This is an interesting question. I'm not sure what exactly one feature is.
But I would find it very hard to claim that a single way, even a complex
one, was "substantial" by itself. Remember that it's a "substantial
part...of the contents of a database" (in this case OSM), and one way would
be a
the guideline is about individual results, not about aggregations, for
> which the share alike provisions persist. From my interpretation this also
> implies that the attribution requirements persist for individual results,
> because otherwise it would not be clear that you cannot aggregate them.
I'm e-mailing on behalf of London Cycling Campaign, LCC.
LCC is currently undertaking a project to test the viability of
crowdsourcing updates to Transport for London’s Cycling Infrastructure
Database. A website has been built that overlays the TfL CID data on top of
a map base, currently
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 11:34:12AM +0100, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Friday 20 December 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> >
> > Obviously, both nodes, ways and
> > relations should be counted.
> >
> > Otherwise one would be able to
> > temporarily create one relation,
> > that would include all
On Friday 20 December 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> Obviously, both nodes, ways and
> relations should be counted.
>
> Otherwise one would be able to
> temporarily create one relation,
> that would include all data (s)he
> wish to use and export this.
The "100 Features" limit as a rule of
sent from a phone
> On 20. Dec 2019, at 08:04, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> Obviously, both nodes, ways and
> relations should be counted.
>
> Otherwise one would be able to
> temporarily create one relation,
> that would include all data (s)he
> wish to use and export this.
and if you
