The problem I have is a bit different.
Someone (who has actively declined the CT) has been using nearmap to trace
in some roads under construction in the Canberra area. Some of these roads
are now complete and open to the public.
It would be pointless of me to add information to the nearmapped
Hi,
Nick Hocking wrote:
The only way, I see, out of this mess is for me to map a new set of
residential roads, using my actual GPS tracks, alongside the nearmapped
ones, make then properly routable, and maybe put a layer tag on them
(for the moment) to ensure that routers don't confuse the
On 5 June 2011 21:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Nick Hocking wrote:
The only way, I see, out of this mess is for me to map a new set of
residential roads, using my actual GPS tracks, alongside the nearmapped
ones, make then properly routable, and maybe put a layer tag on
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
He is yet to back up his claims about people using the data
I don't think it makes a difference. If I have one set of data with a
questionable copyright situation and no street names, and another set of
data with street names surveyed by someone who agrees to the CT,
On 5 June 2011 22:35, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
He is yet to back up his claims about people using the data
I don't think it makes a difference. If I have one set of data with a
questionable copyright situation and no street names, and another set of
On 5 June 2011 22:48, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Where the claim was made has no relevance for my assessment that it does not
make a difference.
As I said, you tried so hard to word thing to reduce the change of an
edit war and now you are cheering some along to do the exact
My account used for importing PGS coastlines just got an email asking
that it agree to new contributor terms - has anyone already declared
this is OK during the import-checking phase of license change?
Asking on mailing list, since there should be about 32 other accounts
used for the import and
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:56 AM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote:
My account used for importing PGS coastlines just got an email asking
that it agree to new contributor terms - has anyone already declared
this is OK during the import-checking phase of license change?
Asking on mailing list,
Isn't PGS in the public domain since it's a work of the US federal
government and in addition was automatically generated from Landsat
imagery, which is also in the public domain?
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:56 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote:
My account used for importing PGS coastlines
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog
That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Michael Collinson mike@... writes:
Hi Jukka,
Yes, it is still in use and we read everything and we we do try to
respond. Have we missed something?
Mike
License Working Group
Hi,
It is just about a proper way of attributing OSM in a Web Feature Service (WFS).
I posted a question first
For me as a personal contributor, it looks great as is. It goes out with
every extraction(?). You are making attribution credit reasonable to
the medium (CC-BY-SA and CC-BY). You are crediting OpenStreetMap and
properly identifying the CC-BY-SA license. You also have a link to
Sadly I agree.
Steve
stevecoast.com
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:19, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem I have is a bit different.
Someone (who has actively declined the CT) has been using nearmap to trace in
some roads under construction in the Canberra area. Some of these
On 05.06.2011 02:09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
means for them. I know for a fact that among the current disagreeing
mappers there are some who intend to stay with OSM and who are just
holding out until the last minute; and I know there are some who simply
wanted to delay their decision until later.
I am also very hesitant to have a specific date now and basically
support Kai's concept. Mostly the date thing is caution, I would like to
move to Phase 4 as soon as possible but think we can then take our time
getting as much ODbL coverage as possible. It is also disparate
situations. At one
I don't think that edit wars to deliberately change the licence status of bits
of
map are the way forward - for either side. It's just as unacceptable from the
pro-ODbL camp as from the pro-CC camp.
However, I can understand that if mappers believe that large amounts of data
will
be deleted
On 5-6-2011 2:09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Any misunderstanding in this area will lead to friction: mapper A
thought he still had time to reconsider; but mapper B goes ahead and
deletes/re-maps A's work (possibly with less precision or other things
that A doesn't like). A, who intended to stay with
On 5 June 2011 22:35, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
John Smith wrote:
He is yet to back up his claims about people using the data
I don't think it makes a difference. If I have one set of data with a
questionable copyright situation and no street names, and another set of
data
On 5 June 2011 10:09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I know for a fact that among the current disagreeing mappers there are some
who intend to stay with OSM and who are just holding out until the last
minute;
As far as I can tell, doing that is the only way to say I don't like the
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de wrote:
On 05.06.2011 02:09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
means for them. I know for a fact that among the current disagreeing
mappers there are some who intend to stay with OSM and who are just
holding out until the last minute;
20 matches
Mail list logo
