date:20200609

Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD

2020-06-09 Per discussione Phil Wyatt

Thanks  Mikel,

Johns talk from 2014 is great for a backgrounder on the ID project. Well worth 
watching and all the comments are equally true today as they were back in 2014.

Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: Mikel Maron  
Sent: Wednesday, 10 June 2020 4:56 AM
To: talk@openstreetmap.org; nd...@redhazel.co.uk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD

> Who owns the iD project now? What's happened after "nearly all of the 
> original authors left Mapbox", has the project ownership been transferred 
> from Mapbox to OSMF, or perhaps to current maintainers? Does Mapbox still 
> retain the ownership rights to the project (even if they don't currently care 
> about them)?

Ownership is a nebulous concept here. The original repo was hosted by RichardF 
under https://github.com/systemed/, and now is at 
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD. 

Mapbox employees contributed under open source licensing terms, and have 
certainly been keenly involved in setting the initial project concept and 
direction. That was all done with a lot of intention within the OSM community. 
Launch blog from that time 
https://blog.mapbox.com/new-map-editor-launches-on-openstreetmap-org-13956033d0c9.

And John Firebaugh's talk at OSM US 2014 is a great perspective on Mapbox's 
approach (and what it takes to do software development in OSM) 
https://2014.stateofthemap.us/session/implementing-change-in-openstreetmap/

Mapbox continued to support the development of iD with developer time, but not 
with a posture of setting direction as a company. The desire for Mapbox was and 
continues to be that iD continues to serve its purpose to provide a great 
mapping experience in OSM. 

So Mapbox never "owned" iD, and it's unclear if you can assign that concept. If 
you had to say who owns it, then it is OpenStreetMap, and that yes OSMF has the 
responsibility to make sure it has a healthy development and community 
environment.

-Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron

On Tuesday, June 9, 2020, 12:06:21 PM EDT,  wrote: 

On 09/06/2020 16:00, Simon Poole wrote:
> Nearly all of the original authors left Mapbox a long time ago, nobody 
> working on it today is an "original author". The grant that Mapbox 
> received at the time was clearly instrumental in allowing them to 
> start growing the company to its current size, so while we are 
> obviously thankful for the support that Mapbox has provided over the 
> years, it was clearly a win-win situation.

Who owns the iD project now? What's happened after "nearly all of the original 
authors left Mapbox", has the project ownership been transferred from Mapbox to 
OSMF, or perhaps to current maintainers? Does Mapbox still retain the ownership 
rights to the project (even if they don't currently care about them)?

The code license is very permissive so there is always an option of starting a 
new project based on it (forking). But the license and ownership of the project 
are not the same thing.

> Many would have argued that the OSMF should have received the half a 
> million dollars  and contracted the work out, maybe to Mapbox, but in 
> any case just because what actually happened was slightly different, 
> doesn't mean that the OSMF and the OSM community gave whoever happens 
> to be working on iD the licence to control the projects destiny forever.

Not saying that this shouldn't be the case, but clearly it wasn't, at least 
initially. And if it isn't ours we can't simply take it, even if we really, 
really want it.

From my point of view - I am happy with the current project governance. 
It works well for iD, it works well for the OSM community. Controversies are 
all around minor issues and contributions - basically saying that the 
maintainers are doing their job.

Ndrw

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] type de rivière pour la bièvre

2020-06-09 Per discussione Francois Gouget

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020, Brice wrote:
[...]
> Concernant la partie la plus en aval, la Bièvre entre dans le réseau des 
> égouts de Paris. J'ai récemment dessiné cette partie aval en choisissant 
> au mieux des tronçons d’égouts (pipeline) pour avoir la continuité 
> jusqu'à la Seine.

Le tracé n'est pas top non plus en banlieue (à part quelques bouts 
à Cachan et L'Haÿ-les-Roses où elle est découverte). Si quelqu'un a des 
sources pour l'affiner...

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/652551012 (voir rue du Fief des Arcs)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/652551011
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/338187373 (voir rue de la Cosarde)

-- 
Francois Gouget   http://fgouget.free.fr/
 f u kn rd ts, ur wy 2 gky 4 ur wn gd.___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [Talk-it-southtyrol] Aggiornamento civici Völs am Schlern

2020-06-09 Per discussione heimlikloh

Ciao,

non è solo Völs che deve essere controllato/aggiornato.
Sono altre comune che hanno cambiato numeri civici dopo l' import di 2014.
Hanno anche costruiti un paio di case nuove.

Una altra domanda è anche se fa senso mantenere "addr:city" e
"addr:postcode" perché si può prendere dalla relation.
"boundary=administrative" esiste già tanti anni e le relations per il
codice postale ho fatto qualche tempo fa.

Sulle cartelli stradali i nomi sono scritti sempre come
"A.-Einstein-Straße", "H.-Mumelter-Weg", "St.-Anton-Straße" etc. e per
quello preferisco usare la regola "on the ground".
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=46.470867=11.316853=17=photo=MceTFeAYSZKs7uYqVk2slg=0.20815212855782206=0.4139728179407614=1.4940831224494844
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=46.469=11.32259=17=photo=-kxF_06LOkRA4sbm3Wnyrw=0.25657639132942656=0.5099465362544667=1.2307692307692308
Per "Albert-Einstein-Straße", "Hubert-Mumelter-Weg",
"Herbert-Mumelter-Weg", "Sankt-Anton-Straße", etc. si può usare
"addr:official_street="
Se sul cartello è scritto solo "H.-Mumelter-Weg", non serve
"addr:street:de", "addr:street:it" e/o "addr:street:lld".

In Südtirol si usa ß per Straße/Schießstand/ etc. e anche ä ö ü.
Ma possono esistere anche nomi come "Schloss" e "Schloß". Nuova
ortografia o vecchia ortografia. Dipende da quanto tempo esiste il nome.

Anche "via" in "addr:street" e "addr:street:it" secondo me si deve
scrivere in minuscolo come in tutto l'Italia.

Per le lettere nel numero, preferisco la scrittura 21/A.
Ma la scrittura sulle cartelli cambia da una comune al altra.
In Völs si usa 21a uguale come in Bruneck.
In Brixen si usa 21/A
In Bozen si usa 21A
Ho visto posti dove esistono 21/5, 21/6, 21/7 etc. e per quello penso
che fa senso usare "/"

È meglio usare una variante uguale per tutta la regione o tutto l'Italia.

Se fate anche le altre comuni su audit.osmz.ru, posso dare una occhiata.

Non sono su talk-it e per quello ti prego di scrivere qualche update
anche qui su talk-it-southtyrol

grazie
luschi

08.06.2020, 18:14

Ciao ML,

è stata segnalata su talk-it una richiesta [1] per l'aggiornamento dei
numeri civici del comune di Völs am Schlern - Fiè allo Sciliar.

Qui [2] trovate una mappa preliminare per la conflation.

Alcune operazioni che saranno inserite a breve nella mappa prelimiare:
- togliere barra e portare a minuscolo, per esempio 21/A >> 21a
- modificare nei tag addr:street e addr:street:it la stringa Fie' >> Fiè
- espandere (anche nella highway) il nome "H.-Mumelter-Weg" >>
"Hubert"; a questo proposito la notazione con "-" resta
("Hubert-Mumelter-Weg")? "Weg" va portato in minuscolo ("weg")?

81 matches

Mail list logo