On Wed, 25 May 2011 10:07:11 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard <
dr@jones.dk> wrote:
> On 11-05-24 at 10:26pm, Adnan Hodzic wrote:
> > One of our local team members from Tuzla (Dejan Marjanovic) did
> > amazing job on working out the travel details on how to to get to
> > Banja Luka.
> >
> > Please check
www.DebConf11.com as it's one stop "shop" for all
> > information regarding needed information to get to Banja Luka, your
> > stay there and eventual departure.
>
> Wauw!
>
> Is that website a Free Software project? I would be interested in
> looking closer at both the design of the site (e.g. look at applying
> Kalle's Debian design using Sass), and the data points (e.g. juggling
> with OpenStreetMap and RDF).
I'm somewhat suspicious of the provenance of that map, given the lack of
any copyright notice.
Picking an area almost at random (I actually chose Frana Supila on the
JPG on the basis that it was an unusual shape) I thought I'd compare it
with openstreetmap, and found that it was this bit:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=44.78067&lon=17.21028&zoom=17&layers=M
which, when I looked at it, was missing most of Frana Supila as shown on
the JPG.
That being the case, I thought I'd check what the Bing imagery is
like -- it's very high res, so I traced in the roads for this little
area, so by the time you look at it, it may well have a load of
residential roads and tracks there, rather than whitespace.
Doing this demonstrated that the JPG map is about as partial as OSM was
for that area -- it is missing the exit from Bulevar Srpske Vojske onto
Frana Suplia, for instance.
The difference being that in the mean time, I've fixed that bit of OSM.
As mentioned (repeatedly) on IRC, can we have map data with a decent
provenance, where the data is properly licensed such that if any of it's
better than OSM, we can merge them.
For instance, I know that webarto on IRC said that the POI information
was fine, but I got the slight impression that he (she?) allows
enthusiasm to overcome such details -- what is the copyright situation
on those POIs -- are they unencumbered enough to include into OSM?
There was something about them having been prepared for Garmin. If that
was a work for hire, normal copyright law would make them Garmin's
property.
Anyway, as stated already, we should use OSM, and in areas where locals
react to that by saying "but look, it's wrong over here" then they
should be encouraged to sign up with an OSM account, and edit it. Given
that the hi-res imagery is available, and Potlach2 runs in any
Flash-able browser (mouse-over the edit button, and take the second
option of the drop-down menu) there's not much excuse for not just
fixing it -- especially since the best alternative we have is also
wrong, and is _not_ easily fixed.
BTW How many times is this going to have to be repeated before it's
listened to? Let's try stating it as an ultimatum:
We cannot have the Debian name associated with data of dubious
provenance and/or licensing, so if it's a choice between having no
map, or a map that was "found" somewhere, we'll have no map.
(of course, since OSM is about as good as the map you're using, this
should not arise, but what of the POIs?)
Having said all that, as I've also said before: Good Effort :-)
Cheers, Phil.
--
|)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] http://www.hands.com/
|-| HANDS.COM Ltd. http://www.uk.debian.org/
|(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND