I'm sorry I created so much forking confusion. I used the forking term originally because someone else referred to another forking project that way. I used it the second time because Paul asked me a forking question about the fork. You are correct in that we are not forking OSM because we are not starting with any forking OSM data.
I will try harder not to fork up the conversation any further. Would you prefer the forking project be called the "USGS spoon" then? -Eric -=--=---=----=----=---=--=-=--=---=----=---=--=-=- Eric B. Wolf 720-334-7734 On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Andy Allan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Eric Wolf <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Of course, this means all of the data in a USGS fork can be put into OSM. > > Eric, it's really neither accurate nor helpful to keep referring to > this independent USGS project as a fork of OSM. You are simply > starting afresh, from an empty database, but you are using the same > tools that we do. That's not a fork, that's a separate project. > > A fork would be to pre-populate your own database with all of the OSM > data, and make changes from that point. Calling your independent > project a "fork" is misleading and will lead to a lot of confusion. > > Cheers, > Andy >
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
