On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
On 1/28/11 12:03 PM, Anthony wrote:
Although, frankly, I've always thought the OSMF ban was more of a
don't-ask-don't-tell one. And I guess now that my contributions are
going to be deleted anyway I can come clean.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote:
OSM has permission to use imagery from Yahoo and Bing for tracing.
Not from the owners of the images.
As I said, many of the Google images are *the exact same images* as
the ones being traced from through Yahoo and/or Bing. It makes
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
What argument do you have that tracing Google images is copyright
infringement?
Perhaps the link below will help you:
http://www.edparsons.com/2008/06/what-map-maker-is-is-not/
especially the last comment from Ed
regards
Pieren
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
wrote:
Yes. It is certainly a problematic case but I am absolutely sure that
the
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I don't see any legal argument on that page. Perhaps you got the link
wrong and you meant http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=100 ?
In case it was TLDR: Case law firmly establishes that tracing from
aerial photography is not an
On 1/28/11 10:08 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Anthonyo...@inbox.org wrote:
I don't see any legal argument on that page. Perhaps you got the link
wrong and you meant http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=100 ?
In case it was TLDR: Case law firmly establishes that tracing
2011/1/28 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
this is not so clear cut as you want to make it out to be.
Actually my intention was to point out precisely that it is not clear
cut. And that's why categorical blocking is wrong.
According to the policy the project members were following until now,
in
OSM has permission to use imagery from Yahoo and Bing for tracing. We don't
have such permission from Google, so if people trace from Google to add data
to OSM, this will create problems in the future.
Why can't we be happy with what we do have? I'm a very happy camper since MS
decided to do let
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
wrote:
Yes. It is certainly a problematic case but I am absolutely sure that the
overwhelming use of Google in JOSM is to trace from it, compared to a
El Thursday 27 January 2011, Frederik Ramm escribió:
Opinions on the whole thing? Problem is, if it is too easy to load
Google backgrounds, we (as a project) could be accused of knowingly
inviting tracing from Google.
I don't think this is a good idea. The technology is not bad, what is bad is
Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org writes:
I wonder if we should thus build a blacklist into the Imagery layer so
that it will refuse to use certain tile or WMS URLs. Potlatch already
does this.
I'd just show a visible warning instead of having JOSM completely
refuse.
I agree that this isn't a good way to deal with the problem.
Now with Bing there is a good alternative, so only a few 'hardliners'
would like to do so, to make the current ultimate map of their area,
with fresh material. I guess this guys are able to setup a proxy to do
so. It's IMHO not on
What about a big red must-read dialog box when using google? Nannying may be
bad, but providing information isn't.
Judging by the amount of “I've just used google maps to ... diary posts on
osm.org this *will* lead to trouble otherwise.
Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org schrieb:
JOSM devs,
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Another option that we could think about is setting certain tags on the
uploaded changeset that indicate what background layers were used (e.g.
source:tile-url=blah.google.com/blah/blah). We could inform users of our
Stefan wrote:
Judging by the amount of “I've just used google maps to ...
diary posts on osm.org this *will* lead to trouble otherwise.
Yep.
Potlatch 1 always checked for the presence of 'google' in the tile URL and
refused to display the tile if so. When Potlatch 2 was first released, we
2011/1/27 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
violate Google's terms of use already (I am unsure but I guess that
using their tiles without a Google logo is not OK)
+1, I guess so too.
; but of course using
their data for anything to do with OSM is a big No-No.
well, comparing should be OK
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 21:20:10 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
wrote:
Another option that we could think about is setting certain tags on
the
uploaded changeset that indicate what background layers were used
(e.g.
Hi,
Ulf Lamping wrote:
Reasoning: Using Google or alike to check a GPX trace to be reasonable
(e.g. the shape of the track corresponds to the aerial imagery)
But then again, there are myriad tools out there that can be used for
exactly that. Google Earth, for example. I agree with you that
Matthias Meißer dig...@arcor.de writes:
Now with Bing there is a good alternative, so only a few 'hardliners'
would like to do so, to make the current ultimate map of their area,
with fresh material. I guess this guys are able to setup a proxy to do
so. It's IMHO not on us to make sure that
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I understand that there will be a tiny fraction of users negatively affected
by this, but I think it is necessary. We've witnessed a growing number of
Google violations in the past year and I would not want JOSM's
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
At the very least allow people to use whatever imagery that they want
when they're using non-openstreetmap servers.
Better yet, just send the user-agent JOSM with every request. Let
Google decide whether or not to block access.
21 matches
Mail list logo
