On 17 September 2010 06:06, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
4. At Your or the copyright holder’s option, OSMF agrees to attribute You
or the copyright holder. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page
[...]
The way that it allows attribution satisfies BY-SA 2.5+ as well as the
On 17 September 2010 06:36, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
If you mean the licence of OSM, that would clash with section 4 of the CTs.
In that case, Section 3 clashes with 4, since there is no minimum
requirement of attribution.
If you mean a produced work, that would clash with section
On 5 September 2010 00:00, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
I find it hard to imagine that *any* ODbL licensed data will ever get shared
back to OSM. If it is so difficult to share back data then I think that
will be a serious demotivator for many contributors.
Unless the CTs change,or an
This is pretty much in line with Francis' claim about copyright being
on maps, and copyright law not stating anything about the form the map
comes in, but of course without court cases on the matter we're all
left guessing.
Next problem with the Garmin maps, suppose they use extracts from
You would have had more luck sticking to one alias (Jane Smith), now
you're just making it obvious as to your goals.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that some are now stooping to
questionable tactics, but it just re-enforces the fact that I no
longer have any faith in those that are pushing
On 1 September 2010 16:16, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote:
But we know that his boks should be burnt. How can we allow Fredderik to
spread the gospel in his books when we know the 'new license' should be
brought down?
Tip for next time, be less overt, it allows the ruse to go on for
On 1 September 2010 17:00, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote:
The longer we keep our secret about BigTinCan John
Oh goody a juicy secret... do tell, or should be have a sleep over and
play truth or dare?
___
legal-talk mailing list
On 1 September 2010 17:06, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote:
I need to gt my Dinner here in Sydney, but back later!
Did you have a good flight from Germany?
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
On 1 September 2010 17:58, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
That you claim that Frederik, or LWG, or OSMF Board are are trying to
speak for both people now and people in the future in the very same
breath is bold. You know perfectly well that term three gives the
decision on future
On 1 September 2010 18:03, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think it is nothing but selfish. You don't even know if you'll be in OSM
As I've stated in the past, which you conveniently keep ignoring, over
looking or misunderstanding...
You are putting end users of the data ahead of
On 1 September 2010 18:30, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Still in OppositeLand, JohnSmith?
Can't figure out any better insults?
The Contributor Terms trust future OSM contributors to make the right
choices for future OSM licenses. Do you trust current and future OSM
At least be
On 1 September 2010 18:46, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On the other hand, six-ish years ago there was no concern that we
would have to be compatible with OS data. Now, they publish open data
And how compatible will the CTs be with OS data exactly?
On 1 September 2010 19:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
If you don't want the effects of a PD OSM for geodata, ODbL is a better way
of ensuring this than BY-SA
The devil you know is better than the devil you don't
At this stage I have every reason to believe the CT and now possible
the
On 1 September 2010 19:12, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Every time OSM contributors have been asked, they have supported ODbL
Is this like all the laywers that think the ODBL is great too?
about 12,500 contributors make up about 99% of the data, how many of
those agree with your point
On 1 September 2010 19:38, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
Please, stop being so childish about all this. Most people would be
mortified if they realised how much trouble they were causing, even
inadvertently. Whereas you seem to be relishing it, and egging
yourself on to annoy
On 1 September 2010 19:59, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
My comments have nothing to do with the debate or any issues you
Then perhaps you should have used another thread with a more
appropriate subject line to avoid confusion?
My comments are intended to address your disruptive
On 2 September 2010 05:14, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
there's hardly a single message of yours in which I fail so find
something inappropriate.
I've made several comments that you do like wise, you keep claiming
this change is needed to make OSM more free, but that's dishonest
2010/8/31 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
Are you suggesting that one contributor should have power over many,
just because they contributed more data? Because that seems what you are
saying by using the import as an argument against the CT and the ODbL
relicensing.
At this stage
On 1 September 2010 07:21, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think that most people would say that's a feature, not a problem.
But you aren't asking most people since you don't want to know the true answer.
___
legal-talk mailing list
On 30 August 2010 20:03, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
The majority ( 50%) of GPL projects are now GPL 3. Which is hardly an
argument against allowing relicencing.
There is a little bit of a difference between changing versions that
are merely an extension of the existing license, than
On 30 August 2010 20:12, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
No, this is about caring about the stated aims of the project rather than
fetishising a licence that is not even recommended for use on data by its
own authors.
I care less about the license than the data, and the only way to
ensure
On 30 August 2010 20:22, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
The part of my email that you didn't quote mentions that to some people, GPL
3 was seen as a major change.
No where near as major as switching from GPL to BSD, you can try and
spin it anyway you like, GPL2 to GPL3 was evolution, not
On 30 August 2010 20:59, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
That isn't a valid comparison. The ODbL is not a BSD-style licence.
*If* we were simply being asked about a change of license you'd have a
valid argument, but we're not, the CTs are very open ended with a very
low barrier for change to
2010/8/30 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
data will not be available under ODbL temporarily. I'm very sure it will
be re-mapped, probably within less than a year.
I disagree, especially without access to some of the existing data
sources, and so far no one is offering to come to
On 29 August 2010 17:21, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote:
That's a bit silly. So you're supposed to ask permission to use the data
with the current license, and with any possible imaginable other license, as
noone will be able to predict how OSM will look like in 10 years. And even
Which is
On 29 August 2010 18:16, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
Of course we value all existing data but a few unfortunatly licensed
imports should not put undue restrict restrictions on the project.
There will always be restrictions on the project, because there are
lots of data
I wonder how Frederik is going to rationalise having the Kosovo
information removed, another million objects that can be added in just
a few weeks?
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004107.html
I wonder how many million of objects he plans to remove and in the
On 29 August 2010 09:32, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder how long you are going to keep targeting Frederik as if he is the
only one to blame for this?
He keeps making himself the target when he keeps insulting sections of
the community like he does.
On 29 August 2010 09:39, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I haven't made a statement about the Kosovo information. I'm sure that
whoever has imported it has made sure it would be compatible with future
license changes as suggested on the imports Wiki page for ages.
Since the data is
on what Mike had said, he made no reference to a wiki page.
John Smith as you are aware, the LWG is still in discussion with NearMap.
Will this be in discussion for the next 2 years?
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
On 25 August 2010 17:41, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I am against trying to force our will on OSM in 10 years. OSM in ten years
will have a larger community and a larger data volume by orders of
magnitude. I don't think it is right to force their hand in any way over and
above the
On 25 August 2010 19:59, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
removed (two of which are probably TIGER and AND):
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g51/80n80n/osm/odbl_cropped.png
No, the 3 largest all relate to the US as best we can figure.
The original TIGER import is #1, Frederik's bot to remove
On 25 August 2010 14:13, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
I'm surprised that some individuals in the community are pushing back
so hard on free and open not being the right approach. Some would
Would that be GPL free and open of BSD free and open ?
As I said before, why is most software
On 20 August 2010 18:21, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
In my eyes the ODbL and CT are part and parcel and I refer to both as the
license change. I don't think that you can separate them.
Is that because you don't think people will swallow the CTs unless
they are a package deal?
The
On 20 August 2010 21:30, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:
It is for this reason that I believe clause 3 of the CT is essential. This
current situation must not be allowed to happen again.
The problem is the scope of section 3, not it's existence.
On 20 August 2010 06:05, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Sure, but who employed them and are repeating it, and going along with it?
The same questions have been asked about OSM-F, with more or less the
same answers...
In their original email. I wasn't quite sure of the context, thus I wrote
On 20 August 2010 06:29, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think we're all at fault here because when NearMap images became availalbe
for tracing, the whole license change process was already in motion and the
This is a symptom of a much larger problem in OSM, I wasted time
asking for
On 20 August 2010 06:32, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Sure, but the OSMF's legal remit is very, very different to NearMaps.
At this point in time we could be told anything by OSM-F and it has to
be taken on good faith that it was an actual opinion by a lawyer,
which can't be quoted directly.
On 20 August 2010 06:35, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
388 users have declared their edits to be PD on the Wiki for a long time,
and I don't think any of them have restricted their editing to PD sources
exclusively.
On the other hand I know some mappers that only ever map from their
On 20 August 2010 11:09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I arrived at a sum of 1,057,549, slightly over 1 million. The total number
of objects in Australia is 10,234,567. That means that roughly 10% of data
in Australia might be affected by NearMap.
How much will be effected that has
On 18 August 2010 01:51, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
It's no more or less factual than recording temperature and other
meteorological data at a weather station.
In most countries various government and non-government organisations
try to claim copyright over that sort of
On 18 August 2010 09:37, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
By the way, all the images I've personally seen in the Yahoo API (this
isn't the same as maps.yahoo.com) are most likely USGS. So there is
no license. It's public domain.
Maybe for the US, but what about the rest of the world? AFAIK they
On 18 August 2010 09:53, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
In my experience the Yahoo imagery outside the US is fairly low
resolution. But I haven't looked everywhere, so maybe I'm missing
some.
They cover about 50,000km^2 for Australia in reasonably high res imagery...
Apparently Yahoo gets
On 18 August 2010 10:12, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
No. It doesn't. Even if satellite images can be copyrighted (and
that alone is questionable), using them to make ways which follow
roads almost surely wouldn't constitute a derivative work, because it
doesn't copy any of the arguably
On 16 August 2010 20:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
to legal, we've meanwhile almost reached the point where we send away
12-year-old mappers because they are not old enough to legally agree to the
CT? (Why don't we, by the way?) (Oh no, sorry, delete that last question.)
On 14 August 2010 18:46, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Is it? I thought most of the Australian Government data was CC-BY - a much
easier problem.
To the best of my knowledge you are correct. Perhaps he was thinking
of some other country that has had cc-by-sa data imported?
On 14 August 2010 19:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
I might miss the point: but why do some governments put their data
under cc-by or cc-by-sa licenses if those are not suitable for data
but only for works?
That was Liz's point, and they usually have more lawyers than we
On 10 August 2010 18:34, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
Two, we have at least one contributor who has sadly passed away. Normally,
the executors/inheritors of the estate would be approached. But what is the
benefit to them? This is one reason I am very keen on leaving future license
On 10 August 2010 23:39, Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.uk wrote:
I suggest you fit into the wait and see category above.
That's unfortunate, because then we can't model how many support ODBL,
but don't support the CTs...
___
legal-talk mailing
On 9 August 2010 23:11, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Alternatively, you could perhaps contribute to CommonMap (commonmap.info)
who are not a fork of OSM but acknowledge OSM as inspiration and are not
On 10 August 2010 01:29, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
they exert their original copyright and request us to do so? A common
mantra is that copyright does not mean much unless exerted. Views?
Precedents?
This is a slippery slope, and it would give precedent to what ever
comes next
2010/8/10 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
The Ideal would be PD/CC0, because that wouldn't limit us in so many ways.
That's not true, it wouldn't limit what terms could be placed on end
users of the data, it would increasingly limit what contributors can
do.
On 8 August 2010 17:03, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
copyright on it and claim it as their own. Because the ODbL and
CC-By-SA impose a cost on the community. I mean, if we're going to
get rid of contributors on purpose, then at least let's get rid of the
people who think a reciprocal
On 8 August 2010 18:30, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever again
says we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline.
I'm starting to think 80n was right, if you were really serious about
wanting a PD fork
On 8 August 2010 18:43, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I'll completely replace it with the PD PGS shoreline if anyone ever
again says we cannot do X because of the imported Australian shoreline.
The PGS shoreline has been removed because it isn't as
On 5 August 2010 18:04, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
I don't want youre private guesses.
I want to have official facts.
Unless someone sues another in court over this issues, you are only
going to get guesses.
What's the problem to do this for the reasons of data loss, too?
The
On 5 August 2010 22:33, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
The conversation we had recently on this list indicated that three years
from after the next Australian election would be the minimum timescale.
That's assuming they actually have a desire or reason to change...
Otherwise it could take
On 5 August 2010 23:12, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
I am, however, sure that any legal case involving infringement of OSM data
in Australia would be judged following IceTV vs Nine Network and Telstra vs
Phone Directories, rather than following any licence which the legislature
On 5 August 2010 22:43, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I agree, FUD isn't fun. But it's you and a couple of others having a
significant time sink effect on the people trying to move it forward.
I'm not the one that came up with ambiguous wording for the new CTs
that makes a lot of the
On 6 August 2010 01:01, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
Now John Smith in his statement above says almost nothing except CC0 and PD
data is compatible with the new contributor terms. Lets take CC0 data,
there is still a rights holder of the data, who has released the data under
CC0
On 6 August 2010 06:48, Jamie Smith jamiekrsm...@gmail.com wrote:
They are vectors, but they sure aren't graphics. Not until they get rendered.
So a SVG file isn't copyrightable, until it is rendered?
___
legal-talk mailing list
On 4 August 2010 21:48, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Any such mechanism, in my eyes, need not be 100% perfect; it is sufficient
to make a honest attempt at doing the right thing, and if a few things slip
through, then fix them in case of complaints.
Which goes against the usual OSM
On 5 August 2010 12:59, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
This is simple straw man crap. 80n invents a deadline, proceeds to piss off
everyone, take all our time and thus slow things down, then declare we're not
meeting the deadline.
Regardless I've communicated with some older contributors
On 25 July 2010 00:06, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I propose 3) Occam's Razor
How does 'the simplest explanation is usually the correct one' apply here?
the now hundreds of people who've been involved in the ODbL in the last few
years, some of whom are real lawyers are all wrong
I'd be
On 25 July 2010 02:33, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
Presumably the same thing that prevents the copyright on a DVD you copy
off a TV screen from evaporating when you burn it back to DVD. (I mention
copyright as BY is a copyright licence.)
I think his point is about ODBL and not extending
On 25 July 2010 06:25, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100722/18242810326.shtml
The full opinion is worth a read. Or you could just ask Anthony?
That is an interesting ruling, where the higher court over turned a
ruling based on contract law and it upheld
On 19 July 2010 20:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
My source for the fact that creativity is not being relied on is the fact
that the ODbL doesn't rely on it and the ODbL is the currently proposed
replacement licence.
It's my understanding that once someone breaches contract with OSM-F
On 19 July 2010 21:04, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote:
If I follow that analogy, I can then use data from TeleAtlas if someone
breaches the contract, which is not the case. The licence is found on their
data.
Since when does contract law work that way?
The difference here is
On 19 July 2010 21:30, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
That said I don't think you'd need to export the data geographically in
order to break the contract requirement, just leave a planet dump on the
bus. :-/
Which is what I'm curious about, what makes ODBL copyright stick if
cc-by-sa
On 20 July 2010 09:21, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Of course not. But if the data is *already* public domain, then violating a
contract and making the data available doesn't take it out of the public
domain either.
Isn't breach of contract the method that was used to put the tiger
data into
On 20 July 2010 10:22, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea:
maybe they're right?
I don’t have the same unconditional love.
I'm left wondering if this problem is being over engineered by lawyers...
On 20 July 2010 10:38, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I'm left wondering if this problem is being over engineered by lawyers...
Go ask on odc-discuss?
Is there much point if I'm only likely to get a biased answer?
___
legal-talk mailing list
On 18 July 2010 23:00, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
an amicable arrangement. I am not suggesting backmail! After all, the whole
point of PD is that people can do what they want with the data.
I fail to see how you can force people to dual license as PD, since
you even acknowledge
On 19 July 2010 03:41, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I am happy that OSMF have added the PD option to the relicensing question,
and I will try to convince as many mappers as possible to tick it. It makes
no difference for the legal side of implementing ODbL but I hope that the
On 17 July 2010 10:27, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
I’m probably missing something again… Please explain how you will not be
able to make an informed decision once the license question has been put
to contributors.
I will, but at that point I will no longer have any chances to
exercise
On 17 July 2010 18:34, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also
the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ...
No, someone was claiming cc-by licenses we're valid in Australia, as a
reason to change to ODBL, if that
On 17 July 2010 20:11, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright licences
what would they apply to in the OSM database in Australia?
The court case in question was over facts, dates and times and show
names, IceTV who instigated this
On 17 July 2010 21:57, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english?
I was thinking about a different email, however it's the same case but
has the wrong interpretation as to the scope.
On 17 July 2010 22:04, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 July 2010 21:57, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english?
I was thinking about a different email, however it's the same case but
has the wrong
On 18 July 2010 00:53, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
There has been discussion in the past about how creative the various
levels of OSM are (my personal opinion is raw data:not, edited and combined
ways:possibly, rendered maps:definitely). The outcome wasn't to rely on
creativity. ;-)
On 18 July 2010 06:23, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote:
What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity?
I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*.
You implied one or more people made that claim, what was their
reasoning for this?
On 18 July 2010 15:18, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
On 15/07/10 14:34, John Smith wrote:
How many governments can change a constitution without less than 50%
voting,
Of the people?
The US and the EU, to name but two.
When did EU member nations agree to become a country
On 16 July 2010 19:57, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, this is ridiculous. Of course I've agreed to CC-BY-SA. The ODbL
didn't even exist when I joined OSM - and you know that fine and well
Etienne, you were there too when there was only 3 of us mapping in SW
London. So it's a
On 16 July 2010 20:23, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
No, he was making the point that CC-BY-SA has 100% support amongst all
the contributors, since we all agreed to it, and is using that to
suggest that nobody wants to relicense and that anyone who does needs
to fork the project.
On 16 July 2010 20:39, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I wouldn't exactly say I am unhappy with the status quo. It's like living in
a house where experts say it is going to fall apart any minute - you might
like to be able to retain the status quo but it's not on the menu. The
status
On 17 July 2010 02:44, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
In Australia, there was an important decision last year in the High
Court involving TV schedules:
http://www.copyright.org.au/news/news_items/cases-news/2009-cases/u29768/
I've been told that Telstra (white/yellow pages owner among
On 17 July 2010 04:07, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
Did you think there would be no losers? The project can’t please
everyone. If you care that much, why not campaign with reasons against
the license change, and encourage lots of OSMers to disagree with it. If
you’re lucky you might
On 17 July 2010 04:58, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Is that a desired safeguard against OKFN releasing bad new license
versions, or is it an oversight?
That clause most likely makes cc-by data incompatible, since a free
and open license may not require attribution, regardless if you
On 15 July 2010 18:55, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
OSM has a clear mandate for the change. A majority (more than half) of the
electorate voted, and a clear majority of the votes were for the change.
Less than 49% of those eligible to vote, voted for the change, I don't
see this as a
On 16 July 2010 01:05, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
On this logic, almost no government in the world has a mandate to do
anything.
How many governments can change a constitution without less than 50%
voting, that's essentially what we're talking about here, not just
whether to
On 16 July 2010 01:15, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
OK, let's say we do what you say. I define my limits, you define your
limits, every single member of the LWG defines theirs, lots of other
contributors do too. We now have a big pile of limits.
I've also come to the conclusion
On 16 July 2010 07:13, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The correct way to make any significant and contentious change to a project
is to fork it. Significant changes that are not universally supported will
I'm not sure this would be doable, to do that you'd need twice the
amount of resources
On 16 July 2010 09:26, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
My dream scenario is OSMF polls contributors with unbiased supporting
documentation, they abide by the result and then I work a PD fork (different
people and areas have different licensing situations). I might even license
my
On 14 July 2010 19:25, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
However, I'd be interested in hearing what you think. Could you put
some numbers on what would make you feel comfortable? I've tried such
an exercise myself (and came to the same conclusions as the LWG in the
end) but that doesn't
--- On Tue, 25/8/09, Joel joelheeth...@gmail.com wrote:
that's something i would check
yeah. but how much i would check depends on the ammount of
POI's :P if there are 10, checking every single
one would be a bit time consuming.
I didn't mean manually, you'd use a query to find out if
--- On Tue, 25/8/09, Joel joelheeth...@gmail.com wrote:
Doing this would ofcourse be very useful since it would add
several thousands of POI's to OSM.
If you do end up importing, make sure you check there is no similar POI already
in the DB :)
I tried to search the list archives before posting but couldn't see anything
about this.
The problem is people noticing non-existant streets on other maps and wasting
time to only find out that it doesn't exist, not that it wasn't mapped.
These streets are usually used to prove copyright
--- On Wed, 12/8/09, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, there is a way. You simply need to go
to the area.
More seriously, I don't see the point of this question
since all data that we are supposed to collect are based on
facts that we collected. Seeing streets that
--- On Wed, 12/8/09, Vincent MEURISSE osm-le...@meurisse.org wrote:
If you really need such a tool, copy the software used by
openstreetbug, put
it on your server and then you can have annotations on the
map.
That's less than I was hoping for, simply because it's hard enough to decide on
--- On Wed, 12/8/09, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, I understand your point. However, I am not sure that
there is any way to detect if a road exists or not unless
you are going there. You would need a list of existing roads
We are going out there and using GPS' however if
101 - 200 of 208 matches
Mail list logo
