so it may look a
little flat, but that is what the srtm data says... we will have an
option for visually exaggerating the DEM height values very soon, though.

As the processing of the DEM with integrating the streetslanduse takes
that long please be patient for updates. We are just starting to plan
for that. But point-like layers (POIs), labels and buildings shall be
updated ~weekly.

This is just the very first test version and trial and of course we will
try to improve the service and use more tags than now... we just wanted
to get this first version running, than we can think about how to proceed.

ps. I am away from my mail until March 08, so won't be able to answer...

best whishes
alexander zipf

http://www.osm-3d.org/
http://www.geographie.uni-bonn.de/karto/

/ Other than the terrain images most of the city views are pretty flat.
// Maybe ask them to produce a render of somwhere with plenty of OSM data
// and interesting terrain. Oh, and perhaps ask them to license that image
// CC-BY-SA or something.
//
// Cheers
//
//
// Andy
/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Saturday 28 February 2009, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
   My hope basically when starting this thread was that these
   fundamental issues would have been cleared up by now in
   legal-talk or wherever since you now made the schedule available.
 
  Seriously - who is this you?!!!

 With you I mean the people who are pushing ahead with this license
 change. The license plan didn't just come out of nowhere. I'm sure some
 people discussed it somewhere. So I mean those people.

  There is no you in OSM. There's a big us.

 But just because there's a big us, is it too much to ask us
 for our opinion about the license change and for us to
 mention our concerns to the people mentioned above (from now on
 referred to as them)? I personally just don't like it that they
 just decided that in one month I have to immediately make a decision on
 relicensing my data. The implication of that question is too much to
 begin with, and as said I'm very wary that because I say yes I would
 pass the approvals across some kind of threshold which would delete say
 10% of all data and their derivative data which might include a lot of
 my work. I need to know first that that won't happen.


We[1] are listening.  You'd prefer to stay with the same license than lose
10% of the data.  We should take that kind of feedback on board.

What percentage of data would other people feel willing to see sacrificed in
order to move forward with the new license?  We should probably exclude mass
donated data as 90% is probably TIGER anyway.  So what percentage of *user
contributed* data would other people feel willing to see sacrificed in order
to move forward with the new license?

80n

[1] We = Us



  So I want a very detailed answer, in your previous message, is the
  wrong way to go about things.

 Well sorry, but I really do want it. Who comes up with it (it could be
 me) doesn't matter. This should really be resolved before getting to
 the question we will all get in a month.

 Ben

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

2009-02-28 Thread David Earl

On 28/02/2009 12:21, 80n wrote:
 So what percentage of *user contributed* data would other people feel 
 willing to see sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license?

I think I'd need to see what the data is rather than put it in 
percentage terms.

For example, let's say we're going to lose lots of one way streets (that 
I mapped originally) in my area because user X went round changing them 
from 'yes' to 'true' and then decided they didn't agree with the license 
(or more likely weren't contactable any more), then I could in principle 
recreate these from my original data. Not that I want to spend time 
doing this, but if I had to I could.

But in any case, I'd say 10% is too high. Even if it's 0.1% but it's all 
in my area because there's a particular individual working here blocking 
it, it's WAY too high and would destroy over two years of my work.

Personally, if we lose anything that isn't easily remapped (i.e. almost 
zero work), I'd rather stick with the old license.

Trouble is, I can't vote no once I've voted yes, but if I vote no 
initially, I'll be undermining everyone else.

David


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

[OSM-talk] oneway yes or true

2009-02-28 Thread Nick Hocking

I think that the  important issue here is respect for others' edits.

Personally I only use true/false  0/1 when coding computer programs. In real
life I think that
yes/no is much better.

However all schemes are correct and therefore no one should modify someone
elses edits just on the basis of
a personal preference.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

2009-02-28 Thread OJ W

Do we need to collect stats on what percentage of data is from users
who are active and contactable and still care about editing maps?
(e.g. what percentage of non-bulk-upload data was originally from
someone who logged-in within the last month)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

2009-02-28 Thread vegard

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 01:09:31PM +, OJ W wrote:
 Do we need to collect stats on what percentage of data is from users
 who are active and contactable and still care about editing maps?
 (e.g. what percentage of non-bulk-upload data was originally from
 someone who logged-in within the last month)
 

That would be a good metric. Also,

- how many users have not logged in for a year ?
- how many users with significant/long-term contributions have not
  logged in for a month/year ?
-- 
- Vegard Engen, member of the first RFC1149 implementation team.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] cyclemap layer z18 trouble?

2009-02-28 Thread Jon Burgess

On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 11:20 +, Dave Stubbs wrote:
 The renderd process had crashed for some reason.. I've restarted it. I
 deleted all the z18 tiles the other day because we're running out of
 tile cache space (about 400GB)... a combination of that and the
 process crash means that it's been churning out 404s for a while.
 Anyway should all be working now.

I'd be interested if you could obtain a backtrace for any crashes and
I'll investigate them. Capturing the core file by running the renderd
from a shell with ulimit -c unlimited seems to be the best way to do
this.

Over the past couple of days I've seen several crashes on the main OSM
site and I've just tracked one of them back to an infinite recursion
problem in the agg code. Applying the attached patch seems to fix it,
provided you build with INTERNAL_LIBAGG=True. 

I have not been able to figure out which OSM feature was triggering
this, but it occurs when rendering the metatile containing:
http://tile.openstreetmap.org/17/78728/52568.png

Jon
Index: agg/include/agg_rasterizer_cells_aa.h
===
--- agg/include/agg_rasterizer_cells_aa.h	(revision 930)
+++ agg/include/agg_rasterizer_cells_aa.h	(working copy)
@@ -323,6 +323,12 @@
 {
 int cx = (x1 + x2)  1;
 int cy = (y1 + y2)  1;
+
+// Bail if values are so large they are likely to wrap
+if ((abs(x1) = INT_MAX/2) || (abs(y1) = INT_MAX/2) ||
+(abs(x2) = INT_MAX/2) || (abs(y2) = INT_MAX/2))
+return;
+
 line(x1, y1, cx, cy);
 line(cx, cy, x2, y2);
 }
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

2009-02-28 Thread David Earl

On 28/02/2009 13:29, veg...@engen.priv.no wrote:
 - how many users with significant/long-term contributions have not
   logged in for a month/year ?

The 'significant' bit is not the point: it only needs people to have 
made *insignificant* changes to other people's *significant* changes 
(including original mapping) to be invalidated.

But most important of all is to know what's happening or going to happen 
so any damage can be repaired (without infringing on the 
ex-contributor's changes of course)

David


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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan


80n wrote:
 What percentage of data would other people feel willing to see 
 sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license?

I'd be interested to see this related to our userbase and editing stats.

If (say) we lose 5%, how many months - at current rates of growth - does it
take us to get back to the previous level?

And an alternative way of looking at it is: might we lose people if we stick
with CC-BY-SA? I suspect whatever decision is made, some people will leave;
the question is how long it takes us to recover.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22262330.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

2009-02-28 Thread OJ W

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:

 80n wrote:
 What percentage of data would other people feel willing to see
 sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license?

 I'd be interested to see this related to our userbase and editing stats.

 If (say) we lose 5%, how many months - at current rates of growth - does it
 take us to get back to the previous level?

And how will future growth be affected if potential contributors know
that peoples' work was discarded in the past?

(are there any stats from wikipedia on this - their notability
campaign involves deleting peoples' work, so they might know about how
much if at all it deters people from contributing when the project has
a history of removing stuff)

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:


 80n wrote:
  Indeed it is exactly this case I had in mind, where the license gives
  the contributor fewer rights.  It creates a class of derivative works,
  called Produced Works, that are not share alike.

 No. This is really, really important.


No.  CC-BY-SA does not have a class of derivative works that are not share
alike.  ODbL does.  Under ODbL the share alike clause does not apply to any
derivative works (except derived databases).  This is clearly *less*
restrictive than CC-BY-SA.  We are asking people to agree to a weaker
license in this particular respect.



 The concept of a Produced Work is not ODbL magically exempting more works
 from copyleft. Produced Works is simply ODbL's effort to _define_ something
 that exists in all copyleft licences. It isn't a new class of restriction.


Yes it is.  CC-BY-SA does not exempt any derived work from share alike.
ODbL does.



 * CC-BY-SA uses two terms to describe how work uses the original:
 Derivative Work and Collective Work.
 * ODbL uses three terms: Derivative Database, Produced Work and Collective
 Database.

 Very roughly (I'm generalising here), in both cases, Derivatives refer to a
 situation where the entire result is copyleft, Collectives refer to
 something where only part of it is. Produced Works are a subclass of the
 latter, not a new class at all. The data component is still copyleft, and a
 stronger copyleft than CC-BY-SA gives, but other independently sourced
 components may not be.

 We have this at the moment. Think of CloudMade's* routing application. Its
 raison d'etre is OSM data, and anything derived from that is theoretically
 copyleft (not, ahem, that CC-BY-SA requires it to be contributed back). But
 no-one is suggesting that CloudMade have to release their code under
 CC-BY-SA. The GPL is similar. If you compile a program with GCC, the binary
 contains all the optimisations that are probably the most creative aspect
 of GCC, so in moral terms it could be considered a derivative. But no-one's
 suggesting your code therefore has to be GPLed.

 ODbL just uses a new term to help firm up the boundaries. The fact we're
 still arguing five years on (cf flosm.de) about what's derivative and
 collective when CC-BY-SA is applied to data shows how better terminology is
 desperately needed.


 FWIW, I do think that the ODbL Produced Work provisions _may_ need
 rewording. There seems to be a myth around here that a Produced Work can be
 public domain. Clearly it can't - not in the traditional sense of PD -
 because of 4.7 (the Reverse Engineering provision that dictates that the
 data is still copyleft). If there is any restriction on a work, it isn't
 PD.
 This is perhaps not apparent and could do with hardening up.


I agree that a Produced Work is not PD.  Strictly it's licensed as an ODbL
Produced Work, but as you say it's very hard to figure out what rights such
a work has just from trying to read the ODbL.  Redrafting is required to
make this part of the license usable.




  The attribution is to the owner of the database, not the author of the
  work.  There is no requirement in ODbL to provide attribution to the
  authors of the database's content.  Indeed the ODbL asserts that it
  provides no protection over any of the content, just on the database
  as a collective whole.  It makes the provision for the database content
  to be protected by some other mechanism, such as copyright, but we
  see that the proposed FIL license doesn't provide that protection.

 Again, this hinges on whether FIL _is_ what's proposed. I don't believe
 that
 was Jordan's intention.


As I understand it Jordan is not our lawyer and cannot advise us on whether
or not we should use the FIL.

According to Grant's email of Feb 27th OSMF have been advised by Clark Asay
of Wilson Sonsini to use the FIL.  Grant can you publish a copy of that
advice so that we can see exactly what was said please?





 The wiki is contradictory: in one place it says
  Sign up page now states you agree to license your changes under both
 CCBYSA and also ODbL.

 but in another
  when you upload your individual contributions, you agree to licence them
 under the Factual Info Licence.

 You're on the OSMF board, you can tell us. :)


The FIL has never been discussed by the OSMF board.  I know no more about it
than you.



 For what it's worth, I
 distinctly remember Jordan telling me in Reading that he expected
 individual
 users to license their contributions under ODbL; and though in my heart of
 hearts I'm a PD person and prefer things like the FIL, I too think that
 ODbL
 is pragmatically what OSM should be adopting here.

   [...]
   Database rights only exist for collections.  A single person's
   contribution may not, on its own, be a database.
  [...]
  Let me clarify.  The database right applies to a collection of facts.
  An individual contribution may not qualify as a database if it

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license


80n wrote:
 No.  CC-BY-SA does not have a class of derivative works that are not 
 share alike.  ODbL does.

No it doesn't, that's the entire point of what I said. (Is this the
five-minute argument or the full half-hour?) This is what 4.7 in ODbL is all
about. The data is still protected, if that's the kind of language you
like, by share-alike at all times.

 As I understand it Jordan is not our lawyer and cannot advise us on 
 whether or not we should use the FIL.

So now I am utterly confused.

Some people called Wilson Sonsini have advised us to use ODbL in a manner
which is not, AIUI, the manner recommended by the licence co-author, who one
would presume understands these things.

And here I am debating with an OSMF board member who appears to be arguing
_against_ the licence being recommended by OSMF.

What on earth is going on?

Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22262758.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Ulf Möller use...@ulfm.de wrote:

 80n schrieb:

  What percentage of data would other people feel willing to see sacrificed
 in order to move forward with the new license?


 Judging from the discussions at various places, loosing data seems to be
 the main concern with the new license.

 I think a longer transition period would help to alleviate that concern.
 We've had CC-BY-SA licensed planet files for several years now, so adding
 another year - while dual-licensing all new contributions - wouldn't seem to
 cause much damage.

 If the contributions from users who don't agree to the new license were to
 remain in the database for some time, but be marked as legacy data (and
 perhaps shown in a particularly ugly color in the editors), mappers can
 replace that data as part of their regular mapping and data verification
 activities.


We know that the appearance of rendered data is a very strong influence.  I
would consider this to be a totally unacceptable way of making people agree
to a new license.




 I believe in that way most of the old data would be replaced within a just
 few months without causing much disruption.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] oneway yes or true

2009-02-28 Thread Ed Loach

Nick wrote:

 However all schemes are correct and therefore no one should 
 modify someone elses edits just on the basis of a personal 
 preference. 

It depends how you define correct. Anyone can tag anything any way
they like, but it helps to follow the commonly accepted tags (such
as those listed in the wiki, as well as probably many that are
widely used that haven't made it there yet) so that other software
can render meaningful maps from it.

And it isn't just on the basis of personal preference. As sly
wrote on this list recently:
 I can't rembember how many (oneway='yes' or oneway='true' or
oneway='1') 
 there are in the mapnik style's sheets I use.

Having lots of different ways of tagging the same thing leads to
unnecessary complexity for consumers of the data. Simplifying the
data makes it more usable. 

Ed



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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Ulf Möller use...@ulfm.de wrote:

 80n schrieb:

  If the contributions from users who don't agree to the new license
  were to remain in the database for some time, but be marked as
  legacy data (and perhaps shown in a particularly ugly color in the
  editors), mappers can replace that data as part of their regular
  mapping and data verification activities.
 
  We know that the appearance of rendered data is a very strong
  influence.  I would consider this to be a totally unacceptable way of
  making people agree to a new license.

 But simply making the data _disappear_ is acceptable? Weird.


Sorry, I misread your message as a suggestion that users could be coerced to
change to the new license by rendering their data in an ugly way.  That's
not what you said.

Actually, the data doesn't really disappear, it will always be available in
some old planet file, and I'm sure some renderer would show the old data,
perhaps as a separate layer.  ODbL layer + CC layer = what license?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

2009-02-28 Thread Donald Allwright

From: David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com

The 'significant' bit is not the point: it only needs people to have 
made *insignificant* changes to other people's *significant* changes 
(including original mapping) to be invalidated.

Linking this chain of thought with the one that myself and Richard Fairhurst 
were discussing earlier on in another strand of this thread, I wonder if the 
insignificant changes could/would/should be deemed not to be copyrightable at 
all. It certainly doesn't add any creativity to change a 'yes' to 'true', and 
as long as it's insignificant in quantity wouldn't be as a result of hard 
labour of any sort. Depends on jurisdiction of course, but maybe the 
contributions of this individual who refuses to agree to the new licence (or 
maybe just isn't contactable) could therefore be essentially ignored and left 
as is in the database without worrying about them? At the end of the day, if 
the individual comes back and objects to this at a later date, we can still 
remove them at that point in time if they have a good case that their small 
'contributions' are indeed copyrightable.

Donald



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

[OSM-talk] Proposed features/snowshed

2009-02-28 Thread Sam Vekemans

Hi Richard,Looking at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/snowshed

Based on this proposal, as 'snowshed=yes' is both relevant to the GeoBase
NRN, (road segment class), as well as for the CanVec Railway tag features.
 I will put this tag as temporary, with the note of 'canvec:FIXME,needs to
be further defined; Please update wiki chart'

The other option (that was requested on the talk-ca list) was to use
'tunnel=yes', so i have add that as a temporary placeholder. ... I think
that it makes sense to have this, as it is not dug out, nor is it a
building.

Once more people start to agree and comment on it, with no significant
objections.  Then I'll make the change for the canvec2osm program.

Cheers,
Sam Vekemans
Across Canada Trails
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM shortcuts/macro for Gaza editing

2009-02-28 Thread LeedsTracker

2009/2/27 LeedsTracker leedstrac...@gmail.com:
 2009/2/25 Jonas Krückel (John07) o...@jonas-krueckel.de:
 If this instruction is good enough, i can put it on the wiki page. A
 icon for this preset would be nice, ideas?

 Did it:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:WikiProject_Palestine_Gaza#JOSM_presets_for_highway.3Droad_and_source.3DWPGS_WMS2m


I just applied the same idea to Yahoo WMS image editing with some icons:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/WMSPlugin#Adding_presets_for_objects_and_source.3Dyahoo_wms

cheers,
LT

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

Re: [OSM-talk] cyclemap layer z18 trouble?

2009-02-28 Thread Jon Burgess

On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 13:38 +, Jon Burgess wrote:
 On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 11:20 +, Dave Stubbs wrote:
  The renderd process had crashed for some reason.. I've restarted it. I
  deleted all the z18 tiles the other day because we're running out of
  tile cache space (about 400GB)... a combination of that and the
  process crash means that it's been churning out 404s for a while.
  Anyway should all be working now.
 
 I'd be interested if you could obtain a backtrace for any crashes and
 I'll investigate them. Capturing the core file by running the renderd
 from a shell with ulimit -c unlimited seems to be the best way to do
 this.
 
 Over the past couple of days I've seen several crashes on the main OSM
 site and I've just tracked one of them back to an infinite recursion
 problem in the agg code. Applying the attached patch seems to fix it,
 provided you build with INTERNAL_LIBAGG=True. 
 
 I have not been able to figure out which OSM feature was triggering
 this, but it occurs when rendering the metatile containing:
 http://tile.openstreetmap.org/17/78728/52568.png

I found the way causing the problem, approx 1km long:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/31278148

It seems unusual for a new way to be using such low node IDs, it looks
like something got confused when creating new nodes.

Jon


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:


 80n wrote:
  No.  CC-BY-SA does not have a class of derivative works that are not
  share alike.  ODbL does.

 No it doesn't, that's the entire point of what I said. (Is this the
 five-minute argument or the full half-hour?) This is what 4.7 in ODbL is
 all
 about. The data is still protected, if that's the kind of language you
 like, by share-alike at all times.


Let's recap.  This thread started with your question about whether it would
be feasible to just ask CC to agree that ODbL was a compatible license and
avoid all the trouble of having to bother contributors with lots of boring
legal stuff.

I replied by suggesting that the ODbL license is not compatible and in some
cases removes rights that the contributor currently has.

So let's stay focussed not on the additional protections that ODbL offers,
but on those rights that it takes away.

If I create a nice rendering of some OSM data under the current license it
is a derivative work that is covered by CC and both the share-alike and
attribution clauses explicitly apply to it.

If I create the same nice rendering under the ODbL then it is classed as a
Produced Work.  A produced work is subject to attribution (4.3) but is not
subject to share alike (4.5b).

Since share alike is a key part of the CC-BY-SA license this is a clear
example of a case where a contributors rights are less in the ODbL than in
CC-BY-SA.  That's why it would be very unlikely that CC would agree to class
ODbL as a compatible license.  Because it isn't compatible.




  As I understand it Jordan is not our lawyer and cannot advise us on
  whether or not we should use the FIL.

 So now I am utterly confused.

 Some people called Wilson Sonsini have advised us to use ODbL in a manner
 which is not, AIUI, the manner recommended by the licence co-author, who
 one
 would presume understands these things.


Well Jordan is the author of the FIL and we can assume he did it for a
reason.  It is published adjacent to the ODbL license on a web-site that is
managed by Jordan, so I think there are some clues there.

It's quite possible that Jordan had a different opinion a year ago when all
this kicked off.




 And here I am debating with an OSMF board member who appears to be arguing
 _against_ the licence being recommended by OSMF.

 What on earth is going on?


I'm neither argueing for or against the license.  I'm engaging in a
conversation that I hope will help me, and others, to better understand the
implications of the new license.  Most board members have only recently seen
a copy of the license so they have no more knowledge about it than anyone
else.

We will be making a decision on whether to recommend it to OSMF membership
at our board meeting on March 31st and I'm sure that all the board members
will be paying close attention to the discussions on these various forums
between now and then.  I doubt any board member would put their name to the
license without careful consideration.

And for the record, I haven't spent enough time with the license yet to know
which way I might go on it.

80n





 Richard
 --
 View this message in context:
 http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22262758.html
 Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at
 Nabble.com.


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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM 3D, featured image

2009-02-28 Thread Igor Brejc

MP wrote:
 But it could be nice image of what can be done, so I think we should
 get one nice image from them to featured images. Maybe it'll inspire
 someone to produce similar tool, but an opensource one.

 Martin
   
Hi,

I was inspired some time ago 
(http://igorbrejc.net/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-3d-short-video), but 
with all the other stuff I'm working on, I just haven't found the time 
to implement this properly.

Igor

-- 
http://igorbrejc.net


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Moving the island of Guam

2009-02-28 Thread Craig Harris

Hi David,

I was hoping to have a quick and dirty way of moving 40k+ nodes.  I'm
currently shifting the island of Guam and it will take about 10+ hours.

Many thanks for your help as I really needed the search term
source:tiger_import.

Craig

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:05:14 -, David Groom
da...@dmgroom.wanadoo.co.uk said:
 - Original Message - 
 From: Craig Harris baco...@fastmail.fm
 To: talk@openstreetmap.org
 Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 4:10 AM
 Subject: [OSM-talk] Moving the island of Guam
 
 
  
  Is there a quick way to realign the tiger data for the whole island of
  Guam?
  
 
 
 Open JOSM with plenty of memory
 
 Download data for the island,
 
 Download some Yahoo imagery (if thats what you want to realign to)
 
 Do a search for source:tiger_import
 
 Drag all found nodes to realign the data
 
 David
 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

2009-02-28 Thread Iván Sánchez Ortega

El Sábado, 28 de Febrero de 2009, 80n escribió:
 So what percentage of *user contributed* data would other people feel 
 willing to see sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license?

I'm one of the persons who consider CC-by-sa to be a risk for the integrity of 
the project (i.e. there are potential legal loopholes).

I'd rather nuke half the user-contributed data than lose everything.

Also, I think we're making history here: there is the GPL as a share-alike 
*software* license, the CC-by-sa as a share-alike *artistic* license and 
there will be ODbL as a share-alike *database* license.

This is a bold move, as OSM is the first project to embark into a share-alike 
license for databases (and I'm happy we're pioneering this field). I also 
think it's a much needed move.

-- 
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es

Un ordenador no es un televisor ni un microondas, es una herramienta compleja.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es
 wrote:

 El Sábado, 28 de Febrero de 2009, 80n escribió:
  So what percentage of *user contributed* data would other people feel
  willing to see sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license?

 I'm one of the persons who consider CC-by-sa to be a risk for the integrity
 of
 the project (i.e. there are potential legal loopholes).

 I'd rather nuke half the user-contributed data than lose everything.


50% right?




 Also, I think we're making history here: there is the GPL as a share-alike
 *software* license, the CC-by-sa as a share-alike *artistic* license and
 there will be ODbL as a share-alike *database* license.

 This is a bold move, as OSM is the first project to embark into a
 share-alike
 license for databases (and I'm happy we're pioneering this field). I also
 think it's a much needed move.

 --
 --
 Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es

 Un ordenador no es un televisor ni un microondas, es una herramienta
 compleja.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] server cannot find mod_tile

2009-02-28 Thread Kenneth Gonsalves

On Friday 27 February 2009 17:08:00 Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
  So - back a stage, how did you install mapnik? Source or an rpm?

 it was from svn head. I went back and built it again. Then rebuilt
 mod_tile. Got no errors. Ran ./renderd - first got an error as it was
 looking fonts in /usr/local/lib64/mapnik/fonts. Found this hardcoded and
 changed it. Now both renderd and renderd.py give the same error:

 Render fd(6) xml(Default), z(0), x(0), y(0)
 ./renderd: symbol lookup error: ./renderd: undefined symbol:
 _ZN6mapnik3Map15set_buffer_sizeEi

solved - the broken build had put libmapnik.so in /usr/lib whereas the correct 
build had put it in /usr/local/lib. I removed the b0rked files and all is 
serene - thanks a lot for your help.
-- 
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate
NRC-FOSS
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/

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

[talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL License + Outline Procedure

2009-02-28 Thread Nick Hocking

  I started reading the ODbL licence but in the preamble it stated that this
licence only covers the database itself and not
 the contents of the database.

I stopped reading at this point since I am only interested in the contents
of the database and have minimal interest is the database itself.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] suburb boundaries import

2009-02-28 Thread Franc Carter

Is now running, please leave anything with source=ABS_2006 alone
until the import is complete

cheers

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

[talk-au] Validator in JOSM - extra picky?

2009-02-28 Thread Gordon Smith

OK, so I admit that I might hide under a rock now and again and not
know the latest and greatest gossip about every plugin that JOSM might
use; hence this (perhaps tirvial) question.

Once upon a time the Validator plugin for JOSM would let me know when
I'd made silly typos, or hadn't tagged something appropriately, or had
crossing ways, etc.   And all was well in the world of maping.

Now, when I use the current version of Validator, in conjunction with
josm-latest, I'm told that pretty much every tag I've ever used in the
past doesn't exist in the presets.  It doesn't like the name key
(even when the preset lets me type a name in), it doesn't like
source=survey, it doesn't like type in relations, ..., and on and
on.  It's got to the point where I can't see the real errors because
of the volume of warnings that now appear.

Neither the wiki nor Google have helped me track down why these
informational errors are now being spat back at me.

So, dear list members, what pronouncement have I missed?  What has
been updated or changed that I don't yet know about?

Cheers,

Gordon
-- 
Gordon Smith
http://las.new-england.net.au/
http://macalba.net/blog/

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

Re: [Talk-de] verschachtelte Multipolygone

Hi,

Dirk Stöcker schrieb:
 Kein Stern heisst nicht richtig, sondern nur dass JOSM keinen Fehler 
 bemerkt hat. JOSM bemerkt nur Fehler, über die er beim Zeichnen stolpert 

Ich dachte bisher immer der Stern bedeutet, das nicht alle Mitglieder 
der Relation vollständig heruntergeladen worden. Gibts denn noch ne 
andere Bedeutung?

Spielt es ne Rolle (Unterschied) ob der Stern vor multipolygon steht 
oder in den Klammern (rahmt aber vermutlich nur den Namen der Relation 
ein, oder?).

schönen Gruß
Alex

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

Re: [Talk-de] OpenStreetMap 3D als Webanwendung


On Sat, 28 Feb 2009, Chris-Hein Lunkhusen wrote:


Und noch ein dritter Hinweis. Alle Umlaute werden bei mir als ý
dargestellt.


Bei mir alles ok.


Ich nutze als Systemeinstellung unter Linux schon lange UTF-8. WinXP nimmt 
immer noch iso8859-15. Ist mir auch schon bei einem anderen Java-Programm 
aufgefallen, dass es da Probleme geben kann wenn der Programmierer nicht 
aufpasst.


Ciao
--
http://www.dstoecker.eu/ (PGP key available)___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [Talk-de] OpenStreetMap 3D als Webanwendung

Alexander Zipf schrieb:

 Die Label und als Symbole dargestellten Punktlayer sollen wöchentlich 
 aktualisiert werden. Für die 3D-Gebäude ist das auch geplant. Bei den 
 Gebäuden sollen zukünftig mehr Tags ausgelesen und für differenziertere 
 Darstellungen (Höhen, Typ, Farben etc.) verwendet werden. Bzgl. Strassen 
 und sonstiger Landnutzung im DGM wird noch am Konzept gearbeitet...

Ich hatte gesehen, dass man die Höhe der Buildings beeinflussen
kann, welcher Tag wird da ausgewertet?

 Das Ganze ist eine Java WebStart-Anwendung und nutzt Java3D - auch daher 
 die Systemvoraussetzungen - es werden nunmal alle 3D-Daten zum Client 
 übertragen und dort gerendert. Per WebStart kann zudem nicht lokal auf 
 die Festplatte gechached werden, 

auch nicht durch Zertifizierung des Applets?

Chris


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

Re: [Talk-de] Neue Lizenz: Forschritte

Hallo,

Johannes Hüsing wrote:
 Das finde ich gerade nicht. Auf dem Markt gibt es doch zahlreiche 
 Datenbanken wie OSM.

Fuer einen *Nutzer*, der einen Haufen Geld in der Tasche hat und der 
sich nicht fuer Fusswege interessiert, gibt es einige Alternativen, an 
Daten zu kommen.

Aber fuer einen *Mitmacher* gibt es keine anderen Projekte, bei denen er 
sich einbringen kann; und in gewisser Weise moechten wir auch, dass das 
so bleibt, denn wir brauchen jeden verfuegbaren Mapper fuer OSM.

Ein Software-Projekt, selbst wenn es ein grosses wie der Linux-Kernel 
ist, kann voellig problemlos damit leben, wenn die Haelfte aller 
Developer auf der Welt sich statt in Linux lieber in Lunix einbringen. 
Es gibt ohnehin kaum Software-Projekte, an denen ansatzweise so viele 
Leute mitarbeiten wie an OpenStreetMap, das ist ja allein schon von der 
Infrastruktur in einem Softwareprojekt kaum machbar.

Aber bei OSM wuerde ich mich ziemlich aergern, wenn sich die Haelfte 
aller Mapper bei einer Alternative beteiligen wuerden...

Bye
Frederik

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

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

Re: [Talk-de] OpenStreetMap 3D als Webanwendung

2009-02-28 Thread Hatto von Hatzfeld

Dirk Stöcker wrote:

 On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Alexander Zipf wrote:
 wir haben angefangen zu untersuchen wie sich OSM-Daten für
 3D-Web-Anwendungen nutzen lassen.
 Ein erster Prototyp ist nun testweise online verfügbar.
 http://www.osm-3d.org/
 Das man sich mit dem Programm die Radieschen von unten anschauen kann ist
 lustig (ich würde es aber als Bug bezeichnen). Das ich nach 3 Minuten
 testen meinen Linux-Rechner neu booten musste, weil er total tot war ist
 weniger lustig (bin ich gar nicht mehr gewohnt).

Hier (SuSE 10 für Dual Core) kein Problem.
 
 Und noch ein dritter Hinweis. Alle Umlaute werden bei mir als ý
 dargestellt.

Das ist bei mir auch der Fall. Nicht im Suchformular, aber in der 3-D-Karte.
Hängt wohl damit zusammen, dass mein PC mit UTF-8 als Standard läuft.

 Aber hübsch ist es. Ich schau bei Version 0.40 mal wieder vorbei :-) 

Nun - auch wenn es bis dahin noch einiges zu tun gibt, ist das schon ein
sehr schöner Anfang.

Grüße,
Hatto


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

Re: [Talk-de] verschachtelte Multipolygone

Hallo,

Alexander Schulze schrieb:
 und für den 2. Anwendungsfall. Hab zum Beispiel gesehen, dass die Insel 
 Mainau im Bodensee zwar als Insel dargestellt wird, aber das zusätzliche 
 tag leisure=park ignoriert wird, allerdings nur von Mapnik. Auch nicht 
 definiert oder falsches tagging?

da habe ich folgendes auf den wiki-Seiten gefunden 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_FAQ.

So wirds dann auch in beiden Renderern richtig dargestellt. Allerdings 
widerspricht das ja den MapFeatures (Die Richtung des Weges ist egal, 
jedoch muss eine land-Insel auf water-Wasser einen höheren Layer 
erhalten. ).

da nach dem FAQ keine Layerangabe erfolgen soll und natural=land auch 
nicht notwendig ist.

Alex

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

Re: [Talk-de] OpenStreetMap 3D als Webanwendung

 Ich hatte gesehen, dass man die Höhe der Buildings beeinflussen
 kann, welcher Tag wird da ausgewertet?

Soweit Gebäudegrundrisse in den OSM Daten vorhanden waren, wurden diese
anhand der Höhenwerte bzw. auf Basis der Anzahl der Stockwerke
abgeleiteten Gebäudehöhe in 3D Klötzchenmodelle umgewandelt. Falls keine
Informationen zu Gebäudehöhen vorhanden waren wurde ein Standardwert für
die Erstellung der Klötzchenmodelle verwendet.

Weder die Tags zu Anzahl Stockwerke noch zur Höhe finde ich
in den Mapfeatures. :-(

Chris


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

Re: [Talk-de] OpenStreetMap 3D als Webanwendung

2009-02-28 Thread André Riedel

Hallo,

http://gdi3d.guib.uni-bonn.de/Map3DViewer/conf/Germany/XNavigatorConfig_GERMANY_de_lo.xml

kann nicht gefunden werden, daher funktioniert es bei mir nicht.

Ciao André

Am 27. Februar 2009 23:25 schrieb Alexander Zipf z...@geographie.uni-bonn.de:
 Hallo,

 wir haben angefangen zu untersuchen wie sich OSM-Daten für
 3D-Web-Anwendungen nutzen lassen.
 Ein erster Prototyp ist nun testweise online verfügbar.
 Wer also schon immer mal in 3D durch seine gemappten Daten fliegen
 wollte und über die nötige Anbindung und v.a. Hardware verfügt, kann es
 ja mal testen.
 Für die, die leider nicht über passende Hardware etc. verfügen, gibt es
 zunächst ein paar Videos und Screenshots.

 Erste Zusatzinformationen stehen online, mehr folgt später. Insgesamt
 ist das Preprocessing für ganz Deutschland sehr aufwändig (allein für
 das integrierte DGM  1300 CPU-Stunden, es wurde also auf Clustern
 gerechnet). D.h. weitere Verbesserungen werden kommen, aber wir bitten
 um etwas Geduld.
 Die Label und als Symbole dargestellten Punktlayer sollen wöchentlich
 aktualisiert werden. Für die 3D-Gebäude ist das auch geplant. Bei den
 Gebäuden sollen zukünftig mehr Tags ausgelesen und für differenziertere
 Darstellungen (Höhen, Typ, Farben etc.) verwendet werden. Bzgl. Strassen
 und sonstiger Landnutzung im DGM wird noch am Konzept gearbeitet...

 Viel Spass!

 http://www.osm-3d.org


 alexander zipf
 http://www.geographie.uni-bonn.de/karto/
 ps. Großen Dank an alle Beteiligten in der Arbeitsgruppe!

 pps. Für Feedback gibt es u.a. sogar einen extra Button im Xnavi ==
 http://data.giub.uni-bonn.de/limesurvey2/index.php?sid=62565lang=de  ,
 was vielleicht die Auswertung erleichtert.
 Bin selbst kommende Woche im Ausland und kann daher nicht antworten.

 Das Ganze ist eine Java WebStart-Anwendung und nutzt Java3D - auch daher
 die Systemvoraussetzungen - es werden nunmal alle 3D-Daten zum Client
 übertragen und dort gerendert. Per WebStart kann zudem nicht lokal auf
 die Festplatte gechached werden, daher soll demnächst auch eine zu
 installierende Java-Application angeboten werden, was die Perormance
 etwas erhöhen dürfte. In der jetzigen Version war das Ziel möglichst
 ohne explizite Installation (außer Java 6) auszukommen.


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


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

Re: [Talk-de] OpenStreetMap 3D als Webanwendung

André Riedel schrieb:

 
 http://gdi3d.guib.uni-bonn.de/Map3DViewer/conf/Germany/XNavigatorConfig_GERMANY_de_lo.xml
 
 kann nicht gefunden werden, daher funktioniert es bei mir nicht.
 

Yepp, zur Zeit geht nur das High-Profile...

Chris


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

Re: [Talk-de] OpenStreetMap 3D als Webanwendung

Chris-Hein Lunkhusen schrieb:

 Soweit Gebäudegrundrisse in den OSM Daten vorhanden waren, wurden diese
 anhand der Höhenwerte bzw. auf Basis der Anzahl der Stockwerke
 abgeleiteten Gebäudehöhe in 3D Klötzchenmodelle umgewandelt. Falls keine
 Informationen zu Gebäudehöhen vorhanden waren wurde ein Standardwert für
 die Erstellung der Klötzchenmodelle verwendet.
 
 Weder die Tags zu Anzahl Stockwerke noch zur Höhe finde ich
 in den Mapfeatures. :-(

building:height=60 m
und
building:levels=17

scheint es zu sein, wie ich gerade am Dortmunder Ellipsenhochhaus
feststelle. ;-)

Chris


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

Re: [Talk-de] OpenStreetMap 3D als Webanwendung

2009-02-28 Thread Alexander Zipf





datei ist wieder da, danke arne.

André Riedel schrieb:

  Hallo,

http://gdi3d.guib.uni-bonn.de/Map3DViewer/conf/Germany/XNavigatorConfig_GERMANY_de_lo.xml

kann nicht gefunden werden, daher funktioniert es bei mir nicht.

Ciao André

Am 27. Februar 2009 23:25 schrieb Alexander Zipf z...@geographie.uni-bonn.de:
  
  
Hallo,

wir haben angefangen zu untersuchen wie sich OSM-Daten für
3D-Web-Anwendungen nutzen lassen.
Ein erster Prototyp ist nun testweise online verfügbar.
Wer also schon immer mal in 3D durch seine gemappten Daten fliegen
wollte und über die nötige Anbindung und v.a. Hardware verfügt, kann es
ja mal testen.
Für die, die leider nicht über passende Hardware etc. verfügen, gibt es
zunächst ein paar Videos und Screenshots.

Erste Zusatzinformationen stehen online, mehr folgt später. Insgesamt
ist das Preprocessing für ganz Deutschland sehr aufwändig (allein für
das integrierte DGM  1300 CPU-Stunden, es wurde also auf Clustern
gerechnet). D.h. weitere Verbesserungen werden kommen, aber wir bitten
um etwas Geduld.
Die Label und als Symbole dargestellten Punktlayer sollen wöchentlich
aktualisiert werden. Für die 3D-Gebäude ist das auch geplant. Bei den
Gebäuden sollen zukünftig mehr Tags ausgelesen und für differenziertere
Darstellungen (Höhen, Typ, Farben etc.) verwendet werden. Bzgl. Strassen
und sonstiger Landnutzung im DGM wird noch am Konzept gearbeitet...

Viel Spass!

http://www.osm-3d.org


alexander zipf
http://www.geographie.uni-bonn.de/karto/
ps. Großen Dank an alle Beteiligten in der Arbeitsgruppe!

pps. Für Feedback gibt es u.a. sogar einen extra Button im Xnavi ==
http://data.giub.uni-bonn.de/limesurvey2/index.php?sid=62565lang=de  ,
was vielleicht die Auswertung erleichtert.
Bin selbst kommende Woche im Ausland und kann daher nicht antworten.

Das Ganze ist eine Java WebStart-Anwendung und nutzt Java3D - auch daher
die Systemvoraussetzungen - es werden nunmal alle 3D-Daten zum Client
übertragen und dort gerendert. Per WebStart kann zudem nicht lokal auf
die Festplatte gechached werden, daher soll demnächst auch eine zu
installierende Java-Application angeboten werden, was die Perormance
etwas erhöhen dürfte. In der jetzigen Version war das Ziel möglichst
ohne explizite Installation (außer Java 6) auszukommen.


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


  
  
  





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

Re: [Talk-de] OpenStreetMap 3D als Webanwendung

2009-02-28 Thread Dermot McNally

2009/2/28 Alexander Zipf z...@geographie.uni-bonn.de:
 sorry, wie auf den Systemvorraussetzungen zu lesen, leider z.Zt. kein
 Support für Apple oder andere nicht 100% Sun-Java-Varianten (ab 1.6)
 Grund: Inkompatible Java/Java3D Versionen...

Hmm. Die Kompatibilitätsprobleme waren mir unbekannt, ist aber
natürlich nicht Euer Schuld. Grummel...

Auf die Idee bin ich eigentlich nicht gekommen, Für eine Java
Anwendung die Systemvoraussetzungen zu prüfen.

Dermot

 :-(
 z.Zt. Leider für uns zu viel Aufwand das alles abzudecken, wenigstens
 konnten wir es auf versch. Linux-Systemen efolgreich testen (aber auch hier
 keine 100% Garantie)

 Dermot McNally schrieb:
 - Show quoted text -

 Sieht ganz fesch aus, nur geht's bei mir nicht:

 java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError: Bad version number in .class file
        at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass2(Native Method)
        at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass(ClassLoader.java:774)
        at
 java.security.SecureClassLoader.defineClass(SecureClassLoader.java:160)
        at java.net.URLClassLoader.defineClass(URLClassLoader.java:254)
        at java.net.URLClassLoader.access$100(URLClassLoader.java:56)
        at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:195)
        at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
        at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(URLClassLoader.java:188)
        at com.sun.jnlp.JNLPClassLoader.findClass(JNLPClassLoader.java:256)
        at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:316)
        at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:251)
        at com.sun.javaws.Launcher.doLaunchApp(Launcher.java:1083)
        at com.sun.javaws.Launcher.run(Launcher.java:105)
        at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:613)


 Das auf MacOS, Macbook Pro, 4GB, Java 6 aktuel...

 Dermot







-- 
--
Iren sind menschlich

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

Re: [Talk-de] Höhennetz/Höhendatenbank

2009-02-28 Thread Dimitri Junker

Hallo,


  Der Gewichtungsfaktor ist also 1/Fehler. So hab ich das mal gelernt.


Das ist schon mal nicht ganz verkehrt.


1/Fehler^2 ist aber wohl besser.


Wo spielt in Deinen Modellen die Fehlerfortpflanzung eine Rolle?


Wenn man da den Fehler des Mittelwertes dazu zählt spielt sie eine Rolle. 
Auch bei der Interpolation spielt sie eine Rolle.

Im Augenblick suche probiere ich verschiedene Ansätze aus um die Lücken zu 
schließen. Ohne diesen Schritt kann man das Zeichnen von Höhenlinien 
vergessen. Auch hier werden die Fehler konsequent mitberechnet.

Dimitri

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

Re: [Talk-de] OpenStreetMap 3D als Webanwendung

2009-02-28 Thread Dimitri Junker

Hallo,

Das gibt aber einen gehörigen Motivationsschub zum Gebäude mappen!


Und auch für die Höhenkarte

Dimitri

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

Re: [Talk-de] OpenStreetMap 3D als Webanwendung

2009-02-28 Thread Bernd Wurst

Hallo.

Am Samstag, 28. Februar 2009 schrieb Dermot McNally:
 Hmm. Die Kompatibilitätsprobleme waren mir unbekannt, ist aber
 natürlich nicht Euer Schuld. Grummel...

 Auf die Idee bin ich eigentlich nicht gekommen, Für eine Java
 Anwendung die Systemvoraussetzungen zu prüfen.

Leider wird immer noch weitläufig verbreitet, Java sei plattformunabhängig.

Das ist aber schon seit Anbeginn gelogen, denn Java 
1. existierte schon immer nur für eine eng begrenzte Zahl an Plattformen, kann 
   also höchsten plattfürmübergreifend verfügbar sein 
und
2. hatte schon immer böse Tricks und Macken bei einzelnen Plattformen oder
   Versionen. Dann wird plötzlich Java 1.6 inkompatibel zu Java 1.5 und man
   muss nicht selten 2 oder 3 VMs pro Betriebssystem haben damit alles klappt.

Gruß, Bernd

-- 
Wenn man Tiere nicht essen soll, warum sind Sie dann aus Fleisch?
  -  Quelle: http://german-bash.org/action/show/id/106951


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [Talk-de] Wiki und die starken Mapper

2009-02-28 Thread Frank Jäger

Torsten Breda schrieb:
 Am 27. Februar 2009 21:48 schrieb Johannes Hüsing johan...@huesing.name:
 Wickie war der erste Nordländer, der eine Landkarte zeichnete. 


 
 Genial! Treffender kann es kaum sein :)
 

Aber der allererste Mapper - noch vor Wiki - findet sich schon in der Bibel:

Sacharja 2 Vers 5

Je nach Übersetzung:
http://www.bibel-online.net/bibel_5/38.sacharja/2.html
http://www.bibel-online.net/buch/38.sacharja/2.html#2,5

-- 
Frank

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

Re: [Talk-de] Garmin Nüvi

2009-02-28 Thread Florian Lohoff

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 07:16:41AM +0100, Bernd Wurst wrote:
 Die primären Anwendungen sollen sein:
 * normales Navi für wenn ich mich mal nicht so auskenne
 * OSM-Kartenanzeige-Device und irgendwann mal OSM-Karten-Routing
 
 und dann eben wenn es eh ein Gerät mit GPS-Receiver und Speicherkarte ist, 
 finde ich es peinlich und schade, wenn man nicht einfach damit auch Tracks 
 aufzeichnen kann. 

Ich habe mir das Nuevi auch nur gekauft weil ich mal routing machen
wollte und das 2qw der GPSMap 60 zulaesst echt nervig ist (Addresseingabe
etc).

D.h. WBT201 zur trackaufzeichnung - wirklich bisher das beste was ich
gefunden habe. Wenn ich unterwegs bin und systematisch Wohngebiete mache
GPSMap60Csx in der Touratec halterung auf dem Fahrrad - dann hat man
schoen die Karte mit dem Track overlay und das ganze stabil und
Wasserdicht (Welcher mapper laesst sich schon von Regen abschrecken).
Und wenn ich mal durch die gegend fahre die ich schon kenne oder mal
ein wenig routing probiere nehme ich das Nuevi ...

Das Nuevi 205 ist ja jetzt auch nicht das riesig teure teil und die
halterung fuer die Windschutzscheibe ist besser als bei meinem
TomTom OneXL

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff  f...@rfc822.org +49-171-2280134
Those who would give up a little freedom to get a little 
  security shall soon have neither - Benjamin Franklin


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [Talk-de] OpenStreetMap 3D als Webanwendung

2009-02-28 Thread Alexander Zipf

klar, je mehr Strukturinformation zu Typ und zum Aussehen der Gebäude in 
den Daten zu finden ist, desto besser könnte man auswerten. Wir wollen 
da auf alle Fälle ASAP nochmal genauer reinschauen was schon da ist. 
Langfristig wünschen könnte man sich da sicherlich vieles - bis hin zu 
(vorherrschender) Farbe, Dachform etc. Aber eines nach dem anderen...
beste Grüße
az
www.osm-3d.org

Patrick Kolesa schrieb:
 Das gibt aber einen gehörigen Motivationsschub zum Gebäude mappen!

 Ich habe mir nur die Screenshots angesehen, aber glücklicherweise ist
 eine Stadt mit meinen building=yes vertreten, ausgezeichnet :)

 Gibt es Pläne, zum Rendern der Gebäude auch die Tags mit einzubeziehen,
 so dass Standardformen für Einfamilienhäuser oder Wohnblocks gezeichnet
 werden können?
 Das würde den Realitätsgrad nochmals steigern.

 Gruß
 Patrick

   


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

Re: [Talk-de] Neue Lizenz: Forschritte

2009-02-28 Thread Sascha Silbe


On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:22:02PM +0100, Ulf Möller wrote:

1. Was ist mit Importen? Rechtlich muß jeder Datenspender erneut um 
Erlaubnis gefragt werden.
Wenn er die Daten speziell unter CC-BY-SA zur Verfügung gestellt hat, 
ja. Wenn er die Daten generell frei zur Verfügung stellt oder der 
OSMF geschenkt hat, sicherlich nicht.
Gab es tatsächlich Fälle, wo die Daten _explizit_ ohne jegliche 
Einschränkungen zur Verfügung gestellt wurden? Wenn jemand die Daten 
OSM zur Verfügung gestellt hat, kann man ja bestenfalls annehmen, 
daß die Intention war, unter CC-BY-SA zu lizensieren.


2. Upgrade-Klauseln sind in DE (zumindest laut Meinung des im 
Linux-Magazin schreibenden Rechtsanwalts) nicht gültig.

Hat er das so pauschal behauptet?
Die ursprüngliche Aussage ist mittlerweile im Altpapier gelandet (und 
im Online-Archiv habe ich sie nicht gefunden), aber hier mehr oder 
weniger der gleiche Inhalt:


   Artikel 9 der GPLv2 legt fest, dass die FSF von Zeit zu Zeit neue 
Versionen der GPL herausgeben darf, die im Detail von früheren 
Versionen abweichen. Weil die GPL nach deutschem Recht ein Vertrag 
zwischen allen Urhebern eines Programms und dem Benutzer als 
Lizenznehmer ist, gelten die allgemeinen Vertragsgrundsätze auch für 
diese Lizenzvergabe. Einer davon ist der Bestimmtheitsgrundsatz: Ein 
Vertragspartner darf sich nur zu konkreten oder zumindest hinreichend 
bestimmbaren Leistungen verpflichten. Ebenso müssen die allgemeinen 
Vertragsumstände hinreichend konkret feststehen.


   Eine Vertragsklausel, die diesem Bestimmtheitserfordernis nicht 
genügt, könnte nichtig sein. Weil die FSF selbst darlegt, dass die 
zum Zeitpunkt des GPLv2-Entwurfs noch nicht absehbaren Entwicklungen 
in Recht und Technik die GPLv3 erst erforderlich gemacht haben, 
bedeutet dies, dass die Entwicklungen wie auch die Änderungen in der 
GPL für den damaligen Urheber als Lizenzgeber noch nicht erkennbar 
waren.


   Damit wäre aber möglicherweise eine damalige Zustimmung zur 
heutigen Lizenzänderung unwirksam, was zur Folge hätte, dass alle 
damaligen und bisherigen Programmierer als Miturheber eines 
GPLv2-Programms einem Wechsel zu den GPLv3-Bestimmungen erneut und 
ausdrücklich zustimmen müssten. Das könnte bei freier Software mit 
einer Vielzahl von Beteiligten schwierig bis unmöglich werden.



Quelle: Linux-Magazin 2007/09, S. 97 - im Online-Archiv unter [1]

[1] http://www.linux-magazin.de/heft_abo/ausgaben/2007/09/recht_einfach

CU Sascha

--
http://sascha.silbe.org/
http://www.infra-silbe.de/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [Talk-de] Neue Lizenz: Forschritte

2009-02-28 Thread Sascha Silbe


On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:32:21PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:

2. Upgrade-Klauseln sind in DE (zumindest laut Meinung des im 
Linux-Magazin schreibenden Rechtsanwalts) nicht gültig.
Oh, duerfen dann die von Deutschen verfassten Wikipedia-Artikel nicht 
umlizensiert werden?
IANAL. Lies meine andere Antwort für das entsprechende Zitat und 
entscheide selbst. :)


CU Sascha

--
http://sascha.silbe.org/
http://www.infra-silbe.de/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [Talk-de] Höhenkarte für Aachen

Tobias Wendorff tobias.wendo...@uni-dortmund.de [Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 
09:57:20PM CET]:
 Johannes Hüsing schrieb:
  Darüber hinaus benötigt man sicher eine Ausreißerkorrektur, aber etwas
  feiner granuliert als nicht höher als der Langenberg/die Zugspitze und 
  nicht tiefer als der Braunkohletagebau. 
 
 Ich würde eine Ausreißerkorrektur ausschließlich um einen festen
 Mittelwert eines lokalen Punktes ziehen.

Man braucht nicht unbedingt lokale Punkte und Mittelwerte, aber lokales 
Vorwissen (für geeignete Werte von lokal) und evtl. entsprechende Extrema.

Wenn ich weiß, dass es in Werl keinen Steinbruch gibt, kann ich für eine
Höhenkarte von Werl dicht beieinander liegende Höhenpunkte ausgleichen.
Wenn sie 50 m entfernt auf der Karte entfernt liegen und 40 Höhenmeter 
auseinander, kann das nicht sein und einer der Messwerte ist unglaubwürdig.
Wenn diese Punkte 40 m entfernt auf einem Track liegen, erregen schon 
10 Höhenmeter Differenz Verdacht. 

In Werl. In Luxemburg ist das schon ein ganz anderer Schnack.

 
 Unter 20 Meter Endhöhengenauigkeit wäre - meiner Meinung nach - die
 Höhenmessung für den Popo.

Für den ermittelten Wert schon (für den einzelnen Messwert nicht, auch 
wenn der ein sehr geringes Gewicht in der Höhenschätzung hätte), aber 
für Punkte weit ab von Messpunkten kann das natürlich passieren.


-- 
Johannes Hüsing   There is something fascinating about science. 
  One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture 
mailto:johan...@huesing.name  from such a trifling investment of fact.  
  
http://derwisch.wikidot.com (Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi)

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

Re: [Talk-de] Aachen - Komplettdownload

Tobias Wendorff tobias.wendo...@uni-dortmund.de [Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 
08:23:49PM CET]:
 Hallo Dimitri,
 
 falls Du Probleme mit dem Downloaden der einzelnen Dateien bekommst,
 habe ich Dir hier ein fertiges Päckchen zusammengeschnürrt:
 
 http://www.file-upload.net/download-1481299/GPX_Aachen.zip.html
 

Ich weiß ich war nciht angesprochen, aber er macht 'nen 404 hier.


-- 
Johannes Hüsing   There is something fascinating about science. 
  One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture 
mailto:johan...@huesing.name  from such a trifling investment of fact.  
  
http://derwisch.wikidot.com (Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi)

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

Re: [Talk-de] LVermA NRW stellt Produkte ein

Tobias Wendorff tobias.wendo...@uni-dortmund.de [Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 
08:55:57AM CET]:
 Hallo Community,
 
 ich habe gerade gesehen, dass die Bezirksregierung Köln (ehem. LVermA
 NRW) folgende, beliebte Produkte eingestellt hat:
 
 Top10NRW, Top50NRW, Historika25 sowie die gedruckten Wander-, Freizeit-
 und historischen Karten

TOP50NRW ist doch eine CD, oder nicht? Was ist mit den normalen topographischen
Karten?

Was mit den topographischen Karten für die Kreise? Als ich in NRW gewohnt habe,
waren die vorne weiß.

 
 Im Mittelpunkt stehen jetzt Plot-on-Demand und halt die digitalen
 Karten.
 
 Toll ... ich laufe ungerne mit einem 170 g/m² Tintenstrahlplot rum.
 Dreimal gefaltet und einmal nass geworden und das Ding kann in die
 Tonne.

Da gibt es noch ein echtes Problem beim Medienbruch. Die Navigationsfähigkeit
eines Garmin kombiniert mit der Handhabung und Anzeige eines Kindle und ich
könnte vielleicht die gedruckte Karte zuhause lassen. Bis dahin kaufe ich
auch weiter Karten.


-- 
Johannes Hüsing   There is something fascinating about science. 
  One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture 
mailto:johan...@huesing.name  from such a trifling investment of fact.  
  
http://derwisch.wikidot.com (Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi)

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

Re: [Talk-de] verschachtelte Multipolygone


On Sat, 28 Feb 2009, Alexander Schulze wrote:


Dirk Stöcker schrieb:

Kein Stern heisst nicht richtig, sondern nur dass JOSM keinen Fehler
bemerkt hat. JOSM bemerkt nur Fehler, über die er beim Zeichnen stolpert


Ich dachte bisher immer der Stern bedeutet, das nicht alle Mitglieder
der Relation vollständig heruntergeladen worden. Gibts denn noch ne
andere Bedeutung?


Stern vor Elementen -- JOSM hat beim Zeichnen irgendeinen Fehler 
festgestellt. Dzu muss aber der Kartenmodus und nicht die Drahtdarstellung 
aktiviert sein. Ist ein relativ neues Feature.


Das unvollständig siehst Du gar nicht. Das ist zu erkennen, wenn man die 
Relation im Editor öffnet. Dann werden Elemente als unvollständig 
dargestellt.



Spielt es ne Rolle (Unterschied) ob der Stern vor multipolygon steht
oder in den Klammern (rahmt aber vermutlich nur den Namen der Relation
ein, oder?).


In den Klammern? Dass kann eigentlich nur passieren, wenn die relation * 
heißt.


Ciao
--
http://www.dstoecker.eu/ (PGP key available)___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [Talk-de] Neue Lizenz: Forschritte

2009-02-28 Thread Ulf Möller

Sascha Silbe schrieb:

 Gab es tatsächlich Fälle, wo die Daten _explizit_ ohne jegliche 
 Einschränkungen zur Verfügung gestellt wurden?

Ja. Die TIGER-Daten sind PD; die Strassendatenbank NRW wurde zur freien 
Nutzung ohne Lizenzeinschränkungen zur Verfügung gestellt; Yahoo sagt, 
dass das Abzeichnen der Bilder ihre Rechte nicht beeinträchtigt.

Gegenbeispiele wie die Frida-Daten in Osnabrück gibt es natürlich auch.

Artikel 9 der GPLv2 legt fest, dass die FSF von Zeit zu Zeit neue 
 Versionen der GPL herausgeben darf, die im Detail von früheren 
 Versionen abweichen. Weil die GPL nach deutschem Recht ein Vertrag 
 zwischen allen Urhebern eines Programms und dem Benutzer als 
 Lizenznehmer ist, gelten die allgemeinen Vertragsgrundsätze auch für 
 diese Lizenzvergabe. Einer davon ist der Bestimmtheitsgrundsatz: Ein 
 Vertragspartner darf sich nur zu konkreten oder zumindest hinreichend 
 bestimmbaren Leistungen verpflichten. Ebenso müssen die allgemeinen 
 Vertragsumstände hinreichend konkret feststehen.

Das stimmt so nicht. Die GPL ist ein Vertrag zwischen dem Rechteinhaber 
und dem Nutzer. Von den Entwicklern lässt sich die FSF alle 
Nutzungsrechte übertragen (das geht, sonst gäbe es auch keine 
kommerzielle Softwareindustrie).

Wie die OSMF das regeln will, weiß ich nicht; aber Möglichkeiten gäbe es 
da schon.


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

Re: [Talk-de] Neue Lizenz: Fortschritte

Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org [Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:09:41AM CET]:
 Hallo,
 
 Johannes Hüsing wrote:
  Das finde ich gerade nicht. Auf dem Markt gibt es doch zahlreiche 
  Datenbanken wie OSM.
 
 Fuer einen *Nutzer*, der einen Haufen Geld in der Tasche hat und der 
 sich nicht fuer Fusswege interessiert, gibt es einige Alternativen, an 
 Daten zu kommen.
 
 Aber fuer einen *Mitmacher* gibt es keine anderen Projekte, bei denen er 
 sich einbringen kann; und in gewisser Weise moechten wir auch, dass das 
 so bleibt, denn wir brauchen jeden verfuegbaren Mapper fuer OSM.
 

Kann man sich bei TomTom nicht auch einbringen?

 Ein Software-Projekt, selbst wenn es ein grosses wie der Linux-Kernel 
 ist, kann voellig problemlos damit leben, wenn die Haelfte aller 
 Developer auf der Welt sich statt in Linux lieber in Lunix einbringen. 

Was heißt selbst wenn. Wenn die Hälfte aller Developer von zum Beispiel
Leo aussteigen, halte ich das für bedenklicher für das Projekt als bei 
OpenStreetMap.

[...]
 Aber bei OSM wuerde ich mich ziemlich aergern, wenn sich die Haelfte 
 aller Mapper bei einer Alternative beteiligen wuerden...

Kommt auf die Alternative an. Wenn die eine Lizenz verwendet, die
erlaubt, die Daten wieder in OSM einzuspeisen, ist doch alles in Butter.

Bei OSM kommt es natürlich auf lokale Ausprägungen des Schismas an.
Wenn die Hälfte, die sich abspaltet, die eine Hälfte der Erdkugel ist,
wäre das dem Projekt schnell anzusehen.

Und bei den anderen Schismen im letzten Jahrtausend war eine lokale
Korrelation deutlich zu sehen (bis hin zu GNOME (Nordamerika) vs KDE
(Europa)).

-- 
Johannes Hüsing   There is something fascinating about science. 
  One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture 
mailto:johan...@huesing.name  from such a trifling investment of fact.  
  
http://derwisch.wikidot.com (Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi)

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

Re: [Talk-de] verschachtelte Multipolygone

Hi,

dank dir schon mal für deine Erläuterungen, will aber noch mal kurz 
nachhaken ;-)

Dirk Stöcker schrieb:
 Stern vor Elementen -- JOSM hat beim Zeichnen irgendeinen Fehler 
 festgestellt. Dzu muss aber der Kartenmodus und nicht die 
 Drahtdarstellung aktiviert sein. Ist ein relativ neues Feature.

wollte eigentlich noch fragen was denn mögliche Fehler sein könnten?

Kann hier z.B. nix finden
http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/relation/78864/full.

Also wonach müßte ich denn suchen? Eins wären bspw. Flächen die in 2 
Relationen (als inner bzw. outer) enthalten sind, aber sonst.

 Das unvollständig siehst Du gar nicht. Das ist zu erkennen, wenn man die 
 Relation im Editor öffnet. Dann werden Elemente als unvollständig 
 dargestellt.

okay

 In den Klammern? Dass kann eigentlich nur passieren, wenn die relation 
 * heißt.

taucht wohl immer nur bei Routen auf z.B. Relation 30512 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/relation/30512/full).

schönen Gruß
Alex

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

[Talk-de] Openstreetbugs GPX download at Level 12?

2009-02-28 Thread Thomas Drebert

Hallo,

ich würde gerne ein Gebiet im Level 12 als GPX runterladen, aber leider werden 
im Level 12 nur ein paar Bugs angezeigt.
Zoome ich weiter rein und speichere ich mehrere Dateien, dann hab ich hab viel 
Bugs doppelt.
Gibt es dafür eine Lösung?

Schöne grüße
Thomas

Pt! Schon vom neuen WEB.DE MultiMessenger gehört? 
Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.produkte.web.de/messenger/?did=3123


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

Re: [Talk-de] Wiki und die starken Mapper

Frank Jäger fr...@fotodrachen.de [Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 01:44:08PM CET]:
 Torsten Breda schrieb:
[...]
 http://www.bibel-online.net/bibel_5/38.sacharja/2.html
 http://www.bibel-online.net/buch/38.sacharja/2.html#2,5
Jerusalem wird eine offene Stadt ohne Mauern sein und von Menschen 
und Tieren überquellen.

Das mit dem ohne Mauern wäre zumindest Gaza-Stadt zu wünschen.
Aber das ist endgültig OT.

-- 
Johannes Hüsing   There is something fascinating about science. 
  One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture 
mailto:johan...@huesing.name  from such a trifling investment of fact.  
  
http://derwisch.wikidot.com (Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi)

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

Re: [Talk-de] JOSM: Änderung in der Linienbedienung ?

2009-02-28 Thread Jan Tappenbeck

Was ich noch eben erkennen konnte, dass 2x ESC das ganze neutralisieren 
scheint - wie in AutoCAD.

Dann kann man einfach wieder einen neuen Way beginnen ein neues Node setzen.

Gruß Jan :-)

Jan Tappenbeck schrieb:

 hi !
 
 also ich kann das nur bestätigen, dass ich keine systematik erkennen kann.
 
 man kann nur sagen, dass dieses sehr nervig ist.
 
 gruß Jan :-)
 
 Alexander Schulze schrieb:
 Hi,


 Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb:

 das kann ich bestätigen. Ansonsten sehr schick.
 Das ist garantiert ein Bug. Wenn den mal jemand nachvollziehbar machen 
 kann,
 dann bitte als Bugreport eintragen.

 Ciao
 naja, nachvollziehbar ist schwierig. Es passiert einfach ziemlich von
 Anfang an: Add Mode, clicken: Node, nochmal clicken: nichts passiert.
 Nochmal clicken. Nochmal nichts. nochmal clicken: Node. Eine
 Systematik habe ich nicht erkannt. Es scheint bei schnellem Clicken
 oefters zu passieren (kein Doppelclick). Manchmal nimmt er nur jeden
 3. Click, manchmal zeichnet er auch ein paar Nodes am Stueck.
 ne Systematik kann ich bisher leider auch nicht erkennen. Ich kann nur 
 sagen, das es unter Windows XP mit JOSM häufiger auftritt, als wenn ich 
 unter Ubuntu arbeite.

 Alex

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


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

Re: [Talk-de] elevator=footway?

2009-02-28 Thread Thomas Drebert

Hallo,

ich würde mal sagen das heißt Personenbeförderung erlaubt oder
Personen Aufzug, es gibt noch ein Schild das sieht aus wie access=no
und da steht drauf keine Personen Beförderung

Schöne Grüße
Thomas

2009/2/26 Johann H. Addicks addi...@gmx.net:
 Das kann's nicht sein, aber was ist damit gemeint?
 (Auf der Innenseite der Fahrstuhltür, also im Korb war da auch
 nochmal. Das ganze war in einem Parkhaus.)

 http://www.addicks.net/gallery/Irgendwo/P2260477

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

Re: [Talk-de] Höhennetz/Höhendatenbank

Dimitri Junker o...@dimitri-junker.de [Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:46:44PM CET]:
 Hallo,
 
 
   Der Gewichtungsfaktor ist also 1/Fehler. So hab ich das mal gelernt.
 
 
 Das ist schon mal nicht ganz verkehrt.
 
 
 1/Fehler^2 ist aber wohl besser.
 

Kommt drauf an, was Du unter Fehler verstehst. Wenn Du den Fehler des
Mittelwerts meinst, klar.

 
 Wo spielt in Deinen Modellen die Fehlerfortpflanzung eine Rolle?
 
 
 Wenn man da den Fehler des Mittelwertes dazu zählt spielt sie eine Rolle. 

... aber der kommt ja erst hier.

 Auch bei der Interpolation spielt sie eine Rolle.


Richtig. Du interpolierst aus Größen, die ihrerseits fehlerbehaftet sind.

Wenn es aber die Rechenkapazität erlaubt, solltest Du die originalen
Messungen solange wie möglich drin behalten, anstatt früh welche
zusammenzupacken und durch Mittelwert/Varianz wiederzugeben. Die
beteiligten Fehler kann man dann in ein gemeinsames Modell packen.
 
 Im Augenblick suche probiere ich verschiedene Ansätze aus um die Lücken zu 
 schließen. Ohne diesen Schritt kann man das Zeichnen von Höhenlinien 
 vergessen. Auch hier werden die Fehler konsequent mitberechnet.

Wenn jede Höhenlinie ihr eigenes Konfidenzintervall mitbringt, wird es
natürlich sehr fein. Nicht dass man das in einer Straßenkarte dargestellt
haben möchte :-)

-- 
Johannes Hüsing   There is something fascinating about science. 
  One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture 
mailto:johan...@huesing.name  from such a trifling investment of fact.  
  
http://derwisch.wikidot.com (Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi)

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

Re: [Talk-de] Openstreetbugs GPX download at Level 12?

2009-02-28 Thread Gary68

evtl hilft dir das weiter?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSB_Reports

oder das?

http://www.gary68.de/osm/qa/gpx/extract.htm

das sind dann aber alle meine bugs.

üblicherweise werden die daten 1x / woche aktualisiert.

gary68


On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 16:53 +0100, Thomas Drebert wrote:
 Hallo,
 
 ich würde gerne ein Gebiet im Level 12 als GPX runterladen, aber leider 
 werden im Level 12 nur ein paar Bugs angezeigt.
 Zoome ich weiter rein und speichere ich mehrere Dateien, dann hab ich hab 
 viel Bugs doppelt.
 Gibt es dafür eine Lösung?
 
 Schöne grüße
 Thomas
 
 Pt! Schon vom neuen WEB.DE MultiMessenger gehört? 
 Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.produkte.web.de/messenger/?did=3123
 
 
 ___
 Talk-de mailing list
 Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de


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

Re: [Talk-de] verschachtelte Multipolygone


On Sat, 28 Feb 2009, Alexander Schulze wrote:


Stern vor Elementen -- JOSM hat beim Zeichnen irgendeinen Fehler
festgestellt. Dzu muss aber der Kartenmodus und nicht die
Drahtdarstellung aktiviert sein. Ist ein relativ neues Feature.


wollte eigentlich noch fragen was denn mögliche Fehler sein könnten?

Kann hier z.B. nix finden
http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/relation/78864/full.

Also wonach müßte ich denn suchen? Eins wären bspw. Flächen die in 2
Relationen (als inner bzw. outer) enthalten sind, aber sonst.


Das bekommst Du mit dem Validator heraus.  Die Relation mit Stern 
selektieren (so dass sie in der Auswahl aktiv ist) und mit dem Validator 
prüfen. Dann kommen die Warnungen als lesbarer Text. In diesem Fall besagt 
die Warnung, dass sich inner- und outer-Polygone schneiden. Das Gebilde 
könnte auch komplett ohne Multipolygon gelöst werden.



Das unvollständig siehst Du gar nicht. Das ist zu erkennen, wenn man die
Relation im Editor öffnet. Dann werden Elemente als unvollständig
dargestellt.


okay


In den Klammern? Dass kann eigentlich nur passieren, wenn die relation
* heißt.


taucht wohl immer nur bei Routen auf z.B. Relation 30512
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/relation/30512/full).


Kommt bei mir kein Stern. Da steht route (Fläming-Skate RK3, 7 Elemente)

Ciao
--
http://www.dstoecker.eu/ (PGP key available)___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

[Talk-de] Open Database Licence: Deutsche Über setzung

2009-02-28 Thread Cornelius


Hallo!

Da des öfteren der Wunsch nach einer deutschen Übersetzung da war: Ich habe mal 
angefangen die Lizenz zu übersetzen: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Open_Database_Licence_-_Licence_Text

Gerne sind weitere Mitstreiter erwünscht. (Siehe auch Diskussionsseite.) Für 
eine Akzeptanz der vielen deutschen OSM-Mitarbeiter ist es denke ich recht 
wichtig!

Cornelius


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

Re: [Talk-de] verschachtelte Multipolygone

Dirk Stöcker schrieb:
 Das bekommst Du mit dem Validator heraus.  Die Relation mit Stern 
 selektieren (so dass sie in der Auswahl aktiv ist) und mit dem Validator 
 prüfen. Dann kommen die Warnungen als lesbarer Text. In diesem Fall 
 besagt die Warnung, dass sich inner- und outer-Polygone schneiden. Das 
 Gebilde könnte auch komplett ohne Multipolygon gelöst werden.

Also ich kann nicht erkennen, wo die sich schneiden. Die überlappen an 
genau 5 gemeinsamen Punkten, aber schneiden sich nicht.
Und wie soll ich das ohne Multipolygon lösen. Steh wohl etwas aufm 
Schlauch. Das ganze Gebiet ist dem Motocross zu gehörig (also outer) und 
die definierten Waldstücke liegen innerhalb des Gebietes, grenzen aber 
jeweils an die Außenkante des Motocrossgeländes. Dazu muss ich doch 
Multipolygon  benutzen? Oder wie kann ich das sonst machen?

 Kommt bei mir kein Stern. Da steht route (Fläming-Skate RK3, 7 
 Elemente)

das liegt dann wohl an den Ländereinstellungen unter XP.

schönen Gruß
Alex

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

Re: [Talk-de] Open Database Licence: Deutsche Über setzung

Hallo,

Cornelius wrote:
 Hallo!
 
 Da des öfteren der Wunsch nach einer deutschen Übersetzung da war: Ich habe 
 mal angefangen die Lizenz zu übersetzen: 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Open_Database_Licence_-_Licence_Text
 
 Gerne sind weitere Mitstreiter erwünscht. (Siehe auch Diskussionsseite.) Für 
 eine Akzeptanz der vielen deutschen OSM-Mitarbeiter ist es denke ich recht 
 wichtig!

Ich wollte gerade anfangen, meine im Oktober hier veroeffentlichte 
Uebersetzung

http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/odbl01dt.pdf

anzupassen (viel duerfte sich nicht geandert haben), aber jetzt 
ueberlasse ich das Euch und mache mich stattdessen mal an die 
Uebersetzung von

http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=262

zum Thema wieso eigentlich neue Lizenz - nachdem sich jemand 
dankenswerterweise ja schon um

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Open_Database_License

gekuemert hat. Letzteres sei als Einstiegs-Lesestoff jedem empfohlen!

Bye
Frederik

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

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

Re: [Talk-de] verschachtelte Multipolygone


On Sat, 28 Feb 2009, Alexander Schulze wrote:


Dirk Stöcker schrieb:

Das bekommst Du mit dem Validator heraus.  Die Relation mit Stern
selektieren (so dass sie in der Auswahl aktiv ist) und mit dem Validator
prüfen. Dann kommen die Warnungen als lesbarer Text. In diesem Fall
besagt die Warnung, dass sich inner- und outer-Polygone schneiden. Das
Gebilde könnte auch komplett ohne Multipolygon gelöst werden.


Also ich kann nicht erkennen, wo die sich schneiden. Die überlappen an
genau 5 gemeinsamen Punkten, aber schneiden sich nicht.
Und wie soll ich das ohne Multipolygon lösen. Steh wohl etwas aufm
Schlauch. Das ganze Gebiet ist dem Motocross zu gehörig (also outer) und
die definierten Waldstücke liegen innerhalb des Gebietes, grenzen aber
jeweils an die Außenkante des Motocrossgeländes. Dazu muss ich doch
Multipolygon  benutzen? Oder wie kann ich das sonst machen?


Hmm. Mit multipolygon sagst Du ja eigentlich das ist alles Motocross, 
ausser den Inner-Teilen, die nicht. In dem gegeben Fall könntest Du das 
auch erreichen, wenn Du die Außengrenze entlang der Wälder führst, 
deswegen mault JOSM.


Das das natürlich mit Deiner Feststellung Eigentlich ist das alles 
Motocross-Gebiet nicht zusammenpasst ist auch klar.


Es gibt zwei Möglichkeiten:
a) So lassen, wie es ist (JOSM's Warnungen sind auch nicht der Weisheit 
letzter Schluß, ich muss es ja wissen, ich habe sie eingebaut :-)
b) Multipolygon entfernen und nur den Außenrand eintragen und die 
Waldstücke als Layer=1.


Ich würde für (a) plädieren. Die Ansicht, wie es korrekt ist, wird sich 
sowieso im Laufe der Zeit garantiert noch ein paar mal ändern.


Um ganz sicherzugehen schreibt einfach als comment dran, wie es ist 
(comment=Wald ist auch Teil der Cross-Strecke). Dann kann man es später 
notfalls korrigieren.


Ciao
--
http://www.dstoecker.eu/ (PGP key available)___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de

Re: [Talk-de] verschachtelte Multipolygone

2009-02-28 Thread Martin Simon

Am 28. Februar 2009 20:50 schrieb Dirk Stöcker openstreet...@dstoecker.de:
 Es gibt zwei Möglichkeiten:
 a) So lassen, wie es ist (JOSM's Warnungen sind auch nicht der Weisheit
 letzter Schluß, ich muss es ja wissen, ich habe sie eingebaut :-)
 b) Multipolygon entfernen und nur den Außenrand eintragen und die Waldstücke
 als Layer=1.

 Ich würde für (a) plädieren. Die Ansicht, wie es korrekt ist, wird sich
 sowieso im Laufe der Zeit garantiert noch ein paar mal ändern.

Moin!

Ich wäre stark für b), aber ohne einen layer zu verwenden -
stattdessen sollte man bei den Renderern anklopfen, damit diese
einfach wald über anderen landuse-flächen rendern.

Dasselbe Problem ergibt sich bei Waldflächen, die z.B. in Parks liegen
und dort auch den Park nicht verdrängen, sondern auf derselben Ebene
existieren.

Auch hier wäre ein Multipolygon falsch, weil es den Park in seiner
Ausdehnung beschneidet und ein layer=1 für den Wald wäre falsch, weil
es einfach ein hack für den Renderer ist und das Waldgebiet sich nicht
über dem Park befindet.


Grüße,

Martin

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

Re: [Talk-de] Neue Lizenz: Forschritte