[OSM-talk] Kosovo, Albania, Montenegro, Macedonia
mike at ayeltd.biz
Sat Jan 28 16:19:07 GMT 2012
I read your 23 new ideas at http://fosm.ideascale.com/ and wish you
luck with them. I've now read your blog post.
Once the license change is over, I am looking forward to engaging more
with Creative Commons. In direct talks we had with them last year, they
have definitely shifted from their stance that we should not use any SA
license for data so I am hopeful that we may be able to achieve CC
compatibility in a few years time.
On the direct issue of contributions, I'll be happy to take on checking
license compatibility. I've considered approaching iMMAP but felt that
might be considered rather hostile to you. Can I therefore try and limit
asking your help to just three questions:
1) Are you happy if I write to iMMAP and ask their permission to use
their data in OSM?
2) Are there any imports from other agencies in your contributions, (I
got iMMAP from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kosovo_iMMAP_Import) ?
3) I quite understand and agree that you cannot accept the CTs, (item 4
in your blog). But you also then say below "I am not going to agree to
any contributor terms", I guess that means even if we were able to get
permission for the imports. If we were able to accurately identify your
personal work and/or get the necessary permissions for imports, how
could we proceed in a manner that is acceptable to you? Would transfer
of contributions, (probably specific change-sets or specific geographic
areas), to another account be OK for you?
On 28/01/2012 16:23, Mike Dupont wrote:
> Well since you mentioned my name, h4ck3rm1k3
> wanted to point out my blog post :
> I do not want to harm the project or the people in Kosovo and Albania
> where I personally did much work there.
> And considering that the team there is very healthy and continuing in
> Kosovo, I do not see any further personal work of mine being needed in
> Kosovo, I am not going to waste any more time or money on Albania, I
> do not see *any* chance there to start a community that is
> you can re license *my* personal work, I don't care about that, and
> imports, you will have to just review them yourselves.
> dont expect me to be wasting time on understanding your new license
> scheme or checking compatibility, and I am not going to agree to any
> contributor terms. working on hosting my own changesets in blogposts,
> we will talk in some years about creative commons compatibility.
> spent enough time on this license stuff, and wish you all the best of luck.
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Michael Collinson<mike at ayeltd.biz> wrote:
>> I certainly support your sentiment but I suggest 99% is too high.
>> We have, in rounded figures, 1,200M nodes in the database. 
>> Here are just three decliners  who definitely are not going to agree in
>> any form, have very high proportions of imported nodes and which WTFE is
>> also certainly marking all or most for removal. I've also added in old anon
>> contributions as we've probably already reached all those we can.
>> argath 7 025 025 100% POI import as far as I am aware
>> ABS2006 2 498 993 100% boundary import
>> anon edits 560 467 (may be too high as some previous anon
>> mappers have actually agreed)
>> h4ck3rm1k3 348 274 High but unknown import proportion in a
>> geographically concentrated area
>> This gives 10.4M nodes or roughly 0.86% of the entire database. Add in a few
>> other smaller and harder to quantise examples from around the world and that
>> is the one percent right there.
>> Caveat: I have done nodes because it is easiest, an analysis of highway ways
>> might be better for the standard you are suggesting.
>> There is a trade-off. The longer we leave it the more unproductive
>> over-editing occurs and many folks in problematic areas are not going to map
>> what appears to be already there.
>> I'd certainly like to see these examples removed right now if the respective
>> communities agree. But that is only rational if we have consensus that
>> critical mass is here.
>>  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats
>>  http://odbl.de/world.html
>> On 27/01/2012 21:19, LM_1 wrote:
>>> I would have higher standard for critical mass, definitely over 99 %.
>>> There should be a prolonged (at least one year) period where it is
>>> known what data can remain and what cannot to allow seamless switch.
>>> Having two months to the planned switch and still not knowing the
>>> exact algorithm to determine what stays seems just stupid.
>>> Lukas (LM_1)
>>> 2012/1/27 Michael Collinson<mike at ayeltd.biz>:
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at openstreetmap.org
More information about the talk