I too am relatively new to OSM and occasionally bemused by the arcane
debates on the talk list.
Those who know about database theory should be able to decide on the
merits of namespaces. I can see the value of a structured,
hierarchical approach provided it is implemented in a way we lesser
mortals can understand and presented via a usable interface and I
have to say I'm not sure this is always the case. I have yet to get
to grips with bridge tagging, never mind relations or worrying about
namespaces :-)
Chris Hill is worried about copyright issues with climbing routes and
this is like lots of concerns I have seen expressed such as taking
street names from actual street signs rather than from copyrighted
material. If it's the name of the street, it's the name of the
street, no matter how or where it is communicated. Not only am I not
an expert on databases but I am equally ignorant of the finer points
of copyright law. But PLEASE! A street name cannot be copyright and
printing it on a piece of paper or causing it to appear on a screen
is hardly the stuff of intellectual property. SteveC rightly debunked
the whole map copyright issue at the beginning of this month and we
need to recognise humbug and treat it with the contempt it deserves.
JOSM imports waypoints with GPX tracks and I would like to see
Potlatch do the same, but I came across something this week about the
terrifying risk of accidentally importing copyright stuff such as
the location of Garmin's headquarters. What?! If Garmin put this
information on every device they sell they would probably be
delighted if it accidentally appeared in Open Street Map. If not, I
would like to see them sue.
elvin.ibbotson
From: David Ebling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 25 April 2008 08:46:47 BDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: [OSM-talk] namespaces
I don't know if I count as a "new user" (started late
2007) but I can't see any benefit from this
"namespace" business. I'm technically minded, but not
an expert geek by any means, and not familiar with the
concept of "namespaces".
On this occasion I find "Ockham's Razor" convincing.
i.e. K.I.S.S.
If something adds no benefit, (and I've been following
this bizarre discussion and have yet to be convinced
of any benefit whatsoever) then why should we add a
whole load more characters to loads of the tags we add
to things? It will lead to more typos, more errors,
more confusion about correct tagging, increase the
size of the db, and raise the barrier to entry for OSM
contributors. It's already quite challenging for some
new members to get the hang of the editors, and
getting harder with things like relations. We don't
want OSM data to only make sense to people familiar
with the concept of "namespaces" do we? Or was that
the intention?
Lets keep OSM as accessible as possible.
Dave
From: Chris Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 25 April 2008 11:28:43 BDT
To: OSM Talk <[email protected]>
Subject: [OSM-talk] Climbing routes
Leaving the namespace issue aside, how would one collect the
information about climbing routes? The routes I climbed didn't
have signs or the like to gather from the site. All of the
climbing guides I have that describe the routes, including their
name, grade, number of pitches etc are copyright. Are there
copyright free sources of this information?
Cheers, Chris
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
