Even appart from copyright issues, street names in googlemap are wrong more often than not for anything but the main roads. I'm sure it depends on the region of the world, but in my city it's ridiculous. And the national mapping agency is better, but not free from errors either (not even talking about copyright-gotcha intentional mistakes). So go out to check the facts; part of the fun is visiting the area :)

Sympas. Les remontées via le forum sont efficaces ? La communauté villavelo prédate le travail sur la carte OSM ?

Il y a un énorme potentiel de crowdsourcing pour OSM par les "non-techniciens", mais il est difficile à utiliser. Le système de mapquest est celui qui je pense a le plus de chances de réussir globalement, mais les initiatives plus spécifiques comme celle-ci ont leur place aussi je pense.

Bon courage ! Et pensez à élargir votre carte à d'autres villes si ça marche bien :)

"Proper" spamers will quickly learn to do a quick edit of the map before posting on the diary. Some might even put spam-like data in the map (imagine if nominatim turned up a viagra add...). I really dont want to tempt spamers anywhere near the map.

I like this use of a namespace, it's fexible and elegant. Although I'm not very keen on mapping disused features in the first place, this method at least doesn't screw up simple users.

You can also say what feature of the object has become disused : maybe the pub still exists but its website hasn't been updated in 15 years. Maybe you're mapping an antena (man_made=tower) that isn't used for communications anymore. In that context, I think that the plain "disused=yes" tag should not be used at all: only put various keys in the "disused:" namespace but do not add a "disused" tag.

Wonder where you get the "couple of centimeters" metric from. I've had a look at all this and, while a combined system will bring better accuracy, it's not going to be sub-meter yet. Probably have to wait for a chip that does GPS+GLONASS+GALILEO :)

Gnash has had trouble with potlach since potlach got rewriten using actionscrip 3: http://www.gnashdev.org/?q=node/72
I dont follow gnash dev very closely, but I do not think they've made enough catchup work yet :(

Try a non-flash editor instead, like JOSM or meerkartor.

The "planet file" is essentially a backup of the data before CC-licensed data (or edits based on prior cc-licensed data) gets deleted from the main OSM project. It'll certainly be in the usual OSM format, available for anybody to pickup and use to create his own OSM website (as is already possible currently : both data and code have always been avaiable for any determined person to setup a full OSM stack).

But while it's "easy" to setup a mirror OSM website with the old data (you can be sure that some people will, at least out of historical interest), making further edits to it and forking the community would be both difficult (most people are happy with the odbl) and damaging (splitting the efforts instead of working together).

Nobody likes having to change the license, it's a painfull process. But it had to be done, simply because CC licenses are technically not adapted to a database of facts like OSM. CC has been created with artistic work in mind, and to a layer that's an important difference. The fact is that CC-BY-SA could not provide the expected protection in many countries, so another license was needed.

The ODBL may be new and painfull to read (like every license including CC-BY-SA), but its spirit is pretty much the same as the old license. I think that most people who haven't clicked "I agree" are just annoyed at the change (rightfully) and reacted out of spite and/or misunderstanding (wrongfully).

If you want your contributions to be PD, there's a checkbox to do that once you agree the ODBL, although I think it currently is just a statement of intent, not a legaly-binding declaration. If you actually dont like some effect of the ODBL (nevermind the wording), you can still click "I agree" and never contribute again. You'll have saved the bulk of OSM users the bother of having to re-do your contributions under the ODBL license. Wether you agree or not, all data before the cut-off date will remain available in the CC-BY-SA licensed "planet file". And some day, hopefully, you will realize that the ODBL is not such a big deal, and carry on contributing maps for the Greater Good.

J'ai un 62s aussi et - contrairement à l'eTrex que j'avait avant - il se met en mode "clef usb" tout seul. Peut-être qu'il se met dans un mode différent par défaut chez toi parce que tu a installé un driver spécifique (et peu utile) ?

Je n'utilise pas de carte SD, il y a largement assez de place sur la mémoire interne.

N'oublie pas de régler le parametre "setup->routing->lock on road=off", sinon tes traces s'aligneront artificiellement à la carte chargée (ce qui pose en plus un problème de copyright si ce n'est pas une carte libre).

Va aussi faire un tour du coté de "setup->track_log->recording_interval" pour enregistrer plus de points.

@FraMauro

Not quite sure what you're looking for.
* To get notified yourself, you can use http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/owl_viewer/ to watch for changes in your area.
* If you want to notify the owner of something that got added to the map, I can't imagine how that could be automated. Best is for the mapper to send an email to that person, if the email can be found. Actually, that email is a good opportunity to do some OSM evangelism :)

I think OSM is a product that is in most core ways supperior to GoogleMaps. The main (huge) drawback is the lack of satellite and street view and I don't see how that can be fixed, but the rest is either as good, better, or can be improved. One thing I'd love to see improved to GoogleMap's quality is "share your trip planning, with custom POIs and on an anonymous url" feature. Nominatim needs to get better, too.

The other thing we need to keep working on, my friends, is every-day pervasive PR :
* Wear OSM HVV or Tshirt when mapping
* Use a specialized app to look at the map on your desktop and phone: I use http://edu.kde.org/marble/ and got a lot of "Wow, what maps are you using ? They're fast !" comments
* Show off locations where OSM data is better than $CLOSED_MAP_DATA
* Mention open.mapquest.com and bing, since they're more likely to be known
* Mention all the specialized maps and use cases that $CLOSED_MAP_PROVIDER just won't provide/enable/permit
* Mention the army of contributors and how easy/fun it is to join in (do a demo !)
* etc...

Have fun mapping trails ! They're quite rewarding, since you're often working in an area with very few existing data; even maps from the national maping authority are sometimes not great for trekking. For added fun, you can add 3 hours of off-track walk to your day just to add 500m of OSM-worthy highway=path (like I did last weekend) :)

Can't see anything wrong with the trace you linked to. When mapping trails, the most important tags I think are track/path, tracktype, sac_scale, and trail_visibility. Any shrine or ruins are also usefull to map. Have fun !

I started with the eTrex (vista hcx) and was really happy with it (same comments as my peers here). I also got my hands on a Dakota 20, which thanks to its touchscreen is much nicer to use (especially for naming waypoints !). I now have a GPSmap62 which is bulkyer, but has a slightly better accuracy than the eTrex and Dakota.

So the eTrex is great and cheap, the Dakota is nicer to use, and the GPSmap is more accurate. If you've got plenty of cash, the Oregon brings you the best of both worlds (but smaller battery life: 16h vs 20/26h).

Try http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ instead of the diary.

Strash: http://odbl.de/ and http://ni.kwsn.net/~toby/OSM/license_count.html will give you stats. http://osm.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/map/ will show you the map rendered according to license.

I do not see how some contributors disagreeing with the license change is going to stop the license change. So if there's no victim, how can there be a bully ? "expessing your discontent" maybe; "bullying" not so much. And I think saying "I disagree" until the cut-off date is perfectly ok (even though I personnaly agree with the license change).

On the other hand, I can easily see how anybody who hasn't paid attention to the license discussions and suddenly sees a "agree or your contributions will be deleted" sign can feel bullied (even if that feeling is based on misinformation). So for those contributors's sake I think your post, by reversing the bullied-bullier roles, is doing more harm than good.

It's a little bit depressing to see yet another complain about the process, leading to a decision to decline the new license. You should keep in mind that

* the decision to change the license (and the text of the license) took plenty of time and open discussion, involving any contributor who cared about the issue.
* once that license-change decision was taken, deleting (with backups of course) any data that is still under the old license is the only course of action that makes sense. It is pointless to have one without the other.
* Complaining about the license change, the license text, or the change process should have been done about a year ago, sorry. Now is the time to decide wether the ODbL is acceptable for your past and/or future contributions.
* If you're going to decline the new license, please pretty-please make that decision based on the text of the new license compared to the text of the old license (which you have agreed to when you initially registered).

And by the way, really... The spirit of the ODbL is pretty much the same as the CC-BY-SA. The change was needed essentially because CC-foobar licenses aren't designed for the type of data the OSM hosts; I see it more as a technical change than an ethical one.

So...
1) don't do that work yet, there may still be many users who will accept the odbl.
2) doing a copy-paste of the data just to "solve" the old-license issue is a no-no.
3) doing a delete,recreate_from_scratch is legal, but you're losing history and credit while it is not always necessary.
4) if you're going the delete+recreate route... you might as well wait until the "license sysadmins" (whatever their name is) do the delete for you, at the proper cut-off date.

As for your initial question... JOSM can give you the selected object's history much faster than the website can.

I think we can never compete (and we should compete, for the sake of openness) against the google brand name : we'll never be as well known. Competing on the openness argument is a tough sell, it's just too insubstancial for some people.

But we can definitely compete on technical merit. We should advertise our strong points, like specialized maps for anything and everything, device support (like non-connected satnavs), and blazing-fast applications like marble. We should work on some low-hanging improvements, like better nominatim-type search, world-accessible page showing a trail with events, easyer-to-use "signpost on the map with my busines's info" api, etc. We should clear the misconception that we're "small and irrelevant" by mentioning the number of active contributors and links to well-known actors like mapquest and bing.

...lots of work and I dont even know how to do half of it myself :/ But I'm confident we'll get there bit by bit, and I'm convinced we must get there, because OSM is inherently better than anything google will ever want to provide.

Also, any fork will have the backup of all deleted CC-BY-SA data available "as long as possible". So the old data will still be available, should anybody feel that it is worth the trouble to create a dual-licensed db.

The license implementation plan is here : osm.wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan

You might also be interested in
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License
osm.wiki/Open_Database_License
http://odbl.de/

All those links can be found easily on the wiki. That may not be visible enough, but then again the plans to change the license are nothing particularly new, and you could expect most contributors to either
1) be interested in licensing question and have noticed that there was some license discussions ongoing (Since you clicked "I decline" instead of just following the trend and ensuring your contributions will be kept, I assume the license is important to you).
2) be totaly oblivious of licence issues, or spend all his OSM time in the editor only so that no news of the license change could have reached him.

The mandatory accept/decline dialog is necessary to reach people in category 2. Whatever your thoughts about the license (and the decision to go ahead and implement the change), I think the actual process of changing the licence is done reasonably well and not too pushy. This mandatory accept/decline dialog is a necessary step and is gradual enough, IMHO.