The link to “the application we made to the OSMF” contains a “.” at the end making the link invalid.

My blog post wasn’t intended to be a scientific investigation of the appropriateness of OSM’s legal support documents. I just wanted to express my honest surprise about the sheer amount of legal documents OSM has accumulated. If you don’t want to get my point, feel free to pick an aspect that you argue away most easy if you think that change the story. Or simply ignore my post.

Im Gegensatz zu den beim letzten Lizenzwechsel erzielten Zustimmungsraten ist die Hürde eher tief. Was einen Lizenzwechsels angeht, wäre eine Diskussion im Moment in der Tat eher theoretisch. Aber da der “active contributor”-Status mit dem Fee Waiver Programm recht praktische Auswertungen, würde ich das nicht mehr als “ziemlich akademisch” bezeichnen.

Ich finde die Fragestellung von derFred gut. Es ist immer besser solche Themen ohne Druck zu klären. Wenn man erst vor einem (hoffentlich nie stattfinden) erneuten Lizenzwechsel mit der Diskussion anfängt, bringt man da nur Themen in die Diskussion, die dort nichts verloren haben.

if you filter the OSM data for trunk, primary, secondary, and tertiary highways plus cities and towns with tools like osmosis (search for tag-filter) or osmfilter you can probably load the result into Maperitive without any issues.

Since your last two graphs do not take into account the reason for blocking users, they are useless imho.

Mikel Maron suggest a chart that shows who applied blocks. I found it interesting too. If you find it useless, just disregard it.

I tried to get data for the block reasons. The reason is in a text area. However, I found an example with no text at all, another one I found was completely in russian and so one. If you find a way how to get the reason without going through every 2000 block manually, please let me know.

Maybe woodpeck deals with mappers that destroy a lot of data or in a large area I am assuming the same i.e. that there are reasons why block durations differ.

see this as a blame game for the DWG, I think you should have focussed on the reason why people get blocked. But as you wrote “Just in case there are some troubles with the DWG (I am looking into it for a friend)”, your investigation seems biased. If you would have revealed the reason why your friend in blocked (did she/he import from copyrighted sources, did she/he vandalise the work of others ?, did she/he add advertisements ?),

I will add [irony] [/irony] tags to my text for you. :/

I might have an idea why you are doing this research.

Ah, that’s what you mean when speaking about “blame game”

Something to consider. We could add a category field to blocks, that could capture the general type of issue(s) the block addresses. Would make it easier than trying to parse the text of the block

I am not sure I can parse the text block. While I get all other items extracted, the free text is in different languages. See for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1995

So it is probably much easier to add keywords in the text block or add category field to blocks

As Mikel is I think trying to suggest, it would be possible to obtain details of the actual incident from the block(s) associated with it (and “incident” will most often be “hello and welcome to OSM, some people are trying to help you”)

I am doing this investigation right now and will come up soon

o be clear about one thing - the user blocks list is not a “list of shame”. As described on the DWG’s wiki page, blocks ‘don’t imply that users have done anything wrong, and often contain friendly language to try and communicate that fact. Usually before any block is applied (even a “0-hour message that has to be read”) attempts will be made to contact the mapper, such as via changeset discussion comments’.

I have never met someone seeing it this way, except from the OSMF or Working Group environment.

If you have been paying attention you will know that there was a large influx of directed editors recently that not only didn’t respond to messages (and made bad edits), but created larger numbers of sock puppets that were in turn blocked (IMHO reason enough to never ever let anybody from the companies involved near OSM again, but I digress). The blocking of a fair number of SEO accounts last and this year has already been mentioned as an additional larger source of blocks.

I have heart something here and there but was unable to find out even the scale of the issues you mentioned. There was nothing in the DWG reports I could find. I have made an adjustment of a special situation that I was able to quantify.

The other point of note is that cumulative graphs always point upwards and scale can be used to show whatever you want. The other distortion is comparing to random, as small as possible, numbers. We have had a bit over 1’000’000 contributors to the map data and that is the correct number to compare with a cumulative number over the lifetime of the project.

Please apologise. It seems I could not tell you my point with the chart. Let me explain 3 things: 1. I’m not pointing to the increase of the user blocks year over year. As you mentioned the number always increase when you cumulated, I am pointing to the increase at a yearly increasing growth rate, a trend since years. It is called exponential growth.

1. I am not sure what you mean with “other distortion is comparing to random, as small as possible, numbers”. The chart start with the first user block in the system, not with a random number. If you need help getting the data, I can explain how I did it.

2. The scale is plain vanilla linear and was not selected. Well, it was the default scale Excel provided me.

I agree on your last part how to set the blocks into proportion. I just wanted to point out that we have not endless mappers and 1 Mio might overstate the potential as well

So it still leave me with the questions if user blocks are given more relaxed and if it is necessary to publish a block for more than 8 years.

funny post for someone who responds to questions about the attribution requirement with “ask a lawyer”

4 Nodes hinzugefügt und 8 gelöscht…in 4 Jahren! Stolze Leistung. Was das GCHQ angeht.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed-britains-secret-listening-post-in-the-heart-of-berlin-8921548.html

Bitte tobe Dein Drang Dinge zu löschen bei Wikipedia aus.

Hallo Dietmar, vielen Dank für das Update. Jetzt sieht es schon viel besser aus. Jede Menge komischer Daten sind bei mir verschwunden. Allerdings sind immer noch nicht existente Straßen in der Auswertung vorhanden. Ich bin auf ein Muster gestossen, was diese von den “normalen” Straßen zu unterscheiden scheint. Dazu habe ich mir die Originaldatei beim LGL besorgt. Die “normalen” Straßen haben einen 5-stelligen “Lageschluessel”, der bei mir in etwa so 38988 aussieht. Es gibt allerdings auch kürzere Lageschluessel (1-4 stellig). Allerdings sind ausnahmslos alle Straßen mit einem kürzerem Lageschlüssel in meiner Stadt nicht existent.

I am a member since some weeks and I like the project. I have visualised the cell stations in Germany and France for myself.
http://openbmap.osm4people.org/
http://openbmap.osm4people.org/index_fr.html
The "measuremt point" overlay in the German map is from OpenCellID since I can not deal with the raw measurement data from openBmap due to the lack of programming skills. Maybe I will update the map more often when it becomes clear, that the project survives.

vielleicht hilft das ja
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenStreetMap-in-a-Box