Recent diary entries
In reply to the comment from rw__ (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aharvey/diary/14408#comment16624):
I simply read through the CTs (http://git.openstreetmap.org/rails.git/blob/696fbb4e16c13f8f86134ad5c029644a5277a373:/config/legales/GB.yml), and by the end I had all the parts checked, I couldn't find any reason not to press agree, so I did.
At no time did I understand it to mean I must ensure my contributions are compatible with ODbL. I cannot ensure my contributions are compatible with ODbL, and I believe that I have contributions which are not compatible. But that isn't my problem.
>intro: "Thank you for your interest in contributing data and/or any other content (collectively, 'Contents') to the geo-database of the OpenStreetMap project (the 'Project'). This contributor agreement (the 'Agreement') is made between you ('You') and The OpenStreetMap Foundation ('OSMF') and clarifies the intellectual property rights in any Contents that You choose to submit to the Project in this user account."
> 2 next_with_decline: "Please read the following terms and conditions carefully and click either the 'Accept' or 'Decline' button at the bottom to continue."
> 3 introduction: "Introduction"
> 4 section_1: "We respect the intellectual property rights of others and we need to be able to respond to any objections by intellectual property owners. This means that:"
okay... just statements so far.
> 5 section_1a: "Your contribution of data should not infringe the intellectual property rights of anyone else. If you contribute Contents, You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our current licence terms. If You do not have that right, You risk having Your contribution deleted (see below)."
Check, I indicate that, as far as I know, I have the right to authorise OSMF to use and distribute the work I upload under the current license terms (i.e. the CC-BY-SA license).
Check, latter part doesn't matter as I have the rights. (i.e. I've only uploaded works compatible with the CC-BY-SA license)
> 6 section_1b: "Please note that OSMF does not have to include Contents You contribute in the Project, and may remove Your contributions from the Project at any time. For example, if we suspect that any contributed data is incompatible, (in the sense that we could not continue to lawfully distribute it), with whichever licence or licences we are then using (see sections 3 and 4), then we may delete that data."
again just a meaningless statement hear, of course the OSMF doesn't have to use works I upload..
> 7 rights_granted: "Rights Granted"
> 8 section_2: "Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright, database right or any related right over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. These rights include, without limitation, the right to sub-license the work through multiple tiers of sub-licensees and to sue for any copyright violation directly connected with OSMF's rights under these terms. To the extent allowable under applicable local laws and copyright conventions, You also waive and/or agree not to assert against OSMF or its licensees any moral rights that You may have in the Contents."
So far as I have these rights to grant, I grant these rights. I do not guarantee I have these rights to grant, but if I do, then I grant these rights.
If the OSMF switched to the ODbL from CC-BY-SA they would be violating the rights of someone else (i.e. the person who owns the rights or parts of the rights to some of the content I've uploaded to OSM), but that is the OSMF who is violating the rights...
> 9 section_3: "OSMF agrees that it may only use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the terms of one or more of the following licences: ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or such other free and open licence (for example, http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/) as may from time to time be chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors."
Again I'm not guaranteeing that I am able to grant these rights, but merely insofar as I can, then I agree. In fact I know that I can't grant these rights for a number of my contributions, the ones I can I do, the ones I can't well I cant.
> 10 active_defn_1: "An 'active contributor' is defined as:"
> 11 active_defn_2: "a natural person (whether using a single or multiple accounts) who has edited the Project in any three calendar months from the last 12 months (i.e. there is a demonstrated interest over time); and has maintained a valid email address in their registration profile and responds to a request to vote within 3 weeks."
> 12 section_4: "At Your or the copyright owner’s option, OSMF agrees to attribute You or the copyright owner. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution."
I don't care... for the rights I do have, I disclaim them, I wish the works to be CC0, OSMF or anyone else can do as they wish. But I'm not the sole owner of the rights to the works I've uploaded, and if you don't license this CC-BY-SA you are violating their rights, not mine.
> 13 section_5: "Except as set forth herein, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your Contents."
> 14 limitation_of_liability: "Limitation of Liability"
> 15 section_6: "To the extent permitted by applicable law, You provide the Contents 'as is' without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including without limitation any warranties or conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or otherwise."
> 16 section_7: "Subject to any liability that may not be excluded or limited by law, neither You nor OSMF shall be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential, punitive, or exemplary damages under this Agreement, however caused and under any theory of liability. This exclusion applies even if either party has been advised of the possibility of such damages."
That last part, I'm not liable for anything under this agreement...
> 17 miscellaneous: "Miscellaneous"
> 18 section_8: "This Agreement shall be governed by English law without regard to principles of conflict of law. You agree that the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1980) is hereby excluded in its entirety from application to this Agreement. In the event of invalidity of any provision of this Agreement, the parties agree that such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Agreement. This is the entire agreement between You and OSMF which supersedes any prior agreement, whether written, oral or other, relating to the subject matter of this agreement."
After some convincing from some folks on IRC and a re-read of the CTs I've ticked the accept button.
My head is in knots at the moment trying to comprehend all this legalese with logic, but I'll try to explain my line of thought.
Basically by uploading to the OSM API, I am publishing works. Sometimes I am the copyright holder of such work, and sometimes I am uploading work that someone else is the copyright holder to. I ensure that if I am not the copyright holder to the work, that the work is indeed compatible with the current OSM license -- CC-BY-SA. If I am the copyright holder, then I grant everyone a license to do anything that copyright would forbid, i.e. I license it CC0. That is my intent. But I can't guarantee this. A lot of my work needs to be CC-BY-SA because it is derived from nearmap, and the other bunch is derivative works of existing OSM data, which also must be CC-BY-SA.
If I interpret the CTs as I give you the rights to do anything with the data I upload, so much as I can, but don't guarantee such, rather than I guarantee that you have the rights to do anything with the work I upload, then I believe I can tick the agree to the CTs button.
anyway... I'll have to think about this some more later.
So push finally turned to shove, and I decide to abandon the OSMF/OSM database/API and instead rely on the FOSM database/API. It's the only real alternative for me at the moment.
It all came down to mostly two things,
1. nearmap. I depend heavily on nearmap imagery for most of my on the ground/surveyed edits (and wholly depend on it for armchair mapping places I've never been to). I do this because
a) I though it's more accurate than a consumer grade GPS, or bing (which I never found had a solid enough legal footing than I would prefer)
b) It is much more convenient for me to trace imagery than carry around a GPS everywhere and taking down tracks and waypoints.
Of this nearmap derived data, I must use the CC-BY-SA license. I can't change that, so I can't agree to the CTs and continue mapping to the OSM database.
nearmap is important to me, because most of the data in my area and most of my contributions are derived from nearmap, and I don't want to see that lost.
2. Back when I tried to read the CTs it was my understanding that you either needed to own full rights over the data you contribute, or the data must be essentially public domain for you to upload it. I would rather a project which distributes its data under the foo license to be able to accept foo licensed data. (ie. I think a CC-BY-SA or ODbL OSM should accept CC-BY-SA or ODbL data. it seems the CT's break this)
The rest of my data is mostly wholly owned by me (eg. completely survey or derived from PD data sources), in which case I license this data CC0.
This decision has nothing to do with the ODbL or any other license. Since nearmap isn't compatible with the CT's, and I want to keep my/others nearmap data, the actual future license is irrelevant at this point in time.
As 80n said, fosm is a fork of the data, not the community. I want to share the same wiki and tagging discussions, not fork the whole of *.osm.org.
Sure the fosm API seems slower than the OSM one, but at least it seems to be functioning properly, and is publishing the minutely diffs. It could do with this rails port thing for browsing the data via the web/tracking changes via rss... Hopefully some kind soul will set up a tile server based on fosm data. Unfortunately I can't as I lack the network connection and hardware (but if the NBN gives me a cheap unlimited data quota 100Mbps uplink speed I would probably have good reason to invest in some hardware).
... a year ago I would have never guessed OSM would turn me into a botanist: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8234306
This particular area was overwhelmingly comprised of the homogeneous genus and species of plant. Not sure how to area areas which have a mix of plant types.
Just saw some JOSM news
>2011-05-16 (4081, 4085, 4086)
>New Follow Line feature to ease drawing of adjacent areas. (similar to Potlatch 2's "F" shortcut)
>Search (and Filter) can query closed ways now, and those enclosing a certain minimum and maximum area. (Keywords: closed; areaSize:MIN-MAX or areaSize:MAX, in m²)
>The download Object... feature now accepts a list of ids.
Can't wait for the next stable release into debian/unstable. If these features work as advertised they will be big time savers for common tasks of mine. Particularly making a new way which shares the nodes as another and downloading a bunch of osm objects given a list of ids.
Thanks to those who contributed these features into JOSM!
Yesterday I committed a patch to the main OSM mapnik rendering style to render slipways (the icon had been published in the SJJB set, but wasn't in the OSM stylesheet), seemed like an easy fix, so without knowing if there is any protocol to follow I made the change after observing similar commits, and already tile.openstreetmap.org is serving tiles with this slipway icon! Excellent.
There's only one way for progress to occur and that is to get to it and start making those changes happen.
I support this proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Collected_Ways_Simple
It makes a lot of sense to me, often you need to split up a way to assign different individual tags, whilst keeping some tags common. eg. you have a road with a name, but it has varying maxspeed. You don't want to have to duplicate the name across each section.
There seems to be a bunch of proposals for specific cases, it makes sense to me to just use a relation with type=collection and no roles for the ways. Of course you would need to be allowed to have relations as members of other relations too.
I see uses for type=collectedStreet and multipolygon (where you need inner and outer roles), but for this kind of thing, type=collection seems like the best solution.
To make this change happen I think we need to make sure renders and editors can handle and are aware of this.
This would replace,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Street (using associateStreet to bind houses to a street)
Putting my changeset comment here (for changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6325940) as it won't fit in the comment tag.
Add land parcels (cadastral boundaries) from best guess from nearmap imagery, and add street numbers and apartment block names from survey to these parcels. boundary=cadastre is something I just made up, will need to discuss the use of this further. Unable to assign the role street to the associatedStreet relations because you need to make a relation containing all the segments of the street, and how to do that is not well agreed upon (multipolygon, collected way, route?).