Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 17 July 2010 10:27, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: I’m probably missing something again… Please explain how you will not be able to make an informed decision once the license question has been put to contributors. I will, but at that point I will no longer have any chances to exercise such a decision under the currently accepted change over process outlined. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 16/07/10 14:03, TimSC wrote: James Livingston wrote: / Although, as Simon Ward said Everyone has a say on whether their contributions can be licensed under the new license., I am uncomfortable with the ODbL process and I resent not being polled before the license change was decided. OSMF has gotten this far in the process without checking they have a clear majority of contributors behind the process (and not just OSMF members). / How would you actually poll the contributors? The only way I could see it being done that satisfies everyone is in exactly the same way that the actual relicensing question is going to be asked, and that is a very heavyweight thing to do just for a what do people feel poll. If it were just a choice between CC-BY-SA and ODbL, I might agree. But this is a false dichotomy. We could write any number of licenses or revise ODbL based on feedback (except it would be better to resolve this soon). We could go PDDL, CC0 or PD. We could fork. We could do different licenses for different regions. We could do a single transferable vote or majority wins. The current relicensing question also doesn't distinguish between what I want for the future and what I would tolerate. So the question might ask in a poll is far from obvious. Although the intent of ODBl is to provide the protections we thought we were getting with CC-BY-SA; if we were to go to something *completely* different then I can image these discussions getting *really* nasty. Cheers Chris -- e: m...@chrisfleming.org w: www.chrisfleming.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Simon Ward wrote: On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 07:07:19AM +1000, Liz wrote: - There is no tool yet to see the impact of the relicensing to the data. But this is the key need for those who are rather interested in the data than the legalese. Please develop the tool first or leave sufficient time to let develop such a tool. I’m still struggling with how to get such statistics without first getting an opinion—the catch‐22 I referred to earlier but John seemed to brush off without actually thinking about it. I’m in favour of a non‐binding straw poll to all OSM accounts before a “final” agree/disagree thing. Simon just to make it clear, I'm not the author, I forwarded a mail by Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 04:55:36PM +1000, Liz wrote: just to make it clear, I'm not the author, I forwarded a mail by Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de My apologies. I didn’t mean to mis‐quote. 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] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Chris Fleming m...@chrisfleming.org wrote: Although the intent of ODBl is to provide the protections we thought we were getting with CC-BY-SA; if we were to go to something *completely* different then I can image these discussions getting *really* nasty. Chris Do try to pay attention and keep up with the thread ;) Diane Peters of Creative Commons posted the following statement in this thread a few hours ago: There are a number of fundamental differences between CC's licenses and ODbL that at least from CC's point of view make the two quite different. ODbL is something completely different. In addition the content license and the contributor terms have no parallel with CC-BY-SA. Structurally there are big differences. 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/17/2010 04:04 AM, Diane Peters wrote: The assertion above, that Science Commons seems to think that copyright doesn't apply to databases, is not correct. I am sorry for misrepresenting SC's views on this. One other point worth mentioning, this one in response to another suggestion earlier on this thread (apologies again for not inserting this comment there) to the effect that CC refuses to acknowledge that CC0 contains a license. I attributed this view to Science Commons, not to CC. I did so based on a conversation with John Wilbanks on this list some time ago. When we at CC speak of license as opposed to public domain, our focus is on function and practical effect, not formality. BY-SA and the ODbL are similarly both share-alike. The current conversation on this list has convinced me that I cannot make that claim without (extensive) qualification, though. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/16/2010 09:58 PM, Liz wrote: After a recent High Court decision, in Australia copyright is not applicable to databases. Maps were not included in the Court decision, but a database was the subject of the case. If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright licences what would they apply to in the OSM database in Australia? The contract part of ODbL may not have any force either in Australia. That would need court hearings to determine. Against - It is presented as a shrink wrap licence with no opportunity to negotiate terms Geodata is restricted with contracts, so it may make sense to turn that restriction against itself. But the contract aspect is still my least favourite part of the ODbL. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17 July 2010 18:34, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote: I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ... No, someone was claiming cc-by licenses we're valid in Australia, as a reason to change to ODBL, if that is the case why did both the federal and state governments of Australia release data under cc-by if it was so weak. In theory we have more problems with the new terms and conditions than ODBL, ODBL seems cc-by compatible, but the terms and conditions allow other free and open licenses which isn't cc-by compatible. All that is needed to fix this is add a stipulation for the free and open license to be attribution based and the problem, for us, disappears. The alternative isn't pretty, potentially up to 1/3rd of the data might disappear, so we are some what concerned at this point. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 17 July 2010 20:11, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright licences what would they apply to in the OSM database in Australia? The court case in question was over facts, dates and times and show names, IceTV who instigated this case, also pays students to review shows, which adds an element of creativity to their database of facts. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
John Smith schrieb: On 17 July 2010 18:34, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote: I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ... No, someone was claiming cc-by licenses we're valid in Australia, as a reason to change to ODBL, if that is the case why did both the federal and state governments of Australia release data under cc-by if it was so weak. Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english? Liz schrieb: On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote: Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases, In the US. OKFN seem to think it might. After a recent High Court decision, in Australia copyright is not applicable to databases. Maps were not included in the Court decision, but a database was the subject of the case. The contract part of ODbL may not have any force either in Australia. That would need court hearings to determine. Against - It is presented as a shrink wrap licence with no opportunity to negotiate terms - The entity representing the data does not 'own' the data and it could be argued has no right to be a party to a contract over the data ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17 July 2010 21:57, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote: Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english? I was thinking about a different email, however it's the same case but has the wrong interpretation as to the scope. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17 July 2010 22:04, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 July 2010 21:57, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote: Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english? I was thinking about a different email, however it's the same case but has the wrong interpretation as to the scope. The grounds of the case was purely over if facts themselves could be copyrighted, the ruling was based on if individual facts within a database were covered by copyright, and as a result the database itself. However as soon as you add creative content it changes things, but from what I've been told, there won't be a final ruling on this till next year, in the meant time Telstra (owner of white/yellow pages) is going round trying to get this over turned. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/17/2010 12:30 PM, John Smith wrote: On 17 July 2010 20:11, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote: If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright licences what would they apply to in the OSM database in Australia? The court case in question was over facts, dates and times and show names, IceTV who instigated this case, also pays students to review shows, which adds an element of creativity to their database of facts. Thanks. So IceTV weren't infringing on Channel Nine's copyright as Channel Nine didn't have one on the mere facts of their programme schedule, but IceTV's combined and creativity-added database is above the creativity/originality threshold required to gain copyright protection as a (collective?) literary work? There has been discussion in the past about how creative the various levels of OSM are (my personal opinion is raw data:not, edited and combined ways:possibly, rendered maps:definitely). The outcome wasn't to rely on creativity. ;-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 18 July 2010 00:53, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: There has been discussion in the past about how creative the various levels of OSM are (my personal opinion is raw data:not, edited and combined ways:possibly, rendered maps:definitely). The outcome wasn't to rely on creativity. ;-) Without a court precedent all we're left with is speculation... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/17/2010 04:01 PM, John Smith wrote: On 18 July 2010 00:53, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote: There has been discussion in the past about how creative the various levels of OSM are (my personal opinion is raw data:not, edited and combined ways:possibly, rendered maps:definitely). The outcome wasn't to rely on creativity. ;-) Without a court precedent all we're left with is speculation... Yes. :-/ The ODbL isn't old or widespread enough for the fact that it's avoided being involved in a lawsuit so far to count in its favour yet. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 07/17/2010 12:30 PM, John Smith wrote: On 17 July 2010 20:11, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote: If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright licences what would they apply to in the OSM database in Australia? The court case in question was over facts, dates and times and show names, IceTV who instigated this case, also pays students to review shows, which adds an element of creativity to their database of facts. Thanks. So IceTV weren't infringing on Channel Nine's copyright as Channel Nine didn't have one on the mere facts of their programme schedule, but IceTV's combined and creativity-added database is above the creativity/originality threshold required to gain copyright protection as a (collective?) literary work? There has been discussion in the past about how creative the various levels of OSM are (my personal opinion is raw data:not, edited and combined ways:possibly, rendered maps:definitely). The outcome wasn't to rely on creativity. ;-) What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote: What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity? I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 18 July 2010 06:23, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote: What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity? I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*. You implied one or more people made that claim, what was their reasoning for this? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Mixing ODbL and CC-BY-SA databases
Hi, here's an interesting one. Suppose OSM has just changed its license to ODbL. A final CC-BY-SA planet has been released, non-relicensed data has been removed from the servers, and the project is again humming along nicely (relief!). Now I would like to make a slippy map overlay where areas are coloured red or green or different shades in between according to how much data is missing from the current ODbL dataset compared to the old CC-BY-SA data set. The idea being, if an area is red, it may be worth going there and resurveying the area because edits have been lost. I wonder if this is possible at all. Behind the scenes, I would have to compare the old CC-BY-SA data with the new data set to find out what happened. My tiles would be a derived work from the CC-BY-SA data set and as such licensed CC-BY-SA, no problem there. However, I would in all likelihood be creating an interim database derived from the new ODbL data set and the old CC-BY-SA data set. ODbL would require that I release that database under ODbL. But CC-BY-SA requires that if I release the database it must be under CC-BY-SA exclusively. Thus I cannot release the database, thus I cannot publish the tiles. Right? 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] Mixing ODbL and CC-BY-SA databases
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, here's an interesting one. Suppose OSM has just changed its license to ODbL. A final CC-BY-SA planet has been released, non-relicensed data has been removed from the servers, and the project is again humming along nicely (relief!). Now I would like to make a slippy map overlay where areas are coloured red or green or different shades in between according to how much data is missing from the current ODbL dataset compared to the old CC-BY-SA data set. The idea being, if an area is red, it may be worth going there and resurveying the area because edits have been lost. I wonder if this is possible at all. Behind the scenes, I would have to compare the old CC-BY-SA data with the new data set to find out what happened. My tiles would be a derived work from the CC-BY-SA data set and as such licensed CC-BY-SA, no problem there. However, I would in all likelihood be creating an interim database derived from the new ODbL data set and the old CC-BY-SA data set. ODbL would require that I release that database under ODbL. But CC-BY-SA requires that if I release the database it must be under CC-BY-SA exclusively. Thus I cannot release the database, thus I cannot publish the tiles. Or you create a thin-line style and render both tile sets without a background color One set red, one set green, both 50% transparent. Then you allow the user to combine the two tile sets, one over the other, in the browser. You don't compare or mix the data bases. The user is looking at produced works, ccbysa for the ccbysa tiles, your choice for the ODbL tiles. And the user has the option of republishing the overlay as long as they follow your licensing requirements. Or, just use them for personal reference and go mapping. How hard was that? Frederik posts many wonderful hypothetical situations. ;-) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Mixing ODbL and CC-BY-SA databases
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Frederik posts many wonderful hypothetical situations. ;-) Here's a completely hypothetical situation. What if I want to import OSM POIs into Wikipedia. Wikipedia is, of course, under CC-BY-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Mixing ODbL and CC-BY-SA databases
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: The user is looking at produced works, ccbysa for the ccbysa tiles, your choice for the ODbL tiles. Here's another completely hypothetical situation. What if I use CC-BY-SA for the ODbL tiles. And then someone else converts those tiles back into a database? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 17/07/2010, at 4:12 AM, Simon Ward wrote: On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:01:08PM +1000, James Livingston wrote: * It also uses contract law, which makes things a *lot* more complicated Despite my strong bias towards copyleft, I thought this was a problem with the license. Unfortunately people thought that because laws about rights to data are vastly different that contract law is needed to balance it out—it’s apparently unfair otherwise. I don’t really believe that. It certainly harmonises things a bit more, both removing some of the loopholes in various countries copyright law which people can exploit, and removing some of the fair use provisions countries have. Of course, a loophole and a fair use provides are basically the same :) I'm still not sure how useful it will be in enforcing the ODbL in the US. Consider if Bob from the US takes the OSMF-provded planet dump, produces a North America extract and makes it available on his FTP site. Jane from the US downloads it, uses it and doesn't release her Derived Database. What can we do about it? We can't use copyright or database rights to enforce it in the US (one of the main reasons for using contract as well). Ignoring any arguments about whether she could agree to a contract by downloading it from a FTP site, the only person she could have a contract with is Bob, not the OSMF. Since we're not voting on ODbL, but ODbL + contributor terms, there's also: * Changing the licence in future may not require your permission (if you do contribute for a while, or are un-contactable for three weeks) I didn’t realise it was that short a time period. :/ Three weeks isn't that long, if someone is on holiday. For example I'll be on a longer one later this year, with only intermittent Internet access and only reading my special email here if you need me while on holiday account, not my normal one. Not that we'd be re-licensing using the CTs by then, I don't even know if we'll have done the ODbL relicense. Regards, James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Upgrading to future ODbL version
On 17/07/2010, at 4:58 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: I noticed something that had escaped my attention until now. The contributor terms say that OSMF will release the data under ODbL 1.0, CC-BY-SA 2.0 or another free and open license accepted by 2/3 of active members. Notice the absence of any or later clause here. This means that if ODbL 1.1 comes out, it will not be usable out of the box, but we would have to go through the whole 2/3 of active members have to accept poll to upgrade. Is that a desired safeguard against OKFN releasing bad new license versions, or is it an oversight? It's presumably the same reason a lot of people use GPL 2.0 not GPL 2.0 or later. Who gets to call something ODbL 1.1, and how can we be sure we trust them? Consider the dodgy legal hack the FSF and Wikipedia used to do their re-licensing - Wikipedia was under GFDL 1.2 or later, and they convinced the FSF to release a GFDL 1.3 which let them relicense to CC without copyright holders' permission. I had no problem re-licenseing my small amount of Wikipedia contributions under a CC license, but what they did to do it made me trust the FSF a lot less, and I'm not going to put or later on anything I release (L)GPL in the future. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17/07/2010, at 6:34 PM, Heiko Jacobs wrote: Michael Barabanov schrieb: Consider two cases: 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone. 2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to change. Where's the issue? It's case (1) in some jurisdictions and case (2) in other jurisdictions. The OSMF can't just relicense because of the places where it is (2), but people can arguable just reuse the data in places where it is (1). There are no solution possible. Think about history function in case of splitted or joined ways. And what about a way, mapped by A with 3 points and highway=path and B sets a fourth point in the middle and add surface=... smoothness=... Who is the true holder of copyright of the way and first three points? And so on ... Easy, both of them - there doesn't have to be a single copyright holder for a piece of work. I don't know how to deal with the splitting-merging problem and other similar cases. OSM seems to try to take a whiter than white approach to not copying of other sources, so it would seem a bit weird to be more lax with contributor's data. Of course, the only solution that is guarantees to work is to nuke the DB and start again. I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ... I don't recall that being said, but I could be wrong. A lot of us Australians posting on the list 1) don't like the ODbL a lot, and 2) wondering about all the CC-BY data we've gotten from the Govetnment. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote: What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity? I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*. I know you didn't. But somebody did. What's your source for the statement The outcome wasn't to rely on creativity. Who was it who gave this advice? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 18 July 2010 15:18, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote: On 15/07/10 14:34, John Smith wrote: How many governments can change a constitution without less than 50% voting, Of the people? The US and the EU, to name but two. When did EU member nations agree to become a country? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17 July 2010 13:07, Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.com wrote: Consider two cases: 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone. 2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to change. Where's the issue? I made that exact point above some time ago and people umm'd and arr'd and didn't give me a straight answer... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Hi, John Smith wrote: On 17 July 2010 13:07, Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.com wrote: Consider two cases: 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone. 2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to change. Where's the issue? I made that exact point above some time ago and people umm'd and arr'd and didn't give me a straight answer... The answer is quite simply actually. For a long time we assumed that the current license did indeed work, and we essentially told everyone who signed up that their data was protected. They trusted us and assumed we had chosen the license well. We now know that anybody, at least in most jurisdictions and if he has a decent-sized legal budget and has not respect for ethics (i.e. is sufficiently evil), can effectively use our data as if it were unprotected. In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license out of ignorance. Shit happens. This does not mean that *we* should throw our sense of what's right and what's wrong over board and become evil. Taking the data now and relicensing it without asking those whom we have, for years, assured that their data was safe under the license we chose for them would amount to betraying these people, and would not form the basis of trust we need to continue to build a good community. It is beyond me how anyone can even suggest that we effectively pirate our own data and use this as a basis for a healthy project. No umm and arr from my side - just plain disbelief at such a rotten idea. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Thanks for the explanation. BTW, I think pirate is quite an overstatement in this context. The proposed license is still a free/open license. Plus I kind of suspect that most contributors care about potential data loss more than CC license vs ODBL license, but I may be wrong. Still, let me advance the rotten line of thought a bit. Not that I'm advocating for anything. 1. OSMF does change the license without any regard; people who are against ODBL get pissed off and stop contributing (lost for OSM?). No data loss from the database. 2. OSMF does not do that; contributions of people who are against ODBL are deleted, people who are against ODBL stop contributing anyway. Potential data loss. We've no idea how big, there're technical issues for identifying the data to be removed and actually implementing removal, and there seems to be an overall sense of uncertainty until the whole thing is resolved. 3. Of course, there's a third possibility where everyone just loves ODBL and so it's a win-win. Wouldn't that be nice. On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, John Smith wrote: On 17 July 2010 13:07, Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.com wrote: Consider two cases: 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone. 2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to change. Where's the issue? I made that exact point above some time ago and people umm'd and arr'd and didn't give me a straight answer... The answer is quite simply actually. For a long time we assumed that the current license did indeed work, and we essentially told everyone who signed up that their data was protected. They trusted us and assumed we had chosen the license well. We now know that anybody, at least in most jurisdictions and if he has a decent-sized legal budget and has not respect for ethics (i.e. is sufficiently evil), can effectively use our data as if it were unprotected. In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license out of ignorance. Shit happens. This does not mean that *we* should throw our sense of what's right and what's wrong over board and become evil. Taking the data now and relicensing it without asking those whom we have, for years, assured that their data was safe under the license we chose for them would amount to betraying these people, and would not form the basis of trust we need to continue to build a good community. It is beyond me how anyone can even suggest that we effectively pirate our own data and use this as a basis for a healthy project. No umm and arr from my side - just plain disbelief at such a rotten idea. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Hi, Michael Barabanov wrote: 1. OSMF does change the license without any regard; people who are against ODBL get pissed off and stop contributing (lost for OSM?). No data loss from the database. 2. OSMF does not do that; contributions of people who are against ODBL are deleted, people who are against ODBL stop contributing anyway. Potential data loss. This is true but I am pretty convinced that (1) would lead to people saying: Ah, OpenStreetMap, those guys that re-licence their stuff at will. - We would be thrown in with people like CDDB. I think that there are people who are against ODbL but will continue contributing if they see that this is what most project members want. I think that this number will be much smaller if OSM is seen to ignore their contributors' will. But this is only my impression; maybe one should start a poll asking: Would you find it morally acceptable to simply change the license without giving a damn for what contributors say? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Michael Barabanov schrieb: Consider two cases: 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone. 2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to change. Where's the issue? You mean where is the problem in this two cases?? Frederik Ramm schrieb: In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license out of ignorance. Shit happens. So subtract the shit, but without adding new shit by subtracting any data ... This does not mean that *we* should throw our sense of what's right and what's wrong over board and become evil. Taking the data now and relicensing it without asking those whom we have, for years, assured that their data was safe With the changing process proposed my data isn't safe if it is partially based on work of mapper who said no or who is away. And whole data I want to use in other areas is also not safe anymore under the license we chose for them would amount to betraying these people, and would not form the basis of trust we need to continue to build a good community. The process proposed is also not a base of trust if data of mappers, who said yes, is lost. Michael Barabanov schrieb: Thanks for the explanation. BTW, I think pirate is quite an overstatement in this context. The proposed license is still a free/open license. Plus I kind of suspect that most contributors care about potential data loss more than CC license vs ODBL license, +1 but I may be wrong. -1 ;-) Still, let me advance the rotten line of thought a bit. Not that I'm advocating for anything. 1. OSMF does change the license without any regard; people who are against ODBL get pissed off and stop contributing (lost for OSM?). No data loss from the database. 2. OSMF does not do that; contributions of people who are against ODBL are deleted, people who are against ODBL stop contributing anyway. Potential data loss. Not only potential data loss: data loss *guaranteed* for mappers, which cannot be reached (and mappers said no to change of licence). We've no idea how big, there're technical issues for identifying the data to be removed There are no solution possible. Think about history function in case of splitted or joined ways. And what about a way, mapped by A with 3 points and highway=path and B sets a fourth point in the middle and add surface=... smoothness=... Who is the true holder of copyright of the way and first three points? And so on ... 3. Of course, there's a third possibility where everyone just loves ODBL and so it's a win-win. Wouldn't that be nice. Then there is still the problem of the mappers we could not contact... 4. Because of data loss we stay with CC. I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ... Mueck ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] fact-based vote?
Tobias Knerr schrieb: Loss of data is the primary concern about the license change for quite a lot of mappers. Dealing with their worries is worth the delay. +1 After reading ODbL I would say yes, OSM should change licence, but after reading the process proposed for changing licence including a lost of data frem mappers not reachable or saying no, I cannot say yes to this change! This process is only dealing with worries about copyright (but everyone sais, that licences are similar, still by-sa, only filling gaps where CC has some wholes ... if this is true, there should no worries about copyright ...) but ignoring all worries about data loss ... An argument for allowing anyone who responded to the license upgrade question to vote could be that the referendum, among other advantages, will make people less likely to (ab)use the license change question as a vote. If some people cannot vote in the referendum, they might still be inclined to do this, which we probably want to avoid. I cannot accept a process with loss of data. If there is a loss of data I will leave OSM. The only possibility to avoid loss of data (if process proposed isn't changed because of this discussions, I'm still hoping for this ...) is to (ab)use the licence change question as a vote, hoping that reaching the critical mass will fail. Using this vote it might be easyer because they want a really high of percentage of user accepting new licence. If my vote failed and licence is changing with loss of data, I leave the project including my data, because of combination of vote and licence change of my data ... If it is divided in two questions, the chance of avoiding licence change and lost of date will sink, because only 2/3 or similar is needed(?), the probability that I leave theproject arises, but my data will rest inside OSM ... I just don't know which choice is better for me ... I would prefer a solution without any data loss for any licence at the end. Heiko Mueck Jacobs ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, John Smith wrote: On 17 July 2010 13:07, Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.com wrote: Consider two cases: 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone. 2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to change. Where's the issue? I made that exact point above some time ago and people umm'd and arr'd and didn't give me a straight answer... The answer is quite simply actually. For a long time we assumed that the current license did indeed work, and we essentially told everyone who signed up that their data was protected. They trusted us and assumed we had chosen the license well. We now know that anybody, at least in most jurisdictions and if he has a decent-sized legal budget and has not respect for ethics (i.e. is sufficiently evil), can effectively use our data as if it were unprotected. Do you have some relevant evidence to back this assertion? I'm not aware of any case law that is close enough to our situation to have much weight. I know about telephone directories and TV listings, but the crux here is the extent to which the content of the OSM dataset is creative and thus copyrightable. Is there any case-law on this that is relevant? In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license out of ignorance. Shit happens. Yeah, shit happens, OSM becomes outrageously successful and nobody abuses the spirit of the license. What kind of shit is that? This does not mean that *we* should throw our sense of what's right and what's wrong over board and become evil. Taking the data now and relicensing it without asking those whom we have, for years, assured that their data was safe under the license we chose for them would amount to betraying these people, and would not form the basis of trust we need to continue to build a good community. It is beyond me how anyone can even suggest that we effectively pirate our own data and use this as a basis for a healthy project. No umm and arr from my side - just plain disbelief at such a rotten idea. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17 July 2010 18:34, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote: I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ... No, someone was claiming cc-by licenses we're valid in Australia, as a reason to change to ODBL, if that is the case why did both the federal and state governments of Australia release data under cc-by if it was so weak. In theory we have more problems with the new terms and conditions than ODBL, ODBL seems cc-by compatible, but the terms and conditions allow other free and open licenses which isn't cc-by compatible. All that is needed to fix this is add a stipulation for the free and open license to be attribution based and the problem, for us, disappears. The alternative isn't pretty, potentially up to 1/3rd of the data might disappear, so we are some what concerned at this point. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] User Juergenian vandalism
I also tried to contact this user, but he ignores messages. Here's another example of vandalism in a totally different region: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/735097523 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17 July 2010 21:57, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote: Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english? I was thinking about a different email, however it's the same case but has the wrong interpretation as to the scope. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17 July 2010 22:04, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 July 2010 21:57, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote: Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english? I was thinking about a different email, however it's the same case but has the wrong interpretation as to the scope. The grounds of the case was purely over if facts themselves could be copyrighted, the ruling was based on if individual facts within a database were covered by copyright, and as a result the database itself. However as soon as you add creative content it changes things, but from what I've been told, there won't be a final ruling on this till next year, in the meant time Telstra (owner of white/yellow pages) is going round trying to get this over turned. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] User Juergenian vandalism
Hi, Aleksandr Dezhin wrote: I also tried to contact this user, but he ignores messages. Anthony has posted on the 13rd. Today is the 17th. The user has last been active on the 11th. Is it possible that he ignores messages because he's away from the computer? Has anyone actually contacted him before the 11th and got no reply? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Shared nodes between non-routable objects?
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:59:45 +1000 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: Whilst it's very usable for regional and remote areas for which there is no data. There is no justification for joining making admin boundaries into roads for metro areas particularly where there is Nearmap coverage. Here are three justifications: - working with overlapping or near-overlapping ways is difficult in some editors (Potlatch, for example) No it's not. This is just being slack and not bothering to be accurate. - maintaining two ways is more work than maintaining one The boundaries don't need to be maintained unless changed by the relevant authority. A road can be changed at any time. - map users will be uncertain where the real administrative boundary is if it appears to follow a road, but has no clearly defined relationship with it. Is the boundary down the middle of the road, on one side, the other, or independent of it? No, the boundary is where it is it does not have to follow the road. If the road is re-aligned then the boundary does not necessarily move with it and has to then be separated from the road. Have a look at the Murray River, the correct state boundary is the southern bank but someone has changed parts of the river to be the admin boundary so when the map is drawn from the data the river appears in the wrong place. The same happens with roads where the admin boundary is made into a highway=* and is actually of to one side or the road has been realigned. As John Smith has pointed out, actually finding out the real status of the boundary could be a lot of work, but it would be valuable. Yes it would, but don't join roads to the boundaries when they don't line up with the surveyed road or on nearmap. -- Cheers Ross ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: For a long time we assumed that the current license did indeed work, and we essentially told everyone who signed up that their data was protected. And what does it mean for the data to be protected? It doesn't mean that people who *use* the data have to (offer to) release their database. It means they can't take the data, add new data, and copyright that new data. But if the data isn't copyrightable, neither the old data *nor* the new data will be copyrighted. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] User Juergenian vandalism
As I know Anthony (one_half_3544) tried to contact this user on July 8 [1]. I tried on July 13 If we look at last activity of the user, we see that it not only adds a fictitious objects, but also removes the valid data: July 11: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5190263 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5190249 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5190234 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5190223 So I do not see much sense to wait for his answer. I want to draw attention to the fact that he does in Potlach live mode. [1] http://translate.google.com/translate?js=yprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=1eotf=1u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.openstreetmap.org%2Fviewtopic.php%3Fpid%3D88575%23p88575sl=rutl=enact=url 2010/7/17 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Hi, Aleksandr Dezhin wrote: I also tried to contact this user, but he ignores messages. Anthony has posted on the 13rd. Today is the 17th. The user has last been active on the 11th. Is it possible that he ignores messages because he's away from the computer? Has anyone actually contacted him before the 11th and got no reply? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: We now know that anybody, at least in most jurisdictions and if he has a decent-sized legal budget and has not respect for ethics (i.e. is sufficiently evil), can effectively use our data as if it were unprotected. In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license out of ignorance. Shit happens. I'm going to reiterate the point I made above in another way. However, I'd first like to point out that I disagree that it is evil or constitutes a lack or respect for ethics for someone to use non-copyrightable facts as though they are not copyrighted. Now, with that out of the way, let's say a big huge company with lots of map data and a decent-sized legal budget decides to use OSM data as though it were not copyrighted. Presumably they'd try to do this without getting caught, but let's further say that they do get caught. Now what? Now we sue them and they have to argue in court that geodata is ineligible for copyright? Yeah right. That means their competitors can now come along and take all of *their* data, and there's nothing at all that they can do about it. Seems incredibly unlikely to me. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, John Smith wrote: On 17 July 2010 13:07, Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.com wrote: Consider two cases: 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone. 2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to change. Where's the issue? I made that exact point above some time ago and people umm'd and arr'd and didn't give me a straight answer... The answer is quite simply actually. For a long time we assumed that the current license did indeed work, and we essentially told everyone who signed up that their data was protected. They trusted us and assumed we had chosen the license well. We have never said to any contributors that their data is protected. The only stipulation OSM ever made was that contributors had to agree to license their data in a certain way before they were allowed to upload it. OSM would never and could never make any kind of warranty about the protection of user's contributions. But, it's an interesting point that maybe ODbL provides the protection that we all thought CC-BY-SA was giving. However it fails to do this. Produced Works can be released under any license the publisher chooses. If ODbL was really trying to fix CC-BY-SA for data (and for us) then it would make much more sense for Produced Works to only be publishable under a CC-BY-SA license. It is clear that ODbL does a lot more than just fix CC-BY-SA so that it works for data. Why is that? 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Hi, 80n wrote: We have never said to any contributors that their data is protected. The only stipulation OSM ever made was that contributors had to agree to license their data in a certain way before they were allowed to upload it. If we have really never said nor implied that our contributors' data was protected, then I'd say it is morally ok to simply relicense the whole thing ODbL and be done with it. I do however believe that this would lead to an outcry because contributors believed otherwise. Who, if not we, has created that belief? But, it's an interesting point that maybe ODbL provides the protection that we all thought CC-BY-SA was giving. However it fails to do this. Depends on how you look at it, and this has been discussed endlessly. OSM is a project about data, and ODbL seems very well suited to protect that data(base), in an even stronger fashion than CC-BY-SA ever did (what with having to release intermediate databases which could have been kept proprietary under CC-BY-SA). At the same time it recognizes that trying to extend protection to non-data(base) things just reduces OSM's usefulness, and thus allows Produced Works to be published under any[*] license. Remember that the stated goal of OSM is to create a free world map, not to make sure some printed atlas or work of art somewhere is under a free license. It is clear that ODbL does a lot more than just fix CC-BY-SA so that it works for data. Why is that? ODbL is a new license, it is not a patch against CC-BY-SA. I see nothing wrong with that; it is a product of a long and arduous community process in which people with very different views about licensing and what's good and what's bad for the project have agreed on a workable middle ground that protects what is essential to the project and releases what is non-essential. As you know, those who invented CC-BY-SA tried to somehow adapt it for use with data, and came to the conclusion that they'd rather recommend all data be CC0. Which I still think is a good idea but I accept that I can't always have things my way if I want to be part of a community. Bye Frederik [*] any has always been my reading, however there are others who claim that ODbL does in fact not allow you to publish under any license, but it must be some kind of attribution license. Here's Richard Fairhurst's take on this: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-June/006292.html -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] MapQuest Mapnik style available on GitHub
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 20:45, Antony Pegg anttheli...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, As requested last week, the MapQuest Mapnik style is available on GitHub, at: http://github.com/MapQuest/MapQuest-Mapnik-Style Its under an MIT license This is great, it's really nice to see you guys being pro-active in opening your stuff, and supporting existing projects. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
1. OSMF does change the license without any regard; people who are against ODBL get pissed off and stop contributing (lost for OSM?). No data loss from the database. 2. OSMF does not do that; contributions of people who are against ODBL are deleted, people who are against ODBL stop contributing anyway. Potential data loss. This is true but I am pretty convinced that (1) would lead to people saying: Ah, OpenStreetMap, those guys that re-licence their stuff at will. - We would be thrown in with people like CDDB. Not a great analogy as CDDB isn't really open, right? I think that there are people who are against ODbL but will continue contributing if they see that this is what most project members want. I think that this number will be much smaller if OSM is seen to ignore their contributors' will. But this is only my impression; maybe one should start a poll asking: Would you find it morally acceptable to simply change the license without giving a damn for what contributors say? I think a poll would be good. Perhaps with a different wording though:) Here's another possible scenario: even if OSMF is not willing to do forced relicensing, individual contributors may choose to effectively do so. Say OSMF does remove the data from the main database (what? how? this is poorly defined for all but trivial cases), but a contributor is convinced (by OSMF, no less:)) that CC BY-SA is the same as PD for data, and copy-pastes removed data back into the main database. Not so easy in case of complex relations etc, but doable. I wonder if that would be a widespread scenario. Michael. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
A poll could be something like: Would you find a it acceptable if OSMF relicensed the whole dataset to ODBL without any data loss. If nothing else, that'd give an idea of how people feel about licensing vs data itself. On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, 80n wrote: We have never said to any contributors that their data is protected. The only stipulation OSM ever made was that contributors had to agree to license their data in a certain way before they were allowed to upload it. If we have really never said nor implied that our contributors' data was protected, then I'd say it is morally ok to simply relicense the whole thing ODbL and be done with it. I do however believe that this would lead to an outcry because contributors believed otherwise. Who, if not we, has created that belief? But, it's an interesting point that maybe ODbL provides the protection that we all thought CC-BY-SA was giving. However it fails to do this. Depends on how you look at it, and this has been discussed endlessly. OSM is a project about data, and ODbL seems very well suited to protect that data(base), in an even stronger fashion than CC-BY-SA ever did (what with having to release intermediate databases which could have been kept proprietary under CC-BY-SA). At the same time it recognizes that trying to extend protection to non-data(base) things just reduces OSM's usefulness, and thus allows Produced Works to be published under any[*] license. Remember that the stated goal of OSM is to create a free world map, not to make sure some printed atlas or work of art somewhere is under a free license. It is clear that ODbL does a lot more than just fix CC-BY-SA so that it works for data. Why is that? ODbL is a new license, it is not a patch against CC-BY-SA. I see nothing wrong with that; it is a product of a long and arduous community process in which people with very different views about licensing and what's good and what's bad for the project have agreed on a workable middle ground that protects what is essential to the project and releases what is non-essential. As you know, those who invented CC-BY-SA tried to somehow adapt it for use with data, and came to the conclusion that they'd rather recommend all data be CC0. Which I still think is a good idea but I accept that I can't always have things my way if I want to be part of a community. Bye Frederik [*] any has always been my reading, however there are others who claim that ODbL does in fact not allow you to publish under any license, but it must be some kind of attribution license. Here's Richard Fairhurst's take on this: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-June/006292.html -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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] fact-based vote?
On 17 Jul 2010, at 2:05 , Heiko Jacobs wrote: I cannot accept a process with loss of data. If there is a loss of data I will leave OSM. there is no loss of data! It has always been said that the old data will remain available under the old license. The only possibility to avoid loss of data (if process proposed isn't changed because of this discussions, I'm still hoping for this ...) is to (ab)use the licence change question as a vote, hoping that reaching the critical mass will fail. Using this vote it might be easyer because they want a really high of percentage of user accepting new licence. If my vote failed and licence is changing with loss of data, I leave the project including my data, because of combination of vote and licence change of my data … strategic voting is really wrong and stupid. playing this game by many will put the project on more risk for nothing. If you think Odbl is the better license vote for it or PD as a third choice. If you don't like the process of how data is converted what is considered minor edits and can still be relicensed without loss … then better raise your voice there. absolutely agree we need to work on a smooth process to minimize loss. There is no decision on this process there is no plan there are just many ideas. So let's make this switch or abandon it as fast as possible. No decision is the worst for OSM. personally I don't mind which of the 2 license we use but we need a clear statement where we go. this took already too long and holds back imports from non PD sources. Puts all consumers of OSM data at risk to have to back out at some time or go a very painful way to mix data from old planet with new Odbl for some time. If it is divided in two questions, the chance of avoiding licence change and lost of date will sink, because only 2/3 or similar is needed(?), the probability that I leave theproject arises, but my data will rest inside OSM … yes, the second question has never been asked, so why do you expect an answer. and again data is not lost. I am sure the OSMF has the same wish as you and I and will come up with a reasonable plan when the first is answered positively. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] fact-based vote?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.comwrote: On 17 Jul 2010, at 2:05 , Heiko Jacobs wrote: I cannot accept a process with loss of data. If there is a loss of data I will leave OSM. there is no loss of data! It has always been said that the old data will remain available under the old license. The only possibility to avoid loss of data (if process proposed isn't changed because of this discussions, I'm still hoping for this ...) is to (ab)use the licence change question as a vote, hoping that reaching the critical mass will fail. Using this vote it might be easyer because they want a really high of percentage of user accepting new licence. If my vote failed and licence is changing with loss of data, I leave the project including my data, because of combination of vote and licence change of my data … strategic voting is really wrong and stupid. playing this game by many will put the project on more risk for nothing. If you think Odbl is the better license vote for it or PD as a third choice. If you don't like the process of how data is converted what is considered minor edits and can still be relicensed without loss … then better raise your voice there. absolutely agree we need to work on a smooth process to minimize loss. There is no decision on this process there is no plan there are just many ideas. So let's make this switch or abandon it as fast as possible. No decision is the worst for OSM. personally I don't mind which of the 2 license we use but we need a clear statement where we go. this took already too long and holds back imports from non PD sources. Puts all consumers of OSM data at risk to have to back out at some time or go a very painful way to mix data from old planet with new Odbl for some time. Indeed, we've been suffering from this license-twiddling induced stasis for far too long now. That's why I've proposed that the LWG/OSMF achieve a clear and undeniable mandate by September 1st or just drop the whole thing. We can't afford to let this cancer continue eating away at the project any longer. If it is divided in two questions, the chance of avoiding licence change and lost of date will sink, because only 2/3 or similar is needed(?), the probability that I leave theproject arises, but my data will rest inside OSM … yes, the second question has never been asked, so why do you expect an answer. and again data is not lost. I am sure the OSMF has the same wish as you and I and will come up with a reasonable plan when the first is answered positively. ___ 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] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Hi, Michael Barabanov wrote: A poll could be something like: Would you find a it acceptable if OSMF relicensed the whole dataset to ODBL without any data loss. It should really be Would you find it acceptable if OSMF relicensed the whole dataset to ODbL without asking for consent from individual contributors, thereby making sure that there is no data loss, but disregarding individuals who might be against the change? If OSMF were to do that, they would likely be sued by a number of principled objectors; we'd have to factor in a legal budget to deal with that. It should not be too much because those legal advisers that have told us that the CC-BY-SA would likely not hold in court would simply have to tell the judge the same ;) Problem is, the principled objectors could also decline to sue OSMF and instead threaten to sue users of OSM data that contains their contributions. *We* believe such threats to be empty, but consider our users - one of the reasons for ODbL is to achieve a legal certainty about using our data. Would all this not lead to people *again* shying away from OSM for fear of some poisoned bits of data? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] fact-based vote?
Hi, 80n wrote: Indeed, we've been suffering from this license-twiddling induced stasis for far too long now. That's why I've proposed that the LWG/OSMF achieve a clear and undeniable mandate by September 1st or just drop the whole thing. We can't afford to let this cancer continue eating away at the project any longer. If it had been for what was then the LWG, we'd have switched to ODbL some time in early 2009. At that time, the plans were shoddy, many details about the ODbL were totally unclear, and it looked as if we'd all be steamrolled into a license change with minimal information. There was, predictably, an outcry, and I was among those who protested at the slipshod way of making such a big decision. Since then, a lot of work has been done, refining definitions, explaining consequences, evaluating use cases. Tons and tons of documentation are on the Wiki, countless hours have been spent consulting lawyers. The matter has been handled with all the diligence it deserves. I'm surprised that you should call what seems to me like a proper process a cancer eating away at the project. Would you have preferred a quick license switch 1.5 years ago when nobody really had thought about what a derived database was, what a produced work was, and what substantial meant in the context of our database? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] fact-based vote?
According to what was announced when the news about the proposed new license terms came out, any data that originated with someone who doesn't agree with the new license will be removed from the database, meaning that any subsequent edits to that data will be removed as well, even if the subsequent edits were done by people who agree to the new license. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] fact-based vote? From :mailto:ascho...@gmail.com Date :Sat Jul 17 13:07:09 America/Chicago 2010 On 17 Jul 2010, at 2:05 , Heiko Jacobs wrote: I cannot accept a process with loss of data. If there is a loss of data I will leave OSM. there is no loss of data! It has always been said that the old data will remain available under the old license. The only possibility to avoid loss of data (if process proposed isn't changed because of this discussions, I'm still hoping for this ...) is to (ab)use the licence change question as a vote, hoping that reaching the critical mass will fail. Using this vote it might be easyer because they want a really high of percentage of user accepting new licence. If my vote failed and licence is changing with loss of data, I leave the project including my data, because of combination of vote and licence change of my data … strategic voting is really wrong and stupid. playing this game by many will put the project on more risk for nothing. If you think Odbl is the better license vote for it or PD as a third choice. If you don't like the process of how data is converted what is considered minor edits and can still be relicensed without loss … then better raise your voice there. absolutely agree we need to work on a smooth process to minimize loss. There is no decision on this process there is no plan there are just many ideas. So let's make this switch or abandon it as fast as possible. No decision is the worst for OSM. personally I don't mind which of the 2 license we use but we need a clear statement where we go. this took already too long and holds back imports from non PD sources. Puts all consumers of OSM data at risk to have to back out at some time or go a very painful way to mix data from old planet with new Odbl for some time. If it is divided in two questions, the chance of avoiding licence change and lost of date will sink, because only 2/3 or similar is needed(?), the probability that I leave theproject arises, but my data will rest inside OSM … yes, the second question has never been asked, so why do you expect an answer. and again data is not lost. I am sure the OSMF has the same wish as you and I and will come up with a reasonable plan when the first is answered positively. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] fact-based vote?
Apollinaris Schoell schrieb: On 17 Jul 2010, at 2:05 , Heiko Jacobs wrote: I cannot accept a process with loss of data. If there is a loss of data I will leave OSM. there is no loss of data! It has always been said that the old data will remain available under the old license. This last-CC-planet.osm will have NO worth for further work in OSM, because of the data in it is dirty. The data is lost for the ODBL-OSM, this OSM including active mapper community. A fork is also NO solution. The only possibility to avoid loss of data (if process proposed isn't changed because of this discussions, I'm still hoping for this ...) is to (ab)use the licence change question as a vote, hoping that reaching the critical mass will fail. Using this vote it might be easyer because they want a really high of percentage of user accepting new licence. If my vote failed and licence is changing with loss of data, I leave the project including my data, because of combination of vote and licence change of my data … strategic voting is really wrong and stupid. playing this game by many will put the project on more risk for nothing. I don't want to play this game. But at now it is the only possibility to vote also against the process of licence change If you don't like the process of how data is converted what is considered minor edits and can still be relicensed without loss … then better raise your voice there. I rais my voice as you can read here. If you know a better place: give a pointer to it. absolutely agree we need to work on a smooth process to minimize loss. I still hope for zero loss Mueck ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] fact-based vote?
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: there is no loss of data! It has always been said that the old data will remain available under the old license. If you take somewhere between one third and one quarter of the data for a well defined area and lock it up from further edits on OSM what will those mappers do? Will they continue with OSM and remap those missing bits will they give up altogether or will they fork? This is not a philosophical question - this is our first estimate on data loss for one substantial area of the globe. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Looking for participants to test OSM-based audio maps
Dear all As part of my Master's project at Queen Mary, University of London, I'm looking for participants to take part in a game centred on wayfinding challenges in urban audio maps. The game should take no longer than 20 minutes to complete and there will be a prize draw with a total of ten £10 Amazon vouchers (or the international equivalent) to be won. To play the game, please download the installer from https://sourceforge.net/projects/team/. It should install without problems on Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7 (32-bit and 64-bit). After you have installed and started TEAM, press Ctrl+Enter to play. For a screenshot and further information, see the project website, http://team.sourceforge.net. The game has been designed with accessibility in mind, so blind and partially sighted participants are very much encouraged to take part. I'd be delighted if you'd be happy to play the game. If you have any questions about the game or the research on which it is based, please don't hesitate to contact me. With kind regards, Esther [ec09500 at eecs dot qmul dot ac dot uk] P.S.: I also posted in the development section of the forum, I hope that's OK. (http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=8389) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Spatiallite
Someone gave a lightening talk at sotm about using Spatiallite with osm. Can the speaker please contact me off-list? Thanks, - Serge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Murray River Shared nodes between non-routable objects?
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Ross Scanlon wrote: Have a look at the Murray River, the correct state boundary is the southern bank but someone has changed parts of the river to be the admin boundary so when the map is drawn from the data the river appears in the wrong place. The same happens with roads where the admin boundary is made into a highway=* and is actually of to one side or the road has been realigned. The original Murray River trace was either made by swampwallaby using vmap or by a few of us tracing from Landsat. The only surveyed points then would have been bridges and bridge piers. So the admin boundary, which is definitely not the wet part of the river, is more accurate overall Some can now be seen on Nearmap, and this is enough resolution to split the river from the admin boundary. This might be best done by drawing in riverbanks and making areas of the river. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Murray River Shared nodes between non-routable objects?
On 18 July 2010 09:49, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: The original Murray River trace was either made by swampwallaby using vmap or by a few of us tracing from Landsat. The only surveyed points then would have been bridges and bridge piers. Ross' problem was that the Murray River is using ABS data, which for the most part is still the best resource available except where Nearmap covers now, however no one has updated around Echuca yet, but I've updated a fair bit from the most easterly Nearmap coverage of the Murray river and have slowly been working my way west. Some can now be seen on Nearmap, and this is enough resolution to split the river from the admin boundary. This might be best done by drawing in riverbanks and making areas of the river. The bits I've updated I've left the boundary tagged as waterway=river, but unlike most other rivers the boundary is the southern side of the river, rather than how most rivers are drawn with a way down the centre, so what I did was use the boundary as part of a multipolygon, rather than drawing separate polygons, and this seems to render correctly: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-36.08434lon=146.84911zoom=15layers=B000FTF ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Spatiallite
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote: Someone gave a lightening talk at sotm about using Spatiallite with osm. Can the speaker please contact me off-list? I remember that Andrii spoke of several NoSQL DBs, was spatiallite one of them ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] Murray River Shared nodes between non-routable objects?
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 09:49:41 +1000 Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: The original Murray River trace was either made by swampwallaby using vmap or by a few of us tracing from Landsat. The only surveyed points then would have been bridges and bridge piers. So the admin boundary, which is definitely not the wet part of the river, is more accurate overall Some can now be seen on Nearmap, and this is enough resolution to split the river from the admin boundary. This might be best done by drawing in riverbanks and making areas of the river. This is my point exactly and I was only using the Murray River as an example of where the admin boundary does not correspond with what's on the ground. When the only data is the admin boundary use it to define rivers etc when known or in conjunction with landsat or other low res images. When there is hires imagery such as Nearmap, or surveyed data there is no justification for making an admin boundary into a road/river/railway line. The admin boundaries don't get moved with road/railway realignment and therefore without change from the original source we should not be moving them. So if they are not connected to railways/roads etc then errors will not be introduced. -- Cheers Ross ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Spatiallite
No, I'm not talking about Andril's talk. There was someone who had created a small app using Spatialite and a GTK frontend during the conference. - Serge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] Murray River Shared nodes between non-routable objects?
On 18 July 2010 12:10, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: The admin boundaries don't get moved with road/railway realignment and therefore without change from the original source we should not be moving them. So if they are not connected to railways/roads etc then errors will not be introduced. In this case we know where the Murray River and the border is through various people reading lots of information on the NSW/Vic border court judgments, in general the border does move with the river, but not always, but this is the exception and without reading a ton of legal precedents. I agree 100% with you it would be much easier long term to keep them split, if for no other reason that all the borders could then be replaced with better information in future without effecting anything else. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Looking for participants to test OSM-based audio maps
On 18 July 2010 04:53, Esther Loeliger ec09...@eecs.qmul.ac.uk wrote: To play the game, please download the installer from https://sourceforge.net/projects/team/. It should install without problems on Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7 (32-bit and 64-bit). Ahh windoze.. Sorry I use free software as in Debian GNU/Linux . Can't run a non-free distro . The game has been designed with accessibility in mind, so blind and partially sighted participants are very much encouraged to take part. I'd be delighted if you'd be happy to play the game. Very happy to see some one working on accessibility . All the best with your project . Regards, Pavithran -- pavithran sakamuri http://look-pavi.blogspot.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk-nl] Mapping party organiseren? Lichtgevende hesjes mee!
Ha allemaal! Op de veiling van State Of The Map heb ik een pakket van 11 lichtgevende hesjes in verschillende maten bemachtigd met een OpenStreetMap-logo en 'SURVEYOR' erop. Ideaal om bij je te hebben als je een mapping party organiseert. Op deze foto http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisfleming/4782921421/ worden de hesjes geshowd door twee van de SOTM10-organisatoren. Wil je ze gebruiken? Stuur dan even een mailtje aan mij. Groeten, Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org Laziness – Impatience – Hubris http://schaaltreinen.nl twitter: mvexel skype: mvexel flickr: rhodes ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
[OSM-talk-nl] Spullenlijst
Hoi allemaal, Ik heb een begin gemaakt met een lijst van Spullen die beschikbaar is voor gebruik voor PR-doeleinden, mapping parties en andere publieke evenementen. Heb je ook OSM-gerelateerde Spullen die te gebruiken zijn voor die doeleinden - flyers, posters, gadgets of wat ook - voeg ze dan daar toe. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Netherlands/Spullen Ik vermoed trouwens dat de lijst met GPSen allang niet meer up to date is. Ik stel voor dat iedereen die er één of meer in beheer heeft op het moment, even het serienummer bekijkt en dat vergelijkt met de status op de wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GPS_Devices_OSM_Netherlands Bedankt! Martijn Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org Laziness – Impatience – Hubris http://schaaltreinen.nl twitter: mvexel skype: mvexel flickr: rhodes ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
[OSM-talk-nl] geen lol aan
Er is zo langzamerhand geen lol meer aan, dat openstreetmap. Die servers zijn momenteel zo wanstaltig traag, ik ben meer tijd bezig met het wachten tot ik eindelijk kan beginnen/doorgaan met verwerken dan met het verwerken zelf. Waarschuwen jullie me als dit probleem is opgelost, zodat ik weer kan gaan mappen? -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] geen lol aan
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Andre Engels wrote: Er is zo langzamerhand geen lol meer aan, dat openstreetmap. Die servers zijn momenteel zo wanstaltig traag, ik ben meer tijd bezig met het wachten tot ik eindelijk kan beginnen/doorgaan met verwerken dan met het verwerken zelf. Waarschuwen jullie me als dit probleem is opgelost, zodat ik weer kan gaan mappen? Mappen kan altijd :P en de API server forken ook wel ;) Dus... willen we dat :P Stefan ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] postkantoor
Ronald wrote: Ik heb een vraag over postkantoren. De situatie in Nederland verandert en de postkantoren verdwijnen. Daarvoor in de plaats komt dat bij gewone winkels een afdeling is waar men postzaken kan afhandelen (net zoals op het platteland van Canada en de V.S. Hoe mappen we dat? De shop taggen met post_office=yes? Maarten ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Mapping party organiseren? Lichtgevende hesjes mee!
Even voor de duidelijkheid: ik draag op de betreffende foto gewoon m'n eigen shirt Ivan Sanchez Ortega (links) draagt het betreffende hesje... Gr, Henk Op 17 juli 2010 11:05 schreef Martijn van Exel mve...@gmail.com het volgende: Ha allemaal! Op de veiling van State Of The Map heb ik een pakket van 11 lichtgevende hesjes in verschillende maten bemachtigd met een OpenStreetMap-logo en 'SURVEYOR' erop. Ideaal om bij je te hebben als je een mapping party organiseert. Op deze foto http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisfleming/4782921421/ worden de hesjes geshowd door twee van de SOTM10-organisatoren. Wil je ze gebruiken? Stuur dan even een mailtje aan mij. Groeten, Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org Laziness – Impatience – Hubris http://schaaltreinen.nl twitter: mvexel skype: mvexel flickr: rhodes ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Mapping party organiseren? Lichtgevende hesjes mee!
Verdraaid! Inderdaad :) Er was ook zoveel oranje die dag!! http://www.flickr.com/photos/nataliedowne/4786252024/in/photostream/ Martijn Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org Laziness – Impatience – Hubris http://schaaltreinen.nl twitter: mvexel skype: mvexel flickr: rhodes On Jul 17, 2010, at 7:28 PM, Henk Hoff wrote: Even voor de duidelijkheid: ik draag op de betreffende foto gewoon m'n eigen shirt Ivan Sanchez Ortega (links) draagt het betreffende hesje... Gr, Henk Op 17 juli 2010 11:05 schreef Martijn van Exel mve...@gmail.com het volgende: Ha allemaal! Op de veiling van State Of The Map heb ik een pakket van 11 lichtgevende hesjes in verschillende maten bemachtigd met een OpenStreetMap-logo en 'SURVEYOR' erop. Ideaal om bij je te hebben als je een mapping party organiseert. Op deze foto http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisfleming/4782921421/ worden de hesjes geshowd door twee van de SOTM10-organisatoren. Wil je ze gebruiken? Stuur dan even een mailtje aan mij. Groeten, Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org Laziness – Impatience – Hubris http://schaaltreinen.nl twitter: mvexel skype: mvexel flickr: rhodes ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [talk-au] [OSM-talk] Murray River Shared nodes between non-routable objects?
On 18 July 2010 09:49, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: The original Murray River trace was either made by swampwallaby using vmap or by a few of us tracing from Landsat. The only surveyed points then would have been bridges and bridge piers. Ross' problem was that the Murray River is using ABS data, which for the most part is still the best resource available except where Nearmap covers now, however no one has updated around Echuca yet, but I've updated a fair bit from the most easterly Nearmap coverage of the Murray river and have slowly been working my way west. Some can now be seen on Nearmap, and this is enough resolution to split the river from the admin boundary. This might be best done by drawing in riverbanks and making areas of the river. The bits I've updated I've left the boundary tagged as waterway=river, but unlike most other rivers the boundary is the southern side of the river, rather than how most rivers are drawn with a way down the centre, so what I did was use the boundary as part of a multipolygon, rather than drawing separate polygons, and this seems to render correctly: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-36.08434lon=146.84911zoom=15layers=B000FTF ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Murray River [OSM-talk] Shared nodes between non-routable objects?
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 09:49:41 +1000 Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: The original Murray River trace was either made by swampwallaby using vmap or by a few of us tracing from Landsat. The only surveyed points then would have been bridges and bridge piers. So the admin boundary, which is definitely not the wet part of the river, is more accurate overall Some can now be seen on Nearmap, and this is enough resolution to split the river from the admin boundary. This might be best done by drawing in riverbanks and making areas of the river. This is my point exactly and I was only using the Murray River as an example of where the admin boundary does not correspond with what's on the ground. When the only data is the admin boundary use it to define rivers etc when known or in conjunction with landsat or other low res images. When there is hires imagery such as Nearmap, or surveyed data there is no justification for making an admin boundary into a road/river/railway line. The admin boundaries don't get moved with road/railway realignment and therefore without change from the original source we should not be moving them. So if they are not connected to railways/roads etc then errors will not be introduced. -- Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [OSM-talk] Murray River Shared nodes between non-routable objects?
On 18 July 2010 12:10, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: The admin boundaries don't get moved with road/railway realignment and therefore without change from the original source we should not be moving them. So if they are not connected to railways/roads etc then errors will not be introduced. In this case we know where the Murray River and the border is through various people reading lots of information on the NSW/Vic border court judgments, in general the border does move with the river, but not always, but this is the exception and without reading a ton of legal precedents. I agree 100% with you it would be much easier long term to keep them split, if for no other reason that all the borders could then be replaced with better information in future without effecting anything else. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [OSM-talk] Murray River Shared nodes between non-routable objects?
On 18 July 2010 12:33, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: always, but this is the exception and without reading a ton of legal precedents. and without reading a ton of legal precedents and other documentation on boundaries we'd only be left guessing, or doing what we do now, leaving it up to the ABS to do the work for us :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [Talk-de] Adressen mit PostGIS zusammenbasteln
Am 17.07.2010 um 02:08 schrieb Sven Geggus: Ich möchte für eine Karte mit Spezial POI Adressen auch anzeigen wenn nur addr:housenumber erfasst wurde. Das könnte auch für eine OSM-Navigation interessant sein. Denn nicht immer ist vollständig getaggt. Die Straße rauszufinden ist noch relativ einfach, man sucht einfach den nächsten way mit highway='residential','living_street','primary','secondary','tertiary','unclassified' Was machst Du bei Gebäuden / Nodes mit addr:housenumber an Straßenkreuzungen? Woher weisst Du, zu welcher Straße deren Adresse gehört. Selbst wenn der Eingang getaggt sein sollte, ist das kein zuverlässiger Hinweis, dass dessen Seite zur Strtaße zeigt, zu dem die Hausnummer gehört. Das weiss ich aus eigenen Erfahrungen beim Hausnummerntaggen. Nun möchte ich aber gerne auch PLZ und Hausnummer rausfinden. Hat da schon mal jemand was probiert? Hausnummern? Hast dich verschrieben oder? Aber bei der PLZ, Stadt/Ortschaft und Land bin ich auch sehr gespannt, ob das jemand konkret hinbekommt. Vor allem, wenn die einen Häuser einer Straße zur einen PLZ gehören und die anderen zu einer anderen der gleichen Stadt. Freue mich auf Ergebnisse, steffterra ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Adressschema für nicht-straßenbezoge ne Adressierung
Am 16. Juli 2010 16:17 schrieb Fips Schneider o...@fips-schneider.de: Als Beispiel seien hier kleine Dörfer genannt, die so wenig Häuser haben, dass die Häuser durchnummeriert sind (gibts das überhaupt noch in DE? Ich kenne nur einen Fall, wo das bis vor etwa 10 Jahre in AT noch so war). Weiteres Beispiel: Im ehemaligen Ostblock werden oft Blocknummern vergeben, ich bin also nicht in der Straße XY sondern im Ortsteil X im Block Z. Sollte dann addr:street=Siedlungsname gesetzt werden oder wie macht man das? Meines Erachtens brauchen wir dafür einen neuen Schlüssel, der sich auf den Ort bezieht und nicht auf die Straße. (ich fänd addr:location ganz gut, da es hinsichtlich der Stellung des Ortes in der Hierarchie neutral ist) Das KA-Schema wurde ja auch von Anfang an in dem vollen Bewußtsein entwickelt, daß es für den deutschen Standardfall gut ist, an anderen Orten aber nicht funktionieren wird. Jetzt kann man entweder für andere Orte ein komplett anderes Schema entwickeln, oder das KA-Schema einfach erweitern... meiner Meinung nach die bessere Alternative. Eine andere Erweiterung, die ich gerne sehen würde, ist eine Gebäudenummer, die unterhalb der Grundstücksnummer(Hausnummer) rangiert und oft (immer?) vom Eigentümer oder Betreiber selbst vergeben wird. Beispiel: Der gesamte Campus hat die Hausnummer 2, aber es gibt Gebäude 1 bis 6. In einem Beispiel, das ich kenne, hat das Gelände mehrere Hausnummern, ist aber zusammenhängend und die einzelnen Häuser (es sind mehr, als es Hausnummern gibt) sind noch einmal intern durchnummeriert - das wird auch postalisch genutzt. addr:building? Gruß, Martin ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Adressschema für nicht-straßenbezoge ne Adressierung
On 07/17/2010 09:38 AM, Martin Simon wrote: Eine andere Erweiterung, die ich gerne sehen würde, ist eine Gebäudenummer, die unterhalb der Grundstücksnummer(Hausnummer) rangiert und oft (immer?) vom Eigentümer oder Betreiber selbst vergeben wird. Beispiel: Der gesamte Campus hat die Hausnummer 2, aber es gibt Gebäude 1 bis 6. In einem Beispiel, das ich kenne, hat das Gelände mehrere Hausnummern, ist aber zusammenhängend und die einzelnen Häuser (es sind mehr, als es Hausnummern gibt) sind noch einmal intern durchnummeriert - das wird auch postalisch genutzt. addr:building? building=yes name=1 ? -- hartmut ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Adressschema für nicht-straßenbezog ene Adressierung
Am 17. Juli 2010 09:48 schrieb Hartmut Holzgraefe hart...@php.net: On 07/17/2010 09:38 AM, Martin Simon wrote: Eine andere Erweiterung, die ich gerne sehen würde, ist eine Gebäudenummer, die unterhalb der Grundstücksnummer(Hausnummer) rangiert und oft (immer?) vom Eigentümer oder Betreiber selbst vergeben wird. Beispiel: Der gesamte Campus hat die Hausnummer 2, aber es gibt Gebäude 1 bis 6. In einem Beispiel, das ich kenne, hat das Gelände mehrere Hausnummern, ist aber zusammenhängend und die einzelnen Häuser (es sind mehr, als es Hausnummern gibt) sind noch einmal intern durchnummeriert - das wird auch postalisch genutzt. addr:building? building=yes name=1 wohl eher ref=1 André ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel
Am 16.07.2010 20:26, schrieb Falk Zscheile: Die Idee, auf den Stand zurückzusetzen dem alle user zugestimmt haben, mag gut gedacht sein. Dies alles an die History eines Elements zu binden halte ich für falsch. Die History ist aus dem eben genannten Gründen nicht geeignet auf den Urheber zu schließen. Man kann ja mal die Probe machen und mal die Daten von Mecklenburg-Vorpommern nehmen und einmal unterstellen der User pfoten_weg_!_ und wie er noch so hieß würde nicht zustimmen. Ich denke es dürften dann einige beachtliche Lücken entstehen und viele die im Urlaub an der Ostseeküste gemappt haben werden sich wundern, wo ihre Edits hin verschwunden sind (Komisch, als ich hier gemappt habe war ich der erste. Wo sind meine Einträge denn bloß hin?). Der Revert gilt für *alle* Aktionen des Users, und gelöschte Objekte sind ja in der DB nur als gelöscht markiert. Wenn also pfoten_weg_!_ alles gelöscht und neu angelegt hat, aber dann der ODbL nicht zustimmt, werden alle von ihm gelöschten Objekte wiederhergestellt. -- Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel-Bauchscmerzen
Am 16.07.2010 20:01, schrieb Manuel Reimer: Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote: [Nur nehmen, nichts zurückgeben] Und was wäre daran so schlimm? OSM schadet das doch nicht? Es bringt aber auch keinen Vorteil. Letztlich gewinnt hier nur der Unternehmer, der dadurch nur zeigt, dass er das zugrundeliegende Konzept nicht versteht. Das hätte er nur dann verstanden, wenn er ganz selbstverständlich seine Daten auch freigeben würde. Das das nicht immer gemacht wird, habe ich ja an heutzutage schon anzutreffenden Beispielen gezeigt. Es stört einen einfach, wenn man tagein, tagaus Software schreibt, unter dem Ziel für XY eine freie Alternative zu schaffen, und dann irgendwer daherkommt, sich das Programm krallt, einige Änderungen dazuschreibt, dicke Kohle damit macht und auf Bitte, seine Änderungen wieder freizugeben, nur darauf hinweist, dass ihn keiner dazu zwingen kann. Würde mir das genau so passieren, dann wäre ich ganz zu Recht ziemlich sauer. Würde mir aber nicht passieren, da ich meine Projekte GPLv3 lizenziere und bei PD-Projekten üblicherweise nicht mithelfe. Ich sehe es doch garnicht ein, meine Freizeit für freie Software zu investieren, aber die Option für einen Unternehmer zu lassen, meine Arbeit doch Closed Source weiterzuvertreiben. Ich kann dich sehr gut verstehen, und was Software angeht, halte ich es meist genau so, aber eine Software ist nicht so ohne weiteres mit Kartendaten zu vergleichen. Kartendaten müssen ständig aktualisiert und gepflegt werden. Ich finde es einfach fair, über die Lizenz wenigstens eine kleine Gegenleistung, die wirklich keinem weh tut (Quelle angeben, Änderungen wieder hochladen oder direkt in der OSM-DB pflegen) von denen einzufordern, die die Daten nutzen wollen. Wenn es, wie der eine oder andere schon behauptet hat, für Unternehmen wirklich selbstverständlich ist, die Daten wieder zurückzuführen, dann stören sie sich sicher auch nicht an der ODbL-Lizenz. Es gibt auch mit der ODbL Wege neue Daten nicht in OSM zurückzuführen. Es wird zwar ein ziemlicher Eiertanz, aber möglich ist es. Ob die ODbL Lizenz optimal ist, ist eine andere Frage. Ja, sie könnte kürzer gehalten werden. Änderungen musst du zurückgeben, Quelle musst du nennen kann man sicher auch kürzer darlegen. Der Teufel steckt, wie man so schön sagt, im Detail. Nein, denn Kartendaten machen nur Sinn, wenn sie aktuell sind. Und *kein* Anbieter der Welt hat eine so große und stark wachsende Arbeitsbasis. OSM ist schlicht nicht einholbar, und deswegen ist es egal, ob CC0/PD oder restriktive Lizenz, die beste Quelle für Geodaten wird OSM sein. Das sag mal den Mappern auf dem Land. Dort geht es sehr langsam voran. Die Feldwege um unser Dorf sind alle von mir. Genau hier kann eine passende Lizenz Abhilfe schaffen. Wenn ein Unternehmen ein Gebiet ganz genau braucht, dann schickt es halt Mapper auf seine Kosten raus, muss aber die Daten dann, dank OSDbL, wieder der OSM bereitstellen. Wenn er letzteres nicht will, dann muss er wohl oder übel auf andere Kartendaten setzen, die ihn aber sicher teurer kommen. Unternehmer rechnen und wenn sich eine Mitarbeit an OSM eher rechnet, dann wird diese Lösung einer proprietären Karte vorgezogen. Also für mich sieht das Szenario so aus: Kommerzieller Datennutzer, holt sich OSM-CC0, pflegt seine eigenen Daten dazu (sehr aufwändig, denn für funktionierende Topologie muss einiges an Handarbeit da hineingesteckt werden) OSM entwickelt sich weiter, die proprietären (gemischten) Daten veralten... Jetzt hat der Datennutzer nur vier Optionen: - Karte veralten lassen - Das Spiel von vorn beginnen (Aufwand!) - Seine Änderungen OSM zur Verfügung stellen und direkt die Updates u.U. Minutenaktuell aus den OSM-replicate-diffs in seine Karte bringen. - Auf eine andere Datenquelle wechseln Wenn der Unternehmer wirklich rechnet wird es wohl Option 3 oder 4 werden... Bei keiner Option verliert OSM wirklich. Entgangene Gewinne bin ich nicht bereit als Verlust anzusehen. -- Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel-Bauchscmerzen
Am 16.07.2010 22:05, schrieb Sebastian Hohmann:
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
(Das ist ja das Schicksal des PD-Anhaengers: Jeder kann jederzeit
meine PD-Daten nehmen und irgendwelche Restriktionen obendrauf setzen
- das ist jemand, der fuer PD ist, also schon gewohnt.)
Nur dass es mir wenig nützt zu sagen meine Daten sind PD wenn sie nie
als PD veröffentlicht werden. Sicher kann jeder PD Daten nehmen und
unter eine beliebige Lizenz stellen, aber dazu müssen sie auch erstmal
in der Public Domain veröffentlicht sein. Das sind sie aber nicht wenn
sie direkt unter der ODbL veröffentlicht werden.
Wenn ich also gegen die ODbL und für PD bin, habe ich keine Möglichkeit
das auszudrücken.
Rechtlich sowieso nicht, denn mit PD akzeptierst du jede Lizenz, aber
politisch hast du die Möglichkeit {{PD-user}} auf deiner Userseite im
Wiki einzutragen, und bei jeder Gelegenheit anzubringen, das Carthago
zerstört werden muss.
Und: Sollte es wirklich zu einem Fork durch die ODbL kommen, werde ich
mich dafür einsetzen, einen (weiteren) CC0-Fork zu gründen, und soweit
wie möglich lizenzsaubere Daten aus OSM zu holen.
--
Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie
Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Cuisine Taggen fürs Finden
Am 17.07.2010 01:36, Daniela Duerbeck: Aber wenn man sich mal den tagwatch so anschaut: http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Europe/En/ignored_cuisine.html findet man wirklich eine Menge Blödsinn. cuisine=gutbürgerlich mag ja richtig sein, aber das findet doch niemand. Man braucht ja ein Gerät, das das auch unterstützt.Da wäre german wohl angebracht. Korrigier es. Und viele Restaurants haben gar kein cuisine-tag, obwohl es völlig eindeutig wäre. Wenn es für dich eindeutig ist schreib es dran. So funktioniert das Wiki-Prinzip. Wäre es da nicht sinnvoll, mal den Bot aufräumen zu lassen? Also z.B. alle lebanese, lebenese, libanais und Konsorten zu libanese beispielsweise zusammenzufassen? Das englische Adjektiv lautet lebanese. Und ich halte das nicht unbedingt für eine Bot-Aufgabe. Per API kann man die paar Ausreisser das auch mal kurz händisch in JOSM korrigieren. Aber wenn's dir so wichtig ist hindert dich sicher niemand daran einen dokumentierten Bot aufzusetzen. Claudius ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel-Bauchscmerzen
Am 16.07.2010 21:05, schrieb Heiko Jacobs: Frederik Ramm schrieb: sondern auch, weil sie das Vertrauen der Community moechte, Du redest immer von Vertauen und Respekt, aber leider ist das alles sehr einseitig und alles andere als auf Ausgleich bedacht. Mein Vertrauen hat sie jedenfalls durch die angekündigte Vorgehensweise mit respektlosem Umgang mit meiner und anderer Leute Daten und Urheberrechten. So langsam verstehe ich deine Aufregung, und glaube, das liegt einfach nur an einem Missverständnis deinerseits, was die Worte löschen, Beiträge (contributions) und deine Daten angeht. Löschen im Sinne der ODbL-Lizenzdebatte heisst einfach nur, dass deine Beiträge, wenn sie nicht lizenzsauber sind, nicht in die ODbL übernommen werden können. Keinesfalls jedoch, dass sie für immer von diesem Planeten verschwinden. deine Daten sind nur die daten, die du alleine, ohne Zuhilfenahme möglicherweise Urheberrechtlich belasteter Daten anderer, in das Projekt eingepflegt hast. Beiträge (contributions) sind z.B. alle Edits die du an OSM vorgenommen hast, und die du dem OSM Projekt zwecks Veröffentlichung unter der CC-By-SA-Lizenz zur Verfügung gestellt hast. Ich kann nicht erkennen, inwiefern der Lizenzwechsel jetzt respektlos mit deinen Daten und Urheberrechten umgeht. Alle Daten, alle Beiträge werden weiterhin unter CC-By-SA zur Verfügung stehen. Was mit deinen Daten passiert, liegt vollkommen in deiner Hand, was mit gemischten Daten passiert, liegt in der Hand aller Bearbeiter dieser Daten. Und dass die angekündigte Vorgehensweise technisch und rechtlich nicht sauber durchgeführt werden kann wegen den Mängeln in der history-Funktion und wegen den Problemen, die Urheberrechte an gemeinsamen Werken auseinanderzupopeln, wurde hier auch schon oft genug eingeworfen. Aber alles egal, Hauptsache Respekt nur einer Gruppe gezollt. Was willst du eigentlich? Das CC-By-SA eine ausreichende rechtliche Grundlage darstellt und deshalb behalten werden kann? Dass alle OSM-User mit einer Stimme ja zum Lizenzwechsel sagen, damit alles übernommen werden kann? In welcher Form stellst du dir den Respekt denn vor? Und an welche Gruppe denkst du mit dem Ausspruch Hauptsache Respekt nur einer Gruppe gezollt? -- Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel-Bauchscmerzen
Hallo Dirk, [Nur nehmen, nichts zurückgeben] Und was wäre daran so schlimm? OSM schadet das doch nicht? Jede Verbreitung von OSM nützt OSM: Das Projekt wird bekannter, es gibt mehr Nutzer, und vielleicht mehr Aktive (Mapper, Programmierer, Spender). Spiralige Entwicklung. Kommerzieller Datennutzer, holt sich OSM-CC0, pflegt eigene Daten dazu OSM entwickelt sich weiter, die proprietären (gemischten) Daten veralten... Jetzt hat der Datennutzer nur vier Optionen: - Karte veralten lassen - Das Spiel von vorn beginnen (Aufwand!) - Seine Änderungen OSM zur Verfügung stellen und direkt die Updates u.U. Minutenaktuell aus den OSM-replicate-diffs in seine Karte bringen. - Auf eine andere Datenquelle wechseln Wenn der Unternehmer wirklich rechnet wird es wohl Option 3 oder 4 werden... Sehe ich genauso. Auch hier: spiralige Entwicklung zu Gunsten von OSM. Gruss, Markus ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel-Bauchscmerzen
Hallo Manuel. Am Freitag 16 Juli 2010, 20:01:00 schrieb Manuel Reimer: Würde mir das genau so passieren, dann wäre ich ganz zu Recht ziemlich sauer. Würde mir aber nicht passieren, da ich meine Projekte GPLv3 lizenziere und bei PD-Projekten üblicherweise nicht mithelfe. [...] Ich finde es einfach fair, über die Lizenz wenigstens eine kleine Gegenleistung, die wirklich keinem weh tut (Quelle angeben, Änderungen wieder hochladen oder direkt in der OSM-DB pflegen) von denen einzufordern, die die Daten nutzen wollen. Hast du die GPL jemals gelesen? Wo genau erfordert die GPL eine Nennung der Quelle (sichtbar für den End- Nutzer)? Jeder darf dein GPL-Programm nehmen, erweitern, es teuer verkaufen und dir gar nichts zurück geben. Das ist in der GPL alles erlaubt. Nur der Kunde (der die Software gekauft hat) muss den Sourcecode bekommen und darf ihn dir theoretisch weiter geben. Wenn er denn will. Du hast jedenfalls keinen Anspruch darauf, anderer Leute Erweiterung an deiner Software auf dem Silbertablett serviert zu bekommen. Jegliche virale Lizenz die eine Namensnennung vorsieht, führt im OSM-Kontext zwangsläufig zu einem Verbot von richtigen Forks (da die Namensnennungen ja akkumuliert werden müssen) und zu enorm kniffligen Spitzfindigkeiten (Wie deutlich muss der Hinweis sein, wenn OSM z.B. nur sehr periphär genutzt wird?). Kennst du noch XFree86? Das Projekt, das innerhalb von wenigen Wochen (!) vom Standard-X-Server fast aller Linux-Systeme komplett in der Versenkung verschwunden ist weil sie die Lizenz umgestellt haben, so dass eine Attribution verlangt wurde... Ich glaube dass OSM mit einer liberaleren Lizenz (ohne fest verankerte Namensnennung) wesentlich populärer wäre. Gruß, Bernd -- Das Wort Vegetarier kommt aus dem Indianischen und bedeutet: »Zu dumm zum Jagen.« - Quelle: german-bash.org 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] Lizenzwechsel-Bauchscmerzen
Dirk-Lüder Kreie schrieb:
Am 16.07.2010 22:05, schrieb Sebastian Hohmann:
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
(Das ist ja das Schicksal des PD-Anhaengers: Jeder kann jederzeit
meine PD-Daten nehmen und irgendwelche Restriktionen obendrauf setzen
- das ist jemand, der fuer PD ist, also schon gewohnt.)
Nur dass es mir wenig nützt zu sagen meine Daten sind PD wenn sie nie
als PD veröffentlicht werden. Sicher kann jeder PD Daten nehmen und
unter eine beliebige Lizenz stellen, aber dazu müssen sie auch erstmal
in der Public Domain veröffentlicht sein. Das sind sie aber nicht wenn
sie direkt unter der ODbL veröffentlicht werden.
Wenn ich also gegen die ODbL und für PD bin, habe ich keine Möglichkeit
das auszudrücken.
Rechtlich sowieso nicht, denn mit PD akzeptierst du jede Lizenz, aber
politisch hast du die Möglichkeit {{PD-user}} auf deiner Userseite im
Wiki einzutragen, und bei jeder Gelegenheit anzubringen, das Carthago
zerstört werden muss.
Wenn ich jemanden meine Daten geben und sagen das steht unter der CC0,
dann darf er sie natürlich beliebig lizenzieren, auch ohne sie vorher zu
veröffentlichen. Nur möchte ich meine Beiträge schließlich der
Allgemeinheit zur Verfügung stellen, nicht der OSMF, die es dann direkt
in ODbL umlizenziert.
Ich finde man kann nicht davon ausgehen, dass jeder der gerne CC0 hätte,
automatisch auch die ODbL gut finden muss oder die Lizenz ganz egal ist.
Dann müsste man ja nicht für CC0 sein. Bei den jetzigen
Abstimmungsmöglichkeiten fallen alle die aus irgendeinem Grund ablehnen
aber PD trotzdem gut finden, komplett unter den Tisch.
Gruß
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel
2010/7/17 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net: Am 16.07.2010 20:26, schrieb Falk Zscheile: Die Idee, auf den Stand zurückzusetzen dem alle user zugestimmt haben, mag gut gedacht sein. Dies alles an die History eines Elements zu binden halte ich für falsch. Die History ist aus dem eben genannten Gründen nicht geeignet auf den Urheber zu schließen. Man kann ja mal die Probe machen und mal die Daten von Mecklenburg-Vorpommern nehmen und einmal unterstellen der User pfoten_weg_!_ und wie er noch so hieß würde nicht zustimmen. Ich denke es dürften dann einige beachtliche Lücken entstehen und viele die im Urlaub an der Ostseeküste gemappt haben werden sich wundern, wo ihre Edits hin verschwunden sind (Komisch, als ich hier gemappt habe war ich der erste. Wo sind meine Einträge denn bloß hin?). Der Revert gilt für *alle* Aktionen des Users, und gelöschte Objekte sind ja in der DB nur als gelöscht markiert. Wenn also pfoten_weg_!_ alles gelöscht und neu angelegt hat, aber dann der ODbL nicht zustimmt, werden alle von ihm gelöschten Objekte wiederhergestellt. Aha, dass war mir nicht ganz klar. Das beruhigt mich ein wenig, bringt mich allerdings zu einem anderen Problem. Das erste mal, dass ich mit pfoten_weg_!_ in Berührung gekommen bin ist 2 Jahre her und stellt praktisch den Anfang meiner Mitarbeit bei OSM dar. Im Extremfall heißt dass also, dass alle meine Edits der letzten 2 Jahre verloren gehen, wenn pfoten_weg_!_ irgendwo in der Kette steht (immer unterstellt, er stimmt nicht zu). Das ist keine schöne Aussicht. Zumal sich hier auch zwei Probleme addieren: Je länger das Element existiert desto länger ist seine history. Je älter das Element aber ist, desto höher ist auch die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass der damalige Urheber nicht mehr dabei ist. Verschärft wird das ganze noch, dass die ersten Edits eher groben Inhalts waren (highway=residential) und damit alle später hinzugekommenen Detailinformationen verloren gehen. Eine Lösung könnte sein, nach einer Möglichkeit zu suchen, nachträgliche Ergänzungen am Element irgendwie zu erhalten. Das bisherig geplante Vorgehen finde ich nach wie vor höchst unbefriedigend. Es benachteiligt alle jüngeren Edits an einem Element unverhältnismäßig. Man sollte die Effekte in jedem Fall an einem Planspiel untersuchen bevor die Abstimmung über die Lizenz startet. Gruß, Falcius ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Zum 1000. mal - Hausnummern und Stra ßennamen?
Das in die Relation nur eine Straße hereinkommt ist Schwachsinn. Ich trage auch mehrere Straßen in die Relation ein und zumindest Nominatim kommt damit klar (siehe http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/454381). Womit wieder einmal belegt ist, dass nicht alles was im Wiki steht auch so umgesetzt wird. Und die Kontrolle finde ich jetzt auch besser, da man nur gucken muss, ob alle Objekte in der Relation enthalten sind und nur noch die in der Relation enthaltenen Adressdaten kontrollieren muss. Viele Grüße Tilmann ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel
Gehling Marc wrote: Frederik Ramm schrieb: Als *Mapper* kann ich mir vorstellen, dass ich sogar einen gewissen Spass daran haben werde, die Luecken zu schliessen, die moeglicherweise durch den Lizenzwechsel entstanden sind. Ich bin dafür, alle drei Monate zufällig 10% der Daten zu löschen, dann gibt es wieder Spaß für viele! -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Lizenzwechsel-tp5291923p5305592.html Sent from the Germany mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Adressen mit PostGIS zusammenbasteln
steffterra steffte...@me.com wrote: Was machst Du bei Gebäuden / Nodes mit addr:housenumber an Straßenkreuzungen? Im Extremfall die falsche Straße erraten. Funktionierende Glaskugeln sind AFAIK noch nicht erfunden worden. Nun möchte ich aber gerne auch PLZ und Hausnummer rausfinden. Hat da schon mal jemand was probiert? Hausnummern? Gemeint war der Ort. Wenn man die PLZ hat dürfte der aber nicht mehr das Problem sein. Sven -- Ich fürchte mich nicht vor der Rückkehr der Faschisten in der Maske der Faschisten, sondern vor der Rückkehr der Faschisten in der Maske der Demokraten (Theodor W. Adorno) /me is gig...@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Adressen mit PostGIS zusammenbasteln
Am Samstag 17 Juli 2010, 02:08:14 schrieb Sven Geggus: Nun möchte ich aber gerne auch PLZ und Hausnummer rausfinden. Welche Daten würdest du dafür benutzen wollen? Es gibt Orte mit mehreren PLZ und PLZ die für mehrere Orte gelten. Für keinen der beiden Fälle kenne ich auch nur ein Beispiel dass da bei OSM irgend etwas erfasst wäre. Die Auswertung kann halt erst funktionieren wenn überhaupt irgendwelche Daten vorhanden sind. Gruß, Bernd -- Mein Computer kann 1000 falsche Daten in einer Sekunde sortieren. 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] Zum 1000. mal - Hausnummern und Stra ßennamen?
Am 17.07.2010 um 12:27 schrieb Tilmann Sult: Das in die Relation nur eine Straße hereinkommt ist Schwachsinn. k.a., aber ... Ich trage auch mehrere Straßen in die Relation ein und zumindest Nominatim kommt damit klar (siehe http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/454381). ... Du hast in dieser Relation auch nur eine Straße (Sterndamm), natürlich mit allen ways dieser Straße, vlt. meintest Du mehrere ways und nicht mehrere Straßen und damit kommt Nominatim natürlich klar, weil es weiss, dass alle Hausnummern dieser Relation zum Straßennnamen Sterndamm gehören. Ich denke es war gemeint, dass man nicht mehrere Straßen im Sinne von Straßennamen nicht in eine Relation gehören, weil man sonst nicht weiss welche Hausnummer zu welchem Straßennamen gehören. Deshalb dafür eigene Relationen erstellen, wenn es denn schon Relationen sein müssen. Denn in dieser Diskussion haben wir ja festgestellt, dass das zwar die schönere Datenart ist, aber das full-addr:-tagging nach Karlsruher Schema die praktikabelste Lösung für das nachfolgende Mappen/Änderungen an der betroffenen Straße ist. Womit wieder einmal belegt ist, dass nicht alles was im Wiki steht auch so umgesetzt wird. Ob man sich ans Wiki hält oder nicht steht sowieso jedem (technisch, aber nicht moralisch) frei. Ob das dann _allgemeinen_ Zuspruch findet, es anders zu machen, kann man in Diskussionen wie dieser hier und neuen Proposals herausfinden. Und die Kontrolle finde ich jetzt auch besser, da man nur gucken muss, ob alle Objekte in der Relation enthalten sind und nur noch die in der Relation enthaltenen Adressdaten kontrollieren muss. Und bei Deinem Beispiel sieht man, dass noch lange nicht alles enthalten ist, was an POI's und Gebäuden schon (noch ohne Hausnummer) erfasst ist. Ob vollständig getaggt ist, kann man aber auch sehen, wenn man die Hausnummern durch Mehrfachmarkierung in JOSM anklickt und eben mal schnell vervollständig ;-) Geht sogar leichter und schneller, als die Hausnummern in die Relation aufzunehmen, da in JOSM nur ein Klick entfernt . Aber dass das full-addr:-tagging nach Karlsruher Schema fürs Erfassen und vor allem spätere Editieren an den Straßen praktikabler ist, wurde ja nun schon mehrfach erwähnt und ist der eigentliche Outcome dieser Diskussion. steffterra ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Adressen mit PostGIS zusammenbasteln
Am 17.07.2010 um 13:10 schrieb Sven Geggus: steffterra steffte...@me.com wrote: Was machst Du bei Gebäuden / Nodes mit addr:housenumber an Straßenkreuzungen? Im Extremfall die falsche Straße erraten. Funktionierende Glaskugeln sind AFAIK noch nicht erfunden worden. Eben, deshalb halte ich dieses vorgehen für fragwürdig, weil dann jede Straße an jeder Einmündung und am Anfang und Ende jeweils mind. 2 potentielle 50/50-Falsch-Richtig-Zuweisungen aufweist. Das ist IMHO zuviel und ich wäre als User not amused, zur falschen Adresse gelotst zu werden. Der nicht OSM-affinie-Navi-User würde sagen: Scheiss OSM-Navi, findet an Eckhäusern nur ab und zu die richtige Adresse :-( Nun möchte ich aber gerne auch PLZ und Hausnummer rausfinden. Hat da schon mal jemand was probiert? Hausnummern? Gemeint war der Ort. Wenn man die PLZ hat dürfte der aber nicht mehr das Problem sein. Hört sich einfach an, aber wie machst Du es technisch? Eigene Datenbank wie das PLZ-Buch der Post bei der die Straßennamen in PLZ einsortiert sind (gibts das überhaupt noch in gedruckter Form - ich befürchte es...)? steffterra ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel-Bauchscmerzen
Dirk-Lüder Kreie schrieb: Am 16.07.2010 21:05, schrieb Heiko Jacobs: Frederik Ramm schrieb: sondern auch, weil sie das Vertrauen der Community moechte, Du redest immer von Vertauen und Respekt, aber leider ist das alles sehr einseitig und alles andere als auf Ausgleich bedacht. Mein Vertrauen hat sie jedenfalls durch die angekündigte Vorgehensweise mit respektlosem Umgang mit meiner und anderer Leute Daten und Urheberrechten. So langsam verstehe ich deine Aufregung, und glaube, das liegt einfach nur an einem Missverständnis deinerseits, was die Worte löschen, Beiträge (contributions) und deine Daten angeht. Löschen im Sinne der ODbL-Lizenzdebatte heisst einfach nur, dass deine Beiträge, wenn sie nicht lizenzsauber sind, nicht in die ODbL übernommen werden können. Keinesfalls jedoch, dass sie für immer von diesem Planeten verschwinden. Alle meine Bearbeitungen inklusive derer, wo ich an betehende ways weitere tags drangehängt habe oder korriigert habe, hatten den Zweck, der OSM-Community für eine weitere Benutzung und Weiterentwicklung des Projekts OSM zu dienen. Wie können sie diesem Zweck dienen, wenn sie in einem veraltetenden last-CC-planet.osm liegen? Man darf sie ja von dort nicht wieder in OSM einschleusen. Bleib mir weg mit dieser Theorie ohne praktischen Wert. deine Daten sind nur die daten, die du alleine, ohne Zuhilfenahme möglicherweise Urheberrechtlich belasteter Daten anderer, in das Projekt eingepflegt hast. meine Daten, selbst erhoben, sind auch die surface=* an existierenden highway=track Beiträge (contributions) sind z.B. alle Edits die du an OSM vorgenommen hast, und die du dem OSM Projekt zwecks Veröffentlichung unter der CC-By-SA-Lizenz zur Verfügung gestellt hast. Ich kann nicht erkennen, inwiefern der Lizenzwechsel jetzt respektlos mit deinen Daten und Urheberrechten umgeht. Alle Daten, alle Beiträge werden weiterhin unter CC-By-SA zur Verfügung stehen. Was mit deinen Daten passiert, liegt vollkommen in deiner Hand, Nein, rauskopieren aus dem last-CC-planet und im ODBL-OSM wieder einschleusen darf ich sie nicht, da infiziert, ohne fremden highway=track hängen meine erhobenen surface=*-Originaldaten in der Luft. Meine Arbeit ist schlichtweg futsch aus dem eigentlichen OSM. Das war nicht das, was ich wollte, als ich meine gesammelten Daten dem Projekt gespendet habe. Auch wenn einige hier gebetsmühlenartig wiederholen, dass keiner ein Recht auf Veröffentlichung der Daten in OSM haben: jeder arbeitet aber ja nur deswegen hier mit, damit seine Daten in OSM drin sind, im wahren, sich auch mit seinen Daten weiter entwickelnden OSM und nicht, damit die Daten in einem last-CC-planet vor sich hin modern, in den man nur noch Fische einwickeln kann (alte norddeutsche Weisheit für Zeitungen vom Vortag aus der Zeit vor Erfindung der Hygienevorschriften ...) Und das gilt sicher für viele andere Mapper gleich, dass sie ihre Beiträge für OSM und nicht fürs Löschen wegen Lizenzstreitigkeiten gepsendet haben. Und selbst wenn es nicht die eigenen Daten trifft: Auch die anderen betroffenen Daten fehlen für weitere Bearbeitungen. Viele meiner Bearbeitungen beruhen auf Ortskenntnisse ohne Mitführen eines GPS-Empfängers. Wenn unter einem Gehwegschild ein Radfahrer frei auftaucht, wenn ich einfach so in der Stadt unterwegs bin, wird das am way geändert, egal wem der gehört. Es mag einigen Spaß machen Lücken zu füllen. Macht mir auch Spaß, im Wald, wo noch Wege fehlen etc. Aber bei Lücken die entstehen, weil man sich um Lizenzen streitet und keinen Weg findet das ohne Datemverluste hinzukriegen wie bei Wikipedia etc., nein danke, da hört für mich der Spaß auf ... Was willst du eigentlich? Einen ungefährdeten Datenbestand Gruß Mueck ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel-Bauchscmerzen
On 17.07.2010 11:47, Sebastian Hohmann wrote: Wenn ich jemanden meine Daten geben und sagen das steht unter der CC0, dann darf er sie natürlich beliebig lizenzieren, auch ohne sie vorher zu veröffentlichen. Nur möchte ich meine Beiträge schließlich der Allgemeinheit zur Verfügung stellen,nicht der OSMF, die es dann direkt in ODbL umlizenziert. Du möchtest deine Beiträge der Allgemeinheit zur Verfügung stellen, aber nicht der OSMF? Das musst du mir mal erklären. Und: Wenn du deine Daten eh als PD freigeben möchtest, kannst du das doch alles viel gelassener sehen. Sollte es irgendwann mal einen PD-Fork geben, wirst du sicherlich herzlich eingeladen sein, daran mitzuarbeiten. Ich finde man kann nicht davon ausgehen, dass jeder der gerne CC0 hätte, automatisch auch die ODbL gut finden muss oder die Lizenz ganz egal ist. Dann müsste man ja nicht für CC0 sein. Bei den jetzigen Abstimmungsmöglichkeiten fallen alle die aus irgendeinem Grund ablehnen aber PD trotzdem gut finden, komplett unter den Tisch. Ein Lizenzwechsel zu PD stand, wenn ich mich recht erinnere, nie zur Diskussion. Grüße ant ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Haftung fuer OSM Daten Was: Björn-Stei ger-Stiftung - Status Rückbau und offen für eine Zusa mmenarbeit
Michael Buege glaubte zu wissen: Zitat Florian Lohoff: On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:47:55PM +0200, Michael Buege wrote: Hat er auch gesagt, welcher Art diese versicherungstechnischen Bedenken der Verlage waren? Ich kann mir gut vorstellen, dass kein Verlag eine Garantie abgeben wollte, dass solche moeglicherweise lebensrettenden Informationen zu hundert Prozent korrekt eingezeichnet und aktuell sind. Wenn jemand in einem Notfall (wann sonst) nach Kartenangabe eine Notrufsaeule sucht und die ist nach Murphys Law nicht dort, wo sie sein soll, wird der Kartenverlag mit ziemlicher Sicherheit Probleme bekommen. Was wuerde sich durch die Zusammenarbeit mit OSM an diesem Problem aendern? Es sei denn, der Versicherungsverein nutzt OSM, um die Standorte selber einzutragen (oder eintragen zu lassen) um dann zum Beispiel auf Grund geringerer Kosten eine Karte unter eigener Verantwortung zu drucken. Auch ein Webangebot unter eigener Kontrolle waere denkbar. Weil die OSM Lizenz Haftung jeglicher Art ausschliesst? Die Disclaimer von Kartenverlagen schliessen ja idR Haftung jeglicher Art ebenfalls aus. Deswegen scheinen bisher jedenfalls geeignete Kooperationen nicht zustande gekommen zu sein. Oder uebersehe ich da was? Ich rate mal: In den letzten 10 Jahren sind zumindest hier in der Gegend eine ganze Menge Notrufsäulen aufgestellt worden, da hätte man die Papierkarte laufend ergänzen und eine neue Version herausbringen müssen? Bei osm wär das einfach eingetragen und praktisch sofort verfügbar, bei Papierkarten geht das nicht so einfach. flo -- Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1 1/2 tons. ---Popular Mechanics, March 1949 ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] help.openstreetmap.org
Frederik Ramm glaubte zu wissen: unter help.openstreetmap.org gibt es jetzt eine Webseite, auf der jeder irgendwelche Fragen eingeben kann oder die Fragen anderer beantworten. Ich kann mich mit meinen OSM- Userdaten nicht anmelden (auf Groß- und Kleinschreibung hab ich geachtet). Weder Username noch e-mail werden akzeptiert. flo -- zwei oder drei weitere Leute mit JA gestimmt hätten. Das der CfV gezeigt hat, daß man eben nicht von der Diskussion in dang so einfach auf das Abstimmungs- ergebnis schließen kann, halte ich persönlich für einen Erfolg. [Simon Paquet zu 'RESULT: Reorganisation von de.comm.software.ALL' in dang] ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel-Bauchscmerzen
Am 17. Juli 2010 13:49 schrieb Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de: Dirk-Lüder Kreie schrieb: Am 16.07.2010 21:05, schrieb Heiko Jacobs: Frederik Ramm schrieb: sondern auch, weil sie das Vertrauen der Community moechte, Du redest immer von Vertauen und Respekt, aber leider ist das alles sehr einseitig und alles andere als auf Ausgleich bedacht. Mein Vertrauen hat sie jedenfalls durch die angekündigte Vorgehensweise mit respektlosem Umgang mit meiner und anderer Leute Daten und Urheberrechten. So langsam verstehe ich deine Aufregung, und glaube, das liegt einfach nur an einem Missverständnis deinerseits, was die Worte löschen, Beiträge (contributions) und deine Daten angeht. Löschen im Sinne der ODbL-Lizenzdebatte heisst einfach nur, dass deine Beiträge, wenn sie nicht lizenzsauber sind, nicht in die ODbL übernommen werden können. Keinesfalls jedoch, dass sie für immer von diesem Planeten verschwinden. Alle meine Bearbeitungen inklusive derer, wo ich an betehende ways weitere tags drangehängt habe oder korriigert habe, hatten den Zweck, der OSM-Community für eine weitere Benutzung und Weiterentwicklung des Projekts OSM zu dienen. Wie können sie diesem Zweck dienen, wenn sie in einem veraltetenden last-CC-planet.osm liegen? Man darf sie ja von dort nicht wieder in OSM einschleusen. Bleib mir weg mit dieser Theorie ohne praktischen Wert. Alle Daten, alle Beiträge werden weiterhin unter CC-By-SA zur Verfügung stehen. Was mit deinen Daten passiert, liegt vollkommen in deiner Hand, Nein, rauskopieren aus dem last-CC-planet und im ODBL-OSM wieder einschleusen darf ich sie nicht, da infiziert, ohne fremden highway=track hängen meine erhobenen surface=*-Originaldaten in der Luft. Meine Arbeit ist schlichtweg futsch aus dem eigentlichen OSM. Das war nicht das, was ich wollte, als ich meine gesammelten Daten dem Projekt gespendet habe. Auch wenn einige hier gebetsmühlenartig wiederholen, dass keiner ein Recht auf Veröffentlichung der Daten in OSM haben: jeder arbeitet aber ja nur deswegen hier mit, damit seine Daten in OSM drin sind, im wahren, sich auch mit seinen Daten weiter entwickelnden OSM und nicht, damit die Daten in einem last-CC-planet vor sich hin modern, in den man nur noch Fische einwickeln kann (alte norddeutsche Weisheit für Zeitungen vom Vortag aus der Zeit vor Erfindung der Hygienevorschriften ...) Und das gilt sicher für viele andere Mapper gleich, dass sie ihre Beiträge für OSM und nicht fürs Löschen wegen Lizenzstreitigkeiten gepsendet haben. Genau. Es geht, denke ich, um den erheblichen zeitlichen Aufwand, den man getrieben hat, die Daten in die Datenbank einzupflegen. Für jede Radtour brauche ich fast nochmal die gleiche Zeit die Daten einzupflegen, auch wenn ich nur bestehende Wege um weitere Tags ergänze. Diese ganze Arbeit soll für die Katz gewesen sein, nur weil irgendjemand der das Element auch in der Vergangenheit angefasst hat auf seinem Urheberrecht besteht und den Lizenzwechsel nicht mit trägt? So viel Spaß habe ich am einpflegen von Daten auch nicht, dass hunderte Stunden damit erneut zubringen möchte, zumal viele meiner Aufzeichnungen mittlerweile gelöscht sind. Das meine Daten im letzten CC-by-SA Planetfile weiter drin sind ist insoweit ein sehr schwacher Trost! Mir ist beim bisher geplanten Vorgehen zu viel Glücksspiel dabei -- habe ich das Glück das Element rechtzeitig aufgespalten zu haben und gelte deshalb nach der history als Urheber oder habe ich das Pech im Laufe der Zeit unzählige Verbesserungen an einem Element vorgenommen zu haben, aber leider steht in der history vor mir ein Urheber, der die neue Lizenz nicht mit trägt womit das Element zur Löschung ansteht. Gruß, Falk ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel
Falk Zscheile wrote: 2010/7/17 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net: Das bisherig geplante Vorgehen finde ich nach wie vor höchst unbefriedigend. Es benachteiligt alle jüngeren Edits an einem Element unverhältnismäßig. Man sollte die Effekte in jedem Fall an einem Planspiel untersuchen bevor die Abstimmung über die Lizenz startet. Gruß, Falcius Mit nur etwas Statistik (Exponentialverteilung:Überlebenswahrscheinlichkeit= Zustimmungsanteil hoch Versionanzahl) komme ich zu dem Schluss, dass OSM bei der geplanten Umstellung zurück in die Steinzeit fällt. Basis für ie Statistik ist Planet File baden-wuerttemberg.osm 17.5.2010 (habe ich gerade noch auf meinem Rechner ) mit insgesamt nodes6313897 ways 886252 relations13638 Bei 80% Zustimung gehen statistisch verloren ( dh. nicht mehr auf dem aktuellen Stand ) nodes30% ways 38% relations44% Selbst bei illusorischen 90% sind es immer noch: nodes16% ways 22% relation29% Ich denke, in anderen Teilen von D sieht es nicht anders aus. Dabei ist noch nicht berücksichtigt, dass ways nodes enthalten, die event. gelöscht werden und damit den way verändern, und relations sowohl ways als auch nodes. Auch das Argument, wenn die letzte Änderung wegfällt, hat man das schnell ergänzt, zieht nicht: Gerade bei ways und relations gibt es sehr viele Versionen (100) und bei 80%(90%) Zustimmung ist bei Version 4 (7) die Wahrscheinlichkeit 50%, dass einer nicht zugestimmt hat und damit der Pfad sehr früh abgeschnitten wird. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Lizenzwechsel-tp5291923p5305766.html Sent from the Germany mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
