Paul Johnson wrote:
Stefan de Konink wrote:
but again this trust was misplaced. No, it is not Potlatch 0.9a, it
cannot be Potlatch is the perfect user tool and introduction to OSM. It
must be API 0.6 that didn't solve all our problems, as was promised.
Instead but it opened the gates of
2009/5/18 Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de:
...but again this trust was misplaced. No, it is not Potlatch 0.9a, it
cannot be Potlatch is the perfect user tool and introduction to OSM. It
must be API 0.6 that didn't solve all our problems, as was promised.
Instead but it opened the gates of
-Original Message-
From: dev-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:dev-
boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Stefan de Konink
Sent: 18 May 2009 23:57
To: OSM-Dev Openstreetmap
Subject: [OSM-dev] Guys I trusted you, I removed my checks...
...but again this trust was misplaced
-Original Message-
From: dev-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:dev-
boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Williams
Sent: 19 May 2009 13:09
To: OSM-Dev Openstreetmap
Subject: Re: [OSM-dev] Guys I trusted you, I removed my checks...
-Original Message-
From: dev
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Gregory Williams
gregory.willi...@purplegeodesoftware.co.uk wrote:
Looking at the data, it was modified on 2008-05-11. That was within the API
0.5 timeframe. So surely it was the 0.5 - 0.6 upgrade process that didn't
catch the data anomaly, rather than the
Matt Amos wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Gregory Williams
gregory.willi...@purplegeodesoftware.co.uk wrote:
Looking at the data, it was modified on 2008-05-11. That was within the API
0.5 timeframe. So surely it was the 0.5 - 0.6 upgrade process that didn't
catch the data anomaly,
...but again this trust was misplaced. No, it is not Potlatch 0.9a, it
cannot be Potlatch is the perfect user tool and introduction to OSM. It
must be API 0.6 that didn't solve all our problems, as was promised.
Instead but it opened the gates of hell, a parallel universe within
Stefan de Konink wrote:
...but again this trust was misplaced. No, it is not Potlatch 0.9a,
it cannot be Potlatch is the perfect user tool and introduction to
OSM.
More to the point, 0.9a hasn't actually been in use for 349 days. So either
your checks have missed this before (it cannot be,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Stefan de Konink wrote:
...but again this trust was misplaced. No, it is not Potlatch 0.9a,
it cannot be Potlatch is the perfect user tool and introduction to
OSM.
More to the point, 0.9a hasn't actually been in use for 349 days. So either
your checks have missed
Stefan de Konink wrote:
but again this trust was misplaced. No, it is not Potlatch 0.9a, it
cannot be Potlatch is the perfect user tool and introduction to OSM. It
must be API 0.6 that didn't solve all our problems, as was promised.
Instead but it opened the gates of hell, a parallel
El Martes, 19 de Mayo de 2009, Paul Johnson escribió:
My understanding is that there's nothing intrinsically tying us to ±90°
by ±180°, based on the responses I got on #osm when asking about the
possibility of mapping something with a geometry grossly different from
Earth's (ie, Second Life).
11 matches
Mail list logo
