Re: [talk-au] Plea to Australian decliners
On 31 March 2012 01:54, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: Australian Decliners, As a mapper, contributor and member of the project's sysadmin team I kindly ask you to please reconsider your declined status. Time is about to run out. You and others didn't care about us, told us to go away as we were insignificant and our issue were unimportant and now you come begging for us to reconsider. Perhaps the whole license issue should be reconsidered, after all you are the one throwing out the baby with the bath water, you are choosing to do this, not us, perhaps you should choose to call the whole thing off. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] There is no copyright on way tags like street names
On 28 December 2011 18:52, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: Some reasons that I think it'd be risky to use that fact that there's no copyright in some tags are: * copyright works this way in many jurisdictions but in other jurisdictions the creativity factor is less important and the amount of work put into collection of data (sweat of the brow) is more According to the legal advice Ed Avis went and got, the creativity bar is pretty low when it comes to maps, not just sweat of the brow... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The detrimental effects of database
On 24 November 2011 05:09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: But I think that the specific example under discussion here actually falls short of even this lowered bar. It is quite possible for me to grab a whole Way in JOSM and move it one metre to the left (which makes me the last editor of, potentially, hundreds of untagged nodes). I don't think that this Which would be derived from cc-by-sa, so it'd still be under copyright. action would nullify the rights of the original contributor of the way, and Perhaps you should test this theory by copying content from wikipedia, indenting it to the left one metre. Also placement of nodes aren't a fact, they are an interpretation of facts. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On 31 October 2011 14:44, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Are you suggesting that data.gov.au aren't aware of their own license terms or that they are acting outside of their terms? What evidence to you provide to support your accusations? A non-trivial amount of data is listed as crown copyright or proprietary licensed, neither of which is compatible with the ODBL or the CT even if you do attribute. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On 31 October 2011 12:30, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: I think that data.gov.au can be taken at their word and that they have a clear understanding of which rights they may or may not grant. They're a clearing house, nothing more, and don't own any of the content. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On 31 October 2011 13:10, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: And still, they'd know what they may and may not permit. You haven't dealt with government plebs much have you? They are one of the most unpleasant races in the galaxy. Not actually evil, but bad-tempered, bureaucratic, officious, and callous. They wouldn't even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from the ravenous Bug-Blatter Beast of Traal without orders signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, lost, found, queried, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighter. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On 25 September 2011 15:58, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: Secondly, With the greatest respect to the user concerned, who has been a great contributor to OSM, I don't think we need necessarily respect his wishes. We need to look a bit more carefully at this area to see if anything has happened between the data source and OSM which could possibly be considered creative or original, or if it is just a pure data translation. The data imported was cc-by-sa at the time, you can't just strip that license condition out, you'd have to reimport otherwise you'd be in breach of the original condition placed on the person importing. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 8 September 2011 10:48, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote: Quoting Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com: I'm sure we are interested in the history of the development of the road network, but I'm not sure our database is the place for the information right now. For those interested, a partial history of the development of Highway 1 is at Ozroads: http://www.ozroads.com.au/NationalSystem/highway1.htm Ian seems to have a particular liking for the Princes Highway... http://www.ozroads.com.au/NSW/Highways/Princes/princes.htm ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 7 September 2011 16:31, Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote: The Princes Highway is an historical curiosity, and internal name management name assigned by the NSW roads authority, and the name of a bunch of roads between Sydney and Adelaide. It isn't a route any longer. It's still a series of non-contiguous sections that is named, these sections belong as part of a route. I'm sure people say they are going to drive the Princes Highway from Sydney to Melbourne, but you can never pin it down to actual set of roads. They just mean they are driving down the coast, as opposed to the Hume. It is a useful turn of phrase, but it is a mapping anachronism. The majority of the route, distance wise, would still exist as it has for a long time. As I said, I'll leave it be, but the chance that this will be developed into something meaningful, is zip. That's a very subjective thing to say, you claim it has no value, others have obviously disagreed, the main thing to take into account is what actual harm does it do to the map to exist as a relation, I say none, so far your suggested examples of harm are imho wrong also since the way should take precedence over any relation, this way you can give streets local names and the route sharing the same physical way can be shown where there no longer is a local route needing to be shown. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 7 September 2011 15:49, Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote: I write I just have something against this relation, because it is arbitrary and confusing and you write So your entire argument is that we should delete the whole route because it isn't contiguous? Most routes are arbitrary and confusing, you only have to look at rural/regional highways going through medium sized towns, this goes doubly so for tourism routes and is again a very good reason for having routes, rather than removing them. If that was my entire argument, I'd just say that, but instead of that I said that it is arbitrary and confusing. Arbitrary because there is no touchstone of verifiability, it is just each person opinion. Confusing, The problem usually stems from differences at how the way is gazetted to how the way is actually built, and for what ever reason the gazetted version then isn't updated is another argument altogether. because it is both a road name and a route, and it is impossible for them both to align. If this gets into a satnav which recommends you continue on the Princes Highway route, while actually turning off the Princes Highway road - what a mess. Why do we seek this? Way names are supposed to have preference, and if you are talking about local routes that differ in name this shouldn't be an issue and is one of the reasons to put highway names into routes. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 7 September 2011 15:19, Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote: Nah, that is all good to me. I've got nothing against relations. Nothing against routes. Nothing against multiple relations and multiple routes. In fact, I'd have nothing against a parent relation that linked the sections of the National Route 1 and the diversionary highway routes, like State Highway 60 - at least that is well defined. I just have something against this relation, because it is arbitrary and confusing. So your entire argument is that we should delete the whole route because it isn't contiguous? Most, if not all routes won't be contiguous, Ross pointed this out the other day but there is often on/off ramps, roads going from dual to single carriage way and back again, then you also have roundabouts, there is all sorts of reasons why gaps exists, but that is even more reason to have routes for them, so that the bits that are named Princess Highway can be tagged as such, and if bits are included that shouldn't be then remove the bits not the entire route. I really think verifiability is the key for routes, if we start adding stuff to the map that isn't on the ground or can't be verified... That may be a goal, but it doesn't mean it should be the only one, the process of mapping is one of going from some information to better information, and this is a continual process as things change over time, not just the fact that better sources of data can be mapped from. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Charleville, Qld survey suggestions sought
On 7 September 2011 13:09, Christopher Barham cbar...@pobox.com wrote: Hi, I'm in Charleville, Qld for a couple of days with an iPhone, a garmin oregon GPS and, from tomorrow, a vehicle. The place is pretty much unsurveyed, but the DCDB has been used to add streets so the road geometry is ok. Will do what I can (street names etc) , but I wondered if there is anything you guys could suggest would benefit from a survey around and about... maybe further out from the town itself? If memory serves correctly there is a weather museum/attraction at Charleville, at a guess it'd be near the airport. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Contribution review??
On 6 September 2011 13:26, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: Nearmap is no longer an acceptable source for OSM, since they do not allow traces from their imagery to be re-licensed. I notice at least one of your edits sourced nearmap, and that isn't allowed any more. If you were using Potlatch, perhaps you were using bing and didn't notice it? If you think Nearmap is a valuable resource for mapping from, you are still welcome to use it when contributing to fosm.org, as Nearmap didn't change the license, OSM did. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 6 September 2011 12:50, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: This document tells which roads are RTA funded, and which are local roads, and does have a Princes Hwy route for the purposes of funding. However, I really believe we should stick to mapping what is on the ground, else we are going to run into trouble. Noting as well, that the document doesn't accurately define the route any more than the suburbs it runs through. You better start deleting the routes in the US as well then, because they often have 2 routes for each interstate per state... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 6 September 2011 12:20, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: According to Wikipedia, it should extend all the way from Adelaide to Sydney: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_Highway If memory serves correctly, it changes name through Melbourne. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 6 September 2011 07:13, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote: In general I think it is common that a highway has a different name when it goes through a town. Here the route continues, and will often be signposted with the route number. I'm not sure if that is the case for every road in this relation though. In the case of the princess highway it's also highway number one which circumnavigates Australia and changes name as it goes. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 7 September 2011 12:27, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: Princes Highway is part of route 1. This isn't helpful. National Route 1 and the Princes Hwy diverge at many points. National Route 1 follows the Southern Freeway south from Sydney for a start. So what, how does that make routes less useful, if anything that makes them more useful since you can follow the route instead of particular highways. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] How to start to remove non-CT compliant data..
On 3 September 2011 19:12, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: This is really the wrong list for this discussion, but as I've pointed out before there are further minor points that would have to be considered, for example voting rights on future license changes. Obviously you could simply assume that all PD contributors don't care, I'm just not quite sure that this is really the case. It is clearly the easier, pragmatic and sensible thing to do to simply accept the CTs. Hardly, the easier, pragmatic and sensible thing to do is just use CC-by-SA then you don't need to try and get everyone to agree to horrible terms... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to start to remove non-CT compliant data..
On 3 September 2011 14:03, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: be difficult to prove. Since 1) the defense is strong, 2) the harm is minimal, 3) cooperation is full, you should expect absolutely nobody to sue the OSMF for infringement of works which are supposedly PD or CT but not really. The position taken over PD seems contradictory to other opinions given over the CTs as well, specifically how minors and others aren't allowed to enter into contracts directly: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/Open_Issues#Legal_Capacity ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Adopt a PD-Mapper ....... was Re: Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD
On 1 September 2011 18:25, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Obviously I would clearly prefer that the mappers in question simply discover some pragmatism and get over any issues they may have with the OSMF. That's an interesting spin on things, wouldn't the pragmatic approach be for OSM-F to work with CC to come up with a CC-by-SA license that is deemed more suitable? Not that I see anything wrong with the current license, in fact the whole exercise seems like a knee jerk reaction because some think something must be done. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to start to remove non-CT compliant data..
On 31 August 2011 17:06, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: - ignore trolling by JohnSmith Funny way to ignore someone, in any case here's at least one particular example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aharvey/diary/14416 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to start to remove non-CT compliant data..
On 31 August 2011 10:19, Ian Sergeant iserg...@hih.com.au wrote: I think the strategy to remove all non-CT compliant data in one big bang is What about the people that agreed to the CTs that had data compatible with the current license, cc-by-sa ? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How to start to remove non-CT compliant data..
On 31 August 2011 15:43, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: John Smith writes: On 31 August 2011 10:19, Ian Sergeant iserg...@hih.com.au wrote: I think the strategy to remove all non-CT compliant data in one big bang is What about the people that agreed to the CTs that had data compatible with the current license, cc-by-sa ? What about the people who didn't agree to the CT, but whose data is in the public domain? Exactly, accepting or not accepting the CT might be a suitable indicator for the majority of mappers, but it won't tell you if the data is suitable for relicensing, lots of people have been told they can accept the CTs because they allow for accepting the current license. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees
On 25 August 2011 19:15, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Hasn't it happened in the past that large numbers of Cloudmade employees have joined the OSMF? That didn't cause the organization to be somehow subverted, and neither will people who work for Skobbler (or Microsoft, or whoever). In the past OSM-F was merely supporting OSM contributors, now that they've decided to own the database things are some what different, and OSM-F has set itself up as a target. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees
On 25 August 2011 22:26, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com writes: This was completely easy in the past, but is it realistic to keep OSMF relatively unimportant if it is rights holder for all the data? It might be better to spin off a separate organization which is the rights holder, separate from the less contentious OSMF functions like providing funding to keep the servers running or organizing SoTM. Wouldn't spreading resources thinner only make it easier for someone with enough money and other resources to game the system? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sister Projects / possible data source
On 8 August 2011 07:46, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: As I remember it from previous discussions, wifi locations are somewhat transient for OSM. Cell tower locations are likely from government databases are they not? Google etc estimate location of towers by using data handsets expose. Given that this would be a 'complete' dataset from another source, why duplicate (and eventually synchronize) it with OSM, when it should be possible to display them together in a mash up? If there is GPS data involved that might be more useful than the tower estimations etc. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] shortened names
On 29 July 2011 14:22, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 July 2011 21:52, Brian Quinion openstreet...@brian.quinion.co.uk wrote: Now that said I don't really care which tag is used for the 'full' name. I'd personally prefer the name tag was used for this because it has always been the policy of OSM that the name tag includes the full unabbreviated name. Really - this has been one of the few points of (until recent conversation) agreement. The argument here is what the full unabbreviated name is. You seem to think it is Saint Albans. The town says it is St Albans. It's their name, we shouldn't mess with it. The St in this case is *not* an abbreviation, it's an alternate spelling. The name tag should have the official name, not some expanded version because it's easier for us. I would add Saint Albans as an alt_name. This is bound to end up in edit wars if people insist on telling locals that the name of their town is wrong. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] shortened names
On 27 July 2011 20:01, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: (I'm only talking about the UK, of course, and in fact this discussion would be better on talk-gb.) The person that started this thread is in New Zealand... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] shortened names
On 27 July 2011 20:50, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: While St Albans isn't big enough to feature in the list in this document, it does have St. Helens (sic). Why the period? The district council's website The period after St. is the correct way in English to abbreviate Saint, where as the abbreviation of street doesn't have a period. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] shortened names
On 27 July 2011 21:21, Paul Jaggard p...@jaggard.net wrote: From: John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com The period after St. is the correct way in English to abbreviate Saint, where as the abbreviation of street doesn't have a period. Exactly the opposite according to my (Collins) dictionary: st abbrev. for short ton. St abbrev. for Saint. st. abbrev. for stanza, statute, (cricket) stumped by St. abbrev. for statute, Strait, Street Sta abbrev. for Saint (female). Isn't the first reference I was pointed to when this came up some time ago http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/St. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] shortened names
On 27 July 2011 21:48, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: Commonly abbreviated S. or St. ... Abbreviations: S. and St., pl. SS. and Sts. Since the 18th c. ‘St.’ is the form usually employed; but since about 1830 ‘S.’ has been favoured by ecclesiologists. In place-names, and in family names derived from these, only ‘St.’ is used [clearly not true!]. The other practice is dropping punctuation marks from signs... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] shortened names
On 27 July 2011 22:00, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: John Smith wrote: The period after St. is the correct way in English to abbreviate Saint, where as the abbreviation of street doesn't have a period. Not in British English, it isn't. _Saint._ St or S. is better than St. for the abbreviation (see PERIOD IN ABBR.); Pl. Sts or SS. That's from Fowler's Modern English Usage, which is as close as there is to an authority in British English style. It seems 50/50, although even your reference basically says it's an acceptable practice, even if that publisher had a style preference that was different. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Help Planet.osm.bz2 import error.
On 14 July 2011 00:49, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: No. That patch is for osm2pgsql-64 (with its support for 64bit IDs). Saphy Mo is running a plain old (more than 12 months old) 32-bit-id osm2pgsql on a Windows system. You yourself said that the 32bit version can crash if a way ends up in pending ways with nodes that have large ID numbers. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Help Planet.osm.bz2 import error.
On 14 July 2011 10:11, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 July 2011 00:49, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: No. That patch is for osm2pgsql-64 (with its support for 64bit IDs). Saphy Mo is running a plain old (more than 12 months old) 32-bit-id osm2pgsql on a Windows system. You yourself said that the 32bit version can crash if a way ends up in pending ways with nodes that have large ID numbers. AFAIK there is nothing that prevents node IDs causing an out of memory error, other than the fact that OSM for now has small ID numbers, Anthony's patch just checks to see how much memory is available and prevents osm2pgsql from using a memory cache if the memory is going to be exceeded. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A case for CT + CC-BY-SA
On 24 July 2011 02:11, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: So do I suggest to stop the license change process? No, I don't. The Contributor Terms will solve many problems on their own, so my suggestion is what could be labelled CT + CC-BY-SA. This will cause similar/same problems as CT+ODBL, which stops the benefits from sharing a like and being able to take changes that others have made and include them unless they agree to the CT, already you see this with people saying their changes are public domain so the data isn't wasted, but absolutely will never agree to the CTs. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Help Planet.osm.bz2 import error.
On 13 July 2011 23:15, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: Can someone help this person out? You might be hitting a memory limit, even though it's running on a 64 bit system it seems to be compiled on a 32 bit system, Anthony posted a patch to prevent exactly this sort of problem... http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2011-June/023002.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing
On 11 July 2011 19:55, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can upload to OSM. All we have is SteveC's word that this is what happened, to the best of my knowledge Bing themselves near released anything definitive on their own website. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au
On 11 July 2011 22:58, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: (Mind you, the new license doesn't seem to keep the Brits from drawing on attribution-only sources released by *their* government but maybe the law is stricter down under?) SteveC implied that the talks with OS were more fruitful than they were with NearMap, either that is allowed or it isn't and people should be told to stop if it's not. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au
On 12 July 2011 02:30, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: SimonPoole wrote: there is a fair chance that either the data could be relicensed under CC-by (which might be compatible with the ODbL) Absolutely. The Australian government data is CC-BY already (I'm not sure where this idea it's CC-BY-SA comes from). Negotiating compatibility with ODbL need not be difficult. Unless you plan to enforce attribution as a minimum for produced works, how would ODBL be compatible? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au
On 12 July 2011 02:47, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: John Smith wrote: Unless you plan to enforce attribution as a minimum for produced works I'm not quite sure what I've done to deserve this Groundhog Day treatment and be condemned to relive the same mailing list postings again and again. 4.3 You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License So why are people still claiming tiles could be made available under PD/CC0 then? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 19:04, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: they don't have to be the same licence. That unambiguously works with ODbL (4.5a): whether it works with CC is a moot point because CC is unclear for data licensing, but it's likely that it does (after all, there are Well if you attempt to use data I've created under any license other than cc-by-sa I'd be happy to to file an injunction to finally answer how much copyright extends to map content creation. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 19:29, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: It's not using it under a licence other than CC-BY-SA. A Collective Database or Collective Work means that the ODbL part of it is under ODbL and the CC-BY-SA part is under CC-BY-SA. This is the very first clause (1a) of CC-BY-SA. In Australian legal terms, the two databases are underlying works and so retain their own rights. The two together are a compilation (albeit one that is so simple it doesn't attract any additional copyright in itself), and therefore users need permission of the rights-holders in the underlying works. This permission has already been granted in the two open content licences used: the Collective Work permission of CC-BY-SA and the Collective Database permission of ODbL. It's my understanding that CC-by-SA is only compatible with itself, and it's definitely not compatible with the ODBL because the ODBL doesn't require any sort of minimum attribution or share a like clause on produced works. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bing
On 11 July 2011 19:55, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can upload to OSM. All we have is SteveC's word that this is what happened, to the best of my knowledge Bing themselves near released anything definitive on their own website. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 20:05, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir maxi...@gmail.com wrote: What he's saying is there is no requirement under Australian Copyright law (or CC licence) for a whole compilation/database/document to have the same licence. It's the same way the Government can use Creative Commons for official documents but they exempt the Coat of Arms from that licence (because under Australian law, only officers of the Commonwealth can use the Coat of Arms and they use it to signify official documents/property). The CC licence calls a compilation of things a Collective Work and this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this Licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/au/legalcode Collective Works are not Derivative Works so this is okay! Then why was there such a big fuss made over Haiti edits should be PD so that the UN could mix the data with other datasets... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 20:53, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote: On 11/07/2011, at 8:47 PM, John Smith wrote: Then why was there such a big fuss made over Haiti edits should be PD so that the UN could mix the data with other datasets... Because they were mixing the datasets. If you do something like render tiles within the .au boundaries from one database, and render tiles from outside the boundaries from a different dataset, then it's fine. Most useful things you can do with the data can be split up like this, besides producing a combined database. Routing? There aren't any roads between us and other countries, and so on. One of the advantages of being a island :) But will the ODBL actual make the situation better or worst? It seems to make everything more complicated, not better. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 00:02, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Germany 90.1% Great Britain 89.1% France 96.8% North America 96.4% Russia 97.2% Australia 48.4% You didn't show Albania which has an even low acceptance rate, nor did you comment on the fact that several import accounts of large amounts of data are included in those numbers. Also the Australia figure is lower than that, the QldProtectedAreas should never have been imported with an account that had agreed with the CT. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 07:54, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Indeed, I was concentrating on the big guys. Albania isn't a big guy. Not sure what your point is about imports but neither GB nor Germany have particularly significant numbers of imports - the only major import we've ever had in Britain is a few counties' worth of bus-stops! It was my understanding people were importing OS data into GB? No matter what point I might make, you're going to read the From: line, see that it's from one of the ODbL guys, and argue against it. And yes, I'm sure some of us are guilty of that too. This is one of the points most people have continued to miss time and time again no matter how often I've said it, it's the methods being employed to try and get people to change is what I hate the most, lying by omission is very common, people aren't being given all the pertinent facts on the matter to make an actual judgment. I've spoken to one person since they've agreed and gave some of the cons and they were upset that they weren't informed better about the situation, they felt some what cheated how they were corralled into accepting, others have made similar comments in the last few days about their own experiences. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 08:16, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Can we not - both sides - agree to work on building up our own projects, and making them as attractive as possible to users old and new, rather than knocking the other one? But my comment before sets the scene for how OSM-F will look to future users, they will be seen as devious in the methods employed, rather than being seen as sticking to their moral guns. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 11:55, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: We looked around for all the people claiming that we've been ignoring them and can't actually find any posts by them on the legal lists or to the LWG for many of the people involved. Of course, with so many fake names being used it's hard to be sure they weren't raised under a different pseudonym. From what I've seen, the LWG took all of the concerns very seriously and spent an awful lot of time, on an individual basis, trying to resolve them. Nearmap of course being a good example. Nearmap is about the only example I can think of that was actually even attempted to be addressed, everyone else just got told to pester what ever government department to relicense under odbl, but even if we had that wouldn't have been compatible with the CTs. What difference does it make who the concerns come from if they are valid, this is your posts the other day all over again, you find something difficult to answer so you try to find ways to weasel out of answering them, which pretty much sums up most of the other concerns you've dismissed out of hand. I urge you to contrast and compare that with other countries/communities who also have derived from CC data or have imports that need relicensing and so on. Most of them have worked it out. What we're scratching our heads about is how -au is different. I think we've been thinking pretty hard and not come up with anything other than trolls taking over the sentiment of the community. You mean most of them have ended up agreeing to the changes regardless if they were able to or not, there is several imports that people went ahead with in good faith, such as QldProtectedAreas, that were given the impression that it was ok, however without major changes to the CTs this data isn't allowed to be imported unless you are planning to stay under a CC-by or CC-by-SA license. We could work on this imported data issue. Well, we have. We've asked multiple times for outlines of where the data is, who imported it and so on. To the best of my knowledge nobody has raised this substantially with the LWG, please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't attend every single meeting. We could work on making the LWG meetings more accessible to people in the -au timezone. Well, we have. Several times we've shifted the meeting hours (for example to speak with nearmap) and tried other ways to engage. or you could do better at dealing with them, rather than saying you will do something and hope people go away so you can quietly drop them later. We could spend time meeting in person. Well, we've tried a bit there though of course it's expensive and hard. The threat of violence hasn't made me want to come to -au despite having the means to do so, and we've made attempts to get people to come to SOTM. I must have missed the threats to you or anyone else involved, because the only previous mention was you expression concern over your safety, what changed in the last 3 days? We could work on making the mailing lists a better place to be. Well, we have. In fact we've approached people about moderating this list but one of them won't do it because - get this - the person fears for his job. They're worried that if they moderate this list the trolls will start phoning their employer. That's quite something. Clearly, things are very unhealthy. If you'd like to help moderate, please get in touch. We don't think an outsider should do it, or anyone who operates under a pseudonym or has been moderated off another list. Perhaps you should have better rules for everyone, because I have been threated to be dobbed into my employer to the point that I actually brought him up to speed on all the nonsense going on, and he turned round and asked me if I thought it was worth airing to newspapers but I felt it was a matter to be dealt with internally. Frankly Steve you really need to try harder on implying pen names mean something nefarious is going on other than openly outing your BS. Of course we're not perfect. But I think we can say we're trying, even with people who traditionally we no longer have time for or who have been moderated off the main lists. You can jump in and say what we should have done in 2009 or something, and I'm sure we made mistakes. But without being personal, and understanding that everyone is a volunteer, what would you do in my position that's reasonable to change things? I'm sure if it was rational we'd attempt it. You keep making the same mistakes, and of course nothing is being resolved because you stick your head in the sand and try and pretend it will just magically take care of itself, all you are achieving lately is showing how arrogant you can be and how poorly you can spin things. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 12:30, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: It's not worth my time responding to messages like this. I wrote a completely rational, neutral and open email outlining the things we've tried and asking for ideas of how to make it better. Yes and didn't respond to a single query, but of course politicans do the same thing, they change the question into something they can answer. If you write back that I'm just arrogant and put my head in the sand, even if you're right, all you're doing is making an ad hominem attack that's not worth responding to. Commenting on your perceived lack of action isn't an attack on you personally or your mother etc, no matter how much you'd like it to be, and you just confirmed my observations. [*] - With the caveat that because there are so many pseudonyms being used, it would both be helpful, pragmatic and a sign of respect if you guys would start to identify yourselves. Unfortunately it's become known that some are puppet accounts and we don't know which is which and who's just doing this for fun. For all you know every person on this list is using a pen name, it doesn't mean there is a person posting under multiple names although you wish someone ways so you could use it. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 12:42, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: On Jul 10, 2011, at 7:34 PM, John Smith wrote: On 11 July 2011 12:30, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: It's not worth my time responding to messages like this. I wrote a completely rational, neutral and open email outlining the things we've tried and asking for ideas of how to make it better. Yes and didn't respond to a single query, but of course politicans do the same thing, they change the question into something they can answer. I didn't, you are correct. I said I would however, if it was an email assuming good faith and free of personal attacks. This is common is western societies. Or at least polite societies :-) So you decide to make radical changes to the OSM community and then refuse to answer questions cause it upsets your delicate nature? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 14:53, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Can we make a list of real issues to be resolved and stick with them. There are some issues that wont be resolved, such as hurt feelings and lost trust. But we dont need to have a fight to the death over them. I'd like to know if OSM-F are planning to take the moral high ground or not, that is will they respect the wishes of content authors or not. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 15:09, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: Mark wrote Out of interest - the greatest contributor to Australia-Oceania according to http://odbl.de/australia-oceania.html is the accound used for the suburb boundary / postcode boundary import. Once this is excluded, does the figure for Australia improve a lot or only marginally? (Is there even an easy way to find out?) Hi Mark, Yes if we were to revert out the non compliant imports, the bot that just added the maxspeed tag on a HUGE number of ways, and also the maxspeed:source tag, and also revert out the bot that modified that last tag to be source:maxspeed, then the numbers may be completly different. That takes care of ways, but what about the 1.7million nodes attributed to me? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 15:19, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: That takes care of ways, but what about the 1.7million nodes attributed to me? Sorry, that was total objects, only a pitiful 437k nodes. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] missing messages
On 8 July 2011 16:18, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: It's been pointed out that I'm not replying to hundreds of messages from John Smith, Anthony and friends. I don't see them as they're automatically deleted. I find life is better without having the trolls fill my inbox. However, if I have missed any reasonable points in there then feel free to repost them, just don't put those guys email addresses in the to/from/cc fields... As usual, tuck your tail between your legs and run off, unwilling or unable to justify position, this is partially the reason for no faith in OSM-F, it has nothing to do with planes or time zones, not to mention all the BS we're currently being fed by out PM, I doubt even the OSM-F could even compete with her. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 16:16, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: That's why I prefer PD because I believe there is no protection and so why bother about licenses at all? Wouldn't it be great if we could all wish away inconvenient laws like that, however morality often drives laws and they tend seem to think map content is protected under copyright. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OT: artists and copyright (was Re: license change effect on un-tagged nodes)
On 7 July 2011 16:40, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: So artists have a human right to be rich? Glad you took my point so far out of context, someone claimed that copyright existed for economic reasons. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 16:58, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: While they started out wishing OSM to suffer the least possible damage, their ego now forces them to demand the most rigid - even absurd - data deletion policies for the license change lest they look like idiots for starting a fork in the first place. And what is it you wish by forcing bad terms into the CT just so OSM might be able to go PD in future, although some of those abilities have been lost in the process it would seem, you seem to be a firm believer in PD, why are you settling for second best all of a sudden? I guess the thought of excessive data loss was unpalatable after all. Needless to say, this interesting psychological situation is not a good basis for a rational argument. It seems the only one basing arguments on emotive language in this thread is yourself, glass houses and not throwing stones and all that. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] shortened names
On 7 July 2011 19:23, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org wrote: Yes, thats the consensus and has been for a long time. Some mappers always disagree, just ignore them. :-) +1 And in software, it is always easier to shorten a word than expanding an abbreviation. 'st' is for 'Saint' or for 'Street' ? In some cases, the official name is with the abbreviation, eg St. George Bank in Australia and there is a town named St. George. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] shortened names
On 7 July 2011 23:33, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: In some cases, the official name is with the abbreviation, eg St. George Bank in Australia and there is a town named St. George. Still you say Saint George, not S.T. George. Well you can ring up the bank/local government and tell them they're doing things wrong :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 21:49, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: But that doesn't mean that their content won't show up in a future ODBL map. I've noticed that John Smith doesn't want to answer my question, but perhaps you would: How far away do I have to move a node or a way so that you don't consider it yours (assuming that I would trace it from a legal imagery source or based on GPS tracks)? 50cm, 1m, 2m? More, less? How many words do I have to change in a short poem until the poem is no longer considered the original, but my own? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] shortened names
On 8 July 2011 13:59, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 July 2011 19:50, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 July 2011 23:33, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: In some cases, the official name is with the abbreviation, eg St. George Bank in Australia and there is a town named St. George. Still you say Saint George, not S.T. George. Well you can ring up the bank/local government and tell them they're doing things wrong :) They're not, they're using a shorthand in writing because it's.. shorter. :) And the signs they've had printed up etc? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 00:55, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: We've gone to insanely long lengths to make that the case, including getting clarifications from Ordnance Survey, Nearmap and many others. As far as I'm aware there are no remaining issues as to why you can't click 'accept'. He said he wanted to keep using Nearmap, Nearmap have said you can't... What clarification did you get from OS? I've not see anything definite posted... Not being a shareholder I can't influence them directly. As far as I'm aware, their issue is that they don't like the fact that we can change license later even though it's restricted to a free and open license. For What does free mean? What does open mean? all practical purposes I doubt we will ever change again unless and until CC release 4.0 which is mooted that it will contain provisions for data licensing. It's a simple balance between making sure the data remains open but also not going through this horrific license process again in the future if, for example, CC is suddenly better in 3-5 years time. What specifically does CC need to change in their current licenses to be more useful? It's my understanding that ODBL doesn't require produced work be attributed which makes all CC licenses (except CC0) incompatible as you would be breaking the chain of attribution. We could have drawn that line a bit more to one side and defined the license or we could have drawn it a bit the other way and said that every single contributor has to accept again. Either way there will be detractors. The LWG is a bunch of volunteers and they spent a ton of time making that judgement and whatever they chose it would be imperfect. The problem isn't just the new license or the CTs for that matter, it's how this were carried out, how our concerns were dismissed out of hand. I prefer the LWG making a careful decision to the opposite extreme of do whatever nearmap says (not that they ever made demands to my knowledge) as it would be short sighted to deflect the project for one company. Nearmap was merely a sign of bigger issues and problems that the LWG or anyone else pushing for change didn't deal with properly and still haven't otherwise you wouldn't be trying to claim to be the victim here. If you look at Bing on the other hand, I believe we're entirely happy giving imagery derivation rights under the future direction outlined above. So, I Some doubt your claims since Bing hasn't official published anything on one of their websites, others are worried the use of Bing imagery will cause grief for OSM-F later. believe we should spend energy enlightening aerial providers (or wait for them to catch up) given Bing's enlightened example rather than bowing to their short-term goals. Even Ordnance Survey have been great to work with through these issues. Even OS! So things are great as long as you get your way? So while no doubt nearmap is a great resource and it's a shame they no longer want to be involved, it's clear that the majority do - even large sclerotic government institutions are being agile and helpful about this. The door, as ever, is open should nearmap every change their minds. They didn't decide to change things, you did so at least man up and take responsibility for your actions instead of trying to blame others. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 06:46, John Henderson snow...@gmx.com wrote: What particularly turns me off fosm.org is that I am unable to see a map when I go to the site. Using Firefox on Linux, I click on Maps and get FOSM based tiles are being uploaded to archive.org: http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2 Although I'm still working to get expired tiles re-rendered in near real time. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 13:26, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The vast majority of people are happy with where we are at What about the 50 odd percent of people that haven't responded? I don't see how it's reasonable to throw everything away for one guy who doesn't like his countries laws. So you're planning to hold onto as much data as possible regardless of copyright laws and respecting content authors wishes? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 13:54, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I would phrase it that the vast majority aren't lawyers and don't want to become one, therefore don't know the implications of the problems with cc. It's a false assumption, the only way it would be geo factual data is if you copied 1:1 from raster imagery, making maps is a creative enterprise, regardless if it's stored in a database or not, just like wikipedia content is copyrightable even though it's stored in a database. I believe CC has since changed their stance, possibly due to all the discussion over it. The next step is to switch, and then if and when CC 4 comes out and is applicable to data then it's a simple process to change to that. Of course, in theory its a simple to change to switch from our current cc to the future one, but then we have this big gap where it doesn't apply. AFAIK all you have to do is use a european ported license to cover database rights and there is no issue with upgrades since all CC licenses I've read include an upgrade clause. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 14:06, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Actually, the license process has been known about for a long, long time so it's not this new turnaround you cast it as. In addition, everyone else (bing, ordnance survey...) has worked with us very reasonably. In fact it's hard to say near map have been unreasonable, just that they were not quite as happy as all our other contributors of similar data. Was the OS given all pertinent facts about ODBL and how it doesn't require a minimum level of attribution on produced works? AFAIK OS requires attribution and ODBL doesn't require it down stream. This is a big show stopped for most government agencies I've heard about in Australia. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 14:06, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: As for this 'uk mob' thing, that too is unreasonable. As a democratically elected board, we have members from many countries and you are invited to get involved or run for election. Is it true that you had to do a lot of rule fiddling so you didn't have to retire to give others a chance on the board? Its certainly difficult to integrate the eu, us and au communities when the timezones are so hard to overlap. I am all ears on how we could fix that. It would be wonderful if someone from au could make it to SOTM. In fact they are running a video competition to pay for the costs of someone to attend. Especially so when you don't bother to listen to any feed back. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
On 7 July 2011 04:03, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote: Although it still seems to be controversial how clause 1 and 2 of the CT interact, with the recent draft intent of the LWG to issue a clarifying statement[1] that indeed data only has to be compatible with the current license and thus clause 2 only applies to the rights held by the contributor and not to all data contributed by the contributor, it might be a good time to think about the practical implications of this. It's my understanding that the OS data needs to be attributed directly or indirectly, CC-by-SA offers this, but the ODBL doesn't, so if you mean current license as in CC-by-SA then sure. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 6 July 2011 16:46, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: Then what about the attached alternative versions? For each version I started JOSM, opened a new layer, added the node (-31.069902030361792, 152.728383561) which is close to the beginning of the road, loaded the Bing background and traced the road. Between each session there were at least 5 minutes. If I would replace the original way with one version, would that be a copyright infringement? I'm not sure of your ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 04:20, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 July 2011 16:46, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: Then what about the attached alternative versions? For each version I started JOSM, opened a new layer, added the node (-31.069902030361792, 152.728383561) which is close to the beginning of the road, loaded the Bing background and traced the road. Between each session there were at least 5 minutes. If I would replace the original way with one version, would that be a copyright infringement? I'm not sure of your point here, since you are 1 person, not 10. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 06:12, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: But even if I'm just one person the question still remains: Do you consider any of these 4 versions a violation of your copyright? Are you planning to try and replace all my work one way at a time like this? Which is of course the real issue, copyright does exist on the content, and assumptions have to be made about what is likely to have happened. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 07:25, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: No, I just wanted to show you that you can't really tell if someone retraces a removed way by looking at an aerial imagery, by looking at the current OSM map or by just moving randomly some nodes.The same goes for IMHO that's a very weak protection for a cc-by-sa map. How will the ODBL help here any better? This is an issue for all maps and this is why map companies put in trap streets. BTW I've just found some high court decisions which clearly state that a map (and its content) isn't protected by copyright automatically here in Austria. You have to prove individual creativity. Just reproducing geographical facts like the course of a street or a river is not enough: http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJR_19920114_OGH0002_0040OB00125_910_001/JJR_19920114_OGH0002_0040OB00125_910_001.html Unofficial Translation: Reproducing of geographical facts which one gets by surveying (for example the course of a mountain range, a river or a street or the location of a locality) in a map isn't protected by copyright (Urheberrecht) So you are planning to copy from google maps then? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 08:27, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Google in addition have their ToS. So one person copies tiles and breaches contract and gives them to another person who is only bound by copyright ... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 09:34, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: That does not imply that individual contributors actually hold any rights in the data they contributed. As we know, that is a difficult question and depends on jurisdiction and so on, and my take on it would be: probably not. For all practical purposes we are simply pretending that such rights exist and it just doesn't make sense to spend hours arguing about if moving a node creates a derivative work, because again -we are just pretending-. Think that all you like, it won't make it any more true than the comment about copyright not really applying in the digital age, the fact is maps and map making are covered by copyright, and copyright is recognised in most countries. Otherwise we could take other copyrighted maps and copy them. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 09:47, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Normally none of them lead to a protected work and nobody would confuse it for creativity I'm not sure if I'm more amused that you have to try and scale things down to the size of a brick or the fact that even you state it's the morally right thing to do which is usually where laws stem from. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 10:04, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Upps you are really confused about the origins of copyright protection, which are rather recent and had nothing to do with morals. I didn't know the late 1800s was considered rather recent ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 10:20, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Well 300 to 400 years earlier (as in printing press with movable letters) which doesn't make it recent, but still twice as old as copyright law. The main point however is that copyright law has a economic motivation, not moral as you imply. How many painters die poor? What about famous composers? Economics became an issue much later. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Sister Projects
On 6 July 2011 22:03, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Why on earth should we give references to proprietary data projects like mapmaker in our wiki? Including it in the list gives us a chance to link to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google_map_maker and explain why people should *not* choose GMM instead of OSM. And why would that be, because the new CTs are similar to google and people don't really have to share back, just like google isn't really sharing... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 6 July 2011 18:20, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: [GG] I was not talking about copyright. Copyright laws are of no use in the digital era, You were talking about databases, however databases can still store copyrightable content, in this case it's copyright that we're talking about, if copyright weren't an issue the database could just be relicensed, but there is copyright involved so it can't. their application is too large and too wide, and information can be copied without loss. So what, copyright still covers creative works. The application of copyright law is expensive and full of pitfalls. See what happens with movies and mp3 on P2P networks. These are outdated legal texts, and have to be redefined. This is irrelevant, just because it's difficult to enforce, doesn't make it less enforcible. In creating tiles the map I agree. Not in creating a database. In terms of copyright, it doesn't matter how a map is stored or how it is displayed, it's the act of making it that matters and because there is human involvement that's all that matters. [GG] Is that true ??? I would reformulate that as follows: In terms of copyright, it doesn't matter how a map is stored or how it is displayed, it's the act of human coordinated creativity that matters. Copyright covers any work you do, no matter how trivial or how small, weather you intend to do something worth copyright or not. Photographers keep winning in court over companies that using their imagery without attribution and sometimes without paying for it. Not the mere fact that there are humans involved makes it copyrighted. I think you agree with me that software is copyrighted due to the algorithms implemented, a proof of effort and creativity. It's not the output of the software that is copyrighted by the writer of the software, but the source code. The output can be copyrighted, if created by copyrighted input. Didn't bison do something weird with licensing, where it was interacting with the output and including a chunk of itself the output was deemed to be copyrighted under the same license, in any case this is all pointless, we're not talking about survey's if you want a similar example use wikipedia, the content is copyrighted even though the it's stored in a database. OSM is the same. We have a set of algorithms and 200K+ human CPUs that as Not really, OSM doesn't produce anything, any more than MS can claim copyright on the output of word, the author of the document owns the copyright. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 6 July 2011 22:35, Chris Barham cbar...@pobox.com wrote: I'd like to think all this rather dull licence bickering will play out and OSM will continue and strengthen. It's sad that people with agendas are talking up the 'possible' deletion of data, and rushing off to fork. That energy could have been used towards working on ways Are ya really going to play OSM-F as a victim card here, for the longest time no one seemed to give a hoot about us aussies and the large amounts of CC licensed data we stood to loose, and now in the 11th hour you and SteveC suddenly want to care about the community in Australia? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 7 July 2011 07:54, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote: How could I add CC-BY-SA derived data if I use GPS traces, audio recordings of names, or imagery like Yahoo or Bing? The only way I could see this happening would be if I was to deliberately go out of my way to add a Actually it's potentially trivial to use CC-by-SA data, since anyone that supplied contributions under cc-by-sa are still in the database and you only have to modify previous data to then have data derived from cc-by-sa ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 6 July 2011 02:49, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: I doubt if any effort in re-creating a map database of the real world can be classified as creative work, as the mapper inevitably tries to copy reality to the best of his effort, and any deviation is just imperfection and corrected once the right information is available. We aren't for the most part trying to make raster images of aerial imagery, so there is a lot of creativity that goes into making interpretations of the real world. I never met a OSM mapper saying he is using his creativity to create an original view of the world. Its not just a lack in precision and perfection that makes a work creative, the creator must also have the intention to add something of himself. In terms of copyright this doesn't matter, just like if you write a few lines of whatever, you automatically receive copyright on your work. In creating tiles the map I agree. Not in creating a database. In terms of copyright, it doesn't matter how a map is stored or how it is displayed, it's the act of making it that matters and because there is human involvement that's all that matters. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 5 July 2011 23:04, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: What do you consider as same result? How far away do I have to place a node? If I put one additional node into the way or remove one, is that enough? The same as in an identical result, if they use the same sources then the only difference is their creative interpretation of the data sources into producing map data. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 6 July 2011 07:37, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Now if the mapper comes along and sees the river flagged for deletion, and remembers that he traveled the river in a boat, and maybe even has the GPX track, there's nothing to keep him from simply overriding the standard assumption of we will have to delete this river. We don't yet have a mechanism for that; currently the mapper would have to delete and re-create the river but personally I am in favour of a special, temporary license override tag that people could add to an object, something like i_have_personally_investigated_the_history_of_this_object_and_i_can_vouch_for_it_being_odbl_clean=true. In both cases, either tagging something as clean or deleting and re-adding assumes good faith, we already know people copy data from incompatible sources, what's to stop someone simple cutting and pasting data or mass tagging ways as clean? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 4 July 2011 22:44, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO the node position is never a derived work when it is updated. So for the case of the untagged node (if isolated an not part of a way, i.e. unlikely) we could keep the whole object. The position of nodes are often derived from the position of other nodes. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 3 July 2011 02:15, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, suppose there's a node that has been created by user A with no tags on it. Suppose the node has later been moved by user B. A has not accepted the CT, while B has. Will the node have to be removed when we go to phase 5 of the license change? You could say: yes, because version 2 is clearly a derived work of version 1. You could also say: no, because the information added in version 2 (new coordinates) overwrites all information that was there from version 1, so there is nothing left to be protected. Opinions? I'm guessing, but I feel your simple example above would only hold true for unattached nodes. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-legal-talk] Multiple license declaration
-- Forwarded message -- From: TimSC mappingli...@sheerman-chase.org.uk Date: 27 June 2011 01:38 Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Multiple license declaration To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-t...@openstreetmap.org Hi all, I wanted to create a way for individual users to relicense their data under difference licenses. Since OSM and derivatives are OAuth capable, it is possible to authenticate a user and get them to agree to a license. This can be stored in a machine readable format. I hope this will be useful in transferring data between forks, particularly if a significant number of people chose permissive licenses. From what I can tell, most mappers pretty much agree to any license they are presented with. :) http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/ At this stage, I was hoping for ideas for improvements of the legal issues. Any thoughts? TimSC ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License compatibility clarification
On 25 June 2011 06:37, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Jonas Häggqvist rasher@... writes: Is the CT/ODbL compatible with CC-BY-SA? Say if an organization releases some data under CC-BY-SA, could we use it (in the CT/ODbL future)? If this were possible, then there would be no need for any relicensing exercise. The data released under CC-BY-SA would be the existing OSM map, and it could just be used directly with CT/ODbL. The fact that this is not happening shows that, as generally believed, it is not possible to accept CC-BY-SA licensed data under a CT/ODbL regime. ODBL has no minimum license that produced works can be placed under, so the only licenses compatible with ODBL are PD/CC0 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] the map on osm.org - airstrips showing only at zoom 10
On 25 June 2011 06:02, Lennard l...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 24-6-2011 4:25, Robin Paulson wrote: mappers in NZ have recently imported a lot of grass airstrips into OSM. it appears the airstrips only render at zoom 10 on the mapnik render of the map at osm.org, which looks like this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.243lon=175.014zoom=10layers=M is there any particular reason for this, osm.org map maintainer? No, not at all, except that it can be considered a bug. There hadn't been many airstrips tagged before this import happened, and only now is it plainly obvious the zooms are buggy for them. Wasn't there some discussion about that before, how important airports such as LAX should show sooner than regional airports which should show up sooner than grass airstrips. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] the map on osm.org - airstrips showing only at zoom 10
On 25 June 2011 20:19, Lennard l...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 25-6-2011 8:35, John Smith wrote: Wasn't there some discussion about that before, how important airports such as LAX should show sooner than regional airports which should show up sooner than grass airstrips. Oh, more than once. Nothing (that I know of) came of that. http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/1835 Maybe the NZ import will finally get it sorted out then. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] the map on osm.org - airstrips showing only at zoom 10
On 26 June 2011 02:38, Alan Millar grunthos...@yahoo.com wrote: As has been said a number of times, OSM is a do-ocracy. At this point, more discussions just aren't going to resolve it. A little discussion might allow us to harmonise tags, so 10 people don't go off and do their own thing and then need to make massive changes. Just pick something, like importance=[1-5] or airport_class=[major|minor|regional|airstrip] and tag them. Such values can always be translated into another form later, and/or it just gains traction and becomes the standard. No reason to wait further. I'm a fan of subtagging :) So I'd be more likely to do something like this: aeroway=aerodrome aerodrome=[major|minor|regional|airstrip] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 24 June 2011 18:06, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: 4. At Your or the copyright owner’s option, OSMF agrees to attribute You or the copyright owner. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution.; Hope that helps. I am personally not going to put my name there, I have always felt that my contributions are more important then my name. Is that page even linked to from the map itself? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 24 June 2011 18:10, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: But I had a look at fosm.org yesterday and they (whoever they are - is there a fosmf?) seem to be making the same mistake that osm.org did with the original CTs; should they ever need to relicense (say move from cc-by-sa 2.0 to 3.0) the data, then as far as I can tell http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode Section 4 part b You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 24 June 2011 19:31, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: We have almost completed work so that the page link goes out with each and every extraction of geodata ever made (planet dump, API, ...) which is the important thing. Good point though, and I have requested appropriate changes to the Copyright and License page. But that still falls short of what OSM-F is telling everyone else, but failing to do itself on it's own map, it doesn't make it immediately obvious where attribution can be found to end users. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote: On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote: did you see this? http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution? The attribution was put into the JS file, but I'm looking into why that doesn't display. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote: On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote: did you see this? http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution? I just noticed that osm.org is missing attribution. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 21:00, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote: No it isn't. There's a 'Copyright License' link in the sidebar on the left. Nice and obscure... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 21:15, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: No, it isn't. It has the attribution right there on the Copyright License link. Unlike every other map site out there where the main attribution is at the bottom right side of the map. The Demo archive.org Tile Hosting map, on the other hand, fails to attribute OpenStreetMap. It just mentions fosm.org, and thus violates the license's requirement that the original creator's attribution needs to be displayed as least as prominently as that of later additions. The data is rendered from FOSM data. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 21:47, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Maybe you just don't know enough maps - there are plenty that list attribution elsewhere. This includes lots of maps for mobile devices (because these happen to have limited screen space), but also maps that use multiple sources (because in these cases, even a large screen would get cluttered with legalese). Static maps (e.g. map images in Wikipedia) also frequently use different attribution mechanisms. Thanks for the tip, I'm sure someone else is bound to put an obscure link on their website and you'll probably hound them about it as well. Which is derived from OpenStreetMap data. Therefore, the tiles are ultimately derived from OpenStreetMap data, too. Quoting CC BY-SA 2.0: As you said yourself above it's not reasonable to expect a lengthy attribution, especially when dealing with small screens, such as those on mobile phones. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
