The folks over at theTagzania blog just announced this:
Google have a couple of really enlightened guys called the “Data Liberation Front“. Their role is to make it easy for people to get their data out of Google – rather than it being locked in.
Usually, people are locked in by the lack of an export feature, or an obscure file format. In mapping, people are locked in by licences.
At the Society of Cartographers’ Summer School last week, there was a great workshop on making a mashup from Google imagery – but when the question arose about taking the data out of Google and using it elsewhere… well, then things got a little hazy.
Google could fix this by saying that tracing from their imagery is ok – just like Yahoo have done. Or, alternatively, they could give us a clear “no”. Right now no-one really knows where they stand.
The Data Liberation Front ask people to vote for their favourite suggestions. We’ve added this as a suggestion and, at the time of writing, it has 585 votes – over four times the next most popular.
You can vote by going to http://url.ie/2ero. OpenStreetMap has shown the way in liberating geodata – maybe it’s time that some of these other guys caught up.
Ever since OpenStreetMap was founded three years ago, the licence has been one of the most debated aspects of the project.
At present, every OSM contributor agrees that their contributions can be used under the Creative Commons Attribution/ShareAlike licence, version 2 (CC-BY-SA 2.0, for short). This means:
- Anyone can copy OSM data.
- But if you incorporate it into something else, that “something else” also has to be copiable under the same terms and conditions (ShareAlike).
- When you copy it, you have to give credit to the copyright owner (Attribution).
It seems uncontroversial on first glance. But, as ever with things legal, the devil is in the detail. Do you have to give credit to ten thousand different mappers named individually, or just to “OpenStreetMap”? Does “incorporating it into something else” include adding extra layers of info over the top, as in a map mashup?
These, and similar questions, have kept the subscribers to our legal-talk mailing list happily arguing for over a year now. Many of the problems arise because Creative Commons (the “CC” of our licence), as the name suggests, is largely concerned with “creative works” – music, literature, art, and so on. OpenStreetMap, on the other hand, produces data: a factual, uncontroversial recording of the world around us.
When OSM started, we were on our own. No other website had a significant corpus of user-generated, publicly-licensed data. Few had open data of any sort. So it’s not surprising that no obvious licence was available.
Today, the situation is a little brighter. Open data is recognised as a fast-growing movement – and fortunately, this means that those with talents in drafting licences are applying their knowledge to the same problems we’ve run up against.
The situation today
As the elected OpenStreetMap Foundation, we’ve been discussing this in our board meetings for the past few months.
We are aware there are serious risks in continuing as we are. Partly this is out of a desire to do better: if a substantial number of people are unhappy with the licence, we want to see if we can find a solution that also satisfies those who are happy with the status quo.
Most importantly, though, there is a strong body of legal opinion that our existing licence is not valid (for our purposes) in most of the world. Creative Commons bases its licences on copyright. In Europe, however, geographical data is principally protected by database right, and in the States, the only available protection is contractual. OSM data is potentially in a curious unlicensed limbo at the moment, which will not protect us if a major geodata company, for example, decides to take our data without respecting the intent of the licence. (See here for a EU angle, here for a US angle; for Creative Commons’ position, see the third paragraph here, and here at Â§5.2.)
As the Foundation, we do not control the project, but we look out for its best interests. So we would be negligent if we did not look for alternatives.
Finding a way forward
So here are the presumptions that we have brought to our work:
- We need to consider alternatives to CC-BY-SA 2.0 for future licensing of OSM data.
- At heart, to gain widespread community acceptance, the licence needs to give our database the same three basic licensing elements (freely copiable; share-alike; attribution required) as it has at present.
- It must acknowledge the reality that we are one database with many contributors.
Of course, it goes without saying that any recommendation we make must have the best interests of the project and the community at heart – however hard that might be for any of us who have our own strongly-held views on the matter.
The Creative Commons approach
Its approach is unusual. It mandates that all such data be placed in the public domain, with no share-alike or attribution clause. Instead, these requirements should be expressed as a “non-legally binding set of citation norms”. In other words – the data provider can ask that those using the data share-alike and give attribution, but cannot insist on it.
Why is this the case? In the protocol, Creative Commons restates the problem that copyright simply does not apply universally to factual information. “Many users choose to apply common-use licenses such as the GPL and CC in order to declare their intent [...] But a user would be able to extract the entire contents (to the extent those contents are uncopyrightable factual content) and republish those contents without observing the copyleft or share-alike terms. The data provider, based on our research, is likely to feel ‘tricked’ by this outcome. That is not a desired result.”
This is an accurate summary of the situation. However, their solution – putting all the data into the public domain – is unpalatable to some OSM contributors. Here’s why.
In the science world, for which this protocol is intended, citation is an everyday part of life. Learned articles will always cite those whose work they are building on, and will be disregarded by peers if they don’t. When Science Commons speak of a “non-legally binding set of citation norms”, they can do so in the expectation that these norms will be respected. SC’s John Willbanks says as much in this interesting post: “It seemed we had to think about taking all these social goals and moving them outside the legal world, and into the world that scientists controlled – norms.”
That isn’t necessarily the case with geographical data. If a big mapping company like TeleAtlas or Navteq were to use OSM contributors’ work in their data, there’s no commercial imperative for them to credit us – let alone to make the rest of their data available on our terms. Our work will be used outside the world that we control.
Other OSM contributors say “so what?”, reasoning that the low cost, high quality and regular updates of free data will always win out over the commercial product. But even those with such views (among whom I personally count myself) do acknowledge that they’re not held universally within the community, making a licence on those terms unlikely to be adopted by all.
So if Creative Commons’ existing licence may not be valid, and their new licence is unlikely to be palatable to many OSM contributors, where do we go from here?
The most promising answer, so far, is provided by the Open Data Commons project. The ODC is principally the work of two lawyers, Jordan Hatcher and Charlotte Waelde, specialists in intellectual property law as applied to electronic content and with significant geographical expertise. They have worked with Creative Commons (indeed, the open access data protocol is largely their work), and have been generously sponsored by scientific data firm Talis.
As well as the public domain dedication that they have provided for Creative Commons, they also drafted a pair of licences (the Open Data Commons Database Licence and the Open Data Commons Factual Info Licence) which together provide a set of provisions particularly suitable for OSM data. Key points include:
- The database is protected by share-alike (ODCD 4.4).
- Attribution to the project is required (ODCD 4.2b).
- The licence works through copyright, database right and contract, making it applicable across different jurisdictions (ODCD preamble).
- The extent of share-alike is expressly stated (ODCD 4.5).
In other words, the licence retains the fundamentals of OSM licensing – freely copiable, share-alike required, and attribution required; is unambiguously valid for data; and provides definite answers to those questions of interpretation (such as who to attribute and how far sharealike extends).
Work on the ODC Database Licence and Factual Info Licence has unavoidably been slowed down by the Creative Commons public domain project. But both Jordan Hatcher and the project’s sponsors Talis have assured us that work is going ahead, and that a new revision will be available in the near future. As Jordan writes on his blog, “the Open Data Commons Database Licence and the Factual Information Licence are on hold during development of the new legal tools (the PDDL and Community Norms) but not forgotten.”
Paul Miller at Talis has already kindly given us his time to discuss the licence and we hope to meet with Jordan as the project moves on.
If the Foundation then believes that the licence is settled enough to be considered a viable option for OSM, we will recommend to the contributors – you – that we adopt this as the new licence going forward, for both existing and new data. We can’t change anything without you. You, not the Foundation, own the rights to your mapping.
The ideal situation would be that the ODC licences are suitable, and that not just the Foundation, but everyone involved in OSM agrees. If that’s the case, then we can publish the new terms without significant loss of existing data. If there are major objections, of course, we will either withdraw the proposal entirely, or weigh up the dangers of retaining the existing licence against the potential withdrawal of data. We are hopeful that the ODC licences are sufficiently in tune with the “spirit of OpenStreetMap” that this will not arise, but need to be alert to the possibility.
OSM isn’t just “open” in name – we believe in openly discussing the matters affecting the future direction of the project. If you have concerns or, conversely, would like to express your support, then please do discuss it on the mailing lists or forum; or, as at any time, contact any of the Foundation board (Corey Burger, Etienne Cherdlu, Steve Coast, Michael Collinson, Richard Fairhurst, Mikel Maron, Andy Robinson), or e-mail us collectively at email@example.com.
Fixing “the licence problem” might be something that many have thought impossible, but we are hopeful that if we really want to resolve it, we can find a solution that will benefit OpenStreetMap and stand us in good stead for the years to come.
– Richard Fairhurst
Well, when I say quiet, I mean the discussions were focused pretty well on a few topics..
The thing that caused most discussion this week was was about using the Yahoo! imagery in JOSM. Looks like it was a just-over-the-edge case for the license, so OSMers have stepped back from the edge while it’s use is clarified, puzzled on exactly what is the edge, and meanwhile continue to use it in the applet. It’s also prompted some healthy discussion on other sources of imagery from renting time on a satellite, to finding friendly pilots. (this paragraph might qualify for the ‘understatement of the month’ award!).
An exciting development on licensing was posted by SteveC – Queensland, Australia is/are? considering creative commons licensing for geodata! Read the thread for details! Richard Fairhurst has given a number of useful pointers.
The improving look of coastlines has been under discussion started by David Groom. People are keen to make them look good & there has been discussion on how to make this happen – having the coastline as one long ‘way’ is a bit of an issue, so other approaches are being discussed.
Superways were brought up again by David Earl (its a fairly regular thing…). The issue is about having a higher level structure above the ‘way’ structure. A ‘way’ represents a single stretch of road (or area) whose properties are all the same. This poses a problem when a road crosses a bridge (for example), as the part of the road over the bridge has to be represented as a separate way to be able to tag it as ‘bridge=yes’. Although its not a problem as such, there is no agreed method method to group these elements together to say ‘look, we know all these bits of road have different attributes, but really they are all the same road!’. There is inertia to move forward on this because of the changes that will need to be made to many areas in OSM (the editors, the database, theXML, and not least agreeing what ‘ superways’ give!). Hidden in the discussion were some juicy tips on JOSM – there is a lot of functionality in JOSM that’s not readily apparent. You can find out much information on way segments with the correct vulcan death grip on the keyboard!
On Dev Jochan Topf has reminded that there’s a developers workshop being held in Essen, Germany in a couple of weeks. If you ‘d like to join in, add your name here. It also looks like there might be a UK dev workshop, but nothings been firmed up yet.
Its good to see the newbies list is active. Don’t be shy – feel free to ask questions. You’ll be sure to get a friendly response.
Now, how did the Sheffield mapping party go?
by Barry Crabtree.
First, the title is a riff on The Pragmatic Programmer, a neat book.
It’s also an explicit riff on Linus Torvalds explicit pragmatism and differences of opinion with the more political FSF. The FSF is freedom for freedoms sake, Linus is freedom because it’s just better. I like the latter.
On the points of does the OS matter, generally, for some value of matter. Of course they do. They’re much like Microsoft. They’re a monopoly, they have lots of money and giggly lawyers and everyone hates them. They also have maps of the whole country. But do they matter to me, personally, or many OSMers? No. The political side and bringing down The Man doesn’t really motivate me. We make OSM because it’s better and cooler.
I do find it interesting that the responders think that a national mapping monopoly is somehow a good thing. I fail to see how this is different from a national monopoly on tea bags or cars. It seems that the argument is that the OS is relevant because it has lots of data and we could use this (pulls rabbit out of hat) in a flood emergency. Bit of a poor use of a lot of money just for that. Anyway, to respond to points in turn;
â€¦I want someone to organise data cross the entire country. I want to operate a business dependent upon that consistency.
Thats fine, but you don’t need a NMA to do that. You could have regional agencies with individual contracts where an overseer body puts it together. You could, god forbid, use OSM when we’re there. On an economic note, even if you want all that, and you want an NMA that’s fine, just please don’t force me and the 65 million other citizens to pay for it as we might not want it.
â€¦I want to know that environmental policies in the north and south are based on similar data, its analysis and methodology and applied fairly.
Cool, but still don’t need an NMA for it. We have policies in the north and south are based on similar data, its analysis and methodology and applied fairly in schools, hospitals, roads, universities, water, gas, electricity…. most of these just need an overseer not an NMA.
â€¦In the case of an emergency, I want to know someone can put together a river network and all its tributaries and work on solving a hydrological problem effectively, if there is a need.
Still don’t need an NMA for that. Being a bit hardcore, the emotive issues of ‘think of the children!’ or ‘what if we get flooded’… well the insurance market is very clear about that. Don’t live in a flood plain. If you want amazing disaster recovery maps of your area, then pay for it but please don’t force us all to. We might want to, of course, just don’t force us. And Katrina is not a good example, the federal government distorts the market by forcing flood insurance through FEMA. It’s the same argument as keeping rural post offices. If people in the countryside want them, then pay for them. There’s no god-given right to maps and post offices.
â€¦I want someone to survey and record the entire country in case I want to visit other parts, know what is there and understand where I can go.
What do you do when you go to the united states then? The country isn’t falling apart because they have different mapping providers in different parts of the country. I can find my way around Orlando and San Francisco just fine, despite them being thousands of miles apart and one with a map from Hertz and the other from the county sheriff.
â€¦I want an agency who supports governmental operations in a neutral manner with spatial information.
So do I. It need not be a country-wide monopoly. And the OS are far from neutral. By definition they stifle competition and progress, without even waving around OFT reports.
â€¦I want someone responsible for ensuring the education system produces infrastruture and knowledge to people so the geography of the land is know, recorded and stimulated.
University Geography departments would not be impotent without the OS. 11 year olds can still learn about geography without a free map.
I wonder if Openstreetmap honestly feel that they are ready to provide disaster response mapping, or have the resources in place to ensure that their coverage of the entire country is current to within one year or less.
Not yet, but we or someone like us will. And anyway, you don’t need an NMA for disaster response mapping.
It’s perfectly fair for OpenGeoData to think that Openstreetmap suits his mapping needs, but to call it superior, and to say that the Ordnance Survey is irrelevant is a little short-sighted.
To come back to the original post for a second, really the pragmatic point was to say should we spend our time campaigning against the OS, or just building our own systems and maps? Campaigning for open data from the OS, or change to government policy is just sticky tar. Would we have got anywhere in the past two and a half years by just campaigning? It’s very doubtful. We’d have publicity no doubt and a few more high-placed friends and enemies… but this way we have that and a mapping system, and a community of 5,700 people, and maps of Baghdad, and vast sections of the UK mapped.
But one thing I think would be cool to do is make a map of map charges. The idea is that the OS basically don’t respond to awkward questions through the Freedom of Information Act as they’re commercially sensitive… but if we all write to our councils and ask them then they have to give us at least some idea. My council just sent me a letter with the new council tax bill breaking it down by police, schools and so on.. but not maps. So, we can figure out who’s paying the OS too much or little. It’ll be interesting. What you need to do is find your council website and information freedom officer and write them a letter asking for this stuff. There’s a wiki page with a sample letter to help you get started.
As far as I know this data doesn’t exist anywhere.
Tomorrow at 4pm there is a programme on Law in Action on Radio 4 in which they examine crown copyright, openstreetmap and the OS. You can listen online.
Its been another high-traffic week on the OSM mailing lists, so lets get ready for a whistle-stop tour to the world of OSM.
The legal debate continues, but the focus has shifted to an attempt to aggregate information about Case Law, Statute Law and general legal questions onto the Legal FAQ wiki page. The principal behind this is firstly to gather together information that we can present to a friendly (and perhaps charitable) copyright lawyer and secondly to get information about similar cases. There are a couple of papers that are definitely worth looking at, this one, written by Dr Charlotte Waelde from the AHRC Research Centre for Studies in Intellectual Property and Technology Law at the University of Edinburgh and this page from the Science Commons website. If reading a journal paper is just too much like hard work, Richard has summarised the main points of the paper here. If direct action is more your thing, some OSM users have been declaring their contributions Public Domain on this wiki page.
If you are new to OSM, Geo and OpenSource projects, there’s probably a lot of things that confuse you. If you are wondering what the difference is between GPX and GPS, head over to the glossary page of the wiki. If there’s a term you want defining, just add it without a definition and someone will update it before too long. There’s also a new mailing list for newbies – sign up here and start asking all those questions that have been bugging you.
There’s been a load of development going on in the OSM commuinty this week. Tom Higgy has written a script that will calibrate OSM image tiles letting you use them with the opensource Treck Buddy navigation software. Take a look at Tom’s work on his site. Next up, Mathew has been working on a new rendering engine that takes OSM data and produces a postscript file, an interesting new take on the rendering issue. The pragmitic developer says; “Maybe there is a use for it, maybe not. I just like hacking PostScript, so this seemed a sensible merge of two enjoyable things…”.
The “Applet” is the editing tool that you use when you click on the “Edit” tab on the OSM website. Its been around since the very beginning of OSM, the first version was written by Steve, the next by Tom Carden, the way support was put in by Imi and inbetween that a few other people have had a hack at it. The Yahoo imagery has prompted a fair bit of development work on the applet. Nick Burch put in some fixes a few weeks ago, and this week Dan Moore has made quite a few bug fixes, including enhanced panning and zooming functions – all of which are now on the live site.
Keith Sharp’s been bussy too, adding a script to extract polygons from the weekly planet dump – useful if you want to extract a particular area of data, rather than load the entire dataset. You can grab a copy here.
My personal “app of the week” is Franciso Santos’ fantastic new Yahoo! imagery plugin for JOSM. Download the plugin from here, then fire up JOSM and get ready for some productive mapping. The plugin works by caching image tiles via Firefox and then loading the image into JOSM – get more info here.
Putney Bridge as seen using the JOSM Yahoo! plugin
The tagging discussions have continued this week too. One problem that’s been identified is that there is currently no way to distinguish a tube station from another type of railway station. Currently we tag railway stations with:
Robert “Jamie” Munro’s not happy though, “that’s just wrong”, he says, and he has a point. After all a railway station is not part of the railway, and so shouldn’t be tagged with “key: railway”. One suggestion is to allow multiple tags with the same key, something like:
Whilst this is supported by XML, it is not currently supported by the OSM API. You can follow discussions about tagging and the OSM ontology here. There are a load of new proposed features that you can vote on this week too- take a look at this wiki page and have your say.
As the amount of data in the OSM database grows, and as the uses of OSM data become more sophisticated and diverse, the underlying data structure will become increasingly important. The idea of “superways” is not a new one, but David Earl has brought the matter to light this week, largely in response to mailing list discussions about tagging motorway junctions. David’s proposal is firstly to introduce the idea of a “superway” as a higher level structure on top of the existing ways, as well as encouraging the API and editors to enforce the existing “rules” of ways (they are contiguous, ordered, unidirectional, non-branching sets of segments). David sees several advantages of the proposed scheme; a road in a housing estate that has numerous branches for example, can be grouped as one object, likewise a complex road junction which is not a single node or a roundabout could also be represented as one object.
Basically all we’re trying to do is assign tags to groups of ways without having to do it to each way, or have an easy method of selecting multiple ways – John McKerrell
There are several strands to this debate, but primarily there is the need to represent real-world objects in the OSM database and however this is done it will involve some level of abstraction. Aled Morris makes a good point that the ability of a renderer to render a particular data-model should not affect the development of that data model. The problem is, that the output of renderers will inevitably affect the way people tag objects and the way people perceive the OSM data model. Nigel Magnay makes the point that whilst you could feasibly tag your way around many situations, this is an inefficient way of dealing with the underlying problem, and what we should be doing modeling the fundamentals properly. Of course different people have different ideas of what the “fundamentals” are and what “properly” is. The herding of cats springs to mind, but then this is all part of OSM’s open, community based way of doing things.
Thats all for this week. With all the new development thats been going on there’s plenty of new toys for every kind of mapper to play with – so get out there (or fire up JOSM) and have some fun.
Oh, my head hurts. I wasn’t around last weekend to do the roundup so Nick agreed to do it. I mailed him suggesting it was a fairly quiet week. “have you been following Legal-talk?” he asked. “Better subscribe. ” I said. Big mistake! It’s not the quantity of mailings that’s the problem, its the passion, quality & general level of understanding. This is where Baz the Blogger’s head really starts to hurt, I’ll keep it brief:
There are three main debates going on at the moment “Is the share-alike road navigable“, “Moving up the stack“, and “The big license debate“. I don’t pretend to do them justice in this one-sentence-per-subject summary so if the subjects interest you and you want to join in, please take a look at the debate. Thanks to David Groom, SteveC, and Tom Chance for starting off these particular threads.
The share-alike road in one sentence is this. Can the license to OSM data be made so that the people that use and enhance OSM data are obliged to make their enhancements available to OSM. To make this concrete, if someone took the OSM data and, for a particular map they placed street names at ‘good’ locations, they would have to return those locations to OSM. There are also other debates on licensing for derivative works. “The big license debate” discusses the pros and cons of CC vs. PD licenses. Should the data be made public domain – a complete free-for-all, or will CC licensing work? One issue with making the data public domain is that everyone that contributed must state that their work is in the public domain. “Moving up the stack” covers whether OSM should just stick to the data layer or move up in some way – afraid this one made my head really hurt!
It is good to see that the FAQ keeps getting updated. For example, people are naturally keen to see the edits and additions they make appear on the slippy map. Now you keen peeps can now go to the FAQ to find how to get your freshly edited area updated quickly… then clear your cache, have a nice relaxing meal & come back to see the results of your hard labours (on a good day ).
Something weird happened with a question by Franciso Santos posted on “Tagging urban streets” – whats the tagging scheme for roads when you get in the centre of a city. Plenty of discussion to agree the scope of the problem, then Mike Collinson proposed something that seemed to be agreed. Wow! Take a look – it doesn’t happen that often.
It seems to have been a busy week for applications. Or should I say nacient application-lets. OJW announced an atlas generation programme. Richard Fairhust announced a test version of Potlatch, a flash-based editor for OSM data and again OJW let us know about an easy way to generate map jpegs on the fly here, surely these should have a CC license logo on them? Or are they derived works – oh, my head is starting to hurt!
Like most (all?) distributed collaborative projects, OSM is discussed at many levels: on the mailing lists (some that we summarise here, legal, talk, dev, party ) the wiki and IRC. There’s only one thing to say about the IRC channel #osm…… “There be sxpert’s”
And finally, you know you’ve got Obsessive Compulsive Open Street Mapping Disorder when “…going to see relatives suddenly sounds interesting…” – too close Dutch! And it just goes on…
By Barry Crabtree
The debate surrounding the use and licensing of OSM’s data that was reported in last week’s round-up has continued in earnest this week, resulting in an explosion of traffic on the OSM legal mailing list:
There are several components to the problem. First, there is the issue of copyright. Currently each individual contributor retains the copyright to their contributions. This situation is unlikely to change, as in many countries, such as Germany, it is simply not possible to transfer copyright held by an individual to another body. Next is the issue of the OSM license. All the data held by OSM is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 license (CC-by-SA). CC-by-SA means that anyone can use OSM data for anything they like, provided they give attribution to the creator(s) of the data (the guys with the GPS units and bicycles) and providing that they apply the same license to any derivative works that they make and distribute. I think I speak for the whole OSM community when I say that we all want the best free map of the world we can get; how we define freedom and how we get there is another matter. Richard Fairhurst gives his opinion on some of the problems with the current OSM license:
No webmapping company or cartographer will contribute any data back to OSM except through the goodness of their own heart. That’s because CC-SA doesn’t require you to publish the source code, just the final product.
So if a cartographer produces a beautifully illustrated map using OSM data and then redistributes the map, they are required to redistribute it under the CC-by-SA license. This would make selling the derived work very difficult and Richard and others have suggested that this factor will stop cartographers from using OSM’s data in the future. Instead, they will go to organisations from whom they can buy data under licenses that allow them to create works that they can use commercially, effectively bolstering the position of organisations who sell proprietary data. Frederick Ramm and Robert “Jamie” Munro also point out that this scenario contradicts OSM’s stated aim, to produce maps that are free of the “legal and technical restricions” that most geo-data is subject to.
Take another scenario, one in which a big provider of geo-data gets hold of OSM’s data-set, cleans it, augments it and then uses it to produce map tiles. The current CC-by-SA license does not require this organisation to release the augmented data back into theOSM data set , they would only release their finished product. Those who see this as a problem have suggested making a distinction between the source data (a planet dump for example) and a “rendered” work. It is suggested that the source data could be licensed so that any improvements have to be given back to OSM, whilst derived works would not need to be licensed under such a license, allowing more widespread use of OSM data.
This is a very brief round-up of a pretty complex problem that many people have strong opinions about. Whatever the final outcome of the debate is, it is going to play an important part in shaping the future of OSM. We’ll be meeting with some Creative Commons people in the next couple of weeks, so if you have any ideas about licensing, send a mail to the legal list, or take a look at this wiki page, and make sure your opinion is counted.
Almien published a list of interesting tags, based on the most recent Planet dump. One of my personal favourites is “wrong=oh yes!”, with “description=Official home of the President of The Philippines”, coming a close second. After seeing “blackadder:service=cobler” I know where I will be going to get my shoes fixed in the future, after which I can visit “blackadder:cuisine=fish” for a nice bit of seafood.
OSM@home is a project that uses distributed computing power to render SVG images of places from OSM data. You can browse through the different places here. Through the work of Barry Crabtree, J.D. “Dutch” Schmidt and others, the latest OSM@home client post-processes Osmarender data to produce images with beizer curves, like these:
Free-Map – the countryside oriented open mapping project – now have a similar client that allows people to render Free-Map tiles (with really nice looking SRTM contours) at home. If you want to help out, you can get it from here.
The OSM Cartography meet-up on Saturday saw Artem, SteveC, Steve Chilton and Richard Fairhurst spend a few hours going through the Mapnik config file with the aim of improving the cartography produced by Mapnik. About 10 people met up in Oxford afterwards and there was some interesting discussion about cartography in OSM. Steve Chilton and Richard Fairhurst made the point that a lot of the discussions about rendering OSM data focus on getting as much data as possible onto the maps. They pointed out that the secret of cartography is to represent the information that is needed for a particular use case, and had some convincing examples of traditional cartographic products, like maps oriented towards cyclists, that don’t include many features at all, but succeed in conveying the information needed by the cyclist by choosing the most useful features. This is definitely something for OSM’s renderers to think about. As the database gets larger and more diverse, and the demand for cartographic outputs of OSM data gets greater its going to be increasingly important to carefully select the features that are represented on our maps.
Saturday’s “You know you got OCOSMD (Obsessive Compulsive Open Street Mapping Disorder) when….” thread, started by J.D. “Dutch” Schmidt has thrown up some funny suggestions, along the lines of “…when you read other peoples gpx files as blogs” or “… You forget to pick the girlfriend up from work, but remember the GPS”. It would be so much funnier if it wasnt so painfully true. There’s definitely a fair amount of obsessiveness in the OSM community. I’ve always found that you appreciate things a lot more when you start trying to do or make them for yourself – thats certainly the way its been for me with mapping. Thomas Walraet reported on a French project that’s taking the do-it-yourself ethos to the extreme, making their own GPS circuit boards:
The boards retail for around â‚¬100, with the board’s manurfacturers making no profit. More information is available in French, here.
Thats all for this week, keep tuned to OpenGeoData for all latest news from the world of Open Mapping.
An interesting post on the view from inside on licensing data.
If this data was owned collectively (that is to say, was not owned at all) and such basic factual documents were not seen as money making opportunities we would have so many advantages. Instead, we have a situation where hundreds of hours are being wasted simply because of outdated business models sadly adopted by our government. On top of this, such restrictions are stifling innovation. Google Maps may be able to afford to licence the OS data but the average bedroom developer cannot and so there is a less than optimal level of development in this area.