Re: [Talk-GB] Surrey Hills Mapping Party, Sunday September 25th

[80n]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Nick Whitelegg  wrote:

> Hi 80n,
>
> Sorry I'm missing this - but I just arrived back from Colorado yesterday
> and have had a family occasion too, so consequently a bit tired!
>
> Would be good to know of any missing footpaths still in that area though
> after today - am looking for an excuse to do some in-fill Surrey footpath
> mapping in the next few weeks.
>

Nick
There's definitely a couple of footpaths that didn't get done in the area I
was covering.

Here
http://www.informationfreeway.org/?lat=51.206779164493284&lon=-0.43889866445895503&zoom=17&layers=0FB0F0connecting
Wonham Way to Felday Road is a probable Bridleway and here
http://www.informationfreeway.org/?lat=51.19715935186187&lon=-0.43335185741756144&zoom=17&layers=0FB0F0between
Sutton Place and Franksfield is a footpath spur that looks like it
should go somewhere.

Generally most signposted paths appeared to have been mapped but I was
concentrating on highway=road elements rather than footpaths yesterday so
there may be others that I didn't notice.

80n
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Surrey Hills Mapping Party, Sunday September 25th

[80n]

The cake has been baked:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Surrey_Hills_Mapping_Party

If you fancy a particular slice of it then add your name on the wiki
otherwise first come first served on the day.

80n

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:

> Hi!
>
> After this initial announcement, I haven't heard much more. Is this
> still going through? Who's attending? Is there a cake diagram yet?
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Surrey_Hills_Mapping_Party
>
> cheers,
> Derick
>
> --
> http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org
> Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php
> twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Surrey Hills Mapping Party, Sunday September 25th

[80n]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:

> Hi!
>
> After this initial announcement, I haven't heard much more. Is this
> still going through? Who's attending? Is there a cake diagram yet?
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Surrey_Hills_Mapping_Party
>

Yes, the oven is on and the cake is being baked.

Meeting at the William Bray in the delightful village of Shere at 10:30am on
Sunday.

The focus will be on Shere and a handful of neighbouring villages that are
all incomplete.  This is walking country so there's also likely to be plenty
of unmapped footpaths to find.

Weather forecast is promising at the moment

80n
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Surrey Hills Mapping Party, Sunday September 25th

[80n]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Grant Slater
wrote:

> On 25 August 2011 16:23, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Grant
> > It's an OSM mapping party.  Are you going to come along?
> >
>
> Great. What brought on the change of heart?
>

You misunderstand.  There is no change of heart.  Anything contributed to
OSM automatically gets fed into fosm.org so both projects benefit.  While I
don't personally contribute to OSM any more, I don't have a problem with you
or anyone else contributing to OSM.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in a mapping party.  At the
last Surrey meetup there were both OSMers and fosmers, we all get along well
and so I'm not expecting there to be any issues.  There are very few people
with the entrenched mindset that there should only be one map and that all
other mapping projects are inherently hostile competitors.  It's not like
that at all.

Actually, I'm expecting that there will be attendees with several different
agendas.  Large parts of Surrey are not ODbL so at one end of the scale I'd
expect some people to want to remap existing CC-BY-SA content.

There are also some people who want to create a CC0 map.  There's been talk
of creating a clean unencumbered dataset for this area that can then be fed
into OSM or used for any other purpose.  That might play out as well at this
mapping party.

None of these things get in the way of getting out into the beautiful Surrey
Hills doing what we all like doing the most.



> Sure, it could be fun... I'll bring some OSM promo material.
>

It is always a lot of fun.  Did I mention that Shere is one of Surrey's
prettiest villages, or that the Olympic Cycle Road Race route runs through
the area.  It's a great area for walking and cycling, and a fine place to
spend a day out.

80n
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Surrey Hills Mapping Party, Sunday September 25th

[80n]

Grant
It's an OSM mapping party.  Are you going to come along?

80n

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Grant Slater
wrote:

> On 25 August 2011 14:49, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There's going to be a mapping party in the Surrey Hills on September
> 25th.
> > More details here:
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Surrey_Hills_Mapping_Party
> >
> > This is the second Surrey Hills Mapping Party.  The first was almost five
> > years ago in October 2006.  Some of you may remember that one...
> >
>
> Is this a OpenStreetMap.org or FOSM.org event?
>
> Regards
>  Grant
>
> ___
> 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] Surrey Hills Mapping Party, Sunday September 25th

[80n]

There's going to be a mapping party in the Surrey Hills on September 25th.
More details here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Surrey_Hills_Mapping_Party

This is the second Surrey Hills Mapping Party.  The first was almost five
years ago in October 2006.  Some of you may remember that one...

80n
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK

[80n]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
> > There's a draft statement in the LWG minutes a few
> > weeks ago [2]. I wonder if LWG got round to approving this
> > at their most recent meeting...
>
> They have now done so!
>
> "In response to community requests, the LWG formally clarifies as follows:
>
> "The intent of the Contributor Terms as regards contributions that come
> from
> or are derived from third parties is:
>
> "1) To ask the contributor to be *reasonably* certain that such data can be
> distributed under the specific specific licenses, as explicitly listed in
> clause 3 of the contributor terms:  CC-BY-SA 2.0 and ODbL 1.0.


Well, I'm reasonably certain that the Ordnance Survey have not permitted
their content to be licensed using the DbCL.  While they may have stated
that their content can be distributed as part of a database that licensed
under ODbL they made no reference to what content license should be used.

This was probably an oversight, but with an explicit statement about which
content license is applicable the default assumption has to be that their
content is still published with *only* an OS OpenData license not with a
DbCL license.

I'm sure if I'm wrong about this someone will be able to point me to the
statement where this is covered.

80n
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK

[80n]

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
> > So presumably we also need confirmation from Ordnance
> > Survey that they're happy for their content to be
> > distributed under DbCL (or at least under the ODbL+DbCL
> > combination).
>
> I think that's a red herring, isn't it? ODbL imposes additional
> requirements
> over and above DbCL. OSM is not distributing OS OpenData under DbCL alone,
> nor does it permit anyone else to do so (subject to the usual 'Substantial'
> test, which is of course Database Directive stuff and therefore governs
> OS's
> existing data distribution business anyway).
>
>
ODbL licenses a database of content.  The content of the database can carry
any license of the author's choosing.  Because the OS have not specified any
other content license the assumption must be that their content is still
licensed under the OS OpenData license.  You cannot just presume otherwise.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK

[80n]

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Michael Collinson  wrote:

>
> Following my correspondence and  a follow-up informal meeting by Henk Hoff,
> I am now pleased to announce that the licensing group of the Ordnance Survey
> has explicitly considered any licensing conflict between their license and
> ODbL and "has no objections to geodata derived in part from OS OpenData
> being released under the Open Database License 1.0."


Mike,
Did the response that you received from the Ordnance Survey make reference
to which content license could be used?  Have they given permission to use
their content with *any* content license or do you think they overlooked the
need to consider this detail?

80n
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station

[80n]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Ed Avis  wrote:

> I've even seen
> status=desire to indicate that a path doesn't exist, but it would be nice
> if it did...

Ed, you might be mis-understanding the meaning of that tag.  Desire
paths do very much exist on the ground and don't fall into the same
category as abandoned or proposed railway stations.

Here's a description, and a nice photo, of a desire path:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Time for another Surrey meetup?

[80n]

A meetup would work for me.  Woking, anyone?

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Nick Whitelegg <
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> wrote:

>
> OK I'm not a true Surrey person, but... was wondering if it was time for
> another Surrey pub meetup before Christmas? Could be at that place by
> Weybridge station or in Guildford, anyone up for one? At the moment I'm
> pretty flexible on dates but would prefer Wednesday to Saturday evenings.
>
> Nick
> ___
> 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] CT ambivalence (was: SotM 2011 UK? Setting up a GB OSMF chapter?)

[80n]

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Ed Avis  wrote:

> Simon Ward  writes:
>
> >I have a small backlog of data that I have yet to incorporate into OSM
> >pending my acceptance of the CTs, which I still can’t bring myself to
> >do.  I could submit the data while the new CTs are not yet enforced for
> >existing users, but there is a reasonable chance that would be just a
> >waste of time.
>

Simon, I sympathise with your reluctance, however I would urge you to submit
your contributions.  No doing so is just compounding the damage that the
license change process is already inflicting.

You should be reassured that whatever happens your contributions will not be
a waste of time.  If the license change does happen then there will be
always be an active CC-BY-SA licensed alternative.  The full CC-BY-SA
dataset will be available and will continue to accept contributions.  Your
contributions will be in that database, they will not go to waste.

80n


>
> Whether you support or oppose the CTs is up to you, but please don't feel
> that it
> is a waste of time to contribute to the project as it stands now.  Myself,
> I
> reckon it very unlikely that a great purge of contributors and
> contributions
> will happen - its presence in the plan is more a way to encourage people to
> tick the box.
>
> If you do not support the CTs and licence change driven by the OSMF then
> please
> don't silently drop out of the project; I urge you to keep contributing and
> make
> your voice heard.  You can always change your mind at a later date.
>
> --
> Ed Avis 
>
>
> ___
> 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] Xapi weirdness

[80n]

Tom
What client are you using?  It may not be escaping the | correctly resulting
in a request for [amenity=recycling] for the whole world.

Try:
http://www.informationfreeway.org/api/0.6/*[amenity=recycling%7Cwaste_transfer_station][bbox=-0.51,51.20,0.35,51.80]<http://www.informationfreeway.org/api/0.6/*%5Bamenity=recycling%7Cwaste_transfer_station%5D%5Bbbox=-0.51,51.20,0.35,51.80%5D>

80n



On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Tom Chance  wrote:

> Can anyone explain why this query ignores the bbox and tries to download
> the data for the whole world?
>
>
> http://www.informationfreeway.org/api/0.6/*[amenity=recycling|waste_transfer_station][bbox=-0.51,51.20,0.35,51.80]<http://www.informationfreeway.org/api/0.6/*%5Bamenity=recycling%7Cwaste_transfer_station%5D%5Bbbox=-0.51,51.20,0.35,51.80%5D>
>
> Tom
>
> --
> http://tom.acrewoods.net   http://twitter.com/tom_chance
>
> ___
> 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] Historical Mapping in OSM

[80n]

In my opinion historical data is definitely an important part of OSM.

Yes it will get cluttered, but better tools will deal with that when it
becomes a problem.

Short term chronological data is beneficial anyway.  For future events, new
roads etc, they can be surveyed and added ahead of their official opening.
And a record of recently demolished buildings etc is important otherwise
there's a risk that they get re-added by someone tracing without up-to-date
local knowledge.

And if we have to accommodate recent events, past and future, then it should
be equally possible to accommodate distant past events.

80n

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Dave F.  wrote:

>  On 26/09/2010 23:47, Richard Palmer wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>I'm involved in a project looking at the history of a street in
>> London
>>(The Strand). One of things we'd like to do is produce a 'animated'
>> map
>>showing the changes along it from the C18th onwards. I've had a go
>> at
>>adding some attributes to OSM for building dates and then generated
>>different tiles for layers each century, (quick demo up at:
>>
>
> Is this what we should be using OSM for? For me OSM is for *current* data
> (I've been deleting any demolished buildings).
>
> This project sounds great, but should be set up as a separate entity. The
> database would become far to cluttered otherwise.
>
> I've an abandoned railway in my area where sections of it are now invisible
> having been completely leveled & used as agricultural land. Someone's tagged
> these as railway=abandoned. I don't think they should.
>
> Dave F.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Dorset/Wilts county boundary wrong...is there adefinitive source?

[80n]

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Emilie Laffray wrote:

>
>
> On 8 September 2010 15:08, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Kevin Peat  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 8 September 2010 10:07, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Kevin Peat  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Until the issue of whether the OS datasets can be used under the new
>>>>> license/CT is resolved it seems a bit pointless doing anything like this
>>>>> whatever the merits might be.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The OS datasets are compatible with OSM as it stands at the moment.
>>>> Worrying about future incompatibilities that may or may not happen is not
>>>> helpful to the project.
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>
>> I should qualify my sweeping statement about OS datasets being compatible
>> with OSM.  They are if you are an old contributor.  They are *not* if you
>> signed up after 12th May, because Ordnance Survey's license is incompatible
>> with the new Contributor Terms.
>>
>> So if you are a new contributor, too bad.
>>
>
> To the best of my knowledge, legal counsel has not yet stated so, as the
> LWG has approached legal counsel on that particular topic. So until we have
> something whether negative or positive, the point you are making is pretty
> much moot.
>

That doesn't give new contributors the right to contribute OS datasets to
OSM.  It is accepted practice here to avoid infringing copyright and to be
cautious. On that basis new contributors are best advised not to use OS
datasets.  When you have an opinion, positive or negative, from Wilson
Sonsini then new contributors can be advised accordingly.

Let's take this to legal@ if you have more to add.

80n
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Dorset/Wilts county boundary wrong...is there adefinitive source?

[80n]

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Kevin Peat  wrote:

>
> On 8 September 2010 10:07, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Kevin Peat  wrote:
>>
>>> Until the issue of whether the OS datasets can be used under the new
>>> license/CT is resolved it seems a bit pointless doing anything like this
>>> whatever the merits might be.
>>
>>
>> The OS datasets are compatible with OSM as it stands at the moment.
>> Worrying about future incompatibilities that may or may not happen is not
>> helpful to the project.
>> ...
>>
>
I should qualify my sweeping statement about OS datasets being compatible
with OSM.  They are if you are an old contributor.  They are *not* if you
signed up after 12th May, because Ordnance Survey's license is incompatible
with the new Contributor Terms.

So if you are a new contributor, too bad.


>
> True enough, and everyone is free to use their time as they see fit, but I
> wouldn't want someone to invest a significant amount of effort on something
> like this without knowing there might be a problem even if it works out fine
> in the end.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Dorset/Wilts county boundary wrong...is there adefinitive source?

[80n]

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Kevin Peat  wrote:

> Until the issue of whether the OS datasets can be used under the new
> license/CT is resolved it seems a bit pointless doing anything like this
> whatever the merits might be.


The OS datasets are compatible with OSM as it stands at the moment.
Worrying about future incompatibilities that may or may not happen is not
helpful to the project.

You shouldn't let uncertainty about the license stop you from doing this,
although there may be other good reasons not to do it, license doubts should
not be one of them.

It might be worth providing an easy way for people to import boundaries on a
local basis.  They can then care for it and clean up any issues.


> Especially as deleting the existing boundaries and replacing them with OS
> data would break the history chain and must (I assume) make reverting to the
> previous boundaries more difficult should it become necessary.
>

Apparently somebody is working on clever software that will be able to sort
this kind of thing out quite seamlessly.



>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> On 7 September 2010 22:51, Steve Doerr wrote:
>
>>  *From:* Ed Loach 
>>  *Sent:* Tuesday, September 07, 2010 7:46 PM
>> *To:* 'Steve Doerr'  ;
>> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>> *Subject:* RE: [Talk-GB] Dorset/Wilts county boundary wrong...is there
>> adefinitive source?
>>
>>  Steve wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> I think OS OpenData has a boundary data set. It would seem to
>>
>> >> be a prime
>>
>> >> candidate for a bulk import.
>>
>>
>>
>> >No, please, no.
>>
>>
>>
>> > At least not without someone manually checking every parish boundary in
>> case it is already in. The Norfolk ones are there
>>
>> > but missing the admin_level tag on the ways so appear at rather low zoom
>> levels[1]; where I've started creating the
>>
>> > district boundary relations (South Norfolk so far) adding the
>> admin_level to the ways as I go, the lines are starting to
>>
>> > disappear to only show at higher zooms (not helped by me using
>> administrative_level=10 rather than admin_level=10 at
>>
>> > first 'cos it's been a while since I worked on boundaries).
>>
>>
>>
>> No problem: once the bulk import has been done, a bulk delete of any
>> boundaries not derived from OS Opendata is done, so there is no potential
>> for conflict/duplication.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%

[80n]

Phillip
OSM has always taken a very conservative approach on licensing and if in
doubt has erred on the side of caution.

Following this philosophy you cannot agree to the contributor terms.

If you can find a way to revert your OS contributions then you would be able
to agree to the new contributor terms.

Alternatively, if someone were to provide a way to change the authorship of
those changesets to a different user ID that remained CC-BY-SA then you
would also be free to agree to the new license.  Doing this would actually
just postpone the reversion of those changesets and it would happen later,
after the license switch, when all CC-BY-SA licensed data would get purged
from the database.

80n


On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Barnett, Phillip  wrote:

>   I’ve been mapping off and on since April 2006, and I’ve contributed
> approximately 1320 changesets in that time. Only three of which include OS
> data. Are all my contributions going to be rejected?
>
> I have not, as yet, signed up to the new CTs, though was intending to.
>
>
>
> I’m now not touching OS data – but is it too late? Surely it’s just a
> question of removing the ‘tainted’ changesets? Or, to be safe, all the
> changesets I’ve contributed since the OS data became available?
>
>
>  **
> *PHILLIP BARNETT
> **SERVER MANAGER
> *
> 200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
> LONDON
> WC1X 8XZ
> UNITED KINGDOM
> T +44 (0)20 7430 4474
> F
> E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk
> WWW.ITN.CO.UK
> P  Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this
> email?
> --
>
>  *From:* talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:
> talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org] *On Behalf Of *80n
> *Sent:* 22 August 2010 18:41
> *To:* David Groom
> *Cc:* Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a
> source WAS The last 2%
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:23 PM, David Groom 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "Kevin Peat" 
> To: "Robert Whittaker (OSM)" 
> >;
> 
> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source
> WAS The last 2%
>
>
>
>  However, that doesn't change the fact that the OS OpenData license is
> incompatible with the contributor terms, and DbCL, and quite possibly
> ODbL too.
>
>  I thought this was still to be confirmed?  It may not be that important
> to
> townies but there is a lot of value in the OS data for rural mappers
> (woods,
> streams, rivers, coastline, etc.) and it is a crucial issue for me.
>
>
>
> It is still to be confirmed.  The situation at the moment is there is no
> guarantee that OS OpenData is compatible with the CT's.
>
> Hence if you currently contribute anything based on OS OpenData  to OSM you
> run the risk that you will be prevented from contributing to OSM in the
> future.
>
>
> To be clear about this, you can still continue to contribute OS OpenData to
> OSM providing you have not, and do not, agree to the new contributor terms.
>
>
> If you have already contributed content derived from OS OpenData then you
> cannot and should not agree to the contributor terms as they currently
> stand.
>
> Your contributions will not be lost because there will probably always be a
> place where these contributions continue to be editable and available under
> CC-BY-SA.  This may not be OSM but it is likely there will be sites that
> continue to maintain CC-BY-SA licensed content.
>
>
>
> I am aware that the LWG have been considering the matter since at least 8
> June [1] , but that as 17 August they have yet to ask legal counsels opinion
> on this [2].
>
> David
>
> Kevin
>
> [1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_67f465m4cd
>
> [2] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_77rbr8fgfw
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>  Please Note:
>
> Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
> represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically
> stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify
> postmas...@itn.co.uk
>
> Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of
> our clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from
> our systems.
>
> Thank You.
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%

[80n]

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:23 PM, David Groom wrote:

>
>
> - Original Message - From: "Kevin Peat" 
> To: "Robert Whittaker (OSM)" 
> >;
> 
> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source
> WAS The last 2%
>
>
>
>  However, that doesn't change the fact that the OS OpenData license is
>>> incompatible with the contributor terms, and DbCL, and quite possibly
>>> ODbL too.
>>>
>>>
>>>  I thought this was still to be confirmed?  It may not be that important
>> to
>> townies but there is a lot of value in the OS data for rural mappers
>> (woods,
>> streams, rivers, coastline, etc.) and it is a crucial issue for me.
>>
>>
> It is still to be confirmed.  The situation at the moment is there is no
> guarantee that OS OpenData is compatible with the CT's.
>
> Hence if you currently contribute anything based on OS OpenData  to OSM you
> run the risk that you will be prevented from contributing to OSM in the
> future.
>

To be clear about this, you can still continue to contribute OS OpenData to
OSM providing you have not, and do not, agree to the new contributor terms.


If you have already contributed content derived from OS OpenData then you
cannot and should not agree to the contributor terms as they currently
stand.

Your contributions will not be lost because there will probably always be a
place where these contributions continue to be editable and available under
CC-BY-SA.  This may not be OSM but it is likely there will be sites that
continue to maintain CC-BY-SA licensed content.




> I am aware that the LWG have been considering the matter since at least 8
> June [1] , but that as 17 August they have yet to ask legal counsels opinion
> on this [2].
>
> David
>
>  Kevin
>>
>>  [1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_67f465m4cd
>
> [2] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_77rbr8fgfw
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] NSG NLPG LLPGs Re: Definitive source for UK streetnames? - OS, 'road name signs', or a council 'list'?

[80n]

Micah
Very nice.

Do you have any thoughts about how you could attract large numbers of users
to this site?

80n

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Micah  wrote:

> The data in the National Street Gazetteer (NSG) is owned by Local
> Government
> Information House (LGIH) on behalf of the local authorities.
> A commercial operation Intelligent Addressing
> manages the data and runs infrastructure to maintain it:
> http://www.intelligent-addressing.co.uk/
>
> The local authorities can justify the money spent on maintaining their own
> Local Land and Property Gazetteer (LLPG) which feeds in to NSG as less than
> it
> saved in increase efficiencies by avoiding duplicating maintain multiple
> address datasets across departments, so saves council tax.
>
> Local Authorities also have duties to be responsible for Street Naming &
> Numbering with local guidelines to be enforced for new streets.
>
> https://ssl.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbwssl.cgi?Gw=Street+Naming+%26+Numbering
>
> I think they should give up trying to gain additional revenue by trying to
> sell it, and release all they can to be free-ly reused.
>
> Others do too:
>
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/unlocking-service/2008/12/05/NationalStreetGazetteer
>
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/unlocking-service/CategoryView/category/NLPG/
>
> but will those voices outweigh those with vesting interest as re-sellers:
>
> http://www.aligned-
>
> assets.co.uk/news/2010/Aligned_Assets_bring_NLPG_affordability_to_smaller_organisations_through_Software_By_Subscription.html
>
> http://www.nlpg.org.uk/
>
>
> Given the quite right rebuff to the idea of a 'correct' street name later
> in
> this this thread there is also the mistakes that will be in the NSG itself.
> A
> dataset only gets more accurate if it has good feedbacks to correct it, and
> these generally increase with use.
>
>
> Could we ever build an open replacement for the National Land and Property
> Gazetteer (NLPG) & the Royal Mail's Postcode Address File (PAF)?
>
> Well we can try:
> http://openaddresses.org/
>
> cheers,
>
> Micah Bunny
> --
> http://blog.j12.org/
>
>
>
> On Friday 06 Aug 2010 14:36:46 Lester Caine wrote:
> > Jason Cunningham wrote:
> > > Just read through a short discussion about differences in street names
> > > in OSM and 'OS Locator', and problems caused by differences in names
> > > given The classic problem is where the road street sign says something
> > > like 'Dukes Drive' but OS locator states Duke's Drive.
> > > Noticed that common view was OSM mapped what was on the ground, so road
> > > sign name was added.
> > >
> > > Having come across roads where road names differ on adjacent roads
> > > signs, I'm not too sure road signs can be 100% relied on, but OS also
> > > clearly make mistakes.
> > > Has anyone heard of how this problem is dealt with by authorities (eg
> > > councils) as they seem to rely on OS as a definitive source for mapping
> > > data.
> >
> > The councils will be be working to the street table in their LLPG data,
> and
> > it is that which is supplied TO OS as the 'correct' local information.
> > There is even a mechanism for advising changes and new streets in the
> > update format. The one thing that is worth noting in this is that
> POSTCODE
> > is not a requirement in this data, only the NLPG references. Of cause
> what
> > is more anoying is that while we all pay to create the data via our
> > council tax, http://www.thensg.org.uk/ is owned by a commercial
> operation
> > that then makes money out of it :(
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Definitive source for UK streetnames? - OS, 'road name signs', or a council 'list'?

[80n]

I recall an intriguing case from one of the very first mapping parties in
Rutland.

The mapping party was held at Oakam Museum in Catmos Street.  It's always
been called Catmos Street.  It's referred to as Catmos Street in a Francis
Frith photo from the 1950s and it was still called Catmos Street in the
1970s when I actually lived there for a while.  Trouble is Oakham is located
in the middle of the Vale of Catmose, with an E, so many people think the
road name is wrong.  So what's it called today?

1.  On the ground it is clearly shown as Catmos Street on three separate
street signs.
2.  OSM had it as Catmos Street from 2006 until 2009 when it was changed to
Catmose Street.
3.  Oakham Library, which is on this road, refers to it as Catmos Street.
4.  Rutland Museum, which is on this road, refers to it as Catmose Street.

Fortunately Rutland County Council's offices are also on this road so we can
be sure of a definitive answer from them.  Their website refers to it as
just ... Catmose.

And just around the corner Catmos(e) Park Road has two street signs.  One
labelled Catmos Park Road and the other Catmose Park Road.

As for Google Maps, well they refer to it as Uppingham Road.

80n


On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:43 PM, John Robert Peterson wrote:

> This is a more fundamental problem than "which source is the correct one"
> -- names aren't properly defined to begin with.
>
> The source for most of these names is simply what locals referred to things
> as 100 years ago, and what managed to stick when some bloke on a horse with
> a clipboard asked them.
>
> For example "New Hall Hill" was likely a road that went up a hill to a hall
> that had recently been built. if tho bloke with the clipboard had have
> arrived 10 years later, it would likely have been noted as "Hall Hill" or if
> he'd asked someone at the other end of the road, he'd likely have gotten
> "Old Village Valley Lane" etc.
>
> There is a lane a few miles from me, it had no name, but it had a doctor's
> surgery near it. A few decades ago, some surveyer asked a local what it was
> called and was told "Harley Street" (in reference to the street in london
> with doctors surgeries on it) purly as a joke. This landed on an OS map, and
> ended up on a road sign. This name came out of nowhere, but is now just as
> much of a real name as any other road in the country.
>
> There is also the problem that there are disagreements going on all the
> time about what places should be named, Where I come from, there is a local
> "debate" stagnating about the "boundary" between 2 areas (I personally
> belive that they overlap). One of these areas is named after a farm, and one
> side of the argument goes that the name refers to the farm, and not the
> area, so the name shouldn't be used. By that logic half the place names in
> the country should be removed.
>
> Back on topic, (in my opinion) a place name is valid if a significant
> number of people use the name. places, roads etc can all have multiple
> names, and strategies of using alt names should be used.
>
> The actual "name" field should be set at the most commonly used name. This
> should almost certainly be the name on the road signs, however as noted,
> this is not always clear cut, and I know of at least once instance where the
> only road sign has a blatant spelling mistake in it.
>
> If all else fails the locals should be consulted (and actually listened
> to), as it's them that actually define this stuff for real. In an ideal
> world, a full election of everyone on the electoral roll living on the
> street would be good, not that that's even remotely feasible. at the end of
> the day common sens needs to take over.
>
> The first 3 lines of my parents' address are all debatable to varying
> degrees, so this isn't actually an infrequent issue. Someone from far away
> using widely held beliefs about the name of the county, and consulting
> widely spread data about the naming of where they live could have serious
> problems trying to find them.
>
> So in summery, use the best info that you have available:
> 1) residents knowledge -- this is the closet to authoritive you can get
> 2) other local knowledge/signs
> 4) other data sources -- all of which can be subject to "errors"
>
> but include everything that you can and have time to, as even erroneous
> data will be searched for.
>
> JR
>
>
> On 6 August 2010 15:34, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, August 6, 2010 13:33, Jason Cunningham wrote:
>>
>> > The classic problem is where the road street sign says something like
>> > 'Dukes Drive' but OS locator states Duke'

Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing

[80n]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Grant Slater
wrote:

> On 23 July 2010 00:05, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Is this the real CloudMade? How can we tell?  And that really is the
> point.
> > How can anyone tell whether they can add someone else's work to OSM
> unless
> > there's some way of knowing that they've signed the contributor terms.
> > How's this all supposed to work?
> >
>
> Yes, if the data is valuable enough to the project, the OSMF can
> consider it without going via the Contributor Terms.
>

I think you've missed my point.  Suppose I have some data that has been
given to me under an ODbL license by a company.  How can I determine whether
or not I am allowed to import that data into OSM?  What does that company
have to do to signal that it has agreed to OSM's contributor terms?

Does the company create an account - which creates the necessary agreement
between them and OSMF- and then refer the OSM contributor to that account
when asked?  How would an OSM contributor indicate that they are not the
owner of the data they are uploading?

80n





>
> The Contributor Terms are like not to last forever.
>
> / Grant
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing

[80n]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Kai Krueger  wrote:

>
>
> 80n wrote:
> >
> >> > Once acid test here would be to determine whether CloudMade have
> >> already
> >> signed the contributor terms.  If they haven't then it is hard not to
> >> draw
> >> some conclusions about their intentions with our data.
> > ...
> > Does CloudMade as a corporate body have an existing OSM account?  I doubt
> > it.
> >
> First you ask if CloudMade has signed up to the contributor terms, then you
> say CloudMade doesn't have an OSM account. So how, if they don't have an
> account should they sign up to the contributor terms?!
>

There's an OSM user called CloudMade, but that user has only ever made one
edit.  http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/CloudMade/edits

Is this the real CloudMade? How can we tell?  And that really is the point.
How can anyone tell whether they can add someone else's work to OSM unless
there's some way of knowing that they've signed the contributor terms.
How's this all supposed to work?

80n
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing

[80n]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:48 PM, SteveC  wrote:

>
> On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:45 PM, 80n wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) <
> robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com > wrote:
> > Graham Jones  wrote:
> > > I am quite surprised there are many 'personal' contributors who would
> want
> > > to refuse to have their data re-licensed - from my personal way of
> looking
> > > at it the proposed new licence is so similar to the existing cc-by-sa
> that
> > > it will make negligible difference.
> >
> > The ODbL license is pretty similar (though some people may have strong
> > feelings about SA no longer applying to 'produced works'). I would be
> > hopeful that many large-scale data sources (OS included) could be
> > persuaded to allow their data to be used under ODbL
> >
> > However, the proposed contributor terms change things significantly,
> > in two ways:
> >
> > First you need to give full rights to your contributions to OSMF, who
> > could then (subject to community approval) re-license them without SA
> > or By requirements. If you are a strong believer in either of these,
> > you may not want allow this possibility with your work. Equally if you
> > are a company with valuable data, it's entirely reasonable that you
> > will only provide it if there are SA and/or By provisions.
> >
> > Secondly, the terms would severely restrict the data sources we could
> > make use of. In particular they would mean that despite the SA clause
> > in ODbL, users of OSM data can prevent OSM from re-importing any added
> > data by simply refusing to sign the contributor terms.
> >
> > Once acid test here would be to determine whether CloudMade have already
> signed the contributor terms.  If they haven't then it is hard not to draw
> some conclusions about their intentions with our data.
>
> Yet more dark mutterings from 80n.
>
> Where and when could we voluntarily sign up? Oh right... that's exactly the
> next step for the LWG that you guys are holding up.
>
>
Does CloudMade as a corporate body have an existing OSM account?  I doubt
it.

How would a corporation indicate that their ODbL licensed derivative
databases can be imported back into OSM?

80n



> Steve
>
> stevecoast.com
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing

[80n]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com > wrote:

> Graham Jones  wrote:
> > I am quite surprised there are many 'personal' contributors who would
> want
> > to refuse to have their data re-licensed - from my personal way of
> looking
> > at it the proposed new licence is so similar to the existing cc-by-sa
> that
> > it will make negligible difference.
>
> The ODbL license is pretty similar (though some people may have strong
> feelings about SA no longer applying to 'produced works'). I would be
> hopeful that many large-scale data sources (OS included) could be
> persuaded to allow their data to be used under ODbL
>
> However, the proposed contributor terms change things significantly,
> in two ways:
>
> First you need to give full rights to your contributions to OSMF, who
> could then (subject to community approval) re-license them without SA
> or By requirements. If you are a strong believer in either of these,
> you may not want allow this possibility with your work. Equally if you
> are a company with valuable data, it's entirely reasonable that you
> will only provide it if there are SA and/or By provisions.
>
> Secondly, the terms would severely restrict the data sources we could
> make use of. In particular they would mean that despite the SA clause
> in ODbL, users of OSM data can prevent OSM from re-importing any added
> data by simply refusing to sign the contributor terms.


Once acid test here would be to determine whether CloudMade have already
signed the contributor terms.  If they haven't then it is hard not to draw
some conclusions about their intentions with our data.

80n




> This makes the
> SA provision in ODbL pretty much worthless as far as the main OSM
> database is concerned. Others can benefit from our work, but we could
> be blocked from using others' improvements.
>
> In this debate, I think it's important to distinguish between whether
> contributors are happy to re-license their contributions, and the
> separate issue of whether the license should then be changed, given
> (in particular) the resulting loss of data.
>
> Personally, I'd be happy to re-licensed my contributions under ODbL,
> but I'm not sure whether I am happy with the proposed contributor
> terms. (I kind of like the SA provisions.) I've yet to come to a
> conclusion on whether the license should be changed -- I guess that
> rather depends on the actual data loss we'll be faced with. I feel
> rather more more strongly that OSM should definitely not adopt the
> proposed contributor terms, for the reasons given above.
>
> Despite this I voted "For ODbL" on the doodle poll, since it
> specifically asked about re-licensing under ODbL. (I also hadn't
> appreciated the implications of the contributor terms at that point.)
> If OSMF only offers a straight choice between ODbL + the current
> contributor terms, or not re-licensing at all, I'd be in rather a
> quandary.
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
>
> ___
> 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] an estimate of data loss under relicensing

[80n]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Grant Slater
wrote:

> On 22 July 2010 18:23, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > There''s also signs that the project is starting to splinter.
> Experimental
> > forks are beginning to appear...
> >
>
> 80n, you were one of the people agitators pushing for a fork.
>

Grant, if you read my posts carefully what I've been saying is that the ODbL
proponents should have forked.  They'd have got what they wanted a whole lot
sooner and we wouldn't be in this sorry mess now.

80n




>
> / Grant.
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing

[80n]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Jason Cunningham  wrote:

> Thanks for taking the time to do this.
>
> Having read this a I've decided its about time I read up on licence issue!
> I guess that the potential loss of a lot of data could be a reason for some
> people voting against the changes
>

There''s also signs that the project is starting to splinter. Experimental
forks are beginning to appear...






>
> Jason
>
>
> On 22 July 2010 10:34, TimSC  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> To try to get a feeling for the potential consequences of relicensing, I
>> have been doing analysis of edits in the UK and how contributors have voted
>> on the doodle poll. I feel that we should look before we leap, regarding the
>> possible impact of people who refuse to relicense. I wondered how many
>> nodes, ways and relations would be transitioned in relicensing. I used the
>> crude assumption that each object has only one editor, which would
>> underestimate the impact of refuser contributions. I requested the biggest
>> contributors to vote on the doodle poll to improve the turn out. Although I
>> only have votes for 1% of individual UK contributors, doodle now has a 24%
>> turn out when weighted by mapping contribution size. A few mappers account
>> for a large proportion of UK data. Previously, I did not notice how many
>> mappers had just done a few small changes: the median number of nodes
>> contributed is only 10! I also have not considered the response rate once
>> OSMF pitch the question to contributors, and what happens if the OS data
>> cannot be relicensed.
>>
>> I want to next give my excuses for not publishing the raw statistics. Even
>> with 24% turn out (by contribution size), the are a few non-committal large
>> contributors (e.g. me and a few others). Unless the turn out rate is higher,
>> the stats can be twisted depending on the mood I am in. But there is a
>> pattern emerging. The overall UK picture seems to be fairly bright for
>> minimal data loss. Every big contributor I contact votes "yes" to
>> relicencing (with or without reservations). I estimate an overall data loss
>> of 5% to 17% for the UK (ignoring the effect of objects with multiple
>> editors).
>>
>> The main exception to this is a small cluster of refusers around London.
>> (I am not just talking about myself here.) The worst case scenario is 50%
>> data loss in the Greater London area but, really, I don't know how it would
>> play out. Because of the density of mapping, there is more likely to be
>> multiple editors in this area too. Basically, it's a wild card. But I would
>> be surprised if there are big problems outside the London/SE area. Unless of
>> course 5% is a big problem - I am not too sure how much work it would take
>> to patch up omissions, even assuming a relatively smooth transition.
>>
>> Anyway, I never was much good at statistics! I just wanted to circulate
>> something, after many contributors were kind 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
>>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Use of OS OpenData in OSM

[80n]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com > wrote:

> Emilie Laffray  wrote:
> > The second point is that I don't see the relation between knowing how
> much
> > OS OpenData and the switch to the new licence. Talks of losing data is
> > partially a self fulfilling prophecy. It is impossible right now to gauge
> > how much data IF ANY we would lose since we don't have any means to know
> who
> > is in support of what until the voluntary licence is put in place.
>
> The last I heard (albeit informally) from OS is that they're worried
> about the lack of formal attribution requirements on Produced Works
> under ODbL. It's also unclear whether they would agree to DbCL for
> individual data items. From the first point alone, I don't think it's
> safe to conclude that their current license would allow their data to
> be used in an ODbL database, although I'd be hopeful that they could
> be persuaded to agree to a license that allows this.
>
> More importantly though, the current contributor terms [1] (in
> particular clauses 2 and 3) require mappers to grant certain rights to
> their data to OSMF, which in particular would allow OSMF to re-license
> the data without the Share-Alike or Attribution requirements if that's
> what the community voted for. I can't see OS ever agreeing to this, as
> it would mean they could loose their attribution requirements.
>
> So, unless those contributor terms are amended / removed, or there's
> an exception for certain data providers, we will have to loose any OS
> OpenData derived information from the database, by either deleting
> objects or reverting them to a prior state. Until this issue is
> resolved, I'd suggest not investing any time in adding anything
> further derived from OS OpenData.
>
> (Personally, I think those clauses in the contributor terms need to be
> removed entirely, as (a) it's unreasonable to expect people to agree
> to the use of their data under an as-yet-unspecified license, and (b)
> the terms provide a loop-hole that would prevent us from benefiting
> from the Share-Alike provisions of ODbL -- A third-party can take our
> data, do some cool stuff with it, add some of their own data, and
> release the result under ODbL to fulfil their SA responsibilities.
> There's nothing to force them to agree to our contributor terms, and
> by not doing so, they'd prevent OSM from using their combined dataset.
> This renders the SA provisions all but useless for us.)
>
> What's more, because Produced Works can be published under a restrictive
license we couldn't get the additional data back by tracing either.  ODbL +
CT makes getting data back into OSM much harder than it is now by a massive
degree.

BTW, how would a corporation agree to the Contributor Terms anyway?  The
sign-up page only caters for individuals.  Has, for example, CloudMade,
agreed to the contributor terms yet and how could we tell if they had?

80n
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Surry Meetup

[80n]

Just a reminder that the Surrey meetup is tonight at 7pm.

Etienne

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 12:38 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Folks
> There will be a pub-meetup for Surrey OSMers on Tuesday May 11th at 7pm.
> The venue is the Hand and Spear adjacent to Weybridge railway station:
> http://osm.org/go/euuI8D_jm-
>
> The general election will hopefully be history by then, so the main topic
> of discussion will be the new aerial imagery for the whole county.
>
> Etienne
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Surry Meetup

[80n]

Folks
There will be a pub-meetup for Surrey OSMers on Tuesday May 11th at 7pm.
The venue is the Hand and Spear adjacent to Weybridge railway station:
http://osm.org/go/euuI8D_jm-

The general election will hopefully be history by then, so the main topic of
discussion will be the new aerial imagery for the whole county.

Etienne
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days?

[80n]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Christoph Boehme wrote:

> I hope the load is not due to Novam using the server now.
>
> No not at all.  It's just XAPI is getting used more and more.  Also I think
there may have been a lot of changesets in the last couple of days.

Novam is way down the list in terms of load.

80n



> Novam is displaying the value of xapi:planetDate below the map key to
> give an indication of the age of the data. Perhaps the attribute could
> be amended with a full timestamp of the last update?
>
> Cheers
> Christoph
>
>
>
> On 23/03/2010 11:49, 80n wrote:
> > Tom
> > That instance of XAPI is lagging a bit due to recent heavy load.  Its
> > currently at 2010-03-22T15:52:02Z
> >
> > Your changeset is about three hours after that time so it should come
> > through later today.
> >
> > 80n
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Tom Chance  wrote:
> >
> >> Hello there,
> >>
> >> I had a look at the NOVAM tool for bus stops to check my area:
> >>
> >>
> http://mappa-mercia.org/novam/?scheme=hull&zoom=15&lat=51.46602&lon=-0.07598&layers=BT
> >>
> >> I then updated a load of bus stops, most of which I just needed to
> delete
> >> the 'naptan:verified' tag from:
> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4205203
> >>
> >> But days later NOVAM still shows them as needing correcting, and if I
> >> download the area in XAPI lo-and-behold they seem unchanged:
> >>
> >>
> http://xapi.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/node[highway=bus_stop][bbox=-0.08537,51.45112,-0.05885,51.4754]
> <
> http://xapi.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/node%5Bhighway=bus_stop%5D%5Bbbox=-0.08537,51.45112,-0.05885,51.4754%5D
> >
> >>
> >> Isn't XAPI meant to only lag ten or so minutes behind the API?
> >>
> >> Tom
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://tom.acrewoods.net   http://twitter.com/tom_chance
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days?

[80n]

Tom
That instance of XAPI is lagging a bit due to recent heavy load.  Its
currently at 2010-03-22T15:52:02Z

Your changeset is about three hours after that time so it should come
through later today.

80n


On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Tom Chance  wrote:

> Hello there,
>
> I had a look at the NOVAM tool for bus stops to check my area:
>
> http://mappa-mercia.org/novam/?scheme=hull&zoom=15&lat=51.46602&lon=-0.07598&layers=BT
>
> I then updated a load of bus stops, most of which I just needed to delete
> the 'naptan:verified' tag from:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4205203
>
> But days later NOVAM still shows them as needing correcting, and if I
> download the area in XAPI lo-and-behold they seem unchanged:
>
> http://xapi.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/node[highway=bus_stop][bbox=-0.08537,51.45112,-0.05885,51.4754]<http://xapi.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/node%5Bhighway=bus_stop%5D%5Bbbox=-0.08537,51.45112,-0.05885,51.4754%5D>
>
> Isn't XAPI meant to only lag ten or so minutes behind the API?
>
> Tom
>
> --
> http://tom.acrewoods.net   http://twitter.com/tom_chance
>
> ___
> 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] Old data in XAPI

[80n]

On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Russ  wrote:

> 80n wrote:
>
>> Try [amenity=pharmacy] instead of [*=pharmacy]
>>
>> The index for the second form is no longer being maintained.  There were
>> relatively few queries of this form and the overhead was substantial.
>>
>> The software shouldn't give you a seemingly ok response, that needs
>> fixing.  And I should document this as well.
>>
>
> I'm hoping to have time to edit the wiki page tomorrow. Before I do, I'd
> just like to clarify a couple of things:
>
> 1. Is [amenity=*] still supported? I'm guessing not, but I'd like to be
> sure.
>

Yes, it is still supported.


>
> 2. Is the union operator still supported, i.e. are the following valid?:
> [highway=motorway|motorway_link|trunk|primary]
> [amenity|leisure=golf_course]
>

Yes.




>
> Russ
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Old data in XAPI

[80n]

Try [amenity=pharmacy] instead of [*=pharmacy]

The index for the second form is no longer being maintained.  There were
relatively few queries of this form and the overhead was substantial.

The software shouldn't give you a seemingly ok response, that needs fixing.
And I should document this as well.

80n

On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Russ Phillips  wrote:

> I've been looking at getting pharmacy and hospital information out of
> OSM. According to the XAPI wiki page [1], "The data is normally no
> more than about 10 minutes behind the main database.", but at the
> moment it doesn't have various edits that I've done recently. If I get
> all the pharmacies from the UK, the most recent timestamp appears to
> be '2009-06-21T16:47:53Z'
>
> The platform status wiki page [2] shows three XAPI servers, with
> osmxapi.hypercube.telascience.org up, with the note "Back at last!
> Sorry for the long interruption in service.". That's the server I've
> been using, so why is the data so old? Is this a temporary issue, or
> is it normal for XAPI to be so far behind?
>
> Russ
>
> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Xapi
> [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Platform_Status
>
> ___
> 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] XAPI servers

[80n]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Mike  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:51:41AM +0100, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> > Mike wrote:
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > Does anyone know what the state of play is with the XAPI servers?
> > > According to the status page, Hypercube is b0rked, OSM is still on v5
> > > and bearstech is running with stale data.
> > >
> > > Are there any other servers?  Are the others likely to return to full
> > > service?
> >
> > I don't have an answer to that, I'm afraid, but I would be interested in
> > knowing when people think a paid-for XAPI service with an SLA will be
> > viable?
> >
>
> What services levels would you foresee offering and how much do you
> think it would cost?  I'd be willing to pay if it would help improve the
> service.
>
> What has happened to the current three XAPI server?  I know about
> Hypercube but why are the others currently down?  I'm happy to help out
> if there is anything I can do to help get them back online.
>

Bearstech was being used for testing.  It is now being brought on-line, but
this is taking a while because the database is a month out of date and it
will take a while to be fully current.

xapi.osm.org is a tiny server and doesn't really have the horsepower to do
the job.  It was left on 0.5 and will probably remain that way until we have
some decent servers running a proper service.

80n
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] XAPI servers

[80n]

The Hypercube server is indeed troubled.  It is hanging in GRUB on stratup
and attempts so far have failed to resolve this.  Anyone who thinks they
might be able to help resolve this should get in touch.

There are two new servers currently being prepared, but it will be at least
a couple of weeks before these are ready, and neither are particularly high
capacity.

If anyone has a spare server with 350Gb disk space and reasonable network
bandwith that they would like to run a xapi server on please get in touch.

80n

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Mike  wrote:

> Folks,
>
> Does anyone know what the state of play is with the XAPI servers?
> According to the status page, Hypercube is b0rked, OSM is still on v5
> and bearstech is running with stale data.
>
> Are there any other servers?  Are the others likely to return to full
> service?
>
> Mike.
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAko3aJ8ACgkQmUrfmTU1ohUTkwCfQhO0CbLce6Cgx7t1UJZxXlbl
> 0OYAoLU5g886iAsfwhfnphytjWKd7v09
> =jAVl
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> ___
> 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] Reminder: North Surrey Pub Meet - Wednesday

[80n]

This is a reminder that the North Surrey pub meet is this Wednesday, April
8th.

It will be at the Hand & Spear Pub at Weybridge station.  More details here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/North_Surrey_Pub_Meet

Etienne
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM & Guardian Open Platform, press

[80n]

I just talked with Kevin Anderson, the journalist that wrote the Guardian
piece.

It seems he misreported what he was told.  There is no direct connection
between the Guardian and OSM, instead Stamen have used OSM data in some way
for a related project.

Anyway, it's nice for OSM to get a mention even if it was all wrong.

80n

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Tim Waters (chippy)
wrote:

> Guardian release new API
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/mar/10/guardian-open-platform
>
> Gives a nice sizeable shout out towards the project.
>
> OSM are partners in the launch with Stamen, apparently.
> "Other partners for the launch of the service include web design firm
> Stamen and OpenStreetMap, a free, open alternative to commercial map
> data services. Stamen and OpenStreetMap developed a service that they
> hope will encourage Guardian readers to "geo-tag" the newspaper's
> content, positioning every article, video and picture on a map so
> users can find news, commentary, video and other content related to
> their area."
>
> Anyone seen anything more regarding this?
>
> Tim
>
> ___
> 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] North Surrey Pub Meet - April 8th

[80n]

This is a preliminary notification that there will be a pub meet for North
Surrey OSMers on April 8th in Weybridge.

Anyone from the northern reaches of Surrey, or anywhere else for that
matter, is invited to attend.

As usual we'll be talking about completing Surrey, planning mapping parties,
how good the beer is and so on.  License talk will be be banned no doubt ;)

The Hand & Spear at Weybridge Station is a great pub, traditional coaching
inn, good food etc.  Do come along.

No more details here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/North_Surrey_Pub_Meet

80n
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping the unloved and unwashed

[80n]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Brian Quinion <
openstreet...@brian.quinion.co.uk> wrote:

> > Should we investigate buying aerial photography for some of these
> un-loved
> > places which would allow us the capture the base road structure and
> > land-usage prior to any actual visit and speed things up a lot? The
> > photography that Mikel and eye have been sorting out for Gaza Strip is
> > costing $11 (£7.50) per sq km for 2 meter accuracy, 1 month old colour
> > images (with the associated rights to derived mapping from them).
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Palestine_Gaza
>
> Please, please NO!
>
> Mapping an area after it has been traced is:
>
> a) almost as much work as without the tracing (you still have to go
> down each road to look for missed features)
> b) very unsatisfying because it doesn't look like you have achieved
> anything
>
> I hate doing area that have been traced, I even hate doing areas that
> *I* have traced.


And its harder to build a community if an area *appears* to be done.  A big
white gap on the map, or a mapping party is the best thing for creating
community.  This will not only get the mapping done, but will also maintain
the area once it is completed.

We should save purchasing aerial imagery for places that are really hard to
access, like Gaza.


>
>
> It is however nice to fill in extra details that can only easily be
> done from aerial images like building outlines and other large
> features - I'd love to buy some aerial imagery for Sheffield for
> instance - but only once the basic mapping is *finished* please!
>
> > Thinking ahead,  should be set up an Aerial photography team who sort out
> > the purchasing and hosting of commercial photography as and when
> required?
>
> I can see the point, but do this with great care please or I'm sure
> you will loose some dedicated mappers.
>
> --
>  Brian
>
> ___
> 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] heathorw expansion & sipson

[80n]

Graham
It's at the limit of my range as well, but I'd be happy to help as there's
not much nearer for me to map anyway.

Perhaps in a few weeks time when there's more daylight hours we could
coordinate some visits to the area.  If we contact other local mappers
directly we might even be able to muster a small team.

80n

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:54 AM, graham  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Is anyone interested in creating a really detailed map of the area to be
> destroyed by the Heathrow extension. The area (the villages of
> Harlington Sipson and Harmondsworth:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.4807&lon=-0.4559&zoom=14&layers=0B00FTTT
> )
>
> is basically mapped, but there is quite a lot of detail missing: the
> tracks through Harmondsworth Moor (the old Accomodation Lane), the
> refugee detention centre, the tithe barn in Harmondsworth, the
> Greenpeace owned land in Sipson, according to news reports 100 listed
> buildings, various bits of industrial use, etc.
>
> I will carry on with it but it's a longish cycle ride for me to get
> there, so if there are others around interested it might get done quicker.
>
> (please DON'T use yahoo or google maps to speed it up - the area has a
> lot of gravel extraction pits which move round quite quickly - they get
> refilled for farming use - and none of the aerial photos I've seen are
> up to date with the current positions)
>
> Graham
>
> ___
> 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] UK Payphone database

[80n]

Mike
The OpenStreetMap database contains the location of 14,931 telephones,
worldwide.  Probably a lot of these will be in the UK.

This url will give you the current telephone data in a download of about
1.5Mbytes but you can only use this data if you comply with the CC-BY-SA
license terms that apply to it.
http://osmxapi.hypercube.telascience.org/api/0.5/node[amenity=telephone]

For each phone we hold it's location and for a few there will also be other
attributes such as phone number and post code.

How is the data on your web-site licensed?  There is nothing on your site to
indicate what restrictions or freedoms attach to the site's content.

I should stress, that you would have to comply with the CC-BY-SA license
terms before you could use OSM's data on your site.  That means that you
must provide attribution to OSM and you may only publish the data on the
same basis as it was provided to you.

80n


On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> I'm currently working on a project to collect data on the location of UK
> payphones.  There are a few projects around the world that collect
> payphone data but I have only found a commercial one in the UK.
>
> It has occured to me that some of the data collected, namely the
> coordinates of the payphone would be useful to the OSM and the postcode
> with coordinations would be useful to freethepostcode.
>
> I will speak to the OSM developers about the possibility of importing
> the data into the OSM and the freethepostcode maintainers about the
> postcode data.  I am wrting to OSM-UK to ask if any of the UK OSM
> contributors would be interested in helping gather payphone data?
>
> More information can be found here:
>
> http://payphonedb.bobsbasement.co.uk
>
> It's fairly wiki oriented, the idea being that anyone can add and modify
> phone and the database keeps a history of edits.  There's about 20
> phones in there at the moment and members of Bob's Basements are doing
> some collecting.  The database/frontend stuff is still under
> development, so any issues, please report them.
>
> If anyone is planning to add a reasonable amount of data, please contact
> me for a userID for the site.  Although you can add annonymously, it
> makes things a bit easier if a registered user adds them.
>
> Any comments/issues/etc, please email me or lookout for BOfH in
> #bobsbasement on irc.hackervoice.co.uk
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Regards,
> BOfH.
>
> ___
> 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] StreetWire

[80n]

Just noticed that StreetWire are now using OSM maps.

Example: http://www.streetwire.org/spot.php?q=128620

Nice.
80n
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Any West London mappers out there?

[80n]

On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Ed Loach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Grant wrote:
>
> > I went out tonight and mapped the building layout as best I
> > could. (snow
> > = yes; wet = yes; cold = yes; dark = yes)
> 
>
> Looks pretty good (checking on Osmarender, though there seems to be
> a bug with rendering the eastern edge of the tile that I've raised
> on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list). The guesstimated trunk_link in the
> northeast has layer=2 and the building has layer=1, whereas the
> access road from the north (I didn't check the layer) seems to be
> below the building. I'd be tempted to split the link in two and
> remove the layer tag at the shopping centre end, unless the parking
> is on the roof.
>
> I was going to mention the new Brierley Hill bypass (in the Black
> Country) on this list when it opened the other day, but when
> checking to see if it was already there flagged as construction I
> found there is a lot of work still to be done in that area and the
> bypass is just a minor part of it. That you've been able to update
> something so quickly is something I wish we could do anywhere. One
> day...
>
> While I'm writing does anyone have any opinions on whether there is
> much point in uploading traces I've taken only to find the roads are
> already mapped? I haven't been as I figure it is just extra points
> to download in the GPX layer on JOSM, slowing things up a bit, but
> yesterday I was looking at a section of the A12 and realised that on
> the scale I was looking at it there was about a 70m gap between the
> two carriageways, and switching to Potlatch and switching on the
> traces I was able to move the nodes from where they were to align
> with the trace information - in places there were so many it was
> possible to easily see where each carriageway of the dual
> carriageway ran by the dark blue lines with only the odd single line
> between. Some of the sections of road I nudged claimed to be sourced
> from NPE, though I guess therefore the estimate of position is based
> on the fact it's been converted to dual carriageway at some point
> since then. However, getting back to my question, it was these
> multiple traces that allowed me to reposition more easily, so I
> think perhaps I should upload any traces I make whether the area has
> already got roads mapped or not. Any other opinions?
>

Yes, definitely.  There are lots of potential uses for aggregated track
logs.



>
> All the best
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Corporate Cartographers accused of demolishing history. (make press release?)

[80n]

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Ed Loach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Steve wrote:
>
> > I was under the impression that the local authorities generally
> > used an OS
> > base map, so their own data may well be derived from the OS
> > data.
>
> A few years ago now (5 or 6) the bungalow next door was knocked down
> and two put on the plot in it's place. After they were built, an OS
> surveyor knocked on our door to ask permission to survey the new
> properties relative to ours


He didn't need to ask permission either.  The Ordnance Survey Act of 1841
gives him the right to "from time to time, after notice in writing of the
intention ... to enter into and upon any estate or property of any county
... for the purpose of making and carrying on any survey..."

The full scoop is here:
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=98&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1149277&activetextdocid=1149281



> (to give him the known fixed points on
> their existing data), which he surveyed entering the information
> straight onto a touch screen device and could presumably have been
> uploaded directly to the OS database if it had some sort of mobile
> data connection.
>
> I'm not sure this project currently supports that kind of accuracy,
> though perhaps if accurate GPS devices (there was something on TV
> about a harvester which drives itself to within 1 inch accuracy),
> and/or low level aerial photography become widely available we could
> aim towards it.
>
> I suspect for some users this accuracy is probably important.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Surrey meet up?

[80n]

Jonathan
Works for me.

I think I recommended the Britannia last time.

80n

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Shaun McDonald
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> I would consider coming down, but not on a Wednesday due to the London
> Mapping Party Marathon.
>
> Shaun
> On 29 Jul 2008, at 17:31, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>
> > It's been a while -- anyone fancy meeting up for a beer in Guildford
> > soon? We could even go to 80n's choice of pub this time...
> >
> > I propose Wednesday 13th, but am open to other suggestions.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan (Jonobennett)
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] London Calling

[80n]

Sometimes I think it would be more useful for those people that do Yahoo
tracing to concentrate on parks, lakes and buildings.  At least then we'd be
more motivated to go out and survey these areas on the ground.

And how do you tag a road that definitely does not have a name?  name=no
seems wrong somehow.  noname=yes perhaps.

80n

On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 12:18 PM, SteveC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Dave has made this really nice map of london
>
>
> http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/progress/london-noname-exsegs-080430-mapnik.png<http://dev.openstreetmap.org/%7Erandom/progress/london-noname-exsegs-080430-mapnik.png>
>
> white is unnamed roads / roads with name:FIXME
> purple is unwayed segments.
>
> So London needs quite some work yet.
>
> If you live near any of the areas please help fix them, every road
> counts. Come to one of the London mapping parties
>
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/London/Summer_2008_Mapping_Party_Marathon
>
> or set up one yourself!
>
>
> Also if you're anywhere near Regents Park then there are areas just
> East of it
>
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.52867&lon=-0.14189&zoom=16&layers=B0FT
>
> and just North
>
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.53558&lon=-0.16674&zoom=16&layers=B0FT
>
> and West
>
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.52483&lon=-0.17013&zoom=16&layers=B0FT
>
> that are quite incomplete.
>
> Best
>
> Steve
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Woking Mapping Party

[80n]

The weekend of May 31st is the Woking mapping party.  Sign up here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Woking_Mapping_Party

Woking is the least mapped town in Surrey.  (Not to be confused with
Wokingham which is, famously, the least mapped town in Berkshire).
Completion of Woking will be a big step towards completion of the whole of
the county, so we need a strong turnout.

The end of May is guaranteed to have good weather and Woking is a pleasant
and historic town that will be very enjoyable to map.  Quite a lot of it's
boring suburbs have already been done, while the center is virtually
untouched / so this is a good one for pedestrian mappers.  Access is great,
with frequent trains from London, Waterloo.

More details here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Woking_Mapping_Party

80n
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Idiot in area of Kielder Water

[80n]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Tom Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The username is Applewach not Applewatch.
>
> No it isn't... We have no user called Applewach in the database
> but we do have one called Applewatch, and that is who JOSM reports
> created that inventive addition to the UK motorway network.
>
> > The full extent of his handiwork can be got here:
> > http://www.informationfreeway.org/api/0.5/*[osm:user=Applewach]<http://www.informationfreeway.org/api/0.5/*%5Bosm:user=Applewach%5D>
>
> The only thing I can think is that the user changed their name
> and xapi has the old one still?
>

Generally xapi will have the username that was used at the time that the
edit was originally made.  This is all that's available in the Osmosis
feeds.

I suppose the username could be synchronised from a planet dump
occasionally.

Any chance of providing the user Id as well as the name?

80n



>
> Tom
>
> --
> Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> http://www.compton.nu/
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Idiot in area of Kielder Water

[80n]

Richard
The username is Applewach not Applewatch.

The full extent of his handiwork can be got here:
http://www.informationfreeway.org/api/0.5/*[osm:user=Applewach]

80n

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=55.4258&lon=-2.6179&zoom=12
>
> ...if anyone feels like reverting/deleting some, erm, "creative"
> editing by a user called Applewatch.
>
> Richard
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] When is a B road still a B road?

[80n]

I'd follow the golden rule and tag what is on the ground.  The fact that
some 50 year old map called it the B2032 doesn't help much if the LA have
decided not to bother maintaining signposts that also say this.

If its still a significant through route, but is consistently not signed as
a B road, then I'd probably mark it was tertiary in this case.  Possible
with a note (or old_ref tag) referring to its historical B status.

80n

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Andy Robinson (blackadder) <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'm sure others will have come across this issue. In Birmingham, many of
> the
> roads that appear as secondary in the out of copyright mapping
> (NPE/1:25000
> scales specifically) no longer appear on the ground. The road signs no
> longer favour the number but instead favour the named direction of the
> route. I suspect these roads are still secondary as far as the local
> authority internal referencing is concerned. But since the B numbers are
> no
> longer present on the signs should we continue to add them to the db, or
> is
> it justifiable to assume the designation exists from the out of copyright
> mapping alone?
>
> Anyone with similar observations?
>
> Cheers
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] North Surrey Pub Meet

[80n]

This is a reminder that we are having a pub meet in Woking tomorrow
evening.  This is open to anyone mapping in the North (or West) Surrey area,
or anywhere nearby.

The venue is the Sovereigns pub at 7pm.  More details here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/WikiProject_Surrey_England

There are only a handful of towns left to map in Surrey (Farnham, Camberley,
Caterham, Woking being the main ones) so one subject for discussion will be
how to get the county finished.

So if you are with reach of Woking please do come along tomorrow evening and
meet you neighbouring mappers.

Etienne
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Spring and summer UK countryside mapping parties

[80n]

Nick
March 29/30 is a definite No.  April 19/20 is a highly probable Yes.

Etienne

On Jan 4, 2008 2:31 PM, Nick Whitelegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Friday 04 Jan 2008 12:59, you wrote:
> > Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> > > 1. The Southwest Surrey Mapping Party, or "Fill The Gap III"
> (following
> > > on like to propose a mapping party to close that gap, pencilling in
> the
> > > weekend of April 5/6 (two weeks after Easter).
> >
> > I'd also prefer it to be a little later in the year, but could probably
> > take part.
>
> OK I'll suggest either March 29/30 (one week after Easter) or April 19/20
> (four weeks after Easter). Etienne - could you make the latter?
>
> Nick
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] [Party] Spring and summer UK countryside mapping parties

[80n]

Nick
The Southwest Surrey Mapping Party idea would work for me, but April 5/6
wouldn't.  That's the start of school holidays so I'll probably be away at
that time.

80n


On Jan 4, 2008 10:58 AM, Nick Whitelegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> Well, it's that time of year again I guess where our thoughts turn
> thoroughly
> to the upcoming spring and summer, and I'd like to suggest a couple of UK
> outdoors-orientated mapping parties.
>
> 1. The Southwest Surrey Mapping Party, or "Fill The Gap III" (following on
> from  Richmond and East Hants). At the moment there exists a gap of about
> 10
> miles between the SW London/Guildford well-mapped area and the
> Haslemere-Petersfield-Midhurst triangle (the original home of Freemap).
> I'd
> like to propose a mapping party to close that gap, pencilling in the
> weekend
> of April 5/6 (two weeks after Easter). Like the East Hants party this will
> be
> countryside orientated (foot/off-road bike/horse???), the aim is to try
> and
> complete as much of the footpath network along the
> Haslemere/Hindhead-Guildford axis as possible, but there will be scope for
> car drivers (e.g. Godalming, complete Haslemere). If this gap is filled we
> will have a swathe of good mapping stretching from London all the way down
> to
> the New Forest, almost 100 miles.
>
> 2. A mountain-area mapping party, following up to the Lake District party
> last
> July,  I'd like to suggest a couple of options:
>
> * either return to the Lake District and cover the west side
> (Wasdale/Scafell
> Pike/Great Gable/Buttermere, etc - currently not mapped at all),
> * central Snowdonia. Some Snowdon paths are mapped but there's still
> plenty of
> gaps.
>
> Please let me know any preference (or other suggestions). This will be
> sometime between June 15-July 15, I want to avoid the school holidays as
> the
> Lake District was surprisingly (and pleasantly) quiet last year in early
> July
> so this seems to be a good time to go. More details when I know about work
> commitments.
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> ___
> party mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/party
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Piste Maps

[80n]

I've made a couple of false starts on piste maps.  I have an interest in
this but I'm not actively "leading" the project as I have far too many other
things that I'm also not doing.

Now would be a good time to get some fresh consensus on tagging as we
approach the European ski season.

Most maps are produced by the lift system operators and are copyrighted.
They are not exactly very accurate anyway and in some cases you can't even
tell which way is up (or down).

Riding straight down the leftmost and rightmost limit of each piste with a
GPS strapped to your arm is by far the most enjoyable way of gathering data
;)

80n

On 9/25/07, Thom Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There's a few things in the wiki about making piste maps, but the
> details seem to conflict on how things should be tagged etc. Does anyone
> know who's leading this project and what's going on with it?
>
> It would be good to try and get hold of some licence free maps to trace,
> it would surely be in the resort operators interest. Don't european
> countries have some more relaxed licensing on their map data?
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] ShoHo Mapping Party

[80n]

Gregory
You should be able to charge your PDA at T2000 any time during the day.
They will have someone (Estelle) there throughout.

The Lunch venue has not been finalised.  There's a couple of places nearby
that would be suitable, but I think we will rendezvous back at T2000 and
then decide.

See you tomorrow.

80n

On 9/7/07, Gregory Marler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Are we at the Transport2000 for lunch? or is the location undecided?
> I will probably be needing to charge my PDA quickly before I can go out
> again.
>
> On 9/7/07, 80n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This is a reminder that this weekend is the ShoHo mapping party.
> > There's also one in Ljubljana if that's more attractive to you.
> >
> > The ShoHo mapping party is covering the Shoreditch and Hoxton area of
> > London just to the east of the City.  If you live anywhere in the south-east
> > of England then it should be accessible.  If you've not already committed
> > you can still just turn up for either Saturday or Sunday or both days.
> >
> > The weather forecast for the weekend looks perfect - ideal mapping party
> > conditions.
> >
> > Our hosts tomorrow will be Transport 2000 who will be providing coffee
> > and internet access.  I don't think it's wi-fi so might be a good idea to
> > pack a cable if you are bringing a laptop.
> >
> > Looking forward to seeing you all there.
> >
> > Etienne
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
> >
> >
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] ShoHo Mapping Party

[80n]

This is a reminder that this weekend is the ShoHo mapping party.  There's
also one in Ljubljana if that's more attractive to you.

The ShoHo mapping party is covering the Shoreditch and Hoxton area of London
just to the east of the City.  If you live anywhere in the south-east of
England then it should be accessible.  If you've not already committed you
can still just turn up for either Saturday or Sunday or both days.

The weather forecast for the weekend looks perfect - ideal mapping party
conditions.

Our hosts tomorrow will be Transport 2000 who will be providing coffee and
internet access.  I don't think it's wi-fi so might be a good idea to pack a
cable if you are bringing a laptop.

Looking forward to seeing you all there.

Etienne
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] ShoHo Mapping Party

[80n]

This is a reminder about the ShoHo mapping party next weekend.  More details
here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/ShoHo_Mapping_Party

Our hosts on Saturday will be Transport 2000 who will be making the coffee
and providing internet access.  On Sunday the Pembury Tavern, a linux
friendly pub, will be the venue.

If you want to take part you can just turn up on either or both days.  If
you know you will be coming it would help with planning if you can add your
name to the wiki.

See you all next week.

Etienne

PS, if you can't make it to London there's also a mapping party in Ljubljana
next weekend which sounds much more exotic:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Ljubljana_Mapping_Party
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Hindhead Tunnel

[80n]

Jono
It was me.

Yes, it really was surveyed, on foot, up to the point where there road will
enter a tunnel (which hasn't been built yet).

The road in question will be a trunk road when its done, and it would be
nice for renderers to be able to show such roads in the appropriate colour
but with a dashed marking or something to mark it's status.

The under-construction tag is not very satisfactory and highlights a more
general problem.  How to make tags more extensible?  We know two things
about this road, firstly that it will be a trunk road, and secondly it is
currently under construction.  Since renderers should not be expected to
know about about tags that have not yet been invented, the under_constuction
tag is not a good solution.

I tagged it this way and left it like that, intending to come back to it
when I had some better ideas about how to do it right.

My current thoughts are that we need a tag like highway=construction which
can then be qualified with the ultimate class of the road if it is known,
producing highway=construction:trunk.  This would not get misinterpreted by
renderers or other clients but still provide all the information required.

Any other ideas or suggestions?

80n




On 8/28/07, Jonathan Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Does someone want to own up to mapping the northern Hindhead Tunnel
> approach? There's one issue with this being rendered, since neither
> Mapnik nor Osmarender appear to recognise "under construction" tags, but
> I'll deal with that on the main list.
>
> What I'm more concerned about is the sourcing of this info -- I can't
> see how it hasn't come from a copyrighted source, since the stretch in
> question hasn't been built, so it can't have been surveyed. However,
> it's a tiny stretch of road and will eventually be surveyed normally. Do
> people think I should I take this info out?
>
> Jono.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] ShoHo Mapping Party - September 8/9

[80n]

Did you miss the Richmond Mapping Party?  Well here's your chance to attend
another really well planned and exciting mapping party - this time on the
other side of London.

ShoHo, London's crucible of asymmetric hair and irony (according to Kitty
Empire of the Observer), is the venue for this mapping party.  Just to the
east of the city of London, the mapping party will cover Shoreditch and
Hoxton (ShoHo) and then spread north east towards Hackney Downs.

More details here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/ShoHo_Mapping_Party

Sign up, or be square.

80n
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] affixing a GPS to a dashboard

[80n]

A couple of red post-office issue elastic bands works for me.  Just wrap
them around the gps, it provides enough resistance to stop it sliding for
all but the most aggressive manoeuvres.

If you use velcro you would need to put the sticky side on both the dash and
the gps ;)

On 8/1/07, Steve Coast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That burning question - if you have a GPS and a dashboard which lets
> it slide off when you turn a corner - what do you do?
>
> I've tried velcro and it doesn't stick super well. But I'm not sure
> which side of the velcro I should put on the dash and which on the GPS.
>
> Maybe blu tak?
>
> have fun,
>
> SteveC | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.asklater.com/steve/
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Transport2000 (Volunteers in/near Central London needed)

[80n]

Folks
The nice people at Transport 2000 recently agreed to act as a charitable
conduit for donations.  This means that anyone who wants to give a
significant sum of money to OSMF ( typically >£1,000) can obtain tax relief
by donating it via Transport 2000.  Transport 2000 are a registered charity
and so donations via them are more tax efficient.  Contact me in the first
instance if you want to make use of this facility.

During the course of discussions with them they saw the benefit of using an
OSM map on their web-site, which they are currently in the process of
revamping.

Unfortunately the area where their offices are (to the north east of Old
Street) is not very complete.  Are there any active OSMers in that area that
might like to have a go at making it more complete?  There's good Yahoo
imagery for the area for those who don't live near by, or someone could
organise a mapping party and get the Transport 2000 people involved.

80n


-- Forwarded message --
From: Estelle Taylor
Date: Jul 25, 2007 2:46 PM

Hi guys,

As you may recall, we're working on launching a new website. I'd like to
snip a map from Open Street Map to show users where our offices are – and
help promote your work. However, the map is incomplete! Is our part of town
a part you might consider completing? As it stands now, it's too incomplete
to use on our site.



Estelle





--

Estelle Taylor,

Communications Director



Transport 2000: Putting people and the environment first



The Impact Centre, 12-18 Hoxton Street, London N1 6NG



Telephone: 020 7613 7720



VOTE FOR US! If you are a Co-operative Bank customer, please vote for us in
the bank's Charity Vote. More votes mean more funding from the bank. Please
vote today: http://survey.cooperativecampaigns.co.uk/charityvote/





This e-mail and any attachments with it are intended for the addressee only
and not for wider distribution. They may be confidential and may be the
subject of legal and/or professional privilege. If you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify the sender. The content may be personal or
contain personal opinions and cannot necessarily be taken as an expression
of Transport 2000's position. Whilst every care has been taken to check this
outgoing e-mail for viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to
carry out any checks upon arrival. Transport 2000 cannot be held responsible
for any damage caused in this way.





-Original Message-
From: Peter Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19 March 2007 10:12
To: 'SteveC'; '80n'
Cc: Estelle Taylor; Jason Torrance; Dominic Geyer
Subject: OpenStreetMap/Transport2000 meeting followup







Steve/Etienne



I hope you found the meeting at Transport 2000 on the 6th useful. I was

certainly impressed with the clarity of your presentation, and the progress

the project has been making recently.



Can I suggest that I now leave it with you to discuss directly with T2000

the possibility setting up a charitable conduit and any changes you would

need to make internally for that to be possible, (it is my understanding

that the requirements are modest).



As I mentioned at the meeting I am happy to support OSM with a personal

donation of £6K once the conduit has been established. I think you could

also expect to find that other grant making bodies might be interested in

supporting your project once this conduit is established. I have spoken to a

couple already who seemed positive.



I have copied this email to Estelle Taylor (who attended the meeting), Jason

Torrance (who had hoped to have attended the meeting), and Domenic Geyer,

who is their fund-raising specialist.









Regards,









Peter
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Proposal - Natural:cave

[80n]

On 7/7/07, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Hello mappers!
I would like to propose a feature natural:cave i went to cheddar gorge
recently and found many natural caves and would like to mark them on
the map. I have been told i need to add the proposal onto the wiki,
but i would firstly like to know if i should be marking a cave as
something else (an existing tag).



James, you don't actually *need* to do anything.  You can tag them in
whatever way suits you.  However, the nice sociable thing to do is to put up
a map features proposal and, if its a well thought out proposal, then others
will most likely adopt it.

So go ahead with tagging them and put up a proposal on the wiki - I don't
think there is anything there already (without looking).

We need caves ;)
80n

Kind regards,


James

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Out-of-copyright maps

[80n]

On 7/5/07, Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Interesting addition to the wiki page on ooc OS maps:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Out-of-copyright_maps&diff=39120&oldid=28711

The contributor is basically asserting that if a map was published
1954 and revised 1959, it goes out of copyright at the end of 1954,



1954 + 50 != 1954


_not_ the end of 1959 (which is what I'd thought previously).


Anyone with further knowledge of this?

cheers
Richard


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] The Fill The Gap Mapping Party - Richmond

[80n]

Gregory
Your help would be very welcome.  We can make up a poster similar to this (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Image:Poster002.jpg) that you could
take round to local museums, etc.

I just started the publicity process, by sending out some press releases
(copy attached if you can use it).  The result so far is:
http://www.richmond-online.co.uk.

BTW Off-cake is OK :)

80n

On 5/26/07, Gregory/LastGrape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Wow, forgot OSM was coming to me so soon.

I live west of the river so was thinking of doing the unmapped areas
there. Fulwell/Twickenham heading towards Richmond seem good. Think I will
put a note on the wiki in case someone wants to do off-cake too we can avoid
crashing while looking at our GPSr not the road!

It looks like I can't do Sunday but probably can turn up for the evening
meet.
Is there any reccy/promotion work that I may be able to help with, like go
to the local museums and see if they're interested? It seems like it could
be good for getting people involved and result in the M25 later being
completed. (most of the areas round Richmond have the minor roads missing)

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Richmond-on-Thames

Gregory.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb



FillTheGapMappingParty.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] The Fill The Gap Mapping Party - Richmond

[80n]

Folks
It's now just 3 weeks until the Fill The Gap mapping party in Richmond.

I've just put up the cake image for the area on the wiki page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Richmond-on-Thames

If you are already signed up and fancy a particular slice then please bag it
by adding your name against the appropriate area - first come first served.

The venue has been confirmed as the Inn at Kew Gardens which is a nice quiet
bar with good food, good beer and free WiFi.  It should be ideally suited
for our needs.  They will be providing coffee and hot bacon sandwiches at
the kick-off on Saturday morning to get us off to a good start for the
weekend.

Etienne
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Guildford evening meet this week?

[80n]

Or the Britannia?
http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/11/110/Britannia/Guildford

On 5/16/07, Jonathan Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> Jonathan, (Steve?) - do you know any good drinking venues?

The Three Pigeons on the High Street is probably a good bet -- central
location and apparently the beer selection's not bad these days. Plus I
think we stand a good chance of being able to have a conversation.

OSM Node ID: 29165729

http://www.openstreetmap.org/index.html?mlat=51.236225&mlon=-0.571037&zoom=16


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Guildford evening meet this week?

[80n]

Nick
Not sure if I can do it yet - I'll try.

Etienne

On 5/15/07, Nick Whitelegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


>pub on the 22nd worksforme

Sounds good. Etienne - are you able to make this?

Bizarre coincidence: all "Southern England" pub meets have fallen on the
22nd of a month prior to an equinox/solstice so far (following the
Southampton pub meets of 22/8/06 and 22/2/07)

Depending on weather I will probably arrive at either 2-3pm and do a bit
of countryside mapping, or 5-6pm and do some bits of the town to the east
if anyone is up for that.

Nick


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Guildford evening meet this week?

[80n]

Nick
I'd love to be able to - but I'm out of town all this week.

I believe there is somebody mapping in the Guildford area at the moment so
maybe they will be up for it.

Etienne

On 5/13/07, Nick Whitelegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



As it looks like it will stop being November and return to being May this
coming week and my work arrangements become more flexible for the summer,
I
might pop over to Guildford area on Wednesday or Thursday to try and
complete
the countryside mapping between Guildford and Newlands Corner.

I might then do some odd stuff in the town in the evening, so if anyone
wants
to meet for mapping/drink let me know.

Nick

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] OT: Rights to cycle on the road are in jeopardy! (Sign the e-Petition)

[80n]

Forwarded message from CTC below.

Your right to ride on the road is in jeopardy.
*The revised Highway Code says cyclists should "use cycle facilities
where possible" The implications of this are too bad to contemplate.
First we will suffer more abuse and intimidating driving, as recently
suffered by a local CTC member. Second, if a cyclist is involved in an
accident and tries to claim damages, the insurance companies are likely
to argue that the rider contributed to the accident by not using the
cycle facility.

The Highway Code has been laid before parliament. It will
automatically be approved unless it is referred to a House of Commons
Committee which cannot amend it and can only recommend the whole
document be rejected. It will take an unprecedented amount of adverse
publicity to persuade the government to reject the Highway Code in its
entirety.

The CTC HQ Campaign team are working hard to find some way of achieving this
and will obviously require national support.
Meanwhile HQ says it will do no harm to support the petition which is at
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/


It is interesting to note that 35 MP's objected to the original revised
wording. Unfortunately, the replacement wording is no better.

Only 11,000 objections were received to the previous wording. There are
over 50, 000 in the CTC alone who should now be objecting.

f this Highway Code is approved by government cyclists will effectively
lose the right to ride on the road where there are alternative routes or
adjacent facilities.

Please register your name on the petition and persuade others to do the
same.

__,_._,___
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Is slightly hacky data better than no data?

[80n]

Jonathan
As others have said, go for it.

I just want to add that stepwise refinement is the very nature of OSM data.
Things can start off very rough indeed, but as better data and more
information comes along it can get incrementally improved.  Furthermore,
correct topology is much more important, IMHO), than 2cm or even 200m
lat/lon precision.

Oh, and good work in the Guildford area.  I've been slowly contributing just
to the north of Guildford in the Woking / Wisley / Riply area.  It's nice to
see an adjacent area getting done.

80n


On 4/24/07, Jonathan Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


In Guildford, there's a small gap in one of the railway lines running
through the town:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/index.html?lat=51.234683&lon=-0.577344&zoom=14

If I use the NPE maps to trace the route, the GPX I get is 20 or so
metres out compared with the existing OSM data, even with calibration,
but the shape of the way is spot on. Is using JOSM to shift the way into
the "right" place better than leaving the gap? Getting a GPS trace is
going to be difficult, since that section of the line is in a cutting.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb