[Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission
This sounds... vaguely positive? https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chancellor-to-unlock-hidden-value-of-government-data Gerv ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The OSM UK map
On 30/10/17 01:58, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > Would also be good to see a few suggestions for features. Can we please have blue motorways and green A-roads? :-) Or do people not like green A-roads because so many other things are green? Gerv ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Leicester A
On 23/10/17 00:53, Philip Barnes wrote: > I have not lived in Leicestershire for six years and was not aware of > any changes to the location of A Are you saying it is no longer close > to the main entrance and accessed from Infirmary Close? If I remember correctly, it's currently accessed via the road known to OSM as Aylestone Street, which is now one-way the other way. You turn in there and then immediately turn right, go round the buildings, and then there's a turning circle in front of the new A It needs someone on the ground to go and map it properly, I think. Gerv ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Leicester A
I had cause to go to Leicester A on Saturday. It was renewed in April (Google Earth suggests there was a big building project), and the map has not been updated, and so it's not clear on OSM where the drop-off is, or which is the associated multi-storey. The road I think it is, is part not-marked-as-such and part non-existent. There's also a separate Children's A entrance. Given the nature of these facilities, and the terrible Leicester 1-way system, it would be very good to have the map be extremely clear on these points! Can someone local look into the issue, please? Thanks :-) Gerv ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW changes
On 29/05/17 12:02, Brian Prangle wrote: > There's been a suggestion that OSMUK lobbies for the statutory right to > receive copies of the legal orders which change Public Rights of Way as > it can be slow for any official changes to make their way onto the > Definitive Map and then be picked up by mappers. Why not instead lobby for them to be published somewhere (with a feed)? Gerv ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Postcodes
On 25/09/16 21:34, Gervase Markham wrote: > The end result is that I still can't type UK postcodes into Nominatim, > the main OSM search engine, and depend on getting useful results back. The maintainers of Nominatim have kindly explained what would be needed to finally fix this: https://github.com/twain47/Nominatim/issues/541#issuecomment-251226824 There are 3 things, in increasing order of difficulty. One of them solves postcode issues for the whole world, which is a juicy prize. So if this bugs anyone else, who has some spare hacking time, please dig in! Gerv ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Postcodes
On 26/09/16 09:39, Chris Hill wrote: > Please do not add postcode centroids to the map. They are not real, do > not exist and do not belong in the OSM DB. Just so we know, what is your view of the correct way for OSM search engines to allow searching on postcode data from around the world? Do you advocate for each search engine importing each postcode file from N countries as a separate external datasource? Or are you saying that we want to make it so that no-one can search for a postcode until someone has made the effort to find a particular building with that postcode and added the postcode to the building's address? Gerv ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Postcodes
On 25/09/16 21:47, Owen Boswarva wrote: > I can't see any reason why there should be a problem using Code-Point > Open in OSM, now that Ordnance Survey has applied the Open Government > Licence in place of its own licence. If you read further down, the wiki > page gives examples of OSM projects that use Code-Point Open. OK, that's good news. What's the quickest route to getting Nominatim to understand this data set? File a Nominatim bug to get the search engine to import the data set directly? Or add 500,000ish points to OSM itself with something like type = "postcode_centre"? Gerv ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] UK Postcodes
I hope this isn't a silly question, but: it seems like all the projects to free the UK postcode database (like npemap and freethepostcode) closed down five or more years ago when the OS release CodePoint Open. However, this data set is not suitable for use in OSM, according to: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata The end result is that I still can't type UK postcodes into Nominatim, the main OSM search engine, and depend on getting useful results back. Which makes it, TBH, bloody useless compared to Google Maps, as 95% of the address searches I do are by postcode. Example: https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/search.php?q=LE11+1PN=1= "No results" and http://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=LE11%201PN#map=13/52.7747/-1.1692 Gives me "LE11 1##", which is not very close at all. To add insult to injury, it says "Results from NPEMap/FreeThePostcode", but it seems like either of those projects lets you add to their database any more! Nominatim doesn't seem to turn up postcodes even if they are added to objects in the OSM database as postcodes. Does this not bother anyone else? It is just me? If it bothers lots of people, why did those projects shut and why does no-one appear to be doing anything about it? I kind of feel I must have missed something big as this has seemed like an enormous glaring issue for years, but no-one else seems bothered... Gerv ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Parliamentary debate mentions OSM
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2016-03-22a.520.1 And there seems to be some more open data on the way from the OS. Do we know for certain whether or not it will be OSM-able? Gerv ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL
On 18/02/15 13:52, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: In the immediate future, it won't have much effect, since we already had separate permission to use all but one of the OS Open Data products. The exception was CodePoint Open. Once OS updates their licence page (http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/licensing/using-creating-data-with-os-products/os-opendata.html still refers to the OS OpenData Licence) then we should be able to make use of CodePoint Open too. Hallelujah! Does that mean that openstreetmap.org would finally be able to find postcodes when I type them in? The lack of reliably good results in this, is the one feature which keeps me using Google Maps much the time. Gerv ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL
On 19/02/15 11:11, Tom Hughes wrote: Why would it make any difference? As far as I know Nominatim already uses the Codepoint Open data? Well, if it did, wouldn't it be able to find every postcode in Britain? The Results from OpenStreetMap Nominatim section of the search results often turns up results for postcodes other than the one requested. Here are some neither FreeThePostcode nor Nominatim can find: * S9 3DJ (should be Fay Crescent, Sheffield) * EN1 2EE (should be Forsyth Place, Enfield) Here are some Nominatim seems unable to find: * EN2 0QG (gives a list of results for EN2 0QP) * YO11 2TT (gives a list of results for YO11 2HD) (Incidentally, when it does find an exact match, why on earth doesn't it, you know, take the map to that location? That doesn't seem an unreasonable expectation.) Gerv ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OSMF Special General Meeting
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSMF_Members_Request_for_General_Meeting It seems to me like this motion, if passed, would cause 3 members of the board to have to resign (Henk, Oliver and Dermot), and mean that those people plus Steve Coast and Mikel Maron could not stand again for at least two years. (Based on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation ) Is that about the size of it? Is it a good thing? Gerv ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Key Proposal wheelchair:toilet
On 07/06/13 16:02, John F. Eldredge wrote: In my experience, usually only one stall in a public restroom will have the larger size and handrails needed for wheelchair use. I have only seen a few extra-large restrooms which were equipped to handle more than one wheelchair-using person at a time. Thus, it would be useful to be able to tag the number of such stalls. Really? On how many occasions do you think that someone is going to make a different decision based on the availability of that information? One would need to be a wheelchair user approximately equidistant between two toilets, with neither being on the way to where you are going next, and some concern that the area happened to currently be populated by an unusually large number of wheelchair users (a convention, perhaps?), in a situation where waiting a few minutes for a toilet would be a deep inconvenience, using an OpenStreetMap client which made available data about the number of wheelchair-accessible stalls in each toilet. This seems somewhat unlikely, to me at least. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Parking map
The on-street parking restrictions around our church are complex. I'd love to make a map on a web page, where you could put into a form widget: Day of week: Friday Start parking: 8am End parking: 10am and it would colour the sides of the road and the car parks with green (free), yellow (pay), or red (can't park here). Updating the widgets would update the map on the fly. I realise this would require me to put all the parking restrictions into the OSM database using the complex tagging system defined for the purpose. But what else would it require? - Do I need to find some HTML5/Canvas map renderer and hack that? Or can I do some sort of overlay on top of existing map tiles? - Do I need to download the data into the web page using the Overpass API? Or another API? Has anyone done anything like this before? Ideas very welcome. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-GB] OFCOM consultation on PAF (postcode address file)
OFCOM is having a consultation on the PAF: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/postcode-address-file/summary/PAF.pdf This includes the pricing structure and the possibility of it being made open data. Deadline is 21st March (i.e. soon). Gerv ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik at zoom=19
On 27/01/13 15:38, the Old Topo Depot wrote: You may want to cross post to the broader talk list as well, as I have heard rumors of work related to this but have no knowledge regarding status. I read via Gmane, so I could be wrong, but I thought this _was_ the broad talk list for OSM... Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik at zoom=19
(Sorry I'm late back to this discussion.) On 27/01/13 11:39, Richard Fairhurst wrote: If you want to make it happen, the best way to do this is to take part in the project to port the current stylesheet to Carto: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto and to make sure that the resulting stylesheet is actually capable of rendering at z19 convincingly. (The current XML one isn't.) I'm happy to cheerfully admit that I'm requesting that this happen without resources to back it up. So I'm not going to get all entitled :-) If z19 happens, count me as someone cheering you on! If not, no criticism. Beyond that, it'll take some investigation into what extra hardware burden z19 will impose. Perhaps you could help by running some tests into that? I'm not sure I have the capability to do that. :-| I'd anticipate a max of 4x the disk space needed by z18, as others have said, but less if we are smart about it and e.g. only render certain latitudes, or densely populated areas, or render on demand. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik at zoom=19
On 18/01/13 14:29, Gervase Markham wrote: Who do we need to talk to or where do we need to file a bug to get this request considered officially? Anyone? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik at zoom=19
On 13/01/13 21:23, Christian Quest wrote: You can see what zoom level 19 looks like with Mapnik/cartocss style on http://layers.openstreetmap.fr/?zoom=19lat=48.87206lon=2.30069layers=B That's so much better than 18; all the shops are labelled. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik at zoom=19
On 15/01/13 04:09, Jaakko Helleranta.com wrote: But I would say in any case that the reality as I see it builds increasing need for very high zoom levels. ... I recently switched to OsmAnd on my Android because it zooms upto level 23 Ah, that might be where I saw higher zoom levels. I use OsmAnd. Who do we need to talk to or where do we need to file a bug to get this request considered officially? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Mapnik at zoom=19
My memory may be playing tricks on me, but I'm sure it was once possible to zoom in 1 more level than it is now, on the slippy map on openstreetmap.org. This was useful because often what is simply an icon at z=18 will turn into an icon plus a business name at z=19, particularly when there are many businesses nearby. At the moment, if a business has not won the placement lottery such that their icon happens to be far enough from others that the name shows up, one has to edit the map and examine the node to get this info, which is rather a hassle (and not easy on a mobile phone!). Did we ever do z=19? Did we stop because it's a load more disk space, or something like that? If not, could we consider it? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] tesco store location data
On 05/11/12 17:27, David Prime wrote: Now, my question is whether I should import this into OSM. Obviously the data is very useful (every store is categorised: metro, express, extra, etc) but the licencing situation is murky. Anyone want to weight in on whether I should do an import? I know Tesco's Chief Information Architect and have asked him for an ODBL-licensed data dump. He's working on it, and I hope to have news for you soon. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Searching UK addresses on the osm.org website
On 12/03/12 11:57, Dan Avis wrote: I'm not talking about importing them, because I understand some people are leery of the potential copyright issues, and because it's not an on the ground source. That's fine; I'm side-stepping that question (hopefully!) and instead asking: Can the osm.org search box be updated to return results from that complete list? Yes, this! :-) As long as the data is free enough to use to return results, it would be utterly awesome if the search results could return the right point, even if the data isn't in the OSM database proper. This is basically the only thing which stops me using OSM all the time. As it is, much of my map use has to be Google Maps. Gerv ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Retour de l'autoroute britannique
On 08/12/11 13:13, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Google have finally done it: they've switched from TeleAtlas to Google map data in the UK. Anyone know what that means for routing? There's a bad route near my house which fools people often, like the Sainsburys delivery man. I submitted a correction to TeleAtlas, which was accepted, but it takes time to work through... both before and after the 8th of December, the route was equally incorrectly wrong. Does that suggest they haven't switched routing data? Gerv ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On 04/07/11 13:53, Michael Collinson wrote: At the moment, this excludes Code-Point Open, (postcode) data since they are awaiting a response from Royal Mail who have rights in that dataset. I just dropped in to find out why I still can't search for most full UK postcodes using Nominatim, and if there was anything I can do to help. Do I take it that this is the reason? :-| Gerv ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 15/07/10 03:27, Liz wrote: A majority of *contributors* have not voted, not even a majority of contributors who edited anything in the last year. Offering a vote to those who paid a fee in pounds or euros to belong to a particular organisation (OSMF) and ignoring the far larger group who were not offered a vote but actually are the legal copyright holders does not make a valid poll. It makes it an entirely valid _poll_. Of course you can't relicense without getting everyone's permission, but if you are determining the direction of an organization, the people who you ask are those most invested and involved. Do you know of people who want to be OSMF members and yet genuinely can't afford the £15 or whatever it is? I thought OSMF had mechanisms for that, but if not, I'll happily step up and sponsor someone. How about you? Gerv ___ 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 12/07/10 16:52, Liz wrote: Now Gerv, what is your lower limit? for number of contributors overall? number of active contributors quantity of data? I do not accept that a decision can be made without the numbers being set *first*. OK, let's say we do what you say. I define my limits, you define your limits, every single member of the LWG defines theirs, lots of other contributors do too. We now have a big pile of limits. Then, we actually do the process. It turns out that we've got more contributors than 97% of people's limits, but only more data than 83% of people's limits. What's the limit on the percentage of different people's limits that we have to pass? What are the limits on the limits? Do we then have to have another poll to decide what different people's opinions are on the limits for the limits? Please, can't you see that this would lead to an entirely unproductive multi-month argument, and no useful progress being made? Gerv ___ 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 11/07/10 04:18, Kai Krueger wrote: So far the the impressions I got from the members of the licensing group vary from anywhere between e.g. 10% data loss is acceptable to as high as 90% data loss is acceptable (as long as a majority of signed up accounts agree), which means as far as I can interpret, there is no where close to an agreed process even within the licensing group. I was not at SotM, but it seems fairly obvious: discussing whether X% of dataloss is acceptable would lead to a big argument, for whatever value X is. If we have to have the arguments for X, Y, Z and Q all at the same time, that would be an enormous argument! Instead, it seems much wiser to wait until we know the value of X (or, its value at any one particular time, and its rate of change, if it is still changing) and then just have one argument. After all, if X is 99.99%, then there will probably be very little argument - which would be great. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal-talk mailing list archive is broken
On 09/06/10 08:54, Tom Hughes wrote: Well editing the archives isn't really a supported operation - you basically do it by going in and editing the raw messages and then rebuilding all the HTML pages that make up the archive. I know it's easy to tell other people what to do, but... if you had blanked out the body of the message instead of removing it, would that have avoided all the URLs changing? Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] legal-talk mailing list archive is broken
On 08/06/10 14:58, Tom Hughes wrote: Can it be fixed? Nope. Wow, that really sucks. (Not your fault, of course.) Is there a bug on file with the mailing list manager software? URLs should be permanent, particularly to archives. As Frederik's situation points out, this could be really confusing or even dangerous. I linked to the safety instructions you need to follow in my message from last week... Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Custom rendering of a small map
On 05/06/10 10:09, Gervase Markham wrote: My first effort involved an SVG export of the Mapnik image from the main website. This is pretty good; the only problem is that the roads are unnecessarily narrow and so the road names are small and hard to read. In the end, I went with this. I would have been willing to spare 30 minutes to get a tool working to improve this, but I've already spent a lot more than that. Thanks to everyone for their suggestions :-) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Custom rendering of a small map
On 07/06/10 20:32, Colin Marquardt wrote: FWIW, these icons here are awesome: http://www.sjjb.co.uk/mapicons/ Those _are_ awesome. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Custom rendering of a small map
On 07/06/10 11:49, Gervase Markham wrote: It was me who said that, actually. Here are a few comments, mostly in relation to the Mapnik style: Oops. That is, in comparison to the Mapnik style. The comments are, of course, about Osmarender. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Custom rendering of a small map
On 09/06/10 19:47, Nick Black wrote: Sorry you've hit problems with our TCs - its certainly not our intention to block your use. So long as you respect the terms of CC-by-SA and don't exceed the limits on the use of our Vector Stream Server, posted here: http://support.cloudmade.com/answers/specialist-tools - there will be no problems. Hi Nick, Thanks - that's good to know. Although you may want to consider revisiting the way you present your Ts and Cs, considering some of the more detailed comments I made on them elsewhere in this thread, to try and help people who _do_ care about the legality of their use to understand what your requirements are without having to digest six pagest of legalese. :-) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Custom rendering of a small map
On 06/06/10 17:46, Gary68 wrote: could you please be a little bit more precise what you don't like at osmarender and especially mapgen.pl? It was me who said that, actually. Here are a few comments, mostly in relation to the Mapnik style: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.40961lon=0.01101zoom=16layers=0B00FTF * Bus stop icons are big and ugly * In fact, many icons have too few colours * Lots of text rendering has letters overlapping themselves * Text in different categories overlaps (e.g. road names/train station names/POI names) * Font is probably 1-2 px too big to fit nicely in the roads * Road names overlap one way arrows * Road ends are square * Choice of POIs to render seems not as good as Mapnik Example of lots of overlapping text: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.40711lon=0.01398zoom=17layers=0B00FTF Hope that's a useful start... My suspicion is that some of this stuff, like text rendering, cannot be fully fixed with the technology choices inherent in the way OSMARender works. But I'd love to be proved wrong. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Custom rendering of a small map
On 06/06/10 13:52, Seventy 7 wrote: Yes, Maperitive would be ideal. Although the SVG export is not yet done, quality (ie large) bitmaps can be done with a scale command to smooth out pixellation. I got as far as getting it running (it needs System.Window.Forms; on Ubuntu, run sudo apt-get install libmono-winforms* ) and managed, through typing zoom-out and zoom-in about 50 times each, to get to the right area of the map, and downloaded the OSM data. But, not wanting to knock the hard work of you or others, even before I looked at making style changes, it seemed fairly clear that the text rendering wasn't nearly as nice as Mapnik's. I'm developing a whole new appreciation of how hard it is to write a map renderer which produces beautiful maps! You might also like to have a look at Maposmatic http://www.maposmatic.org/ as it has SVG export. That seems just to produce SVG of the default Mapnik style, which I can already get from http://www.openstreetmap.org/. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Custom rendering of a small map
Hi, I'd like to render a map of about a square mile or so of the town of Bromley, in Kent, for the information sheet for my wedding in August (yay!). http://osm.org/go/0EEBWURG I want to make the map, then remove a few bits which I don't need and add stuff to it like bigger labels on some important POIs like the church and the nearest station. I want it to look professional. This is just the sort of thing OSM should be good for, or so I hope :-) My first effort involved an SVG export of the Mapnik image from the main website. This is pretty good; the only problem is that the roads are unnecessarily narrow and so the road names are small and hard to read. I'd like pretty much that map, except with wider roads and bigger text. It would take an age to change it all manually in the SVG. What are my options for a custom render? - Mapnik: requires an incredible amount of setup, according to the wiki page. - Osmarender: It's ugly. Sorry, but it is. - mapgen.pl: Same. - Kosmos: I'm on Linux, and it only really runs on Windows. - Cobra: development seems dead. - Cartagen: It does road labels square on, which I don't like. - Cloudmade: initially, this seemed really promising. They have a variety of styles, and I probably could make one with wider roads, but the Terms of Service are so long and complex, and say don't do anything with this data that isn't your own personal use about three times in different ways, so I assume I can't use it. Any ideas? Is there an online service to which one can submit a Mapnik style sheet and get back a rendering of a small area? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Custom rendering of a small map
On 05/06/10 12:12, Jochen Topf wrote: Cloudmade uses OSM like everybody else under CC-BY-SA. They can't change that license, they can't restrict what you can do with it. But if I use their stylesheets and their site to generate maps, they can restrict what I can do with the resulting renderings, right? http://cloudmade.com/terms_conditions : CloudMade grants you permission to use the CloudMade Site as set forth in these Terms, provided that and for so long as (i) you use the CloudMade Site solely for your personal use; (ii) except as expressly permitted or indicated in these Terms, you do not download, reproduce, redistribute, retransmit, publish, resell, distribute, publicly display or otherwise exploit any portion of the CloudMade Site in any medium without CloudMade's prior written authorization;... (b) Any use by you of any of the CloudMade Materials and CloudMade Site other than for your personal use is strictly prohibited. You agree not to reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, trade, resell, distribute, or exploit any portion of the CloudMade Site, use of the CloudMade Site, access to the CloudMade Site, or Non-CloudMade Content obtained through the CloudMade Site, for any purpose other than for your personal use. Also, I object to any company which has terms which say you must agree to break the web: (k) You agree not to deep-link to the CloudMade Site and will promptly remove any links that CloudMade finds objectionable in its sole discretion. That page is utterly user-unfriendly. If it said at the top Stuff You Can Do and Stuff You Can't Do (Without Asking Us), and had a couple of short lists with common things, that would be much better. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Flash and open source
On 14/05/10 23:51, Richard Fairhurst wrote: It's a frickin' browser plugin, if the browser is letting it access your l337 credit card details then the browser probably ought to address its plugin architecture. Sadly, the definition of how browser plugins work means that they are fully-privileged native code. There's not much you can do about that. I guess it would be technically possible to define a new plugin standard that was sandboxed in some way, but it would be an enormous effort, and no-one would rewrite their plugins to use it. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Flash and open source
On 18/05/10 10:05, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: firefox jetpack Jetpacks are alternatives to extensions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Add-on_%28Mozilla%29 not plugins. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_%28computing%29#Plug-ins_and_extensions for an explanation. I agree the terminology can get confusing :-) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Thoughts on OSM design, and looking forward and back
On 23/02/10 23:42, SteveC wrote: You don't seem to make any realistic suggestions for moving forward and just, instead, suggest potlatch is fine as is the front page. That doesn't seem to be in touch with the reality of every newbie who encounters the project, does it? Steve: There's an enormous difference between disagreeing with the points you make, and objecting to how you make them. When I was little, I was generally rude and abrasive. I remember saying tearfully to one of my teachers why can't people just listen to what I say and ignore how I'm saying it?. But the world doesn't work like that. People are people, not computers. Sure, you don't like the way I communicate sometimes but do you have any ideas at all on improving things other than the status quo and pissing on someone for doing anything? Steve: Everything is a load of %$%£$ Andy: It's not good to go around insulting everyone. Steve: Haven't you got any constructive suggestions? Non-sequitur. On that point, I suppose I could write a big flowery essay on how awesome everyone is, Straw man. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Thoughts on OSM design, and looking forward and back
On 24/02/10 17:19, Tom Hughes wrote: I completely disagree. We're running a project to map the world, not a project to provide an end user site to compete with google maps. I claim false dichotomy. With code, the best way to hook someone into your project is to make it super-easy to get the code, make it work, make a change and then _see_the_change_ in their copy. (This is why it's easier to get involved in a scripting-language project with no dependencies than with something which requires a 1-hour compilation phase and 17 libraries - and more people do.) Similarly, with OSM, I suggest that the way to get people involved is to have them see the map, and use the map for the things they would otherwise use Google Maps for, and _then_ have the thought process That's wrong. Hey - I could fix it!. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms latest
On 23/02/10 21:16, Mike Collinson wrote: - British spelling licence noun used. (can anyone confirm that I am right in leaving verb license, sublicense as is, I am too long abroad). That is correct. In standard (British :-) English, licence is the noun and license is the verb. - defining active contributor as a natural person. This serves the purpose of no bots. OPEN QUESTION: We are not sure about this one as this it excludes corporations or other legally organised entities. If they have multiple accounts for individual staff, it has the reverse effect. Perhaps not a good idea? Comments welcome. I think that if a corporation has multiple people actively working on the map, that's fair enough - multiple votes. I don't think you'd have more scope for sockpuppetry than you might with normal users. (Hey, I can get 12 votes instead of 1 by editing with a different account every month...) Well, perhaps it would be harder to detect because you'd _expect_ them all to have the same IP... Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM GeoData License Status
On 09/02/10 17:06, Mike Collinson wrote: At the moment, we are trying to address some concerns raised by OSM and OSMF members about the new Contributor Terms. These have been slightly modified and the latest version can be seen here http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms . These modifications are certainly an improvement. Thank you :-) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on Key:religion - Pastafarians
On 06/01/10 19:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/1/6 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com mailto:g...@ir.bbn.com We should remember that the purpose of maps is to represent reality to map users, not to make political points. says who? Maps have always and in all ages been means of politics... Perhaps Greg was trying to say that, in his opinion, OSM should (as far as possible) not be used to make political points. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
The new Contributor Terms contain the equivalent of a joint copyright assignment to the OSMF. That makes this recent article by Michael Meeks on copyright assignment in free software very relevant: http://www.gnome.org/~michael/blog/copyright-assignment.html Of course, not all of the pros and cons he raises are relevant to data rather than software. But the following sentence struck me: It appears (to me) that choosing a license that can be upgraded and bug-fixed in-flight by a responsible steward or proxy substantially removes the requirement of assignment for re-licensing. I would recommend reading the whole article. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On 09/12/09 09:48, Ed Avis wrote: A related question is that if a fork happened, could it then be merged back into the main OSM project? Just like any other ODbL contribution, this could only be done if the contributors signed the Contributor Terms, or the OSMF agreed to waive the signing of them. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On 08/12/09 15:14, andrzej zaborowski wrote: Right, so this is one thing that isn't being made so clear. It's been said multiple times that the ODbL transition in summary is the spirit of CC-By-SA taken and made into a proper license for a database. But actually it's the spirit of CC-By-SA + copyright assignment, like that of Mozilla and others, which makes a difference. Correction: Mozilla does not require copyright assignment. (However, your point is correct.) Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas
On 25/11/09 21:59, Roy Wallace wrote: This raises another interesting question, that is, whether highways=* should *necessarily* express logical paths of travel, or whether they are just a convenient way to represent an *area* used as a path of travel, as a placeholder for future, more detailed mapping (e.g. as an area). Even the logical viewpoint benefits from roads as areas. When they are areas, they have two sides, and things (house numbers, postboxes, bus stops) can profitably be unambiguously attached to the appropriate edge. When they are lines, the bus stop has to be an extra node placed an arbitrary distance to the side, and is not connected to the road unless you go to the trouble of defining a relation. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 08/10/09 01:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: oh yes, there are. oneway=no, maxspeed=no, drinkable=no, building=no, area=no, noexit=no (really, it is just used 803 times, but we could add it to millions of ways), access=no, actually many tags do have some no-values in the db, also if it doesn't make much sense in many cases. OK, I should have been more careful in what I said. When I said no-one has genuinely suggested, I mean that no-one has put forward a proposal which has received significant levels of support. But having said that, some of the examples you list above are actually positive pieces of information, not denotations of a positive lack. e.g. maxspeed=no is the same as maxspeed=infinite drinkable=no is the same as undrinkable=yes oneway=no might be useful in the very rare case that mappers for some reason keep marking a road as oneway, but it's actually not! But I'd expect a note= to be more appropriate. Other than that, I agree it and noexit=no seem pointless. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 06/10/09 18:19, John Smith wrote: I have no idea about Europe/England to be honest, never been in any European countries. Oops, sorry for the assumption there. Most roads in Australia tend to be named, even some basic concrete slab colvets that aren't even real bridges get named. OK. The same is not true in many other countries. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 06/10/09 19:15, DavidD wrote: If you have 10 people in the same area chasing an unnamed road then a noname tag isn't going to solve the actual problem. A road in OSM that has been surveyed by a single person is tagged identically to a road that has a dozen gps tracks and has been checked by several people. True. But at the moment, a road with no name which has been surveyed by no people (e.g. traced from aerial imagery) is tagged the same as one which has been surveyed by one person. I agree there is a certain difference between being surveyed by 1 person and being surveyed by 10 people. But there's a much larger difference between being surveyed by 0 people and surveyed by 1 person. You seem to be advocating using no-name roads as some sort of bait to lure mappers into the area so they'll check other nearby work in passing, while finding out for the 9th time that the road actually does have no name :-) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 06/10/09 15:18, Dave Stubbs wrote: a) what are you actually marking? - no name in OSM -- we know that already - the mapper didn't find a name -- so we shouldn't check again? Probably not, no. Just as when a mapper adds a postbox, someone else doesn't think he's added a postbox. I should go and check that there's actually a postbox there. I agree that in this case you are noting a negative, not a positive, and that's more unusual. But I think the same principle applies. You trust other mappers to map sanely unless there's evidence to the contrary. - the road definitely hasn't got a name -- it definitely hasn't got a swimming pool in the middle of it either, but I'm not putting swimming_pool=no Right. But most roads have names, and names are useful for navigation. Names being missing when they shouldn't be is therefore bad. The swimming pool point is a slippery slope argument, but in fact the slope isn't at all slippery. Names are different to swimming pools. AFAIK, no-one has genuinely suggested swimming_pool=no, or in fact any other =no type thing apart from names. - mappers don't go looking for unnamed streets that definitely have no name -- well, whatever, they can put the post boxes and address data in while they're there. Except that many people like to map with a method that gets the map to a base level of usefulness (say, all roads present and correctly named) across an area first, and then add details later. c) what does it actually tell you if not present? - the road has a name, but we don't know what it is - we don't know if the road has a name or not - hasn't been mapped (These three are basically the same.) Yes - so go look, and add it, or add the noname tag. - the user who mapped it doesn't care for no names tags That may also be true, but hopefully someone will put one in, and stop lots of mappers visiting it to complete (to a certain level of detail) the map in that area. What I don't get is why people opposed to marking noname roads as noname actually mind. What offends you about tags you don't care about? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 06/10/09 05:37, John Smith wrote: It sounds like he made it to see which roads needed surveying to acquire their name, however I'm still confused why people use noname=yes when the street does have a name but not a street sign, as I posted before there is actually a few streets near here on the golf course which really aren't named, the buildings a just unit numbers. If you know the street has a name but there's no sign, remove the noname tag and put the name in :-) Anything without a street sign should be reported to someone in local government, they may not be aware that their sign has been damaged/destroyed, and to ask them for the name, there is 2 streets with vandalised signs I keep meaning to annoy council about here. That seems like a fairly European-city-centric view to me. There are loads of unnamed roads across rural England, across Europe, and in other countries around the world. And not all of them are such because their sign has been vandalised. Or have I missed your point? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 06/10/09 16:49, Jonathan Bennett wrote: It's useful *as a guide*, or a tool. What some people seem to be unable to grasp is that *it's OK for a road to appear in red on NoNames*. You don't have to eliminate them completely. It's just a guide, not a gospel. A road appearing in red means that there's a possibility of there being missing information in the map. In one sense, of course that's OK. The map has missing information all over the place. But what do we do with missing information we know is missing? We try and put it in, to make the map better and more complete. Basically, opposing the noname stuff is saying you need to keep in your head a list of all the roads in your area which genuinely have no name, in order to prevent yourself visiting them again to add the name in. And every mapper in an area has to do that. Isn't that right? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 05/10/09 11:04, Dave Stubbs wrote: As the person whose first came up with a no-names map for London (well, actually it was a named map of London, turned into a nonames map on SteveC's suggestion), I have an *official leadership announcement* to make: There shall be no tagging of unnamed roads. It is not important. They show up on the no-names map -- big deal -- its a mapping aid not a holy grail of there shall be no highlighted roads. Just deal with it. So why did you make the noname map in the first place, if it's not important? Have you changed your mind about its usefulness? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 03/10/09 06:00, John Smith wrote: No we need a committee to decide upon a core set of values that people should use where possible instead of naming the same thing 10 different ways, the argument over boolean values just highlights the point. OK, sorry, I thought that someone was suggesting setting up a committee just for this. :-) My view is not that we should have one committee, but that groups of people with particular expertise should come together to develop the tag sets for particular areas (e.g. canals, mountain biking), those should be what's published on the wiki, and it should be an OSM community norm to tag in accordance with what's on the wiki even if you feel that it doesn't capture all the information, and you have to add MyName:extratag=value tags to make it absolutely clear what you mean. Wikipedia has much less need for consistency than we do (e.g. it doesn't matter if one article is in American English and another in Australian English; articles are not machine-parsed) and yet they have all sorts of mechanisms for ensuring it. As Russ says, freeform tagging != anarchy. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 03/10/09 04:00, Matt Amos wrote: are you suggesting that the best way forward is for some authority to decree that there is One True Way of tagging noname roads and forcing all mappers, editors and renderers to support it? No, the best way forward is for some authority to decree that there is One True Way of tagging noname roads, and for mappers, editors and renderer authors to go fab, that makes my life a lot easier and choose to follow it. At the moment, people are deathly afraid of the second half of your sentence, and so think that makes the first half impossible. it might be helpful if the wiki documented the guidance of experienced mappers, rather than the free-for-all of half-baked ideas that it seems to have become. Quite :-) then why suggest placing any one person in an exalted leadership position? Because sometimes, occasionally, a benevolent dictator (a phrase used by lots of open source projects) has to break deadlock and dictate. Things are working well when that power is used very, very rarely, but it needs to exist. Mozilla has two - one code, one non-code, and I can't remember the last time they had to break a deadlock in this way. But it's vital that they _could_. if mappers tag the way they feel is best and the tool authors (i.e: nonames layer) consume the tags in the way they feel is best then the two will converge, as long as everyone keeps an open mind and refrains from childish antagonism. I think that is unrealistically optimistic. How long have we been going, and why hasn't it happened yet? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 03/10/09 00:49, DavidD wrote: Just start making the decisions and build the thing on top of OSM. It wouldn't even be that difficult to start off. Just take planet.osm and strip unapproved tags and build up from there. So OSM is in a state where it only becomes usefully consistent if you throw away a lot of the information? That doesn't sound like the best use of the time of the mappers who put it there. Lack of guidance, which is what we have now, is a disincentive to new mappers, and a disappointment to existing ones. If I pick way #5 of the nine different ways to tag a road with no name, come back a week later and find that I spent two hours tagging but it's not rendered because Mapnik only supports ways #3, #6 and #7, then I'm going to be disappointed. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 03/10/09 01:08, Frederik Ramm wrote: It may be your way to try and understand a conversation by looking not at what has been said, but at who said it and what that might reveal about their personal situation, upbringing, education, employment or other circumstances. I'm used to this from previous discussions in which you participiated, but I still don't find it (morally or intellectually) acceptable to talk about what you think a posting reveals about its author. This is off-topic and useless at best, insulting at worst, and reflects poorly on your intellectual ability to engage in factual discourse. On the contrary; understanding where someone is coming from is vital to understanding their point. It's part of good communication. We are not robots, communicating using an unambiguous digital protocol. There are unstated assumptions, attitudes of mind and history in the lives of all of us which affect what we mean when particular words or expressions are used. Everyone does this form of assessment, consciously or unconsciously, as part of communicating. It's just that (as another commenter pointed out) I said what I'd done so you could correct me. I think you are (IMO mistakenly) opposed to people having authority because of your country's history and the negative consequences that ensued when people gave someone too much power because there were problems that needed sorting out. Am I wrong? You need to distinguish between good leadership and bad leadership. Good leadership sometimes tells people to do things they don't agree with. Because the leader is the intellectual visionary and the sheep cannot be expected to have the information or the intellectual capacity to understand. Yes, that is true with many religious, political, or business leaders of past and present. So you think that a good leader never tells people to do things they disagree with? How do you resolve disputes within GeoFabrik, if discussion does not provide an agreed way forward? Frankly, I think it may be a mistake to try an apply experience from the Mozilla project to OSM. I think there are vast differences between our projects on various levels, and it would be wrong to say well they're both large projects to do with computers so they must be somehow the same. That's not what I'm saying. I just don't think this is a lesson that can be transferred to OSM in a meaningful way. I think that's an unwarranted generalization. You have to look at each point and see if the two projects are relevantly similar in that case. From what organizations do you think that OSM can usefully gain insight? How about just taking the lesson from every other provider of data? Who else has a data set with multiple values for true and false? Even two for each would be considered a bug to be fixed, let alone ten. * who has the power to decide which values are allowed for a certain tag? who would decree that oneway is boolean? * how is that codified in our software? * how is that codified in our social structures (votes, elections, who is allowed how many votes, who decides who has how many votes and how does the appeal process work)? * what happens if someone thinks they need an exemption from the rule? * what is the balance of power between mapper and user interests in OSM? Right. And no-one is arguing people should be forced to tag in a certain way, I am arguing that the regular, linked-to-from-the-front-page, normal namespace wiki should reflect a single, recommended way to tag, that particular sections of the tag space should be maintained by a loose group of experts in that area, who are recognised by their knowledge and contribution, that if they can't come to a decision then SteveC should break the deadlock among that group, and that after all that has happened, people can tag any way they like. But if they want to document alternative schemes on the wiki, don't do it by hacking around the page of recommendations. All this is possible *within* the existing OSM framework and without any strong leader telling us where to go. Not, as Russ says, if any attempt is automatically branded evil. I don't quite understand why those who crave most for strict rules etc. never, ever tried to do what I have sketched above, when it would seem the most natural way of evolving such a system. Two reasons off the top of my head: because we don't want to spend ages developing consistent tag sets and putting them on the wiki only to have someone else mess around with them. And because we'd like to get some sort of consensus before starting off on what will undoubtedly be an enormous chunk of work. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 03/10/09 05:16, Andrew Errington wrote: If you see a street on the map with no name displayed you might think one of two things: 1) The street has no name (and you might hum a tune by U2) 2) The street has a name but it has not been recorded Either way, it doesn't matter. It darn well does if you don't want to be the eighteenth mapper to go and visit it specially to complete the map in that area and find out that it actually doesn't have a name. Not marking noname roads is a giant waste of resources, because work gets duplicated. If I am a map maker then I know whether or not the street has a name, because I've been there and seen it. There are multiple people working in each area. And no-one has a perfect memory. Are you really saying the memory of all local mappers is the right place to store this information? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 03/10/09 09:24, James Livingston wrote: Just do what I and a lot of other people have done - give up on the wiki being useful, and just go ahead and tag it however you like, checking tagwatch and similar to see what other people are actually using. tagwatch tells you what tags people are using, but not what they are using them _for_. There is insufficient semantic information in the statement lots of people are using highway=unclassified for you to know what to use it for, or even whether they are all using it for the same thing. A set of tags alone is not sufficient to get consistency or convergence. Explanations are needed. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 01/10/09 04:14, Russ Nelson wrote: I'm tired of this silly true/false 1/0 yes/no up/down left/right in/out fore/aft port/starboard debate/debacle. It's trivial, it's stupid, we could just as easily toss a coin as engage in any rational debate about how binary values should be expressed. This is just wrong. If SteveC says that mountain=green means that first there is a mountain, and that mountain=blue means there is no mountain, then damnit, we should do it that way. +2 :-) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 01/10/09 04:26, John Smith wrote: I still like Shaun's idea of a committee We really, really need a committee to decide what values we are going to standardize for binary true and false? If that's true, we are doomed. How on earth are we going to make any difficult decisions stick? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 01/10/09 10:40, Frederik Ramm wrote: If we have open issues in the community that we cannot find a good solution to, then the reason for this is not that we simply lack a good Führer who tells us what is right and what is wrong; Frederik, I may be entering dangerous waters here, but I'm wondering if this comment of yours reveals quite a lot. You need to distinguish between good leadership and bad leadership. Good leadership sometimes tells people to do things they don't agree with. Calling all such leadership Nazi is not productive. I'm now wondering whether it's a coincidence that you work for yourself rather than for someone else :-) Good leadership is not the same as makes decisions Frederik agrees with. Good leadership is not the same as only making decisions which are easy because everyone agrees. Good leadership is leadership which furthers the mission of the organization. If Steve said that green and blue were the correct database values for true and false, then I'd write five lines of translation code for JOSM which meant it showed up in the JOSM UI as true and false, and then I would be very thankful that the decision had been made and all the automated scripts I'd written to use OSM data didn't have to check for 21 different values of false any more. And I'd accept his decision on the basis that any decision, in this case, is better than no decision, and that I trust him to have good reasons for making it the way he did. Having said that, I am also pretty sure he wouldn't say that. it is because these issues are difficult and the community is perhaps divided about it. We do not need anybody to make a decision in these cases; that doesn't help at all. No, it's precisely what we need. things simpler. It seems that you would prefer a wrong decision over no decision at all - but why do we need decisions at all? If there are issues where the community cannot make up their mind, can you not just live with that and arrange your technology in a way to deal with that? Because that way lies misery and code complexity. More examples from the Mozilla project: if one vocal group want something one way, and another vocal group want something the other way in Firefox, the _worst_ thing you can do is make it a preference so that both sides can have what they want. That just makes everyone's life more difficult, because there are now two code paths to test and maintain. Multiply this up by a number of decisions and you get complexity explosion. If I were considering using OSM data in my business, I would consider it laughable that after 5 years there had not yet been a decision on what value or small set of values I needed to look for on boolean attributes to see whether they were true or false. Laughable. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide
On 02/10/09 10:10, Andy Allan wrote: The alternative to forcing arbitrary rules of consistency on our volunteers is to acknowledge that OSM is in fact inconsistently tagged, and chill out about the whole thing. Different people can then experiment with different approaches to produce consistent datasets tailored to their own needs. They don't need to be proprietary - in fact, given the number of people around here talking about it I'd have hoped someone would have stepped up and produced a tailored dataset by now. There's a giant assumption behind this, and that is that the information necessary to produce a tailored and consistent dataset has been preserved. Say there was an Andy Allan scheme of tagging which rated highways from 1 (biggest) to 10 (smallest). There's also a Gervase Markham scheme of tagging which rates them from 1 (smallest) to 10 (biggest). How does one produce a consistent data set out of that, without knowing the preferences of every OSM member as to whether they use Andy Allan tagging or Gervase Markham tagging? This example is obviously extreme to make the point, which is this: unless there is agreement on what the values mean for particular keys, information is lost which cannot be retrieved. If one person's highway=tertiary is another person's highway=unclassified, then what do you do? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
On 28/08/09 13:07, wynnd...@lavabit.com wrote: On 27/08/09 12:13, Jack Stringer wrote: lock=yes lock_name=Withrington Bottom Lock When you are tagging a way, you can't use name= because that will already contain the name of the canal. Hence lock_name=. Why would you want to repeat the name of a canal on its individual nodes? Isn’t that repeating the mistake of the TIGER node tags? You wouldn't. The tagging scheme above is for the *way* between the two gate nodes. That way will already have e.g. name=Grand Union so you need a lock_name tag to avoid a clash. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
On 27/08/09 12:13, Jack Stringer wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dlock_gate Shows to tag both ends of the lock. If there is a name just to use name. This was the original tag. However, it has various problems - for example, it makes it hard to render a lock as a single icon if there are two tags (one for each end) and in a staircase lock, things get even more confusing. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lock Says to tag either both ends or just use a single node. This was created to deal with the above problem. For high-resolution mapping, use it to tag the water way between the gates as lock=yes. For low-resolution mapping, just add a node to the canal and tag it. lock=yes lock_name=Withrington Bottom Lock When you are tagging a way, you can't use name= because that will already contain the name of the canal. Hence lock_name=. I have then seen people use name_1=5 to tell you the lock number. Ick. Please use ref for this. If you are mapping carefully, I'd suggest the tags you want are lock=yes on the waterway section, lock_name for the name, and ref for the number if present. If you want to add waterway=lock_gate to the two ends as well, knock yourself out. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] waterway=lock
On 27/08/09 14:27, Mike Harris wrote: On a related canal issue, I have a problem with deciding how to tag a canal bridge as a segment of a way. The way will often already have name= and ref= tags as a highway; but I want to add a name= and ref= tag for the canal bridge. Not keen on name_1 or ref_1 - any better ideas? I did wonder about adding a node in the middle of the bridge and then tagging this with the canal bridge information and reserving the name and ref tags for the highway segment. The correct solution here is to use relations. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels The relation should be as follows: type=bridge across=the road under=the waterway ref=bridge number Optionally: maxwidth= maxheight= name= However, no renderer yet shows this, although I've been working with Steve Chilton for a while to get it done. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New dimension of vandalism
On 26/08/09 21:42, Mikel Maron wrote: IMO, the wiki should reflect the current collective thinking. If the collective thinking is in disagreement, then the wiki should show both sides, equally, with _respectful_ disagreement. If, however many years after starting the project, we are in respectful disagreement about what the *%$ highway tag means, then we are absolutely doomed. How on earth is anyone going to be able to rely on OSM data for anything if the meaning of the tags keeps changing? If dieterdriest has found a number of people who've been ignoring the definition, then he should tell them to fix the roads they've mistagged and to read more carefully next time. If I'd spent ages tagging a number of roads carefully according to a definition and then someone changed the definition so that a load of my tagging was now wrong, I would be most upset. We are far too late on in the project to be asking contributors to revisit every highway tag in the database to check it conforms to some new definition. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
On 10/08/09 15:49, Tom Chance wrote: - Tags are proposed on the wiki, no change to current practice - If the proposal throws into question existing, accepted tags, defer the proposal to small working groups - These working groups study the wider questions and formulate a complete proposal for new tags, deprecation, etc. - At SOTM present and discuss their proposals and vote -1 to at SOTM, but +1 to the rest. I think it's entirely reasonable for e.g. community members who use and have experience of canals to form a canal working group to decide how best to tag them on an ongoing basis. And hopefully, if they are established and respected community members, they will make sure they get input from people in the relevant areas of the world where such tags would be used (in the canal example, UK canals and European ones are different in a few important ways). This will lead to a better result than the random proposal of new canal-related tags whenever someone happens to need one, without some consideration of how it might or might not fit in with existing practice. There is nothing at all wrong with giving established, experienced and knowledgeable community members a bigger voice than someone who just joined the project yesterday. Every community has that, either de facto or de jure. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Clearance
On 30/07/09 09:26, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) wrote: much more. Since many countries have two different signs for max legal height and max physical height, and its usages can be very different, why not allow this in tags? Can you provide sample images for such signs? I confess I find it hard to believe. The maxheight for a feature such as a bridge is the maximum height of an object of the standard type that will fit under it. So for a road bridge, it would be a bus or truck of the normal 1-lane width. That's the thing people are interested in. If there's a sign which says the max physical height of a truck you can get under this bridge is 11 feet, but legally the max height for this bridge is 12 feet, how is the second piece of information useful in any way? For unicyclists? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Adding UK post box information
On 08/07/09 12:13, Stephen Gower wrote: Actually, for what it's worth (probably very little) the very original file is provided as a PDF on the section of http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/location_of_every_post_box_that marked from Royal Mail Group and dated 13 June 2008. The only reason I mention this is that the first page has a copyright statement, and OSM community opinion at the time was that with the whiter-than-white, just-in-case-someone-tries-to-sue policy we have (had?) this info shouldn't be stored in OSM. But it's not this info that's being stored in OSM. The info provided is not sufficient to establish the location of the postbox (as I have found, having hunted, occasionally for quite some time, for all 44 of them in N14). What we are storing is the exact location. Royal Mail doesn't know the exact location of all its postboxes. If we find out for them, what are the chances they would sue us? It's flipping useful from their point of view. They could apply proper Travelling Salesman algorithms to them to optimise pick-up routes. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] map with FF 3.5 geolocation und hostip
On 02/07/09 20:53, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
People care because it has been standardized and is being implemented
by major players: http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source.html
Here's a bookmarklet which will geolocate you using the API, and
redirect you to a map of your location with a marker:
javascript:navigator.geolocation.getCurrentPosition(function(a){c=a.coords;window.location=http://www.osm.org/?zoom=15mlat=+c.latitude+mlon=+c.longitude;},function(){alert(Rejected!)});
(Thanks to Johnathan Nightingale for the inspiration and code:
http://blog.johnath.com/2009/06/24/google-maps-geolocation-bookmarklet/ )
But we should really be doing object detection and adding a Find Me
button for appropriate browsers to the main OSM web page.
Gerv
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] map with FF 3.5 geolocation und hostip
On 06/07/09 10:51, Frankie Roberto wrote: The most obvious implementation we could do would be where users visit the slippy map without having a location set in their cookie. Currently we guess at a location via IP address, but it would be good (and not difficult) to use the geolocation API here instead, falling back on the existing IP-based method if the API isn't present or if the user declines to authorise permission. The trouble with that is that in all supporting browsers, the first thing people will get when visiting OSM is some sort of prompt. Also, I can imagine visiting OSM, starting to find where I want on the map, then noticing Oh, it wants to know where I am, clicking Sure, no problem and being taken _away_ from where I wanted to look. I think a Find Me button is better UI. A final scenario is where the user is in motion, and wants the map to pan so that it 'follows' their movements. Find Me, when clicked, scrolls to the appropriate place and adds a marker. It then, under the covers, keeps asking for an updated location and moving the marker if necessary, but does not scroll the map unless Find Me is pressed again. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Adding UK post box information
On 01/07/09 11:18, Ed Avis wrote: Can the manually located postboxes, based on OSM data and a list of postbox street locations from the Royal Mail, be added to OSM? Yes. But have you checked with Matthew Somerville, the author of that tool? AIUI it's already integrated with OSM. I did the whole of N14, and added it to OSM, and it showed up in the tool as done. (But perhaps he hasn't yet implemented integration in the other direction...) Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On 24/06/09 06:56, SteveC wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Privacy_Policy_-_Discussion_Draft The Mozilla project has a privacy policy which I would suggest is rather friendlier, while still being lawyer-approved - at least, US lawyers. I'm sure I could arrange for you to be able to use the appropriate bits of it: http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/about/privacy/ http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_-_Discussion_Draft These seem very long indeed. What risks are we mitigating here? If they are significant, why does every website in the world not have to have one of these? Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] petition
On 04/06/09 14:25, Josh wrote: hello there is a very important petition in my signature I would appreciate if you would sign it please. Hi Josh, Do you know about NVDA? http://www.nvda-project.org/ It's a high-quality, free and open source screen reader for Windows. There are also free readers for free operating systems. There's a big list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_screen_readers Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM based printed directory, possible?
On 02/06/09 21:16, Matías Iturburu wrote: Lately we have been interested in osm and, after noting that our town isn't in osm, we would like to upload all our catography to osm (it's quite a chunk of data). As a matter of taste we would like for the tiles on our (printed) maps, to be the same than those online. In what format do you have your data? Take into account that at this point we are more worries about legal and community concerns that on technical stuff. Also, if you know any other experience like this in other countries it's more than wellcome. Legally, you retain all rights to your own data; when you add it to OSM, you are just licensing it to everyone else non-exclusively. However, if you make your paper maps using data from OpenStreetMap which has been added to by other members of the community, you would need to follow the terms of the CC-BY-SA licence (or any future licence; there may be a change is in the works) under which the OSM data is licensed. In practice, that means putting an small attribution credit on the map. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM based printed directory, possible?
On 03/06/09 09:10, Gervase Markham wrote: In practice, that means putting an small attribution credit on the map. And, as a private emailer pointed out, to allow anyone to copy it without paying a fee. Which might be thought to be a big deal, but you can hardly reproduce an atlas with a photocopier. If people want it in a convenient format, they'll shell out for a copy. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap mention on slashdot
On 27/05/09 20:51, Yann Coupin wrote: Just saw this, thought you might be interested... OpenStreetMap Sends UK Volunteer Mapper To Antigua http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/lBKqJKP3gSE/article.pl Yes, we've been submitting the press release to various places. Feel free to send it anywhere you happen to have contacts, or blog it yourself :-) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmfieldwork_Press_Release Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Corine Land Cover becomes a potential OSM data source...
On 14/05/09 11:23, Christoph Boehme wrote: We are currently importing public transport information for the UK (NaPTAN) and are having a similar problem with existing data in OSM. Our approach is to tag the imported data specially so that it can easily be found in the database but does not show up on the map (i.e. all imported bus stops are tagged with source=naptan_import but do not have highway=bus_stop tag). Mappers can then check the imported data and activate bus stops by adding a highway=bus_stop tag to it or copy the imported tags over to an existing OSM bus stop. Has consideration been given in any future API/database schema updates of having support for layers, like e.g. the GIMP does it for graphics? So you could import data into a new layer with all the appropriate tags and then merge down as appropriate. The slippy map would only show the base layer. This sort of support might also be useful for people reusing OSM software and schemas who want to overlay their own data onto the OSM data. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] QA with a lawyer
On 13/05/09 14:23, Frederik Ramm wrote: Sounds like: We have a honest desire to sue the shit out of you if you violate any of our 52 random rules but we will grudgingly refrain from doing so if laws in your jurisdiction should have the nerve of being against us. ;-) That's only if the rest of the licence sounds like We have a honest desire to sue the shit out of you if you violate any of our 52 random rules. And if you think that, then your problem would not be with the fair use clause. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] QA with a lawyer
On 12/05/09 09:37, Frederik Ramm wrote: Claiming copyright on something where you are not reasonably sure of actually having it is, in my eyes, a FUD maneouvre worthy of players like the OS, but something that we should make an attempt to steer clear of. The way of avoiding it seeming to be FUD is to have a clause like: Nothing in this licence attempts to restrict your rights under fair use or a similar doctrine. The GPL v3 has one: This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] GPSMAP 60Cx still the best OSM GPS?
On 07/04/09 18:32, Jani Patanen wrote: Actually, for a while now mkgmap has been able to create maps where you can search for streetnames. Brilliant! Are there docs on this anywhere? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] GPSMAP 60Cx still the best OSM GPS?
On 07/04/09 09:42, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: The Garmin eTrex Legend HCx was what we went for for running mapping parties and they are very popular with attendees. Very easy to use, has a high sensitivity receiver (a must), displays OSM mapping, logs a new track file to the SD card every day, will run all day on a pair of AA rechargables (2500mhA and above). Plus all the other features of ruggedness, waterproof etc etc. At £138 on Amazon including the SD card you actually get a lot of bang for your buck. I'm pretty happy with mine. Although the Garmin format has not yet been reverse-engineered fully; you can't search by street name or postcode, which makes it rather fiddly for doing journeys even if you have the routable maps. And the map redraw speed is pretty slow at low zoom. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Telephone Debate
On 14/03/09 20:32, Ulf Möller wrote: OSFM is trying to get ODbL 1.0 in place as soon as possible and fix problems in version 1.1 later on. The difficulty with doing that is that people who are approached about relicensing their data might say no, because the licence is broken in ways X, Y and Z which were highlighted by the discussion process. Even if the reply is we hope to fix those in 1.1, they might say well, come back then, then. So what happens then? Do we remove their data or don't we? If we do, then that's data that was lost which wouldn't have been lost if we got the licence right first time. If we don't, then why are we bothering with switching OSM to 1.0 at all? Why not just wait for the 1.1 fixed version? Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reverse-Engineering Maps and Share-Alike Licences
On 09/03/09 15:29, Rob Myers wrote: On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Gervase Markhamgerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote: On 08/03/09 21:02, Frederik Ramm wrote: Sure; but how likely is it that we'll still be at ODbL v1.0 at that time? Since our license can be upgraded to a later version, so can the list of compatible SA licenses for Produced Works. We could; but not every SA license is well-known. For maximum compatibility and future-proofing, it would be better to have criteria. And I don't think that's unachievable. Something along the lines of: A license which: - preserves the freedoms to copy, share, modify and redistribute and - requires you to license derivative works under the same license. That covers CC-BY-NC-SA. ;-) No, it doesn't. CC-BY-NC-SA doesn't preserve the freedom to redistribute commercially. The addition of two words fix the ambiguity: A license which: - preserves without restriction the freedoms to copy, share, modify and redistribute and - requires you to license derivative works under the same license. But my point is not that my did-it-in-30-seconds formulation is legally watertight. My point is that it's entirely possible, because it's been done several times before for various purposes. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reverse-Engineering Maps and Share-Alike Licences
On 08/03/09 21:02, Frederik Ramm wrote: Sure; but how likely is it that we'll still be at ODbL v1.0 at that time? Since our license can be upgraded to a later version, so can the list of compatible SA licenses for Produced Works. We could; but not every SA license is well-known. For maximum compatibility and future-proofing, it would be better to have criteria. And I don't think that's unachievable. Something along the lines of: A license which: - preserves the freedoms to copy, share, modify and redistribute and - requires you to license derivative works under the same license. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Reverse-Engineering Maps and Share-Alike Licences
The question has been raised in these discussions about the ODbL's reverse-engineering provisions, and their compatibility or otherwise with share-alike licenses. Here is my analysis and suggestions. 1) The ODbL wishes to prevent people regenerating the Database from Produced Works. ODbL section 4.7: For the avoidance of doubt, creating a Produced Work, and then re-creating the whole or a Substantial part of the Data found in this Database, a Derivative Database, or a Database that is part of a Collective Database from the Produced Work, is still subject to this Licence. Any product of this type of reverse engineering activity (whether done by You or on Your behalf by a third party) is governed by this License. 2) Share-Alike Licences, such as the GPL and CC-BY-SA, have clauses which prevent someone distributing a work under the licence from adding additional restrictions. (Other classes of licences may also have such a stipulation, but this is the largest and most common class which does.) GPLv3 section 10: You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. CC-BY-SA section 4a: You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. 3) In order for the ODbL's restriction on reverse engineering to stick, the no-reverse-engineering stipulation has to be part of the terms which apply to the use or reuse of the Produced Work, both by the person who Produced it and by other third parties. Otherwise, the term would be trivially avoidable - I create the Produced Work, and you reverse-engineer it. 4) A Produced Work is not a Derivative Database, and so does not fall under the ODbL. The ODbL is designed to allow you to license Produced Works however you choose. 5) Therefore, I submit, the reverse engineering clause cannot be made enforceable by copyright permission, in the manner of e.g. the GPLv3, because the ODbL does not make claims on the copyright in the Produced Work. This is one reason why the ODbL must be a contract, in all jurisdictions, not just those with no database right. The person creating the work is contractually obliged by the reverse-engineering clause of the ODbL to respect this restriction, and to pass the restriction to anyone to whom they pass the Produced Work. 6) A no-reverse-engineering stipulation counts as a further restriction (GPL) or imposed term (CC-BY-SA) on the use of the work, which restricts a right. 7) Specifically, the right so restricted is the right to make derivative works of a certain type - databases of map data. The right to make derivative works is clearly a right that these licences wish to preserve. 8) Therefore, it is not possible to have a reverse-engineering clause for Produced Works, and also for it to be possible to create Produced Works that one can license under any licence with a no additional terms clause, including share-alike licences. It's one or the other. So what can be done? I agree that reverse engineering is a risk. Life is not perfect. But still, my suggestion is that we should abandon the idea of trying to prevent reverse engineering, for the following reasons: a) GPL and CC-BY-SA compatibility of produced works is more important. b) If people are reverse-engineering our stuff, either they need a massive, sustained, continuous Mechanical Turk effort, or their map will be out of date anyway. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] It's all too fast...
On 05/03/09 10:56, Dair Grant wrote: People have been talking about the licence issue for years (literally; there was an hour-long panel about it at SOTM 2007), and we have nothing to show for it other than a large number of I'm not a lawyer, but... threads. We know there are issues with the current licence, and there will be issues with ODbL 1.0 as well. But, hopefully, not issues of the same magnitude. But having that in front of us, in a final form, gives us a choice: is this suitable for what we want, or not? Say we declared it 1.0 today. At the moment, IMO it's not suitable. So we'd carry on the discussion and eventually have a 1.1. How is this any better than waiting to get 1.0 more right? I would be happy to have a bad 1.0 out sooner which was rejected by OSM (perhaps accepted by some other community, who knows), than a perfect 1.0 which never arrived. That's a false dichotomy - those aren't the choices. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License to kill
On 04/03/09 04:28, SteveC wrote: We blame Steve because he's evil. We blame the process because it took too long. We blame the working group for not being quicker. We figure the foundation must be culpable. We write long rants about how it's a dire emergency... I don't see any of that, at least not at the moment. What I see is the opposite - Slow down, you move too fast... But! Hold on! We should see every draft of the license! Every time they add a comma, or review something! Every sentence! You're taking away our rights you evil volunteers! Straw men are always easier to knock down than the real thing, aren't they? :-) Yes we should in the same way that a lawyer should comment on your C++ or ruby code after every 20 characters. I would suggest that's an invalid analogy. Most code has no legal impact. The licence has a lot of impact on every single bit of code (or data). So the code is no concern of the lawyers (normally), but the licence is the concern of all the mappers. So lets concentrate on that. Lets build a better process. Lets build a consensus. Absolutely! As long as you allow us the time to (i.e. slow down and stop trying to get it done by the end of March!), then I'm all for that :-) Incidentally, we're not all code weenies with no clue about licensing. I've been point of contact at the Mozilla project (which is of not insignificant size and complexity) for licensing issues for about five years now, although recently we got our own in-house lawyer (who, by the way, is brilliant. I can ask him and see if he can help out, if you want). Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On 04/03/09 10:51, MP wrote: Thayt is the worst thing - now you don't know who will agree to new license and who don't (unless you have some magic crystal ball). So you don't know which data are going to be removed and how much of them would it be until the last moment. Right. And then we decide whether or not to go ahead with the relicensing, depending on what the figures are. The alternative seems to be to get lots of people to make guesses about what they would do in certain situations, and then throw all that information away when we have actual data and ask people again, just like above. I don't see that as a good use of time. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On 03/03/09 09:43, Frederik Ramm wrote: 4. People who don't dislike ODbL per se but dislike the manner in which it was brought about, and thus feel rushed/excluded. People who make sensible suggestions for improvement but see their suggestions brushed away or simply ignored because this would just delay the license release (which seems to be planned for 28th March), I agree that the timeline is too tight, particularly given that people have to manage communication with communities other than English. But where are suggestions being brushed away? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] It's all too fast...
The GPLv3 public revision process was 18 months in multiple phases, and it was based on an existing licence. We are trying to analyse a completely new and untested one and get it to a final version in 1 month. I don't advocate the N years that the GPLv3 took, but currently the plan says: 2nd March * Finalise implementation plan following review of plan comments... (So the deadline for commenting on the timeline has already passed? That's too fast on its own.) 12th March * Working group meeting. Review of community feedback received to date. So all significant feedback has to be in within two weeks of the announcement? This is all far, far too fast. Remember that: - Some people don't log into or contribute to OSM every week; they may not even find out about this for a couple of weeks. - We need to get input from communities which don't speak English; this requires things (including the licence) to be translated so they can comment on it. As a straw man suggestion for comment, I suggest three months for comment and discussion, then a revision based on those comments, then another comment period, perhaps shorter. We can make sure the existing-people-problem doesn't get worse meantime by making people creating new accounts agree to dual licensing under CC-BY-SA and ODbL 1.0. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] It's all too fast...
On 03/03/09 18:23, Andy Allan wrote: We've been talking about the ODbL for a lng time now, way more than 18 months. It's not completely new. The previous draft was dated April 2008. If you're new to the discussions, then welcome, but don't make like the ODbL has never been seen before and that we're trying to do everything in 1 month. Everything that Frederik said. There has been no interactive discussion with the editors of the licence, no formal place (as there is now on co-ment.net) for collating and discussing issues, no explanation of the deltas from the previous draft to this, no explanation of how it might work in a range of possible use cases, etc. etc. You say the licence isn't completely new. Where's the document showing the differences from the previously discussed draft, along with the rationale for why each change was made? Something like this: http://gplv3.fsf.org/rationale (PDF document) I believe the GPLv3 process issued three or four of those, although they appear to have taken all but the final one down. Without such a document, it might as well be completely new. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On 28/02/09 12:21, 80n wrote: What percentage of data would other people feel willing to see sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license? We should probably exclude mass donated data as 90% is probably TIGER anyway. So what percentage of *user contributed* data would other people feel willing to see sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license? I'm not sure it's particularly useful to speculate on the question. Why don't we go through the exercise of attempting relicensing, see what the percentage actually is, and if there are particular areas or countries which would be hard-hit, and then have the debate? If I say 10%, and the actual figure was 11%, what would I do? No idea. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Greenland street and aerial geodata to OSM
On 12/02/09 11:43, GIS wrote: By a donation we are able distribute data to osm, google and yahoo. Data are in DGN and TAB formats. How do we get further on uploading on osm? We might need help due to slow internet connections in the Arctic. Hi Karl, That's great news :-) The difficulty is that most often, organizations who turn up with large amounts of data to import (as you have) get help from an experienced local member of the community - because they are the people with the most interest in the import happening. However, it's quite possible that either there are no OSM people in Greenland or, if there are, that they are not on this mailing list. And I don't think there's a registry of where people live (odd for a mapping project...). You could ask the wiki admins for a list of accounts who have set theit default language to Kalaallisut, but it's quite possible that most people leave it as the default of English. Or you could try contacting WikiProject Denmark http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Denmark for help - there's a list of people on that page. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Towpath relation: voting open
When making canal maps, it is useful to know which way is the official towpath for the canal. Determining this programatically without a relation would be difficult and prone to error, so I have proposed a simple relation to associate the two. Voting is now open: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Towpath Please vote :-) (Note that there doesn't seem to be a wiki template for proposed Relations...) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
