On Wed, 25 May 2011 10:07:11 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@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
pgpfKVdPj1jOf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Debconf-discuss mailing list Debconf-discuss@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-discuss