Done by Totor: http://osm.org/go/4tRH4mQAj--
:-)
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Any wishlist of areas we want Bing to provide imagery?
-- Forwarded message --
From: Steve Coast st...@asklater.com
Date: Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:09 AM
Subject: [OSM-talk] Bing aerial imagery priorities
To: t...@openstreetmap.org
Hi
I'm speaking personally and there are no
Hi Wouter,
- the data (especially the numbers) are available from an out of
copyright source (Atlas der Buurtwegen/Atlas des Chemins Vicinaux
dating from the 1840's), so a source that can be used. I do not
express myself if the digitisations that are nowadays available on the
websites of
The workshop will take place at the city hall in Haaltert. We will
start at 10. The plan is to start with an introduction to OSM (those
people have possibly never heard about OSM). After that the tracking
starts and in the afternoon, we can do the actual mapping not yet a
definitive schedule for
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote:
James; all I can say is that the paragraph in question was written by our
General Counsel specifically to allow existing contributions to stay in
place. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't comment on interpretation!
Regards
Hi
2011/6/16 David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net:
As a slightly supplementary question of what to do with data from those
users who have not agreed to the CT's can I make the following suggestion.
Given that we obviously want to move forward with a clean database untainted
by any data which
My understanding is that Nearmap wish all contributions to OSM, by any
mapper who has agreed to the CT, derived from their imagery (before the 17th
June 2011) to be able to be relicenced by OSMF under any licence it (OSMF)
chooses at any time.
However I also can't see exactly how the published
On 16 June 2011 07:58, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
The right question - when considering deletions - is, can the OSMF use
this dataset as part of the OSM. That is a question of compatibility
between the original licence (in this case the OS Opendata licence)
and the way in which OSMF
Robert Whittaker wrote:
A major purpose of the CTs is to ensure that all the data
remaining in OSM is suitable for re-licensing under any Free
and Open license without the need for further checks.
No, that hasn't been the case since Contributor Terms 1.2 were proposed in
November 2010 and
(continuing from previous message, d'oh)
In the event of a future relicensing, LWG and the community
would need to check existing data and delete it if so.
See also CT 1.2.x 1b which explicitly envisages this possibility:
if we suspect that any contributed data is incompatible, (in the sense
Hi,
On 06/16/11 10:55, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
In the event of a future relicensing, LWG and the community would need to
check existing data and delete it if so.
Does that not effectively rule out any future relicensing because the
burden of checking existing data is just too high? I mean,
On 16/06/11 11:00, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 06/16/11 10:55, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
In the event of a future relicensing, LWG and the community would
need to
check existing data and delete it if so.
Does that not effectively rule out any future relicensing because the
burden of
On 16 June 2011 11:00, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Does that not effectively rule out any future relicensing because the burden
of checking existing data is just too high? I mean, how would one even
*begin* to perform such a check, given that nobody is actually obliged to
tell us
Hi,
On 06/16/11 12:31, Dermot McNally wrote:
Does that not effectively rule out any future relicensing because the burden
of checking existing data is just too high? I mean, how would one even
*begin* to perform such a check, given that nobody is actually obliged to
tell us what license
OSMF LWG,
I have recently become aware of your announcement[0] regarding Phase 4
of your plan to re-licence contributions to OSM. Although I broadly
support the principals of the new licence I have, so far, been unable to
accept as there are certain provisions within the new terms which I am
On 16 June 2011 09:55, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Robert Whittaker wrote:
A major purpose of the CTs is to ensure that all the data
remaining in OSM is suitable for re-licensing under any Free
and Open license without the need for further checks.
No, that hasn't been the
- Original Message -
From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
(continuing from previous message, d'oh)
In the event of a future
Yes Steve - you're right.
The For Clarity paragraph basically says that contributions from a mapper
who hadn't accepted the CT and were derived from Nearmap prior to June 17th
2011 can stay in the data base and do not have to be deleted.
They give no time limit or OSM-licence limitations on this
On 16 June 2011 14:48, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
That it was drafted, carefully, by a lawyer I do not doubt. But lawyers
draft things on instruction to achieve particular goals. My understanding
from Ben's comment is that one of the goals of nearmap is that derived works
are
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/AND
Thanks, a reference has been added to the wiki page for 'Key:source'.
-- Koshy
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
ava...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been away for a while. But it seems to me from reading the terms
that I can't say yes to them in good faith, not because I don't want
to, but because I remember I derived a few things from external
CC-BY-SA,
rf == Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net writes:
rf Sorry, you've puzzled me a bit here.
rf You state that it's better to cite how much data would be deleted.
rf However, that directly contradicts your previous paragraph, in which you
rf quote, um, the number of users, not the amount
This whole licensing process went way above the competence of
the LWG, both in legal, management as in technical sense.
As usual, these things will be worked out when the circumstances
demand it. Just like in the old-fashioned do-ocratic way.
Gert Gremmen
check the existance and/or access right to system table schema_info - has
nothing to do with osmosis.
regards
walter
-
Wenn du den Wald vor lauter Bäumen nicht siehst, fälle die Bäume und du wirst
sehen, dass da kein Wald ist.
--
View this message in context:
did you create the schema? A schema creation script is available in the
osmosis script directory.
runnig this:
pgsnapshot_schema_0.6.sql - Builds the minimal schema.
pgsnapshot_schema_0.6_action.sql - Adds the optional action table which
allows derivative tables to be kept up to date when
2011/6/15 Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com
*
All such additions or edits submitted to OSM prior to 17 June 2011 may be
held and continue to be used by OSM under the terms in place between OSM and
the individual which submitted the addition or edit at the relevant time.
*
I absolutely do
Steve Bennett-3 wrote:
Hi Aevar,
Out of curiosity, how do you derive stuff from a CC-BY-SA source
without making a note of the source? I mean, the -BY- part means you
have to attribute the source. So presumably you weren't in compliance
with their licence anyway...
Here's one
On 16/06/11 08:17, Eric Marsden wrote:
It's quite simple: I object to the OSMF using what I consider to be
very misleading statistics in communication on the ODBL process.
Michael Collinson's message can be interpreted as saying that 0.2% of
users haven't accepted the new
Hello
I will check that, thanks for the suggestion
On 6/15/2011 6:45 PM, Walter Nordmann wrote:
check the existance and/or access right to system table schema_info - has
nothing to do with osmosis.
regards
walter
-
Wenn du den Wald vor lauter Bäumen nicht siehst, fälle die Bäume und du
Hello
I have actually created a simple postGIS template and have created the
database from it (using the postgis template), I have done this in order
to be compatible with GeoServer
I have not done any additional configurations as well as the database is
concerned
At the moment I am running
http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/2501/sancturymap.png
Seems to look like an OSM map to me, I don't have access to all
credits, so no idea if it was credited or not..
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
Steve Bennett-3 wrote:
..the -BY- part means you
have to attribute the source. So presumably you weren't in compliance
with their licence anyway...
My understanding is that attribution is covered by the public attributions
on this Wiki page:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
the last time I read the CTs (which have several versions), there was a
clear reference to me having the rights to the data and perpetually
licensing those rights to another organisation
That would stop me signing up
JohnSmitty wrote:
http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/2501/sancturymap.png
Seems to look like an OSM map to me, I don't have access to all
credits, so no idea if it was credited or not..
I'm pretty sure that's Google Maps in Lower Manhattan (completely sure about
the location).
--
View
* americas.osm.bz2.part.00 (3814.7M)
* americas.osm.bz2.part.01 (2590.9M)Dears,
on the website ' http://downloads.cloudmade.com/americas#downloads_breadcrumbs '
there are two files for USA. as part 00 and 01. But I don't know how should I
combine them.
Please let me know, what
On 16 June 2011 20:37, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
JohnSmitty wrote:
http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/2501/sancturymap.png
Seems to look like an OSM map to me, I don't have access to all
credits, so no idea if it was credited or not..
I'm pretty sure that's Google Maps in
On 16 June 2011 11:44, Saphy Mo saphy...@yahoo.com wrote:
americas.osm.bz2.part.00 (3814.7M)
americas.osm.bz2.part.01 (2590.9M)
Dears,
on the website '
http://downloads.cloudmade.com/americas#downloads_breadcrumbs '
there are two files for USA. as part 00 and 01. But I don't know how
Yes surely that is the situation - use the source tag when using something
other than gps.
I have accepted the ToC, TBH I really don't give a monkeys either way though
have something of a preference for PD as it keeps life simpler, and I believe
the small minority of OS OpenData I have
On 2011-06-15 04:01, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
As far as I know, I have probably contributed data in the following
circumstances:
*Mapper A who has not accepted the change to ODbL drew two intersecting
roads.
*I note in person that there is a recently-added island-separated
right-turn lane, and I
Andreas Perstinger wrote:
On 2011-06-15 04:01, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
As far as I know, I have probably contributed data in the following
circumstances:
*Mapper A who has not accepted the change to ODbL drew two intersecting
roads.
*I note in person that there is a recently-added
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 11:44 +0100, Andy Street wrote:
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 22:33 +0200, Michael Collinson wrote:
As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this
Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will
mean that anyone who has
list admin, or any one...
Am Douglas from Kampala- Uganda (East Africa), am
experiencing problems with the www.walking-papers.org site: it takes so long
to make a print (download) for a specified area.
Secondly, we had a mapping day event (www.mappingday.com) at Mountbatten
On 2011-06-16 13:55, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Andreas Perstinger wrote:
On 2011-06-15 04:01, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
As far as I know, I have probably contributed data in the following
circumstances:
*Mapper A who has not accepted the change to ODbL drew two intersecting
roads.
*I note in
David Groom wrote:
However your argument above completely fails to refer to Clause 2
of the CT's
(and Robert Whittaker wrote similarly)
Yes. It's my belief that 2 onwards have to be read in the context of 1a/1b.
There would be no point having 1a/1b if that were not the case; and my
reading of
Am 16.06.2011 06:13, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
Heiko Jacobs-2 wrote:
Am 15.06.2011 06:59, schrieb Russ Nelson:
What about the people who have declared their edits to be in the
public domain?
Setting PD flag without accepting OBL/DBCL/CT isn't possible in the moment
(or did I miss a loop
Andreas Perstinger wrote:
How did you noticed that there is a right-way turn lane? Probably not by
looking on the OSM map because then it would have been already there. So
you have another source (local knowledge, bing, ...) from which you got
the location of this way - you derived the
- Original Message -
From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
To: legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
David Groom wrote:
However your argument above completely fails to refer to
So those guys put out a legal statement and an employee even gave you his
interpretation on this list, which you can cite in court if you want. I think
you're pretty solid and it feels like people are just looking for problems no
matter what is done or said. :-(
Steve
stevecoast.com
On Jun
Hey,
There are at least a few users who have disagreed to ODbL
but are ok with PD (or CC0).
Would it, in a ODbL OSM world, be possible to move their
data out of current OSM and into a PD project and after that,
reimport to ODbL OSM?
In other words:
For the most complicated example, a way
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Graham Stewart (GrahamS)
gra...@dalmuti.net wrote:
and that the source tag is certainly recommended, but not enforced.
There is no such thing as an enforced tag in OSM. If you choose not
to use a tag then that is your choice. Not using a source tag when
basing
On 16 June 2011 15:34, Floris Looijesteijn o...@floris.nu wrote:
Could we then export change 2 to a PD database first and
import that into ODbL OSM?
Wouldn't it be much simpler for those users to simply accept CT? PD is
a superset of CT and ODbL after all...
Dermot
--
No, it would be simpler for OSM.
Regards,
Gert
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Dermot McNally [mailto:derm...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: Thursday, June 16, 2011 4:59 PM
Aan: Floris Looijesteijn
CC: OpenStreetMap Talk
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Users who disagree to ODbL but want PD / CC0
On 16 June 2011 16:04, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
No, it would be simpler for OSM.
Works for me - I'm an OSM mapper and the work in question is from OSM
mappers. Floris' comments talk about saving as much data as
possible, by context, saving it for
On 16 June 2011 14:47, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 June 2011 09:55, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Robert Whittaker wrote:
A major purpose of the CTs is to ensure that all the data
remaining in OSM is suitable for re-licensing under any
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
Works for me - I'm an OSM mapper and the work in question is from OSM
mappers. Floris' comments talk about saving as much data as
possible, by context, saving it for OSM. The easiest way to do this
is as I have
On 16 Jun 2011, at 16:04, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
No, it would be simpler for OSM.
If you're willing to public domain your work, you're willing to give it to
anyone under any terms. Why would you not contribute under the new CTs if
you're willing to accept any
On 16 Jun 2011, at 16:27, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
Works for me - I'm an OSM mapper and the work in question is from OSM
mappers. Floris' comments talk about saving as much data as
possible, by context, saving it
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com wrote:
If we convince them to release under PD, then we can take their work and then
license it as ODbL, so not wanting their work licensed ODbL precludes
releasing under PD.
But then it would under the account / liability of
On jeudi 16 juin 2011 at 10:20, Tom Hughes wrote :
To inject some actual hard data into the conversation, here are some
actual numbers, straight from the database:
Users with edits who have agreed: 96917
Users without edits who have agreed: 104663
Users with edits who have not agreed:
On 2011-06-16 15:48, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Andreas Perstinger wrote:
How did you noticed that there is a right-way turn lane? Probably not by
looking on the OSM map because then it would have been already there. So
you have another source (local knowledge, bing, ...) from which you got
Toby Murray-2 wrote:
There is no such thing as an enforced tag in OSM. If you choose not
to use a tag then that is your choice.
Enforced may have been a poor choice of word.
What I meant was that, as I understand it, there is no particular licensing
requirement that every node/way derived
Andreas Perstinger wrote:
On 2011-06-16 15:48, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Andreas Perstinger wrote:
How did you noticed that there is a right-way turn lane? Probably not
by
looking on the OSM map because then it would have been already there.
So
you have another source (local knowledge,
On 16/06/11 17:09, Renaud MICHEL wrote:
On jeudi 16 juin 2011 at 10:20, Tom Hughes wrote :
To inject some actual hard data into the conversation, here are some
actual numbers, straight from the database:
Users with edits who have agreed: 96917
Users without edits who have agreed: 104663
Users
Tom Hughes-3 wrote:
To inject some actual hard data into the conversation, here are some
actual numbers, straight from the database:
Users with edits who have agreed: 96917
Users without edits who have agreed: 104663
Users with edits who have not agreed: 86764
Users without edits who
2011/6/16 Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net:
If there is just *one* single object near your way which isn't based on a
ccbysa node/way, then you could always argue IMHO that you've measured the
location of your way from this object (JOSM has a measurement tool with you
can use for
On 16 June 2011 16:55, Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com wrote:
If we convince them to release under PD, then we can take their work and then
license it as ODbL, so not wanting their work licensed ODbL precludes
releasing under PD.
Notwithstanding the fact that much of the reasoning here
2011/6/16 Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Graham Stewart (GrahamS)
gra...@dalmuti.net wrote:
and that the source tag is certainly recommended, but not enforced.
There is no such thing as an enforced tag in OSM. If you choose not
to use a tag then that is
2011/6/16 Andreas Perstingerandreas.perstin...@gmx.net:
If there is just *one* single object near your way which isn't based on a
ccbysa node/way, then you could always argue IMHO that you've measured the
location of your way from this object (JOSM has a measurement tool with you
can use for
Hi,
Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
There are at least a few users who have disagreed to ODbL
but are ok with PD (or CC0).
From phase 4 on we only allow people to edit if they have agreed to the
CT, so we'd definitely have to disable the account of that user. But
since his data is available
On 16/06/2011 18:00, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
You can also put this information in the change-set-comment. IMHO this
is where this belongs to. AFAIK the source-tag is disputed and it is
recommended to use the changeset comments.
The problem with the changeset source tag is that there's no
Hi,
Renaud MICHEL wrote:
Users with edits who have not agreed: 86764
Users without edits who have not agreed: 129406
When you write users who have not agreed, do you mean only those that have
explicitly said no to the CT?
Or do you include all the users who have not made a choice yet?
The
Thomas Davie schrieb:
On 16 Jun 2011, at 16:04, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
No, it would be simpler for OSM.
If you're willing to public domain your work, you're willing to give it to
anyone under any terms. Why would you not contribute under the new CTs if
you're
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM, SomeoneElse
li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:
On 16/06/2011 18:00, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
You can also put this information in the change-set-comment. IMHO this
is where this belongs to. AFAIK the source-tag is disputed and it is
recommended to use the
On 2011-06-16 18:51, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2011/6/16 Andreas Perstingerandreas.perstin...@gmx.net:
If there is just *one* single object near your way which isn't based on a
ccbysa node/way, then you could always argue IMHO that you've measured the
location of your way from this object
Hi all,
I am doing a large upload (~600k nodes, ~4k ways, 280 relations) using the
bulk_upload.py script.
Up to some point everything was fine, all the nodes got uploaded, and also half
of the ways, but then it started to return the 500 Internal Server Error
message.
Attached
On 16 June 2011 18:55, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
I know at least one person who does exactly that just because he wants to
harm the OSMF because he disagrees with the processes - not with the
outcome, though.
The harm he's doing is to the other mappers in the areas he has mapped.
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 18:50 +0100, SomeoneElse wrote:
On 16/06/2011 18:00, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
You can also put this information in the change-set-comment. IMHO this
is where this belongs to. AFAIK the source-tag is disputed and it is
recommended to use the changeset comments.
The
On 2011-06-16 19:15, David Earl wrote:
2011/6/16 Andreas Perstingerandreas.perstin...@gmx.net:
If there is just *one* single object near your way which isn't based on a
ccbysa node/way, then you could always argue IMHO that you've measured the
location of your way from this object (JOSM has
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab at gmail.com writes:
I've been away for a while. But it seems to me from reading the terms
that I can't say yes to them in good faith, not because I don't want
to, but because I remember I derived a few things from external
CC-BY-SA, and I can't now recall what they
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:49:36PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
additionally clicked the PD checkbox. It would be possible, from a
database point of view, to set the PD option without setting the
agreed to CT field. We should do this manually for those users who
haven't agreed. In all other
I'm staying out of the discussion, just please remember the PD-checkbox
has no legal meaning, as documented here:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_Are_The_Choices.3F
Any retroactive change just isn't going to work.
Simon
Am 16.06.2011 22:08, schrieb
Hi,
I am moving this over to legal-talk because that's where it belongs.
Florian Lohoff wrote:
This should have been an option right from the beginning.
PD and ODBL/CT are non mutual exclusive options but the frontend makes
it one - So i am unable to click on PD without accepting CT/ODBL
On 6/16/2011 2:29 PM, KKL Import wrote:
Up to some point everything was fine, all the nodes got uploaded, and
also half of the ways, but then it started to return the 500 Internal
Server Errormessage.
I have seen this behavior once. A possible solution is to change the
fragment to work
On 6/16/2011 2:29 PM, KKL Import wrote:
Up to some point everything was fine, all the nodes got uploaded, and
also half of the ways, but then it started to return the 500 Internal
Server Errormessage.
I have seen this behavior once. A possible solution is to change the
fragment
Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com writes:
On 16 June 2011 18:55, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
I know at least one person who does exactly that just because he wants to
harm the OSMF because he disagrees with the processes - not with the
outcome, though.
The harm he's doing is to the
Dear All,
Have you ever wondered about a changeset comment from a particular
mapper, but found that browsing through a changeset was a little more
involved than you had hoped? Me too. I've always wanted some kind of
a summary, of what is being done in a changeset, or various places. I
still
Dermot McNally schrieb:
On 16 June 2011 18:55, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote:
I know at least one person who does exactly that just because he wants to
harm the OSMF because he disagrees with the processes - not with the
outcome, though.
The harm he's doing is to the other mappers in
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:00 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
You can also put this information in the change-set-comment. IMHO this
is where this belongs to. AFAIK the source-tag is disputed and it is
recommended to use the changeset comments.
Source is disputed? By whom?
2011/6/17 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:00 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
Source is disputed? By whom? I've never heard any dispute about it? I
put a source tag on every single object I create, and try and update
it when I modify it.
It is not completely useless but
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:00 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
You can also put this information in the change-set-comment. IMHO this
is where this belongs to. AFAIK the source-tag is disputed and it is
recommended to use the changeset comments.
That's pretty.
Make things clickable? Like the username?
On 6/16/2011 2:07 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
Dear All,
Have you ever wondered about a changeset comment from a particular
mapper, but found that browsing through a changeset was a little more
involved than you had hoped? Me too. I've
Hi
I'm speaking personally and there are no guarantees here but I'd like to
get input on what areas you would like Bing to prioritise for aerial
and/or satellite imagery in the coming year. Please mail
sco...@microsoft.com with the area in question (I'd love to accept
bounding boxes but
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 14:09 -0700, Steve Coast wrote:
I'm speaking personally and there are no guarantees here but I'd like to
get input on what areas you would like Bing to prioritise for aerial
and/or satellite imagery in the coming year.
There are numerous programs that exist which show
On 17 June 2011 13:19, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
There are numerous programs that exist which show the density of mapping
in certain areas. Maybe it would be useful to find the more heavily
mapped areas that dont have coverage?
That's making assumptions that larger towns are
On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 13:52 +1000, John Smith wrote:
On 17 June 2011 13:19, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
There are numerous programs that exist which show the density of mapping
in certain areas. Maybe it would be useful to find the more heavily
mapped areas that dont have
Dermot McNally writes:
Wouldn't it be much simpler for those users to simply accept CT?
No. Some guy is going around claiming that everyone who accepts the CT
supports the licensng change and supports the CT and ODbL as the
preferred licenses. Some people who do not are not comfortable signing
Tobias Knerr osm at tobias-knerr.de writes:
I put source tags on changesets now.
That sounds like a great idea. (Does Merkaartor have support for this?)
I do worry that people who've grown accustomed to seeing the tag on each object
would be less happy at having to dig through the object
My understanding is that Nearmap wish all contributions to OSM, by any
mapper who has agreed to the CT, derived from their imagery (before the 17th
June 2011) to be able to be relicenced by OSMF under any licence it (OSMF)
chooses at any time.
However I also can't see exactly how the published
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:12:24 +0800
James Andrewartha tr...@student.uwa.edu.au wrote:
Sadly, that's not how I understand it - particularly the terms in
place between OSM and the individual ... at the relevant time. bit
says to me that retrospective signing of the CTs to cover old
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
the last time I read the CTs (which have several versions), there was a
clear reference to me having the rights to the data and perpetually
licensing those rights to another organisation
That would stop me signing up
1 - 100 of 188 matches
Mail list logo
