from:"Nuno Caldeira"

So technically, i can extract frames of a movie at any ammount i want 
and then mix then to recreate a movie. doesn't make sense.


Às 17:56 de 31/10/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:
Nuno, this isn't about what the license allows, it's about the law. 
You can't re-write the law. What the law allows it would allow even if 
there was no license at all.
And I would also note that, frankly, the EU is the outlier in this 
respect in having database protections at all (and I would not say 
that even EU database protections would prohibit as small an excerpt 
as a screenshot, though "substantial" is undefined in the Directive). 
The majority of the world does not have database protections, so if 
any analogy is fair, it's a bit of the reverse, with the EU being a 
"database haven".


On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:37 AM Nuno Caldeira 
mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:




On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, 17:29 Kathleen Lu, mailto:kathleen...@mapbox.com>> wrote:

I'm curious as to the reason for your doubts, Nuno. Are you
aware of case law to the contrary?


I'm just surprised we adopted a license that seems to be useless
in USA, according to corporate interpretation of the license even
if it's for commercial purposes. Seems like we have a public
domain license after all.
Thank god these companies are not Corporate members of OSMF, don't
need to give a good example and neither provide worldwide services.
Reminds me of cruise ship registrations or tax heavens. Seem we
also have license heavens.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update



Às 13:54 de 31/10/2019, Robert Kaiser escreveu:


That "fair use" argument is actually pretty interesting and something 
that people often may not think about. IANAL, but I would guess, for 
example, that taking a screenshot of your app or website, which 
includes a map and also does include attribution, and then crop it and 
cut away the attribution incidentally, and use the result as a 
promotional image on social media, may be a case where it would be 
considered "fair use" and therefore attribution claims may never be 
successful due to this exception from copyright law. The specific case 
is just a guess, but things like that should be taken into account 
when we go out and demand attribution on every little tidbit of 
OSM-based imagery we see floating around...
There's not one screenshot in that article and certainly more than one 
in all that profile. So let's be reasonable and not point exceptions 
from common practice by a Corporate Member of OSMF, that should be the 
first to give the example.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, 17:29 Kathleen Lu,  wrote:

> I'm curious as to the reason for your doubts, Nuno. Are you aware of case
> law to the contrary?
>

I'm just surprised we adopted a license that seems to be useless in USA,
according to corporate interpretation of the license even if it's for
commercial purposes. Seems like we have a public domain license after all.
Thank god these companies are not Corporate members of OSMF, don't need to
give a good example and neither provide worldwide services.
Reminds me of cruise ship registrations or tax heavens. Seem we also have
license heavens.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

highly doubt that a derivated work from a database that has a notice
(attribution) required, which was then chopped to be considered under fair
use. Especially when this is repeated thousand of times.

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, 13:56 Robert Kaiser,  wrote:

> Simon Poole schrieb:
> > It is however important to realize that their are limits to copyright
> > and that for example lots of the "non-attribution" in the states is
> > likely permissible fair use under US laws. It would still be good form
> > to provide attribution, but it isn't something we can enforce and
> > getting upset about such use is really just a tremendous waste of time.
>
> That "fair use" argument is actually pretty interesting and something
> that people often may not think about. IANAL, but I would guess, for
> example, that taking a screenshot of your app or website, which includes
> a map and also does include attribution, and then crop it and cut away
> the attribution incidentally, and use the result as a promotional image
> on social media, may be a case where it would be considered "fair use"
> and therefore attribution claims may never be successful due to this
> exception from copyright law. The specific case is just a guess, but
> things like that should be taken into account when we go out and demand
> attribution on every little tidbit of OSM-based imagery we see floating
> around...
>
> KaiRo
>
> ___
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

in theory yes, I have reached mapbox several times of clients of theirs
that are not complying with ODbL or to their terms of service. they either
stop replying, doesn't get fixed (Strava example) or gets fix after sending
9 emails during two months. this last example was regarding Livestream, a
Vimeo company that even replied to me stating they weren't using OSM (when
they were using Mapbox Street tiles without the reasonable calculated
Mapbox logo, so I assume they were premium clients or whatever they call it
at mapbox. had to explain that that doesn't not entitle them not to
attribute OSM. his has been shared on other threads on mailing lists.

As Kathleen mentioned on other topics, including this one, it's their
client responsibility for the lack of attribution not mapbox. end result of
all this, no ones fault and everything remains the same.

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, 11:43 Jeffrey Friedl,  wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > do a search for Strava on social media images, on twitter as examples:
> >
> > https://twitter.com/MissJKirby/status/1189164486252515333?s=09
>
> Ah, I see, I thought you were referencing a screenshot from the app, but
> that
> seems to be an image made explicitly for posting on Twitter. One imagines
> that
> Strava hasn't built a map renderer just to make Twitter images, so
> probably the
> images are sourced from somewhere (Mapbox, Google, etc.).  If the
> underlying
> data originates from OSM, someone indeed should be putting the attribution.
>
> > following your mindset, we should blame the map provider (Mapbox) and
> not the company that uses the maps.
>
> I don't know that it's a "mindset". The person using OSM data has the
> responsibility to attribute, no?
>
> If Mapbox is not putting attributions, it would be a surprise.  Can you
> show a specific example where
>  Mapbox is providing OSM-derived maps without attribution? (If it's not
> apparent from the example
> that it's Mapbox providing OSM-derived maps, please be sure to cite your
> evidence that that's what
> we're seeing).
>
>Jeffrey
>
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, 10:25 Jeffrey Friedl,  wrote:

> This thread started with "the hypocrocy continues",
> but I can't figure out what, exactly, anyone is complaining about.
>

no attribution and a barely readable attribution by a corporate member of
OSMF. that's what the hypocrocy is all about.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

do a search for Strava on social media images, on twitter as examples:

https://twitter.com/MissJKirby/status/1189164486252515333?s=09

https://twitter.com/boorapong88/status/1188767309357142016?s=09

https://twitter.com/dai_walters/status/1188488659089141760?s=09

só either everyone crops the image or there's something wrong.


following your mindset, we should blame the map provider (Mapbox) and not
the company that uses the maos. Does this apply to Facebook too? As Mapbox
is a corporate member of OSMF and several employees of theirs are members
of board or working groups, that shouldn't be to hard to fix the lack of
attribution, right?

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, 09:28 Jeffrey Friedl,  wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > > And the hypocrisy goes on. "Strava launches gorgeous new outdoor maps"
> https://blog.mapbox.com/strava-launches-gorgeous-new-outdoor-maps-977c74cf37f9
> >
> >I'm not sure what you're reporting, but the maps all have "© Mapbox ©
> OpenStreetMap" in the lower-left
> >corner.  (Perhaps they were cut off in some of the screenshots in
> news coverage, but the actual maps in
> >the Strava app and on their web site all have this attribution.)  I
> suppose that they could use a slightly
> >stronger background shadow, to create more contrast when the map
> behind the attribution is light.
> >
> >
> > that is not true.
>
> WHAT is not true? Why can't you be specific?
>
> > https://twitter.com/mastermen/status/1127672128797663239?s=09
>
> That's a half year ago, showing an edited screen capture. What relevence
> is to this discussion?
>
> > from the moment they use OSM they agreed with it's terms
>
> "They" being Strava?  I don't beleve that Strava uses, or has ever used,
> OSM data.
> I'm pretty sure that Strava is a customer of Mapbox, and it's *Mapbox*
> that uses OSM data
> and generates images that Strava displays.  If Mapbox is not putting
> attributions properly,
> complain to/about them.
>
> Jeffrey
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, 02:15 Jeffrey Friedl,  wrote:

> > And the hypocrisy goes on. "Strava launches gorgeous new outdoor maps"
> https://blog.mapbox.com/strava-launches-gorgeous-new-outdoor-maps-977c74cf37f9
>
> I'm not sure what you're reporting, but the maps all have "© Mapbox ©
> OpenStreetMap" in the lower-left
> corner.  (Perhaps they were cut off in some of the screenshots in news
> coverage, but the actual maps in
> the Strava app and on their web site all have this attribution.)  I
> suppose that they could use a slightly
> stronger background shadow, to create more contrast when the map behind
> the attribution is light.
>

*that is not
true. https://twitter.com/mastermen/status/1127672128797663239?s=09
*
*I have reported that to them and obviously didn't get a reply from their
side. *
*from the moment they use OSM they agreed with it's terms and the
reasonable calculated notice (which they don't have on the example of the
Medium article 8 shared). a corporate member of OSMF not knowing and not
complying with the attribution is a bad example. *
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

2019-10-30 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

And the hypocrisy goes on. "Strava launches gorgeous new outdoor maps" 
https://blog.mapbox.com/strava-launches-gorgeous-new-outdoor-maps-977c74cf37f9


If anyone spots any reference or attribution to OpenStreetMap (well this 
one actually has it 
https://miro.medium.com/max/1395/0*llxj5jTIZqpXBsST.jpg might be a case 
of interpreting ODbL that you only need to attribute once or an 
exception for promo usage that disqualifies attribution being needed or 
probably mixes a lot of different data sources).


Às 18:08 de 09/09/2019, Nuno Caldeira escreveu:


These loopholes are already being exploited, especially from corporate 
members of OSMF Mapbox (they have several articles, medium tutorials 
and such where's no attribution) and Facebook. Which is a shame, as 
they are well aware of the spirit of OSM.






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

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook map frequency of updates?

2019-10-15 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

o...@facebook.com good luck if they reply to you. I'm probably black listed

On Tue, 15 Oct 2019, 19:15 Dave F via talk,  wrote:

> Hi
>
> An owner of an art centre in the UK has contacted me to ask why the 10
> month old edits to the centre's building haven't appeared in Facebook.
> Looking around it appears the render FB are using is more than 12 months
> old. Is this delay standard for FB. Disappointing if it is as it shows
> OSM in a bad light. One of the USPs is it's frequent turn around.
>
> Is anybody in contact with FB's hierarchy or have a contact (UK maybe)?
>
> DaveF
>
> ___
> 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-legal-talk] ZIP codes from OSM in non-compatible licensed dataset

2019-10-10 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

Extracting than 100 elements (non repeatable) from the databse accounts 
for substantial.



Costs has nothing to do with the license.

https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html


Às 20:20 de 10/10/2019, Lars-Daniel Weber escreveu:

First of all, thanks for your answer. I had a long talk with a lawyer about 
this topic today. He wasn't into geodata, but new about the database directive.

From: "Tom Hummel" 

First, I consider the zip code (as in addr:postcode=/feature/) a primary
feature, although it is generally considered an “additional property”,
as in ¹. My reason would be that I don’t see any meaningful distinction
for the purposes of identifying wether a database can be called
collective or not. A feature being called primary or additional doesn’t
seem to bear any meaning towards being substantial or non-substantial
either.

He said this:
The database policy does not know about "primary features" or "additional 
properties". It defines a substantial part in such a way that the extracted part has a large 
part of the costs (investment) the generation/collection, maintenance, care of the entire database 
takes. So when collecting all the nodes for a zip code takes 1,000 users and one ear of effort, it 
might be substantial. However, as we all know, this is not the case. They're just part of the big 
planet database and vary in quality and effort all over the world. So extracting the zip codes for 
a small extract of the huge planet file, isn't substantial at all. This is because the maintenance, 
care and provision of the postal codes costs no more or less than the maintenance, care and 
provision of the other elements. Also measured by the number of elements, the zip codes only make 
up a small part (actually, this doesn't matter, since the investment is the important thing).

He didn't write it up, but he came to the conclusion that the database 
directive wouldn't come into play here at all. In comparison to the whole 
planet, the zip codes for my extract are trivial and not touching the 
investment, the OSM community or the database holder are affording.

Saying this, this non-substantial extract doesn't fall under ODbL, but is 
simple DbCL. Like results of geocoding, which is also part of the Community 
Guidelines.

What do you think? Sorry, I didn't even think about this before asking the 
lawyer :-(

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] I added MAPS.ME to list of entities using OSM data illegally (without proper attribution)


well OSMF as the licensor can terminate the company rights under ODbL.

Às 21:07 de 08/10/2019, Mateusz Konieczny escreveu:



8 Oct 2019, 20:36 by nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com:

Up until they got contacted by OSMF to fix the attribution,
nothing will happen and won't comply. They do not reply or give
lazy excuses when a contributor approaches them

This seems remarkably optimistic,
I expect that maps.me will continue illegal
use also after receiving polite letter
from OSMF.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] I added MAPS.ME to list of entities using OSM data illegally (without proper attribution)

you understood me wrong. I meant it was a good example of compliance. it's
a fair and correct solution. don't understand why others (including OSMF
corporate members) don't do the same.

A terça, 8/10/2019, 20:37, Clifford Snow  escreveu:

>
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 11:33 AM Nuno Caldeira <
> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Speaking of attribution, here's a great example by Microsoft Bing maps,
>> that has attribution based on the zoom level, they seem to be using OSM
>> buildings and HERE roads
>> https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=39.97203083116834~-8.634339=10=r=BMLOGO
>>
>>
>> Up until they got contacted by OSMF to fix the attribution, nothing will
>> happen and won't comply. They do not reply or give lazy excuses when a
>> contributor approaches them
>>
> Nuno I'm confused by your statement on Bing maps. The clearly attribute
> OSM when zoomed in. If they only use HERE data when zoomed out, what
> requirements do they have to attribute OSM and if so on what basis? When
> zoomed in, both HERE and OSM are attributed.
>
> OT - One of the problems I noticed using two different data sources in
> Portugal is roads intersecting buildings. I've never been to Portugal - how
> good is OSM compared to HERE? Why can't they drop HERE and just use OSM?
>
> Best,
> Clifford
>
> --
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] I added MAPS.ME to list of entities using OSM data illegally (without proper attribution)

about their choice of using HERE, I'm not aware of the reason. OSM road
network in Portugal is quite good.

A terça, 8/10/2019, 20:39, Nuno Caldeira 
escreveu:

> you understood me wrong. I meant it was a good example of compliance. it's
> a fair and correct solution. don't understand why others (including OSMF
> corporate members) don't do the same.
>
> A terça, 8/10/2019, 20:37, Clifford Snow 
> escreveu:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 11:33 AM Nuno Caldeira <
>> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking of attribution, here's a great example by Microsoft Bing maps,
>>> that has attribution based on the zoom level, they seem to be using OSM
>>> buildings and HERE roads
>>> https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=39.97203083116834~-8.634339=10=r=BMLOGO
>>>
>>>
>>> Up until they got contacted by OSMF to fix the attribution, nothing will
>>> happen and won't comply. They do not reply or give lazy excuses when a
>>> contributor approaches them
>>>
>> Nuno I'm confused by your statement on Bing maps. The clearly attribute
>> OSM when zoomed in. If they only use HERE data when zoomed out, what
>> requirements do they have to attribute OSM and if so on what basis? When
>> zoomed in, both HERE and OSM are attributed.
>>
>> OT - One of the problems I noticed using two different data sources in
>> Portugal is roads intersecting buildings. I've never been to Portugal - how
>> good is OSM compared to HERE? Why can't they drop HERE and just use OSM?
>>
>> Best,
>> Clifford
>>
>> --
>> @osm_washington
>> www.snowandsnow.us
>> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>>
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] I added MAPS.ME to list of entities using OSM data illegally (without proper attribution)

about their choice of using HERE, I'm not aware of the reason. OSM road
network in Portugal is quite good.

A terça, 8/10/2019, 20:39, Nuno Caldeira 
escreveu:

> you understood me wrong. I meant it was a good example of compliance. it's
> a fair and correct solution. don't understand why others (including OSMF
> corporate members) don't do the same.
>
> A terça, 8/10/2019, 20:37, Clifford Snow 
> escreveu:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 11:33 AM Nuno Caldeira <
>> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking of attribution, here's a great example by Microsoft Bing maps,
>>> that has attribution based on the zoom level, they seem to be using OSM
>>> buildings and HERE roads
>>> https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=39.97203083116834~-8.634339=10=r=BMLOGO
>>>
>>>
>>> Up until they got contacted by OSMF to fix the attribution, nothing will
>>> happen and won't comply. They do not reply or give lazy excuses when a
>>> contributor approaches them
>>>
>> Nuno I'm confused by your statement on Bing maps. The clearly attribute
>> OSM when zoomed in. If they only use HERE data when zoomed out, what
>> requirements do they have to attribute OSM and if so on what basis? When
>> zoomed in, both HERE and OSM are attributed.
>>
>> OT - One of the problems I noticed using two different data sources in
>> Portugal is roads intersecting buildings. I've never been to Portugal - how
>> good is OSM compared to HERE? Why can't they drop HERE and just use OSM?
>>
>> Best,
>> Clifford
>>
>> --
>> @osm_washington
>> www.snowandsnow.us
>> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] I added MAPS.ME to list of entities using OSM data illegally (without proper attribution)

you understood me wrong. I meant it was a good example of compliance. it's
a fair and correct solution. don't understand why others (including OSMF
corporate members) don't do the same.

A terça, 8/10/2019, 20:37, Clifford Snow  escreveu:

>
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 11:33 AM Nuno Caldeira <
> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Speaking of attribution, here's a great example by Microsoft Bing maps,
>> that has attribution based on the zoom level, they seem to be using OSM
>> buildings and HERE roads
>> https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=39.97203083116834~-8.634339=10=r=BMLOGO
>>
>>
>> Up until they got contacted by OSMF to fix the attribution, nothing will
>> happen and won't comply. They do not reply or give lazy excuses when a
>> contributor approaches them
>>
> Nuno I'm confused by your statement on Bing maps. The clearly attribute
> OSM when zoomed in. If they only use HERE data when zoomed out, what
> requirements do they have to attribute OSM and if so on what basis? When
> zoomed in, both HERE and OSM are attributed.
>
> OT - One of the problems I noticed using two different data sources in
> Portugal is roads intersecting buildings. I've never been to Portugal - how
> good is OSM compared to HERE? Why can't they drop HERE and just use OSM?
>
> Best,
> Clifford
>
> --
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] I added MAPS.ME to list of entities using OSM data illegally (without proper attribution)



Sadly i have contacted them before. Not fixed.

Also keep in mind that Moveit lists us  as "partners", which we 
obviously don't https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tranzmate


Karta also does not 
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.kartatech.karta.gps 
and the funny thing is that the company behind the app also provides 
this https://ndrive.com/product/osm/ which i wonder if their "work" they 
do is license compliance and where can we get it to import to OSM (as 
this must be shared under the same license). read the describtion on 
their website


Fatmap replied me they used multiple sources (where have i heard that), 
told me they are working with OSM (asked with whom twice, they never 
replied) and with Mapbo to fix it.



Speaking of attribution, here's a great example by Microsoft Bing maps, 
that has attribution based on the zoom level, they seem to be using OSM 
buildings and HERE roads 
https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=39.97203083116834~-8.634339=10=r=BMLOGO



Up until they got contacted by OSMF to fix the attribution, nothing will 
happen and won't comply. They do not reply or give lazy excuses when a 
contributor approaches them

Às 17:52 de 08/10/2019, Mateusz Konieczny escreveu:

current situation is a clear violation of the ODBL license

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.

Useful part of MAPS.ME application is based solely on OSM data.

Their app is quite useful, unfortunately they decided to hide OSM 
attribution as deeply as
possible and pretend that it is OK. They have attribution visible to 
user in bottom-right corner,

it reads "MAPS.ME".

They were notified about problem on July.

See https://github.com/mapsme/omim/issues/11203 and
https://github.com/mapsme/omim/issues/11845

Edit adding them to a list: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Lacking_proper_attribution=1911505=1901931


In case of continued noncompliance I plan to write polite letter 
explaining that following OSM

license is not optional and ask OSMF / Legal Working Group to send it.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] I added MAPS.ME to list of entities using OSM data illegally (without proper attribution)


Sadly i have contacted them before. Not fixed.

Also keep in mind that Moveit lists us  as "partners", which we 
obviously don't https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tranzmate


Karta also does not 
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.kartatech.karta.gps 
and the funny thing is that the company behind the app also provides 
this https://ndrive.com/product/osm/ which i wonder if their "work" they 
do is license compliance and where can we get it to import to OSM (as 
this must be shared under the same license). read the describtion on 
their website


Fatmap replied me they used multiple sources (where have i heard that), 
told me they are working with OSM (asked with whom twice, they never 
replied) and with Mapbo to fix it.



Speaking of attribution, here's a great example by Microsoft Bing maps, 
that has attribution based on the zoom level, they seem to be using OSM 
buildings and HERE roads 
https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=39.97203083116834~-8.634339=10=r=BMLOGO



Up until they got contacted by OSMF to fix the attribution, nothing will 
happen and won't comply. They do not reply or give lazy excuses when a 
contributor approaches them



Às 17:52 de 08/10/2019, Mateusz Konieczny escreveu:

current situation is a clear violation of the ODBL license

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.

Useful part of MAPS.ME application is based solely on OSM data.

Their app is quite useful, unfortunately they decided to hide OSM 
attribution as deeply as
possible and pretend that it is OK. They have attribution visible to 
user in bottom-right corner,

it reads "MAPS.ME".

They were notified about problem on July.

See https://github.com/mapsme/omim/issues/11203 and
https://github.com/mapsme/omim/issues/11845

Edit adding them to a list: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Lacking_proper_attribution=1911505=1901931


In case of continued noncompliance I plan to write polite letter 
explaining that following OSM

license is not optional and ask OSMF / Legal Working Group to send it.



___
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] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

2019-09-26 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira


https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/25/20883706/facebook-ar-glasses-prototypes-live-maps-announce-oc6

According to a video, it will produce “multi-layer representations of 
the world” using crowdsourced data, traditional maps, and footage 
captured through phones and augmented reality glasses

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTa8zn0RNVM


Às 08:47 de 26/07/2019, Frederik Ramm escreveu:

Hi,

On 25.07.19 22:03, Frederik Ramm wrote:

This press release is on the same level as "Cloudmade's
OpenStreetMap Project" so many years ago.

In case anyone doubts that -

https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2019/07/facebook-ai-is-supercharging-the-creation-of-maps-around-the-world.html

"Recently, Facebook released a statement about its new effort to create
an OpenStreetMap project to not only benefit from mapping data but also
making this platform an open-source navigational source for users."

And the rest of the article is about how Facebook's only purpose is to
bring comfort to people's lives etc.

This is probably normal for corporate PR people, but for me it's just
disgusting.

Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [Talk-pt] Fixação da costa e das águas interiores nos Açores e na Madeira / Coastline and water fixes in the Azores and Madeira (Andrew Wiseman)

2019-09-17 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

Hello Andrew, before helping Apple, i hope Apple complies with ODbL and
attributes OpenStreetMap visibly on the footer of the map, which does not
currently. That's not proper use of OSM data and. After that get's fixed,
I'm glad to help.

A terça, 17/09/2019, 12:02,  escreveu:

> Send Talk-pt mailing list submissions to
> talk-pt@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pt
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-pt-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-pt-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-pt digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Fixação da costa e das águas interiores nos Açores e na
>   Madeira / Coastline and water fixes in the Azores and Madeira
>   (Andrew Wiseman)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 10:05:12 -0700
> From: Andrew Wiseman 
> To: talk-pt@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Talk-pt] Fixação da costa e das águas interiores nos
> Açores e na Madeira / Coastline and water fixes in the Azores and
> Madeira
> Message-ID: <913b9c1b-33f5-4894-8f1b-fe9e72815...@apple.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hello OSM Portugal,
>
> (Versão em português abaixo)
>
> My name is Andrew, I work for Apple on the Maps team. We are interested in
> doing some fixes and improvements to water features and the coastlines
> around the Azores and Madeira on OSM, such as adding and improving geometry
> of coastlines, lakes, rivers, and other inland water features, and fixing
> and correcting issues for inland water features when they meet the coast.
> In some cases the coastline tags may be in the wrong place, there are
> geometry errors, and other similar issues.
>
> Here's a GitHub page here with more information about the project:
> https://github.com/osmlab/appledata/issues/93
>
> Please let me know if you have any suggestions or questions or if there
> are any other good sources you can recommend.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Andrew
>
> //
>
> Olá OSM Portugal,
>
> Meu nome é Andrew, trabalho para a Apple na equipe do Maps. Estamos
> interessados em fazer algumas correções e melhorias nas características da
> água e nas costas ao redor dos Açores e da Madeira no OSM, como adicionar e
> melhorar a geometria das costas, lagos, rios e outras características da
> água interior e corrigir e corrigir problemas de água interior
> características quando encontram a costa. Em alguns casos, as etiquetas da
> costa podem estar no lugar errado, há erros de geometria e outros problemas
> semelhantes.
>
> Aqui está uma página do GitHub aqui com mais informações sobre o projeto:
> https://github.com/osmlab/appledata/issues/93
>
> Entre em contato se tiver alguma sugestão ou pergunta ou se houver outras
> boas fontes que possa recomendar.
>
> Obrigado,
>
> Andrew
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-pt/attachments/20190916/d72f05f9/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> --
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ___
> Talk-pt mailing list
> Talk-pt@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pt
>
>
> --
>
> End of Talk-pt Digest, Vol 116, Issue 9
> ***
>
___
Talk-pt mailing list
Talk-pt@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pt

Re: [Talk-pt] Talk-pt Digest, Vol 116, Issue 9

2019-09-17 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

Hello Andrew, before helping Apple, i hope Apple complies with ODbL and
attributes OpenStreetMap visibly on the footer of the map, which does not
currently. That's not proper use of OSM data and. After that get's fixed,
I'm glad to help.

A terça, 17/09/2019, 12:02,  escreveu:

> Send Talk-pt mailing list submissions to
> talk-pt@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pt
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-pt-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-pt-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-pt digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Fixação da costa e das águas interiores nos Açores e na
>   Madeira / Coastline and water fixes in the Azores and Madeira
>   (Andrew Wiseman)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 10:05:12 -0700
> From: Andrew Wiseman 
> To: talk-pt@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Talk-pt] Fixação da costa e das águas interiores nos
> Açores e na Madeira / Coastline and water fixes in the Azores and
> Madeira
> Message-ID: <913b9c1b-33f5-4894-8f1b-fe9e72815...@apple.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hello OSM Portugal,
>
> (Versão em português abaixo)
>
> My name is Andrew, I work for Apple on the Maps team. We are interested in
> doing some fixes and improvements to water features and the coastlines
> around the Azores and Madeira on OSM, such as adding and improving geometry
> of coastlines, lakes, rivers, and other inland water features, and fixing
> and correcting issues for inland water features when they meet the coast.
> In some cases the coastline tags may be in the wrong place, there are
> geometry errors, and other similar issues.
>
> Here's a GitHub page here with more information about the project:
> https://github.com/osmlab/appledata/issues/93
>
> Please let me know if you have any suggestions or questions or if there
> are any other good sources you can recommend.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Andrew
>
> //
>
> Olá OSM Portugal,
>
> Meu nome é Andrew, trabalho para a Apple na equipe do Maps. Estamos
> interessados em fazer algumas correções e melhorias nas características da
> água e nas costas ao redor dos Açores e da Madeira no OSM, como adicionar e
> melhorar a geometria das costas, lagos, rios e outras características da
> água interior e corrigir e corrigir problemas de água interior
> características quando encontram a costa. Em alguns casos, as etiquetas da
> costa podem estar no lugar errado, há erros de geometria e outros problemas
> semelhantes.
>
> Aqui está uma página do GitHub aqui com mais informações sobre o projeto:
> https://github.com/osmlab/appledata/issues/93
>
> Entre em contato se tiver alguma sugestão ou pergunta ou se houver outras
> boas fontes que possa recomendar.
>
> Obrigado,
>
> Andrew
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-pt/attachments/20190916/d72f05f9/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> --
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ___
> Talk-pt mailing list
> Talk-pt@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pt
>
>
> --
>
> End of Talk-pt Digest, Vol 116, Issue 9
> ***
>
___
Talk-pt mailing list
Talk-pt@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pt

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

2019-09-13 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

Here's another example by Uber. They attribute the tiles visibly, not 
OSM... how can we measure if it's 50% OSM? we can't 
https://movement.uber.com/cities?lang=en-US test in multiple cities 
around the world and compare side by side with OSM. clearly more than 
50%. Not to mention they mix all the attribution no matter which city 
you are viewing.


Às 15:37 de 09/09/2019, Mateusz Konieczny escreveu:


9 Aug 2019, 10:41 by si...@poole.ch:

 consolidate all attribution guidance in to one document

Thanks for work on that!

Unfortunately proposed version contains
major loophole that will be deliberately
exploited by organisation like Facebook
or Maps.me or Mapbox that describe
OSM data as their own.

"If OpenStreetMap data accounts for a minority (less than 50%) part of 
the visible map rendering, attribution with other sources on a 
separate page that is visible after user interaction is acceptable."


In basically any readable map less that 50% of
visible map rendering is using OSM data
or can be trivially modified to do it.

For example - claim that land area is not
from OSM data but default map state
or use alternative data for land boundaries.



Note that claim that this companies* will
use ridiculous loopholes is not prediction,
they are doing it already or simply lying.

Mapbox representative explicitly claimed in
mail to me that hiding attribution behind i
buttons fulfills ODBL requirements.

FB and mapsme ignored multiple reports
about their attribution violation.

*and other, but in this cases I reported their
illegal use of work of OSM mappers and got
ignored.

___
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] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

2019-09-09 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

oh good. strange that we still get email complains about Instagram users of
their address being on OSM, when it's not.
 so we have Facebook number, mind asking the number so we can call to ask
to comply with the attribution?

A terça, 10/09/2019, 01:13, Kathleen Lu  escreveu:

>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2018_11_15#Facebook_update
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 1:47 PM Nuno Caldeira 
> wrote:
>
>> I was not aware of that. Is that information public or been published
>> somewhere? Also what does it do? notes for OpenStreetMap or the so called
>> "Facebook maps"?
>> Às 19:33 de 09/09/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 12:10 PM Nuno Caldeira <
>> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Today i was check the maps on their website and noticed they have a
>>> report button, which i thought would create a note on OSM. Oh i was wrong,
>>> no note on OSM, wonder where that report will go to.
>>>
>>
>> ??? Nuno, you do realize that DWG complained to Facebook about too many
>> reports from Facebook users going to OSM and DWG, and asked Facebook for
>> cooperation in re-directing those? (which as I understand was accomplished)
>> It would be terrible for the report button to create a note on OSM.
>>
>>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

2019-09-09 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

I was not aware of that. Is that information public or been published 
somewhere? Also what does it do? notes for OpenStreetMap or the so 
called "Facebook maps"?


Às 19:33 de 09/09/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:



On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 12:10 PM Nuno Caldeira 
mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:


Today i was check the maps on their website and noticed they have
a report button, which i thought would create a note on OSM. Oh i
was wrong, no note on OSM, wonder where that report will go to.


??? Nuno, you do realize that DWG complained to Facebook about too 
many reports from Facebook users going to OSM and DWG, and asked 
Facebook for cooperation in re-directing those? (which as I understand 
was accomplished)

It would be terrible for the report button to create a note on OSM.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

2019-09-09 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

Today i was check the maps on their website and noticed they have a 
report button, which i thought would create a note on OSM. Oh i was 
wrong, no note on OSM, wonder where that report will go to. Also quite 
funny that once you submit you get a message "your feedback help us to 
*_make Facebook maps_* better for everyone"had that ahah moment. 
Example i just done, feel free to try it yourself on the so called 
Facebook Maps https://youtu.be/FF6rOOO51Ig


If anyone can reach them and ask them where that report goes i would 
like to know. I could email them, but they still haven't replied to 
several of my emails.


Another great example of promoting the growth of open data by corporate 
member of OSMF. Great citizens of OSMF.


These loopholes are already being exploited, especially from corporate 
members of OSMF Mapbox (they have several articles, medium tutorials and 
such where's no attribution) and Facebook. Which is a shame, as they are 
well aware of the spirit of OSM.


Oh and by the way, today makes one year i first sent an email to 
Facebook asking to comply. 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-March/082147.html


Also makes 3 months i have asked the board to terminate Facebook rights 
under ODbL (no decision as fair as i know) 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-June/082653.html


Meanwhile, Facebook did attribute on some maps, not on all. Evidence 
gathered in July of no attribution, that i just confirmed still not 
fixed. The most hilarious is their app Local, which uses OSM data but 
there's a reasonable calculated logo of HERE on the left corner of the 
map https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1B5AF2i0Go5_jQfuoO26d5mfbi0XE-vg_


Às 15:37 de 09/09/2019, Mateusz Konieczny escreveu:

Unfortunately proposed version contains
major loophole that will be deliberately
exploited by organisation like Facebook
or Maps.me or Mapbox that describe
OSM data as their own.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

2019-09-08 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

Here's another example of why we should not adopt the multiple sources
attribution omission of our attribution. They list us as partners (?)
https://www.wrld3d.com/3d-maps/custom-maps
Use multiple sources and are not complying with ODbL by not showing the
license.
Seen multiple maps by their clients and they show data "copyright l.map"

I have confirmed with multiple contributors that largely the data used is
OSM and it's around a year old dump of the planet.

Simon Poole  escreveu em sex, 9/08/2019 às 08:45 :

> As we've mentioned multiple times over the last months, the LWG decided
> last year to consolidate all attribution guidance in to one document and
> address some of the use cases that have become common over the last 7
> years that previously had none. Particularly in the light of the
> parallel discussions about attribution on larger social media platforms
> we need to make up our minds what we actually want, and define concrete
> minimum requirements for acceptable attribution. To not do this just
> provides the excuse of pointing to the cacophony of voices all saying
> something different.
>
> We've been working on and off on the document for a while, and are now
> largely finished. Going forward we intend to wikify the document and
> make it available for public comment together with a BoF session at SotM
> next month (which probably means that we'll have to appropriate a coffee
> break). You can have a glimpse at the text here
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e_IQYHtqVivGRw4O4EOn6__-LGMuzPlWz6XKEdAkwW0/edit?usp=sharing
> the few things that are not nailed down belong to those that we would
> appreciate feedback on.
>
> Simon
>
> PS: the number of coffee breaks permitting we might want to appropriate
> another one for the discussion of a tile licence change.
>
>
> ___
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] bus stops signs in the usa.

2019-09-02 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira


you are taling about the bus stop id.

Às 21:03 de 02/09/2019, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk escreveu:

if the number is on the sign, and there is no tag for route #
is that not the name which will show on the map ?




___
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] Tile Usage Limitation

2019-08-22 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

you can read about the tile usage here 
https://operations.osmfoundation.org/policies/tiles/


On the bttom of the page there's a couple of links to either payed 
suggestion or for you to set up your own tile server.


Às 23:33 de 22/08/2019, Margarita Yanachkova escreveu:

Hello,

We're looking to build an interactive map of restaurants much like 
this one 
 using 
Open Street Map. Can you let me know what would be the max number of 
loads per day approximately? Would 1000 be ok and can we pay for some 
sort of license / make a donation if we go to go over the limit?


Also, do you count zooming in and out, clicking on markers and  on the 
map as a load as well?


Many thanks,

--
Margarita Yanachkova

Truly - Experiences Beyond Ordinary
w: trulyexperiences.com 
p: +44 (0) 20 3890 3248 

Winner - Luxury Website of the Year



Life is about collecting memories, not things. Check out how others 
have joined our movement!


___
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] Using OSM as database for nature park hiking routes?

2019-08-14 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

Just use the good practices of Inspire (you are in EU). For example, in
Portugal, it's mandatory all public institutions to use geopackage
https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/events/webinar-inspire-good-practices-%E2%80%93-alternative-encodings

Either use geopackage or PostGIS. Stay away from proprietary ESRI format
Geodatabase.

Às 21:17 de 13/08/2019, Bernd Vogelgesang via talk escreveu:

Hi folks,

I need some guidance from the assembled wisdom, concerning hiking
routes, information-maps and signposts.

I got involved with a nature park in Germany, which wants to start an
initiative to collect all existing local hiking routes (230) in the area
(ca. 1600 km), and produce orientation maps (ca. 100) in collaboration
with max. 40 municipalities.

So they ask me about what kind of database they should use to work on
this topic with QGIS and with the system of a specialized company.
I got not much information till now, but from what I see so far, there
is no need to keep a special database on those routes as all could be
planted into OSM and that they do not need to buy themselves in a
locked-up proprietary system.

The big question is now, what is the most elegant way for those not very
tecky people to import/export the data of "their" routes and "their"
orientation maps and signposts when I'm not around?
The merits I earned with OSM so far is buying a book in 2013 and
digitizing some meadows around my village and using some data in QGIS,
but I already started to investigate the wiki for clever usage of tags
etc.

So, what do you think? Should I start the fight for the usage of OSM and
against that proprietary stuff or should I stay calm, take the money and
let them do what seems to be the easy way?

Cheers,
Bernd

p.s. As a background map for their routes, they would like to have
OpenTopoMap ;)

___
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] Attribution guideline status update

2019-08-13 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira



Às 22:04 de 13/08/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:



>
> And to Martin's point, which would you consider more important,
the overlay of rare information, the gas stations, or the basemap?
Or is the overlay only more important than the basemap if the
overlay comes from OSM?


In a basemap/overlay data constellation, I would generally
consider the overlay more important (it’s the reason the map was
published), but of course this doesn’t mean you would not have to
attribute the basemap as well, if it were a requirement of the map.


As far as I know, no one is talking about no attribution at all, but 
rather attribution after a click


You mean the reasonable calculated Mapbox and VOST logo on the left 
corner of the map and the "i" with permanent mouse hover to be displayed?


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

2019-08-13 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

https://janaodaparaabastecer.vost.pt/ is a very interesting example.
On my screen, the attribution clearly stretches longer than the width
of the map.

It's funny that you mention that, i contacted them, they weren't even
aware they were using OpenStreetMap. They even said their data was "open
data", when in reality comes from Waze But hey they use
OpenStreetMap tiles via Mapbox with a bit of shy attribution.

And seems Mapbox doesn't know how to set a proper hyperlink on that page
it heads to https://www.openstreetmap.org/about/ instead of
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright

But what's the arm? Mapbox logo, Waze and everything else comes first
and get proper exposure like it should.

Is your opinion then that they should attribute similar to your
European Commission example of "correct" attribution
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentec-portal/map/maps.html,
where some of the attribution is visible immediately, and the rest
after clicking?

I see OpenStreetMap being attributed 100% of the time. Maybe they should
just hide like our Corporate Member of OSMF.Or not even attribute at
all, like the ones i shared yesterday.

And to Martin's point, which would you consider more important, the
overlay of rare information, the gas stations, or the basemap? Or is
the overlay only more important than the basemap if the overlay comes
from OSM?
As i pointed out they didn't knew it was OSM. About the importance, let
me remind you of Facebook reply telling me "static maps not being
informative". Sure, if they are not just don't use them at all, a blank
tile will look much better, feel free to use it instead.Attribution is
really such a hard task to fulfill.

If you browse the portuguese press about VOST map, you will notice
endless references to Waze. You know how many to OpenStreetMap? Less
than onezero. Another lovely opportunity loss to advocate for
OpenStreetMap and open data.

Examples:

https://sicnoticias.pt/especiais/crise-energetica/2019-08-12-Vost-Portugal-disponibiliza-online-os-postos-onde-ainda-ha-combustivel
https://www.dn.pt/pais/interior/mapa-online-mostra-que-bombas-ficam-sem-combustivel-veja-aqui-11189237.html
https://4gnews.pt/waze-diz-te-quais-as-bombas-de-gasolina-onde-abastecer-nesta-greve-dos-motoristas/

On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 10:33 AM Nuno Caldeira
mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Hi Martin,

Well, the example i gave previously
https://janaodaparaabastecer.vost.pt/ is a good example of what
you are saying. What do you do to fix it? Mapbox will say nothing
or "believe this is the common, VOST won't say anything. Meanwhile
99.9% of that map is OSM a the gas station status update is
provided by Waze. Sounds fair doesn't it?

I believe the 50% rule is ok, if it refers to the displayed
objects on the screen (although this can also be arbitrary, since
you can always split a way, or interpolate nodes to get more of
them).
Imagine a map which chooses a different data provider per
country. For zoomed in maps (you only see data from one provider)
you would want this one provider prominently attributed. If you
attribute to someone else more prominently and show the actual
data provider only in „others“, you will inevitably create a
wrong impression about the source, and if it’s us who miss out on
visible attribution, we should care.

Good that you mention this. On my email from 10th of October 2018
to facebook and Mapbox (both stopped replying), i pointed out
these examples which have zero issues about having multiple
sources being attributed visibly and not hiding them:

Microsoft - Uses HERE and OSM and attributes both visibly on the
footer

https://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2=48.187141%2C%2016.349561=48.187141%2C16.349561=48.18694871145921~16.349901334904583=18=1

<https://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2=48.187141%2C%2016.349561=48.187141%2C16.349561=48.18694871145921%7E16.349901334904583=18=1>

ARCGIS Web - Uses OSM and ESRI data, credits both

https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=fae788aa91e54244b161b59725dcbb2a

European Commission - credits OSM and other sources

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentec-portal/map/maps.html
and

http://emergency.copernicus.eu/mapping/copernicus-emergency-management-service#zoom=2=23.42974=16.28085=00B0T

Sadly, some say this is hard to implement. The above sites, must
have a hell of a research UX dept to make it possible and others
just

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

2019-08-12 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

Another lovely example from our OSMF Corporate Member.

https://blog.mapbox.com/designing-the-treasure-map-style-4318390ad81c

Also feel free to check every hyperlink on that page. If you find any
attribution, let me know. Might be the case that it's not 50% OSM...
Even on the guide that contradicts their attribution
of using
Mapbox

Streets that quote "Mapbox Streetsvector tiles are largely based on data
from OpenStreetMap (OSM), an open source resource of volunteer
maintained geographic data. "
https://www.mapbox.com/resources/guide-to-map-design-part-1a.pdf search
"OpenStreetMap" and be amazed.

Seems none takes OSMF seriously any more, not even the corporate members
and the writing of this guidance was a waste of time and effort. Let's
stop the hypocrisy and switch license to something else, at least
contributors won't be illuded with this "Both licenses /_are “By
Attribution_/” and “Share Alike”. "
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_are_the_main_differences_between_the_old_and_the_new_license.3F

Às 11:58 de 10/08/2019, Andrew Harvey escreveu:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 17:27, Joseph Eisenberg
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote:

It's even hard to recommend apps like Maps.me when they don't
attribute Openstreetmap, instead putting their own logo in the lower
right corner.

If people don't know that OSM is the source of the data in a map, they
won't know how to get involved to improve it.

They do provide the attribution, tt's under Settings | About (then
again under Settings | About | Copyright).

___
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] Attribution guideline status update

2019-08-10 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

Hi Martin,

For another perspective, imagine someone making a world map with 85%
OpenStreetMap data and 15% XY inc. data, if someone looks on a part of
this map which is fed by these 15% XY data, you would not want to have
it incorrectly attributed to OpenStreetMap (although we are generally
the principal data provider).
Well, the example i gave previously
https://janaodaparaabastecer.vost.pt/ is a good example of what you are
saying. What do you do to fix it? Mapbox will say nothing or "believe
this is the common, VOST won't say anything. Meanwhile 99.9% of that map
is OSM a the gas station status update is provided by Waze. Sounds fair
doesn't it?

I believe the 50% rule is ok, if it refers to the displayed objects on
the screen (although this can also be arbitrary, since you can always
split a way, or interpolate nodes to get more of them).
Imagine a map which chooses a different data provider per country. For
zoomed in maps (you only see data from one provider) you would want
this one provider prominently attributed. If you attribute to someone
else more prominently and show the actual data provider only in
„others“, you will inevitably create a wrong impression about the
source, and if it’s us who miss out on visible attribution, we should
care.

Good that you mention this. On my email from 10th of October 2018 to
facebook and Mapbox (both stopped replying), i pointed out these
examples which have zero issues about having multiple sources being
attributed visibly and not hiding them:

Microsoft - Uses HERE and OSM and attributes both visibly on the
footer
https://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2=48.187141%2C%2016.349561=48.187141%2C16.349561=48.18694871145921~16.349901334904583=18=1

ARCGIS Web - Uses OSM and ESRI data, credits both
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=fae788aa91e54244b161b59725dcbb2a

European Commission - credits OSM and other sources
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentec-portal/map/maps.html
and
http://emergency.copernicus.eu/mapping/copernicus-emergency-management-service#zoom=2=23.42974=16.28085=00B0T

Sadly, some say this is hard to implement. The above sites, must have a
hell of a research UX dept to make it possible and others just say it's
hard. Google does the same on "dynamic attribution". It's not rocket
science, especially when it's for desktop use, there's plenty of space
to attribute visibly. It's just excuses.

What about maps that display an overlay over a basemap? This would
lead to the overlay data provider mostly being pushed in the second
row because it is quantitatively less, but the overlay data might be
the rare unique data that is interesting. In case someone displayed an
OpenStreetMap based overlay over a different background, why would we
deliberately renounce from attribution in these cases?

We shouldn't as it would violate the license.

It is crucial that the 50% relate to the actually visible map
features, and not to the total map. If the latter was possible, you
could just fill your db with random crap in the middle of the ocean
and distort the proportion.
Obviously, we know those dirty tricks. Fatmap is a perfect example of
that
https://fatmap.com/adventures/@38.6755407,-9.1596113,3096.1899062,-40.2439178,19.7162561,31.6575309,normal
and there's is plenty of room to add the attribution visibly.

To be honest i'm kinda fed up of all of this, nothing happens. And it's
a shame stating "the license doesn't say this or that", it neither says
you must attribute with the exact text “© OpenStreetMap contributors”,
must be unreasonable calculated to acknowledge. Common sense and
fairness is all needed, not crappy legal interpretations and placing
fear for legal actions from corporate interests. Sadly i'm starting to
believe the concerns that some have shared on the list that OSMF is
being "controlled" by corporate interests and not by the spirit that it
was created.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

2019-08-10 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira


Oh right that sounds fair...not.

Same applies to this https://janaodaparaabastecer.vost.pt/ theres Mapbox 
logo, there's VOST logo, then under  "i" crap load of sources...oh yeh 
that's OSM for sure, i know my edits well. clearly the 50% rule needs to 
be removed from the guidance as users are using already in a misleading 
way. And again another Mapbox tied map.



Às 11:58 de 10/08/2019, Andrew Harvey escreveu:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 17:27, Joseph Eisenberg 
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote:


It's even hard to recommend apps like Maps.me when they don't
attribute Openstreetmap, instead putting their own logo in the lower
right corner.

If people don't know that OSM is the source of the data in a map, they
won't know how to get involved to improve it.


They do provide the attribution, tt's under Settings | About (then 
again under Settings | About | Copyright).


___
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] Attribution guideline status update

2019-08-10 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira



So maybe it is an unauthorized use of Mapbox. Anyone can sign up free. 
You should report it to Mapbox.


Nah, they stop replying me, they must have me on blacklist. Which goes a 
bit against their values "*Be respectful and humble.* To everyone — 
always." https://www.mapbox.com/about/values/


Speaking of them, seems their interpretation of ODbL is the same as mine:

The /text attribution/ contains at least three links: |© Mapbox| 
, |© OpenStreetMap| 
 and |Improve this map| 
. This 
_*attribution is strictly *__*/required/*_ when using the Mapbox 
Streets tileset due to OpenStreetMap's data source ODbL 
 license.


https://docs.mapbox.com/help/how-mapbox-works/attribution/



About DJI, i presume you know they stopped using Altitude Angel
(the company that omitted the attribution and runs
https://dronesafetymap.com/) and are now using Mapbox instead as
you can see here https://www.dji.com/pt/flysafe/geo-map Mapbox
owns me a cup of tea for another client, oh well i can refuse that
cup of tea for adding the attribution proudly and not behind "i"
or even omitting. Sometimes i think they are ashamed of using OSM
data instead of proudly showing it. It's not about the data, it's
what you do with it that matters and Mapbox does it well, but
hiding the source is dirty.

How do you know that they stopped using Altitude Angel? I can see from 
the map that they use Mapbox now, but can't they use more than one 
data source?


Yes, i do agree. Sounds like a good argument to remove the 50% of the 
guideline.



That might be your opinion, but I think a court would disagree. Courts 
often look at norms in order to interpret a licence.


This is the issue and feels like we are being abuse and pressured with 
the court/judge motive. When we shouldn't even go there but doing what's 
common sense. Maybe we should just switch to a public domain license, 
because that's what seems we have.



 The objects don't say anything about strict attribution requirements. 
In fact, requirements that are too strict will *discourage* the 
"distribution of free geospatial data" by making it too difficult to 
use. That's the opposite of "providing geospatial data for anybody to 
use and share."


Sure, i have send those concerns to the board. I don't see any 
difficulty to use it, you just need to attribute.



Great, so now you are saying that OSM has been doing it wrong since 
the beginning?


Well apparently we were tricked when we switched from CC to ODbL, 
judging by your opinion, we don't need this guidance or the copyright at 
all, with the argument of license doesn't say so.



"You must keep intact" means don't delete them, not, "can't be a 
link". That last clause is "to the extent reasonably practicable, the 
Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be 
associated with the Work." In other words, include a link if the 
Licensor wants you to include a link! No one has suggested that the 
attribution should be only (c) OpenStreetMap with no link back to 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright


So we are living in a lie since the beginning and dont need the 
attribution page at all. Please Board explain.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Your complaint about LiveStream is that their attribution is 
completely missing, not that it's behind a click. I agree that it's 
missing and that it should be somewhere. It's not clear at all where 
they are getting their data (the rendering looks like Leaflet). If 
they are looking into it, then why not believe they are looking into 
it? They will probably fix it after they figure it out. DJI fixed it 
after investigating, and it took them a while to investigate as well.


By inspecting their code from the link i shared you get. 
src="https://b.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/livestreamllc.i64m05c3/16/18179/27868.png; 
unless they are using Mapbox without their attribution which i presume 
would be unauthorized use of Mapboxeither that or are premium 
clients (i did asked them that, they didn't reply obviously). None the 
less I gave up on asking Mapbox to make sure their clients comply with 
our license and their terms of service, as they ignore it. Which is a 
shame coming from a OSMF corporate member. Anyway i have asked, several 
times, even public, another OSMF corporate member to do the same, still 
displaying HERE logo on our data. Probably they take HERE seriously 
(legal) and not OSMF or OSM contributors.


About DJI, i presume you know they stopped using Altitude Angel (the 
company that omitted the attribution and runs 
https://dronesafetymap.com/) and are now using Mapbox instead as you can 
see here https://www.dji.com/pt/flysafe/geo-map Mapbox owns me a cup of 
tea for another client, oh well i can refuse that cup of tea for adding 
the attribution proudly and not behind "i" or even omitting. Sometimes i 
think they are ashamed of using OSM data instead of proudly showing it. 
It's not about the data, it's what you do with it that matters and 
Mapbox does it well, but hiding the source is dirty.



"reasonably calculated" means "reasonable." What does reasonable mean? 
Well a court would look at what other people in the industry do. Do 
others in the industry list attribution, especially to multiple data 
sources, after a click (or many clicks)? Yes, all the time.


Discussing the reasonable definition is nonsense. Also comparing us to 
the others in the industry is not reasonable as we do not accept money 
for providing data or removing attribution.


Why not 100 click attribution? well that wasn't, isn't and never will be 
the spirit of open data. Unless OSMF is going against it's owns Objects 
of the foundation articles:




OBJECTS

3. The Foundation is established for the purposes listed below:

(1) encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free
geospatial data; and
(2) providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share.



A court would also look at what OSM does. Does OSM list its data 
sources after a link? Yes, sometimes two links (first to 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright, then to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors). Some of this data 
is also under ODbL! Why is this not reasonable?


Thanks for the suggestion, maybe we should fix it and give the example 
of one click only, just to avoid unreasonable interpretations. Anyway 
it's this kind of misleading interpretation of adding a simply “© 
OpenStreetMap contributors” to the data they are using, like it was some 
kind of secret (probably is for none OSMers and general public) that 
places OSMF projet at risk as it clearly does not encourage anything.





And you are pointing to the wrong version of CC-BY, btw, 4.0 came out 
long after the license change, but since "reasonable" is the standard, 
Creative Commons itself gives as an example of "best practices" 
attribution for multiple sources this page: 
https://learn.saylor.org/course/view.php?id=28 Click on "Course Terms 
of Use" to see a list of attributions.


well 4 c) says of CC-BY-SA 2.0 says:

If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly 
digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective 
Works, _*You must keep intact all copyright notices*_ for the Work and 
give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You 
are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of 
the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to 
the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if 
any, _*that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work*_


https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update



. Plus, if anyone went to court trying to enforce something that OSMF 
recommended that was outside the licence, they would lose, and perhaps 
be forced by the court to pay attorney's fees.


Maybe individual contributors might feel "scary" of the attorney fees, 
but probably not these contributors (some even shared under CC):


Our contributors are thousands of individuals. We also include 
openly-licensed data from national mapping agencies and other sources, 
among them:


  * *Austria*: Contains data from Stadt Wien
 (under CC BY
), Land
Vorarlberg


and Land Tirol (under CC BY AT with amendments

).

  * *Australia*: Contains data sourced from PSMA Australia Limited

licensed by the Commonwealth of Australia under CC BY 4.0
.
  * *Canada*: Contains data from GeoBase®, GeoGratis (© Department of
Natural Resources Canada), CanVec (© Department of Natural
Resources Canada), and StatCan (Geography Division, Statistics
Canada).
  * *Finland*: Contains data from the National Land Survey of
Finland's Topographic Database and other datasets, under the NLSFI
License
.
  * *France*: Contains data sourced from Direction Générale des Impôts.
  * *Netherlands*: Contains © AND data, 2007 (www.and.com
)
  * *New Zealand*: Contains data sourced from the LINZ Data Service
 and licensed for reuse under CC BY
4.0 .
  * *Slovenia*: Contains data from the Surveying and Mapping Authority
 and Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry
and Food  (public information of
Slovenia).
  * *Spain*: Contains data sourced from the Spanish National
Geographic Institute (IGN ) and National
Cartographic System (SCNE ) licensed for
reuse under CC BY 4.0 .
  * *South Africa*: Contains data sourced from Chief Directorate:
National Geo-Spatial Information , State
copyright reserved.
  * *United Kingdom*: Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright
and database right 2010-19.


from https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright


Would be interesting to hear from these agencies what their thoughts of 
the lack of attribution or different interpretation of ODbL. Probably 
not happy and would certainly arm OSMF reputation.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that attribution must be on
top of an image

As written on CC-BY-SA

*Attribution*.

If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:

retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the
Licensed Material:

1. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any
others designated to receive attribution, in any r_*easonable
manner requested by the Licensor*_ (including by pseudonym if
designated);

in 3 a 1 A 1 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode

that no interaction is allowed???

it says:

4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced
Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you
Publicly Use a Produced Work, _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.
If you can explain me how "reasonably calculated" to anyone that views
or is exposed means that no attribution must be visibly on the Produced
work. Feel free, i would like to know.

Unless OSMF when we switched from CC to ODbL mislead the contributors
and it's contributor terms, which i highly doubt.

Let's do an exercise.

LiveStream, a company of Vimeo uses OSM data on their website via a
third party provider (Mapbox). I contacted LiveStream to comply with the
license, they reply they are not using OSM data. Strange since i see my
contributions on it, maybe they are not aware (being premium clients
doesn't allow you to remove the attribution, other than the service
provider, Mapbox). Asked them who sold them my data without complying
with the license that i agreed my content to be distributed under. For
over one month their legal department is still checking this.

Link with a map example (feel free to browse to your contribution area),
click on the "i" for the map to display
https://livestream.com/accounts/9869799/events/7517661 printscreen of
the maphttps://ibb.co/TH4LbFp

Now the questions:

1 - Are they fulfilling the license?

a) yes

B) no

2 - Who's responsible?

a) Mapbox

b) LiveStream/Vimeo

But following your "Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that
attribution must be on top of an image or that no interaction is
allowed", i have search all LiveStream website and there's no notice at
all of OSM data.

3 - Who's not aware?

a) Mapbox, an OSMF corporate member

b) LiveStream/Vimeo, client of Mapbox

c) contributors/OSMF

Às 18:56 de 09/08/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:
Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that attribution must be on
top of an image or that no interaction is allowed???

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:17 AM Nuno Caldeira
mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

So you are saying that when we switched from CC to ODbL, the
bellow quote was not true?

Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_are_the_main_differences_between_the_old_and_the_new_license.3F

Also the license is clear, anyone that views, i don't have to
interact to acknowledge the notice.

Às 18:08 de 09/08/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:

Guidelines by the licensor

On legal advice, *what a Licensor says carries weight with
users of our data and, potentially, to a judge*. A court
would make a final decision on the issue, however we hope
these guidelines are helpful to *avoid *disputes arising in
the first place and can be considered by the courts in
coming to their verdict.

from
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines

Nuno, you are quoting this like it's the law, but what you have
quoted here isn't the *law*, it's what *OSMF* thinks *might*
happen and what motivates OSMF to put out guidelines. Frankly,
OSMF can choose to change the language you have quoted as a part
of changing the guidelines!
Under the law, the licensor's opinion, as one party to the
contract, is taken into consideration. However, it is *not* the
only thing that matters. The words of the licence matter more,
and if there is a conflict between what the licensor thinks and
what the licence says, the words of the licence will control. In
that case, the licensor is simply "wrong" (and there are plenty
of cases where that was the end result).
You are right that we hope to avoid disputes by setting out
reasonable guidelines, but if OSMF sets out guidelines that are
unreasonable and not tied to the language of the licence, then no
one, e

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

So you are saying that when we switched from CC to ODbL, the bellow
quote was not true?

Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_are_the_main_differences_between_the_old_and_the_new_license.3F

Also the license is clear, anyone that views, i don't have to interact
to acknowledge the notice.

Às 18:08 de 09/08/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:

Guidelines by the licensor

On legal advice, *what a Licensor says carries weight with users
of our data and, potentially, to a judge*. A court would make a
final decision on the issue, however we hope these guidelines are
helpful to *avoid *disputes arising in the first place and can be
considered by the courts in coming to their verdict.

from https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines

Nuno, you are quoting this like it's the law, but what you have quoted
here isn't the *law*, it's what *OSMF* thinks *might* happen and what
motivates OSMF to put out guidelines. Frankly, OSMF can choose to
change the language you have quoted as a part of changing the guidelines!
Under the law, the licensor's opinion, as one party to the contract,
is taken into consideration. However, it is *not* the only thing that
matters. The words of the licence matter more, and if there is a
conflict between what the licensor thinks and what the licence says,
the words of the licence will control. In that case, the licensor is
simply "wrong" (and there are plenty of cases where that was the end
result).
You are right that we hope to avoid disputes by setting out reasonable
guidelines, but if OSMF sets out guidelines that are unreasonable and
not tied to the language of the licence, then no one, either users of
the data or judges, will listen to OSMF, and, under the law, rightly so.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update




* What's the guidance on scenarios where software does not ship with OSM
data, and does not display online maps, but e.g. allows downloading map
data for offline use? Would it be acceptable to make the license
information part of the download process, or is it still required that
attribution is visible on-screen during use?

Tobias



From my perspective, the user is aware of the map source and must be 
sure of the terms of it. Example Arcgis or QGIS software, both allow to 
use OSM as basemap or download the data. They do not show the license.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Às 14:56 de 09/08/2019, Christoph Hormann escreveu:

On Friday 09 August 2019, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
It is a community guideline - a recommendation of the community on how
to work with OSM data to comply with the license. No data user has to
follow the guideline - the only binding document is the license itself.
The purpose of the guideline is to give practical guidiance how to
comply with the license. The Guidelines should never suggest something
that would violate the license (like as mentioned the 50 percent rule)
but it can of course suggest things that are not strictly required by
the license. And saying "if you attribute in this way that is
perfectly fine with the community" is useful even if "this way" goes
beyond the minimum requirements of the license.

Guidelines by the licensor

On legal advice, *what a Licensor says carries weight with users of
our data and, potentially, to a judge*. A court would make a final
decision on the issue, however we hope these guidelines are helpful to
*avoid *disputes arising in the first place and can be considered by
the courts in coming to their verdict.

from https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines

what companies are doing, is exactly the opposite, they justify their
actions based on the license interpretation to their own interests, not
taking into account what the licensor says.

The license is clear:

4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced
Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you
Publicly Use a Produced Work, 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.
Unless someone can explain me how i'm i suppose to see the notice when
i'm view or am exposed to their produced work if they are not showing it
visibly and clearly without me having to interact to either click an "i"
icon or go through endless submenus to figure out what's the map source.
the word "interacts" is there for a reason...

And i also think rejecting second rate attribution is perfectly in line
with and supported by the "reasonably calculated" requirement of the
ODbL since with a significantly less prominent attribution of OSM
compared to other attributions given this is less the case. In the
case linked to above for example removing the "Zeit Online" would
increase the likelihood that a page visitor - when asked - could
correctly identify the map source because they would be more likely to
look under the 'i' than if they have the obvious other explanation (map
produced by Zeit Online out of thin air) being presented as the
simplest answer.

quoting ODbL:

4.8 Licensing of others. You may not sublicense the Database.

They must keep the notice intact, therefore attributing OSM.

When we switched from CC to ODbL, this was documented as:

Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_are_the_main_differences_between_the_old_and_the_new_license.3F

Ditching the attribution for second rate attribution is not only unfair,
does not meet this and also goes against OSMF objects of the foundation
articles
.
Unless someone explains me how we are promoting the growdth, development
and distribution of free geospatial data to those that are not aware of
it by hiding the source of the wonderful maps those companies do with
the data from this lovely community.

you show users and viewers of whatever you do with our data clearly
where you got the data from. A lot of contributors have spent and
spend a lot of time and effort adding data from virtually every
country in the world. We would also like people to know about our
project and perhaps use or contribute data themselves.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#What_do_you_mean_by_.22Attribution.22.3F

Also it's crucial the attribution has in marketing and promotion of the
project. Or are we having a Working group for that?

About omitting permanently the "contributors" part by me is fine, but i
truly hope the argument of "lack of space to display" will not be used
like it's being abusively justified like it is now.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

About the 50% exception. i recently had to be unpleasant with Fatmap 
(their app and website https://fatmap.com/), after 2 months of zero 
action from their side. Source 
https://twitter.com/iamnunocaldeira/status/1136624467000602624 after my 
message on the 3rd of August, they contacted me via private message, to 
which i explained how to attribute, linking to copyright page, OSMF 
guidelines and license terms. They stated:


"Thank you - yes our mapping and tech teams are in touch with them 
both now. _We have over 20 different providers for our map_, all with 
different requirements and different integrations. So we are working 
out the best solution!"


To which i replied i had nothing to do with the other sources, how they 
must fulfil the other sources attribution (if applies)  and they should 
comply with our attribution as required. They then replied:


Once we have found a solution together with the OSM and MapBox teams, 
I will let you know!"
i asked them with whom of OSM/OSMF they are speaking to, they never 
replied back. Can anyone from OSMF tell me with who they are working in 
OSM/OSMF? I would like to know or if they are just saying they are 
talking to, when they are not. AFAIK we do not open exceptions about 
this subject.



Another concern i have by their reply is Mapbox teams dictating how and 
when the attribution must be displayed. This being said, i start to 
believe we should remove the 50% exception (how would we actually know 
if it's 51% OSM or 49%?), because it will be used as a loophole to avoid 
the attribution. Fatmap example is a perfect of Christoph concern about 
corporate usage. We shouldn't place our data/derivate with attribution 
with the same usage of paid map data/derivates that is not subject to 
attribution if paid for.


It's just another example to the long list of example of Strava, 
Facebook, Instagram, Vimeo Livestream (Mapbox client, that has their 
legal dept checking if they should attribute or not) and more that are 
using OSM without attributing at all. As i have shared on other lists, 
_*it's a shame*_ most of these lack of attribution examples i gave comes 
first or second handed from corporate members of OSMF (Facebook and 
Mapbox). Up until they give an example of how to be good citizens of 
OSM, these guidelines won't solve the issue. For months, both of these 
companies have been silence about it and OSMF board too. Which results 
in the lack of attribution being a "normal thing", when it's not.


Sadly i'm starting to believe these lack of attribution will only be 
solved once a contributor (individual or a national agency that provided 
data to OSM under the license) sues one of these companies. As we know 
as soon as someone does not comply with the license (or formally 
informed by the licensor) it's rights are terminated. If a contributor 
wants to sue for their content that they licensed to OSMF to be 
distributed only under ODbL, they are legit to take action. If this 
occurs, i fear it will damage OSM/OSMF image and fear of usage of data. 
which is not what we want and will affect OSMF OBJECTS 
. 
All of it can be avoided by simply doing what's on the license, instead 
of arguing if it should or not attribute open data that they are using 
for free without crediting.


Mea culpa as i also helped on this guidance. We do need to improve it, 
so feel free to suggest, share concerns.




Às 12:06 de 09/08/2019, Christoph Hormann escreveu:

I am strongly against this in the current form because it addresses none
of the major issues about corporate attribution of OSM (or lack
thereof).

1) It does not in any way address the problem of second rate attribution
(i.e. someone else - usually the service provider of the map service or
the media outlet publishing the map) is being attributed more
prominently than OSM.  The '50 percent rule' you invented:

"If OpenStreetMap data accounts for a minority (less than 50%) part of
the visible map rendering, attribution with other sources on a separate
page that is visible after user interaction is acceptable."

is ridiculous because 50 percent of the map area being functionally
empty is essentially a property of most maps, in particular at large
scales or high zoom levels.  There is no basis in the ODbL for allowing
attribution in a case where attribution is required that is
not "reasonably calculated to make any person [...] aware".  Therefore
i would consider that rule in clear violation of the license.

And frankly it also contradicts the fundamental self-image of the mapper
community.  As has been discussed plenty of times the way geodata is
generated in OSM is fundamentally different from other geodata sources.
While elsewhere people generating geodata are almost always rewarded
for their work also in other form (like salery) in OSM the only
recognition mappers receive from external data users is the attribution
required by the

Re: [OSM-talk] Just email direclty | Re: Sharing, Facebook, mapwithai_feedback

2019-08-06 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

Às 17:56 de 06/08/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:
**Just a fyi that Dristie is a woman. She was at SotM last year and 
quite nice to chat with.

On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:22 AM stevea > wrote:

SteveA

> On Aug 5, 2019, at 11:55 PM, Rory McCann mailto:r...@technomancy.org>> wrote:
>
> I think we'll just have to CC o...@fb.com  and
forward all replies to this list. Facebook won't engage.

If it's fragmented, it's not our fault, we already have our community 
communications established for years. Even newer ways of communications 
(like Telegram groups) are well documented.

About not being heard, did the electronic postman lost my emails to 
o...@fb.com of the 10th of October 2018, the one from 6th of December 
2018 (which i CC to le...@osmfoundation.org, 
legal-questi...@osmfoundation.org) and the one from 6th of January 2019 
(also CC to Mapbox, le...@osmfoundation.org, 
legal-questi...@osmfoundation.org)?

I don't buy that talk, not replying to emails asking for simple things 
and ignoring is bad. Worst, some things are still like they were months 
ago. As example OSM maps being attributed to HERE.

Actions speaker louder than words.

There's nothing complex, the license, guidelines are well explicit and 
they are even Corporate Members of OSMF, they surely are aware of how to 
proceed. Ignoring emails for months is not building bridges. Also has 
Facebook legal dept managed to review our attribution issue? That's what 
they said to me on October 2018 (10 months ago). Do we really need to 
send for legal review, when as OSMF corporate members they must:

  Foundation and community expectations

We expect Corporate Members to conduct themselves as good citizens of 
the OpenStreetMap ecosystem, e.g. by complying with our attribution 
requirements (Licence and Legal FAQ 
), 
following good editing practice and adhering to the community's 
guidelines, such as the Licence/Community Guidelines 
 and 
the Organised Editing Guidelines 
.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Corporate_Members

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Sharing, Facebook, mapwithai_feedback

2019-08-06 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

so we should change the way we communicate because employees of large
companies dont like transparência?
I have sent emails, they only replied once and stopped replying since
October 9th 2018. is that a good example of communication with the
community?

A terça, 6/08/2019, 04:43, Michal Migurski  escreveu:

> Hi,
>
> I appreciate the invitation, but this is a complicated list for employees
> of a large company to have a discussion!
>
> Instead, try posting on the diary post where Drishtie announced the
> project and FB staff are actively responding:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/DrishT/diary/368711
>
> The project is also on Github with open issues, if you’ve got something to
> report: https://github.com/facebookincubator/RapiD/issues
>
> -mike.
>
> > On Aug 2, 2019, at 2:47 PM, stevea  wrote:
> >
> > Re-threading from the rather messy previous one.
> >
> > Mike:  Thank you for telling us of the #mapwithai_feedback Slack
> channel, truly.  It is true that some of us choose not to use Slack.
> >
> > I ask Facebook to meet the OSM community about these issues "on our
> turf" by participating here.  That would speak volumes, Facebook.  This is
> a quite an "open" channel, talk.  Archives remain open for years (forever?)
> and we speak candidly, earnestly and honestly here.  If you weren't
> watching this thread / dialog before, you are now, Facebook.  Please
> consider yourself invited here.  Matters do seem pressing with an urgency,
> although I understand that crafting a thoughtful reply can take some time.
> >
> > That seems fair, yes, Valor?  A neutral, even polite invitation to
> here?  We'll see.
> >
> > There are hundreds, maybe thousands who participate here.  "Facebook"
> (whomever that might be in the guise of an OSM volunteer who subscribes
> here) could politely answer this phone call, even quite well.
> >
> > SteveA
> >
>
> 
> michal migurski- contact info and pgp key:
> sf/cahttp://mike.teczno.com/contact.html
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Isn't it nice to share?  | Re: Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaborati =?utf-8?q?on_with_OpenStreetMap

2019-08-02 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

Good luck with trying to dialogue with them (can you get any of their
emails?). I tried asking simple stuff like complying with license, OSM
principles and OSMF guidelines. they stopped replying and keep being acting
in a disrespectful way towards our community and OSMF objects. This
behavior does not promote the growdth of open data.

trying to ask them to improve RaID, instead of prioritizing to fulfill the
community standards when they use OSM data in a wrong ways, are not clear
is more dangerous for OSM than improving their editor. this kind of
behavior from corporate members must be banned. to quote OSMF at
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Corporate_Members

Foundation and community expectations

We expect Corporate Members to conduct themselves as good citizens of the
OpenStreetMap ecosystem, e.g. by complying with our attribution
requirements (Licence and Legal FAQ
),
following good editing practice and adhering to the community's guidelines,
such as the Licence/Community Guidelines
 and
the Organised
Editing Guidelines
.
They are clearly not good citizens (i dare you to prove me wrong) by not
practicing the community guidelines, license. so please stop complying with
not complying behavior that only damages OSM/OSMF and our community.

about their POIs we get dozens of emails monthly on our copyright email due
to their users finding their address on instagram or Facebook in which as
they are not clear when using our maps with their data, their users end up
sending emails to OSM thinking we are the ones responsible for that lack of
privacy on their side when they only use us as a basemap, even without
complying with ODbL or the attribution. they are not clear enough what's
theirs and what's our data and it's resulting in OSM being "responsible"
for their POIs, even when they don't fulfill the basic OSMF standards and
guidelines. they must not be aware or read my emails, cuz they are not OSMF
corporate members or been asked to comply 9 months ago.

A sexta, 2/08/2019, 09:58, Valor Naram  escreveu:

> The time is now to get into dialogues with Facebook's RaID team instead of
> discussing further what Facebook did/does wrong, how they can improve their
> AI, how they can improve their communication with the community and what
> their intentions are.
>
> Discussing with Facebook's RaID team is better and more helpful for both
> sites instead of discussing about Facebook's practise without Facebook's
> involvement.
>
> We should be fair!
>
> Cheers
>
> Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram
>
>
>  Original Message 
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Isn't it nice to share?  | Re: Facebook mapping
> highways using AI in collaborati =?utf-8?q?on_with_OpenStreetMap
> From: Joseph Eisenberg
> To: Marc Gemis
> CC: Rory McCann ,OSM Talk
>
>
> Facebook probably shouldn't import all of their POIs directly into
> OSM. I understand that this could cause problems.
>
> But they could make available all sorts of useful data, including a
> separate overlay or service that allowed us to see where facebook POIs
> are located, and manually import them into OSM if they are correct.
>
> I believe that also record your GPS coordinates while using the app in
> many cases, such as when taking photos. They could make these GPS
> traces available, like Strava does - quite helpful for finding missing
> path connections, and also helps show when a street a closed.
>
> They could allow their users to choose to automatically upload photos
> of businesses and street scenes under a suitable license to a
> Mapillary-like site that could be used for mapping.
>
> They could share data that suggest that POIs no longer exist; such as
> a facebook user clicking a note that says "this place is permanently
> closed" or "doesn't exist" and we could use that like a note or fixme.
> I believe these sort of prompts are already automatically suggested
> when the app sees you are at a POI, as are things questions about
> additional features (free parking? free wifi, etc?) which could be
> useful information for us.
>
> None of these options for share-alike would be clearly good for
> short-term shareholder value, but they would be quite helpful for
> mappers in OSM, and wouldn't require a massive import.
>
> Joseph
>
> On 8/2/19, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > This "self appointed police of OSM" will probably question
> >
> > - how did those companies receive the data, under which copyright?
> > - how did they geocode the POIs, using Google's geocoder ? (a big no-no)
> > - how up-to-date is this data ? Will you reimport POIs that have been
> > rightfully removed in OSM ?
> > - how will you avoid duplicates ?
> >
> > all legitimate question imho.
> >
> > p.s. people that keep blaming the mailing lists for bad behaviour,
> > really make me wonder why I

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

2019-08-01 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

i agree with Kathleen here, we don't need their junk POIs. Actually we 
shouldn't have anything to do with companies that uses OSM the way they 
do without complying with the license and OSMF guidelines. This is still 
to be taken into consideration 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-June/082653.html

About this lovely OSMF corporate member, 9 months since i asked 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-June/082702.html 
them to fix attribution and they are still attributing OSM maps to HERE. 
a round of applause for this outstanding support and example of OSM data 
usage by an OSMF member.

Video capture of app their Local app https://www.facebook.com/local/ (i 
meant to say "my contributions", not "my attributions" during the video 
capturing): https://youtu.be/Ah9FyiT6JKk

My contributions on OSM displayed on the 
videohttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448052037#map=17/32.64575/-16.90531

Cable car https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25975745

HERE map at same location 
https://wego.here.com/?map=32.64615,-16.90117,17,public_transport

Feel free to check your location and your edits on OSM being credited to 
HERE and share them here (i mean on the mailing list, not HERE).

Às 17:35 de 01/08/2019, Kathleen Lu via talk escreveu:
I don't think it's disingenuous at all for Facebook to use their own 
POIs instead of OSM's. Wasn't the whole point of the Collective 
Databases principle and the Collective Databases Guideline 
specifically to enable this type of usage, so that those interested in 
OSM did not have to make an "all or nothing" choice?

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 9:17 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Besides the tech boosterism, another issue is that it's disingenuous
if Facebook claims to be strongly supporting OSM, while continuing to
keep their valuable user-provided data in a separate, proprietary
database.

Facebook and Google have the two best lists of POIs like shops and
restaurants, and an extensive database of customer photos and reviews
which they control. While Facebook has decided to use OSM for road,
street and waterway data (which they couldn't easily have users add),
they keep this data for themselves. Were Facebook interested in
improving OSM, they could share their POI data, including when a
feature was last visited and notes about which feature no longer
exist. This could add millions more OSM contributors for features like
shops and restaurants, which are not yet completely mapped even in
well-developed OSM communities in Europe, and it would be
revolutionary in Indonesia and Thailand.

Only a few people will every become hobby mappers, adding waterways,
highways, landuse and such for fun, but every business owner wants to
see their shop or office on Facebook, so these POIs would be added and
kept up-to-date by users.

I don't expect Facebook to share this data for free, because a large
part of their business model is recording your geodata and using this
to maximize profit for their shareholders, but if they ever decide to
really prove "we're not that evil", sharing their data could go a long
way to changing Facebooks poor reputation for corporate responsibility
and transparency.

Joseph

On 8/1/19, stevea mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com>> wrote:
> (I chose the wrong source email address; apologies if anybody
gets this
> twice).
>
> Thanks, Jóhannes.  I did try FB's tool myself and was pleasantly
surprised
> it does a "looks OK for now" job of how Mikel put it earlier: 
"a balance
> between turbocharged and exploitation."  I hear you as you say that
> mapwith.ai  has, as I described, a
comfortable workflow of "AI suggests,
> human maps, human checks that what is acceptable can be
uploaded, human
> uploads."  That's fine, it does indeed have "a human in the
loop" and the
> human checks for quality, the human is not just being there for
the sake of
> being there.  This aspect of "humans, not AI, determine quality"
is a
> critical component of what I am saying.
>
> What I believe raised ire here was the BBC botching the "press
announcement"
> as a stilted and seemingly uninformed "cheerleading" piece that
made AI
> sound as if it were a "magic bullet" that was going to save
mapping in OSM
> somehow.  It isn't (magic) and it won't (though AI is an
important tool
> going forward, especially as it is coupled with human wisdom and
a hawkish
> eye towards high quality).  OSM is, and will always be, a
> human-participating project, with all of the social and "get
outdoors and
> map" project as one (human) might like it to be.  AI can and
does help,
> that's fine, as long as humans are always "in charge."
>
> Again, it sounds like there is a

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

2019-07-29 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira



Às 11:02 de 29/07/2019, Naveen Francis escreveu:


On the rhetoric question:-
We are using OSM maps life savings projects. 
https://keralarescue.in/map/ . (2018 Kerala floods maps)

So both quantity and quality are equally important.

I don't see the attribution on that map, or that website has an 
exception like Facebook seems to have too?


Oh it does attribute, but you have to scroll down to see it. must be a 
UX mistake...



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

2019-07-26 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

> Whoever reads this and does not have deeper insights into the workings 
of the OSMF must get into the impression that HOT is an official part 
of the OSMF / OpenStreetMap, i.e. OSM is collaborating with FB.


Well that very well might be true about perception. But Facebook did 
not say that OSMF was supporting the project. They representing 
correctly. We all here get the difference and understand that HOT is a 
different organization. Making this distinction is not Facebook's 
problem, but rather HOT and OSMF should do a better job explaining the 
complexity of the whole universe of OSM.


I'm sure Facebook are not aware of it, like they are not Corporate 
members of OSMF. If they can't simple understand and comply with the 
attribution, it's sure a third party duty to elucidate outsiders of the 
OSM the differences between those two.


Also about the attribution, some of their maps (not all, some still do 
not have attribution) since yesterday are displaying this attribution 
after clicking on the "i" https://i.ibb.co/mvxRgg4/facebook.jpg . Can 
someone explain them that the required attribution is “© OpenStreetMap 
contributors” and not “© OpenStreetMap”. There's plenty of space to show 
it properly as "Report a problem with the map" is longer than “© 
OpenStreetMap contributors”. I would do it myself, but they stopped 
replying to my emails. Maybe they are not aware how to properly 
attribute, must be someone else's duty to explain.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

2019-07-26 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

i share the thoughts and concerns shared by Christoph. It's not 
surprisingly that most of these companies are "tied" or are 
client/service providers of each other, some are even Corporate members 
of OSMF. Who would bite the hand the feeds?


Blaming third party media outlets, when Facebook article title is "AI is 
supercharging the creation of maps around the world" says a lot. What 
maps? Bit of misleading title oh well, not clear enough. #options


Also the video they have on the article shows in the end the 
attribution. Funnily uploaded on Vimeo, that regarding this 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-July/082927.html 
replied me yesterday mentioning they are having an investigation between 
their engineers and their legal department to add the attribution on the 
map on their LiveStream platform hope it does not take as long as 
the steam engine speed legal dept of facebook that still hasn't figured 
out since October what to do about the attribution as when they replied 
to me in October 2018, as reported here 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-June/082702.html


For a *tv, film or video production*, the attribution should typically 
appear in a corner of the map. *As long as the credit is on screen 
long enough to be read*, it does not have to remain in view during 
panning or zooming. For productions with end credits, *we would also 
welcome a credit there*


from 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#Where_to_put_it.3F




Às 09:34 de 26/07/2019, Christoph Hormann escreveu:

On Friday 26 July 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote:

This is probably normal for corporate PR people, but for me it's just
disgusting.

And in that conflict in my eyes you can see the core of the problem.
The corporate appropriation of OpenStreetMap and the OSM community has
meanwhile all the characteristics of a cult.  You can see in the
reactions of corporate representatives here - as well as in other cases
where corporate PR misrepresenting OSM is presented, see for example
the comments to the Facebook diary entry that has been linked to or in
the discussion with the Thailand community, that many of them are so
detached from the reality of the hobby mapper community and
non-corporate data users that functional communication is essentially
not possible any more.

I have no solution for this - at least none that works within OSM alone.
But i have strong doubts meanwhile that arguing with people who are
fully immersed into the belief system of corporate PR regarding OSM is
of benefit in most cases.  This in itself is a pretty frightening
realization.

There is a famous saying (not sure of its origin) - that fits pretty
well here:  It is hard to make people understand something if their
livelihood depends on not understanding it.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

2019-07-25 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

https://venturebeat.com/2019/07/23/facebook-speeds-up-mapping-data-validation-with-machine-learning-tools-map-with-ai-and-rapid/

"Facebook says that the mapping data validated by Map With AI — which will
be publicly available — might help to inform disaster urban planning and
development projects, and to improve Facebook products that use
OpenStreetMap like Marketplace, Local, and Pages."

oh the wonders! so what Facebook products are using OSM data? I don't see
the attribution or notice of OSM being used. can someone pinpoint me of
such? I have tried, but can't find it.

"“The RapiD tool was developed in conjunction with those in the mapping
community who have been working in this area for many years. Because this
tool was built with their input, it is already having an impact,” said
Tyler Radford,executive director of the humanitarian OpenStreetMap team."

so HOT is behind this too?

" Above: Visualization of the geographic distribution of training data for
the road segmentation

model.
Image Credit: Facebook"

oh... they have added road data in Europe or just the training? haven't
seen that. lovely it's credited to Facebook

A quarta, 24/07/2019, 23:08, stevea  escreveu:

> Sure, James.  I'm simply calling this as I see it here, in context, with
> an appropriate audience.
> SteveA
>
> > On Jul 24, 2019, at 3:02 PM, James  wrote:
> >
> > News outlet sensationalizes story to attract views to its website.I
> can't think of one example of this ever happening in the history pf the
> planet
>
>
> ___
> 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] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

2019-07-24 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

to be honest I dont find anything about the collaboration.
about they being a corporate member and to be caution to what we say, i
this this sums it up when they dont:
Foundation and community expectations
We expect Corporate Members to conduct themselves as good citizens of the
OpenStreetMap ecosystem, e.g. by complying with our attribution
requirements (Licence and Legal FAQ), following good editing practice and
adhering to the community's guidelines, such as the Licence/Community
Guidelines and the Organised Editing Guidelines.

 as written as https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Corporate_Members

what a example of a corporate member we have!

unless Facebook has a some sort of exception within OSMF, that im not
aware.

A quarta, 24/07/2019, 21:54, Martin Koppenhoefer 
escreveu:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 24. Jul 2019, at 22:16, Tom Hughes  wrote:
> >
> > I think it's a unilateral self-declared collaboration ;-)
>
>
> We should be cautious with this, they are a corporate member and on the
> advisory board, so clearly there is some documented kind of collaboration,
> or at least it looks as if (hardly anybody outside of OpenStreetMap and
> maybe also not so many inside of OpenStreetMap will be able to estimate the
> importance of this entity), and by suggesting they are contributing AI
> generated data it may look as if a lot of OpenStreetMap data came through
> processes like this rather than local people contributing their knowledge.
>
> Cheers Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

2019-07-24 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

so grateful of "The project is a collaboration with OpenStreetMap (OSM)". I
might have missed the announcement, can anyone pinpoint me the link of such
collaboration being announced?
Hope they find some spare time in the future to add the attribution on the
maps on their website and apps. #priorities

A quarta, 24/07/2019, 20:59, John Whelan  escreveu:

> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49091093
>
> Did I miss a discussion on the subject or an announcement from Fredrick on
> this?
>
> I note "Martijn van Exel" is quoted.
>
> Many Thanks
>
> Cheerio John
> --
> Sent from Postbox 
> ___
> 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] We need to have a conversation about attribution

2019-07-23 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

Yes it is and when they reply:

The Livestream Platform does not utilize the Open Street Map site or
any of the data that you're referring to. We have always used another
mapping service to integrate locations within our event and have no
ties to OpenStreetMap.
And then you send a OSM History Viewer link of when you added on OSM
with a printscreen of that same element on their website.

Às 23:48 de 23/07/2019, James escreveu:
It's kind of funny when people deny osm data as it has it's own sort
flavour that differentiates it from google, bing, here, etc. It's
instantly recognizable.

On Tue., Jul. 23, 2019, 6:43 p.m. Nuno Caldeira,
mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Months go by nothing happens. here's another example from
LiveStream, a Vimeo service.They have a map (example, press "i"
https://livestream.com/accounts/23202872/events/7200883 ) , asked
to add the attribution, they replied they do not use OSM tiles or
data, which i kindly asked how they had my contributions on their
map. They stopped replying, short after saying they would
investigate.

Guess what tiles they are using? Mapbox. Screenshot
https://i.ibb.co/0njPFyy/ssdasd.jpg

Does OSMF need these corporates member that keep acting like this?
Who are the first not complying with what the community wanted
when we switched from CC to ODbL? Still the board hasn't replied
to my request to terminate Facebook license
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-June/082653.html

Funnily, Facebook shared this today

https://tech.fb.com/ai-is-supercharging-the-creation-of-maps-around-the-world/

As a reminder of OSMF articles
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association

OBJECTS

3. The Foundation is established for the purposes listed below:

(1) encouraging the growth, development and distribution of
free geospatial data; and
(2) providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share.

Are these companies encouraging the use, the growth and
distribution of OSM, by repeatedly and after being asked several
times to show the attribution?

Do we need to ask the board to expel those corporate members
(equivalent to associate member)?

18. The board may only resolve to expel a person as member or
associate member if, in the board's reasonable opinion, that
person's conduct interferes or is likely to interfere with the
Foundation _*achieving one or more of its objects*_.

Who's in need more of who? OpenStreetMap or these companies? this
is not acceptable and OSMF needs to act as companies, their
clients clearly do not care when contributors contact them asking
to comply. This is a snowball going downhill with more and more
companies doing what facebook does and not attribution and stop
replying to the contributors request to add the attribution. Guess
we or OSMF is too soft on this.

When we switch this was plain and explicit:
*Both licenses are “By Attribution”* and “Share Alike”.

Can I trust the OpenStreetMap Foundation ?

The Foundation is "dedicated to encouraging the growth,
development and distribution of free geospatial data and to
providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share.", (
http://www.osmfoundation.org ).

But what happens if the Foundation is taken over by people with
commercial interests?

* You still own the rights to any data you contribute, not the
Foundation. In the new Contributor Terms, you license the
Foundation to publish the data for others to use and ONLY
under a free and open license.

* The Foundation is not allowed to take your contribution and
release it under a commercial license.

* If the Foundation fails to publish under only a free and open
license, it has broken its contract with you. A copy of the
existing data can be made and released by a different body.

* If a change is made to another free and open license, it is
active contributors who decide yes or no, not the Foundation.

from

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_are_the_main_differences_between_the_old_and_the_new_license.3F

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

2019-07-23 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

Months go by nothing happens. here's another example from LiveStream, a
Vimeo service.They have a map (example, press "i"
https://livestream.com/accounts/23202872/events/7200883 ) , asked to add
the attribution, they replied they do not use OSM tiles or data, which i
kindly asked how they had my contributions on their map. They stopped
replying, short after saying they would investigate.

Guess what tiles they are using? Mapbox. Screenshot
https://i.ibb.co/0njPFyy/ssdasd.jpg

Does OSMF need these corporates member that keep acting like this? Who
are the first not complying with what the community wanted when we
switched from CC to ODbL? Still the board hasn't replied to my request
to terminate Facebook license
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-June/082653.html

Funnily, Facebook shared this today
https://tech.fb.com/ai-is-supercharging-the-creation-of-maps-around-the-world/

As a reminder of OSMF articles
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association

OBJECTS

3. The Foundation is established for the purposes listed below:

(1) encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free
geospatial data; and
(2) providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share.

Are these companies encouraging the use, the growth and distribution of
OSM, by repeatedly and after being asked several times to show the
attribution?

Do we need to ask the board to expel those corporate members (equivalent
to associate member)?

18. The board may only resolve to expel a person as member or
associate member if, in the board's reasonable opinion, that person's
conduct interferes or is likely to interfere with the Foundation
_*achieving one or more of its objects*_.

Who's in need more of who? OpenStreetMap or these companies? this is not
acceptable and OSMF needs to act as companies, their clients clearly do
not care when contributors contact them asking to comply. This is a
snowball going downhill with more and more companies doing what facebook
does and not attribution and stop replying to the contributors request
to add the attribution. Guess we or OSMF is too soft on this.

When we switch this was plain and explicit:
*Both licenses are “By Attribution”* and “Share Alike”.

Can I trust the OpenStreetMap Foundation ?

The Foundation is "dedicated to encouraging the growth, development
and distribution of free geospatial data and to providing geospatial
data for anybody to use and share.", ( http://www.osmfoundation.org ).

But what happens if the Foundation is taken over by people with
commercial interests?

* The Foundation is not allowed to take your contribution and
release it under a commercial license.

* If the Foundation fails to publish under only a free and open
license, it has broken its contract with you. A copy of the
existing data can be made and released by a different body.

* If a change is made to another free and open license, it is active
contributors who decide yes or no, not the Foundation.

from
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_are_the_main_differences_between_the_old_and_the_new_license.3F

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

Re: [OSM-talk] handling street names in speech

2019-07-16 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

also on the the standard mapping convetions, its mentioned in bold :

Don't use abbreviations

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions

A terça, 16/07/2019, 18:05, Stefan Baebler 
escreveu:

> I think IPA (
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet ) would 
> address
> that problem, but that would require many more tags, which are not trivial
> for mappers to write.
>
> Br,
> Štefan
>
>
> V tor., 16. jul. 2019 17:55 je oseba Colin Smale 
> napisala:
>
>> The reason for wanting to expand abbreviations in OSM is surely to avoid
>> ambiguity, not specifically to aid pronunciation or recognition. In the
>> case of "1e ..." in a certain language context, would that not be
>> unambiguous? Would a speech synthesiser not know how it should be spoken in
>> its working language?
>>
>> Slight digression: The question does arise of which rules to use to
>> pronounce foreign names. If I am in Warsaw for example and my satnav
>> started pronouncing street names in pure Polish I might not recognise any
>> of them (apologies to any Poles in the audience). But how would it speak
>> such that I would recognise it, if I was looking for a string with loads of
>> Ws and Zs that means nothing to me? Use English rules to pronounce a Polish
>> word?
>>
>> On the other hand, if I was in Paris, I would expect it to use French
>> rules, because I understand French and using English rules would sound
>> weird although it might well give a lot of laughs...
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2019-07-16 17:36, John Whelan wrote:
>>
>> This approach I like.  Name:expanded perhaps?
>>
>> To go back to earlier ideas.
>>
>> Expanding the name sounds sensible but unfortunately the street signs are
>> posted with the abbreviation and some local mappers have a what is on the
>> sign goes in the map mentality.  Also we have had discussions about street
>> names in Canada before and the decision was what the municipality declares
>> the street name is correct.  That was to do with either "rue Sparks" or
>> should it be "Rue Sparks" in Quebec it would be one way but in Ontario the
>> other.
>>
>> Thoughts
>>
>> Thanks John
>>
>> Colin Smale wrote on 2019-07-16 11:30 AM:
>>
>> On 2019-07-16 16:54, John Whelan wrote:
>>
>> One or two are problematic usually as the street name is an
>> abbreviation.For example 1e Avenue in French meaning First Avenue.
>>
>> Any suggestions on how these should be handled?  This particular
>> application is aimed at partially sighted people but I feel we should be
>> able to come up with a generic solution.
>>
>> Some kind of phonetic (IPA?) representation would be the ultimate generic
>> solution. Here in NL (and I guess in many other countries) there are street
>> names which are partially or entirely in other languages, and the
>> expectation is that they are pronounced as such. For example, Boeing Avenue
>> would sound completely weird if it were pronounced according to Dutch
>> rules. Truly multi-lingual countries like Belgium and Switzerland should be
>> able to make use of name:XX.
>>
>> If we had name:XX:ipa=* we would have a place to put it, but the client
>> app would need to have a way of turning that into sounds. It will only be
>> needed if the pronunciation deviates from the standard for the language in
>> question, but speech synthesisers are never perfect and often make
>> mistakes
>>
>>
>> https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/264239/is-there-any-online-tool-to-read-pronounce-ipa-and-apa-written-words
>>
>> Of course we will also need a way of entering IPA symbols
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing 
>> listtalk@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from Postbox 
>>
>> ___
>> 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] handling street names in speech

2019-07-16 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

in Portugal the community has agreed not to use abreviations.

A terça, 16/07/2019, 15:58, John Whelan  escreveu:

> One or two are problematic usually as the street name is an
> abbreviation.For example 1e Avenue in French meaning First Avenue.
>
> Any suggestions on how these should be handled?  This particular
> application is aimed at partially sighted people but I feel we should be
> able to come up with a generic solution.
>
> Thanks John
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from Postbox 
> ___
> 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] DJI Fly SafeGEO ZONE MAP uses OSM data... without attribution

2019-06-27 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

yes, they do now. they updated it to show it. our doubts were correct that
it was OSM data.

A quinta, 27/06/2019, 12:52, James  escreveu:

> on the desktop version they show ©Mapbox ©OpenStreetMap Improve this map
>
> On Thu., Jun. 27, 2019, 7:50 a.m. Nuno Caldeira, <
> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just an update on this, DJI now complies with the license now. they added
>> the notice on the map https://www.dji.com/pt/mobile/flysafe/geo-map
>>
>> this only proofs that companies do take seriously a letter from the
>> licensor and OSMF should take action after companies ignore the requests
>> from the contributors to comply.
>>
>> One fixed, few others company still need to do the same.
>>
>> A terça, 19/03/2019, 18:48, Nuno Caldeira 
>> escreveu:
>>
>>> After more investigation noticed that the military facilities on OSM
>>> that don't have name, also don't have a name on DJI also. If you search on
>>> OSM the name of the facility based on DJI info they match... wonder why
>>> Few users reporting that the geometry don't match in some countries (i
>>> presume they simplified the geometry in polygon with X ammount of vertices)
>>> or they have used other data. Compared the data from 10 EU countries and
>>> they all match OSM.
>>>
>>> More evidence ( compare the geometries and the coordinates of the
>>> vertices):
>>>
>>> Wrong military base name (in English)
>>> OSM https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/555214494/history
>>> DJI https://screenshots.firefox.com/md51uwmdBUjSEtlI/www.dji.com
>>>
>>> Portugal
>>> This Maritime Police station is wrongly tagged on OSM... is also on DJI
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20317/history#map=19/39.42995/-9.22504=N
>>> DJI has it https://screenshots.firefox.com/CBdSziw1bg9Z58Fc/www.dji.com
>>>
>>> OTAN terminal https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/177395459/history
>>> DJI exact same polygon
>>> https://screenshots.firefox.com/LZKssfpGkmjULviX/www.dji.com
>>>
>>> Spain
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32635137#map=18/43.45274/-3.84917
>>> DJI https://screenshots.firefox.com/589CWyXHvrolF7Fy/www.dji.com
>>>
>>> France
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/365823093
>>> DJI https://screenshots.firefox.com/K42sB4B5DalFx2Sr/www.dji.com
>>>
>>> Germany
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/50156264
>>> DJI https://screenshots.firefox.com/LzMBa9Jx0mvidAGP/www.dji.com
>>>
>>> Hungary - Notice the divisions betweent the different military facilties
>>> that are split...same on DJI
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116800250/history
>>> DJI https://screenshots.firefox.com/vO7anIZe5EEJADcQ/www.dji.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Às 11:42 de 19/03/2019, Nuno Caldeira escreveu:
>>>
>>> I don't see other data than airports in Taiwan. As I mentioned on the
>>> initial, I'm talking about the military facilities and prisons, not
>>> airports. China also don't have military facilities on their map, being a
>>> Chinese company they probably filtered it.
>>>
>>> A terça, 19/03/2019, 11:28, Dennis Raylin Chen 
>>> escreveu:
>>>
>>>> Not in Taiwan.
>>>>
>>>> They just use the data release by the authorities. No data from
>>>> OpenStreetMap.
>>>>
>>>> Dennis
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 6:55 AM Nuno Caldeira <
>>>> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Was curious where DJI managed to get a worldwide DB of polygons of
>>>>> military facilities and points of prisons, triple checked with a couple of
>>>>> other users of OSM at Telegram and with polygons i added seven years ago.
>>>>> Without a doubt its from OSM, the coordinates of the vertices matches OSM
>>>>> perfectly. The names are also the same...
>>>>>
>>>>> Check yourself, head to https://www.dji.com/pt/flysafe/geo-map select
>>>>> your country, zoom in and check the data. Airports restriction areas seems
>>>>> not to be OSM data, but from other source.
>>>>> Share your examples if you will.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, sadly no attribution... tried to request via Twitter
>>>>> https://twitter.com/iamnunocaldeira/status/1105897635796447235 
>>>>> silent as in moon why would they reply to a contributor blah. The Pandora
>>>>> box has been opened with exceptions about the attribution, if other don't
>>>>> attribute, why would they?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ___
>>>>> 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] DJI Fly SafeGEO ZONE MAP uses OSM data... without attribution

2019-06-27 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

Just an update on this, DJI now complies with the license now. they added
the notice on the map https://www.dji.com/pt/mobile/flysafe/geo-map

this only proofs that companies do take seriously a letter from the
licensor and OSMF should take action after companies ignore the requests
from the contributors to comply.

One fixed, few others company still need to do the same.

A terça, 19/03/2019, 18:48, Nuno Caldeira 
escreveu:

> After more investigation noticed that the military facilities on OSM that
> don't have name, also don't have a name on DJI also. If you search on OSM
> the name of the facility based on DJI info they match... wonder why
> Few users reporting that the geometry don't match in some countries (i
> presume they simplified the geometry in polygon with X ammount of vertices)
> or they have used other data. Compared the data from 10 EU countries and
> they all match OSM.
>
> More evidence ( compare the geometries and the coordinates of the
> vertices):
>
> Wrong military base name (in English)
> OSM https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/555214494/history
> DJI https://screenshots.firefox.com/md51uwmdBUjSEtlI/www.dji.com
>
> Portugal
> This Maritime Police station is wrongly tagged on OSM... is also on DJI
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20317/history#map=19/39.42995/-9.22504=N
> DJI has it https://screenshots.firefox.com/CBdSziw1bg9Z58Fc/www.dji.com
>
> OTAN terminal https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/177395459/history
> DJI exact same polygon
> https://screenshots.firefox.com/LZKssfpGkmjULviX/www.dji.com
>
> Spain
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32635137#map=18/43.45274/-3.84917
> DJI https://screenshots.firefox.com/589CWyXHvrolF7Fy/www.dji.com
>
> France
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/365823093
> DJI https://screenshots.firefox.com/K42sB4B5DalFx2Sr/www.dji.com
>
> Germany
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/50156264
> DJI https://screenshots.firefox.com/LzMBa9Jx0mvidAGP/www.dji.com
>
> Hungary - Notice the divisions betweent the different military facilties
> that are split...same on DJI
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116800250/history
> DJI https://screenshots.firefox.com/vO7anIZe5EEJADcQ/www.dji.com
>
>
> Às 11:42 de 19/03/2019, Nuno Caldeira escreveu:
>
> I don't see other data than airports in Taiwan. As I mentioned on the
> initial, I'm talking about the military facilities and prisons, not
> airports. China also don't have military facilities on their map, being a
> Chinese company they probably filtered it.
>
> A terça, 19/03/2019, 11:28, Dennis Raylin Chen 
> escreveu:
>
>> Not in Taiwan.
>>
>> They just use the data release by the authorities. No data from
>> OpenStreetMap.
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 6:55 AM Nuno Caldeira <
>> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Was curious where DJI managed to get a worldwide DB of polygons of
>>> military facilities and points of prisons, triple checked with a couple of
>>> other users of OSM at Telegram and with polygons i added seven years ago.
>>> Without a doubt its from OSM, the coordinates of the vertices matches OSM
>>> perfectly. The names are also the same...
>>>
>>> Check yourself, head to https://www.dji.com/pt/flysafe/geo-map select
>>> your country, zoom in and check the data. Airports restriction areas seems
>>> not to be OSM data, but from other source.
>>> Share your examples if you will.
>>>
>>> Again, sadly no attribution... tried to request via Twitter
>>> https://twitter.com/iamnunocaldeira/status/1105897635796447235 
>>> silent as in moon why would they reply to a contributor blah. The Pandora
>>> box has been opened with exceptions about the attribution, if other don't
>>> attribute, why would they?
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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: [Talk-pt] Relações em urbanização

2019-06-14 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

vê este vídeo para acelerar o processo https://youtu.be/tELDooPvJ0s

não precisas adicionar relações. se o edifício tem uma só função, podes
deixar o polígono com a etiqueta da função. caso tenha mais que uma função,
deixas a etiqueta de edifício no polígono e adicionas o ponto da outra
função (loja, escritório, etc) dentro do edifício com o level a que esse
poi se encontra.

A sexta, 14/06/2019, 13:00,  escreveu:

> Send Talk-pt mailing list submissions to
> talk-pt@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pt
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-pt-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-pt-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-pt digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re:  Estuário do Tejo & linha de costa (Topo Lusitania)
>   (Hugo Valentim)
>2. Relações em urbanização (Alexandre Badalo)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 13:43:37 +
> From: Hugo Valentim 
> To: "talk-pt@openstreetmap.org" 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-pt]  Estuário do Tejo & linha de costa (Topo
> Lusitania)
> Message-ID:
> <
> lnxp265mb0153b438d675b137142aa7...@lnxp265mb0153.gbrp265.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> OK. Compreendi o histórico.
>
> A coastline, de facto, é renderizada a partir de informação tratada em
> separado (os shapefiles publicamente disponíveis são supostamente
> actualizados a cada 12 horas, não tenho a certeza se o openstreemap.org
> se actualiza com a mesma frequência…).
>
> Ora, do meu ponto de vista, no instante actual, a vantagem em usar a
> coastline para demarcar o Estuário reside precisamente no facto de ela não
> ser, do ponto de vista da edição do mapa, um polígono. O único requisito
> para não a “quebrar” é manter uma linha contínua de segmentos, um
> procedimento automático existe < https://osmcode.org/osmcoastline/> que
> se encarrega de gerar os polígonos de “água” com o devido limite de 2000
> pontos (em obediência à API v6) – por coincidência ou não gerando o
> mesmíssimo resultado do plugin Split do QGIS. Provavelmente os ficheiros <
> https://osmdata.openstreetmap.de/> também poderão ser usados na geração
> de mapas para Garmin.
>
> O uso da coastline também admite a renderização do natural=shoal (áreas a
> descoberto na maré baixa, o que não sucede se a margem for definida como
> riverbank), embora em última análise isso seja uma especificidade do
> mapnik-carto.
>
> Por outro lado, há ainda, por inerência, a questão da exclusão/inclusão
> (imagem inversa) nos polígonos da terra. A linha de água do Estuário do
> Tejo actualmente acaba em frente ao Cais do Sodré (Gargalo do Tejo).
>
> Assim, no instante presente, talvez não fosse má ideia incorporar o Mar da
> Palha simultaneamente na coastline e no multipolígono Iberian Peninsula?
>
> Cump.s,
> H. Valentim
>
>
> De: talk-pt-requ...@openstreetmap.org talk-pt-requ...@openstreetmap.org>
> Enviado: 11 de junho de 2019 13:00
> Para: talk-pt@openstreetmap.org
> Assunto: Talk-pt Digest, Vol 113, Issue 4
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Estuário do Tejo & linha de costa (Topo Lusitania Lusitania)
>2. Re: Estuário do Tejo & linha de costa (Topo Lusitania Lusitania)
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-pt/attachments/20190613/76fde5d6/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 21:47:36 +0100
> From: Alexandre Badalo 
> To: talk-pt@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Talk-pt] Relações em urbanização
> Message-ID: <14696949-abe3-9ff3-8633-965706e1b...@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Boas,
>
>
> Tenho estado a mapear a minha terreola, agora uma das coisas que falta
> são os edificios, eu não tenho bem a certeza como mapear as
> urbanizações, fiz uma assim
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71231696 , não sei se as
> relações são necessárias, e se sequer estão bem feitas, podem verificar?
>
>
> No caso dos edificios com lojas em baixo e casas em cima, como devo
> proceder ao mapeamento das lojas/restaurantes/etc? deixo como node?
> Coloco uma relação ao edificio?
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ___
> Talk-pt mailing list
> Talk-pt@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pt
>
>
> --
>
> End of Talk-pt Digest, Vol 113, Issue 6
> ***
>
___
Talk-pt mailing list
Talk-pt@openstreetmap.org

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL (Andy Mabbett )

2019-06-13 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

Eugene I already pointed that to Mapbox that some of their clients are not
complying with ODbL and even their terms of service. They didn't reply
either.
Mapbox TOS https://docs.mapbox.com/help/how-mapbox-works/attribution/

Text attribution

The text attribution contains at least three links: © Mapbox, ©
OpenStreetMap and Improve this map. This attribution is strictly required
when using the Mapbox Streets tileset due to OpenStreetMap's data source
ODbL license. Some other Mapbox-provided tilesets require additional
attribution which is stored in the TileJSON of the tileset.
When do you have to provide attribution?

Maps using Mapbox map designs or data supplied by Mapbox must display both
the Mapbox wordmark and text attribution. This includes:

Maps using a Mapbox template style such as Mapbox Streets, Mapbox
Outdoors or Mapbox Light, or a style derived from those styles.
Maps using a Mapbox tileset, such as Mapbox Streets, Mapbox Terrain,
and Mapbox Satellite.

You must also display the Mapbox wordmark if your map uses a custom style
or custom data hosted by Mapbox. (This is the case for most maps built with
Mapbox Studio.) If you do not use Mapbox designs or data supplied by
Mapbox, you may omit text attribution.

If your map does not use Mapbox designs, data, hosting, or other Mapbox
APIs, Mapbox does not require you to provide attribution in either form.

A quinta, 13/06/2019, 18:10, Eugene Alvin Villar 
escreveu:

> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 6:17 PM Nuno Caldeira <
> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> [...] OSMF is the licensor [...]
>>
>
> Well, if we really want to be strict about it, AFAIK, Facebook did not get
> their map data directly from OSMF but rather through Mapbox. Mapbox got
> their data directly from OSMF and are re-releasing their OSM derivative
> database and produced works as vector tiles and static map images via their
> APIs and SDKs. This would mean that it is the responsibility of Mapbox to
> notify Facebook that FB is not in compliance with the ODbL.
>
> However, I really think it would be interesting to see if OSMF bypassing
> Mapbox and directly contacting one of Mapbox's clients is a valid legal
> avenue to pursue attribution violations.
>
>
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL (Andy Mabbett )

2019-06-13 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

Martin, i obviously agree about the usage of usage data, that's the point
of OpenStreetMap. Makes me proud to see it being used more and more as an
alternative of Google. But the license has requirements that must be
fulfill.

I know they are already in breach, however as pointed on 9.4 c), the
licensor (OSMF) must notify them to be considered permanetly terminated.
they are not complying with the license neither with the guidelines that
OSMF have set and made public. When we adopted ODbL, im sure 9.4 c) was
evaluated,despite you mentioning its not OSMF duty to pursue license
violations, however OSMF is the licensor and ODbL mentions the Licensor can
permanently terminate the license. As I, as a contributor have requested
multiple times, pointed out the copyright page, the license and the
guidelines as they keep ignoring, this is the only solution for them to
have their license permanetly terminated, unless they comply in 30 days
after being notified.

A quarta, 12/06/2019, 12:02, Martin Koppenhoefer 
escreveu:

> sent from a phone
>
> > On 9. Jun 2019, at 15:45, Nuno Caldeira 
> wrote:
> >.
> > As mentioned on the blog, i already asked facebook several times to
> comply. They stopped replying. I'm not expecting a reply, i'm just sharing
> this on the mailing list.
>
>
> I guess you are expecting a reply from the OpenStreetMap-Foundation
> board of directors or them publicly taking a position? Because this is
> the n+1th time that unsatisfactory attribution (or completely missing
> in the case of mini maps) by Facebook is raised here, and AFAIR there
> was never an official statement by the board (members of the board may
> have replied individually and with personal statements). I would
> really welcome a clear statement from board, or at least one that
> explains that board members have different opinions on this, or why it
> takes them so long to say anything about it.
>
> People have contributed to OSM under the Contributor Terms, where OSMF
> acknowledged they would only distribute the data under the ODbL or
> another free and open license chosen by the active contributors. Not
> pursuing license violations (and not even attempting to do anything
> against it) is against the spirit of the whole license idea and raises
> questions about the validity of the Contributor Terms agreement.
>
> As you have cited, for the abusers the situation is defined in the
> license text, "9.0 Termination of Your rights under this License", and
> by using the OSM data without attribution (as confirmed also by
> Facebook in the email you have shared), their license is already
> terminated, no notification necessary ("9.1 Any breach by You of the
> terms and conditions of this License automatically terminates this
> License with immediate effect and without notice to You.").
> On the other hand, I believe most of us are not interested in
> terminating the use of our data by them, we are happy for everyone
> using it, it is the purpose of the project to create useful data. What
> we want is simply the required attribution. Noone can use a
> substantial part of the db without giving attribution.
>
> In some way it is also in the interest of any of our data users that
> there is attribution to OSM, because if the OSM community grows, it
> will result in more accurate and up to date map data.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

2019-06-12 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

yes, exactly the same happens on Android as I pointed out on this tweet
https://twitter.com/iamnunocaldeira/status/1131190612529688577?s=09

A quarta, 12/06/2019, 08:44, Martin Koppenhoefer 
escreveu:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 12. Jun 2019, at 00:38, Nuno Caldeira 
> wrote:
>
> So their believe is *"map "previews" as the map in preview form isn't
> very informative"*. Well if it isn't do not use it on the first place.
> ODbL is clear, "any Person that uses, *views*", i do not have to interact
> with to acknowledge the notice.
>
>
>
> there is also a factual error, because when I clicked on the small map
> from OpenStreetMap my device opened an Apple map (on iOS, probably on
> Android it would have been a goog map), there wasn’t attribution to the
> former map on which I clicked.
>
> Cheers, Martin
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

2019-06-11 Per discussione Nuno Caldeira

Christoph i have well documented them and sent them to Facebook via 
email on October the 10th 2018 after receiving their reply on the 9th of 
October of my initial email on the 10th of September 2018. On December 
the 6th 2018 i asked what was the status or a reply to my email on the 
10th of October, they never replied to those two emails, guess my 
"suggestions" weren't valued. I can share these emails publicly as *.eml 
if you doubt as see the screenshots of examples i sent.


Here's Facebook reply to my email on the 9th of October 2018:


Hello Nuno,

Thank for bringing this up. This was going to a legal review because 
we take community suggestions very seriously and we’ve looked into the 
issues you’ve raised. We don’t currently have attribution on the map 
“previews” as the map in preview form isn’t very informative and the 
intent is that users will click into the experience to actually make 
use of the map. Once a user clicks on the map, the attribution 
experience is readily available.  I believe that this is the approach 
taken by many services which offer a map feature.


With respect to the use of the “i” indicating attribution, we 
understand that may others in the industry have adopted a similar 
approach –most likely to address the limited map real estate and the 
multiple sources of attribution.  We believe that it’s common 
knowledge that additional information, including license information 
related to the mapping feature, can be accessed by clicking the “i.”  
This appears to be common industry practice and reasonably calculated 
to make users aware that OSM is a contributor of a map.


Again, we thank you for your suggestions, and we value our partnership 
with the OSM community.


Best,

Drishtie Patel on behalf of the OSM Maps Team at Facebook


So their believe is /"map "previews" as the map in preview form isn't 
very informative"/. Well if it isn't do not use it on the first place. 
ODbL is clear, "any Person that uses, _views_", i do not have to 
interact with to acknowledge the notice.


"we understand that may others in the industry have adopted a similar 
approach" so all others are doing it wrong, we are entitled to do so. 
That's why lack of attribution is becoming more and more often, because 
of this kind of thought.


They do value partnership but not comply with 4.3 of ODbL and OSMF on 
the license and attribution.


Their legal review is almost 9 months old and from the lack of 
compliance, wonder what it was.



How many map view has facebook per day of OSM data? How many Facebook 
users could have been aware of what OpenStreetMap is? How many new 
contributors could have join OSM?


We must not allow this kind of behaviour, interpretation of ODbL and 
especially have corporate members that have this kind of behaviour.




Às 09:38 de 10/06/2019, Christoph Hormann escreveu:

On Monday 10 June 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

As already said it would be a bad mistake to underestimate the
influence the OSM community has in principle.  It is certainly much
larger than that of the OSMF.  It might be convenient to just say
"we can't do anything anyway so why bother" and Facebook certainly
tries to cultivate a nimbus of being all-powerful and untouchable
but that is definitely not the case.

Can you propose anything specific that for  example I can do,?

In general raising public awareness is one of the most efficient
measures about this kind of thing.  We have for example so far not even
a proper documentation of the various situations in which Facebook
shows OSM based maps to their users without proper attribution.

Once this exists a good next step would be to approach business partners
of Facebook, in particular ones who are interested and depend on having
a good relationship with OSM and publicly ask them (via Twitter for
example) why they are cooperating with a company that systematically
violates the OSM license.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

Frederik, i'm well aware of LWG making a better guide regarding the
attribution. This does not have to do with the way they attribute. It's
about the license.

And i'm not asking the board to sue Facebook, what i'm asking is to
notify them they are in breach of ODbL, as their are not fulfilling the
terms and conditions of the license. This means if in 30 days after they
receive the notice, they are in permanently breach of the license. Only
OSMF as the licensor can do that.

Às 21:31 de 09/06/2019, Frederik Ramm escreveu:

Hi,

On 09.06.19 20:00, Christoph Hormann wrote:

I applaud you placing the ball in the OSMF board's court on this matter
but i would not expect substantial actions from there.

The board has received the message and I'm sure it will be discussed
internally in due course.

It might be worth noting that LWG are working on improved attribution
guidelines
(https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2019-01-10#Update_attribution_guidance)
and perhaps it makes sense to delay any drastic action until these are
ready. I don't expect any big changes (basic requirements of the license
are not up for discussion) but perhaps some useful clarifications.

And with at the moment at least four out of seven OSMF board members
having ties to big organizational OSM data users/contributors ... well,
as we say in German: Eine Krähe hackt der anderen kein Auge aus.

Be that as it may, but there's also another thing to keep in mind: The
OSMF board doesn't have an army of eager workers at their fingertips
whom we can task with something. As you know, there's always discussion
about enlarging the organisation, hiring more staff, hiring an executive
director (which OSM US have done with much fanfare) etc., and as you
also know, I am usually against such "OSMF inflation". I don't know what
your position is in these matters; but actually cataloguing license
violations, sending the appropriate legal nastygrams to the appropriate
legal entities in the appropriate countries and all that, is certainly
something that can occupy one employee full time - an employee where the
OSMF would likely depend on corporate members like Facebook to pay their
salary. So we have to be careful with what we demand from the OSMF.

As you rightly say, while the OSMF board's cooperation might be required
for a few legal aspects, there are many potential avenues of "direct
action" that people could take to, but apparently the issue is not
*that* big for most.

Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL


They do not.

Examples: https://twitter.com/iamnunocaldeira/status/1131190612529688577

https://www.facebook.com/recommendations those map previews contains OSM 
data and there's no attribution.


It gets worst if you use their apps (iOS, Android or Windows app)

And as i mentioned this is not about how they attribute, that's a whole 
different thing. It's them not complying with the license. Point me a 
facebook page where they have ODbL database notice as requested on 4.2 c).



Às 22:36 de 09/06/2019, Clifford Snow escreveu:
Facebook does attribute using the "I" symbol as does Mapbox. Is that 
the issue?



On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 2:12 PM Mateusz Konieczny 
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:


9 Jun 2019, 22:31 by frede...@remote.org :

As you rightly say, while the OSMF board's cooperation might
be required
for a few legal aspects, there are many potential avenues of
"direct
action" that people could take to, but apparently the issue is not
*that* big for most

I would be happy to spend some real effort here but my
investigation concluded
that OSMF would need to act and I found no useful things that I
can do.

Can you recommend something that I can do to increase chance that
Facebook will cease to violating OSM license?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



--
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us 
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

___
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] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL


Of course the OSM community does not depend on the OSMF to clearly
communicate to Facebook that their insulting behaviour is not
acceptable and that it will cost them a lot more economically in the
long term to continue acting this way than anything they might hope to
gain from it.


We are not talking about a simple company, we are actually talking about 
a company that is a Gold Corporate Member of OSMF and have sponsored a 
few events [1]. So if they are not aware of the license something is 
clearly wrong in "showing their long term support to our organisation" 
and "In doing so they are helping to keep OpenStreetMap's servers 
running, supporting the work of our volunteer working groups, and above 
all showing their support for OpenStreetMap" [2].


source:

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Facebook_(company)

[2] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Corporate_Members


And with at the moment at least four out of seven OSMF board members
having ties to big organizational OSM data users/contributors ... well,
as we say in German:  Eine Krähe hackt der anderen kein Auge aus.


Are those ties public? Are they connected to any of the corporate 
members of OSMF?


And quoting 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License


But what happens if the Foundation is taken over by people with 
commercial interests?


  * You still own the rights to any data you contribute, not the
Foundation. In the new Contributor Terms, you license the
Foundation to publish the data for others to use and ONLY under a
free and open license.

  * The Foundation is not allowed to take your contribution and
release it under a commercial license.

  * If the Foundation fails to publish under only a free and open
license, it has broken its contract with you. A copy of the
existing data can be made and released by a different body.

  * If a change is made to another free and open license, it is active
contributors who decide yes or no, not the Foundation.



Às 19:00 de 09/06/2019, Christoph Hormann escreveu:

On Sunday 09 June 2019, Nuno Caldeira wrote:

I hereby request OSMF board, responsabile for the OSMF, as the
Licensor under ODbL 9.4 c) to notify Facebook and remove their rights
under ODbL, if the violation is not fixed after 30 days of notice. as
written on ODbL.
https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html

I applaud you placing the ball in the OSMF board's court on this matter
but i would not expect substantial actions from there.

Although Facebook is an extreme example it is by far not the only case
of big organizational OSM data users and contributors looking down on
the OSM community and its values and doing as they please disregarding
objections to what they do if they consider them unworthy or
insignificant.

And with at the moment at least four out of seven OSMF board members
having ties to big organizational OSM data users/contributors ... well,
as we say in German:  Eine Krähe hackt der anderen kein Auge aus.

Of course the OSM community does not depend on the OSMF to clearly
communicate to Facebook that their insulting behaviour is not
acceptable and that it will cost them a lot more economically in the
long term to continue acting this way than anything they might hope to
gain from it.

But the question is of course if the OSM community as a whole is willing
to stand up to Facebook and others to defend our values.  If you
imagine what percentage of OSM community members are Facebook customers
you might already have your answer.  Or to put it slightly differently:
Why should Facebook even assume that OSM community members are in
anyway displeased with Facebook if they (to a large part) continue
using Facebook?

I mean using Facebook as a communication platform for the OSM community
is even advertised on osm.org (via iD editor and osm-community-index):

https://github.com/osmlab/osm-community-index/search?q=facebook_q=facebook

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

I apologize for the signature (my mistake) and asked for the mailing 
list admin to remove it.


This is not a matter on how the attribution must be made, like we 
discussed before in 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-February/082136.html, 
it's them not attributing at all.


OSMF is the licensor, as written of 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines



OSMF's role as Licensor and publisher of the database


I have asked Facebook (as a contributor) several times to comply with 
our guidelines and they stopped replying and did not add the attribution 
over the last six months.


As we have moved from CC to ODbL i assume OSMF as the licensor has the 
right and in my opinion must notify the violation of 4.3 under 9.4 c) as 
they just keep ignoring adding the attribution as requested on  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright


We require that you use the credit “© OpenStreetMap contributors”. 
They do not fit under substantial concept: 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline


The OpenStreetMap community regards the following as being not 
Substantial within the meaning of our license provided that the 
extraction is one-off and not repeated over time for the same or a 
similar project.


  * Less than 100 Features.
  * More that 100 Features only if the extraction is non-systematic
and clearly based on your own qualitative criteria for example an
extract of all the the locations of restaurants you have visited
for a personal map to share with friends or use the locations of a
selection of historic buildings as an adjunct in a book you are
writing, we would regard that as non Substantial. The systematic
extraction of all eating places within an area or at all castles
within an area would be considered to be systematic.
  * The features relating to an area of up to 1,000 inhabitants which
can be a small densely populated area such as a European village
or can be a large sparsely-populated area for example a section of
the Australian bush with few Features.

Note also that we regard*repeated small extractions as one big 
extraction*!





Às 15:39 de 09/06/2019, Mateusz Konieczny escreveu:


9 Jun 2019, 13:08 by nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com:

I support efforts to stop large scale violation of OSM license by 
Facebook.


Note
"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."

in https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html
that is clearly violated, nearly noone using FB is made aware
that maps are powered by OSM data.

But this attempt is a bit substandard

I hereby request OSMF board, responsabile for the OSMF, as the
Licensor under ODbL 9.4 c) to notify Facebook and remove their
rights under ODbL, if the violation is not fixed after 30 days of
notice. as written on ODbL.
https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html

Unfortunately, as far as I know, it is OSMF that must produce this 
notice (I may be mistaken here).


Also, can you consider not including such footer notices in emails 
posted on a public mailing list?


___
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] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL (Andy Mabbett )

As mentioned on the blog, i already asked facebook several times to comply.
They stopped replying. I'm not expecting a reply, i'm just sharing this on
the mailing list.

About my signature, i apologise as i have written the email on a webclient
that contains that signature. ADMIN please remove the signature

On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 at 12:08, Nuno Caldeira https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk>> wrote:

>* To acknowledge,I have asked this to the board.
*>>* Dear board and board members,
*>>* Following my comment on this post
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/DrishT/diary/368711
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/DrishT/diary/368711>
*>>* I hereby request OSMF board, responsabile for the OSMF, as the
Licensor under
*>* ODbL 9.4 c) to notify Facebook and remove their rights under ODbL, if the
*>* violation is not fixed after 30 days of notice. as written on ODbL.
*
You posted a comment - on a Sunday - less than two hours before
requesting this? Do you not think it would be prudent - not to mention
courteous - to first wait for a response there?

>* Company Name is not responsible for errors or omissions in this message
*
Well, quite.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewinghttp://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

[OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL