On 31 March 2012 01:54, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
Australian Decliners,
As a mapper, contributor and member of the project's sysadmin team I
kindly ask you to please reconsider your declined status. Time is
about to run out.
You and others didn't care about us, told us
On 28 December 2011 18:52, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Some reasons that I think it'd be risky to use that fact that there's
no copyright in some tags are:
* copyright works this way in many jurisdictions but in other
jurisdictions the creativity factor is less important and
On 24 November 2011 05:09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
But I think that the specific example under discussion here actually falls
short of even this lowered bar. It is quite possible for me to grab a whole
Way in JOSM and move it one metre to the left (which makes me the last
On 31 October 2011 14:44, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Are you suggesting that data.gov.au aren't aware of their own license
terms or that they are acting outside of their terms? What evidence
to you provide to support your accusations?
A non-trivial amount of data is listed as
On 31 October 2011 12:30, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
I think that data.gov.au can be taken at their word and that they have
a clear understanding of which rights they may or may not grant.
They're a clearing house, nothing more, and don't own any of the content.
On 31 October 2011 13:10, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
And still, they'd know what they may and may not permit.
You haven't dealt with government plebs much have you?
They are one of the most unpleasant races in the galaxy. Not actually
evil, but bad-tempered, bureaucratic, officious,
On 25 September 2011 15:58, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
Secondly, With the greatest respect to the user concerned, who has been a
great contributor to OSM, I don't think we need necessarily respect his
wishes. We need to look a bit more carefully at this area to see if
anything
On 8 September 2011 10:48, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote:
Quoting Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com:
I'm sure we are interested in the history of the development of the
road network, but I'm not sure our database is the place for the
information right now.
For those interested, a
On 7 September 2011 16:31, Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote:
The Princes Highway is an historical curiosity, and internal name management
name assigned by the NSW roads authority, and the name of a bunch of roads
between Sydney and Adelaide.
It isn't a route any longer.
It's still a
On 7 September 2011 15:49, Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote:
I write I just have something against this relation, because it is
arbitrary and confusing
and you write So your entire argument is that we should delete the whole
route because it isn't contiguous?
Most routes are arbitrary
On 7 September 2011 15:19, Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote:
Nah, that is all good to me. I've got nothing against relations. Nothing
against routes. Nothing against multiple relations and multiple routes. In
fact, I'd have nothing against a parent relation that linked the sections of
On 7 September 2011 13:09, Christopher Barham cbar...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm in Charleville, Qld for a couple of days with an iPhone, a garmin oregon
GPS and, from tomorrow, a vehicle.
The place is pretty much unsurveyed, but the DCDB has been used to add
streets so the road geometry is
On 6 September 2011 13:26, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
Nearmap is no longer an acceptable source for OSM, since they do not allow
traces from their imagery to be re-licensed. I notice at least one of your
edits sourced nearmap, and that isn't allowed any more. If you were using
On 6 September 2011 12:50, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
This document tells which roads are RTA funded, and which are local roads,
and does have a Princes Hwy route for the purposes of funding. However, I
really believe we should stick to mapping what is on the ground, else we are
On 6 September 2011 12:20, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
According to Wikipedia, it should extend all the way from Adelaide to Sydney:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_Highway
If memory serves correctly, it changes name through Melbourne.
On 6 September 2011 07:13, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote:
In general I think it is common that a highway has a different name when it
goes through a town. Here the route continues, and will often be signposted
with the route number.
I'm not sure if that is the case for every road in
On 7 September 2011 12:27, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
Princes Highway is part of route 1.
This isn't helpful. National Route 1 and the Princes Hwy diverge at many
points. National Route 1 follows the Southern Freeway south from Sydney for
a start.
So what, how does that make
On 3 September 2011 19:12, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
This is really the wrong list for this discussion, but as I've pointed out
before
there are further minor points that would have to be considered, for
example
voting rights on future license changes. Obviously you could simply
On 3 September 2011 14:03, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
be difficult to prove. Since 1) the defense is strong, 2) the harm is
minimal, 3) cooperation is full, you should expect absolutely nobody
to sue the OSMF for infringement of works which are supposedly PD or
CT but not really.
On 1 September 2011 18:25, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Obviously I would clearly prefer that the mappers in question simply
discover some pragmatism and get over any issues they may have with the
OSMF.
That's an interesting spin on things, wouldn't the pragmatic approach
be for OSM-F to
On 31 August 2011 17:06, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
- ignore trolling by JohnSmith
Funny way to ignore someone, in any case here's at least one particular example:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aharvey/diary/14416
___
talk mailing list
On 31 August 2011 10:19, Ian Sergeant iserg...@hih.com.au wrote:
I think the strategy to remove all non-CT compliant data in one big bang is
What about the people that agreed to the CTs that had data compatible
with the current license, cc-by-sa ?
On 31 August 2011 15:43, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
John Smith writes:
On 31 August 2011 10:19, Ian Sergeant iserg...@hih.com.au wrote:
I think the strategy to remove all non-CT compliant data in one big bang
is
What about the people that agreed to the CTs that had
On 25 August 2011 19:15, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Hasn't it happened in the past that large numbers of Cloudmade employees have
joined the OSMF? That didn't cause the organization to be somehow subverted,
and neither will people who work for Skobbler (or Microsoft, or whoever).
In
On 25 August 2011 22:26, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com writes:
This was completely easy in the past, but is it realistic to keep OSMF
relatively unimportant if it is rights holder for all the data?
It might be better to spin off a separate
On 8 August 2011 07:46, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
As I remember it from previous discussions, wifi locations are
somewhat transient for OSM. Cell tower locations are likely from
government databases are they not?
Google etc estimate location of towers by using data handsets
On 29 July 2011 14:22, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 July 2011 21:52, Brian Quinion openstreet...@brian.quinion.co.uk
wrote:
Now that said I don't really care which tag is used for the 'full'
name. I'd personally prefer the name tag was used for this because it
has always been
On 27 July 2011 20:01, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
(I'm only talking about the UK, of course, and in fact this discussion would
be better on talk-gb.)
The person that started this thread is in New Zealand...
___
talk mailing list
On 27 July 2011 20:50, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
While St Albans isn't big enough to feature in the list in this document, it
does have St. Helens (sic). Why the period? The district council's website
The period after St. is the correct way in English to abbreviate
Saint,
On 27 July 2011 21:21, Paul Jaggard p...@jaggard.net wrote:
From: John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
The period after St. is the correct way in English to abbreviate
Saint, where as the abbreviation of street doesn't have a period.
Exactly the opposite according to my (Collins) dictionary
On 27 July 2011 21:48, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
Commonly abbreviated S. or St. ... Abbreviations: S. and St., pl. SS. and
Sts. Since the 18th c. ‘St.’ is the form usually employed; but since about
1830 ‘S.’ has been favoured by ecclesiologists. In place-names, and in
family
On 27 July 2011 22:00, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
John Smith wrote:
The period after St. is the correct way in English to abbreviate
Saint, where as the abbreviation of street doesn't have a period.
Not in British English, it isn't.
_Saint._ St or S. is better than St
On 14 July 2011 00:49, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
No. That patch is for osm2pgsql-64 (with its support for 64bit IDs). Saphy
Mo is running a plain old (more than 12 months old) 32-bit-id osm2pgsql on a
Windows system.
You yourself said that the 32bit version can crash if a way
On 14 July 2011 10:11, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 July 2011 00:49, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
No. That patch is for osm2pgsql-64 (with its support for 64bit IDs). Saphy
Mo is running a plain old (more than 12 months old) 32-bit-id osm2pgsql on a
Windows
On 24 July 2011 02:11, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
So do I suggest to stop the license change process? No, I don't. The
Contributor Terms will solve many problems on their own, so my
suggestion is what could be labelled CT + CC-BY-SA.
This will cause similar/same problems as
On 13 July 2011 23:15, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:
Can someone help this person out?
You might be hitting a memory limit, even though it's running on a 64
bit system it seems to be compiled on a 32 bit system, Anthony posted
a patch to prevent exactly this sort of problem...
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 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
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
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
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 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
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 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 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 11 July 2011 00:02, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Germany 90.1%
Great Britain 89.1%
France 96.8%
North America 96.4%
Russia 97.2%
Australia 48.4%
You didn't show Albania which has an even low acceptance rate, nor did
you comment
On 11 July 2011 07:54, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Indeed, I was concentrating on the big guys. Albania isn't a big guy. Not
sure what your point is about imports but neither GB nor Germany have
particularly significant numbers of imports - the only major import we've
ever
On 11 July 2011 08:16, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Can we not - both sides - agree to work on building up our own projects, and
making them as attractive as possible to users old and new, rather than
knocking the other one?
But my comment before sets the scene for how OSM-F
On 11 July 2011 11:55, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
We looked around for all the people claiming that we've been ignoring them
and can't actually find any posts by them on the legal lists or to the LWG
for many of the people involved. Of course, with so many fake names being
used
On 11 July 2011 12:30, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
It's not worth my time responding to messages like this.
I wrote a completely rational, neutral and open email outlining the things
we've tried and asking for ideas of how to make it better.
Yes and didn't respond to a single
On 11 July 2011 12:42, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Jul 10, 2011, at 7:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 12:30, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
It's not worth my time responding to messages like this.
I wrote a completely rational, neutral and open email outlining
On 11 July 2011 14:53, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
Can we make a list of real issues to be resolved and stick with them. There
are some issues that wont be resolved, such as hurt feelings and lost trust.
But we dont need to have a fight to the death over them.
I'd like
On 11 July 2011 15:09, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:
Mark wrote
Out of interest - the greatest contributor to Australia-Oceania
according to http://odbl.de/australia-oceania.html is the accound used
for the suburb boundary / postcode boundary import. Once this is
excluded, does
On 11 July 2011 15:19, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
That takes care of ways, but what about the 1.7million nodes attributed to me?
Sorry, that was total objects, only a pitiful 437k nodes.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au
On 8 July 2011 16:18, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
It's been pointed out that I'm not replying to hundreds of messages from
John Smith, Anthony and friends.
I don't see them as they're automatically deleted. I find life is better
without having the trolls fill my inbox.
However
On 7 July 2011 16:16, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
That's why I prefer PD because I believe there is no protection and so why
bother about licenses at all?
Wouldn't it be great if we could all wish away inconvenient laws like
that, however morality often drives laws and
On 7 July 2011 16:40, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
So artists have a human right to be rich?
Glad you took my point so far out of context, someone claimed that
copyright existed for economic reasons.
___
legal-talk mailing list
On 7 July 2011 16:58, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
While they started out wishing OSM to suffer the least possible damage,
their ego now forces them to demand the most rigid - even absurd - data
deletion policies for the license change lest they look like idiots for
starting a fork
On 7 July 2011 19:23, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org wrote:
Yes, thats the consensus and has been for a long time. Some mappers always
disagree, just ignore them. :-)
+1
And in software, it is always easier to shorten a word
On 7 July 2011 23:33, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
In some cases, the official name is with the abbreviation, eg St.
George Bank in Australia and there is a town named St. George.
Still you say Saint George, not S.T. George.
Well you can ring up the bank/local government and
On 7 July 2011 21:49, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
But that doesn't mean that their content won't show up in a future ODBL
map. I've noticed that John Smith doesn't want to answer my question, but
perhaps you would: How far away do I have to move a node or a way so
On 8 July 2011 13:59, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 July 2011 19:50, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 July 2011 23:33, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
In some cases, the official name is with the abbreviation, eg St.
George Bank in Australia
On 8 July 2011 00:55, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
We've gone to insanely long lengths to make that the case, including getting
clarifications from Ordnance Survey, Nearmap and many others. As far as I'm
aware there are no remaining issues as to why you can't click 'accept'.
He said
On 8 July 2011 06:46, John Henderson snow...@gmx.com wrote:
What particularly turns me off fosm.org is that I am unable to see a map
when I go to the site. Using Firefox on Linux, I click on Maps and get
FOSM based tiles are being uploaded to archive.org:
On 8 July 2011 13:26, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
The vast majority of people are happy with where we are at
What about the 50 odd percent of people that haven't responded?
I don't see how it's reasonable to throw everything away for one guy who
doesn't like his countries laws.
So
On 8 July 2011 13:54, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I would phrase it that the vast majority aren't lawyers and don't want to
become one, therefore don't know the implications of the problems with cc.
It's a false assumption, the only way it would be geo factual data is
if you copied 1:1
On 8 July 2011 14:06, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Actually, the license process has been known about for a long, long time so
it's not this new turnaround you cast it as. In addition, everyone else
(bing, ordnance survey...) has worked with us very reasonably. In fact it's
hard to say
On 8 July 2011 14:06, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
As for this 'uk mob' thing, that too is unreasonable. As a democratically
elected board, we have members from many countries and you are invited to get
involved or run for election.
Is it true that you had to do a lot of rule fiddling so
On 7 July 2011 04:03, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote:
Although it still seems to be controversial how clause 1 and 2 of the CT
interact, with the recent draft intent of the LWG to issue a clarifying
statement[1] that indeed data only has to be compatible with the current
license and
On 6 July 2011 16:46, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
Then what about the attached alternative versions? For each version I
started JOSM, opened a new layer, added the node (-31.069902030361792,
152.728383561) which is close to the beginning of the road, loaded the
On 7 July 2011 04:20, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 July 2011 16:46, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
Then what about the attached alternative versions? For each version I
started JOSM, opened a new layer, added the node (-31.069902030361792
On 7 July 2011 06:12, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
But even if I'm just one person the question still remains: Do you consider
any of these 4 versions a violation of your copyright?
Are you planning to try and replace all my work one way at a time like this?
Which is of
On 7 July 2011 07:25, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
No, I just wanted to show you that you can't really tell if someone retraces
a removed way by looking at an aerial imagery, by looking at the current OSM
map or by just moving randomly some nodes.The same goes for
IMHO
On 7 July 2011 08:27, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Google in addition have their ToS.
So one person copies tiles and breaches contract and gives them to
another person who is only bound by copyright ...
___
legal-talk mailing list
On 7 July 2011 09:34, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
That does not imply that individual contributors actually hold any rights in
the data they
contributed. As we know, that is a difficult question and depends on
jurisdiction and so
on, and my take on it would be: probably not. For all
On 7 July 2011 09:47, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Normally none of them lead to a protected work and nobody would confuse it
for creativity
I'm not sure if I'm more amused that you have to try and scale things
down to the size of a brick or the fact that even you state it's the
morally
On 7 July 2011 10:04, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Upps you are really confused about the origins of copyright protection,
which are rather recent
and had nothing to do with morals.
I didn't know the late 1800s was considered rather recent
___
On 7 July 2011 10:20, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Well 300 to 400 years earlier (as in printing press with movable letters)
which doesn't make it recent,
but still twice as old as copyright law.
The main point however is that copyright law has a economic motivation, not
moral as you
On 6 July 2011 22:03, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Why on earth should we give references to proprietary data projects
like mapmaker in our wiki?
Including it in the list gives us a chance to link to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google_map_maker
On 6 July 2011 18:20, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
[GG] I was not talking about copyright. Copyright laws are of no use
in the digital era,
You were talking about databases, however databases can still store
copyrightable content, in this case it's
On 6 July 2011 22:35, Chris Barham cbar...@pobox.com wrote:
I'd like to think all this rather dull licence bickering will play out
and OSM will continue and strengthen. It's sad that people with
agendas are talking up the 'possible' deletion of data, and rushing
off to fork. That energy
On 7 July 2011 07:54, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote:
How could I add CC-BY-SA derived data if I use GPS traces, audio recordings
of names, or imagery like Yahoo or Bing? The only way I could see this
happening would be if I was to deliberately go out of my way to add a
Actually it's
On 6 July 2011 02:49, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
I doubt if any effort in re-creating a map database of the real world
can be classified as creative work,
as the mapper inevitably tries to copy reality to the best of his
effort, and any deviation is
On 5 July 2011 23:04, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
What do you consider as same result? How far away do I have to place a node?
If I put one additional node into the way or remove one, is that enough?
The same as in an identical result, if they use the same sources then
On 6 July 2011 07:37, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Now if the mapper comes along and sees the river flagged for deletion, and
remembers that he traveled the river in a boat, and maybe even has the GPX
track, there's nothing to keep him from simply overriding the standard
assumption
On 4 July 2011 22:44, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO the node position is never a derived work when it is updated. So
for the case of the untagged node (if isolated an not part of a way,
i.e. unlikely) we could keep the whole object.
The position of nodes are often
On 3 July 2011 02:15, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
suppose there's a node that has been created by user A with no tags on it.
Suppose the node has later been moved by user B. A has not accepted the CT,
while B has.
Will the node have to be removed when we go to phase 5 of
-- Forwarded message --
From: TimSC mappingli...@sheerman-chase.org.uk
Date: 27 June 2011 01:38
Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Multiple license declaration
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
Hi all,
I wanted to create a way for individual users to
On 25 June 2011 06:37, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Jonas Häggqvist rasher@... writes:
Is the CT/ODbL compatible with CC-BY-SA?
Say if an organization releases some data under CC-BY-SA, could we use it
(in the CT/ODbL future)?
If this were possible, then there would be no need for any
On 25 June 2011 06:02, Lennard l...@xs4all.nl wrote:
On 24-6-2011 4:25, Robin Paulson wrote:
mappers in NZ have recently imported a lot of grass airstrips into
OSM. it appears the airstrips only render at zoom 10 on the mapnik
render of the map at osm.org, which looks like this:
On 25 June 2011 20:19, Lennard l...@xs4all.nl wrote:
On 25-6-2011 8:35, John Smith wrote:
Wasn't there some discussion about that before, how important airports
such as LAX should show sooner than regional airports which should
show up sooner than grass airstrips.
Oh, more than once
On 26 June 2011 02:38, Alan Millar grunthos...@yahoo.com wrote:
As has been said a number of times, OSM is a do-ocracy. At this point,
more discussions just aren't going to resolve it.
A little discussion might allow us to harmonise tags, so 10 people
don't go off and do their own thing and
On 24 June 2011 18:06, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
4. At Your or the copyright owner’s option, OSMF agrees to attribute You or
the copyright owner. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution.;
Hope that helps. I am personally
On 24 June 2011 18:10, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
But I had a look at fosm.org yesterday and they (whoever they are
- is there a fosmf?) seem to be making the same mistake that osm.org
did with the original CTs; should they ever need to relicense (say
move from cc-by-sa 2.0 to 3.0) the
On 24 June 2011 19:31, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
We have almost completed work so that the page link goes out with each and
every extraction of geodata ever made (planet dump, API, ...) which is the
important thing. Good point though, and I have requested appropriate changes
to
On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote:
did you see this?
http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution?
The attribution was put into the JS
On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote:
did you see this?
http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution?
I just noticed that osm.org is missing
On 23 June 2011 21:00, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote:
No it isn't. There's a 'Copyright License' link in the sidebar on the left.
Nice and obscure...
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 23 June 2011 21:15, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
No, it isn't. It has the attribution right there on the Copyright
License link.
Unlike every other map site out there where the main attribution is at
the bottom right side of the map.
The Demo archive.org Tile Hosting map, on
On 23 June 2011 21:47, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Maybe you just don't know enough maps - there are plenty that list
attribution elsewhere. This includes lots of maps for mobile devices
(because these happen to have limited screen space), but also maps that
use multiple sources
1 - 100 of 3639 matches
Mail list logo
