After a bit of digital archaeology I've found this thread:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2007-July/000398.html
Which seems to be the point at which people thought they'd got
permission (but there are doubters in the thread).
The bit I can't figure is why they'd agreed
I think that "refreshing" the Geographic Names Board (GNB) placenames
would be unhelpful.
If you read the contributors page in the wiki, it is unclear that
appropriate permission was ever obtained to use the GNB data. It seemed
to me that the particular contributor was relying on a generalised
Hmm, yes that is a problem. It one of the more annoying things that I've
found with OSM; that the level of documentation for "approval" is not
consistent. I had been assuming that this had been approved on the basis
of it being in the list of imports.
In that case is it a matter of removing
On 7/4/16 11:43, Ian Sergeant wrote:
Hi,
What are you actually trying to achieve here?
As I understand, the purpose of the original GNB update was slot in
GNB names where OSM didn't already have coverage.
If there is already a town/village/suburb/locality in OSM, and it is
already well
As far as I can tell, this data isn't available under a free and open
license, so unless there is documentation somewhere to suggest otherwise,
it shouldn't have been imported to begin with and certainly shouldn't be
added again.
On 7 April 2016 at 11:30, Andrew Davidson
Hi,
What are you actually trying to achieve here?
As I understand, the purpose of the original GNB update was slot in
GNB names where OSM didn't already have coverage.
If there is already a town/village/suburb/locality in OSM, and it is
already well located, then there is no issue that I can
There was an import of NSW places from the GNB database done back in
2008 with a helpful wiki page ;-)
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NSW_Geographic_Names_Import
I'm proposing to review these to see what's changed in the last 8 years
but I've run into a number of problems:
1. It would
7 matches
Mail list logo