[OSGeo-Standards] Input required from OSGeo Standards List Members

Thu Aug 26 02:03:41 PDT 2021

Hi Bruce,

the low interest to the MOU may be caused by the lack of interesting and/or customer relevant benefits. 

Daimler, Sony, emergency services, post administrations etc. are adopting location codes based on names (?), Google promotes enigmatic location codes. 

Are they completely crazy or are there misunderstandings around the expressions open, free, libre, intellectual properties, merit principle etc. which impede OSM and OGC to open their eyes and clean up this non-academic market gap www.volksnav.de/alternatives with a standard?

I’m a German-Brazilian inventor and I’ve developed an orientation system based on imaginary clocks, see www.volksnav.de/aSimpleCircle. It can be used from treasure hunts (see below) up to a UN SGD 18: tools to reduce seeking times, also on emergency cases  <https://act4sdgs.org/profile/volksnav> https://act4sdgs.org/profile/volksnav.

The system has fundamental details which I’m trying to propose to OSM/OGC with or without a standard but some members impede any discussions with the argument that for example Tokyo Metro www.volksnav.de/TokyoMetro could possibly pay me for intellectual services around the free standard. 

I’m on the discussions list but someone blocked my active side.   

I’d appreciate an objective discussion about a standard to clean up these market gaps: standard reference circle www.volksnav.de/r100, standard answers to the questions “where?” and “whereto?” acc. to the video etc. Thank you in advance.

Henrique

-----------------

Digital treasure hunting to sharpen the orientation sense 

=============== 

 <https://digitaltag.eu/digitale-schatzsuche-zur-schaerfung-des-orientierungssinnes> https://digitaltag.eu/digitale-schatzsuche-zur-schaerfung-des-orientierungssinnes

According to the video A simple circle  <http://www.volksnav.de/aSimpleCircle> www.volksnav.de/aSimpleCircle, average people lost awareness for locations, distances, directions, cardinal points and angles. They degenerated to right/left idiots – and sometimes confuse these directions  <http://www.volksnav.de/confusions> www.volksnav.de/confusions.  

This gets worse: post administrations, ESRI/TheScienceOfWhere, Daimler, Sony etc. are introducing location codes based on names (!?). This is not smart  <http://www.volksnav.de/w3wComparison> www.volksnav.de/w3wComparison but demonstrates the existence of a huge but ignored (you?) market gap: 

- nonacademic location codes 

for targets, crossings, stations, stop points, bridges, tunnels, buildings, rooms, emergency doors, houses, graves, trees etc. 

I’m a German-Brazilian inventor and I’ve developed an orientation system based on imaginary clocks. Among 25 (!) benefits, this innovation answers the questions „where“ and „whereto?“ better than the alternatives  <http://www.volksnav.de/alternatives> www.volksnav.de/alternatives . As the post codes got obsolete, a War of Standards arose. I’ve developed the only one German alternative and the only one which improves maps, signage and navigation. 

Imaginary clocks start with a simple circle  <http://www.volksnav.de/r100> www.volksnav.de/r100 , help to avoid confusions, help those who (think they) can’t read maps  <http://www.volksnav.de/mapDanger> www.volksnav.de/mapDanger , allow to form imaginable location codes and allow a self-guiding called VolksNav. 

The following treasure should be hunted: 

- one of six persons sitting around a table within a beer tent within the Oktoberfest Theresienwiese in Munich 

- monuments and sculptures within the Tiergarten in Berlin 

The treasures can be hunted with 3 distinct navigation methods. For the methods ZigZag and BeeLine, no tools are required. The only one reference is this one: 

- the Bavaria statue, the Quadriga at the Brandenburger Tor, the Sphinx and the Christ statue in Rio look in direction m3 / sunrise ( = QuoVides(R) 3). 

The 3th navigation method uses the VolksNav app  <http://www.volksnav.de/smartphone> www.volksnav.de/smartphone . Comparing radius and time, the user will be able to decide: - must I go inwards or outwards? - must I go to later/clockwise or to earlier? 

The hunting tasks will be released on  <http://www.volksnav.de/Wiesn> www.volksnav.de/Wiesn  and  <http://www.volksnav.de/Tiergarten> www.volksnav.de/Tiergarten . No need of registrations. Similar events could happen worldwide and all the time.

Von: Standards [mailto:standards-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] Im Auftrag von Bruce Bannerman
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. August 2021 02:56
An: standards at lists.osgeo.org
Betreff: Re: [OSGeo-Standards] Input required from OSGeo Standards List Members

Dear Standards List Members,

We have approximately 160 members subscribed to this mailing list. 

I assume that you have subscribed to the Standards list as you have some interest in Open Spatial Standards.

We have an excellent opportunity to help shape the future of open spatial standards with the proposed new Memorandum of Understanding between OSGeo and OGC.

To date, I have been disappointed at the very limited community input into this process.

This is your opportunity to drive what we do with open spatial standards. Don’t wait for others to do the work for you.

I call on all list members to provide some feedback to this list on:

*	what inspired you to subscribe to this list;
*	what you want from being a member of this list; and
*	your review of the proposed new OSGeo/OGC MOU (see context below).

Please don’t be shy, there are no right or wrong responses!

Kind regards,

Bruce

On 10 Aug 2021, at 00:55, Tom Kralidis <tomkralidis at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi everyone: hope you are all doing well.  Per subject and [1][2], we have been working

with OGC to renew our Memorandum of Understanding, and now have a draft (Exhibit A) of

the MOU for your review and comment.

Please see [3] for your review, comment and input.  Anyone with the link should be able to

comment in the document.

This is an important time for the updated MOU.  Open Source and Open Standards are

natural, healthy and evolving, and this MOU will grow the collaboration between our

organizations especially given OGC's increasing focus on developers.  Note that the MOU

provides OSGeo an Associate Membership as well as the opportunity for input into the next

generation of compliance testing (CITE).

Input and feedback is requested by Friday, 03 September 2021 at 12h UTC.

If there are no major issues, we will put the MOU for approval at the F2F Board meeting following

FOSS4G 2021.

If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me.

Thanks in advance.

On behalf of those involved in updating the MOU (OGC, OSGeo MOU Review Team).

..Tom

[1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/MoU_OGC/Review_2020

[2] https://git.osgeo.org/gitea/osgeo/todo/issues/80

[3] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LNbDCkmjqfOtrUjOLkYNNhKhtPzXI_uCAC4R-l8drbY

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Standards at lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20210826/8b08f761/attachment-0001.html>