I don't like the new license, I hate how it was implemented,

... and the failure of strike-through means that the Fight Club joke falls flat on its face. Oh well ... still, have fun! :-)

Don't worry too much, anything you do can be undone.

To add to the above, if you do something in Potlatch 2 which doesn't quite feel right, there's the "undo" button at the top of the screen. If you do accidentally save something you shouldn't have saved, just ask and someone will help you out.

The first rule about OpenStreetMap is you do not talk about OpenStreetMap have fun!

@wieland: So, if the sysadmins are saying that mobile apps
are a problem, are they wrong, or do you somehow have some information the sysadmins don't?

The tile server is becoming chronically overloaded, mostly as a result of mobile apps scraping vast quantities of images when they shouldn't.

DWP = Department for Work and Pensions : government department responsible for paying Jobseekers' Allowance to people that are looking for work. They send officers out if they suspect someone is working but hasn't told them.

No, nonono, you've got it all wrong. That sentence is obviously incomplete. They're trying to tell us something about our A FATTY.

erm.. what open vote?

Nonsense. The rights you are granting (not transferring, remember) may make them seem like effective owners, the administrator cannot dispose of assets the company merely "effectively owns". If they don't actually own it, he can't sell it.

I'd also echo Richard's sentiments above.

What's your objection?

Can't be that the process is rushed - it's been in train for some 3-4 years, depending on when you consider it "started".

Can't be that the process is closed - it's all been done in the open via mailing lists, IRC and open conference calls that have been fully minuted.

Can't be that the process is undemocratic - it was put to an open vote, and passed with a landslide. (Just like in a real election, those that didn't bother to register have no standing to complain about the outcome.)

Can't be that it's being railroaded - the process is being led by the community, albeit through the guise of a limited company.[1] (Entirely necessary, since we can't enforce any licence unless we exist in some legal form.)

Can't be any kind of objection to OSMF - membership is open to all, and there are no restrictions on election to the board other than those imposed by law (we can't have under-18s, amongst others).

Can't be that it's taking rights away from you - they explicitly say "grant", not "transfer".

Can't be that it's handing rights to an opaque, unaccountable company - the only one of those that's remotely involved is Microsoft (*snark*).

Can't be anything to do with the OS, since there's nothing in their licence that prevents you from releasing everything else.

So, ... what did I miss?

Throw us a script and I'll give it a go. My voice isn't brilliant, but I do have access to a decent studio.

Russ, what power is that? "The people running OSM" are contributors like you or I. They only have power over you if you attribute it to them. I've made it clear to people in the past that given the Foundation is composed of fellow contributors, I will listen to them as fellow contributors, but I do not recognise any authority over me, not the Foundation, and not the Working Groups. I have considered the evidence, and weighed the arguments, and my fellow contributors have made a compelling case for the need to change. It's not as if this change has been rushed through in some undemocratic fashion - there was years of open discussion, a vote open to all, and lots of groundwork.

So take your whiny bullshit and shove it ... oh, right, your head's in the way ...

but I only said I was unhappy with what has happened

In what way do you have doubts that you could grant the rights required? It's certainly not an issue with the OpenData - CT asks you to grant a licence to do any act restricted by copyright, the OS grants you a licence to do any act restricted by copyright. Attribution is not your problem.

As has been mentioned above, make sure you've got enough information in the report. In particular, if the problem is bad routing, include the destination and the directions you were expecting. This is my bugbear with routing bugs in my area.

Perhaps it is not too late for the application of some common sense.

What part of the process did you have a problem with? Was it the years of community discussion that preceded it? Or maybe it was the part where it was put to a vote of contributors who cared enough? Maybe it was the extensive follow-up, evaluation and the voluntary uptake you didn't like? Perhaps you were offended by the plentiful useful information explaining what was happening and why?

(I write the above on the assumption that you're not so stupid as to believe that using OpenData somehow prevents you from accepting - it doesn't.)

Quite frankly, I'm offended that you have the cheek to suggest that even though you had to agree to a legal document (probably without understanding what it meant) when you first signed up, you suggest that you are being "coerced" to do the same now. Are you eating your cake now, or are you having it later?

Paul, the fact that you might have traced a couple of streets from StreetView once isn't going to prevent you from agreeing. Remember that if it later turns out that we can't keep the OS data after all, then it'll have to be removed whether you agree to the CTs or not, so don't factor it into your decision. All this bollocks about OpenData meaning people can't sign up is exactly that - bollocks.

Just to comment - many UK contributors have clicked decline because of the continuing uncertainty about the use of anything that might plausibly be a derivative of the Opendata from Ordnance Survey.

Unfortunately, yes, some people really are that possessive over their data.

Also remember that Bing is sometimees misaligned and out of date (anywhere between 3 and 11 years in my area), and GPS traces may also be outdated. There are different opinions on remote mapping, but the one thing most people would agree on is that if you don't know what you're looking at, deleting and retracing stuff really isn't a good idea. It's fine to do things like this if you've personally resurveyed the area and found a big enough difference to make it worthwhile, but don't do it with random other users just for the sake of writing them out of history.

As has been stated already, many have clicked on decline because they had to click on something. And in case anyone's thinking of making a big deal of this, around 150 people have actually hit the decline button, and some of these have since accepted. On the other hand, some 12000 have accepted. I figure that the vast majority of active contributors have faced the click-wall already.

At the end of the day, we're a project that collects and distributes data. If we have to lose some data, we'll just collect it all over again. Remember that we need to resurvey from time to time in any case. We're not working to a deadline - our product is a living artefact.

My tactic for dealing with this is to wait until it's needed, and leave it to someone who knows what they're doing. I expect that's the same tactic most others will use too.