I moved the multiple licensing site out of beta. You cannot not revoke
licenses once they are accepted. I hope it will be useful.
http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/
Tim
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
On 27/06/11 09:12, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
I appreciate the fact that you work with TimSC. I look forward to being able
to read the page http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/
(I do not want to click Decline at the moment, because I am still undecided,
and reading this page
for ideas for improvements of the legal
issues. Any thoughts?
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On 6/20/2011 8:03 AM, TimSC wrote:
It would be nice if the committee would be aware of this long standing
problems and as[k] for help from the community too. We have
considerable human resources in the community and if people are over
worked, perhaps they should delegate more?
Also, it can
SA licensed tiles for that. This forces me into
OS's arms with their BY type OpenData. I would prefer to use a crowd
sourced map that is not SA for tiles. (Unless I can trace over OSM tiles
without violating the current tile license, which I don't think is
possible.)
Any thoughts?
TimSC
PS I
. Credo experto - believe me, i've tried.
TimSC
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
can't understand, unless
they are specialists). I suggest as many tasks as possible be moved into
domains were people actually have the skills to help out. (This might be
a lame idea but at least I am trying to be constructive.)
Regards,
TimSC
)
and a high standard of behavior set by the community leaders. (Yes,
admittedly moderation takes volunteers but we need to agree on a plan
before implementing it.) Can anyone think of a better plan?
Regards,
TimSC
PS I plan to disregard, as much as I can, all non-constructive input. I
On 20/06/11 18:35, Dair Grant wrote:
TimSC wrote:
I suggest as many tasks as possible be moved into domains were people actually
have the skills to help out.
Then I suggest you do it, rather than just suggest it.
Doing things without discussing it might result in bad things
do not include any obligation for OSMF to ensure future
licences have an attribution clause, and *that* is the problem I'm
trying to highlight
TimSC
[1]http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-April/011458.html
___
legal-talk mailing list
annotations and improved position data.
http://toolserver.org/~timsc/locateservices/greenspaces/ I hope it is
food for thought.
Regards,
Tim
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
with past news items, are there any other
_constructive_ comments regarding putting the poll on the wiki front page?
Regards,
TimSC
(the cross post on talk-gb was an accident)
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/News_Archive
[2]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title
with past news items, are there any other
_constructive_ comments regarding putting the poll on the wiki front page?
Regards,
TimSC
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/News_Archive
[2]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Newslimit=500action=history
[3]
http
On 15/06/11 10:14, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM wrote:
Please do not start cross-posting about an non talk-gb issue here.
Oops, it was a mistake by me.
Regards,
TimSC
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
in the CTs is different from
what previously had happened. But really the past doesn't matter as much
as what we do next.
Regards,
TimSC
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
with a
definition of what constitutes news and/or some reasoning that it is
one person's hobbyhorse, otherwise I will revert you back. Also if you
want to raise awareness of the poll, I would appreciate some support
here! ;)
Regards,
TimSC
[1]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title
but no signal, as engineers would call it.
TimSC
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
the OSMF as a member (people keep suggesting this but I don't
actually agree!)
Regards,
TimSC
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
is: how
should the various organs of OSM interact to best achieve the overall
goal of OSM?
Answers on a post card :)
Regards,
TimSC
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Board_Meeting_June_2011
[2] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_119fr26kqdz
* thanks guys, and Ed
the change.
I think you are confusing support the relicense with accept the
relicense and that difference is significant.
TimSC
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
grudging acceptance or evangelical zeal.
An interesting response! :) I think you are using support in a different
sense than Nic Roets's original question: How do they know that there
is overwhelming support from the community? Care to clarify Nic?
TimSC
a feeling I will be accused of being cryptic. I have tried to
explain my actions as best as I can.
Regards,
TimSC
[1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_119fr26kqdz
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
On 08/06/11 08:15, Peter Miller wrote:
My experience is that the LWG never makes definitive statements!
I find that annoying sometimes but, if we are to follow to Spinoza's
example that we should made a ceaseless effort not to [...] scorn human
actions, but to understand them, LWG have to
- import AND crowd source -
is better. If you want crowd sourced surveying only, I suggest you start
another project.
Regards,
TimSC
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On 07/06/11 14:37, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
TimSC wrote:
I think you miss my point. The datasets contain more than just their
postal address. If the licenses are compatible, we can mash up the data.
You don't need to put stuff into OSM to make it mashable-uppable. Most
competent
That looks like useful data. It looks to me like Edinburgh are not quite
embracing open data - the terms and conditions for the entire web site
is for personal and non-commercial use only. I stumbled on this recently:
http://openlylocal.com/councils/open
This list the councils that do open
On 07/06/11 16:02, TimSC wrote:
It depends on your definition of import (obviously). If you include
tracing, I traced 90% of SE London and then Semantic Tourist used that
in walking papers to survey it personally. Would that be an example?
It also fits my vision of import and improve.
Oops
the data there. Also, I think
the councils might be confused by any license beyond the most simple
(that is just a guess though), so sharing the data back with the source
might be problematic with OSM (with either the old or new license).
TimSC
to reduce the legal uncertainty of this, by a definitive
statement?
Regards,
TimSC
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
,
TimSC
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
I have given the site a face lift:
http://toolserver.org/~timsc/locateservices/
Is there anyone interesting in testing a beta on a different data set? I
would supply the code and help to try to get it imported. Basic HTML
would be good but not necessary. They would also need somewhere to host
(on the wiki).
TimSC
On 25/05/11 23:43, Andy Mabbett wrote:
I've also reported the issue here:
http://data.gov.uk/dataset/location_of_pharmacies#comment-5657
On 25 May 2011 23:31, TimSCmapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
On 25/05/11 23:25, Andy Mabbett wrote:
Presumably you're using the data
error - this is not a big deal
for OSM purposes.
TimSC
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
of the
pharmacy data set and allow adding links into the OSM database. This is
the result.
http://toolserver.org/~timsc/locateservices/view.php
On this site you can:
*Geolocate pharmacies on NPE, OS7, StreetView, OSM, given their rough
initial positions from the original data set (I am guessing
pages from abuse, unless I just remove the comment feature...
TimSC
On 25/05/11 14:48, Andy Mabbett wrote:
I'm told, in private e-mail:
You can get all England from
http://data.gov.uk/dataset/location_of_pharmacies
at least - presumably under the OGL
Well,
I adapted my code to spit the data into areas and to handle the whole of
the UK. I noticed that about 90% of the entries claim to be within 1m of
the delivery address. From a few tests, it seems to be true. I can see
the marker in google street view exactly where it should be. We
performing statutory functions under, or by virtue of,
legislation relating to the NHS.
So it seems the national data set is not open data at all! Anyone have
any experience in this?
TimSC
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http
. I'll have a think!
TimSC
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
and to provide some justification (i.e. public
demand) for us requesting the data.
Btw, I found the parish data I was looking for in OS OpenData, so no
need to pester the council for that.
TimSC
[1] http://www.hackney.gov.uk/licensing.htm
On 23/05/11 16:10, Gregory Williams wrote:
I've seen
Ed,
I suspect that they only have access to a list of all taxable address,
probably under license from the post office. Can anyone confirm or deny?
Tim
On 22/05/11 15:42, Ed Avis wrote:
Clearly the local authority must have a list of all taxable addresses, with
house
number and postcode.
tree database around the Ashford area. I didn't get into
what license would be appropriate, because that would have opened a can
of worms...
Regards,
TimSC
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
comprehensive list of public and
permissive access woods for the UK and their operator.)
TimSC
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
also notice the Kent Heritage Tree Project has launch events:
Ashford 14th May (I might attend)
Canterbury 14th June
Tonbridge 10th July
http://www2.btcv.org.uk/display/kent_heritage_tree_project
TimSC
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB
On 05/05/11 09:35, Peter Miller wrote:
Just what I was thinking as well.
Would someone (TimSC?) like to contact them. Given that it was from
aerial survey and given that we have access to Bing aerial then all we
need from these people is a geocodet and ideally also a name
also have copyright on the
data. It would be excellent to negotiate with the right parties to get
permission to use it, as it was not included in OS Opendata.
TimSC
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
that motion.
Regards,
TimSC
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
case this might be a non-issue!
Regards,
TimSC
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On 19/04/11 11:45, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 04/19/11 12:32, TimSC wrote:
I still think that the CTs ask
for rights to be granted that are broader than are granted by the
Opendata license. This point is disputed by Richard and others. Here are
the most prolific Opendata users (in terms
This project looks interesting. BTCV are planning to survey 10,000 trees
in Kent using volunteers. I am talking to BTCV about sharing data but
it's early days...
http://www2.btcv.org.uk/display/kent_heritage_tree_project
TimSC
___
Talk-GB
format.
Except if someone creates a derivative database based on the main OSM
database, and strips out the source tags. Or creates a produced works,
which doesn't carry attribution to OSM but not OS. You also violate the CTs.
Or am I missing something?
TimSC
their analysis of the
Opendata legal situation done ASAP - that might put minds at rest or
allow us to get on with fixing the problem.
Regards,
TimSC
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB
to make this
happen? Any other data sets worth liberating?
Once we have set a precedent, it should be easier to get other councils
to comply, because of the way the OS exemption process works.
Thoughts?
Regards, TimSC
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB
://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forking
TimSC
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 06/10/10 00:59, Richard Weait wrote:
http://opengeodata.org/osm-founder-steve-coast-leaves-cloudmade
What, if any, impact does this have on OSM and OSMF, I wonder?
TimSC
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
to OSMF having a mandate?
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
for that duty? The OSMF just assuming
powers is what is at the core of the question of mandate.
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On 01/10/10 13:43, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
TimSC wrote:
It may be possible to argue that OSMF did try to engage the
community. Rather than me try to make the case, it's more
fun seeing what justifications people are trying to use on the
mailing list!
Seriously?
Seriously
: April 2010.
... as if OS Opendata was the only data that was imported or traced into
OSM...
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
for which the original surveyor is
no longer participating. The alternative is to resurvey the whole planet
every decade from scratch.
TimSC
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
next year, as the copyright lapses on another batch of OS data. Steve
Chilton has a complete set of rolled sheets. I have a most sheets too.
Slippy map: http://ooc.openstreetmap.org/?layers=00B00
To use it in editors: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/7th_Series
TimSC
you don't waste your
time responding. And I am trying to engage OSMF using official channels
on this issue too [2], but that debate has not attracted much interest yet.
TimSC
[1]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-September/004431.html
[2]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
quite well:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/File:License_Proposal.pdf
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License
TimSC
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Assuming GPS tracks have some legal protection in some legal
jurisdictions, does anyone care to take a stab at answering my original
question? :)
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
On 18/08/10 15:13, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:51 PM, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk
wrote:
Is tracing someones ODbL licensed GPS track a creation of a derived database
or a produced work?
Depends how you store the trace, doesn't it?
How specifically does
investment in obtaining the data, don't
database rights come into play?
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
people's views.
Regards,
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
, depending on the outcome.
TimSC
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
moderator
might be more appropriate, and enables SteveC to pass it along if necessary.
TimSC
[1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Main_Page
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE
[3]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Questions_to_LWG_on_ODbL#Response_from_Mike_Collinson_on_ODbL_Adoption
on using the existing contributor term document
[2], can you answer my question on allowed licensing of produced works,
as stated in my previous email?
Regards,
TimSC
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms
[2] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_76gwvhpcx3
On 27/07/10 20:25, Grant
) as you are
draining the community.
What are you talking about? The guidelines SteveC proposed are to
moderate how the discussion should be conducted, not how the project is
defined!
TimSC
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
, that this whole proposal
is mainly motivated by the desire to censor dissent.
TimSC
On 10/08/10 21:29, steve brown wrote:
If you do suggest changes, just go ahead and make them on the page
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
upgrade?
For reasons I have already stated, I am anti-ODbL. But my support will
be pragmatic, depending on the likely outcome of support or refusal.
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
On 24/07/10 16:49, SteveC wrote:
Glad to see you've combined http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Steve
That's ad hominem tu quoque.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_tu_quoque
TimSC
? Perhaps
some clarification would improve the situation.
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
.
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
contribution due,
to database rights? Would this interfere with relicensing of the data?
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
enough to honour my request
and vote on doodle.
TimSC
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
would know, wouldn't he! :)
TimSC
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
should rule?, the later considers how do we
tame the rulers?.
TimSC
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
wondered if anyone had thoughts on this?
TimSC
PS The background to my views is partly summarized here:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-July/003523.html
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
most
companies know. I don't see BSD as much more or less fragmented than
linux (given the whole Google/Android kernel branch being left to rot.)
Also, if we really cared about share-alike, we would have it apply to
produced works - that would encourage companies to give back.
TimSC
talking about how
share-alike encourages business to share data with OSM.
TimSC
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
into OSM, not to
mention making the rendering and colours available for reuse. This is
the intention of the current license (although how effective it is is a
separate controversy). What I fail to see is if share-alike is good one
one case, why not in the other?
TimSC
- 150,000 people each with a veto is
not a community, it's a recipe for nothing to change.
If that were true, the OBdL licensing would definitely fail.
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
the question might ask in a poll is far
from obvious.
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
-BY by Ordnance Survey.
Brian
That is my interpretation as well. I already raised this issue with the LWG. The good
news is this saves me having to worry about the relicensing if I must say no
because of a legal issue.
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal
Commons agrees with me). Of course, it would not be as comprehensive as
an SA-licensed OSM, but it would be more legally predictable.
Rant concluded!
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
sheets are offset east by 5000m.
Each tile is 5000m by 5000m, as far as I remember so you can get the
coordinates of the other corners.
Re-reading your question, I guess you really want the inverse of what I
just described? I hope that helps a little anyway.
TimSC
on the surrey air
survey.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.2455lon=-0.59884zoom=17layers=0B00FTF
So many options to choose from...
TimSC
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
uses the
original opendata tiles.
TimSC
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Ah yes, the recommended tag is good. I didn't notice one had been chosen
(but it is a bit long for my taste). So use
source=OS_OpenData_StreetView for verified buildings. And I will
probably change to source=Auto_OS_OpenData_StreetView for automatic
tracing in the code.
TimSC
. An alternative is to estimate it based on the
features and road layouts, but this is would not be very accurate. Or
does anyone have a better idea? Possibly a series of land use mapping
parties for central London?
Regards,
TimSC
PS I have not done anything on tracing buildings recently, but I
is, is this
quicker than doing the whole thing manually?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/60094590
For far this is only a subsection of a tile. More work is required if we
want to stream line things.
Any thoughts? *ducks*
TimSC
___
Talk-GB mailing
Hi,
I agree that the surrey air survey will be an amazing resource. But it
would be worth checking what strings are attached to the data by the
licensing. And also we need to consider the implications with our
CC-BY-SA and ODbL situation. I have added a wiki page as a place holder.
We need to
Frederik Ramm wrote:
/ OSM is not essentially anything at its core. It is different things
to // different people.
/
I'm talking about the sentence that defines OSM at the top of our Wiki
page, which in all likelihood has been there in this form when most of
us signed up.
As if that
Frederik Ramm wrote:
TimSC wrote:
/ What is the point in paragraph 4.3, if it can be easily side stepped?
/
We have a well working culture of attribution in science, where you
usually quote the source you took something from, but not the source
behind the source behind the source.
Yes
be a problem. (See the second last paragraph of
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-April/003294.html
) Does anyone in the LWG have a view on that issue?
Regards,
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
data with an attribution condition.
Hopefully that is not the case! Is that interpretation any way valid,
interesting, cross eyed? If the answer is already out there, just link
to it. Thanks!
TimSC
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t
to be
orthogonal, if possible). The code I have does provide a good
initialisation of the model, so it is hardly wasted effort. If anyone
has any better ideas, you can have a copy of my python code to try things.
Regards,
TimSC
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB
of Surrey campus (although not as rich
in information).
In the medium term, I will import some buildings once I have the quality
I want. I want to minimise manual work in JOSM but I don't rule it out.
I will only be working in the Guildford area - it's my data to gamble
around there :)
TimSC
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
