davespod has commented on the following diary entries
|OpenStreetMap and the Public Domain||about 1 month ago||
The outcomes in your scenarios sound about right to me.
IIRC Bing gave their permission for their imagery to be used as an editor background when editing OpenStreetMap, rather than mentioning a specific licence. So, they did not explicitly cite ODBL, perhaps because OSM was going through the licence change process, and could (theoretically) change again in the future. So in effect, for the time being, that limits its use to release under ODBL (until such a time as the OSM community decides to change its licence again, under the rules outlined in the Contributor Terms).
I can see your frustration here. When the law prevents the Government from releasing non-public domain data sets, it means that our more restrictive licence prevents us giving back easily.
|First Diary Entry||about 1 year ago||
|Canvec Data||about 1 year ago||
Before you do, please read and digest:
I have noticed that you have been deleting your own previous edits to "make way" for Canvec data. There is no guarantee that the Canvec data will be better. Please do not mass-delete other contributors' contributions (I am sure you wouldn't). Data added by people who know the area is usually better than anything imported. If you want to import data, it is your responsibility to carefully integrate it with what is already there - not rip and replace!
|Southeastern New Mexico||about 1 year ago||
Great to see new mappers coming across from a closed to an open project.
Not sure how much "supervision" you will find, as we do not have the concept of formal moderation for map edits. However, there are many sources of support from the community. As a starting point, set your home location on your user page, and OSM will tell you of other mappers nearby.
A great place to ask questions is:
You might also find the newbies mailing list helpful: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
|Canvec has some crappy rail lines - please don't delete and import.||about 1 year ago||
Indeed. No one should be deleting carefully volunteer-collected data from the database to replace it wholesale with imported data. It is the importer's responsibility to ensure that they the data is carefully integrated with what is already there (no duplicates, and not assuming what is already there must be wrong just because it disagrees with the third party source). If necessary, this means hand-stitching it together.
The importer should be directed to:
|Apple... Please don't render FixMe's||over 1 year ago||
The issue here is an old data issue, not a rendering issue. Apple have used very old OSM data for some reason. And in this case, a mapper had originally mapped this lake with "FIXME" in the name tag, instead of adding a separate fixme tag. That way has since been deleted and replaced with the current way imported from CANVEC data.
(Potlatch 1's Undelete feature is still the easiest way to investigate certain OSM oddities.)
|expanded||over 2 years ago||
Do you mean render these on the main map(1), or add them to the editor(2)?
You can find the answer to question 1 here:
And more general information about designing new icons here:
You can find the answer to question 2 here (Richard's comment):
There is also a custom map based on OpenStreetMap data which displays wheelchair accessibility of many different facilities, and allows you to add missing information on wheelchair accessibility:
|my take on a refactored access tagging scheme||over 2 years ago||
Sorry to be so negative. I am not trying to do down your efforts to record complex information in OSM. I am just concerned that undue complexity is the best way to ensure such tags are never used. I would not be too worried if the tagging complexity only affected the complex situations, but if I understand your proposal correctly, it would affect quite simple scenarios, too.
So we currently tag one way streets as oneway=yes. Pretty obvious and easy to remember. Under the proposal we would tag them as access:direction=forward. Where that restriction does not apply to bikes, people variously tag bicycle:oneway=no or oneway:bicycle=no. Under the proposal, we would have to tag access:bicycle.direction=both.
But you are right. This is not the place for comments. I will add them to the wiki talk page.
|my take on a refactored access tagging scheme||over 2 years ago||
The notation used in the value is already in use for opening hours. The notation used in the key ("!" to define a condition, "#" to prefix a modifier) most definitely is not. As alexz says, this is moving away from being human readable. Tags work best when you can get a pretty good idea of what they mean without reading reams of documentation. If you want a tag to catch on (and that surely is the point?), you need to be a little kinder to the mapper.
OK, the opening hours may be slightly difficult to read in that format, but there are no odd punctuation characters carrying unexpected meanings (separating items in a list is a pretty common use for a semi-colon).
|somthing intresting||over 2 years ago||
Way too many exclamation marks, compdude.
|My OSM article printed in local newsletter||over 2 years ago||
Excellent! Engagement with the "real" community is something we should all do more of in our local areas.
|The licence change and bullying||over 2 years ago||
This is pretty strong language. I have (unfortunately) followed months of mailing list discussions and whilst I have see some pretty incredible behaviour, and may even have seen some behaviour verging on bullying, I cannot say I have ever seen the withholding of agreement to the contributor terms used to bully individuals. Where has such bullying happened?
If it has not, I really don't see how this kind of language helps anyone. Should we not be reaching out to people instead of attacking them for disagreeing with us? Is the above post going to change anyone's mind? If not, what do you hope to achieve?
|Coercion||over 2 years ago||
I understand why the legalese of the CTs can seem a little scary. However, you have said: "I am quite happy to abandon any and all of my rights to it and for OSM to do with it what they will". It seems to me that the CTs are only asking you to grant certain rights to your data to the OSMF, not even to "abandon all of your rights" (to my mind abandoning all of your rights would mean you could not also grant rights to other people under any terms you liked, which you can). Do you not agree? And do the CTs not make clear that it is precisely the OSM community that can decide what can later be done with your data.
I realise you have concerns about the process that got us here. But given where we are, what is stopping you from moving forward? Your message implies you would be quite happy to put all of your edits into the public domain. Am I therefore right in thinking that it is only the legalistic language that you have a problem with? If so, that is, for better or for worse, the world we live in. If you have ever registered with almost any other web site, chances are you will have "signed" a legal agreement of some sort. Have you ever signed up to Youtube, Vimeo, Hotmail, Gmail, .... ? If so, I suggest you go back and have a look at what you agreed to. For that matter, the full wording of CC-by-SA 2.0, the legal agreement you have already agreed in order to grant rights to OSMF and the rest of the world is pretty darn legalistic (and very long):
Of course, most of us are more familiar with the human readable summary:
There is a human readable summary of the CTs here:
It is worth noting that even where there is not legalistic language, you can be entering a legal agreement. You enter an unwritten contract every time you go to buy something in a shop (or more likely a written one if you buy online). You entered a legal agreement when you originally signed up for OSM, too (details of that agreement are under the human readable summary above).
I understand a small number of people have many different reasons for not wishing to agree to the CTs, but I would find it very sad if fear the language used lost the project valuable contributions.
(I am not a lawyer, so this is not legal advice!)
|Allergy Relief||almost 3 years ago||
|Interesting GPS trace, and other MapDust oddities||almost 3 years ago||
To be fair to the Skobbler user, the report would have made perfect sense in their context. It is the application that needs to be much clearer on the kind of detail required (or have an optional feature to upload the entire route for this purpose).
Regarding rejecting reports, Andy Allan reports (on talk-gb) that there is now a "default description" flag that can optionally be used to suppress such bugs (and P2 soon will):
@Chaos99 - it is true that most bugs would need to be checked out on the ground, but there are occasional exceptions - as alexz says, it can be worth looking at the ways around the bug for any obvious errors (such as broken junctions) that may have caused the poor routing.
|Interesting blogpost||almost 3 years ago||
The same blogger's critique of OSM can be found here:
It sparked considerable discussion on the mailing lists:
In fact the blogger felt move to respond to some of the emails he received:
|Potlatch 2 tutorial video: part 1 (rough cut)||almost 3 years ago||
@alexz. Thanks for the tip on the low pass filter. I'll give it a go (though I suspect it may not be enough).
@SamatJain. Happy to post another format once I've re-recorded.
@l!l. I will post up once I have re-recorded
|An elitist view towards mapping in the age of the internet.||almost 3 years ago||
Wow! Never mind GPS surveys, if the author is right, they have outlawed just about all unlicensed GIS activity - even tracing orthophotos! I am not surprised when I hear suggestions OSM could be illegal in China, but _Florida_?
|Road Weary||almost 3 years ago||
Would the ref key be of any use to you for recording the numbers?
I suppose the only issue would be if any of the roads are also part of a numbered route. loc_ref or reg_ref?
|Pretty Labels||almost 3 years ago||
I just get "Page not found". Have you removed them?