On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:16:47 +0100, Michael Collinson wrote:
The numbers:
http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/treemap.png - each square
represents one user, weighted by size of contribution.
Green=accepted,
Red=Declined or has not responded.
This displays an 800x600 grey image with black
On 16 November 2011 08:07, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:16:47 +0100, Michael Collinson wrote:
The numbers:
http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/treemap.png - each square
represents one user, weighted by size of contribution. Green=accepted,
Red=Declined or has not
-Original Message-
From: Andreas Labres [mailto:l...@lab.at]
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build
Hello,
there is something wrong with the license status P2 shows...
A node without tags holds only one information: its location (lat+lon).
So for
instance:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Simon Poole wrote:
That said, I believe P2 now has a tool that will completly replace
a node with a new one at the same coordinates which is a bit of
a fix for your specific issue.
Just for clarification - what it
Just as a warning: replacing non-compliant nodes does
not mean just placing another node adjacent to it.
That's copying (or tracing).
This O-trick suggestion invites our members to fraude.
Using this O-trick violates the copyright of the previous
owner, just as copying from google would violate
Gert Gremmen wrote:
Using this O-trick violates the copyright of the previous
owner, just as copying from google would violate their
terms of service.
As they have been for at least three years now, Gert, your opinions about
Potlatch are 100% venting and 0% actual knowledge
It looks like we are going to need tools to look for checking
relicensed nodes here. Do we have have CPU for that? I need
hosting.
thanks,
mike
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Gert Gremmen wrote:
Using this O-trick violates the copyright of the
On 16.11.11 12:28, Simon Poole wrote:
Currently there is no agreement on what exactly the rules/policy/algorithm
will be to determine which objects or tags will survive the transition
Sorry, but that's the core of the problem: this /has/ to be set first. ASAP.
First we need the rules, then we
Thank you Chris for your constructive comment
to my stupid contribution to this list.
I must apologize to you and the list because I should
have realized more early that I am too much of a fool
to be allowed to contribute. I am deeply sorry.
Gert Gremmen
.
Van: Chris Hill
You are right Richard.
This O-trick actually is just a shortcut for delete and (re)place.
Just the thread in which it is presented is a bit suspicious.
The reason why anyone would want to remove a node and replace one at the same
(or approximate) location escapes my logic.
It disturbs history,
We (Switzerland and some parts of Germany) have for example started more
or less systematic remapping of anonymous contributions. There is no
real hope that a significant amount of this data will be re-licensed by
the original mappers, and since these objects pre-date the introduction
of
11 matches
Mail list logo
