I think it's relevant that node changes as suggested
should involve stand alone nodes only (such as POI).
Once they are part of a structure of say a building or a road, water
or any area, the nodes should be considered a composition rather
then 4 nodes.
While the underlying structure is a
On 20 December 2011 21:27, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Dear All,
LWG would like feedback on a couple of items relating to cleaning
tainted data as we all prepare for the data base transition.
Draft minutes are here.
I think the test must be the same as for any other data which OSMF does not have
permission to use. If a mapper added a node by copying from Google Maps, but
then another mapper moved it to a different position using a permitted data
source, is it okay to keep that node in the database?
--
Ed
2011/12/21 ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl:
I think it's relevant that node changes as suggested
should involve stand alone nodes only (such as POI).
Once they are part of a structure of say a building or a road, water
or any area, the nodes should be
A common way to adjust a node position is to move it halfway between
the old one and the new one. For example, if there is already a way
on the map traced from GPS but you have a new GPS trace for it which
is a bit different, it would be unwise to adjust it to exactly fit
your new trace. But you
Richard Weait richard@... writes:
We consider that the creation of an
object and its id to be a system action rather than individual
creative contribution.
However, 'the creation of an object and its id' never occurs by itself.
At a minimum, you create an object with id and lat/lon, and that
Please don't confuse the matter by treating tagged and untagged notes
the same.
If somebody is improving the geometry of a way because he is
interpolating from the available information (may that be GPS traces of
other ways) then he is doing exactly that, just because he is reusing an
Simon Poole simon@... writes:
If somebody is improving the geometry of a way because he is
interpolating from the available information (may that be GPS traces of
other ways) then he is doing exactly that,
That is exactly it: improving the geometry of a way. Not replacing it.
If you take an
On 21 December 2011 12:43, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski balrogg@... writes:
- is a mapper declaration of odbl=clean interesting and helpful in
reconciling the data base?
Definitely, and I think odbl=no would also be useful to mark objects
that are known to come from
Am 21.12.2011 13:34, schrieb Ed Avis:
Simon Poolesimon@... writes:
If somebody is improving the geometry of a way because he is
interpolating from the available information (may that be GPS traces of
other ways) then he is doing exactly that,
That is exactly it: improving the geometry of a
Simon Poole simon@... writes:
If you take an existing tainted way and move it they way is still going
to go, so what is your point again?
Are we not talking about the following situation:
- mapper A (who has agreed to the CTs) creates a way
- mapper B (who has not agreed) adjusts the
Am 21.12.2011 14:15, schrieb Ed Avis:
Simon Poolesimon@... writes:
If you take an existing tainted way and move it they way is still going
to go, so what is your point again?
Are we not talking about the following situation:
- mapper A (who has agreed to the CTs) creates a way
-
Am 21.12.2011 14:50, schrieb Ed Avis:
Simon Poolesimon@... writes:
In general we have assumed that for example tracing from aerial imagery
and similar sources does not create a derived work in which the creator
of the imagery has rights (not that I necessarily agree with that). The
Quoting Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com:
Simon Poole simon@... writes:
- mapper A (who has agreed to the CTs) creates a way
- mapper B (who has not agreed) adjusts the way's geometry, creating
some new nodes
- mapper C (who has agreed) adjusts the position of those nodes
In this
Sorry, I appreciate your taking the time to go through the arguments on this
but I think I have said all I have to say about node positions. I'll let others
decide whether what I wrote makes sense.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk
mike@... writes:
2) good faith - are we making a reasonable effort to remove the IP of
folks who have not given us permission to continue? I certainly agree
with Ed that we should treat ex-contributors no differently to any IP
owner ... but feel we are already doing that in this and other
Quoting Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com:
mike@... writes:
2) good faith - are we making a reasonable effort to remove the IP of
folks who have not given us permission to continue? I certainly agree
with Ed that we should treat ex-contributors no differently to any IP
owner ... but feel we are
Quoting Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com:
mike@... writes:
2) good faith - are we making a reasonable effort to remove the IP of
folks who have not given us permission to continue? I certainly agree
with Ed that we should treat ex-contributors no differently to any IP
owner ... but feel we are
Hi,
as you probably know I'm running statistics on the raw count of
objects processed by the OSMI view and making Munin graphs of them here:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html
I'm afraid that there has been an error in some of the graphs (example
graph with problem shown here
19 matches
Mail list logo
