Hi Alex, there was a PDF for download on the learnosm website. I know Jeff Haack had access to the gdocs version though it was not structured the same way as the other language versions because IIRC we had problems generating a single PDF from multiple docs. I’ll share the gdocs with you if I can find it.

It look like the Polish version of the guide is gone and it’s not in the repository either. Is there much work needed to re-add it? Cheers

This is a spam post.

To be pedantically correct, even though it doesn’t matter to the original question, the Contributor Terms don’t ask you to only upload ODbL-relicenseable data. Instead they require compatibility with the current license.

This fact has been discussed at length on the mailing lists with a lawyer weighing in too.

@MapMakinMayers’s: in short, accepting the Contributor Terms should be enough for the community to be able to continue to use your contributions.

(The values of all of these tags would contain a future date for the operation, I wrote that using angle brackets and they were filtered out of my comment above)

I think the idea of start_ and end_date was so that you could leave this landuse=construction in the database forever, as well as map the playground before it even exists, and have all of the programs concerned with just the current data ignore them at any time outside of the start_date - end_date period. At the same time programs which are concerned with historical information could use this data in different ways.

Obviously there are many arguments against doing that or against historical mapping inside the OSM database and it's hard to decide one way or another. For construction works I have seen a more plausible tagging proposal somewhere on the wiki, using the three tag suffixes:
:ata_create=
:ata_modify=
:ata_delete=
and the tag ata_delete= which would list operations that should automatically happen to a given tag or the entire object on a given date. Someone could then run a bot to execute those commands. Again there is a couple of arguments against this, but I've seen it used sometimes.

The OSMF would supposedly use the source= tag to remove incompatible data and would not be in violation of the third party's rights after the switch, at least that's how I understand the current plan. I'm not sure if it is what everyone on the LWG was intending, but I'm happy that it will allow OSM to accept ODbL licensed data published by others, for example users of our data, and it also allows all of the people who used Ordinance Survey data at some point to accept the CT. It seems the CT acceptance, and data readiness for ODbL are sort of orthogonal issues now because there is both data in the database which is incompatible despite CT acceptance, and data which is compatible despite declined CT.

Sorry to hear that, it happened to me a couple of times too (not with Potlatch). Hopefully it doesn't discourage you from doing more mapping.

+1 on what Andy says.

The new CTs seek to solve a problem that wouldn't have existed without the CTs.

And are you really claiming it's coercion if someone asks something of OSMF but it's not coercion when OSMF asks something the "or else.." way?

@Richard: Obviously none of us knows what is going to actually happen. But the fact is that this is what the kennel owners advertise it as. Sign it, or this particular dog, which we all worked on feeding, will suffer.

No lo he visto discutido en la lista "imports" ni en "talk-es".

Como se asegura que no se van a importar toponimos que ya existen en OSM y asi producir duplicados?

Otra cosa, que lo apropiado seria no hacer revert sino omitir los toponimos ya subidos porque hacer el revert deja unos nodos creados e inmediatamente borrados y despues subidos otra vez con otro ID, practicamente sin razon. Cierto que requiere un poco de programacion pero bueno la falta de herramientas no es buena excusa.

Saludos

A ha! seems they changed the URL, I fixed the link now.

Hmm, thanks for noticing. Now I'm getting the same error as you, must be a new problem because just two hours ago I was able to open that page fine on this machine. Let's see if they fix it some time soon.

Hi, there exist a couple of ways to automatically vectorise images if they have few colours and the projection is known. Do you have more details about the image?

I haven't been on the plane yet, but supposedly it has a special downwards facing window for that. Till now I have been doing plain old kite aerial photography (KAP) :)

Really cool! I had a very similar idea of making something similar to OpenLayers that works in 3D. Although my initial idea was to just implement vector layers using SVG, so that it works in old browsers, and then optionally a tile layer using canvas or canvas+WebGL.

Very good point about the full names (remember also things like saints names etc).

I don't think it's a good idea to duplicate local names in the name:xx tag however. This is something that the renderers will always have to do anyways and I think it would be putting the burden of something that can be done automatically onto the human mapper. Also it's a sort of consensus in OSM that local name is in the "name=" tag.

Yep, Nominatim is the only way GeoClue accesses OSM and it is mentioned under "geocode" and "reversegeocode". The GeoClue developer is my co-worker and I know he's a big fan of OpenStreetMap.

It depends a lot on the circumstances and what you're used to. Overall I believe it's a myth about surveying a virgin territory being more fun (yes, I've tried it). I've heard lots of people saying they're put off by there being completely no data, I've heard prolific mappers on talk-us saying that they wouldn't have bothered with OSM if the TIGER data wasn't there, and I have a close friend who loves to go out and map amenities writing down their addresses and phone numbers, including little shops, and locating them in OSM by looking at the streets that are already mapped. She doesn't like riding around with a GPS and mapping missing streets.

Now you're saying that you and other mappers in Worcester were put off by there being inaccurate data instead of there being nothing. I'm not sure exactly why you'd be put off -- I know it sucks when you're doing a good job on something (perhaps by putting a lot of effort in it) and someone else comes along and does it carelessly, but in this case they haven't done any damage, they just haven't been very helpful. So in my eyes OSM hasn't suffered, the only reason it could have suffered is if you and the other contributors get pissed because that person didn't put as much effort as you did, and you stopped mapping or moved to a different place.

I don't agree with USA being a negative example either, quite the opposite, OSM there is really useful as a map, and quite complete in the cities I visited including amenities and stuff that doesn't come from TIGER. And despite that it was fun to map these cities anyway.

And this is considering that TIGER was of extremely poor quality. Most other datasets that come from administrative sources are of much better accuracy than what you can currently obtain with a GPS, take the kind of street data that was released for Girona (I agree it was unfortunate that it replaced the existing streets network in OSM, but on the other hand it would be a missed opportunity to prefer this GPS-based potentially out-of-date information over really up-to-date and centimetre accuracy data). Perhaps in a couple of years we will have much better technology and our crowdsourced data will have similar accuracy, and then it will take a couple more years until everything that has been mapped based on GPS gets corrected. So really let's build on top of what's available to get even better results.

Richard: I totally agree OSM needs to be top quality, this is exactly why OSM needs to take advantage of high quality sources like the national cadastral datasets that get released, like MassGIS and like Mono County buildings and San Luis Obispo County buildings, and build on top of what's been done by others. Rather than try to redo it just for the fun of it (if it was fun doing something someone else has done already and done it better).