)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
-comments?uid=1836535
is another site that has all your writing nicely listed.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstr
t covered either by the ODbL
Assuming that the data is covered by ODbL, then "These rights explicitly
include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour."
(section 3.0)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N4
Hi,
On 14.12.19 06:41, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Can you point me to legal definition
> of "substantial part"?
There is none, hence:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@rem
they possibly be used to reassemble
OSM).
I had until now assumed that such works would definitely fall under the
ODbL but you are right, they don't really fit the "Derivative Database"
definition.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remot
data residue is in the name/description of my new
database: "roads with pubs". It is derived from OSM; it could not have
been made without OSM.
Do you disagree?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
__
ss than 100 - an crucially this could be after the trivial alterations
you mention - then the extract you are making is considered not to be
substantial (see
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline)
and therefore does not have to be under ODbL.
Bye
F
any members and other members difficult, and good
communication is a cornerstone of every successful organised editing
activity.
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing
and still
remain 100% intellectual property of its operator?
Further, assuming that we have a system that has ingested OSM by deep
learning and we say that this means its internal database is ODbL, what
would this mean for the output later produced by the same machine?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik R
k them if that kind of notice is enough.
This is a similar issue as we always have with CC-BY licensed data.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal
but other than that, you need to
use your favourite search engine with something like
"site:lists.openstreetmap.org legal-talk mykeyword".
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
or under Your control by
either more than 50% ownership or by the power to direct their
activities (such as contracting with an independent consultant)."
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
ng this further. If keeping data proprietary for financial gain
is part of your business model, you should really just look into working
with proprietary data to start with, rather than trying to create an
"OSM++" that you don't have to share - even *if* you find suitable
loopholes in the licen
*all* data you uploaded might have to be removed again.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
in this agreement, the "User"
is the individual mapper, who creates a derivative work on his computer
and then uploads to OSM; in that case the mapper would have to "mark"
his upload (possibly in a source tag?) with "contains Copernicus data
(year of reception)" and then OSM would b
st or did you
choose a "you have to share this so give it to me" wording?
Bye
Frederik
[1]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
it
will not be viable in OSM either - only that the situation would be less
obvious.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
receptacle.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
k the wheelchair status they observed locally, and you collect that
information in a separate data set, keyed by the OSM ID of the
restaurant. Your application queries the database in a way that your
user reports override the information taken from OSM, but for
restaurants where you don't have user reports,
t you join them when displaying,
and make the OSM result database available under ODbL on request. I
would also tell you that it is very unlikely for anyone to request the
data in the first place.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
__
This is not great - I'd love a license
that forces people to share stuff we're interested in and ignores
everything else. But it is hard to put that in lawyerese ;)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
__
wer to that, then we can let lawyers fix (or
interpret) the license so that it delivers what we want.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
on OSM but had proprietary data improvements, and the
exposure OSM would get from that would be worth nothing as nobody else
could use that same database.
This would be a use case that the license is specifically designed
against and we must take care not to weaken our position here.
Bye
F
oding result as a produced work, combining a
large number of them in a database would still get you a derived
database again.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-
for other people's
geodata.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
n-substantial parts
and combining them to form a database is the same as if you had
extracted a larger portion directly. This is true even if the data is
extracted by different individuals.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N4
esirable that the POI is added anyway?
Sure, buildings to hold the POI are not required.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
of such reciprocity.
Asking for PD while not giving your own away as PD is quite standard
actually - not least among most of those calling for OSM to be PD.
Nothing funny about that.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
they're doing, which would likely damage
their business.
The moral stick is probably the strongest weapon in our arsenal
anyway, looking at the size of our legal battle chest ;)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
, but even if it were a database, it could be
a collective database in which case share-alike would only apply to
the ODbL part inside.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
-temporal window).
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
' database by comparing against an odbl licensed
database somehow imposes that the closed database must also be odbl?
Not the closed database, only the selection made from the closed
database with the help of ODbL-licensed data.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49
for #5 and #6 because those struck me as identical under both
interpretations but of course I might be wrong.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
or whatnot) form a collective
database with the ODbL-Share-Alike location data.
It would be great if people would help fill in the blanks, or correct me
where I might have misrepresented the discussion.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
that has led to its implementation,
or in other words, at the intention that people had when they
implemented the license.
And that, in turn, is probably why we're talking so much about use cases
and do-we-want-this and do-we-want-that...
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org
their
proprietary databases and OSM can only benefit from it because everyone
who saves $$$ using OSM somehow magically helps OSM. I'm not convinced
of that.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk
for a computer's - since the coordinates form
the basis for filtering which items to display to the user. A human
wouldn't be able to sift through the list so quickly.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
* more explanation because it doesn't sound very convincing to me.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
such misunderstandings, unless of course they are not
substantial.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
was for in the first place,
thereby creating a derivative database.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
depicted by the images are not
property of Google.
Your thoughts, please
The general opinion on this list has been, for cases where there wasn't
a clear-cut license that answers these questions: We'll use the data if
the copyright owner says we can use it.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm
of those who made the tiles and those
who bought them for embedding in their web site, with OSM being
relegated to one click away - in order not to dilute the brand
building of those who rely on our data to make a map in the first place.
I don't think that's acceptable.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm
Hi,
On 13.01.2014 22:52, Stephan Knauss wrote:
As long as other map suppliers like Google and
Bing are happy by being only credited on a separate page,
Are they?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
in creating it.
Was that layperson friendly enough?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
as a base map in tha layer switcher) seems to indicate
that buildings look similar to OSM but not the same (my guess - both
imported from same source?) while many parks, commercial areas, and
graveyards seem to have 100% identical geometries to OSM.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
of instruction -
some people might look at our web page and think I'll simply do as they
do, they'll know what is right.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk
the fastest route at a given
time of day or so - that kind of tight integration with OSM data would
clearly be ask a lawyer terrain if you want to determine wheter you
have a collective or derivative database.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
as not to hurt
their business.
I'm willing to hear concrete examples but I think that talk of giving
up and too much at stake sound like OSM was unsuitable for geocoding
which in my opinion it clearly isn't!
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
in).
If you sell the work with an OSM attribution but without the condition
to perpetuate that attribution, you may be in breach of ODbL or you may
not; this depends on how you interpret the suitably calculated to make
anyone ... aware clause.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede
run this code, it will take 1000 days, or make
sure your machine has at least 1 TB of RAM, then continue as follows
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk
data set.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
there will be some loophole to
make it not so ;)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
is an obstacle for them, because
neither forces them to open up the car navigation system to free imports
by the user.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Hi,
On 08/10/2012 10:09 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
The ODbL has a clause softening that rule (4.7. b parallel
distribution), which essentially says that you can distribute
DRM-encumbered databases if you offer a non-DRM alternative that is at
least as accessible as the non-restricted version
Hi,
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 01:23:00 +0200
Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Not dropping CC-BY-SA would send the signal that
... everything that has been said about CC-BY-SA not sufficiently
protecting our data was rubbish, and that we are happy with every user
choosing whichever is the
Hi,
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 12:44:41 +
Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
Lets be clear here, I think the problems is not because of the license
change, but the contributor terms , ( the click through license and
the mass collection of all IP rights by the OSF).
There is no
it is not mentioned at all.
I think you need a better example
No; the example is good enough for me, thank you ;)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
with less than x% precision loss is a derivative database and never a
produced work
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
(such as contracting with an independent consultant).
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
.
(If anyone wants to pursue this discussion I would very much ask them to
peruse the mailing list archives with the search term reverse
engineering and read up on past discussions so that we don't have to
repeat ourselves.)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49
-publisher, publish
your ODbL Produced Works to him and he forwards them to the world
without you ever having to release anything. It would be a loophole that
demands quick fixing ;)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
to
licene Produced Works under CC, or we will have to explicitly disallow it.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
it for
hillshading as long as I don't redistribute the data itself. Doesn't it?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
anything that provokes a
community outcry you'll probably be ok.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
already be distribution.
(What happens of the MoD takes an OSM map, draws a little bit on top of
it and stamps it secret - is that allowed at all, given that the
current license requires that they must not add any restrictions to the
material...?)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede
this mean that they can do that
Sure.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
to distribute their data.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
is only the web site with
the route instructions...
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
same number of
nodes which all have the exact same relative position to each other.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
% more data can be remapped is not a
solid reason, and neither is I'm sure Foursquare would be unhappy to
lose a few roads in the US. These reasons are especially bad because
they an be repeated month after month and thus could make the process
drag on endlessly.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm
RichardF
directly.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
to publish a derived non-highway
database themselves, which would lead to UMP only having to point to
that database and say there's our source and it's ODbL.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
OSMF can change the
license without going through what we go through now. Of course the CTs
cannot be changed retroactively but doing so for new signups is
effective enough.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
Hi,
(taking this to legal-talk from talk where it doesn't belong)
On 02/13/12 00:00, nicholas.g.lawre...@tmr.qld.gov.au wrote:
I accepted the license, and also ticked the box that said I was happy with
my contributions to be considered public domain.
Hypothetically, if some years in the
requirement (CT only require that the mapper makes sure
data is compatible with current license)
Any future license change to, say, CC-BY or GFDL3.15 or whatever would
then require that data to be deleted, but we wouldn't even know that.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org
already booked his vacation after
April 1st, we may continue in May to pursue a clean license change.
Cheers
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
actually make
people re-map more and better compared to the phase we are in now? And
if so, why?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
cases of that to warrant all the brouhaha that is made.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Hi,
On 01/19/12 03:07, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
Giżycko is one example, http://osm.org/go/0Pp7zn7~-- . As FK28..
pointed out the major such cases are where mappers who imported
ODbL-incompatible data accepted the Contributor Terms or CT-accepters
import ODbL-incompatible data. With version
, be sure to inform us since we'll be very
interested ;)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
something, forcing us to remove things
we thought we could keep or vice versa. You can only ever go up to 80%
certainty in these matters. Demanding more is not realistic.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
the copyright of small contributors because they won't
sue anyway
Not my style.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
Hi,
On 01/06/12 13:13, Nick Hocking wrote:
Although the usefullness(or correctness) of these tags is not being
discussed in talk-au, there appears to be a concensus (7-0)
about removing them now.
Ok, I've discussed this off-list with Nick and did a test run for 1000
(of roughly a quarter
object.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Hi,
On 01/06/12 11:38, Nick Hocking wrote:
In this case it is essential to actually get rid of the maxspeed tags.
The bot used a completly wrong algorithm and the data is dangerously
wrong. Just today I drove down a high traffic road where OSM
(curtesy of the bot) had the wrong max speed).
Hi,
On 01/06/12 12:08, Nick Hocking wrote:
Is there a consensus in the Australian communitiy that these tags are
worthless and should be removed
How many votes do I need :-)
Well, nobody shouting stop, stop, these tags are useful to me! would
already be a start.
I can see only two ways to
(taking this to legal-talk)
Russ,
On 12/27/11 05:08, Russ Nelson wrote:
But this way is still marked as created by a nodecision user:
http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=3753605
Well, maybe it was created, but the sins of the father do not pass
onto the son. No part of what the nodecision
Hi,
On 12/27/11 14:53, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
* treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if
these tags are not present any more in the current version
Did you manage to address your example of a user fixing a typo in the
tag name (individually or for a large number
by someone else.
I'm sure it is an issue that we must watch, and maybe try and prepare a
list with all cases affected, and make spot checks to get an idea of how
many false positives/negatives we get.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
from whatever the decliner put
there.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Hi,
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:32:35 +0100
Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I have prepared changes to the OSMI map that allow me to
...
Activated now notified talk and talk-de lists, on both the WTFE view
and on the database accessed by plugins/license views in editors.
Bye
Frederik
Hi,
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 13:48:24 +
Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
1. Agreeing mapper maps the restaurant and names it
2. Non-agreeing mapper adds the cuisine tag
3. Agreeing mapper removes the cuisine tag and sets odbl=clean. He or
she does not have enough information to assert
Hi,
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:27:19 -0500
Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
- can node positions be cleaned by moving to a new position?
I have prepared changes to the OSMI map that allow me to
* treat untagged nodes as clean if moved by an agreeing mapper
* treat any tags contributed by a
Hi,
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:32:21 +
Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
1. This would, I suppose, mean that a formerly tainted node which
has both been moved and stripped of any tainted tags would also be
considered clean. Is this so
Yes.
2. Consider the case of a node that is mapped
was a bit over-optimistic!
I've fixed the configuration and the graphs are less euphemistic now.
They are meant to inform, not to manipulate.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
1 - 100 of 449 matches
Mail list logo
