On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 05:29:28PM +0100, nixa wrote:
Marko Dimjasevic wrote:
Čim netko mora znati tu informaciju, karta mi se ne čini jednostavnom
za korištenje. Zašto netko uopće mora znati da se radi o rasponima?
Ovo je po meni prilicno jak argument.
Po meni je boja puno jači
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 06:47:20PM +0100, Dražen Odobašić wrote:
Problem je sljedeći, nisam našao jednostavan način kako integrirati
openstreetview i JOSM. OSV omogućava preuzimanje KML datoteke s linkovima i
koordinatama za slike nekog područja. No nakon toga treba složiti skriptu koja
bi
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 02:13:28PM +0100, Marko Dimjasevic wrote:
On Četvrtak, 03. Prosinac 2009. 11:58:16 Željko Filipin wrote:
Ne znam prati li Marko ovu listu, ali očito je pisao o mapiranju u nedjelju,
a nije ovdje javio. :)
Hi all,
Here is a personal concern I have with the ODbL implementation plan. I
was going to post it on the wiki, but I thought I want to have comments
from interested parties before I post it. Extra marks for linking to
pre-existing material, because we don't want to rehash the same stuff. :)
Apologies in advance if this is fanning the flames on the currently
ongoing license flamewar but I have a (hopefully) innocent query on
the matter.
Last year I asked what was the plan exactly for removing any CC-BY-SA
content left in the database after the now-scheduled changeover:
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 12:43:09AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
but while we’re
trying to prevent all sides equally
Preventing all sides equally is indeed something we're aiming at, with
all our hearts ;-)
Yes, thanks for that. I noticed not long after I sent the mail, but
didn’t think
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
alternative term is “reciprocal license”.
Share Alike license seems like he correct term since that is in our
current license.
Viral is a weasel word, bellow the belt.
___
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Well, you may think Creative Commons is stupid, but I hope others will
give them a chance and listen to what they have to say. I think they will,
considering that Creative Commons is well known and respected, compared to
Open
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote:
Matt Amos schreef:
we're talking about moving to another
license with very similar requirements, but a different
implementation, and that's not
Hi all,
I live in the United States. I can do whatever the heck I want with the
OSM database. Now you want me to agree to a contract limiting those
rights. So I'll ask again: What's in it for me?
My data. The streets I mapped. The trails I mapped. The POIs I mapped.
The Indonesian islands
Anthony,
Anthony wrote:
I looked at the license and I said Why are they bothering with this
crap? It's not like this stuff is copyrightable in the first place.
Well, I guess that this stuff is protected by some laws in some
jurisdictions, so CC-BY-SA is useful for waiving those rights in
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:25 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so
On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 09:13:14PM -0700, SteveC wrote:
Richard Weait schrieb:
I think the LWG has done a good job on a difficult task. A task that
we, as a community, asked them to do for us because we couldn't
implement a license change as a group of 20,000 (at the time)
individual
On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 11:44:40PM +0100, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
Tom Hughes schrieb:
Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another
vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want
Am 06.12.2009 um 10:47 schrieb Florian Lohoff:
On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 09:13:14PM -0700, SteveC wrote:
Richard Weait schrieb:
I think the LWG has done a good job on a difficult task. A task that
we, as a community, asked them to do for us because we couldn't
implement a license change as a
On 06/12/09 09:59, Florian Lohoff wrote:
I hereby request that the OSMF publishes a full (including history)
Database Dump just prior deleting non ODbL relicensed data to allow
a forking of OpenStreetmap under the old licensing terms.
Which has exactly what to so with me?
Of course they've
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Jonas Krückel o...@jonas-krueckel.dewrote:
Am 06.12.2009 um 10:47 schrieb Florian Lohoff:
On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 09:13:14PM -0700, SteveC wrote:
Richard Weait schrieb:
I think the LWG has done a good job on a difficult task. A task that
we, as a
hi all
If somebody creates a printed map, is it allowed to make copies of this
map and distribute the copies?
With CC-BY-SA I think it is allowed to copy the map.
Is it also allowed with ODBL?
Bernhard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
SteveC wrote:
Oh we have those people though, matt is calm, rational and diligently
replying to the concerns. Note its mostly misunderstood or ignored by
people like 80n. That frees me to lose my temper with the passive
aggressive lot who just want to screw everything up and can't work
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
1, 2. Dual carriageway
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Dual carriageway
Alright, but let's be practical. It's a lot of effort to create and maintain
pairs of roads (let's not call them dual carriageways - that's really a
specific type of
Wondering if there is a site that overlays OSM data over GoogleMaps (or any
other site, for that matter)? Not for tracing, but for checking
completeness. It would be very interesting.
Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
Hi,
Steve Bennett wrote:
Wondering if there is a site that overlays OSM data over GoogleMaps (or
any other site, for that matter)?
Several, for example
http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc
with a side-by side comparison and
http://sautter.com/map/
with a transparent overlay.
Bye
Frederik
--
I use the google earth KML overlay for that, it also has yahoo imagery also.
There are GoogleMap hacks available, but thats too complicated.
Its (google earth link) not on the wiki because its a sensative issue.
Google search 'openstreetmap kml overlay google earth'
AFAIK there are 2 versions
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
http://sautter.com/map/
with a transparent overlay.
That's really cool, thanks!
Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Steve Bennett wrote:
Wondering if there is a site that overlays OSM data over GoogleMaps (or
any other site, for that matter)?
Several, for example
http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc
with a side-by side comparison
El Domingo, 6 de Diciembre de 2009, bernhard escribió:
hi all
If somebody creates a printed map, is it allowed to make copies of this
map and distribute the copies?
Yes.
With CC-BY-SA I think it is allowed to copy the map.
Is it also allowed with ODBL?
Yes.
The main difference between
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org
mailto:o...@inbox.org wrote:
1, 2. Dual carriageway
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Dual carriageway
Alright, but let's be practical. It's a lot of effort to create and
maintain pairs of roads (let's not call them
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:59, Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org wrote:
I hereby request that the OSMF publishes a full (including history)
Database Dump just prior deleting non ODbL relicensed data to allow
a forking of OpenStreetmap under the old licensing terms.
There already is a plan for a
Hi,
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
If somebody creates a printed map, is it allowed to make copies of this
map and distribute the copies?
Yes.
With CC-BY-SA I think it is allowed to copy the map.
Is it also allowed with ODBL?
Yes.
Well... that's only half the answer.
With CC-BY-SA, it
At 10:26 PM 5/12/2009, Ian Dees wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
If you are an OSMF member then you should have received an email
about this vote, which contains a URL with which you can access this
site. If you have not received an email, first please
At 01:58 AM 6/12/2009, John Smith wrote:
2009/12/6 Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk:
The License Working Group has spent months, well probably nearer years, on
the license change. They know one heck of a lot more about legal systems
than myself. They are people that I trust. Therefore
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Many of the example pictures have end cases that need to be handled by
separated
roads, so why not just draw the reality on the ground?
Because, as someone else pointed out, drawing the reality on the ground
isn't the
80n wrote:
You've spent many many hours studying the licensing issues and claim
to have a deep understanding of the issues. If CC BY-SA is as broken
as you claim it is then Google, Navteq, Teleatlas and many others
would all have helped themselves to our data by now.
You can't continue
Steve Bennett wrote:
Honestly though, the primary function of OSM is not the micro view.
We're not primarily interested in centimetre perfect placement of lumps
of concrete. Are you really suggesting that we don't use a feature
because it might interfere with the micro view, even though it
as far as i can see the contributor terms definition says the same
thing, except ...
...except the context is different. With CC BY-SA you are giving everyone
the same rights. With the Contributor Terms the only one to have those
rights is the OSMF.
But only with the condition that
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
80n wrote:
You've spent many many hours studying the licensing issues and claim
to have a deep understanding of the issues. If CC BY-SA is as broken
as you claim it is then Google, Navteq, Teleatlas and many
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:48 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
What I'm curious about is if a document is written in XML can be
considered copyrighted, why can't geo-data be copyrighted as well
since it's not a database of facts, but a document of information
created, in this
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
I think my only problem with 'divided' is At what point do you apply it?
The
samples being shown are quite clearly - on the whole - dual carriageway
structures.
(Just on terminology, I'm used to dual carriageway only
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.ukwrote:
as far as i can see the contributor terms definition says the same
thing, except ...
...except the context is different. With CC BY-SA you are giving
everyone
the same rights. With the Contributor Terms the
Simone Cortesi schrieb:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:59, Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org wrote:
I hereby request that the OSMF publishes a full (including history)
Database Dump just prior deleting non ODbL relicensed data to allow
a forking of OpenStreetmap under the old licensing terms.
There
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
1, 2. Dual carriageway
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Dual carriageway
Alright, but let's be practical. It's a lot of effort to create and
maintain pairs of roads
After some research coincidence I found out about the logo contest for
the foundation.
Is there a contest for the actual logo, too?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
However, one thing you should perhaps consider is this argument of project
sanity: We're all in this together. It's no good having a license that has
different effects in different countries.
And that is one of the
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:55 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
great-snip
There's no safeguard, for example, that prevents the OSMF from changing the
Contributor Terms. They can do that at any point in the future without any
kind of vote or other formality. That's a pretty big hole in itself
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Is the benefit just so you can get more precise with area micromapping?
Let's assume, because it's true, that volunteer mapping time is limited, and
the use of areas to micromap roads is rare, and certainly not expected by
end
Am 6 Dec 2009 um 12:53 hat Simone Cortesi geschrieben:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:59, Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org wrote:
I hereby request that the OSMF publishes a full (including history)
Database Dump just prior deleting non ODbL relicensed data to allow
a forking of OpenStreetmap under
Steve Bennett wrote:
Wondering if there is a site that overlays OSM data over GoogleMaps
(or any other site, for that matter)? Not for tracing, but for
checking completeness. It would be very interesting.
Within GM There's the My Maps tab. Then click the 'Browse the Directory'
search for
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
If the value of OSM data ever gets very near the value of map data owned by
companies like Navteq and Teleatlas then OSMF becomes a very tempting
target. The safeguards that have been put in place (a vote of the OSMF
membership and
It is my (possibly mistaken) impression that, once the new contract goes into
effect, any old data that had been entered, previous to the new contract, by
someone who does not agree to the new contract, will be removed from the
database.
--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Reserve your
On Sunday 06 Dec 2009 4:32:08 pm Steve Bennett wrote:
Wondering if there is a site that overlays OSM data over GoogleMaps (or any
other site, for that matter)? Not for tracing, but for checking
completeness. It would be very interesting.
should that not be overlaying GoogleMaps over OSM data
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:12 AM, Patrick Kilian o...@petschge.de wrote:
Hi all,
I live in the United States. I can do whatever the heck I want with the
OSM database. Now you want me to agree to a contract limiting those
rights. So I'll ask again: What's in it for me?
My data. The
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:03 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
You can't continue to claim that CC BY-SA is broken without some evidence of
our data being abused. Put up or shut up, please.
Show us the evidence of license abuse please.
I've been following the CC-ODbL license discussions for quite long time and
I have persistent question that I've been meaning to ask. The recent lively
debates on osmf-talk that have spilled over here prompted me to ask now.
Why do people believe that there no creative copyright in OSM data
No, at the moment there is only a contest for the logo of the OSM
Foundation.
Cheers,
Henk
2009/12/6 Robert Martinez m...@mray.de
After some research coincidence I found out about the logo contest for
the foundation.
Is there a contest for the actual logo, too?
Because the foundation is deciding now if the current Odbl 1.0 licence
proposal will be the next OSM licence you will have to accept or
refuse in February 2010, I would like to know what the community
itself thinks about this Odbl 1.0.
As Ulf Lamping said, it will be a gun on your head in Feb.
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
If the value of OSM data ever gets very near the value of map data owned
by
companies like Navteq and Teleatlas then OSMF becomes a very tempting
target. The
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.comwrote:
Why do people believe that there no creative copyright in OSM data (i.e.,
why is CC-BY-SA supposedly indefensible for OSM data)? I'm talking about the
US-type of copyright that is based on sufficient creativity, and not
Shalabh wrote:
Steve,
I have to agree with John. Fence sitter or not, Ulf has raised a point
which has not been answered till now. More importantly, mappers like
me who contribute everyday and are not part of OSMF have no clue about
what this is. Now that this discussion is so openly in
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk
mailto:les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
I think my only problem with 'divided' is At what point do you
apply it? The
samples being shown are quite clearly - on the whole - dual carriageway
I live in the United States. I can do whatever the heck I want
with the OSM database. Now you want me to agree to a contract
limiting those rights. So I'll ask again: What's in it for me?
My data. The streets I mapped. The trails I mapped. The POIs I
mapped. The Indonesian islands I
It is clear that we all have different opinions about this license
change. However, I would like to hear down-to-earth explaining what
and how will happen when license change kicks in? How OSMF will work
with contributors to get their data converted? How they will try to
convince them? etc.
If it
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
Actually, I was planning on doing exactly this with a map of my office
on the back of my business card. I'm not about to start handing out CDs
along with my business cards.
I think you are only required to hand out the database on which your
rendering is based. And it
Pieren schrieb:
Because the foundation is deciding now if the current Odbl 1.0 licence
proposal will be the next OSM licence you will have to accept or
refuse in February 2010, I would like to know what the community
itself thinks about this Odbl 1.0.
As Ulf Lamping said, it will be a gun on
Hi,
Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
I kind of miss the choise of No, but I consider all my data PD.
Because even though any PD data could be also made ODbL, there is no
sense in declaring it PD if it's not collected and published as PD.
Unless there is a mechanisim in OSM to e.g. Download only PD
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
If the value of OSM data ever gets very near the value of map data owned
by
companies like Navteq
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Actually, I was planning on doing exactly this with a map of my office on
the back of my business card. I'm not about to start handing out CDs along
with my business cards.
I think you are only
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Sebastian Hohmann m...@s-hohmann.de wrote:
I kind of miss the choise of No, but I consider all my data PD.
Because even though any PD data could be also made ODbL, there is no
sense in declaring it PD if it's not collected and published as PD.
Unless there is a
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
In other words: If you want to use OSM data without attribution or
share-alike, you may do so by distributing the program that makes the
derivative, rather than the derivative itself. This is perfectly
permissible
SteveC wrote:
No there's an entire other list for it... But the LWG has tried hard
to keep the other lists up to date.
The evidence with the number of posts here suggests that it didn't work.
This situation reminds me of the location of the planning application in
the opening chapters of The
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I haven't decided, but I'll probably even grant y'all the permission to use
my previous contributions without any restrictions whatsoever. I don't have
a problem with that. What I have a problem with is agreeing to the ODbL.
2009/12/6 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
Because the foundation is deciding now if the current Odbl 1.0 licence
proposal will be the next OSM licence you will have to accept or
refuse in February 2010, I would like to know what the community
itself thinks about this Odbl 1.0.
I missed an option
And I would like that people reading this thread forwards and
translates this call to other local lists for the widest polling as
possible. Unfortunately, the licence itself is not (yet) translated.
Pieren
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:25 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
I missed an option saying I'm in favour of ODbL but may not be in
position to agree to relicense all data I uploaded (because part of it
is CC-BY-SA owned by other authors).
Cheers
As far as I understood (but some
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.comwrote:
But I would argue that a selection of a finite set from an infinite
possible nodes that can represent the centerline of a road is a sufficiently
creative
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
If we find that 80% of OSMers actually are pro PD then this will not
change the license one bit, but it might perhaps help reduce some
share-alike zealotry and we might interpret some things in a more
relaxed way (and
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
Hi,
Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
I kind of miss the choise of No, but I consider all my data PD.
Because even though any PD data could be also made ODbL, there is no
sense in declaring it PD if it's not collected and published as PD.
Unless there is a mechanisim in
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:25 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
I missed an option saying I'm in favour of ODbL but may not be in
position to agree to relicense all data I uploaded (because part of it
is CC-BY-SA owned
Since some people feel about the vote like being held hostage with a gun
to their head somebody should solve their dilemma. Fork now and everybody
that might compelled to vote yes for fear to lose their data can vote no
and know they have a new project that has all the data but does not
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.comwrote:
Now whether one set of 20 nodes or a different set of 20 nodes better
represent the shape of a road is a matter of creative subjectivity. Neither
set is more mistaken nor more inaccurate than the other.
What set of
Pieren schrieb:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:25 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
I missed an option saying I'm in favour of ODbL but may not be in
position to agree to relicense all data I uploaded (because part of it
is CC-BY-SA owned by other authors).
Cheers
As far as I
2009/12/6 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
So if your uploads are based on other authors who will reject
the new licence, the data will remain anyway if you, the last
contributor in the history of this element accepts the new
3) Extra precision requires more time, which we don't necessarily have.
Let's say that we agree that all divided roads should be mapped as two
ways. Let's also say it takes on average 1 minute to trace out a single
way.
There's a volunteer with 60 divided roads to map in front of him, and
Am 6 Dec 2009 um 16:12 hat Matt Amos geschrieben:
ok, let's try and be constructive about this... what would you
suggest? given that this tactic would work with any service - the only
thing i can think of is to have an organisation governed by its members;
OSMF. this introduces other problems,
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote:
Ouch!
So I can write a small script that touches every element in the OSM database
to own the copyright of the whole database?!?
Well, that's certainly not my understanding of copyright!
Regards, ULFL
No, Matt
Hi!
Pieren schrieb:
Therefore, I would like to know what you, the contributor, thinks
today about the transition to Odbl 1.0 licence in this opinion poll:
http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w
It is good that there is a general poll of opinion. This is something
the OSMF should have
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:59 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.comwrote:
Now whether one set of 20 nodes or a different set of 20 nodes better
represent the shape of a road is a matter of creative subjectivity. Neither
set is
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org
mailto:o...@inbox.org wrote:
I haven't decided, but I'll probably even grant y'all the permission
to use my previous contributions without any restrictions
whatsoever. I don't have a problem with that.
Pieren wrote:
Could someone deliver a script that could make this automatically for
me :take all elements where I am the last contributor but not the
only one then delete and recreate them identically under my user
account then all my efforts are saved at the licence transition ?
In my
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/12/2 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
You shouldn't need to add :area for it to render. :area just means
only use this rule if the way is closed (i.e. start and end points
are the same).
So you
Am 6 Dec 2009 um 8:59 hat Apollinaris Schoell geschrieben:
Since some people feel about the vote like being held hostage with a gun
to their head somebody should solve their dilemma. Fork now and everybody
that might compelled to vote yes for fear to lose their data can vote no
and
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Pieren wrote:
Could someone deliver a script that could make this automatically for
me :take all elements where I am the last contributor but not the
only one then delete and recreate them identically under my user
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.comwrote:
Well, unless you specify an accuracy tolerance level AND the number of
nodes for each geographical feature. But then, the selection of both metrics
for each geographical feature can still be considered a creative
Apollinaris Schoell schrieb:
On 5 Dec 2009, at 20:03 , Ulf Lamping wrote:
I'm sorry, but for the last two years I can't remember asking for a
license change at all.
Sorry but this topic was many times on many lists, it's on the wiki. If you
didn't care then why do you care now?
You may
2009/12/6 80n 80n...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Pieren wrote:
Could someone deliver a script that could make this automatically for
me :take all elements where I am the last contributor but not the
only one then delete and recreate
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:06 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Using the object history is just an approximation based on the
assumption that mappers will usually keep an object if they are
improving existing data, and
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org mailto:
o...@inbox.org wrote:
I haven't decided, but I'll probably even grant y'all the permission
to use my previous contributions
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
So if it is really your intention to not use OSM data any more but still
let us use your past contributions, you can safely check one of the Agree
options?
By the way, I should clarify, I certainly don't plan to stop
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
My understanding is that by using this site you agree to the ODbL will be
part of the terms of service of the OSM website, so I can't even *reject*
the contributor terms without agreeing to the ODbL.
Hmm, thinking about this more,
On 6 Dec 2009, at 10:25 , Ulf Lamping wrote:
Apollinaris Schoell schrieb:
On 5 Dec 2009, at 20:03 , Ulf Lamping wrote:
I'm sorry, but for the last two years I can't remember asking for a license
change at all.
Sorry but this topic was many times on many lists, it's on the wiki. If you
If the person who originally mapped the noses does not agree, does this mean
that all of the information on the way must be deleted?
If a particular contributor has died since making their contributions, they
cannot either agree nor disagree. Does this mean that all work derived from
their
1 - 100 of 249 matches
Mail list logo
