[Talk-GB] HS2 route
Latest HS2 announcement today means that there will be a lot of discussion about the route (generally and specific locations) over the coming years. Currently the new route plans [2] have the usual OS copyright notice. What we need is the bare bones of the proposed infrastructure released under the open government licence. Any ideas or avenues for achieving that? I'm not suggesting we rush to put the proposed route into OSM but it would be nice to be able to do so when the time is ripe. Cheers Andy [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16485263 [2] http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/hs2-maps-20120110/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] HS2 route
I do have a contact who I know is working on HS1, I could ask him if he knows of any sources of this data for HS2? Cheers Chris On Tue Jan 10 11:14:08 2012, Andy Robinson wrote: Latest HS2 announcement today means that there will be a lot of discussion about the route (generally and specific locations) over the coming years. Currently the new route plans [2] have the usual OS copyright notice. What we need is the bare bones of the proposed infrastructure released under the open government licence. Any ideas or avenues for achieving that? I'm not suggesting we rush to put the proposed route into OSM but it would be nice to be able to do so when the time is ripe. Cheers Andy [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16485263 [2] http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/hs2-maps-20120110/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- e: m...@chrisfleming.org w: www.chrisfleming.org ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] GB License Change Readiness
Thanks, I was able to use http://osm.virtuelle-loipe.de/history browser successfully. It took me 21 minutes to analyse manually but that could be sped up by putting the declined/undecided/accepted status next to the user in the first results view, (am emailing author Langläufer). I guess it should also be possible to build an automated relation-status viewer fairly easily(?). Conclusion: The way was created by an accepted user and tagging is slightly refined but always by an accepted user. One way has been added by a declined user ... this is the only tainting. Question: Am I right in thinking that a general rule emerges that this and similar relations can be marked odbl=clean ... member additions are irrelevant, during a database re-build, the addition of the way is going to be detached when that way (rather than the relation) is processed? Mike http://osm.virtuelle-loipe.de/history/?type=relationref=34269 Richard (accepted) created the relation: created_by=Potlatch 0.10c (later deleted by an accepted contributor) name=Lon Las Cymru (name changed later by an accepted contributor) network=ncn ref=8 route=bicycle type=route Paul Martin (declined) added way 27681863 http://osm.virtuelle-loipe.de/history/?type=wayref=27681863 On 09/01/2012 20:54, Steve Brook wrote: You could try using the OSM History Browser to list the change sets and allow you to compare selected changes. http://osm.virtuelle-loipe.de/history/ I got this from the Route Relations 'h' link on the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_Long_Distance_ Paths page will provide the relation number and take you straight there: http://osm.virtuelle-loipe.de/history/?type=relationref=63872 Also The Deep Diff tool may be of use (linked from the OSM Inspector licence change view) http://osm.mapki.com/history/ Steve -Original Message- From: Andy [mailto:andy...@gmail.com] Sent: 09 January 2012 17:47 To: Michael Collinson Cc: OSM talk-gb Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] GB License Change Readiness Does anyone know of a way to see just the tagging history of the relation itself? JOSM can reliably show the full history of a relation, even one with many versions (such as 34269). At the moment I have no clue as what proportion are routes (ugh!) and what are building multi-polygons and relatively easy to remap. Hopefully many of them are turn restrictions and boundaries, which should also be relatively easy to sort out. Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] License change anonymous edits
On 10/01/2012 11:44, Peter Miller wrote: Is there no way in this case to formally 'claim' the IPR for this features on the basis that we have moved them and edited all the surrounding features? Exactly the question I raised on talk on Monday. I don't think you even need to have moved anything, merely to have checked against a valid source other than the non-accepting contributor (e.g. Bing for location, local knowledge or OSSV etc for names) in order to claim the IPR. I really don't see what mechanically then reproducing what is already there actually adds to the process other than wasted time. David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] License change anonymous edits
Peter Miller wrote: Is there no way in this case to formally 'claim' the IPR for this features on the basis that we have moved them and edited all the surrounding features? Yes, there is - tag it with odbl=clean. To replace a single node that forms a junction might involve unstitching 3 ways (for the roads), one or more administrative boundaries and also a bunch of landuse. In Potlatch 2, select the node you want to replace; press O; move the mouse to the place where you want to put the new replacement node, and click. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-change-anonymous-edits-tp7150109p7171906.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] License change anonymous edits
On 10/01/2012 13:43, Peter Miller wrote: On 10 January 2012 12:07, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com mailto:da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: On 10/01/2012 11:44, Peter Miller wrote: Is there no way in this case to formally 'claim' the IPR for this features on the basis that we have moved them and edited all the surrounding features? Exactly the question I raised on talk on Monday. I don't think you even need to have moved anything, merely to have checked against a valid source other than the non-accepting contributor (e.g. Bing for location, local knowledge or OSSV etc for names) in order to claim the IPR. I really don't see what mechanically then reproducing what is already there actually adds to the process other than wasted time. Thank you. This is a matter of judgement by the Licensing Working Group and they should come back with a clear view on it. Our formal minuted doctrine, Item 7 https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1pPOFHo_o5inG9Ereh3Zn5ItmctZGRFbcmnKwtbyNkdM , is that it is for the community to pass judgement on whether the criteria are acceptable rather than LWG and that criteria are recorded on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F so that it is publicly transparent and in one centralised resource. We monitor and will scream if we think the there is any veering away from good faith and reasonable effort to check either that the IPR of non-continuing mappers has been completely removed or that it has been completely duplicated by continuing mappers. Anything like this also needs to be practical enough for a quantitative rule to be easily coded into visualisation tools and into final rebuild scripts by our technical volunteers. +1 to Richard's suggestion odbl=clean . Your userid is recorded with the tag addition. Note also that some anonymous contributors did actually provide email addresses, got our bulk emailings and have said yes to the new terms. Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] License change anonymous edits
On 10 January 2012 13:19, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: ** On 10/01/2012 13:43, Peter Miller wrote: On 10 January 2012 12:07, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: On 10/01/2012 11:44, Peter Miller wrote: Is there no way in this case to formally 'claim' the IPR for this features on the basis that we have moved them and edited all the surrounding features? Exactly the question I raised on talk on Monday. I don't think you even need to have moved anything, merely to have checked against a valid source other than the non-accepting contributor (e.g. Bing for location, local knowledge or OSSV etc for names) in order to claim the IPR. I really don't see what mechanically then reproducing what is already there actually adds to the process other than wasted time. Thank you. This is a matter of judgement by the Licensing Working Group and they should come back with a clear view on it. Our formal minuted doctrine, Item 7 https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1pPOFHo_o5inG9Ereh3Zn5ItmctZGRFbcmnKwtbyNkdM, is that it is for the community to pass judgement on whether the criteria are acceptable rather than LWG and that criteria are recorded on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F so that it is publicly transparent and in one centralised resource. We monitor and will scream if we think the there is any veering away from good faith and reasonable effort to check either that the IPR of non-continuing mappers has been completely removed or that it has been completely duplicated by continuing mappers. Anything like this also needs to be practical enough for a quantitative rule to be easily coded into visualisation tools and into final rebuild scripts by our technical volunteers. +1 to Richard's suggestion odbl=clean . Your userid is recorded with the tag addition. Thanks Mike. I am glad you support the odbl=clean. I have now added a few to the map in my area, and have also used the 'O' feature to replace some nodes at junctions and the like. Personally I find the 'What is Clean' page a bit too rich on suggestions and not clear enough on conclusions based on a quick look. I want to go through my area of the country and get it up to a standard that will be accepted as efficiently as possible and not have to make any personal judgements about what is ok and not and then find that that conflicts with the view of the tool makers or that of the people who do the final data removal pass. After all, we will need a clear agreement before the switchover about what stays and what goes so lets do that now, not at the end of March! Regards, Peter Note also that some anonymous contributors did actually provide email addresses, got our bulk emailings and have said yes to the new terms. Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] License change anonymous edits
Michael Collinson wrote: +1 to Richard's suggestion odbl=clean Just a tiny little clarification - this isn't something I've dreamed up, it's a real live tag with 9,000 occurrences in the database already, and which is being used by status visualisations such as OSM Inspector. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-change-anonymous-edits-tp7150109p7172122.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] License change anonymous edits
On 10/01/2012 13:46, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Michael Collinson wrote: +1 to Richard's suggestion odbl=clean Just a tiny little clarification - this isn't something I've dreamed up, it's a real live tag with 9,000 occurrences in the database already, and which is being used by status visualisations such as OSM Inspector. :) Yes, the trouble is when Frederik pointed this out and referred to the page, it says it is for cases where the suspect edit has been wiped out, not simply verified from other sources. How can you change the name from itself to itself and actually have changed anything? If odbl=clean is OK for this then that's great, but I am troubled that I may go to a lot of trouble to deal with these and then find they get removed anyway. The lack of clear direction is very frustrating (as is the apparent need to do more work than necessary). It would be so much easier if we knew for sure what the rules actually are. David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] License change anonymous edits
On 10 January 2012 13:53, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: On 10/01/2012 13:46, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Michael Collinson wrote: +1 to Richard's suggestion odbl=clean Just a tiny little clarification - this isn't something I've dreamed up, it's a real live tag with 9,000 occurrences in the database already, and which is being used by status visualisations such as OSM Inspector. :) Yes, the trouble is when Frederik pointed this out and referred to the page, it says it is for cases where the suspect edit has been wiped out, not simply verified from other sources. How can you change the name from itself to itself and actually have changed anything? If odbl=clean is OK for this then that's great, but I am troubled that I may go to a lot of trouble to deal with these and then find they get removed anyway. The lack of clear direction is very frustrating (as is the apparent need to do more work than necessary). It would be so much easier if we knew for sure what the rules actually are. That is pretty much my point also. I will do the necessary work when there is a stable and reasonable description of what that work is and is not and I have confidence that the description is stable. Hearing that there is disagreement on what the (as yet undocumented) odbl=clean tag means and how it should be used doesn't excite me to do the work yet! To help the process along I have created an simple article for odbl=clean here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:odbl%3Dclean Regards, Peter David __**_ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] License change anonymous edits
On 10/01/2012 15:13, Peter Miller wrote: On 10 January 2012 13:53, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com mailto:da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: On 10/01/2012 13:46, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Michael Collinson wrote: +1 to Richard's suggestion odbl=clean Just a tiny little clarification - this isn't something I've dreamed up, it's a real live tag with 9,000 occurrences in the database already, and which is being used by status visualisations such as OSM Inspector. :) Yes, the trouble is when Frederik pointed this out and referred to the page, it says it is for cases where the suspect edit has been wiped out, not simply verified from other sources. How can you change the name from itself to itself and actually have changed anything? If odbl=clean is OK for this then that's great, but I am troubled that I may go to a lot of trouble to deal with these and then find they get removed anyway. The lack of clear direction is very frustrating (as is the apparent need to do more work than necessary). It would be so much easier if we knew for sure what the rules actually are. That is pretty much my point also. I will do the necessary work when there is a stable and reasonable description of what that work is and is not and I have confidence that the description is stable. Hearing that there is disagreement on what the (as yet undocumented) odbl=clean tag means and how it should be used doesn't excite me to do the work yet! To help the process along I have created an simple article for odbl=clean here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:odbl%3Dclean Thanks, I can use that to publicise it. So, we need to a bandwagon and better closure on when/how to use. On the technical side I see it appearing in OSMI graphs at http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html so assume we are cool on writing a technical rule for it and that in the rebuild it is a simple matter of just ignoring the specific node/way/relation ... I'd feel better with more informed technical corroboration though, I am out of my depth here. Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] License change anonymous edits
Hi, On 01/10/12 14:53, David Earl wrote: Yes, the trouble is when Frederik pointed this out and referred to the page, it says it is for cases where the suspect edit has been wiped out, not simply verified from other sources. How can you change the name from itself to itself and actually have changed anything? Just delete the name tag and re-add it. It's not your fault if the editor doesn't upload that to the API then ;) Bye Frederik ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] License change anonymous edits
Hi, On 01/10/12 15:37, Frederik Ramm wrote: Yes, the trouble is when Frederik pointed this out and referred to the page, it says it is for cases where the suspect edit has been wiped out, not simply verified from other sources. How can you change the name from itself to itself and actually have changed anything? Just delete the name tag and re-add it. It's not your fault if the editor doesn't upload that to the API then ;) More seriously: There is *no* way you can acquire intellectual property of something by saying that I have looked it up and it is correct. You either have to remove it and re-create it, even if the result looks the same - even if, and hence my snarky remark in the previous email, the API doesn't actually see your actions -, or you have to dispute that there was any intellectual property in the first place. But doing neither - i.e., saying yes, 80n did have intellectual property on this one, and no, I didn't change it, but yes, it is now ODbL clean is, in my eyes, a legal impossibility. (You might want to talk to a lawyer about that or, failing that, at least raise the matter on legal-talk.) I have added a pointer to existing odbl=clean information to Peter's wiki page. I think first and foremost, odbl=clean means I take responsibility for this object being clean. OSMF will not usually question your decision, just as it doesn't usually question your uploading of something new; only if someone complains - and there *are* people who watch *very* closely what happens to their non-ODbL contributions - will the situation have to be investigated. The results of such investigation are hard to predict. If someone prefers to wait for clear directions - feel free to do so, but personally, I'd rather start fixing things than wait discuss. Bye Frederik ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] License change anonymous edits
On 10/01/2012 14:53, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 01/10/12 15:37, Frederik Ramm wrote: Yes, the trouble is when Frederik pointed this out and referred to the page, it says it is for cases where the suspect edit has been wiped out, not simply verified from other sources. How can you change the name from itself to itself and actually have changed anything? Just delete the name tag and re-add it. It's not your fault if the editor doesn't upload that to the API then ;) More seriously: There is *no* way you can acquire intellectual property of something by saying that I have looked it up and it is correct. You either have to remove it and re-create it, even if the result looks the same - even if, and hence my snarky remark in the previous email, the API doesn't actually see your actions -, or you have to dispute that there was any intellectual property in the first place. But doing neither - i.e., saying yes, 80n did have intellectual property on this one, and no, I didn't change it, but yes, it is now ODbL clean is, in my eyes, a legal impossibility. I don't see what the physical act of pressing the keys on the keyboard to retype the name achieves. It's the source of the newly uploaded data (which would contain odbl clean) that matters, not the characters it is composed of. If I retype the name and then mark it odbl clean, what ends up in the database is ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL with what was there before other than the odbl clean assertion. Why does pressing the keys make any difference whatsoever? The original contributor doesn't own the copyright in the name, only their contribution, and by marking it odbl clean I'm making an alternative contribution which asserts the source is now legitimate. This is an issue for everyone, not just me. If lawyers are involved it should be legal advice to all of us organised centrally. David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] License change anonymous edits
David Earl wrote: Why does pressing the keys make any difference whatsoever? The original contributor doesn't own the copyright in the name, only their contribution, and by marking it odbl clean I'm making an alternative contribution which asserts the source is now legitimate. I think you're both right. This is sweat of the brow in a nutshell. The act of making the contribution is protected, not just the contribution. It's an utterly braindead law, yes, and for once the UK would be much better off if it followed the practice of our cousins across the pond... but it is, nonetheless, the law. So: If you spend time reviewing a fact expressed in the database; confirm that the fact is correct and not original; and therefore tag it odbl=clean; I think that is sufficient sweat-of-the-brow for the IP to reside with you. Keyboard-mashing per se is not a distinct concept in the law, sweat-of-the-brow is, and if the sweat is expended on reviewing and retaining the data (and, as an inevitably corollary, deleting data for which you can find no corroborating evidence)... then that works. Those with an eye to mischief may like to ponder how one might code (i.e. sweat-of-the-brow) and run a bot which reviewed streetnames and other attributes against OS OpenData, and tagged them odbl=clean if they were found fitting. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-change-anonymous-edits-tp7150109p7172678.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] License change anonymous edits
On 10/01/2012 16:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote: David Earl wrote: Why does pressing the keys make any difference whatsoever? The original contributor doesn't own the copyright in the name, only their contribution, and by marking it odbl clean I'm making an alternative contribution which asserts the source is now legitimate. I think you're both right. This is sweat of the brow in a nutshell. The act of making the contribution is protected, not just the contribution. It's an utterly braindead law, yes, and for once the UK would be much better off if it followed the practice of our cousins across the pond... but it is, nonetheless, the law. So: If you spend time reviewing a fact expressed in the database; confirm that the fact is correct and not original; and therefore tag it odbl=clean; I think that is sufficient sweat-of-the-brow for the IP to reside with you. Keyboard-mashing per se is not a distinct concept in the law, sweat-of-the-brow is, and if the sweat is expended on reviewing and retaining the data (and, as an inevitably corollary, deleting data for which you can find no corroborating evidence)... then that works. Precisely, thank you Richard. However in order to make use of this, it needs to be sanctioned (i.e. we need to know for sure that doing this won't still end up with such contributions removed, or we're all wasting our time). As it seems from an earlier message that there isn't a definitive process to decide, it seems just like tags, that all the power will reside with those who write the code. Who is writing the code to do the cleaning? David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] GB License Change Readiness
Back to the original thread, good news. Three of the top UK undecided contributors have responded to my messages and kindly accepted the new terms. York, South Wales and High Wycombe looking much better now. Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] GB License Change Readiness
I'd just like to add that one of the top contributors down as declined is actually undecided due to Ordnance Survey OpenData compatibility concerns, not sure why he's down as declined, whether that was a mistake on his part. I've emailed him to get him to decide one way or the other, but as I said his *only* concern is whether OS OpenData is compatible with the new licence. As said before I'm agnostic on this issue, but I'm extremely keen not to have local data by this contributor deleted!!! Nick -Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: - To: OSM talk-gb talk-gb@openstreetmap.org From: Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz Date: 10/01/2012 04:48PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] GB License Change Readiness Back to the original thread, good news. Three of the top UK undecided contributors have responded to my messages and kindly accepted the new terms. York, South Wales and High Wycombe looking much better now. Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] HS2 route
On 10 January 2012 18:19, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: Just noticed that this response when to Andy alone. Copying to the list. On 10 January 2012 11:14, Andy Robinson ajrli...@gmail.com wrote: Latest HS2 announcement today means that there will be a lot of discussion about the route (generally and specific locations) over the coming years. Currently the new route plans [2] have the usual OS copyright notice. What we need is the bare bones of the proposed infrastructure released under the open government licence. Any ideas or avenues for achieving that? I'm not suggesting we rush to put the proposed route into OSM but it would be nice to be able to do so when the time is ripe. You beat me to it! I was about the do pretty much the same post. Agreed - we should add the route. This map (http://www.umapper.com/maps/view/id/58620/) has been produced by myself and others and is in my view 100% free of OS copyright. I suggest we check it for currency and then get on with it. You will notice that this map is already included in the HS2 article on Wikipedia. Zoom in and there is detail of the station layout etc. Regarding OS copyright, the OS do not claim derived copyright any more for 3rd party content that is displayed on an OS map just so long as they do not present that sort of feature on their mapping. As such any copyright infringement would be with the government, not the OS in my view. I have added the approximate route, based on the umapper resource I mentioned from Euston as far as Amersham and will add more detail this evening. To get it much more accurate we are going to need to get the government to release a KML file or similar for the route or as a mimimum allow us to trace from their route as plotted on the OS mapping. Personally I feel that it is better to have something approximate nothing and it should encourage them to release it if they are holding back. Regards, Peter Regards, Peter Cheers Andy [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16485263 [2] http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/hs2-maps-20120110/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] GB License Change Readiness
Can anyone provide more detailed info on the final stance of the of the top decliners? Looking at one of the websites, some are Guy, Ed Avis, Andy Street, Simon Ward, Paul Martin and ulfl. I'd given a bit of though to mapping some of the areas that are to be affected by the loss of 'Guy's data in the southwest (a lot of data!). Would be upset to spend time remapping and then find out someone was in talks with him. Jason On 10 January 2012 17:03, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.ukwrote: I'd just like to add that one of the top contributors down as declined is actually undecided due to Ordnance Survey OpenData compatibility concerns, not sure why he's down as declined, whether that was a mistake on his part. I've emailed him to get him to decide one way or the other, but as I said his *only* concern is whether OS OpenData is compatible with the new licence. As said before I'm agnostic on this issue, but I'm extremely keen not to have local data by this contributor deleted!!! Nick -Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: - To: OSM talk-gb talk-gb@openstreetmap.org talk-gb@openstreetmap.org From: Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz m...@ayeltd.biz Date: 10/01/2012 04:48PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] GB License Change Readiness Back to the original thread, good news. Three of the top UK undecided contributors have responded to my messages and kindly accepted the new terms. York, South Wales and High Wycombe looking much better now. Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: HS2 route
On 10/01/12 18:19, Peter Miller wrote: Regarding OS copyright, the OS do not claim derived copyright any more for 3rd party content that is displayed on an OS map just so long as they do not present that sort of feature on their mapping. As such any copyright infringement would be with the government, not the OS in my view. I'm not sure that is true. OS have confirmed that they do not claim derived copyright from their Public Sector Mapping Agreement (PSMA) users (such as local authorities), but they have refused to confirm that that applies to anyone else. Ed Parsons pressed OS, as have I, with no firm response AFAIK. I have also had a response from the Forestry Commission about this matter. They seem to imply an even tighter interpretation that only PSMA users are free from copyright issues with other PSMA derivative works. None of this affects the OS OpenData of course. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] GB License Change Readiness
Personally, I am still working to find a way forward so that OSM can remain compatible with Creative Commons. I joined OSM to help make a free Creative Commons (or compatible) map of the world and that remains my goal. There are a couple of avenues I am working on which I'd be happy to talk about by email or face to face. I had hoped that discussions with the LWG might result in a reasonable compromise such as continuing to offer CC-BY-SA in parallel with ODbL, and that I would be able to persuade other pro-CC mappers to support that too. But I can't speak for what others will do. I really don't want to just give up and go home unless every possibility has been exhausted. It is not too late. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] GB License Change Readiness
Ed, On 01/10/2012 08:22 PM, Ed Avis wrote: I joined OSM to help make a free Creative Commons (or compatible) map of the world ... I really don't want to just give up and go home unless every possibility has been exhausted. It is not too late. What you really should do is first agree to the Contributor Terms and *then* continue working, from within OSM, towards a future compatibility with whatever CC license seems most suitable. I think it would be a good idea for OSM(F) to take an active role in Creative Commons' deliberations leading to their future 4.0 set of licenses provided we have the manpower for that. Holding back your agreement and essentially forcing people to re-map those of your contributions they consider valuable - and they will have to start with that *now*, not in three months - is not a good basis for your future involvement in this process. I don't think there's anybody here who believes that no CC license will ever be suitable for OSM. Personally I would not be surprised if we should change to a CC license in two or three years time. The contributor terms give us the option of doing that in a relatively painless way and without data loss. For this to happen, we need people in OSM who know about the licenses, who care about the project, and who want to help shape its future. You could be one of them. Or you could give up and go home. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] License change anonymous edits
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012, Ed Avis wrote: Personally I've tagged source=OS when relying only on OpenData and not additional ground survey or aerial photos; however, there is still some 'sweat of the brow' involved since matching up the streets against OS involves some judgement calls and common sense - it is not a blind or fully automatable process. Are you going to accept the new licensing terms and CT? It'd safe me (and others) a whole lot of work remapping. cheers, Derick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Pigging potlach ...
OK how many of you are having trouble editing for more than 10 minutes? I've lost as much work as I've done this evening with potlach just freezing :( I had the same problem at the weekend, but put it down to finger trouble, know I know it is software. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Pigging potlach ...
Lester Caine wrote: OK how many of you are having trouble editing for more than 10 minutes? I've lost as much work as I've done this evening with potlach just freezing :( I had the same problem at the weekend, but put it down to finger trouble, know I know it is software. If you _know_ it's software, then you must have isolated the fault and be able to fix it! Awesome! Can't wait for the patch! Ahem. P2 hasn't changed in 13 days, except for one utterly tiny change one week ago (to the logic in loading splitting GPS tracks). So if something changed at the weekend, it's more likely to be your system than Potlatch 2. FWIW I've not encountered any issues myself nor had reports of any. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pigging-potlach-tp7174091p7174357.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Pigging potlach ...
Richard Fairhurst wrote: OK how many of you are having trouble editing for more than 10 minutes? I've lost as much work as I've done this evening with potlach just freezing:( I had the same problem at the weekend, but put it down to finger trouble, know I know it is software. If you_know_ it's software, then you must have isolated the fault and be able to fix it! Awesome! Can't wait for the patch! Ahem. P2 hasn't changed in 13 days, except for one utterly tiny change one week ago (to the logic in loading splitting GPS tracks). So if something changed at the weekend, it's more likely to be your system than Potlatch 2. FWIW I've not encountered any issues myself nor had reports of any. Well I'm on SUSE11.3 64bit into an AMD quad core with 8Gb RAM and Seamonkey 2.6.1 Rock stable with everything else I run. I'll switch to Firefox on another machine when I have a little more time tomorrow night. Just pissed me off that I'd fixed the same block twice, but not managed to save any of the work :( -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
