You can for example simply open the GPX file in a file explorer (which will ask you if you want to open it in Vespucci) or manually add a layer as has already been suggested or download a track from OSM.

See https://vespucci.io/help/en/Introduction/#using-gps-and-gpx-tracks

Seit fast einem Jahrzehnt gibts @SimonPoole/diary/39933

As you point out this is not in any way new.

Dismissive language is used in essentially every paper that I have ever read from Heidelberg, particularly widespread use of “only” to describe statistical results from OSM both in the data and participation, but never is there a comparison with a dataset that would show that the specific number is actually worse than expected.

Simply maintain the boundary ways separate from whatever geographic feature potentially coincides with them, with other words don’t share ways in boundary relations and don’t glue (aka share nodes) to the natural features.

Even if the boundary is currently defined by a natural feature, directly or indirectly, it is still less painful to maintain correct borders when they are a separate feature.

While I typically do 99% of my mapping these days on a mobile device with a pen/stylus, I’ve long (as in decades) switched to using track balls on desktops to avoid having to use mice.

You should follow osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct if you intend to run a script on any larger number of objects.

You need to report this, with examples, to the DWG [email protected]

Tee available global imagery mosaics (mapbox, ESRI, bing) use mostly imagery from Maxar for areas which don’t have better coverage. Maxar itself, as you may know, gave up providing a layer for OSM use, and it is up to the other providers to when they update.

So I guess the answer is no.

The point that you are getting wrong is that the people from the Linux Foundation Overture Maps are being paid to be there and being paid to be friendly and make the right noises. And being professionals they are good in doing exactly that.

They could be going to an event organised by google next week and attendees there will come back finding them friendly, supportive and so on just as you did from SOTM-US.

The only thing you can actually judge the organisation on is their actions, and after two and a half years things haven’t changed a jota (and I wouldn’t expect them to).

‘millions of organisations’?

Es ist leider so, dass die OSMF einerseits (bindend) garantiert, dass der Inholt der Profilseite vom Benutzer selber gestaltet werden kann, aber anderseits einfach irgendetwas drauf gepappt wird.

There’s not only the issues SomeoneElse points out, there are further roughly 10 million contracts the OSMF has entered in that require the OSM distribution licence to comply with the open definition.

There is no realistic way to change that and use a non-open licence.

While technically the licence of google buildings is compatible with OSM, importing ODbL licensed datasets in any larger fashion is an extremely bad idea, and essentially you are handing google significant power over the future of OpenStreetMap.

I would further note that these imports don’t seem to have been discussed anywhere where the above could have been pointed out to your in advance.

You need to find out how far Indian copyright regulation will restrict reuse of such maps. (by creating your OSM account you agreed to only using sources that you can legally use for editing OSM).

India is a signatory to the Berne convention and while there are likely to be some differences in the details, you are going to have to assume that the maps are protected by copyright.

The simple way around the problem though is to simply ask the map creators for permission.

Ideas see: https://en.osm.town/@mdione/114551733871420527

Using old ESRI imagery with the above method works with any app that supports custom imagery, not just iD and JOSM.

I would note that your point 1) is not correct, the ODbL in no way requires

To contribute their own data back to OSM (the “share alike” clause)

The ODbl only requires Derivative Databases (which may or may not contain additional data) to be licensed on ODbL terms, in practice that means that a recipient of the data can use it on the same licence terms as the creator of the derivative. Neither the creator of the derivative nor the recipient is required to provide it to a 3rd party, distribute it publicly or contribute to OSM.

@mpulve could you provide a link/screenshots to what you are using and that show the issues? As it is now your posting is quite puzzling.

There seems to be a small inconsistency wrt licensing. On the one hand you are claiming that everything is “Open Source” but on the other hand you are using a NC licence (see https://agroecologymap.org/en/license) that, by definition, is not an OSS licence.

Your ban seems to have little to nothing to do with the source material but far more with your behaviour towards your fellow mappers.

And as has been pointed out, just because we are allowed to use a specific source, doesn’t imply that it is suitable or even desirable to include in OSM.