Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
My suggestion - which I believe has been/is being chewed over by the
LWG - is that the CT's make an alternative arrangement for
contributors who want to contribute material that is licensed under
some other licence.
The way in which clause 2 works gives
On 09/28/2010 12:03 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I firmly believe that collecting third-party geodata into an user
editable pool is NOT the main purpose of OSM, and even detracts us.
And the ODbL allows produced works that include BY-SA/BY data. OSM could
use this fact itself to keep producing
On 28 September 2010 12:03, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Any future license change would then be constrained to the common
denominator of all these licenses *or* risk repeating all the data loss
whining that we're seeing now.
Yes. That's almost right. Either you permit datasets
Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
My specific point was that *if* you want the CT's to be permissive
about importation, then it is fairer on contributors and clearer to
provide an express list of compatible licenses - to avoid contributors
having to make the judgment themselves.
I think
On 28 September 2010 21:03, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
The question I am asking myself is: Is the ability to import as much
government data as possible really worth the hassle? And my personal answer
is a clear no; because to me, the value of imported data is very small,
almost
2010/9/28 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
On 28 September 2010 21:03, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
The question I am asking myself is: Is the ability to import as much
government data as possible really worth the hassle? And my personal answer
is a clear no; because to me,
On 29 September 2010 02:14, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Most of the mappers I know are not fond of imports. You can mostly
just import data that is already available elsewhere. Data that gets
imported without a vivid community is doomed to get old and useless.
Ok, lets
Mine is a UK-centric view, but the import (provided that by import you include
the incorporation of information) from other sources, not purely the mechanical
transfer of data) of other data (I.e. OS) is hugely improving the quality of
the mapping available. The map is progressing much faster
On 29 September 2010 02:28, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, lets not confuse issues here, one is to perform the import, the
other is maintenance and updates of the data.
How is maintenance of imported data any different than maintenance of
non-imported data?
On 29 September 2010 02:45, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
thing is if you have non-imported data, there is usually someone who
is caring for it. If you do imports, there might be someone but mostly
How many people that mapped Haiti still care for that data 6 months later?
ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote:
OK, so transferring data isn't as academically pleasing as gaining a GPS trace
and basing a map on that, but I don't see how a road in OSM from OS data is
worse than no road being present.
Gathering data for OSM on the ground is so much more than just the track
On 09/28/2010 05:35 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 29 September 2010 02:28, M∡rtin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, lets not confuse issues here, one is to perform the import, the
other is maintenance and updates of the data.
How is maintenance of imported data any different than
I see the point, but am not convinced.
I think categorising the OS data as 'crap' is a huge exaggeration. Yes, there
are errors, but in the general scheme of things are minor.
This is also where the source tags come in handy. A user who is experienced
enough to want to add the extra detail
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
I really wish someone would have the backbone to fess up and say OSM
will now go in this direction, or OSM is going in that direction,
I find that the above quoted text states that it would be better if
someone takes a decision for us, so we don't lose time discussing. Did
On 28/09/2010 17:28, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
OK, lets not confuse issues here, one is to perform the import, the
other is maintenance and updates of the data.
The import can be split in two sections:
a) direct import of data (ie shapefiles etc)
b) tracing background underlay images (ie OS
On 29 September 2010 04:52, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
The latter is most definitely 'cared' for 'maintained'. I certainly don't
want to loose the ability to do b) nor loose existing data I've added that
way.
neither do I
Ok, I see my problem before, it was with the
Which would be true if I had the technical ability to render the data. I
don't. However, some kind soul has written a renderer for OSM data that does
it for me. The other advantage is that as I develop an area to include
footpaths they also appear.
Thank you for categorising my many hours
On 09/28/2010 07:38 PM, John Smith wrote:
That's based on the premise that the person that added the data is
still actively involved, and for at least 50% of the contributors this
statement won't be true.
At least 50% you say?
After just 6 years?
That's very interesting. /james-randi
-
On 28/09/2010 19:32, Frederik Ramm wrote:
When you joined OSM, was OS Streetview tracing already available then?
Becasue you make it sound as if OSM without OS Streetview wasn't worth
your time
No I have not you know that.
Most of my posts have been questions which I notice you've been
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
We must really endeavour to better enable people to draw in non-OSM data at
the rendering stage so that they don't feel tempted to drop their rubbish
into OSM just so that they get a nice map rendered.
Bravo.
Hi,
Dave F. wrote:
When you joined OSM, was OS Streetview tracing already available then?
Becasue you make it sound as if OSM without OS Streetview wasn't worth
your time
No I have not you know that.
Most of my posts have been questions which I notice you've been unable
to answer.
The
Please do not misrepresent what I have said and suggest I have said something I
haven't.
I absolutely intend to maintain the data I enter. The OS data provides me (and
OSM in general) a starting point, from which I can build a more complete data
set. Perhaps one day I'll build something that
The OS are going to have to dictate the licence because their data is now in
OSM and unless you remove it totally, the new licence will have to be
compatible with the terms it was added under.
- Original Message -
From: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org
It's your comments like mindless rubbish that are putting people
off contributing.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On Sep 28, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Dave F. wrote:
On 28/09/2010 20:27, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Dave F. wrote:
When you joined OSM, was OS Streetview tracing already available then?
Becasue you make it sound as if OSM without OS Streetview wasn't worth
your time
No I have not you know
On 09/28/2010 08:47 PM, Dave F. wrote:
They went to the OS demanded they release their data.When they did,
OSMF almost immediately turn back to them say oh we don't want it
now.That's what I'm finding hard to conceive.
A number of projects asked the OS to free their data (including OSM, OKF
On 28/09/2010 21:28, SteveC wrote:
Meanwhile, back in Reality...
The OSMF made no such demands, didn't turn it's back, and in fact has a healthy
and friendly relationship with many people at the OS.
In fact, I even helped the OS with the first version of OpenSpace.
You paranoid guys really
27 matches
Mail list logo
