On 14 August 2010 18:46, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Is it? I thought most of the Australian Government data was CC-BY - a much
easier problem.
To the best of my knowledge you are correct. Perhaps he was thinking
of some other country that has had cc-by-sa data imported?
On 14 August 2010 19:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
I might miss the point: but why do some governments put their data
under cc-by or cc-by-sa licenses if those are not suitable for data
but only for works?
That was Liz's point, and they usually have more lawyers than we
On 14 August 2010 14:46, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:
What would be the best way to get a publically accessable web map of the ACT
showing
the OSM data but with the bridges highlighted?
Also bridges that have not had their bridge_number tagged could be
highlighted in red
and
On 14 August 2010 17:50, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you asking about a custom mapnik style sheet?
Yes
Do you plan to host it locally on your own computer, or just want
someone else to do it all?
Why are you using bridge_number=* instead of ref=* or bridge:ref=* ?
My
On 12 August 2010 22:22, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
Sorry, my abuse reply was to the hypothetical question.
But the un-winding of edits still stands.
What about abusive edits that tweak the location of nodes by 0.1mm by
someone pro-CT/ODBL just so they can claim the node
On 14 August 2010 14:46, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:
What would be the best way to get a publically accessable web map of the ACT
showing
the OSM data but with the bridges highlighted?
I assumed you meant the bridge casing...
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 just name=*, after all what's the point of
the
On 15 August 2010 08:15, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Are you suggesting that such a bulk edit has happened? I'm not aware
of edits that match that description perhaps you can link to the
changesets for reference?
I'm not suggesting any such thing has happened, but if people are
Why are you cross posting this to the talk-au list, that seems to
indicate he's right...
On 13 August 2010 16:20, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
I love the implication here that you're 'poisonous' if you don't
On 12 August 2010 21:06, Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, I have 2 accounts and can easily make the preference clear in
my user profile description.
Will there be a process to transfer ownership of a changeset between
accounts if data is submitted under the wrong
On 12 August 2010 21:52, MP singular...@gmail.com wrote:
In the specific case of the OSM database, if you wanted to start doing
this, you would probably need to establish a per-object licensing flag. This
would require significant code changes and I assume you're not volunteering
to do that.
On 12 August 2010 21:28, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:
Have I got this right or am I worrying too much?
It's unclear what will happen at this point, since no one has the
chance to actually disagree any more, although there was a thread
about what to do about people that aren't
Nearmap as far as I know haven't agreed to the new Contributor Terms
(CTs) or the ODBL, so anyone that has traced anything from Nearmap
isn't able to agree to the new license, doing so would put you in
breach of contract with Nearmap which would also breach clause 1 on
the new Contributor Terms.
2010/8/11 Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es:
El día Wednesday 11 August 2010 15:09:25, Frederik Ramm dijo:
- I'm beyond caring now but I support ODbL becauseI want to kick the ass
of obnoxious obstructionists whom I have spent far too much time
listening to.
Oops, was that poisonous?
On 10 August 2010 18:34, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
Two, we have at least one contributor who has sadly passed away. Normally,
the executors/inheritors of the estate would be approached. But what is the
benefit to them? This is one reason I am very keen on leaving future license
On 10 August 2010 23:39, Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.uk wrote:
I suggest you fit into the wait and see category above.
That's unfortunate, because then we can't model how many support ODBL,
but don't support the CTs...
___
legal-talk mailing
On 10 August 2010 18:14, David Ellams osmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm wrote:
I'm not the first to say this, but is the problem not (whichever BY-SA
licence we use) that we are suggesting to people that attributing the
project is enough (rather than, say, giving the most major contributors
to the
On 10 August 2010 18:36, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Maybe instead of playing these kinds of games you could just help those
people who want to set up a fork, and then import to that fork. Because for
us, your plannet import along with your steadfast refusal of the new
license,
On 10 August 2010 20:28, Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi wrote:
How strict are we going to be with these cases? If we are going to be strict,
how can we sort them out?
I think this is why some people are advocating that ODBL be a fork and
start with 'clean' data, it's going to be
On 10 August 2010 20:52, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
The only people who are advocating clean data (ie no data at all)
It's slightly annoying to be told time after time after time to only
use clean data for OSM, but now that some people want a change it's
ok to have slightly less
On 10 August 2010 21:17, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
The reason I suggested to LWG that they drop the relicensing option from the
Contributor Terms, and limit future options to CC-BY-SA or ODbL[1], was
precisely that: a spirit of compromise.
And I liked that proposal, I even
On 10 August 2010 22:09, Jaak Laineste jaak.laine...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like this approach too: each country should be able to decide
license terms. Communities are different, population/contributor
densities are very different, laws are different. Would it be really
practical, and how it
On 10 August 2010 22:52, David Ellams osmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm wrote:
I can't take credit for the suggestion, as I think this was Richard F's
idea (I knew I'd seen it somewhere: is this fair attribution? grin).
Maybe, for an online map (such as osm.org), a more prominent link to
OSM's
On 10 August 2010 23:04, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new
Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike
license written especially for databases.
I support BY-SA (and probably ODBL) but I
On 10 August 2010 23:05, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
This also gives the advice, consistent with our current licence and with
ODbL, that where data from a national mapping agency or other major source
has been included in OpenStreetMap, it may be reasonable to credit them by
On 10 August 2010 23:32, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote:
Why is this again a statement of making OSM more restrictive, while the hole
transition was invented to be less restrictive on the OSM data ;) Paradox?
The transition is from more free for contributors to less free for
On 10 August 2010 23:44, Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote:
In case i dont care and like PD more than CC-BY-SA or even worse the ODbl i
would
be more than happy to continue with CC-BY-SA and accept it to fail in court,
basically putting the OSM Data into PD ...
I never really got that, pro-PD
On 10 August 2010 23:54, Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.uk wrote:
... and aren't immoral arseholes who like to trample over other's
intent and damn well know the project is highly unlikely to ever end
up PD so would rather be on a level playing field by having a license
that works for
On 10 August 2010 23:51, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
Thanks for the support on the ODbL but as Dave says, no, the acceptance is
for the Contributor Terms.
As I've said before, I can't legally agree to the CTs due to clause 1
at the very least, I don't have the right to relicense all
On 11 August 2010 01:55, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
It would probably be pretty embarrassing for anybody who made that
sort of error in judgment or declaration of ignorance, so they might
be a little prickly about the subject or try to make it seem like
someone else's fault rather
On 11 August 2010 02:13, Brian Quinion
openstreet...@brian.quinion.co.uk wrote:
There also needs to be a process for people who have signed the
contributor terms in error to un-sign or some way for them to be
assisted in removing their 'tainted' data so they are no longer in
breach.
This
On 11 August 2010 03:26, Patrick Kilian o...@petschge.de wrote:
There is a big difference between pointing out the current form of the
contributor terms means that we will loose 80% of the data in Australia.
Do you really want to proceed? and jumping into every thread and
spreading FUD that
On 11 August 2010 03:42, Patrick Kilian o...@petschge.de wrote:
No matter if the claim is 10% or 100% it should be made and it should be
heard.
Without more details about contributor intent we are left to speculate...
But there has been the claim CC-BY-SA works perfectly well. If it
actually
On 11 August 2010 03:50, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
To keep the door open for the futuer. Nobody knows what will come. Are your
problems that you don't trust the LWG? Then go on and do a fork -- it's that
easy.
It has nothing to do with trust, it has to do with the fact that
On 11 August 2010 03:58, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Sometimes flames indicate true disagreement between two parties. It is
enough to have two passionate people from opposite sides to have it
going forever. I think we need not only regulate or moderate, we need
a way to address
On 10 August 2010 19:47, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote:
Since I've heard nothing more about this I can only assume that any
consideration for a compromise has been rejected by the pro-PD crowd.
Why do you even assume this?
Grant pasted this from LWG minutes on IRC earlier
On 9 August 2010 23:11, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Alternatively, you could perhaps contribute to CommonMap (commonmap.info)
who are not a fork of OSM but acknowledge OSM as inspiration and are not
On 10 August 2010 01:29, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
they exert their original copyright and request us to do so? A common
mantra is that copyright does not mean much unless exerted. Views?
Precedents?
This is a slippery slope, and it would give precedent to what ever
comes next
2010/8/10 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
The Ideal would be PD/CC0, because that wouldn't limit us in so many ways.
That's not true, it wouldn't limit what terms could be placed on end
users of the data, it would increasingly limit what contributors can
do.
On 9 August 2010 23:40, Julio Costa Zambelli
julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote:
The government imports (some highways, schools, hospitals, boundaries,
etc.) are an essential part of what we are doing here, and at least
for us, the license change represents no problem.
What about the new
On 10 August 2010 04:10, Julio Costa Zambelli
julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote:
If this is voted as a package I will obviously have to vote against
the change (I do not want to see 7/8 of the Chilean highways
disappearing from the map in one day, not to say many POIs that we
were about to
On 10 August 2010 05:46, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Maybe if you'd scale back your demagogy a bit. The subject you chose for
this thread is offensive enough.
Sorry if the truth hurts, but some of us are offended by the notion
that something we find useful can be so easily and
On 10 August 2010 07:11, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Because it is irrelevant given that the Database as a whole is protected,
rather than the individual pieces it contains which, as you correctly state,
are largely unprotectable anway?
Largely isn't completely, which means you
On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
they do. and it's in the contributor terms: ODbL 1.0 for the database
and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database. the
database is attribution and share-alike. the contents, as facts, hold
no copyright - so copyright
On 10 August 2010 07:30, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think it has been repeated countless times already, and it is funny to see
how both you and Anthony seem to ignore that.
We're not ignoring anything, the problem is the content license
explicitly removes copyright, which makes
On 10 August 2010 07:43, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
wouldn't you prefer to protect the *whole* database?
That isn't the point, the point was about it *explicitly* removing any
claim of copyright, which then makes it incompatible with BY and SA
data sources.
On 10 August 2010 08:02, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
that's currently awaiting legal advice. but if you can save us, and
the lawyers, the trouble of giving advice, thanks!
How many different lawyers have been asked, and do they all share the
same opinions that we've been hearing?
On 10 August 2010 11:38, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
At this point, the ODbL ship has sailed. There's no putting the
toothpaste back in the tube, and there's no crying over spilled milk.
There's not even any more time for metaphors, that fat lady has sung.
If things are so fixed
On 10 August 2010 07:54, 16 towal...@gmail.com wrote:
Just being evil-minded and petty; I wonder if this hint should be added
(discretely) to, say, the Australian Tagging Guidelines. Might as well
keep up the image of them ignorant Southern Hemisphere hicks wot
doesn't like to toe the line?
I
Since I've heard nothing more about this I can only assume that any
consideration for a compromise has been rejected by the pro-PD crowd.
On 30 July 2010 15:54, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 July 2010 15:40, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
I was going to just
On 10 August 2010 09:34, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
Also, there are many mappers around, just because one or two people
didnt map an area, doesnt mean it wouldnt be mapped. If a mapper sees
an area filled in, they wont work so closely on that area, but if those
2 or 3 users you
On 8 August 2010 17:03, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
copyright on it and claim it as their own. Because the ODbL and
CC-By-SA impose a cost on the community. I mean, if we're going to
get rid of contributors on purpose, then at least let's get rid of the
people who think a reciprocal
On 8 August 2010 18:30, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever again
says we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline.
I'm starting to think 80n was right, if you were really serious about
wanting a PD fork
On 8 August 2010 18:43, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever
again says we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline.
The PGS shoreline has been removed because it isn't as
On 8 August 2010 18:43, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
So I'm now contemplating the much simpler path of rendering the data and
then tracing. But before I do that I really want to be sure that there
isn't a better way of doing this. Does anyone have any suggestions?
I think some people have
For anyone still fence sitting over the new contributor terms and the
ODBL this is what you have to look forward to in the near future:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/003908.html
Basically those in favour of PD but not directly effected by or
benefiting from data
On 8 August 2010 23:23, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Let's go what if and weigh the grand outcomes logically, not not fight
over some people pointing out some details of some possible outcome.
So those people that have been importing cc-by-sa go what if and
conclude that most of their
On 8 August 2010 23:31, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Who's talking about changing the direction of OSM? There's no consensus for
any change of direction that I'm aware of. Arguing that imports should not
be allowed because there *might* be change in direction is very
presumptuous.
He wasn't
On 9 August 2010 00:07, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
It's nothing to do with PD. It's that I'm sick and tired of hearing we
cannot go ahead with ODbL because someone in Australia imported some
coastline.
And I've tried to explain numerous times that it goes well beyond
coastlines,
On 9 August 2010 00:39, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
If the license change is important, why don't the people who want the
license change make their own coastline, on the dev server. This can
be done quickly, right? *Then* you can delete the import, and replace
it with the one on the dev
On 9 August 2010 00:59, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 August 2010 00:58, Erik Johansson e...@kth.se wrote:
Australia 2 people per km^2
Sweden 21 people per km^2
Canada is ~3 people per km^2...
Oh and most people in Canada live within 100km of the US border
On 9 August 2010 01:00, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
In fact, this is exactly what I said I would do - not delete the existing
coastline, but replace it with a version that has a suitable license. For
some reason John Smith does not seem to share our view that this is a
reasonable
2010/8/9 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
With enough (motivated) people we can take any data loss, and rebuild
our database to be better within a short timeframe.
It may sound arrogant, but if you look at it rationally, we could even
compensate for mappers demotivated by any data loss
On 9 August 2010 01:57, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Which probably has the same cause as the lack of contributors in the
Netherlands: Too many imports!
No, too few people, and a VERY VERY big land area.
___
talk mailing list
On 9 August 2010 02:03, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Well, here in Austria, we lack contributors in areas where we had a (80%
botched) import of some existing data, and the community is thriving in
those areas where we didn't have an import. Interesting, isn't it?
The problem here isn't
On 9 August 2010 02:38, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Wrong metric: As pointed out before, the metric you want is contributors per
number of inhabitants.
It doesn't take as many manhours to map a desert as it takes to map downtown
Melbourne.
Nice stereotyping... but not everything
On 9 August 2010 02:48, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
2) The numbers say there is an _increase_ in the number of active mappers from
13,675 to 14,018. drop of 1% of users actively contributing 1% drop in
active contributors
What is the current projection of active contributors?
An
On 9 August 2010 03:24, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 August 2010 02:48, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
2) The numbers say there is an _increase_ in the number of active mappers
from
13,675 to 14,018. drop of 1% of users actively contributing 1% drop in
active
2010/8/9 80n 80n...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Nick Black nickbla...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Guys,
The % of users actively contributing to OSM each month has fallen
from 5.7% in March 2010 (13,675 / 238,985) to 4.7% in June (297,041 /
14,018).
Nick, how do you calculate the
On 9 August 2010 03:47, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
John Smith is saying that the idea that there aren't many Australian
contributors is incorrect. In other words, he is saying that there _are_ a
lot of Australian contributors.
No, there is a distinct lack of contributors
On 9 August 2010 04:06, Carsten Nielsen list_re...@toensberg.dk wrote:
Why is this island not rendered on mapnik and osmarender maps ?
I don't think natural=island renders., it should be natural=coastline
or natural=land.
___
talk mailing list
On 9 August 2010 04:38, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
12,094 active users in the past month. How many in the past 6 months?
Even if we assume 12,094 times 6 (which vastly overestimates things),
and assume that 100% of such users agree to relicensing (another
overestimate), that still leaves
For anyone still fence sitting over the new contributor terms and the
ODBL this is what you have to look forward to in the near future:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/003908.html
Basically those in favour of PD but not directly effected by or
benefiting from data
For those of you that dislike the new wiki look, you can revert it by going to:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Preferences
Click on 'Appearance', and then select 'MonoBook' and save...
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
On 7 August 2010 03:04, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Sounds like you've never been to court. Who's right or wrong is a secondary
consideration here, the first order of magnitude issue is who has more money.
We lose on that one.
So basically anyone can make any copyright claim they like
On 7 August 2010 03:14, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
If they have several orders of magnitude more money then probably the
cost/benefit tradeoff would suggest throwing out the data is the better
option.
Even wikipedia doesn't take that attitude, they're currently being
threatened by the
On 7 August 2010 08:56, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
Even wikipedia doesn't take that attitude, they're currently being
threatened by the FBI over a SVG image.
Nothing to do with copyright, and thus completely irrelevant in this
discussion.
Wikimedia
On 7 August 2010 08:27, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
That's different because the FBI is quite obviously wrong. There is a law
that says they are wrong.
The FBI are asserting they're right, and wikimedia are asserting
they're right, it's up to a court to be the adjudicator.
Almost any
On 5 August 2010 18:04, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
I don't want youre private guesses.
I want to have official facts.
Unless someone sues another in court over this issues, you are only
going to get guesses.
What's the problem to do this for the reasons of data loss, too?
The
On 5 August 2010 22:33, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
The conversation we had recently on this list indicated that three years
from after the next Australian election would be the minimum timescale.
That's assuming they actually have a desire or reason to change...
Otherwise it could take
On 5 August 2010 23:12, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
I am, however, sure that any legal case involving infringement of OSM data
in Australia would be judged following IceTV vs Nine Network and Telstra vs
Phone Directories, rather than following any licence which the legislature
On 5 August 2010 22:43, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I agree, FUD isn't fun. But it's you and a couple of others having a
significant time sink effect on the people trying to move it forward.
I'm not the one that came up with ambiguous wording for the new CTs
that makes a lot of the
On 6 August 2010 01:01, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
Now John Smith in his statement above says almost nothing except CC0 and PD
data is compatible with the new contributor terms. Lets take CC0 data,
there is still a rights holder of the data, who has released the data under
CC0
On 6 August 2010 06:48, Jamie Smith jamiekrsm...@gmail.com wrote:
They are vectors, but they sure aren't graphics. Not until they get rendered.
So a SVG file isn't copyrightable, until it is rendered?
___
legal-talk mailing list
On 5 August 2010 16:44, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
On the other hand, doing 1 in the above, is relatively cheap; we could do
that ourselves at any time by, say, allowing users to log in to OSM with any
OpenID credentials (just like we do on help.openstreetmap.org). I guess we
On 5 August 2010 23:27, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
Err actually, please don't start OpenID support from scratch as we already
have a branch with more or less complete OpenID support!
Is that OpenID support from other sites, like Nearmap, or is that
OpenID support from OSM?
On 5 August 2010 23:34, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
On 05/08/10 14:33, John Smith wrote:
On 5 August 2010 23:27, Tom Hughest...@compton.nu wrote:
Err actually, please don't start OpenID support from scratch as we
already
have a branch with more or less complete OpenID support
On 5 August 2010 23:42, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hey Google, you can have our unoriginal facts but please don't copy the
Osmarender map style, or the way we write our XML. Thanks.
Mapping isn't about recording pure fact, otherwise we'd simply convert
GPX data to map data
On 5 August 2010 23:44, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
If the OpenID provider supplies sufficient data (basically an email address
and nickname) then they need do little more than click OK to accept the
details and then accept the terms.
That would probably satisfy Nearmap and others trying
On 4 August 2010 21:48, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Any such mechanism, in my eyes, need not be 100% perfect; it is sufficient
to make a honest attempt at doing the right thing, and if a few things slip
through, then fix them in case of complaints.
Which goes against the usual OSM
On 5 August 2010 12:59, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
This is simple straw man crap. 80n invents a deadline, proceeds to piss off
everyone, take all our time and thus slow things down, then declare we're not
meeting the deadline.
Regardless I've communicated with some older contributors
I'm slightly confused by all this talk about needing contractual
agreements with all the end users and the OSM-F, or needing to
identify Nearmap users to OSM-F.
OSM already has data in the database from other projects, which was
community sourced and licensed under various cc-by style licenses,
On 5 August 2010 08:02, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the point that Frederik was trying to make was that this model
(bulk imported in real time) is not ideal. Ideally, we want the users
interacting directly with the OSM API rather than going through some
intermediary service.
On 5 August 2010 08:25, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Who cares if that time is one year in the future?
Who cares if that time is never?
I'm guessing those that are more pragmatic and would like to be not
redoing 20% or more of the work already mapped so they fork and move
on with their lives
On 5 August 2010 09:02, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
So let's talk about making that process easier instead of using the current
broken system.
Here we have Nearmap willing to spend time, money and other resources
to address the issue and you want to waste further resources to
discuss
Officials in Riverhead, New York are using Google Earth to root out
the owners of unlicensed pools. So far they've found 250 illegal pools
and collected $75,000 in fines and fees. Of course not everyone thinks
that a city should be spending time looking at aerial pictures of
backyards. from the
On 3 August 2010 05:51, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:
We've seen recently how people responding to disasters have used OSM data on
handheld devices - someone right now could quite possibly be using such a
map to try and deal with, say, the floods in Pakistan. If that map is
-- Forwarded message --
From: Simon Cropper scrop...@botanicusaustralia.com.au
Date: 3 August 2010 12:47
Subject: [Aust-NZ] Superficial review of copyright issues related to
collection and publication of education material on OSGeo Website
(LINK)
To: aust...@lists.osgeo.org
Hi
Just noticed a diary entry[1] pointing out that MS now uses a OSM
layer on their Bing Map site[2]
[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Paul%20Johnson/diary/11407
[2]
http://www.bing.com/community/blogs/maps/archive/2010/08/02/bing-maps-adds-open-street-maps-layer.aspx
I'd love to know about
On 1 August 2010 04:04, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Again, most of the 'what' could be summarized automically (20 POI's added,
2 ways displaced, 5 restrictions added, etc) and is far better than
reading comments. I have seen so many nice comments from newcomers where
changesets contained
601 - 700 of 3639 matches
Mail list logo
