Michael Collinson wrote:
The test I apply here is, Can I independently verify from personal knowledge
ALL the tagging and location info before using odbl=clean. For footpaths, that
may mean removing designation tags if you can't remember whether it is footpath
or a bridle way. Look out also for
Delighted to report that Andy Street has agreed to the CTs. Thank you Andy.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Remapping-update-tp5573600p5596324.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 26 March 2012 21:42, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Delighted to report that Andy Street has agreed to the CTs. Thank you Andy.
This is great news. Thanks Andy and I'm glad you were able to resolve
any problems you had with the CTs/license.
--
Matt Williams
*and where those contributions have since been superceded or washed
out by subsequent changes*
I think people understand this is important, but the wording is so
vague and examples of appropriate usage given on the list vary wildly.
The example you gave still allows for IP to be present in the
I ask as I am intending to do some remapping of Andy Street's paths in the
Bishops Waltham/Meon Valley area and wondering whether I have to actually
walk the paths again or just tag with odbl=clean
You don't have to walk the path if you can map it using other
techniques, such as GPS traces,
to actually walk
the paths again or just tag with odbl=clean
Thanks,
Nick
-Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com wrote: -
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
From: Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com
Date: 23/03/2012 12:07AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
Re: Andy Streets changes
: -
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
From: Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com
Date: 23/03/2012 12:07AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
Re: Andy Streets changes in Hampshire.
So I thought I should get around at least to sticking in odbl=clean on ways
(mainly paths tracks) I know to be OK
On 23 March 2012 12:58, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
Incidentally, is just knowing the footpaths evidence enough to tag with
odbl=clean? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with iffy
sources?
Use odbl=clean to clear features which contain historic
On 23/03/12 13:14, Andy Allan wrote:
On 23 March 2012 12:58, Nick Whiteleggnick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
Incidentally, is just knowing the footpaths evidence enough to tag with
odbl=clean? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with iffy
sources?
Use odbl=clean to clear
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Nick Whitelegg
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
Incidentally, is just knowing the footpaths evidence enough to tag with
odbl=clean? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with iffy
sources?
If the way was created by a declining contributor then
On 23 March 2012 12:58, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
Incidentally, is just knowing the footpaths evidence enough to tag with
odbl=clean? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with iffy
sources?
Use odbl=clean to clear features which contain historic
OK may be I wasn't quite using it quite with the proper intention,
although I think most of the ways I added it to have been revised in some
manner.
However it's quite difficult to determine how much a ways' geometry has
changed.
You should definitely always err on the side of caution.
OK may be I wasn't quite using it quite with the proper intention, although
I think most of the ways I added it to have been revised in some manner.
However it's quite difficult to determine how much a ways' geometry has
changed.
You should definitely always err on the side of caution.
Re: Andy Streets changes in Hampshire.
So I thought I should get around at least to sticking in odbl=clean on ways
(mainly paths tracks) I know to be OK, that I've personally been on whilst
cycling or walking.
Which turned out to be more interesting than I thought...
First via using JOSM it
I suppose it's too late to propose an odbl=extend tag, which would
indicate that the way is no longer allowed to be modified after 1st
April but that the way will remain on the slippy map for the next 6
months to allow re-mappers to replace the way?
Nick.
Robert Norris wrote:
Here's my manual check (taking me about 2 hours) of Andy
Streets changes.
That's excellent. Thank you very much for that.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Nick%20Austin/edits
I note the above user has been very busy with remapping efforts in Hampshire
(with a
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Robert Norris .
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Nick%20Austin/edits
I note the above user has been very busy with remapping efforts in Hampshire
(with a healthy dose of odbl=clean tags too).
*waves*
I'm mainly doing roads, currently in and around
Date: 20/03/2012 10:31PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Robert Norris .
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Nick%20Austin/edits
I note the above user has been very busy with remapping efforts in Hampshire
(with a healthy dose of odbl=clean tags too
I've been invading Lancashire from Yorkshire and have got as far as
Rochdale.
I concur with Brian's methodology. My theory is that, at this point,
concentrated holes in the centre of towns and cities are not a bad
thing, they may encourage new or less active mappers to go out and map
their
I started to work on Hampshire, but got the following request from a decliner:
I was wondering if you would mind refraining from 're-mapping' my
contributions for the time being? I'm still in discussions with the OSMF
regarding re-licensing some of my contributions which come from a 3rd party
On 19/03/2012 13:40, John Sturdy wrote:
I started to work on Hampshire, but got the following request from a decliner:
I was wondering if you would mind refraining from 're-mapping' my contributions
for the time being? I'm still in discussions with the OSMF regarding
re-licensing some of
Michael Collinson wrote:
On 19/03/2012 13:40, John Sturdy wrote:
I think the time's getting close enough that I'll resume that work
anyway.
This is almost certainly a person I had an amicable phone
conversation with a week last Monday who is still concerned
that OS open data somehow is
Hi all,
I've just managed to track down a contributor ScottDay in Caterham and
he has just accepted the license which should greatly help that area.
I've also done a fair bit of fixing/enhancing myself in a few places
(centred around the areas I know - Wimbledon, Horsham and Seaford),
although I
On 19/03/2012 12:40, John Sturdy wrote:
I started to work on Hampshire, but got the following request from a decliner:
I was wondering if you would mind refraining from 're-mapping' my contributions
for the time being? I'm still in discussions with the OSMF regarding
re-licensing some of my
Michael Collinson wrote:
On 19/03/2012 13:40, John Sturdy wrote:
I think the time's getting close enough that I'll resume that work
anyway.
This is almost certainly a person I had an amicable phone
conversation with a week last Monday who is still concerned
that OS open data
-GB] Remapping update
I've just had an e-mail from Martin Green, who was one of the larger
undecided mappers. He has just in the last few minutes accepted the new
license terms - so most of the Wirral, parts of Liverpool and Cheshire
should now be safe in 2 weeks' time.
Richard
Richard Bullock wrote:
I've just had an e-mail from Martin Green, who was one of the
larger undecided mappers. He has just in the last few minutes
accepted the new license terms
That's terrific news. Thank you Martin, if you're reading!
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
We're now down to 900 problematic trunk/primary/motorway:
http://odbl.poole.ch/uk_major_roads.txt
Also greatly impressed with Coventry progress - very little red left now!
I've started intermittent work on Manchester; any help there would be
appreciated.
cheers
Richard
I've been working on the Wirral and Liverpool. Making some progress there.
Jason
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:20:00 +
From: rich...@systemed.net
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
We're now down to 900 problematic trunk/primary/motorway:
http
I've been working away at the trunk and primary routes in Manchester and
environs - should be OK by end of month
Regards
Brian
On , Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
We're now down to
http://odbl.poole.ch/uk_major_roads.txt
Also greatly impressed with Coventry progress -
I finished Anglesey a couple of weeks ago - it's now 100% OK. Am now slowly
working on the A55 and North Wales in general.
On Mar 17, 2012 1:20 p.m., Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
We're now down to 900 problematic trunk/primary/motorway:
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
We're now down to 900 problematic trunk/primary/motorway:
http://odbl.poole.ch/uk_major_roads.txt
Also greatly impressed with Coventry progress - very little red left now!
I've started intermittent work on Manchester; any help there
Richard Fairhurst richard@... writes:
We're now down to 900 problematic trunk/primary/
motorway:
http://odbl.poole.ch/uk_major_roads.txt
Also greatly impressed with Coventry progress - very
little red left now!
Surrey and southwest London are declining
substantially although
33 matches
Mail list logo
