<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:824053589;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:627447844 69533719 69533721 69533723 69533711 69533721 69533723 69533711 69533721 69533723;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=ET link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Hi,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> I totally agree that there should be single and unified OpenStreetmap database. However, my concerns:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>a)<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Banning official Chapters to create editable OSM clones does not have practical point, as long as any unofficial chapter, private person etc can do the same, with exactly the same consequences. Maybe extra restriction like this even motivates chapters just to stay unoffical.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>b)<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I am aware that distributed database architecture, with multiple edit points, is technically challenging. But in some point it may be really neccessary, in API 0.7.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I have built distributed clusters in high-avaliable and scalable systems using Oracle DB clusters, and even while Oracle has made as simple as possible, it is thing what is usually given to really top level and expensive DB admins. PostgreSQL itself does not have similar active-active cluster solutions AFAIK, but maybe it could be solved in appication level. Maybe technical solution would be quite simple, classical (permanent) lock-based: local chapter can „permanently lock“ or reserve particular country area: this area is editable by local server, and not by global one. Or maybe more complex object/microarea short time locking or merging solution is possible. This is another topic.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Where this would be useful? In many countries there are still different pricing for in-country and international Internet traffic. I have even seen (cheap) broadband packages wich have only local traffic included. It sounds kind of weird from end-user perspective, but from the local ISP point of view it makes perfect sense: their cost for international connections/traffic is much higher than for local one. So they provide „local Internet“ service with cheap price, and the price point is important in poorer countries. Not talking about certain „poor“ countries with red firewalls. Now Local Chapter wants to enable local Internet users to contribute to OSM. End-user friendly approach would be to have local editable server. We, the engineers, just need to make the server-server synchornization working, without creating unneccessary fragmentation. It is not simple at all, but it is just a technical task which can be done if there is political decision in place.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Jaak<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>It's in the best interest of the project that we have one dataset that can be officially called the OpenStreetMap dataset. Defragmentation is going to hurt in the long run. We will get into all kinds of problems, link synchronization.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Let's say the idontcarewhereistan chapter is running it's own (seperate) instance of (a part) of the database. The local community is editing this map and the edits will be synchronized with the main database periodically. In the meantime the main database is also open for edits. Someone who has been on holiday in idontcarewhereistan has edited the main database. We know have several problems:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- Which version is the correct OSM version?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- How are we going to handle the migration issues?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- ....<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>If a chapters needs a database to process datasets in order to insert them correctly in the OSM database, I see no problem there.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>If there are currently technical limitations, let's hear them, so we can try to solve them. Could be valuable input for API 0.7<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>BTW: we're not talking about running an own database to provide all kinds of services (like tile-servers, making shape-files, etc, etc). That's totally fine. It's about have a single source of truth of what the OSM map is. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Cheers,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Henk<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>2010/3/21 Pieren <<a href="mailto:pieren3@gmail.com">pieren3@gmail.com</a>><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Jaak Laineste <<a href="mailto:jaak@nutiteq.com" target="_blank">jaak@nutiteq.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>> Good point. It's the same with ODbL section 4.7a and section 3 of the new<br>> contributor terms. OSMF cannot put any restrictions on how anyone uses the<br>> data under the terms of the license.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'> Right. I actually cannot see how you can set any extra restrictions to<br>local chapters on things what anyone else can do anyway. If I as LC am not<br>allowed do something, then I can always do it as a private person, or a<br>company. So if there is ban on editable servers, then the rule should be in<br>general terms of use, or not there at all.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>Of course, anyone is allowed to clone the database and make it editable in respect of the license. But he cannot say it's the OpenStreetMap database. I think it is a good point to say somehwere that local chapters can use the name "OpenStreetMap" but cannot claim that "they are" an OpenStreetMap dataset when it is a forked project. Probably the wording can be improved.<br><br>Pieren<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Local-chapters mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Local-chapters@openstreetmap.org">Local-chapters@openstreetmap.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/local-chapters" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/local-chapters</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>