Thanks to everybody for helping me with clarifying the license.
To answer some of the questions that came up, we would be masking water
bodies at the end of our processing chain, once we had already derived
rates for all of the pixels. There are also a few other masking steps that
would be run
Rory - I don't think you can, because the negative area is area with both
no ground elevation/displacement and no water body. There would be no way
to tell whether the negative area was water body data or simply no
displacement.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 4:41 AM Rory McCann wrote:
> On 07/06/18
On 07/06/18 00:44, Kathleen Lu wrote:
The way I understand the use, the OSM data is used to identify areas
that are to be discarded. Data in those areas are discarded. Thus, the
OSM data is not kept either, and no OSM data in the final dataset. Thus,
there is no derivative database containing
On 2018-06-07 12:19 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote:
The idea that you can produce a data set using both OSM and non-OSM data
in a meaningful way without there being either a collective or a
derivative database seems fundamentally at odds with the basic concept
of the ODbL. The only way this could
On Thursday 07 June 2018, althio wrote:
>
> I would then interpret the requirements as:
> Use: Attribution is required.
> Horizontal layers / Collective Database: Share Alike is not required.
This is what i mentioned in my first reply with
"If what you do is just masking the water areas in
I feel the most relevant guideline in the case of Andrew would be:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Horizontal_Map_Layers_-_Guideline
What they do:
- using some OSM data of 1 Feature Type [large water bodies]
- and producing data of another Feature Type [ground
On Thursday 07 June 2018, Kathleen Lu wrote:
> The way I understand the use, the OSM data is used to identify areas
> that are to be discarded. Data in those areas are discarded. Thus,
> the OSM data is not kept either, and no OSM data in the final
> dataset. Thus, there is no derivative database
The way I understand the use, the OSM data is used to identify areas that
are to be discarded. Data in those areas are discarded. Thus, the OSM data
is not kept either, and no OSM data in the final dataset. Thus, there is no
derivative database containing OSM data.
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 3:36 PM
On Wednesday 06 June 2018, Andrew Pon wrote:
> [...]
>
> Given that we are using open street maps to just remove pixels at an
> early stage of processing, would we be able to just put a statement
> in our written reports saying that open street maps was used in this
> masking process, or would we
Hi Andy,
In my opinion, your suggested attribution is sufficient. (Others are free
to weigh in.)
Best,
Kathleen
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 10:46 AM Andrew Pon wrote:
> Hello,
> I am an employee with 3vGeomatics and we are interested in using open
> street maps to help process our data, but were
Hello,
I am an employee with 3vGeomatics and we are interested in using open
street maps to help process our data, but were unsure of how to interpret
the license restrictions.
What we do is take satellite radar data and process it through a rather
length chain in order to figure out where the
Dear Guys,
A local tracking company owner contacted us through the OSM Chile Facebook
page today asking some questions about the ODbL license. As the
conversation evolved at some point he mentioned a global tracking services
provider called GPS-server.net. I went and checked their demo (
This strikes me as a fair and useful framework. I'll take a crack at it,
with geocodes-as-produced-works in mind:
SPIRIT: Surely it's possible to avoid creating a sharealike backdoor by
clarifying that geocodes become substantial only when combined to reverse
engineer the map.
HARM: The evidence
A constructive way forward may be to set out some tests that should be met for
any license change for any issue. Maybe this exists already and I missed it.
I’d suggest three tests below, but maybe someone here has better ones. I’m not
sure *who* should judge this. Maybe a vote of some kind.
Hi thanks to all for responding and in particular to the offers of help
from Luis, Thomas and Diane.
I use Luis' email below to give more detail about our activities. See
in-line.
It is also now my strong personal opinion that we should now engage a
paid part-time General Counsel but that
Mike -
Thank you for all your work for OpenStreetMap as member and lead of the
Licensing Working Group. I know it's not always fun and work that's often
in the focus of heated debate. I've always admired your cool headedness and
appreciated your practical advice.
Thank you!
Alex
On Tue, Nov
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
I would also like to highlight that we also now welcome associate members
who can help us occassionally or want to work on a specific topic that
fires you up. This involves no specific formalities nor duties.
Hi,
On 11/18/2014 10:11 AM, Luis Villa wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz
mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
I would also like to highlight that we also now welcome associate
members who can help us occassionally or want to work on a
specific topic
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
On 11/18/2014 10:11 AM, Luis Villa wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz
wrote:
I would also like to highlight that we also now welcome associate members
who can help us
The License Working Group is undermanned and has only met twice this
year, most recently on 28th October. [1]
This is due in great part to my lack of time, enthusiasm and attention
in calling meetings. I am therefore stepping down as below and welcome
volunteers to join as full members and
On 26/11/13 21:25, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
Jonathan Harley jon@... writes:
On 23/11/13 10:45, Simone Cortesi wrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Paul Norman penorman@... wrote:
The mentions of the OpenStreetMap Foundation in the document are
confusing, as to my knowledge no one from the
On 23/11/13 10:45, Simone Cortesi wrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
The mentions of the OpenStreetMap Foundation in the document are
confusing, as to my knowledge no one from the OSMF is involved in or a
party to this agreement, but I don't think that
Jonathan Harley jon@... writes:
On 23/11/13 10:45, Simone Cortesi wrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Paul Norman penorman@... wrote:
The mentions of the OpenStreetMap Foundation in the document are
confusing, as to my knowledge no one from the OSMF is involved in or a
party to
sabas88 is proposing an import of some data in Sardinia
(http://lists.osm.org/pipermail/imports/2013-November/002370.html)
The first three paragraphs appear to be preamble, with the permissions
granted in the final paragraph. A user-supplied translation of this
paragraph is
So, knowing that
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
- contributors to upload some or all of these datasets to the OSM API
- the portions or complete datasets uploaded to then be redistributed
under the ODbL
any copyright holder has the right to re-license on an ad-hoc
to
release the software they’re using to render the map, to display it in such a
weird way, or to release their cartography.
From: Beri Dániel [mailto:daniel.b...@evk.hu]
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 3:25 AM
To: Jonathan Harley
Cc: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk
On 19/10/13 11:11, Beri Dániel wrote:
Dear All,
I would like you to have a look at my question I posted in the OSM
forum yesterday. It is not an urgent matter, I'm duplicating it here
as well because I would like to avoid any mistreatment of the OSM
licenses.
Below you can read my post
Hi Jonathan!
Thank you very much for clearing things up, and explaining the difference
between the treatment of data sets and other things I would put on the map.
The treatment of OSM *data*, and the alteration of it is fine, understood,
and obviuosly I can live with it.
Although, the
Dear All,
I would like you to have a look at my question I posted in the OSM forum
yesterday. It is not an urgent matter, I'm duplicating it here as well
because I would like to avoid any mistreatment of the OSM licenses.
Below you can read my post from the forum, or just simply have a look at
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
On 02/03/13 16:17, Erik Johansson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net
wrote:
So - *must* you make your database of user-sourced geodata available to
the
OSM community? I answer
Hello,
Personally, I think this does leave a loophole where you could reverse
engineer OSM's data from imagery, but as I said at the time, I'm not worried
about it because so much accuracy would be lost. In any case,
Technically, it is possible to export in a format where accuracy is
100%
Am 04.03.2013 11:29, schrieb Tadeusz Knapik:
How come? ODbL doesn't enforce PW's license - if Produced Work is
licenced Public Domain, how do you reach somebody who used this PD
Produced Work to credit OSM?
Sincerely,
This is patently wrong, see ODbL 1.0 paragraph 4.3
On 04/03/13 11:53, Pieren wrote:
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
Personally, I think this does leave a loophole where you could reverse
engineer OSM's data from imagery, but as I said at the time, I'm not worried
about it because so much accuracy
Am 04.03.2013 13:39, schrieb Jonathan Harley:
On 04/03/13 11:53, Pieren wrote:
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net
wrote:
Personally, I think this does leave a loophole where you could reverse
engineer OSM's data from imagery, but as I said at the time, I'm
Hello All!
Again thank you for all your feedback. Unfortunately after the feedback that I
have gotten so far on my initial 4 use-cases, and the 4 extra sub-use-cases I
added later, I still do not know for sure if the use-cases I presented would
trigger the ODbL share alike clause or not. My
Hello All!
Forgive me for the previous unfinished version of this mail, here is the
complete version.
Again thank you for all your feedback. Unfortunately after the feedback that I
have gotten so far on my initial 4 use-cases, and the 4 extra sub-use-cases I
added later, I still do not know
On 28/02/13 14:58, Olov McKie wrote:
Hello All!
Hi Olov, I'll give this a go. My answers are a long way down because I
think cases 1-3 are all essentially the same:
First off, thank you for the feedback I have gotten so far! I had an idea about
what answers I would get on my questions,
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
The fact that you can’t mix OSM + proprietary data and then distribute it
as some kind of “OSM but better” without releasing the proprietary data is
a feature of share-alike licenses, not a bug.
Not every feature is a good
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:36:48 -0500, Alex Barth wrote:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Paul Norman wrote:
The fact that you can’t mix OSM + proprietary data and then
distribute it as some kind of “OSM but better” without
releasing
the proprietary data is a feature of share-alike licenses,
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:53:44 +0100 (CET), Olov McKie wrote:
As I understand our license change, it can be described as this:
(Please correct me if I am wrong) All objects that had an edit
history
where someone not willing to change the license (decliner) had edited
anything was reverted back
On 02/28/2013 05:54 AM, Jake Wasserman wrote:
I'm a little confused. The way I interpret your comment, merely
storing ODbL and non-ODbL data in the same database triggers share
alike. But on the use cases wiki page
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases), Case 4 says:
'It
On 28/02/13 08:04, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
On 02/28/2013 05:54 AM, Jake Wasserman wrote:
I'm a little confused. The way I interpret your comment, merely
storing ODbL and non-ODbL data in the same database triggers share
alike. But on the use cases wiki page
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-question-user-clicking-on-map-tp5750253p5751314.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com
Hello All!
First off, thank you for the feedback I have gotten so far! I had an idea about
what answers I would get on my questions, but some of your answers were not
what I expected, so let me reason a bit about each case and I would love your
feedback on my reasoning. Please also look on
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Olov McKie o...@mckie.se wrote:
1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and use
the coordinates they clicked on as part of the meta-data for a place in our
application, will the resulting database be considered a derived database?
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Jake Wasserman jwasser...@gmail.comwrote:
'It makes no difference whether you store the data sets separately, or
together in the same database software, whether that is a RDBMS, NOSQL,
filesystem or anything else. So long as the other data isn't derived from
On 28/02/13 00:17, Frederik Ramm wrote:
As I said in my opening paragraph, the share-alike license never
prohibits you from doing something with the data; it just prohibits you
from prohibiting stuff!
3
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
On 28.02.2013 01:17, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Just to make this one point clear:
What you *can* do with the data is pretty clear and pretty easy.
This is not really true. At the core of the ODbL is the idea that
produced works and derivative databases should be treated
differently, and that
On 27/02/13 20:24, Marc Regan wrote:
I'm also going to add we should do away with share alike in the mid
term. It's just complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at
hand.
+1. If you want to do anything with OSM data besides make map tiles, the
cloud of uncertainty around what you can
On 27/02/13 21:19, Rob wrote:
Rather than share-alike I would like to share-what-I-like but that is
not an option.
And I'd like you to make me a sandwich.
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
On 28/02/13 23:45, Tobias Knerr wrote:
It also _forces_ you to prohibit stuff, by requiring ODbL for derivative
databases.
That doesn't prohibit anything. You can make derivative databases. You
just can't prohibit people from using them freely.
- Rob.
It would prohibit me from using the CC0 license if I use any data with a
ODbL license to create a derived database.
- Svavar Kjarrval
On 28/02/13 23:49, Rob Myers wrote:
On 28/02/13 23:45, Tobias Knerr wrote:
It also _forces_ you to prohibit stuff, by requiring ODbL for derivative
databases.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think that the OSM community is already very open towards commercial use;
This is bigger than just commercial use. The ODbL is an obstacle to
contribute to OSM for anyone - business or not - who is bound by the
legal discussions.
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think that the OSM community is already very open towards commercial use;
This is bigger than just commercial use. The ODbL
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote:
My
understanding is you are saying I would like it to be this way, but
at the moment it is not. Correct?
Correct.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote:
My
understanding is you are saying I would like it to be this way, but
at the moment it is not. Correct?
Actually to be more specific: I'm saying I would like geocoding-like use
cases to be clarified, at the moment it is
I'm also going to add we should do away with share alike in the mid term.
It's just complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at hand.
+1. If you want to do anything with OSM data besides make map tiles, the cloud
of uncertainty around what you can and can't do with the data is
: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
+1 +1 +1
Would love to use OSM data to create a tile server for a project I have in the
works but the share-alike clause has stopped me from moving forward with OSM.
Rather than share-alike I
.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-question-user-clicking-on-map-tp5750253p5751314.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal
in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-question-user-clicking-on-map-tp5750253p5751314.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM
data is used.
What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but that is
trivially disprovable.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-question-user-clicking-on-map
Hi,
On 27.02.2013 21:24, Marc Regan wrote:
+1. If you want to do anything with OSM data besides make map tiles,
the cloud of uncertainty around what you can and can't do with the data
is pretty terrifying.
Just to make this one point clear:
What you *can* do with the data is pretty clear
disprovable.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-question-user-clicking-on-map-tp5750253p5751314.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal
+1 +1 +1
Would love to use OSM data to create a tile server for a project I have in the
works but the share-alike clause has stopped me from moving forward with OSM.
Rather than share-alike I would like to share-what-I-like but that is not an
option.
Currently there seems to be no limit to
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Olov McKie o...@mckie.se wrote:
Hej Erik!
Would you please consider reading my mail one more time, and clarify your
answers, because I do not understand what you are trying to say.
No where in my mail did I say anything about using Google maps or their API,
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Olov McKie o...@mckie.se wrote:
I work for a library where we are building a new version of an application to
handle all sort of collections, for example books, letters, images, music
sheets, etc. The application will store metadata and digitalized versions
Hej Erik!
Would you please consider reading my mail one more time, and clarify your
answers, because I do not understand what you are trying to say.
No where in my mail did I say anything about using Google maps or their API,
yet for the two usecases you have answered about are you talking
Hi Alex,
You might want to clarify because your email is a bit confusing. My
understanding is you are saying I would like it to be this way, but
at the moment it is not. Correct?
Yes it is important to clarify the share alike clause, but I think
also important not to confuse people asking how
Hello all!
I have a few usecases for OSM where I do not know if I can use it or not.
I work for a library where we are building a new version of an application to
handle all sort of collections, for example books, letters, images, music
sheets, etc. The application will store metadata and
I think all of these use cases should be ok and we should adjust the
community guide lines to clarify that ODbL's share alike clause shouldn't
kick in here.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Olov McKie o...@mckie.se wrote:
Hello all!
I have a few usecases for OSM where I do not know if I can
Would this be an appropriate forum to discuss whether or own slippy map
requires our own copyright mark?
The response to this question in a separate thread on this list has been
vague and non-definitive.
Thanks, Jeff
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
Hi Kate,
Good point, (I am back in Stockholm). The current time of the meeting
is purely for the convenience of existing LWG members ... after work for
Europeans (majority) and morning for the Americas. I would like to feel
our way to including folks who want to work on specific issues and
The LWG will hold its first post-license change meeting provisionally
Tuesday 22nd January at 18:00 GMT/UTC.
I would like to draw your attention to the following:
We'll be discussing our future role and any input on that, preferably to
this list, is most welcome. We've started putting
Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz
We'll be discussing our future role and any input on that, preferably to
this list, is most welcome. We've started putting together a remit
document here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D3KwSM_BO7KkcbVADQVVn7eFwkD-RNauMwidhhlVPsI/pub
I'm not quite
Phone currently.
Am 18.01.2013 20:04, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
2013/1/18 Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz:
The LWG will hold its first post-license change meeting provisionally
Tuesday 22nd January at 18:00 GMT/UTC.
are you meeting on IRC or is this a telephone conference?
cheers,
I love the outline you posted and the intention to clarify ODbL and promote
open geo data more actively. I will get in touch to join the meeting.
Alex
On Jan 18, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
The LWG will hold its first post-license change meeting provisionally
Hi Michael,
The meeting time is 1am in Jakarta and even later in other parts of
Asia (though I think you are in the Philippines at the moment and are
well aware).
Anyway, are there plans to rotate the meeting at some point?
I often perform advocacy within governments and the United Nations and
Hi,
with your help, I'll try to answer my own question posted (in full
length) here:
http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/14449/license-question-odbl-use-case
I'd first like to mention that my customers, by now, are actively
contributing to OSM and we absolutely want to stick to this spirit
Hello,
as the OSMF is determined to change the license in the next days, I inform you
that several mappers in my former mapping-aereas have copied CC-by-SA lizensed
material.
Besides the question wheter this is allowed after accepting the new CTs or not,
if this stuff is released by the OSMF
-Original Message-
From: totera [mailto:g...@hotmail.it]
Sent: giovedì 29 dicembre 2011 19:43
To: talk-it@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-it] Fwd: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM
Inspector
Buona idea... risposte? Dei miei 14 hanno accettato soltanto in tre.
Idea
-legal-talk-License-Change-View-on-OSM-Inspector-tp7086716p7136454.html
Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
-Original Message-
From: totera [mailto:g...@hotmail.it]
Sent: domenica 18 dicembre 2011 13:33
To: talk-it@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-it] Fwd: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM
Inspector
c'è poi un utente (Paolo Molaro) che è intervenuto anche in lista ed è
quindi
, aggiungendo sempre i loro nomi a [1].
Uno di loro ha accettato nel giro di qualche ora, adesso speriamo bene per
gli altri...
Ciao,
Gianluca
[1] = http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Asking_users_to_accept_the_ODbL
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Fwd-OSM-legal-talk-License
Il 18/12/2011 13:32, totera ha scritto:
Concordo, la situazione è molto più grave di quanto sembrasse dalla mappa
dell'uni-leipzig o dalla prima versione del plugin di Josm.
Già... stando a questo tool, qui intorno rischiano di sparire due interi
comuni e almeno un paio di quartieri di
I put up a video where I do some remapping. I'd like to hear whether I can
add this to the wiki as a good way to go about it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaJ3DAFTjX8
Polyglot
2011/12/13 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
Hi,
apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this,
Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes:
Hi,
apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have
posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs
could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.
I have added a world-wide
Hi,
apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have
posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs
could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.
I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
So now we're remapping???
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping
states you can just delete a node and add a new one to resolve a license issue.
I can hardly imagine that is legally right.
Greets,
Floris Looijesteijn
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
The key is to have your own valid source for the information. If your can
source the data in a license compatible way and recreate the node yourself
without the use of the old node, then it's all good.
if (*ra4 != 0xffc78948) { return false; }
On 13 Dec 2011, at 09:29, Floris Looijesteijn
That's exactly why I'm asking.
Most nodes ('information type' nodes like POI) can not be easily
verified by another
source except for resurveying.
I think that should be made more clear on the remapping page.
Or am I being paranoid? :)
Greets,
Floris
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Thomas
Go ahead, it's a wiki.
I found a way to make screencasts. Would it be useful to create a
screencast of an editing session with JOSM, while I'm resolving license
issues?
Jo
2011/12/13 Floris Looijesteijn o...@floris.nu
That's exactly why I'm asking.
Most nodes ('information type' nodes like
Hi,
Floris Looijesteijn o...@floris.nu wrote:
Most nodes ('information type' nodes like POI) can not be easily
verified by another source except for resurveying.
It is true that information type nodes will require re-surveying or
good knowledge.
It is however not true that these
Oh course, that's right. I was talking about single nodes, not part of a way.
I've added a little note to the wiki.
Greets,
Floris Looijesteijn
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Floris Looijesteijn o...@floris.nu wrote:
Most nodes
the original mapper's rights.
isn't enough for you? Blimey.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-Change-View-on-OSM-Inspector-tp7089165p7089462.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com
this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-Change-View-on-OSM-Inspector-tp7089165p7089462.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
What will happen to buildings that were drawn by a CT-agreeing mapper
but with tags copied from a red node?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Wow, that's scary, most of the major towns around where I live are going to
cease to be.
Actually, I've just looked in more detail at some of the areas I've been
editing, and think there is a bug somewhere.
For example (there are a lot more examples):
On 13 December 2011 11:52, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Remapping means 'replacing with new content'. It does not mean simply
copying the old content - that might infringe the original mapper's rights.
Is that statement even correct? If editing old content after May 12
doesn't
://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/413600706
which says that the nodes were created by ngent. ngent is undecided (not
responded), as you can see by clicking on their username. Maybe send them a
mail asking?
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal
There's no bug there
If you examine more closely you'll notice that those 7 nodes were added by
user 'ngent'. You're probably listed as the only contributor to the path
because it was part of a longer path which was cut in 2 by you (when you cut
up ways you get listed as original author of one
1 - 100 of 536 matches
Mail list logo
