user inas

37 views
Skip to first unread message

Franc Carter

unread,
Dec 31, 2011, 7:29:37 PM12/31/11
to osm-...@googlegroups.com

Please also stop all imports from user inas

thanks

--
Franc

80n

unread,
Jan 2, 2012, 3:57:25 AM1/2/12
to osm-...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Franc Carter <franc....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Please also stop all imports from user inas

Contributions from user inas have been blocked.

inas

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 9:20:13 PM1/10/12
to OSM Fork
Hi,

For the record, I have not made any edits to OSM to this point for the
purposes of removing non-CT data.

All efforts I have made have been incorporating improvements made from
survey, with the best intention of improving the map.

From what I can see my contributions were stopped into FOSM on the say-
so of a single user, during a holiday period, without any backing
evidence, without a reason being given, without any other person
checking, and without any issues being raised with me.

I guess I can understand this reaction in the current climate, but I
do hope this isn't indicative of the approach of the project going
forward.

Ian.

On Jan 2, 7:57 pm, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:

Franc Carter

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 9:35:53 PM1/10/12
to osm-...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:20 PM, inas <ina...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,

For the record, I have not made any edits to OSM to this point for the
purposes of removing non-CT data.

All efforts I have made have been incorporating improvements made from
survey, with the best intention of improving the map.

From what I can see my contributions were stopped into FOSM on the say-
so of a single user, during a holiday period, without any backing
evidence, without a reason being given, without any other person
checking, and without any issues being raised with me.

I guess I can understand this reaction in the current climate, but I
do hope this isn't indicative of the approach of the project going
forward.

Sorry, if I jumped the gun. When I looked at the changes in the edit, the comment on the changeset and the net effect on fosm it looked like remapping with a significant downside and not much net gain. Admittedly the downside may well have been because deletions to CT decliners is blocked in fosm.

I am seeing moderate damage to Sydney in the fosm database from osm replication (it's possible some of this is consequential rather than as a result of deliberate CC purging). I try to make my decisions based on net good for the fosm dataset.


Ian.

On Jan 2, 7:57 pm, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Franc Carter <franc.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Please also stop all imports from user inas
>
> Contributions from user inas have been blocked.



--
Franc

Alex (Maxious) Sadleir

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 9:38:25 PM1/10/12
to osm-...@googlegroups.com
I think you missed 80n's recent email clearing up the tone of these requests:

> Just a reminder that these blocks should be more properly thought of
> as suspensions. Their changesets are available and could be manually
> imported if someone wants to do the work.

You can manually upload your osm files to both osm.org and fosm.org I believe?

This is about importing any changes you make to osm.org in 2012 of
which I cannot see any. Hopefully Franc can explain which changeset
made him decide to make that request, probably casting a wide net for
maxspeed changes which are a favorite of those who do want to purge
OSM of non-CT data.

Franc Carter

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 9:51:08 PM1/10/12
to osm-...@googlegroups.com
I'll try to dig the details up as best I can tonight - I fixed the duplication and alignment issues so I'll be hazy on that



--
Franc

inas

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 11:35:53 PM1/10/12
to OSM Fork
On Jan 11, 1:35 pm, Franc Carter <franc.car...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry, if I jumped the gun. When I looked at the changes in the edit, the
> comment on the changeset and the net effect on fosm it looked like
> remapping with a significant downside and not much net gain. Admittedly the
> downside may well have been because deletions to CT decliners is blocked in
> fosm.

We've been mapping overlapping areas now for over four years. Back in
2007 we were mapping swathes of alternate streets of a blank Sydney
map. I'm a member of the FOSM group since it started with the same
username. You could easily have contacted me for clarification
before sending a block request to a public list. It wasn't as if I
was making rapid changes that needed to be dealt with, I hadn't been
within a cooee of a computer for the week before you sent the email,
and haven't made a change since.

If there was a downside to FOSM, I'd have been happy to acquiesce to
the reasons why and nominate myself.

On Jan 11, 1:38 pm, "Alex (Maxious) Sadleir" <maxi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I think you missed 80n's recent email clearing up the tone of these requests:
>
> > Just a reminder that these blocks should be more properly thought of
> > as suspensions. Their changesets are available and could be manually
> > imported if someone wants to do the work.

Great. I'm not a FOSM contributor, and I'm going to remain in the
mainstream OSM project to see what can be salvaged out of the licence
change fiasco, so I unfortunately expect to have my hands full beyond
manually importing changesets into FOSM, for now! As always, my
contributions from survey are completely unencumbered, and free for
anyone to use for any purpose, should anyone consider their value to
have a "net gain".

FOSM can and should select the edits it wants. I want to see an
effective fork after the licence change, and mirroring the deletes
won't give you that. However, if individual users are identified in a
public forum as being "blocked", then you should be fair, by minimally
stating the reasons why, rather than leaving it open and implied.

Ian.

Franc Carter

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 1:34:59 AM1/11/12
to osm-...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:35 PM, inas <ina...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 11, 1:35 pm, Franc Carter <franc.car...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry, if I jumped the gun. When I looked at the changes in the edit, the
> comment on the changeset and the net effect on fosm it looked like
> remapping with a significant downside and not much net gain. Admittedly the
> downside may well have been because deletions to CT decliners is blocked in
> fosm.

We've been mapping overlapping areas now for over four years.  Back in
2007 we were mapping swathes of alternate streets of a blank Sydney
map.  I'm a member of the FOSM group since it started with the same
username.   You could easily have contacted me for clarification
before sending a block request to a public list.  It wasn't as if I
was making rapid changes that needed to be dealt with, I hadn't been
within a cooee of a computer for the week before you sent the email,
and haven't made a change since.

I'll give two versions of my response,

Continuing in from my first email in this thread:-

Yes, agreed - contacting you and discussing would have been a good first step - sorry.

Responding with the attitude you are taking

You have sent several emails to the list, including one where you specifically stated that you did not need to respect my wishes regarding data I had put a great deal of work in to. Your comments have always indicated that your are an osm contributor and you have actively commented on the removal of non-odbl data, so I don't think the conclusion I came to was unreasonable.

I'll leave it to other fosm contributors to decide whether to re-enable your imports - I'm clearly no going to be unbiased at this point
 

If there was a downside to FOSM, I'd have been happy to acquiesce to
the reasons why and nominate myself.

On Jan 11, 1:38 pm, "Alex (Maxious) Sadleir" <maxi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I think you missed 80n's recent email clearing up the tone of these requests:
>
> > Just a reminder that these blocks should be more properly thought of
> > as suspensions.  Their changesets are available and could be manually
> > imported if someone wants to do the work.

Great.  I'm not a FOSM contributor, and I'm going to remain in the
mainstream OSM project to see what can be salvaged out of the licence
change fiasco, so I unfortunately expect to have my hands full beyond
manually importing changesets into FOSM, for now!  As always, my
contributions from survey are completely unencumbered, and free for
anyone to use for any purpose, should anyone consider their value to
have a "net gain".

FOSM can and should select the edits it wants. I want to see an
effective fork after the licence change, and mirroring the deletes
won't give you that.  However, if individual users are identified in a
public forum as being "blocked", then you should be fair, by minimally
stating the reasons why, rather than leaving it open and implied.

Ian.



--
Franc

Liz

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 3:08:07 AM1/11/12
to osm-...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:20:13 -0800 (PST)
inas <ina...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> For the record, I have not made any edits to OSM to this point for the
> purposes of removing non-CT data.
>
> All efforts I have made have been incorporating improvements made from
> survey, with the best intention of improving the map.
>
> From what I can see my contributions were stopped into FOSM on the
> say- so of a single user, during a holiday period, without any backing
> evidence, without a reason being given, without any other person
> checking, and without any issues being raised with me.
>
> I guess I can understand this reaction in the current climate, but I
> do hope this isn't indicative of the approach of the project going
> forward.
>
> Ian.
>

You are not stopped from contributing, any edits you made to OSM are in
a holding pattern. We can import these, and use cc-by-sa data from them.
Thankyou for advising us of the situation.
All edits to Australian content are about to go to the holding pattern,
I'm sorry we jumped the gun with yours and have caused offence.

inas

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 6:55:27 PM1/11/12
to OSM Fork
On Jan 11, 5:34 pm, Franc Carter <franc.car...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'll give two versions of my response,
>
> Continuing in from my first email in this thread:-
>
> Yes, agreed - contacting you and discussing would have been a good first
> step - sorry.

Thank you.

> You have sent several emails to the list, including one where you
> specifically stated that you did not need to respect my wishes regarding
> data I had put a great deal of work in to. Your comments have always
> indicated that your are an osm contributor and you have actively commented
> on the removal of non-odbl data, so I don't think the conclusion I came to
> was unreasonable.

The only comment I think you are referring is regarding the removal
ABS2006 data. I expressed my opinion that if the ABS are happy to
relicence their data for continued use in OSM, then we should consider
whether the import process actually added originality such that
copyright would subsist separately in the copy. That position wasn't
accepted, and I've since accepted that the ABS2006 data should be
removed. I think I've made subsequent comments to that effect.

For completeness, I include a link to the email where I suggested
this..

http://www.mail-archive.com/tal...@openstreetmap.org/msg07872.html

Wherever possible, I've tried to respect your contributions to OSM,
and acknowledge your right to not relicence them. I don't believe my
contribution contradicted that, but I'm happy to apologise to the
extent it could be interpreted that way.

I'd certainly like OSM to continue to be successful in Australia. I
wish the same for FOSM.

> I'll leave it to other fosm contributors to decide whether to re-enable
> your imports - I'm clearly not going to be unbiased at this point

It really is a moot point, now. I'm not contributing much at the
moment, and now probably won't be until remedial action as a result of
the licence change commences, and as I've said before, FOSM can't hold
out too much longer in Australia without becoming a true fork.

My initial points remains.

If you are going to identify individual users as being blocked, you
should say why. It is good for accountability, and necessary to be
fair to those who you are publicly naming. It appears in this case
you may have based your request on things such as discussions in other
forums or other interactions. If that is the way FOSM wants to make
decisions, that is fine, but you be clear and say so.

Ian.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages