[QGIS-Developer] [Qgis-psc] Request for Change of UserAgent

[Mathieu Pellerin]

I would really like to understand (i.e. get an explanation) from the OSM
admins as to why a user agent that explicitly identifies itself as QGIS
like we have now is not enough for them before moving forward.

Being a web admin/developer myself, I can hardly find a reason why that's
not enough.

I'm more curious than anything else, lots of love to the great OSM guys :)

Math




On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 2:51 PM Richard Duivenvoorde <rdmailings at duif.net>
wrote:

> On 21/02/2019 00.20, Nyall Dawson wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 02:30, Richard Duivenvoorde <rdmailings at duif.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Devs, PSC,
> >>
> >> I had a short talk on IRC to 'Firefishy' the person who runs
> >> tile.openstreetmap.org CDN
> >> (in bcc, and see: http://irclogs.geoapt.com/qgis/%23qgis.2019-02-20.log
> )
> >>
> >> In short: he/osm has an issue with QGIS using 'Mozilla/5.0 ....' as
> >> User-Agent header, but QGIS NOT behaving as a true browser.
> >
> > Don't we already append "QGIS" to the end of the Mozilla/5.0 string?
>
> (Firefishy/Grant in bcc)
>
> Yes we have, but it is for OSM admins still to difficult to distinguish
> apparently, AND it makes it more difficult that we say we are a browser
> but do not act as one.
>
> Maybe Jorge's proposal is best: for Nominatim and OSM servers we do
> another UserAgent?
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Duivenvoorde
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20190221/b8f0d954/attachment.html>