Hi,
(Warning: long and difficult subject matter ahead! :-) )
I love to work with JOSM, but I have two problems with JOSM.
- When you start drawing a way somewhere in a node, JOSM always assumes
you want to continue some way already present.
This is very annoying and unproductive, because
Renaud MICHEL wrote:
On lundi 11 juillet 2011 at 12:22, Gerard Vanderveken wrote :
- When you start drawing a way somewhere in a node, JOSM always assumes
you want to continue some way already present.
This is very annoying and unproductive, because this is nearly always
not what you
On lundi 11 juillet 2011 at 13:03, Gerard Vanderveken wrote :
Renaud MICHEL wrote:
Press Ctrl while clicking on the end note, JOSM will start a new way.
No, this leads to a double node and the way is not connected to the
crossing.
Right, I didn't pay attention this.
But If you click on the
But If you click on the last node of your way, then press Alt while adding
the next node, then you end up with a new way that share its first node
with
the previous way.
Exactly, and that was what he was told in the ticket.
I entirely disagree with the suggestion to disable autocontinuation,
In the example (in the ticket) that node is also the endpoint of
*another*
way, and it does do a contination of *that*. However, it's made out to
appear that selecting a non-endpoint node of a way and then drawing from
that will produce a continuation. Not so.
No, you didn't understand the
Lennard wrote:
In the example (in the ticket) that node is also the endpoint of
*another*
way, and it does do a contination of *that*. However, it's made out to
appear that selecting a non-endpoint node of a way and then drawing from
that will produce a continuation. Not so.
No, you
Hi Tom,
Where do I find the sysadmin policy for evaluating whether a blocking
request is considered „unreasonable“?
There isn't one. I'm not entirely sure what it would say if it existed
as it is hard to write such things down in concrete terms as it is by
definition a very subjective
On 11/07/11 09:20, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
If you have a better way of defining active contributor that is
workable then please tell us what it is.
I see no reason to limit the voting right to people who fit the definition of
active contributors.
The main reason is that otherwise it
Hi Kai,
One could have given voting rights to all people who have once reached
active contributor status and retain sufficient interest in the project
to keep their email address up to date and respond to the vote within 3
weeks.
I agree.
However, Frederick is correct, that this kind of
Hi tom,
The main reason is that otherwise it will effectively become impossible
to change the license because there will, over time, obviously be an
ever growing group of people who are no longer involved, interested
and/or contactable and once they become a majority the clause would in
On 11/07/11 09:35, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
Hi tom,
The main reason is that otherwise it will effectively become impossible
to change the license because there will, over time, obviously be an
ever growing group of people who are no longer involved, interested
and/or contactable and once
It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can
upload to OSM.
We as a community can't verify this.
http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html mentions nothing, all
we have is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bing_license.pdf
which we can't verify as authentic.
On 11 July 2011 19:55, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can
upload to OSM.
All we have is SteveC's word that this is what happened, to the best
of my knowledge Bing themselves near released anything definitive on
On 11 July 2011 10:55, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can
upload to OSM.
We as a community can't verify this.
http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html mentions nothing, all
we have is
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
The official Bing blog:
http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx
published by Brian Hendricks - Bing Maps Product Manager
Oh, yes. That's
On 11 July 2011 11:30, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing
license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.)
The license is
What is worrying me is that the LWG (=OSMF=COMMUNITY)
requires any contributor (us) to sign up using a CT,
where BING can get away with a simple blog page.
I *can* understand that, because it's not OSM that is addressed
in this blog, but the individuals (us) making contributions.
The permission
Am 11.07.2011 12:10, schrieb Grant Slater:
The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing
license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.)
The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the
condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM.
.
Hello,
[I am sorry if this is a FAQ, but this matter is urgent, and a cursory web
search has not provided sufficient information for me to answer these
questions]
I am in negotiation with a provider of aerial images (for Austria), who
wants to allow OpenStreetMappers to use these aerial images.
Sorry this was supposed to be copied to legal-talk, not the osm-fork list.
Apologies.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:35 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.bizwrote:
**
If it is UK Ordnance Survey data that is the issue, we now have
2011/7/11 Holger Schöner nume...@ancalime.de:
Hello,
[I am sorry if this is a FAQ, but this matter is urgent, and a cursory web
search has not provided sufficient information for me to answer these
questions]
I am in negotiation with a provider of aerial images (for Austria), who
wants to
- Original Message -
From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbl and collective databases
David,
David Groom wrote:
This seems to be quite
I'm speaking strictly personally here, posting to talk@ and opengeodata.
OSM often crosses bridges in it's growth. Mostly they're technical, like
introducing color maps, rendering new things or speeding up the system. We have
a much more ugly bridge to cross in front of us.
Would you want to
Is there only someone right ? *Le Monde* suggests today there are still some
disagreements on the exact border location [1] [2].
Vincent
[1]
http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2011/07/09/le-sud-soudan-proclame-son-independance_1546977_3212.html#ens_id=1067666
[2]
Steve Coast wrote:
Would you want to be part of a community which includes people explicitly
working to disrupt it, trolling it and breaking data?
No, I don't like breaking data. That's why I oppose the license change.
Steve Coast wrote:
We can block the 'main' people. Then you have to
OSM _is_ going to switch to a new license - it needs to, to allow
people to make a living out of drawing maps (etc) based on the data.
Data has to be open, shared, and attributed to stop it being gobbled
by non-sharers. Exploitation of that data has to be saleable. That is
what the new license
My 2 cents (as an ex-pat Aussie I'm mildly interested in the state of
the map down under):
we can't fix anything that the Australian community doesn't want to fix.
It's really up to -them- to remedy the mistakes -they- made (ABS2006
import and similar).
I don't believe anybody in the
- Original Message -
From: Steve Coast st...@asklater.com
To: talk@openstreetmap.org; talk...@openstreetmap.org
Cc: p...@opengeodata.posterous.com
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 8:00 AM
Subject: [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au
[snip]
Maybe you have a better option?
Yes. Do
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
I'm speaking strictly personally here, posting to talk@ and opengeodata.
OSM often crosses bridges in it's growth. Mostly they're technical, like
introducing color maps, rendering new things or speeding up the system. We
2011/7/9 Felix Hartmann extremecar...@gmail.com:
As we're
still under CCBYSA 2.0, people can use it to trace rivers and trails to OSM
:-)
while the data is still distributed under cc-by-ca you cannot enter
data any more in cc-by-sa only. All current contributions most also be
compatible
On 11/07/2011 8:08 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
It's really up to -them- to remedy the mistakes -they- made (ABS2006
import and similar).
I'm sad to think you characterise ABS2006 as a mistake.
*** Warning - some licensing discussion follows ***
ABS2006 is a CC BY dataset isn't it?
While I
Hi,
On 07/11/11 14:46, Brendan Morley wrote:
* If ABS2006 is a mistake licensing-wise, then it would be a mistake to
import any Australian Government geodata into OSM these days.
I belive importing *any* data into OSM is a mistake most of the time. It
doesn't help you at all in building a
OSM is two things one is a set of technical standards, that's the easy part,
the other is a group of people which is much more difficult. People can
feel frustrated because their concerns are not being addressed an a solution
is being imposed.
Personally my preference is for an accurate map with
On 11 July 2011 22:58, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
(Mind you, the new license doesn't seem to keep the Brits from drawing on
attribution-only sources released by *their* government but maybe the law is
stricter down under?)
SteveC implied that the talks with OS were more fruitful
It's a very sad day when OSM boasts that it includes data that shouldn't be
there because of licensing.
I inadvertently included some grey material and requested it be deleted from
OSM, that request was ignored.
Doesn't say much about OSM's ethics does it?
Cheerio John
(Mind you, the new
Hi,
On 07/11/11 15:17, john whelan wrote:
I inadvertently included some grey material and requested it be deleted
from OSM, that request was ignored.
Are you a different John Whelan from the John Whelan who deleted (not
requested it to be deleted but deleted without prior discussion)
lots
Hi Frederik, thanks for discussing.
On 11/07/2011 10:58 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 07/11/11 14:46, Brendan Morley wrote:
* If ABS2006 is a mistake licensing-wise, then it would be a mistake to
import any Australian Government geodata into OSM these days.
I belive importing *any* data
Am 11.07.2011 07:56, schrieb Maarten Deen:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:27:27 +0200, colliar wrote:
There are some maps of European cross-boarder regions available under:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/All_in_one_Garmin_Map/Regions
It is possible to request more regions, aswell. This can be
Hi Tom,
I have no problem with suggestions for changing the definition of an
active mapper, though I personally don't think the current definition is
a major problem and I also think that most of your attempts to show how
that will disenfranchise people are very contrived and unlikely to be a
Sorry, the first mail was to Colliar personally...
On 2011-07-11 15:49, colliar wrote:
Am 11.07.2011 07:56, schrieb Maarten Deen:
Have a look at http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl/
Ther you can choose which regions to download. They will be packaged in
one map file.
Thanks.
Is there a
As I mentioned people can get frustrated. I made three requests apparently
to the incorrect people to have data deleted prior to deleting some but
since have made a formal request which was ignored.
The CANVEC data wasn't a major issue and could easily have been reimported,
it was some of the
An example of the problem data involved was using a GTFS feed that was
expected to be made available under CC-By-SA, as a source. I had a verbal
OK to use the data but the license has yet to be formalized and currently it
looks like the legal department has come up with a license such that the
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
**
If it is UK Ordnance Survey data that is the issue, we now have direct
clarification from them that they have no objection to continued
distribution of data derived from their OS OpenData under under the ODbL. At
Sorry this was supposed to be copied to legal-talk, not the osm-fork list.
Apologies.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:35 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.bizwrote:
**
If it is UK Ordnance Survey data that is the issue, we now have
Am 11.07.2011 14:46, schrieb Brendan Morley:
On 11/07/2011 8:08 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
It's really up to -them- to remedy the mistakes -they- made (ABS2006
import and similar).
I'm sad to think you characterise ABS2006 as a mistake.
The import was made at a point in time when it was clear
SimonPoole wrote:
there is a fair chance that either the data could be relicensed
under CC-by (which might be compatible with the ODbL)
Absolutely. The Australian government data is CC-BY already (I'm not sure
where this idea it's CC-BY-SA comes from). Negotiating compatibility with
ODbL need
On 12 July 2011 02:30, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
SimonPoole wrote:
there is a fair chance that either the data could be relicensed
under CC-by (which might be compatible with the ODbL)
Absolutely. The Australian government data is CC-BY already (I'm not sure
where this
John Smith wrote:
Unless you plan to enforce attribution as a minimum for produced
works
I'm not quite sure what I've done to deserve this Groundhog Day
treatment and be condemned to relive the same mailing list postings
again and again.
4.3 You must include a notice associated with the
On 12 July 2011 02:47, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Unless you plan to enforce attribution as a minimum for produced
works
I'm not quite sure what I've done to deserve this Groundhog Day treatment
and be condemned to relive the same mailing list postings
Everyone
Please move any relevant legal discussions to legal-talk@.
This thread was on the topic of the atmosphere of the Australian community and
talk-au, and while the legal issues have contributed to that, the discussion in
detail of licensing issues has gotten off topic.
-Mikel on behalf
hi,
due to a disk failure after some power outages today there will be no
data updates fo a while. i will order a replacement disk and setup the
system in a short while.
gerhard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On 11/07/11 08:00, Steve Coast wrote:
I'm speaking strictly personally here, posting to talk@ and opengeodata.
OSM often crosses bridges in it's growth. Mostly they're technical, like
introducing color maps, rendering new things or speeding up the system. We have
a much more ugly bridge to
On 11.07.2011 13:48, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2011/7/9 Felix Hartmannextremecar...@gmail.com:
As we're
still under CCBYSA 2.0, people can use it to trace rivers and trails to OSM
:-)
while the data is still distributed under cc-by-ca you cannot enter
data any more in cc-by-sa only.
Hi,
I just stumbled across a changeset where someone helpfully added a
toilet:access=customers to 1350 pubs in the Greeater London area
(thereby adding no information but freshening the time stamp of the
objects, giving the cursory visitor the impression that the pub might
actually have
On 12/07/2011 1:53 AM, Simon Poole wrote:
Am 11.07.2011 14:46, schrieb Brendan Morley:
On 11/07/2011 8:08 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
It's really up to -them- to remedy the mistakes -they- made (ABS2006
import and similar).
I'm sad to think you characterise ABS2006 as a mistake.
The import was
Excuse this question if it has been answered in a wiki somewhere, but I would
very much like to know who owns copyright of any data contributed under the
Open
Database Licence?
Thanks
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
That's easy: no data is contributed under the ODbL, so there is no data
to be copyrighted.
However you probably wanted to know who owns the copyright of data
contributed
under the contributor terms. IF (note the capital letters) there are
actually any IP rights
associated with the data
I would (first) prefer the other way around:
I would like to see a facility (or even API feature) to avoid the need
to change an object for setting it as valid.
Something like: yes, this pub exists and the tags (or even better: the
marked tags) are valid up to $NOW
If changesets like the one
The ODbL defines a Collective Database as this Database in unmodified
form as part of a collection of independent databases in themselves that
together are assembled into a collective whole.
Now I had assumed that as far as the above definition was concerned that:
Database meant Database
Peter,
Peter Wendorff wrote:
I would like to see a facility (or even API feature) to avoid the need
to change an object for setting it as valid.
This is a completely separate topic which should ideally be discussed in
a thread of its own.
If changesets like the one you mentioned are for
On 11/07/2011 22:42, Frederik Ramm wrote:
... But what if I had
1. a facility where I can comment on the perceived usefulness of a
changeset;
2. a facility where I can click a thumbs down or thumbs up in case
I particularly like or dislike the change;
3. a league table showing the most
David,
David Groom wrote:
This seems to be quite different to my interpretation, and it would be
good to have some clarification, as the definition is quite fundamental
to a number of use cases of OSM data.
You can always make an excerpt from an ODbL licensed database, which
will then be an
Yup, I'd played with that idea, both actually. I think commenting has
value (and have the code around here somewhere to start on it- there's
not a lot to it).
Voting on changesets is more difficult. Initially that was my whole
goal, but my concern is that OSM could become too vote-oriented, and
Ik heb inmiddels een antwoord. Hij had diverse POI's toegevoegd, maar
de wijzingen van de paden was niet de bedoeling. Ik heb ook de xml van
zijn changeset bekeken (download-link onderaan changeset pagina) en
er staan inderdaad best veel POIs in. Het zou waarschijnlijk fijn zijn
om die te
On 11-7-2011 15:44, Frank Fesevur wrote:
Ik heb inmiddels een antwoord. Hij had diverse POI's toegevoegd, maar
de wijzingen van de paden was niet de bedoeling. Ik heb ook de xml van
zijn changeset bekeken (download-link onderaan changeset pagina) en
er staan inderdaad best veel POIs in. Het zou
Is het niet simpeler die paar paadjes even recht te maken ?
Kwartiertje werk voor iemand in JOSM
Gert
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Maarten Deen [mailto:md...@xs4all.nl]
Verzonden: maandag 11 juli 2011 18:52
Aan: OpenStreetMap NL discussion list
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Paden
On 11-7-2011 15:44, Frank Fesevur wrote:
Ik neem aan dat ik met de revert changeset plugin in JOSM de boel
ongedaan kan maken, maar hoe krijg ik dan die POIs weer terug? Is dat
handwerk (dan vrees ik dat ook die info zal verdwijnen) of is er wat
slimmers te bedenken.
De reverter plugin is
Op 11 juli 2011 20:27 heeft Lennard l...@xs4all.nl het volgende geschreven:
De reverter plugin is inderdaad wat je nodig hebt.
- Download een ruim gebied om die paden.
- Met JOSM Search:
-- changeset:8582281 (replace selection)
-- type:node | type:relation (remove from selection)
-
David wrote
Just a quick note that my understanding is those figures are generated
based on v1 history, none of the bot edits would have been v1 unless
they created a new entity, not just a new/modified tag.
David, you may be right although I took Richard's nodes last edited to
mean the latest
I'm speaking strictly personally here, posting to talk@ and opengeodata.
OSM often crosses bridges in it's growth. Mostly they're technical, like
introducing color maps, rendering new things or speeding up the system. We have
a much more ugly bridge to cross in front of us.
Would you want to
Maybe you have a better option?
Yes.
It already happened.
Liz
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
So - what do we do now?
Ignore the trolls (meaning troll-like messages, not troll-like people).
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Is it just me, or is there a certain amount of irony in Nearmap not
allowing OSM to use their aerials to trace from, but being quite happy
to use OSM as their street layer?
(Don't get me wrong - I think Nearmap have a very tidy product, but it's
just a pity that a compromise couldn't be
David Murn wrote:
I think the biggest problem people in .au had was that there were some
issues which were specific to the Australian usage of OSM (imports of
gov data, etc). Those who sought to change the licence claimed to be
listening to people, but when Australian mappers raised issues, we
On 11 July 2011 19:04, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
they don't have to be the same licence. That unambiguously works with ODbL
(4.5a): whether it works with CC is a moot point because CC is unclear for
data licensing, but it's likely that it does (after all, there are
Well if
On 11/07/2011 10:13, John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 19:04, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
they don't have to be the same licence. That unambiguously works with ODbL
(4.5a): whether it works with CC is a moot point because CC is unclear for
data licensing, but it's likely that
They do allow OSM to trace their imagery, or anyone else for that
matter. So long as traced data is licensed under CC-BY-SA. It is the
OSMF/OSM whom chooses that this license isn't suitable and whom won't
accept the data.
As for this choice, i.e. why nearmap insists over CC-BY-SA rather that
CC0
On 11 July 2011 19:29, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
It's not using it under a licence other than CC-BY-SA. A Collective
Database or Collective Work means that the ODbL part of it is under ODbL
and the CC-BY-SA part is under CC-BY-SA. This is the very first clause (1a)
of
It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can
upload to OSM.
We as a community can't verify this.
http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html mentions nothing, all
we have is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bing_license.pdf
which we can't verify as authentic.
On 11/07/2011 10:52, John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 19:29, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
It's not using it under a licence other than CC-BY-SA. A Collective
Database or Collective Work means that the ODbL part of it is under ODbL
and the CC-BY-SA part is under CC-BY-SA. This
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:52 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 July 2011 19:29, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
It's not using it under a licence other than CC-BY-SA. A Collective
Database or Collective Work means that the ODbL part of it is under ODbL
and the
On 11 July 2011 19:55, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can
upload to OSM.
All we have is SteveC's word that this is what happened, to the best
of my knowledge Bing themselves near released anything definitive on
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
I think it's reasonably obvious by now that the two sides in this debate
aren't ever going to be reconciled.
It's not exclusively an .au problem, but it is mostly. If you look at any of
the analysis done recently,
On 11 July 2011 10:55, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can
upload to OSM.
We as a community can't verify this.
http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html mentions nothing, all
we have is
Matt,
I hope Nearmap continue to use OSM data. I only wish that they updated it a
bit more often.
That Way (for areas they cover that I don't get to regularly) I can spot new
roads that need a visit to survey properly.
Cheers
Nick
___
Talk-au mailing
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
The official Bing blog:
http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx
published by Brian Hendricks - Bing Maps Product Manager
Oh, yes. That's
- Original Message -
From: Steve Coast st...@asklater.com
To: t...@openstreetmap.org; talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Cc: p...@opengeodata.posterous.com
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 8:00 AM
Subject: [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au
[snip]
Maybe you have a better option?
Yes. Do
On 11 July 2011 20:05, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir maxi...@gmail.com wrote:
What he's saying is there is no requirement under Australian Copyright
law (or CC licence) for a whole compilation/database/document to have
the same licence. It's the same way the Government can use Creative
Commons for
On 11/07/2011, at 8:47 PM, John Smith wrote:
Then why was there such a big fuss made over Haiti edits should be PD
so that the UN could mix the data with other datasets...
Because they were mixing the datasets. If you do something like render tiles
within the .au boundaries from one database,
On 11 July 2011 20:53, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
On 11/07/2011, at 8:47 PM, John Smith wrote:
Then why was there such a big fuss made over Haiti edits should be PD
so that the UN could mix the data with other datasets...
Because they were mixing the datasets. If you do
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
I'm speaking strictly personally here, posting to talk@ and opengeodata.
OSM often crosses bridges in it's growth. Mostly they're technical, like
introducing color maps, rendering new things or speeding up the system. We
On 11 July 2011 11:30, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing
license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.)
The license is
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Matt White mattwh...@iinet.com.au wrote:
Is it just me, or is there a certain amount of irony in Nearmap not allowing
OSM to use their aerials to trace from, but being quite happy to use OSM as
their street layer?
(Don't get me wrong - I think Nearmap have a
- Original Message -
From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
To: David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
David Murn wrote:
I think the biggest problem people in .au had
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
You're both a whole continent and
an island. There is therefore no reason why data users can't use FOSM for
Australia and OSM for the rest of the world - and even combine the two into
one dataset.
CC-BY-SA doesn't
David Groom wrote:
Are you sure? ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database
in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent
databases ..'. Therefore if you cut out Australia it cant be part
of a collective database, because it is not the whole database in an
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:53 AM, James Livingston
li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
On 11/07/2011, at 8:47 PM, John Smith wrote:
Then why was there such a big fuss made over Haiti edits should be PD
so that the UN could mix the data with other datasets...
Because they were mixing the datasets. If
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
David Groom wrote:
Are you sure? ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database
in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent
databases ..'. Therefore if you cut out Australia it cant be part
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
David Groom wrote:
Are you sure? ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database
in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent
- Original Message -
From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
David Groom wrote:
Are you sure? ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database
in unmodified form
1 - 100 of 252 matches
Mail list logo
