[OSM-talk] Kosovo, Albania, Montenegro, Macedonia
jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com
Sat Jan 28 16:42:30 GMT 2012
You can contact immap, feel free.
and some other contributors are :
and some more sources :
and also we used kosovoguide.org and also inyourpocket.com
and maps on mapwarper
here are some of them :
http://warper.geothings.net/uploads/2742/original/swsra9.jpg novo brdo
also we worked on brod, also using the russian maps and other sources.
also we have signatures from this guy for creative commons for shkoder.
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Michael Collinson <mike at ayeltd.biz> wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> 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?
> Kind regards,
> 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
>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Michael Collinson<mike at ayeltd.biz>
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> other smaller and harder to quantise examples from around the world and
>>> is the one percent right there.
>>> Caveat: I have done nodes because it is easiest, an analysis of highway
>>> 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
>>> what appears to be already there.
>>> I'd certainly like to see these examples removed right now if the
>>> 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
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
More information about the talk