Hi,
Recently I was 4wding with some people and collected some info to add
to OSM. I think that the access tracks to the beach and realted
campsites should be tagged with:
highway=track
surface=sand
maxspeed=NN
tracktype=grade7
4wd_only=yes
access=permit
How should I tag the maxspeed
On 8 January 2013 20:32, Brett Russell brussell...@live.com.au wrote:
Assuming that I am reading OSM instructions correct the beach is suppose to
only extend to the high water mark so the coastline and beach should have a
one to one relationship on the water side. But then I have been wrong
On 14 February 2012 03:17, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
I believe there is some contention as to what in 1.a current licence
terms refers to, but it is at least consistent with the document to assume
that it refers to the licences listed in 3., so both CC-by-SA 2.0 and ODbL
+ DbCL1.0 ,
On 29 January 2012 09:03, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I'm sure it is going to be tackled one way or the other but it really
isn't the big issue some people seem to make of it. Splitting ways is a
common thing but it is only relevant for the license change if an agreer
splits a
On 30 November 2011 01:03, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
On 28/11/11 23:59, James Livingston wrote:
Depending on the rendering, it may not be the same. The placements of
name text can depend on other data so it's not on top of something else, or
POIs can be hidden
On 28 November 2011 21:55, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.orgwrote:
I could render a map from OSM and then render something else on top of
it, say a commercially acquired set of hotel POIs. That would clearly be a
Produced Work; I
On 24 September 2011 00:10, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote:
* Queensland national parks, state forests and conservation areas
That dataset was actually done as two imports by two different people.
The first was being done by me, from about 18 month to 15 months ago -
manually
On 25 August 2011 02:00, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a different topic but last I heard the CT don't assure
everything you upload is ODbL compatible, but rather than your
contribution is compatible with all the licenses that may be chosen
by OSMF -- and that everything
On 19 August 2011 01:34, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:
* I think it's an open question as to whether it's permissible to
create a single layer of tiles from the two databases by overlaying
features from both. It could be argued that this is a collective work,
On 14 August 2011 22:39, Henk Hoff o...@toffehoff.nl wrote:
Op 12-08-11 23:34, Nic Roets schreef:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Michael Kugelmannmichaelk_...@gmx.de
wrote:
While the first SOTM at Manchester (July 2007) there was a pannel about
the
license. BTW:
So, did the panel
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 16 June 2011 21:08, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
On 06/16/11 12:31, Dermot McNally wrote:
Not quite, based on what Richard is saying. It would allow future
relicensing but only if the new licence remained compatible with the
terms seen to be required by the OS (currently
On 6 July 2011 21:29, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
and also people who ticked the CTs who have used CC-BY/CC-BY-SA sources in
the past who may want to keep this data and continue using these sources in
the future.
Indeed. Number 9 on the list is
On 8 July 2011 13:26, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
The vast majority of people are happy with where we are at
From what I've read on ML posts, and from what was reported about the last
SotM meeting (I wasn't there), the vast majority of people don't care and
would be happy with the status
On 29/06/2011, at 4:25 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
On 06/29/11 05:21, James Livingston wrote:
I don't think it would be treated differently, because I believe that an
in-memory data structure would still be a database (in the ODbL and
database right sense of database). I don't see how the storage
On 23 June 2011 03:29, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
In today's operating systems, whether something is in a file or in memory
is a boundary that might easily get blurred. It would be kind of strange if
one algorithm that chooses to build a giant data structure in memory (using,
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 14/04/2011, at 6:57 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
This method seems a much more satisfactory way of doing things to me
-- assuming it could work legally (IANAL). We would still have the
flexibility to re-license if we needed to without individual mappers
being able to hold their data
On 14/04/2011, at 8:06 AM, Francis Davey wrote:
On 13 April 2011 22:24, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
* If so, how do we know what data must be removed in a switch to ODbL?
That clause doesn't appear to put any obligation on you to remove
data. All it requires of you
Hi all,
With the upcoming requirement to accept/decline the contributor terms, I
thought it was about time to figure out whether and how I can agree to them.
I've had a look around but can't see any FAQs for the contributor terms, just
for the ODbL part. I'm sure I can't be the only person in
On 06/04/2011, at 7:31 PM, John Smith wrote:
... the License Working Group intends implementing Phase 3 of the
license change implementation plan [1]. This involves blocking edits
with HTTP Forbidden messages until the individual contributor has
Accepted/Declined the new terms by logging in
On 7 April 2011 09:42, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 09:17 +1000, Michael Hampson wrote:
This came through over night.
Is it a standard mailer going out to all?
I received the same, so presumably yes.
More importantly is it a official OSMF or
On 12/01/2011, at 2:48 AM, John Smith wrote:
Martin, for your information there was a bit of work done on this sort
of thing in the past for Aussie parks covered by this, based on data
from http://data.australia.gov.au I think.
I uploaded the dataset I think you're referring to, after
on my account
into those I can agree for and those I can't? and what licenses are the
CTs compatible with? ?
3) On the above, how do I split the edits on my account?
--
James Livingston
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
On 04/09/2010, at 10:30 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
If it absolutely has to be one thing or the other I'd say it is a Produced
Work.
Does it have to be though? I can't see anything in the ODbL that says Derived
Database and Produced Work are mutually exclusive.
A produced work is:
a work (such as
On 30/08/2010, at 10:03 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
If the majority of the community (including OSMF and the sysads who run the
servers) agrees with the license change, why should the onus of forking be on
the license-change agreers? If this is indeed the case, then the ones who
should
On 30/08/2010, at 3:04 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
Perfect. So the new license is being shown as possibly non effective
against such an attack.
I've asked about this case before on the list, and gotten no real response
about it.
Consider for example if someone in the US[0]
On 30/08/2010, at 3:24 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
I think that was already sorted out under the issue of wikipedia point
importing,
the OSM data is under the jurisdiction of England and has to obey
english copyright law. no?
No, people are bound by the copyright law where they
On 27/08/2010, at 1:36 AM, Anthony wrote:
Or you could just assign the task of deciding what it means to
someone. Whether or not a future license is share alike shall be
determined by a vote of the OSMF board.
Sure, except I don't know that will really help. If people want certainty that
all
On 26/08/2010, at 2:12 AM, Simon Ward wrote:
I don’t know if that’s how legal types read it, but couldn’t it also be
taken transitively as follows:
1. CTs allow licensing under ODbL 1.0;
2. ODbL 1.0 allows licensing under a compatible licence, or later
version of the ODbL;
3. By (1)
On 25/08/2010, at 5:41 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
There is also a very practical reason against fixing anything, and
*specifically* a share-alike requirement, in the CT, and that is that in
order to make *clear* what you want you will have to write half a license
into the CT.
I completely
On 15/08/2010, at 1:28 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 14 August 2010 18:19, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
This sounds right to me. But if you propose bridge:ref=* then you
should probably also use bridge:name=* rather than the already
proposed bridge_name=*.
I still think it should be
On 30/07/2010, at 9:52 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
For me, very frequently, the changeset just represents a random bunch
of edits I happened to be doing at one time, with not much cohesion.
There are different suburbs all in the same changeset as I flitted
about.
My editing falls into two
On 30/07/2010, at 3:54 PM, John Smith wrote:
I've cc'd Grant on this email, he posted to the #osm-au IRC channel
about some proposed changes to the CTs, which I was hoping would have
come up in another thread by now:
LWG is considering:
3. OSMF agrees to use or sub-license Your Contents
On 26/07/2010, at 7:12 PM, John Smith wrote:
How do people tag over taking sections on highways where there is no
physical separation between oncoming traffic?
I've never tagged them before, but there is
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:overtaking for marking where overtaking
is legal.
On 26/07/2010, at 9:05 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 26 July 2010 20:56, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
On 26/07/2010, at 7:12 PM, John Smith wrote:
I've never tagged them before, but there is
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:overtaking for marking where
overtaking is legal
On 20/07/2010, at 9:10 AM, Emilie Laffray wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, violating a contract and making the data
available doesn't make the data public domain.
Indeed.
The relevant question is then Is hosting a copy of ODbL licensed material
(e.g. a planet dump) on your website without
On 17/07/2010, at 4:12 AM, Simon Ward wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:01:08PM +1000, James Livingston wrote:
* It also uses contract law, which makes things a *lot* more complicated
Despite my strong bias towards copyleft, I thought this was a problem
with the license. Unfortunately
On 17/07/2010, at 4:58 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I noticed something that had escaped my attention until now. The
contributor terms say that OSMF will release the data under ODbL 1.0,
CC-BY-SA 2.0 or another free and open license accepted by 2/3 of active
members.
Notice the absence of
On 17/07/2010, at 6:34 PM, Heiko Jacobs wrote:
Michael Barabanov schrieb:
Consider two cases:
1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF
view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone.
2. Current license does cover the OSM data.
On 16/07/2010, at 6:35 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
ODbL is a comparable licence to BY-SA, with the main change being that it has
actually been written to cover data. If people don't relicence because they
are afraid not enough people will relicence then that will be a bit of a
self-fulfilling
On 16/07/2010, at 6:28 PM, Andy Allan wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:53 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
There's only one undeniable fact in this whole affair. Exactly 100% of all
contributors have signed up to CC-BY-SA and have indicated that they are
willing to contribute their data under
On 14/07/2010, at 9:52 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 14 July 2010 20:59, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
What do you suggest would be acceptable / unacceptable?
I would consider things to fail if more than 5-10% of data disappears
in any region. At the very least it would be demoralising
On 14/07/2010, at 10:28 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
I'm no expert on this sort of thing, but there are probably a lot of
well known pitfalls to avoid when trying to run an inclusive
international project in many languages. I'd think having English-only
discussion at a set time
On 13/07/2010, at 10:47 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
Anybody who can suggest a way to accurately predict the
user numbers and data % and location and the extent where blank spots
might arise should help us to allay these fears. But I think that
there are simply too many variables to predict the
On 12/07/2010, at 9:06 PM, Markus wrote:
Also I have noticed in potlatch the coastline seems to render better also
when having the coastline separate as it will draw the coatline even if the
park goes over it.
Yep, sounds like a good plan. I think this can happen a bit because
On 09/07/2010, at 1:07 AM, David Carmean wrote:
They use a shapefile generated from
a filtered snapshot of OSM data--leaving only roads--as a base layer.
If they do nothing else but serve this one-time snapshot as a base
layer, what are their obligations?
My opinion is that since they've
On 09/07/2010, at 12:24 AM, Matt Amos wrote:
I agree with Andy. This is what I understand the ODbL to be saying.
Unfortunately, as with any legal text, its difficult to read and this is an
unavoidable consequence of the legal system. If you need interpretation of
the license, new or old,
On 10/07/2010, at 9:18 AM, John Smith wrote:
however due to
the absence of requiring such a free license to be cc-by compatible
(require some form of attribution) this then means any cc-by data
would now have to be expunged from the system.
Only if the copyright holder hasn't agreed to the
On 08/07/2010, at 5:16 PM, Neil Penman wrote:
I have found numerous cases where towns have two police stations marked. One
in the correct spot, added by a mapper, and one in some other arbitrary place
added by a bulk upload. I'm not totally against this, but ultimately its
community
On 08/07/2010, at 7:13 AM, Liz wrote:
I don't think that they are compatible.
My experience of law is small and it is an opinion only.
I thought (and hoped) that the attribution requirements of ODbL would satisfy
the requirements of CC-BY, but I'm not a lawyer.
Certainly we would have to
On 9 July 2010 10:38, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote:
It'd be better like this:
http://hello.eboy.com/eboy/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/FTN_CommunicationCity_06t.png
So http://opengeodata.org/isometric-osm-maps?c=1 then?
___
Talk-au mailing list
On 30/06/2010, at 7:48 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
Is it worth using an additional
classification:qld=national_park|conservation_park|state_forest, etc.
(or similar), just to make things extra clear?
That is, when you use a rule like Conservation Parks get
boundary=protected_area, I think it
On 28/06/2010, at 11:10 PM, Markus wrote:
Sound good to me to leave the GLR number and Ecolink if you put it with a
standard osm key.
Here's what I've currently got, any more comments?
1) National park get boundary=national_park and leisure=nature_reserve. Should
any of the standard,
On 28/06/2010, at 8:16 PM, Markus wrote:
Forests
Landuse=forest
National Parks
boundary=national_park
leisure=nature_reserve
Sounds good.
Protected Areas
boundary=protected_area
protect_id=
Ah, the original data had IUCN codes, so I can put these back in as protect_id
1-6.
I
Hi all,
I've been looking at http://data.australia.gov.au/127, which contains all
the national parks, state forest, conservation areas and so on in
Queensland. If no-one else had been doing anything with this, I'd been
thinking about adding it to OSM.
Current practice seems to be tagging them
On 17/06/2010, at 2:21 AM, Mike Collinson wrote:
If you have been involved in bulk import of data from third-parties, may I
ask you to check that this is on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue .
Why? Now we have final versions of everything, the License Working Group is
On 23/06/2010, at 8:56 PM, Andy Allan wrote:
Don't worry, it hasn't actually changed the meaning of anything - it's
just that the wiki is now wrong. The easy way to fix the situation is
to correct the wiki - it's as straightforward as that.
You could argue the wiki is now wrong, but you could
On 18/06/2010, at 4:56 PM, Ben Last wrote:
The existing editors (and I include Potlatch, JOSM and MapZen in that) are
powerful and well suited to users who understand mapping and OSM and are
motived to deal with the UI complexity, but are not at all well suited to
generalist users who want
On 17/06/2010, at 1:49 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
Try Australian Standard AS 2156.1-2001 (Walking tracks -
Classification and signage)
http://infostore.saiglobal.com/store2/Details.aspx?ProductID=260163
(not free, but try e.g. the following page for some details:
On 15/06/2010, at 7:24 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
2. create a data set derived from OSM with number of road kilometres in
each tile
I'd argue that this step could be seen as creating a Produced Work not a
derived database. Consider if you rendered a heat map of OSM where each pixel
in the
On 11/06/2010, at 12:13 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 11 June 2010 11:45, Simon Biber simonbi...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
My personal preference would have been to use give_way, since it follows
the tradition of using British English as the source of tag names, but the
majority of mappers so far have
On 09/06/2010, at 1:20 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Err, and just now I notice that when you press b in Potlatch, instead of
creating source=nearmap, it creates a tag like
http://www.nearmap.com/kh/zxy=!,!,!;. Wonder when this change happened, and
is that a bug? It sure looks like it...
Did
On 11/02/2010, at 8:14 PM, Stefan Neufeind wrote:
Agreed, trying to ask them would be a good thing. Has helped in some
cases in the past where authorities (city government or the like)
re-thought their license :-)
The Australian Toilet Map data got discussed on talk-au back in December, and
On 11/02/2010, at 5:33 AM, Liz wrote:
Haven't got far through the judgement so far but this sounds quite clear.
7.
The Copyright Act does not protect facts, ideas or information contained in a
work, to ensure a balance is struck between the interests of authors and
those
in society: IceTV
On 21/01/2010, at 9:35 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
I would suggest tagging the way leisure=slipway. If you need to
break the current specification to do so, then make a note on the wiki
page. Tagging it highway=service seems wrong. Service roads do not
go underwater...
The tagging system is
On 15/01/2010, at 8:45 PM, Liz wrote:
so perhaps the signs are actually meaningless in law
they appear in council minutes so perhaps its a local council job
From my searching, it looks like councils are responsible for putting up these
signs and I couldn't find any actual legal definition of
On 16/01/2010, at 9:32 AM, John Smith wrote:
This seems like a spurious argument, ok your suggestion will allow
both projects to profit from your data, but any additions can't be
shared back with your suggested project, nor will Google share any of
it's data back, unless it's in Google's own
On 07/01/2010, at 5:25 PM, John Smith wrote:
2010/1/7 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
I usually interpret designated as signed, which is
an attractive interpretation because it's verifiable.
To avoid confusion perhaps it should have been bicycle=signed? :)
Then we would have confusion
On 04/01/2010, at 9:57 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
. Ok, there are a few issues. First, natural= just describes what's on the
land, like trees or not, so isn't useful. The right tag would be something
like landuse=reserve, although this appears to be still under debate:
On 04/01/2010, at 5:19 PM, Mark Pulley wrote:
The question is, should we move highway= onto the relation for all
relations? There's probably a fix for Mapnik to save editing every
relation we've done, so I've added a ticket to OSM.
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2599
I wouldn't
On 14/12/2009, at 6:41 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
I think my central argument is this: Your sports_club venue could be
- a sports facility with no eating/drinking/gambling facilities for the public
- an eating/drinking/gambling venue for the public with no sports facilities
- or both.
This
On 14/12/2009, at 6:58 PM, Stephen Hope wrote:
The reason I thought they may be a QLD thing is the state Government
here licences them a bit differently from your average pub (or used
to, I haven't checked lately). Thus the (official) members only
rules, connection to a sport club, etc.
On 14/12/2009, at 7:10 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:03 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
I'm sure that there was a tag for the first, although I can't find it now.
Something like leisure=club_rooms or similar, which related to a sporting
group but wasn't
On 09/12/2009, at 11:46 AM, Anthony wrote:
A transfer of copyright is a transfer of exclusive rights. In the US, and
probably in other jurisdictions as well, it must be signed and in writing.
One key difference is that someone who is granted a nonexclusive license does
not have the power
On 12/12/2009, at 7:07 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
But if the foundation wants to have copyright in the data I think
it's trivial for it to have some by doing *some* of the maintenance
edits on behalf of the foundation or one person (or more) transferring
their rights instead of everyone
On 11/12/2009, at 8:02 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
so we don't need imported data?
In most cases we don't need imported data, but it can be useful. For example
rather than painstakingly crafting the entire coastline of Australia from a few
GPS traces and a lot of imagery (much is relatively
On 11/12/2009, at 8:02 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
so we don't need imported data?
In most cases we don't need imported data, but it can be useful. For example
rather than painstakingly crafting the entire coastline of Australia from a few
GPS traces and a lot of imagery (much is relatively
On 10/12/2009, at 6:57 PM, Liz wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
... the excellent Philippines mapping team who managed to create one
single closed way enclosing an area of roughly 300 thousand square
kilometres!
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?way=32126765
The runner-up is
On Wednesday, December 09, 2009, at 03:25PM, Chris Barham cbar...@pobox.com
wrote:
BP allows free download of GPS data for their Australian service stations.
Has anyone asked any of the other companies yet? If not, I'll send some emails
about:
On 09/12/2009, at 6:38 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
If you derive information from observing our PhotoMaps, and include
that information in a work, you will own that work, and may distribute
it to others under a Creative Commons licence.
Does that not imply that the derived information may only be
On 09/12/2009, at 8:26 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Can we really maintain this? These services come and go fairly frequently.
Individual things like whether they have LPG filling for bbqs maybe, but servos
don't move that often (usually taken over by another one). In any case, it's
probably not
On 09/12/2009, at 8:41 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:37 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
I'd suggest doing something like import if there is not an existing
amenity=fuel within X distance, flag it for manual checking if there is.
Ah, didn't know that kind
On 07/12/2009, at 7:29 PM, John Smith wrote:
2009/12/7 Liz ed...@billiau.net:
James has been pointing out that the Feds, who can afford good lawyers, find
CC-by-Sa and CC-by as quite satisfactory in Australia.
As far as I can gather CC-BY-SA most likely won't work in the US, so I
can only
On 06/12/2009, at 8:44 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Tom Hughes schrieb:
Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another
vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to
relicense.
With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th
On 06/12/2009, at 10:05 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
James Livingston wrote:
For example, I have inferred road positions from the CC-BY-licensed
Queensland DCDB-lite dataset, and have uploaded national park and
world-heritage areas from the CC-BY dataset on data.australia.gov.au.
As I'm
On 05/12/2009, at 10:29 PM, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir wrote:
Certainly we should make this case clear to the OSM community.
Database protection always seemed to be a euro-centric ideal and not
one that the new licence analysis seemed to respond to adequately.
However, I believe that the ODbL
On 05/12/2009, at 11:30 PM, Grant Slater wrote:
For clarity... the OSM Foundation is not some evil group...
The OSMF is open, anyone from the community can join. The OSMF Board
is democratically elected from the OSMF membership.
If anyone who isn't a OSMF member wants to read the discussion,
On 03/12/2009, at 6:12 AM, Mike Collinson wrote:
We have now fully updated the OSM Contributors agreement section of the
main proposal. I hope that meets concerns about clarity of the change-over
process.
http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf
A while ago on the
On 03/12/2009, at 10:19 PM, Mike Collinson wrote:
- Whether friendly or unfriendly, they never have any obligation to merge in
their data improvements into our database.
- However, you or I can.
Does that make sense?
I completely agree that they don't have to do anything towards merging
On 03/12/2009, at 10:19 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
That was my interpretation too. It appears to me that if some well-meaning
body released a set of data under the ODbL (which presumably we recommend as
an appropriate licence for geodata) then the OSM project would not be able to
use it. In other
On 11/10/2009, at 12:08 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
This proposal includes the deletion of all voting-related stuff
including the casted votes of the past.
I'd say that this helps prove the point that different people reading
different things into what pages on the wiki say. The proposal
On 05/10/2009, at 7:54 PM, David Earl wrote:
* Three new primitives, tagkey for describing the k part of tags,
tagvalue for the v part of tags and tagdescription separated off to
allow for multiple descriptions in multiple languages without having
to
download all the data for languages
On 05/10/2009, at 8:18 PM, Marc Schütz wrote:
IMO (a) is the correct way to do this.
...
For a road, we can either choose to map it as a linear object (this
is the common case), or we can map its geometry more exactly by
using an area. In both cases, however, the object in our database
On 06/10/2009, at 10:58 PM, David Earl wrote:
On 06/10/2009 13:35, James Livingston wrote:
I can see things getting ickier than they are now if you can just
go around adding new shop= values, without having some prior
discussion to what it means. If I saw a suggested option
On 06/10/2009, at 11:30 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
so far, all the responses seem to indicate that everyone thinks
linking to OSM data by ID is OK. what about Andy's idea, though? is it
OK to take a location, name and possibly an ID as well to perform
fuzzy linking?
my view is that all the
On 06/10/2009, at 2:12 PM, John Smith wrote:
Lake Eyre etc is so big they used natural=coastline... Although this
comes back to the question the other day, where does the coastline
start/end, legally speaking it cuts across bays, it doesn't go round
them or up rivers...
I looked into this a
On 05/10/2009, at 3:59 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
So PLEASE look at the sat photos and already entered data before you
go removing the coastline and using the ABS data automatically as
the coastline.
As a +1 comment, I'd also like to note that in many places the ABS
follow the
On 06/10/2009, at 11:37 PM, Jim Croft wrote:
Of course, this won't work for mariners and lawyers... :)
No, but there are (proposed) tags to indicate the low-tide mark, and
the OpenSeaMap guys might have something for other various maritime
boundaries.
My favourite estuary is the Fly River
1 - 100 of 188 matches
Mail list logo
