- toffehoff: Henk Hoff
- samlarsen1: Sam Larsen
- chrisfl: Chris Fleming
- emacsen: Serge Wroclawski
- TomH: Tom Hughes
- RichardF: Richard Fairhurst
- twain47: Brian Quinion
- rweait: Richard Weait
Further discussion of policy and implementation details for additional tile layers. Moved and accepted:
- TWG to receive, evaluate and act on requests for layers.
- Accepted tile layer policy 
- New layer policy subject to modification without notice.
- Thursday, 02 December 2010 1400UTC
Timestamps are in EDT UTC-5
(09:00:58 AM) toffehoff [~toffehoff@D4B2CEF3.static.ziggozakelijk.nl] entered the room. (09:02:24 AM) toffehoff: Hello all. Who is present? (09:03:25 AM) rweait: Richard is here. (09:03:44 AM) emacsen: Serge is here. (09:03:51 AM) toffehoff: You *again* ?! ;-) (09:03:59 AM) twain47: Brian (09:04:21 AM) toffehoff: Haven't heard of Mikel .... (09:04:53 AM) rweait: Obviously we have 10% more Henk. (09:05:01 AM) chrisfl [~email@example.com] entered the room. (09:05:19 AM) emacsen: sadly I think we have 10% more me too... but I'm working on it (09:05:20 AM) rweait: Greetings Chris (09:05:53 AM) toffehoff: rweait I see you started a log of this chat (09:05:54 AM) chrisfl: Hey all. (09:06:02 AM) rweait: I have. (09:06:07 AM) toffehoff: Hi Chris (09:06:28 AM) toffehoff: Shall we start, or do we need to wait for someone? (09:07:04 AM) toffehoff: Before we start: what are today's subjects? (09:07:10 AM) rweait: Rock on, toffehoff. (09:07:11 AM) toffehoff: Anything in particular? (09:08:15 AM) rweait: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strategic_working_group/New_Tile_Layer_Guidelines_Proposal (09:08:56 AM) toffehoff: OK. And a continuation of last times discussion on hosting of services. (09:09:23 AM) toffehoff: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/SWG_2010-11-11 (09:09:24 AM) chrisfl: yup. (09:09:50 AM) toffehoff: Lets start with the Tile Layer Guidelines. (09:10:32 AM) toffehoff: Do we need a moment so everyone can read-up? (09:11:21 AM) toffehoff: Any discussion on the criteria or can we skip to the "clarifications" (09:11:45 AM) toffehoff: I'm refering to the doc rweait mentioned in the link. (09:12:32 AM) emacsen: in the tile link? (09:12:36 AM) chrisfl: I'm happy with the criteria (09:12:44 AM) rweait: Okay, I have scope-related questions. (09:12:49 AM) toffehoff: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strategic_working_group/New_Tile_Layer_Guidelines_Proposal (09:12:50 AM) chrisfl: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strategic_working_group/New_Tile_Layer_Guidelines_Proposal (09:13:00 AM) rweait: For discussion, I guess. Is that appropriate, Henk? (09:13:24 AM) toffehoff: Lets hear it. (09:13:58 AM) rweait: From "clarifications", the duration and removal issues are important, and helpful, actually. (09:14:41 AM) toffehoff: Yes (09:14:55 AM) rweait: If we say "any new layer is featured for a month, then removed" we reduce the issue of "how many layers?" and "How do we list them?" (09:14:58 AM) emacsen: I think I know the answer to this, but is there a mechanism for us to know which tiles are being requested? (09:15:39 AM) rweait: But even more fundamental than this is the question, "Should osm.org be in the business of shipping tiles to users?" (09:16:18 AM) chrisfl: Which ties into the what services do we support question. (09:16:32 AM) rweait: Clearly shipping tiles to MAPPERS is in the best interest of osm.org. Do we and should we distinguish, is a question. (09:17:11 AM) toffehoff: rweait what do you exactly mention with "shipping" tiles (09:17:26 AM) rweait: shipping / providing / serving. (09:17:45 AM) chrisfl: You could argue that different views as expressed by by different tiles is useful for mappers (09:17:45 AM) toffehoff: OK. Thus: not making tiles ready for download (09:18:12 AM) rweait: chrisfl: indeed. but are tiles only for mappers? (09:18:36 AM) toffehoff: The primary objective is promotion of the project, is it? (09:19:01 AM) rweait: Are tiles only for mappers or for consumers as well? iPhone Apps, blogs, etc? (09:19:02 AM) toffehoff: Having "feature" tiles gives an impression of what is possible with OSM (09:19:08 AM) emacsen: is that the case? I think it's more than just promotional. (09:19:34 AM) chrisfl: So my question would be if we expand this out for a moment; is do we want to provide a general experience to users in the hope that they might become mappers in the future? (09:19:53 AM) chrisfl: hence fulfilling the primary objective. (09:20:07 AM) emacsen: what's the primary objective? (09:20:14 AM) rweait: Is it better, promotionally, to stop running a tile server, and just have a still image, and a link to the folks that serve those tiles? (09:20:48 AM) rweait: nonames tiles from CM. tiger-updated tiles from MQ, etc. (09:21:16 AM) chrisfl: No. Partially because 3rd parties might stop running services without any notice. (09:21:50 AM) Firefishy [~firstname.lastname@example.org] entered the room. (09:21:58 AM) toffehoff: Hello Grant. (09:22:06 AM) chrisfl: also because casual users may become editors. Although MQ and CM do provide those links, so the point may be moot. (09:23:01 AM) toffehoff: We're now running one basic map-tile layer (09:23:12 AM) Firefishy: toffehoff: What time did the 'meeting' start? (09:23:22 AM) toffehoff: 23 minutes ago (09:23:31 AM) chrisfl: 14:06 (09:23:32 AM) emacsen: Is the only reason for this discussion one of resource constraints? (09:23:37 AM) toffehoff: 3pm CET (09:23:44 AM) toffehoff: = 2pm BST (09:23:48 AM) emacsen: because it's shifted significantly from what was in the doc (09:23:57 AM) Firefishy: OK (09:24:17 AM) rweait: toffehoff: we have Mapnik, Osmarender, CycleMap and NoName currently. (09:24:31 AM) toffehoff: pl (09:24:32 AM) toffehoff: ok (09:24:45 AM) chrisfl: It's worth having because a high level strategy on what OSM should be doing will guide both the questions that we are looking at. (09:25:11 AM) Firefishy: Heard the NoName layer can be very out of date. (09:25:24 AM) rweait: and Cyclemap too. (09:25:57 AM) rweait: So I propose the following. (09:26:55 AM) samlarsen1 [email@example.com] entered the room. (09:27:16 AM) toffehoff: Hello Sam (09:27:25 AM) samlarsen1: hi - have you started yet? (09:27:27 AM) rweait: Just starting to add tile layers willy-nilly seems risky. We've not had a huge hue and cry from the community demanding more layers. And nobody in this room (except Firefishy, naturally) is actually capable of implementing anything to do with a new tile layer on osm..org (09:27:33 AM) toffehoff: Yup (09:27:59 AM) rweait: so ... (catches breath) ... (09:29:26 AM) rweait: could we request feedback from Board and TechnicalWG to "check our heads" and see if this is possible, and the scope of how hard it is. (09:29:52 AM) toffehoff: Just to verify: a new tile layer does not mean that we host the tiles.... (09:30:31 AM) rweait: But I think the worst part is nobody is demanding more tiles. We're looking to fix what isn't broken. (09:31:04 AM) rweait: mappers do want a more-responsive API. How are we helping? (09:31:08 AM) TomH [~firstname.lastname@example.org] entered the room. (09:31:34 AM) samlarsen1: i think all this was started by someone who would like to add a layer if i remember rightly (09:31:50 AM) toffehoff: yes it was. (09:32:02 AM) toffehoff: (thinking) (09:32:07 AM) toffehoff: Ah mapsomatic (09:32:32 AM) toffehoff: Which was actually also a request for hosting.... (09:32:40 AM) toffehoff: Hence the second topic.... (09:32:45 AM) chrisfl: which is something different. (09:32:51 AM) toffehoff: it is. (09:32:56 AM) Firefishy: samlarsen1: apmon asked if we had a policy because he would like to see the main Open MQ style on OSM. Technical Group supplied our policy 2 meeting back, if I recall. (09:33:04 AM) chrisfl: and we need to think about the much bigger picture. (09:33:09 AM) RichardF [~RichardF@pod-71.dolphin-server.co.uk] entered the room. (09:33:20 AM) toffehoff: But then, we had a discussion wether we had a policy (09:33:47 AM) toffehoff: Hello Richard F (09:33:52 AM) RichardF: afternoon! (09:34:00 AM) samlarsen1: so the question is, does the tile policy need to have an accompanying guideline for hosting & implementation (09:34:14 AM) toffehoff: .... and a belated hello Tom (09:34:19 AM) samlarsen1: otherwise - it seems a bit useless (09:34:38 AM) toffehoff: No, it's different (09:34:39 AM) chrisfl: I think the assumption is that we wouldn't host but have technical requirements before it would be added. (09:34:57 AM) ***RichardF nods (09:35:03 AM) toffehoff: We can add another layer on osm.org that is hosting by MQ e.g. (09:35:08 AM) samlarsen1: so for maposmatic - hosting is a straight NO? (09:35:29 AM) chrisfl: maposmatic is another question. (09:35:50 AM) toffehoff: The specific issue of Mapsomatic has been resolved for the time being. No urgency there anymore. (09:36:00 AM) chrisfl: about what the osm foundation actually does. (09:37:19 AM) toffehoff: So, if some organisation offers a kick-ass map based on OSM. Will we add them as a layer to osm.org (will = willing) (09:37:50 AM) chrisfl: We'll the board should decide based on the "criteria" (09:38:19 AM) samlarsen1: so the board will mediate this process? (09:38:45 AM) rweait: This should not go to the board. They have bigger fish to fry and nothing will happen on this. (09:38:54 AM) samlarsen1: +1 (09:38:54 AM) rweait: How about a community panel? (09:39:09 AM) rweait: get volunteers from talk... ? (09:39:16 AM) rweait: or talk-de? (09:39:26 AM) twain47: How about a set of guidlines are clear enough that anyone could read them and decide? (09:39:41 AM) toffehoff: If the main purpose is promotion / showing what can be done with OSM >> communications working Group? (09:39:54 AM) chrisfl: okay some group. Ideally elected.... but it should be a quick decision. (09:40:25 AM) rweait: but how do we check if what we are proposing is reasonable, technically? (09:41:04 AM) chrisfl: I don't *think* that there are technical issues as we wouldn't host the titles? (09:41:11 AM) toffehoff: How are the feature images decided ? (09:41:44 AM) rweait: chrisfl: somebody has to make the changes to osm.org to add / remove layers. (09:42:30 AM) chrisfl: true. (09:42:51 AM) toffehoff: tomh Firefishy Do you see any problems (technically)? (09:43:15 AM) chrisfl: TomH / Firefishy is that a question of commit access and someone to deploy or might it be more complex? (09:43:33 AM) chrisfl: (assuming someone somewhere has given the OK...) (09:44:09 AM) toffehoff: Let's say there are no technical difficulties. The criteria mentioned in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strategic_working_group/New_Tile_Layer_Guidelines_Proposal are OK? (09:44:24 AM) samlarsen1: OK with me (09:44:38 AM) samlarsen1: (removing the 'who' questions at the end) (09:44:41 AM) Firefishy: Seriously guys. We are not drowning in requests to add layers. The technical group has a policy which has now been publicised and discussed and refined by strategic. (09:45:15 AM) Firefishy: Why not keep it at that. I am not a fan of bureaucracy. (09:45:41 AM) toffehoff: Are you OK with the guidelines. (09:45:42 AM) toffehoff: ? (09:46:14 AM) chrisfl: Seems okay; question is who gives the nod.... or are you happy to manage it and take it to a discussion if needed? (09:46:18 AM) toffehoff: If so, can we decide that when the requests for more tiles increase, the TWG will ring the bell once more? (09:46:19 AM) samlarsen1: Firefishy: are you saying we close this process & leave the guidelines with technical group to implement if/when the get a request (09:46:20 AM) samlarsen1: ? (09:46:25 AM) RichardF: worksforme (09:46:37 AM) rweait: Strategically, it makes sense to frame this in a way that OSM is not unduly restricted by it later. Can we call this a pilot project, for six months, then review. Each layer, after approval for one month only. (09:47:44 AM) toffehoff: We can, but then we have to actively do something about it: (09:47:54 AM) toffehoff: looking for interesting layers to display (09:48:10 AM) toffehoff: Like the featured images on the wiki-home (09:48:11 AM) rweait: no we don't ;-) (09:48:39 AM) chrisfl: It would be interesting to know how many people actually change the layer... (09:48:41 AM) rweait: nobody proposes a layer; Mapnik is the featured layer. (09:50:37 AM) toffehoff: We're getting nearer to the hour. Any conclusion? (09:50:37 AM) chrisfl: I think if we do add a layer we should be think longer term rather than for just a month. (09:51:12 AM) toffehoff: - Guidelines are OK (09:51:32 AM) chrisfl: Shall we go through the clarification list and state our answers? (09:51:47 AM) chrisfl: "Who receives the application? " (09:51:53 AM) rweait: WHo, who, who, who? (09:51:58 AM) rweait: ;-) (09:52:13 AM) samlarsen1: TWG (09:52:18 AM) chrisfl: Basically it goes to the TWG (09:52:33 AM) chrisfl: Is there scope for a re-evaluation (09:52:39 AM) toffehoff: Can we have a page on the wiki where someone can propose? (09:52:43 AM) RichardF: oh shit no (09:53:00 AM) chrisfl: E-mail (09:53:16 AM) RichardF: if you are technically clued up enough to provide hosting infrastructure for an entire layer which can withstand the load of osm.org visitors, then sending an e-mail to the TWG shouldn't tax your technical competence (09:53:34 AM) RichardF: we really don't want 17-year old kids proposing their favourite technicolour-yawn Cloudmade Style Editor layer (09:53:46 AM) chrisfl: agree. This doesn't need to be endlessly discussed. (09:53:48 AM) toffehoff: Sounds reasonable. (09:54:14 AM) toffehoff: But, how does someone know how to contact us .... (09:55:06 AM) Firefishy: toffehoff: By the number of emails TWG members already get, contacting us is not a problem. (09:55:15 AM) chrisfl: I suspect that someone that is likely to propose such a thing would get in touch and be pointed in the right direction? (09:55:41 AM) chrisfl: Hopefully a google search would find our policy discussion? (09:55:52 AM) toffehoff: And since there are no request for putting new tile-layers. Everyone knows that this is actually possible .... (09:55:53 AM) RichardF: yeah. again, someone clued up enough to provide massive hosting isn't going to have a problem contacting us. (09:55:58 AM) chrisfl: or even the policy (09:56:33 AM) samlarsen1: we'll put the policy doc on OSMF wiki with email at bottom? (09:56:56 AM) rweait: and a six month, one layer per month trial period? Please? We might decide this idea stinks after a few months. (09:57:18 AM) chrisfl: Do we have that many layers that want to get on? (09:57:24 AM) samlarsen1: rweait: that leads to - Is there scope for a re-evaluation (09:58:02 AM) chrisfl: I think we only need to re-evaluate when the number of layers start to become a problem? (09:58:26 AM) samlarsen1: yes - not too many layers now - so not a problem (09:58:36 AM) toffehoff: It should be clear for how long the layer is available via osm.org. Not only for the requestor but also for the visitor. (09:58:40 AM) rweait: HOw do we stop this train if we hate it? (09:59:05 AM) samlarsen1: emergency brake? ;) (09:59:05 AM) toffehoff: Pulling the brakes? (09:59:08 AM) chrisfl: maybe be need a beta by the layer :) (09:59:14 AM) rweait: What if the community says, "another commercial layer. Yuck!" (09:59:15 AM) chrisfl: *joke* (09:59:39 AM) samlarsen1: they don't have to look at it (09:59:52 AM) samlarsen1: it will not suddenly become the default rendering (10:00:19 AM) toffehoff: Default will be our mapnik tiles I guess (10:00:43 AM) rweait: My experience in LWG suggests that some members of the community are not happy to merely have A choice. Their choice must be the only choice. (10:00:53 AM) chrisfl: Although one day someone should have a discussion about naming of layers... (10:02:23 AM) RichardF: rweait: my experience in all matters licensing is that life is too short to listen to idiots (10:02:28 AM) toffehoff: Can we decide on a standard duration (say a month), after which we'll see whether there are alternatives or not. (10:02:36 AM) chrisfl: I don't think layers are as decisive. But they should be flexible. (10:02:58 AM) rweait: Really, that "Strategic" is looking at more layers because of one email (a nice, and well intentioned email to be sure) is silly. WE should not be setting osmf policy to forever support guest tiles, based on one email. We need a way to quit if this stinks. (10:03:08 AM) TomH: rweait: where are these six layers you are proposing we trial with exactly? (10:03:40 AM) rweait: TomH: If we show one, then nobody else proposes a layer, we have our anser and we stop after x months. (10:03:41 AM) TomH: CLUE: we don't have more than maybe one candidate, and certainly not six that I am aware of (10:04:08 AM) TomH: why stop? if a layer is good enough to go on then it's good enough to go and can stay on until it isn't (10:04:18 AM) TomH: I don't see any point in time limiting anything (10:04:39 AM) chrisfl: I suggest that we can add probably another 3 or 4 layers before things get out of hand; at this point we will have a better gauge to what the community actually want and think. (10:05:38 AM) toffehoff: As long as we make absolutely clear that the layer is not on our site permanently (10:06:20 AM) samlarsen1: when someone suggests a layer to be taken down - then we have a think about it - but so far, no one has made a request (10:06:21 AM) chrisfl: agree (10:06:22 AM) RichardF: that's easy - just a guideline like at the bottom of the Tile Usage Policy saying "we reserve the right to do what the hell we like at no notice" (10:06:32 AM) chrisfl: like (10:06:51 AM) toffehoff: Something like that. (10:07:05 AM) samlarsen1: agree (10:07:22 AM) toffehoff: rweait is that workable for you? (10:07:35 AM) rweait: no objection (10:07:43 AM) toffehoff: So: (10:07:48 AM) toffehoff: - Guidelines: OK (10:08:07 AM) toffehoff: - NO restrictions on number of tiles at the moment (10:08:23 AM) toffehoff: - We hold the right to do whatever we like (10:08:54 AM) toffehoff: - If the number of tile request are increasing, we decide what to do next. (10:09:18 AM) toffehoff: Am I missing something? (10:09:23 AM) chrisfl: or when the list get's out of hand (10:09:28 AM) samlarsen1: agreed (10:09:35 AM) chrisfl: agreed (10:09:54 AM) RichardF: yep. chrisfl: if the list gets out of hand then we tell the OpenLayers lot to build a better layer selector with scrolly bits (10:10:16 AM) twain47: only thing I can see missing is: we will remobe the tile layer if the host requests it (10:10:19 AM) twain47: remove (10:10:27 AM) chrisfl: RichardF: that might work. (10:10:50 AM) samlarsen1: should we put those points in the guideline doc? (10:10:56 AM) toffehoff: twain47 I guess so.... (10:11:14 AM) TomH: RichardF: or build one ourselves - number of layers is not an issue except that it might require a more sophisticated layer selector (10:11:35 AM) rweait: should we ask technical WG if they want to be contact on this before we throw them under the bus? (10:11:41 AM) RichardF: TomH: spot on, yes (10:12:12 AM) toffehoff: TomH yes onto what? (10:12:29 AM) toffehoff: Yes we want to be the contact (10:12:39 AM) toffehoff: Yes we want to think about it (10:12:42 AM) toffehoff: ? (10:14:10 AM) TomH: sorry, are you asking me something? (10:14:56 AM) toffehoff: O sorry, rweait asked if we needed to ask Technical WG (10:15:07 AM) toffehoff: ... since you're on the TWG ... ;-) (10:15:43 AM) toffehoff: ask the about them being the entry-point of proposals of new tile layers (10:15:48 AM) TomH: we're happy to field requests to add layers I think (10:15:54 AM) TomH: it's not like I expect to get very many (10:16:45 AM) toffehoff: So, if it gets out of hand, we'll get some cry for help from you right before you'll be run over. (10:16:59 AM) samlarsen1: i have updated the doc with these agreed points http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strategic_working_group/New_Tile_Layer_Guidelines_Proposal (10:17:26 AM) chrisfl: looks good Sam (10:17:28 AM) toffehoff: samlarsen1 Looks good to me (10:17:38 AM) samlarsen1: if all agreed, let's send off to the board (CC Strategic) & be done with this (don't know if the board will want to announce to wider community) (10:17:43 AM) ***toffehoff looking at the clock.... (10:18:07 AM) toffehoff: Can we conclude this subject? (10:18:10 AM) chrisfl: Don't think it needs a big announcement :) (10:18:19 AM) chrisfl: Concluded. (10:18:25 AM) samlarsen1: i'll send email to board (10:18:29 AM) samlarsen1: concluded (10:18:41 AM) toffehoff: No objections? (10:18:55 AM) toffehoff: If so. I'd like to end this meeting. (10:19:05 AM) rweait: Move to set next meeting date? (10:19:06 AM) toffehoff: If so = If not so ;-) (10:19:30 AM) chrisfl: Same time next week? (10:19:32 AM) toffehoff: Next week, same time, place etc (10:19:34 AM) toffehoff: ? (10:19:36 AM) rweait: Thursday Dec 02, same time? (10:19:53 AM) samlarsen1: rweat: agreed (10:19:54 AM) toffehoff: same time = 2pm GMT (10:20:08 AM) rweait: move to adjourn? (10:20:22 AM) toffehoff: Let's do sop. (10:20:23 AM) toffehoff: so (10:20:34 AM) toffehoff: Thanks all for being here! (10:20:36 AM) rweait: *** ending logging ***