Very good news for Panoramax ! 🥳

In order to improve face/plate detection, we would appreciate to get a copy of the original unblurred pictures to retrain our detection model.

You can contact us by mail at panoramax@panoramax.fr or on matrix https://matrix.to/#/#panoramax-general:matrix.org

Speed limit is now a mess in France, as the government choose to switch from 90 to 80 km/h a couple of years ago, then local authority slowly switched back to 90 on some roads.

90 used to be the default in rural areas and we did not add the maxspeed=* at that time. Now that there is no clear default, we add them… slowly.

We’re also supposed to have all this as opendata since 2016, but still waiting for this to happen. Last announced deadline was Q2 2022…

Can we calm down ?

limequery.org domain has its DNS linking it to limesurvey.net which redirects to limesurvey.org

Their privacy policy is available at https://www.limesurvey.org/privacy-policy

This is not optimal, but at least can answer a few questions. Allan, you may add a link to it in the survey home page.

Bonjour Thomas,

Profites-en pour les sensibiliser au jardinage !

C’est moins gratifiant de corriger, de nettoyer que d’ajouter toujours plus de données, mais c’est indispensable si on ne veut pas que la base ressemble à terme à une jungle de données.

Bonsoir Aurélien,

C’est sûr que par endroit, remplacer un import ancien de qualité médiocre par des données plus récentes et de meilleure qualité peut être le mieux à faire. Ce qui ne sera pas simple, c’est de conserver les enrichissements qui avaient pu être faits, et de conserver la cohérence topologique d’ensemble…

Rien d’infaisable, mais c’est un sacré chantier, qui peut valoir le coup !

Il faut de toute façon prendre du recul et assez de temps pour évaluer l’apport d’un remplacement massif de données et la complexité de l’opération.

[1] the highway=service on the left is restricted to “Protection Civile” (rescue service) No turn restriction here to add, only access=emergency to add

[2] these signs are not standard at all (too small, too close from the crossing, etc)… just forget them ;)

[3] [4] same as gileri

This paper definitely does not provides a comprehensive overview of issues. It provides only on side of the issues, reinforcing only one point of view.

It does not cover hundreds of use of OSM data where the ODbL license is not an issue at all.

BTW, what is exactly this “Centre for Spatial Law” ? On their website site I see only one name in all presentations, contact and so on.

So, to me, it looks like a single guy has been paid to write a white paper (with nothing new in it) using a grand-sounding title to emphasis the effect…

OSM deserves something else, really.

Hi Harry !

For your info, I’m not getting money for what’ I’m setting up with other guys at OpenStreetMap France. I’m not alone behind all the stuff we’re running, coding, hosting on OSM-FR donated servers.

We’re a small team of a dozen of volunteers taking care of a dozen of servers all donated to us (some old ones, some brand new). Hosting is also donated in different places (universities, companies, etc).

Regarding the money we’ve been able to collect, a large part of it has been donated to us for humanitarian and social development goals and comes from the “Fondation de France”.

We also collected some money this year thanks to our 2nd State Of The Map (in april) which will be used to run our organization.

OSM-FR has no paid employee.

Helping the core OSMF funding/hosting is something we would really like to happen, working closer together. We’re quite new organisation (a little more than 2 years) and still in the process of organizing ourself better… trying to cope with fast OSM adoption that is happening here thanks to so many government and local authority contacts we’ve established in the past years.

Our last move creating “BANO” (nationwide open address database) should even accelerate all this !

Good step in the right direction.

“Our goal is to feature OpenStreetMap to help grow the community - attribution plays a key role in this”

So… why hide the attribution behind a tiny almost invisible icon ?

When there’s enough space on the map, it is against the spirit of ODbL (not “reasonably calculated”) to require a user action to access attribution details.

Just as a reminder:

4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License.

Please update your post to provide a valid recommendation. Keeping it like this creates unnecessary confusion.

Great news to have Duckduckgo switching2osm !

Will be even better with proper (read visible) attribution… those icons are a fallback when there is not enough space for attribution (mobile screens for example) otherwise the requirement is clear on http://osm.org/copyright

I think a few simple cases would really help to understand when share-alike kick in.

Example: You use OSM to geocode some data (used publicly) -> share-alike kicks in

Thanks for last sentence ;)

I can agree on some parts of this post and disagree on others, but some of the examples you’re using are looking wrong to me.

For example Wheelmap can display OSM POI on whatever basemap, there is no data mix in the process, no problem with ODbL.

The problem we’re facing is how to be more open (allowing a mix with public domain datasets) and at the same time prevent massive use of OSM data in non open ways (Google, Apple, etc).

The default licence should keep a share-alike condition, but at the same time on a dataset per dataset basis we should be able to remove that condition when there is a real benefit to the project which in my point of view is not the case in general.

In France we have 2 licence trends in opendata: with or without share-alike.

We’re promoting share-alike as it is a benefit for the commons and a virtuous circle.

Ok, this may not fit some business models, but while OSM allows commercial use of the project data, this its not the goal of the project and should become one. Share-alike has not been causing the projet a problem see the large community, the increasing number of reuses, the existing business opportunities around OSM.

OSM value is in its community spending millions of hours creating and improving the data, not in the data themselves. As a contributor, except under some circumstances, I want a guarantee that my work will never be captured, privatized and share-alike is that guarantee.

Je partage aussi cet énervement récurrent.

Il faut rester vigilant pour ne pas tomber dans une situation de dépendance vis à vis d’un acteur qui devient plus ou moins unique. L’annonce de l’arrêt proche des services de Cloudmade en dehors de contrats “entreprise” n’est pas un bon signe non plus.

Lire: http://notes.ericjiang.com/posts/741

So far, just a few datasets, most of them thru “live” overpass-api queries. We will add more, the new portal just opened today… so this is just the beginning !