On 2 May 2011 22:03, Ian Callahan igcalla...@gmail.com wrote:
Those pushing for changes might have expected things to result in a
fork as a result of what's happened but that isn't what has happened,
instead the OSM community are on the verge of splintering into many
various projects
The NSW Dept of Lands seems to have quite a lot of aerial imagery
(http://lite.maps.nsw.gov.au/), in their terms of use all
copyrightable material is for personal or non-comercial use only, but
doesn't seem to cover deriving data from their imagery, and what can
be done with it afterwards.
Does
On 30 April 2011 20:09, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:
PS - tomorrow I will find out all the ways in Canberra that I had to fix
using nearmap, and replace them using compliant Bing imagery
So you wiped out perfectly good map data for sub-standard data?
On 23 April 2011 19:43, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
any one have any thoughts on what to tag a location famous for 2
reasons, first it was a spot cobb co got held up by thunderbolt,
secondly because someone did a painting of the event:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailed_Up
On 27 April 2011 14:42, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir maxi...@gmail.com wrote:
*sarcasm* But it all doesn't matter anyway, John Smith has degreed
that all Australian geodata is PD anyway. See:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2011-April/007829.html
A lot of people do take this issue
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/26/china_street_view_licences/
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
On 27 April 2011 04:15, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
But I thought that Nearmap has said that they did not think the CT's were
compatible with the use of their data. As I understood it this had nothing
to do with CC-BY-SA or ODbL.
So the issue as I understand it is the CT's,
On 27 April 2011 07:06, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
Bluntly,
CC-by-SA for geodata is fine here. It's good enough for our government,
it's good enough for us. (Au government now is using CC-by for data).
We believe in Share-Alike. Actually, we have been brought up to believe
in
In the last few days people have posted numerous diary entries about
being unaware about the up coming changes.
I am only surprised about how poorly things have been communicated
with mappers, the replies to the posts are typical responses that try
to confuse the issue.
Once upon a time it used to be almost a race to map out new areas from
Nearmap coverage, now whole areas of coverage go untouched for months
or longer...
What was once a source of pride in the community can now only be
described as a 'tragedy of the commons' now that the death knell is
being
On 25 April 2011 08:26, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
Once fosm gets a tile server (even a third party one) I'll probably
switch. In the meantime I thought osm edits were mirrored across to
fosm (though the more fosm gets edited, there will be merge edits,
which I'm not sure
Same thing in the UK with OS data, it becomes free but requires
attribution and OSM-F turns round and says that's great and all, but
we want it with no strings now.
On 4/25/11, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir maxi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net
On 22 April 2011 18:35, Gary Gallagher g.null.dev...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been rereading the wiki entry. Is it proposing a structure in
which each transponder is first created as a node labeled
man_made=communications_transponder each with all their details. Than
they are grouped as a
That would be a very narrow and strict interruption of cc-by-sa,
especially since the assumption is a derivative is required by the
user to generate any changes made when the source of their changes
would matter just as much.
For example if they are using GPS data all they would use existing
data
On 17 April 2011 14:39, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
Clearly this is not that big a problem for Apache contributors, why
should it be a big problem for OSM contributors (setting aside the
desire to import other data for which the contributor has no right to
sublicense)?
Apache
On 17 April 2011 15:17, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
The point still stands. Granting rights to a central body (but not
your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open
communities.
They also aren't generally the most popular, just like BSD lags behind
Linux,
On 16 April 2011 17:37, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
OpenOffice.org has had a major fork just recently. The LibreOffice fork
has chosen different licensing arrangements, including the contributors
retaining their own copyright.
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/
On 16 April 2011 17:42, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
wouldn't have sought it at a much earlier stage than this. Normally
abject opposition should come after, not before, neutral appraisal
of the proposal, shouldn't it?
There has been so many issues with the new license, the new
On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing
'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even the UK government
have now accepted that we should have free access to this sort of data, so
my own
On 16 April 2011 19:04, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing
'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even the UK
government
On 16 April 2011 19:49, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
No I said 'free access to this sort of data'. But I don't see that having
the courtesy to recognise where data can from should be any sort of a
problem. 'Requiring it' just acknowledges that some people do not extend
that common
On 16 April 2011 22:10, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for
No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change
license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of
the desire
On 16 April 2011 15:56, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 15:21:59 +1000
John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
An Australian Bureau of Statistics initiative to help drive
collaboration between students, developers and national and
international statistical
On 16 April 2011 00:36, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
i ask this because in NY, the default speed limit in rural areas is 55
on all roads. there are numerous unpaved roads (dirt, gravel) which
do not have posted speed limits, but where driving at 55 is not
reasonable unless
On 16 April 2011 01:30, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest you also add source:maxspeed=US:NY:rural or sth. similar to
the roads with no explicit maxspeed sign.
Well he said 55mph is the default maximum for unsigned roads, wouldn't
it be more useful for routing software
On 16 April 2011 13:25, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
what i'm after are parameters so that the routing engines present
rational results to drivers who aren't me. so why don't we focus on
the actual problem in front of us instead of posturing about our
driving skills.
Well you
On 16 April 2011 13:43, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 April 2011 13:25, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
what i'm after are parameters so that the routing engines present
rational results to drivers who aren't me. so why don't we focus on
the actual problem
An Australian Bureau of Statistics initiative to help drive
collaboration between students, developers and national and
international statistical agencies.
http://data.gov.au/2770/contest-abs-codeplay/
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
On 14 April 2011 19:56, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
Don't forget this is a pre-announcement! The technical implementation is
ongoing thanks to Tom, Matt and Grant. The revised contributor terms should
now be live and I have just got the go ahead to be able to announce that the
On 14 April 2011 22:20, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
If you mean that currently there is no decline button for existing
contributors then that is a feature, not a bug. When making a decision
becomes mandatory on Sunday there will be a decline button.
I reported it several messages back.
On 15 April 2011 00:49, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Eric Marsden wrote:
It is not clear to me, from your message or from what I have read on
the wiki, whether choosing Decline is a irreversible decision, or
whether one would still be able later to accept the licence +
On 15 April 2011 12:51, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
This was a question in regards to whether you will reverse the selection
of someone accepting the new licence/terms, if you (or they) become
aware the data is tainted.
Wouldn't breach of clause 1 break the entire contract ?
On 13 April 2011 10:44, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:59 PM, SomeoneElse
li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:
Mike,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms; appears unchanged. Is that some
sort of caching effect, or does has been improved actually mean is
On 14 April 2011 03:24, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
This results in bad rendering for low zoom tiles, with the lake
showing up on zoom6 but not on zoom5 (in Mapnik).
Wouldn't it be better to fix the rendering side of things, than
incorrectly mapping just so it renders how
On 14 April 2011 00:49, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
It's _a_ goal but I think the more important selling points for ODbL/DbCL
are the positive ones - more uses it would permit for the data, for example
distributing map tiles without having to follow any particular licence for
them.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz
Date: 13 April 2011 04:56
Subject: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
To: OSM talk t...@openstreetmap.org
This is to let you know the license change process is moving to Phase
3 [1] very
On 16 August 2010 09:30, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Newish TV show, K-9, which seems to be a kids spin off from the K-9
dog that used to be on Doctor Who a couple of decades ago, in any case
a map flashed up and I instantly recognised it as OSM map tiles...
You can see
I thought I'd share something I realised today when I went out for a
Sunday ride.
Having accurate maps isn't just good for navigation purposes, but it's
almost borders on a safety aspect since knowing how sharp and the
location of upcoming bends allows you to be more prepared and at some
points
On 11 April 2011 13:45, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:
Create a new account, accept the CT's and then
Has the CTs been updated to allow for this, or do they still refer to
a natural person?
Also that doesn't help if someone only wishes to support projects
using share a like
On 9 April 2011 18:22, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to map some named reaches (straight portion of a stream
or river, as from one turn to another;) part of a major river.
To do this I would shift the river specific information to a relation,
which is useful in any
On 9 April 2011 09:09, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 April 2011 20:47, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 April 2011 16:58, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
Despite your attempts to sidetrack this discussion from the your data
import to some wider OSM
On 10 April 2011 15:29, 4x4falcon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
At the moment I'm tending to fosm.org as it seems the most compatible with
what I've been doing.
Having said that I'm still watching commonmap.org etc as well.
Well from a license point of view, all commonmap data should be usable
On 8 April 2011 16:55, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people on
CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data or
requiring every contributor to transfer rights to the OSMF. Then everyone
could
On 8 April 2011 15:57, Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 April 2011 15:34, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Please list sources for this comment, because as far as I understand
it there is no further appeals on the matter currently pending.
http://www.smh.com.au/business
On 8 April 2011 16:58, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
John - if you are going to argue this, please check your references
more carefully.
As I stated before I wasn't aware that the appeal was being appealed,
although your link does suggest they had 30 days to do something, and
were
On 8 April 2011 20:47, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 April 2011 16:58, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
Despite your attempts to sidetrack this discussion from the your data
import to some wider OSM licencing issue, I won't be sidetracked here.
The problem is no one
On 7 April 2011 15:58, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 April 2011 12:57, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
If the Australian issue is so important, as others have suggested why
isnt OSMF seeking to make a rapid agreement with NearMap as was done
with Bing?
This really
On 7 April 2011 21:07, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
I don't see a lolcat on that page, was it on another page?
Certainly the lolcat on the front page of the osm wiki makes me wonder
about the IQ of the page writers
Looks like Grant has removed it from the current version of the
On 7 April 2011 23:03, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
I contacted the nowwhere.com.au/MapData-Sciences who are managers of
the BP and Shell data in October 2010...
Their reply: It is the property of BP and is intended as a service
for personal use only. (and Shell for the
On 8 April 2011 09:28, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
If the data owner doesn't grant permission under an acceptable licence
then we shouldn't relying on one interpretation of very recent
Australian case. Especially since there are other areas of law that
may come into play here.
On 8 April 2011 07:30, {withheld} pheasant.cou...@gmail.com wrote:
Very naughty thought. I wonder what the reaction would be to a simple,
formal request to OSMF to re-grant you your rights to OSM data along the
same alignments on the basis OSM is backing up an effective copy of your
lost data?
On 8 April 2011 13:41, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
With respect, if we are going to do down the path of using data
We are going down that path with the new CTs and to a lesser extent
ODBL, people haven't been informed well enough about the implications
of accepting the new CTs and
On 8 April 2011 14:23, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
If you are talking about Sensis, than that is still a Federal Court
judgement, which I believe Sensis are seeking leave to appeal to the
High Court, and the results will be very interesting to see. I hope
the High Court takes the
-- Forwarded message --
From: Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz
Date: 6 April 2011 19:08
Subject: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors ...
To: d...@openstreetmap.org
... the License Working Group intends implementing Phase 3 of the
license change implementation plan [1]. This involves
On 7 April 2011 09:37, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
In UK:
- This will remove 65% of users
- This will remove 40% of nodes, 40% of ways and 10% of relations
In Europe:
- This will remove 61% of users
- This will remove 20% of nodes, 20% of ways and 15% of relations
I wonder
On 7 April 2011 10:06, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir maxi...@gmail.com wrote:
What happened to NearMap?
Nearmap have refused to allow data derived from their imagery to be
used without guarantee of attribution and share-a-like in a future
license, or having a guarantee that such data would be removed
On 7 April 2011 10:31, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir maxi...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely that's a simple procedural matter then (CT 1.2.4 already has
It always has been, but as others have pointed out, control of the
process has gone on largely without proper consultation and feedback
to better shape what
On 26 March 2011 19:55, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote:
Nowendoc looks like it needs more work.
Doesn't look like much is missing...
http://sautter.com/map/?zoom=15lat=-31.51481lon=151.71877layers=00BT
On the other hand Walcha looks like it could do with some work and
I'm heading off along Thunderbolts way (New England region of NSW) and
was wondering if there was any part of the way that needs mapping.
Most of the towns seem to be at least partially mapped and I'll be
doing some careful checking to see what's missing, but if anyone knows
of any specific
On 25 March 2011 14:11, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
So why aren't the ODbL folks being told the same thing? You want a
different license? Hey, great, no problem, go ahead, create a fork of
OSM. But don't expect us to follow you.
Anthony has been asking this for some time, since
On 23 March 2011 19:57, Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com wrote:
Not forgetting that's what's really important is what percentage of edits
come under the new license – the stats for that seem much more healthy.
Considering that about 1/3rd to 1/2 of the edits in that figure would
be for some of
On 23 March 2011 20:45, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't agree. Of course it is important how much of the data will
survive, but it is even more important to not loose active
contributors.
Many that were previously active contributors have since stopped
contributing
On 24 March 2011 06:00, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
It's an inoculation. A bit of a pinch, and a sore spot on the arm for
a day, but we're all better off afterwards.
It's more like a tainted vaxination, the kind where you end up a lot worst off.
ODbL gives us the real share-alike,
On 21 March 2011 05:54, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
What were the suggestions at the meeting(s)? The minutes suggest that
I reported an issue some time ago and they kept it as an item to be
dealt at future meetings for about 6 months and then they sort of let
it fall off at some
2011/3/21 Matthias Meißer dig...@arcor.de:
Might be the legal talklist a better place to discuss this very specific
topic? I guess there are more users that are familar with the process
itself.
So this conversation goes quietly into the night like most other
threads rather than being dealt
On 6 March 2011 09:10, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote:
So basically you are saying that it is not possible to explain it in
layman's terms. Thank you for your input.
The new license changes things from something many people understand
to something massively more complex that it's
-- Forwarded message --
From: Simon O'Keefe simon.oke...@groundtruth.com.au
Date: 4 March 2011 15:27
Subject: [Aust-NZ] Melbourne Open GIS
To: aust...@lists.osgeo.org
The Melbourne Open GIS event is on again at 5pm on Thursday the 17th
of March at the OpenHub.
Melbourne Open GIS
-- Forwarded message --
From: Robin Paulson robin.paul...@gmail.com
Date: 25 February 2011 10:42
Subject: [OSM-talk] Crisis mapping - assistance requested for
infrastructure mapping in Christchurch
To: OSM Talk t...@openstreetmap.org, h...@openstreetmap.org
Hi OSM mappers,
As
On 24 February 2011 10:52, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
1) OSM's core purpose is as a street map
This hasn't been the case for quite some time.
Not to mention that the previous ABS data has been very useful in
regional areas for plotting physical features, like roads, that
couldn't
On 23 February 2011 11:35, Simon Biber simonbi...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
of OSM is released under CC-BY-SA which is an attribution license compatible
with CC-BY. The attribution includes a link to a list of data providers and
contributors on www.openstreetmap.org in which ABS is listed.
As of
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Hamish hamis...@yahoo.com
Date: 23 February 2011 12:20
Subject: [Aust-NZ] Re: [nzopengis] Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team activation?
To: aust...@lists.osgeo.org
By the way, the URL for the active Ushahidi* instance is http://eq.org.nz
Zoom in
On 18 February 2011 18:04, waldo000...@gmail.com waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:43 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with the access suggestion, eg
access:caravan=yes/no/designated/unsuitable
You mean caravan=*, right? This is already listed
On 18 February 2011 18:56, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:25 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Nope I meant what I said, access:caravan=* same with access:4wd=*
As I understand it, foot, motorcar, bicycle, hgv etc are all
considered subtags
On 18 February 2011 19:28, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:14 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I dont think basing a decision on those previous tags is a good idea.
It's documented and everything.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
I agree with the access suggestion, eg
access:caravan=yes/no/designated/unsuitable
I now regret using 4wd_only, this should have be an access: tag
instead, eg access:4wd=only/yes/no etc
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Saw a couple of roads signed unsuitable for caravans which seems
like council butt covering but I'm not sure how to tag it since it's a
sign to discourage rather than to disallow.
--
Sent from my mobile device
___
Talk-au mailing list
On 17 February 2011 15:52, John Henderson snow...@gmx.com wrote:
On 17/02/11 16:12, David Murn wrote:
Presumably if its unsuitable for caravans, its also unsuitable for HGV?
Maybe simply re-use the HGV access tags already in place?
I think they should be kept separate - there'll likely be
-- Forwarded message --
From: Steve Coast st...@asklater.com
Date: 4 February 2011 03:17
Subject: [OSM-talk] magical road detector to play with
To: t...@openstreetmap.org
On 2 February 2011 20:40, Peter Watson peter.bmwk7...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I have noticed that all the Gold Coast canals are taged with
waterway=coastline. I understand that the coastline should connect around
the coastline in an unbroken line. ie. should connect across the river
On 2 February 2011 21:28, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
What do you mean by canal? I thought they were saltwater...hence,
waterway=coastline is ok?
Should we tag salt lakes as coastline too using that logic?
___
Talk-au mailing list
On 2 February 2011 22:05, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:36 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 February 2011 21:28, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
What do you mean by canal? I thought they were saltwater...hence,
waterway
-- Forwarded message --
From: Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com
Date: 3 February 2011 06:44
Subject: HOT for Cyclone Yasi
To: John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com, Shoaib Burq
sho...@nomad-labs.com, Kashif Rasul kashif.ra...@gmail.com
Cc: hot...@gmail.com
Are you all, or others
On 1 February 2011 12:24, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
So, as discussed on another thread, I'm trying to use
rawedit.openstreetmap.fr to undelete a relation, but am getting XML
parser errors. Anyone know who I can contact, or where to get the
source from?
It's my
On 31 January 2011 22:38, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:27 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
I think what they have a problem with is that its so open-ended, like we
just have to trust the OSMF because they'll do no wrong. Hang on a
second, this
On 31 January 2011 23:20, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
The best-known Potlatch instance is hosted on OSMF-owned hardware at the
OSMF-owned openstreetmap.org domain. OSMF could, in theory, request a
particular feature for this instance and refuse to deploy any version that
On 31 January 2011 23:10, Luke Woolley lswool...@gmail.com wrote:
There is already a tag set up for that purpose:
highway=emergency_access_point
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Demergency_access_point
The only problem I have with using highway=* for this is not all
signed
On 1 February 2011 09:37, Luke Woolley lswool...@gmail.com wrote:
Thats true, it did strike me as odd how it's in the highway category but I
guess it's because most locations where these markers would be would have
some kind of vehicle access. Doesn't make sense putting emergency markers in
On 1 February 2011 10:18, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 09:33 +1000, John Smith wrote:
On 31 January 2011 23:10, Luke Woolley lswool...@gmail.com wrote:
There is already a tag set up for that purpose:
highway=emergency_access_point
http
On 1 February 2011 11:56, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 11:21:08 +1000
John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
What about the national parks mentioned previously that don't actually
have paths to prevent people from creating goat tracks?
Someone must have
On 31 January 2011 02:26, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
You aren't addressing the core question. Given that the new imagery
plugin has made it much simpler to accidentally infringe, is a URL
blacklist a suitable way to raise that barrier closer to where it was
a few weeks ago?
On 31 January 2011 08:02, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
You aren't addressing the core question. Given that the new imagery
plugin has made it much simpler to accidentally infringe, is a URL
blacklist a suitable way to
On 31 January 2011 10:04, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
Frederik is also a member of the Data Working Group, along with
myself, who have to deal with the consequences of people recklessly
tracing in from inappropriate sources.
Although a little different, see a recent case
On 31 January 2011 10:24, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote:
Not that I'm getting involved in this... but if there is to be a
multiplicity of servers, why not have the server provide a REST call* that
can be used by PL/JOSM (or anything else) to establish which tracing sources
are permitted
On 29 January 2011 22:48, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/1/29 Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com:
image=URL
I wonder if this is something we would like to have in our db. Imagine
if we become really widely used, the amount of these tags would
probably explode. I
I was sent a link to this thread on the JOSM dev mailing list:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/josm-dev/2011-January/005185.html
The jist is some people are pushing to put URL filtering into JOSM,
currently the discussion is focused on Google images/tiles however it
wouldn't take much
On 30 January 2011 10:21, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
their program because of your position. If an athiest decided to remove
any references to religion/churches in JOSM, and forced the community to
take their patch, what would happen? Are we expected to just lie down
and take
On 27 January 2011 22:04, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote:
interfering with each other. Then I started finding problems where
sometimes they were connected, sometime they weren't, sometimes the
boundary and road way was the same thing (so if you hide them the road
vanishes as well). So
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ross Johnson ros...@hotmail.com
Date: 28 January 2011 15:50
Subject: [Aust-NZ] FYI: Government encourages use of open source software
To: aust...@lists.osgeo.org
Some good news:
Government encourages use of open source software
On 26 January 2011 09:21, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
Upon doing a bit of research, the exact meaning varies depending on
where you are. In [1]New York for example, a BYO establishment MUST
have a liquor license. In [2]Victoria, a BYO license (actually a
permit) is for places
On 24 January 2011 06:06, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:
Hi - quick question - what's the normal way to indicate BYO vs licenced
restaurants?
Not all restaurants are licensed...
amenity=restaurant
licensed=yes/no/byo
___
Talk-au
201 - 300 of 3639 matches
Mail list logo
