On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Lord-Castillo, Brett
blord-casti...@stlouisco.com wrote:
In our jurisdiction, we have 370,000 roads and 800+ bridges. We basically use
a whole bunch of radio dispatchers looking at live edited maps for routing.
Just building a routing network has been a massive
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think people want to use this as a this is your route and you must
follow it. The idea would be that (a) dispatchers and emergency drivers
could use the map and suggested route to give a better estimate on arrival
time
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that even if everyone has all the roads in their jurisdiction
memorized (and nowadays with consolidation and huge coverage areas that's
harder to do
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone used OSM for emergency routing with squad cars or ambulances?
Sounds like a really terrible idea.
Are there any existing tags to specify emergency-only roads?
access=no
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
On 6/3/11 8:51 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Ian Deesian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone used OSM for emergency routing with squad cars or ambulances?
Sounds like a really terrible idea
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
in short: a routing engine will probably use classifications where maxspeed
data is missing, but probably only to derive guesstimates of maxspeed
values.
Now that I think about it, that's actually an excellent reason
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
On 5/29/11 11:37 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Richard Weltyrwe...@averillpark.net
wrote:
in short: a routing engine will probably use classifications where
maxspeed
data is missing
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
On 5/29/11 11:59 AM, Anthony wrote:
Anyway, why argue about it? If you have a reason to start
aggressively collecting data the missing maxspeed data, just do it.
argue in the sense of a civil discussion of two
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On 05/29/2011 08:37 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Richard Welty
rwelty-Fu78d/dmhrmzesifbgk...@public.gmane.org wrote:
Now that I think about it, that's actually an excellent reason why
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On 05/29/2011 12:56 PM, Anthony wrote:
What do you mean by global consistency and why is it desired?
Having some kind of uniformity on a large scale means you wouldn't have
to learn how to read the map again just because
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 09:26:41 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
No, trunk is also used for a major intercity highway that's not a
freeway. Take a look at the UK and their network of trunks.
I'm sorry, I thought I posted to
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote:
On 5/28/2011 9:12 AM, Anthony wrote:
Trunk has no meaning beyond color the road the same color as other
things that are tagged trunk.
Even color is not defined - some trunks can be toll / not toll.
However, trunk *could
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote:
Take, as an example, US 84 in western Alabama.
FWIW, Google has it as the top level non-motorway. As far as I can
tell there's no other more important east-west road within 50 miles.
What road would you use traveling
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote:
Take, as an example, US 84 in western Alabama.
FWIW, Google has it as the top level non-motorway. As far as I can
tell there's no other more important east
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote:
Primary means (at least according to most of the wiki pages)
the primary non-motorway route between two cities.
Any wiki pages that say that are clearly wrong
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2011 22:39:51 -0400, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote:
Primary means (at least according to most of the wiki pages)
the primary non-motorway route between
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2011 00:13:33 -0400, Anthony wrote:
If you want to get people to tag more than two lanes and a
barely-existent shoulder, I think you'd have much more success
creating tags for those features than convincing
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2011 00:13:33 -0400, Anthony wrote:
convincing people that their
area of the country isn't allowed to have any trunks.
Also, why is this any worse than not having a motorway?
Why is what worse than
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2011 00:57:30 -0400, Anthony wrote:
That's quite the misrepresentation of what I'm saying.
It was an exact quote.
You may have heard of the concept of the pull quote. It describes using
partial quotations
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Anthony writes:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Mike N writes:
Even a proper reversion script will cause much collateral damage
for
the cases I'm aware
On Apr 18, 2011 9:30 AM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 18 April 2011 05:05, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Frederik Ramm writes:
No. To get access to (at least TeleAtlas's or Navteq's) data you will
have to sign an agreement that binds you to much more than just
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
I doubt we have to worry about Google, Tele Atlas or Navteq consistently and
deliberately using OSM data under the current licence. For them, it's not
about the law one way or another: it's about reputation risk. No
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Ed,
Ed Avis wrote:
Yes, and the fact that if they did try to claim they could copy the OSM
map
data, then their own maps would equally well be copyable.
No. To get access to (at least TeleAtlas's or Navteq's) data
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Mike N writes:
Even a proper reversion script will cause much collateral damage for
the cases I'm aware of.
The whole point behind having a license is to be able to sue people
who violate it.
You've got it exactly
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
The CT contain this clause whereby it becomes impossible to do what Dermot
writes above - if 2/3 of mappers agree to use another free and open license,
then that is the new license and everyone's data is changed to that
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 6:36 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example,
Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a
city only,
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 6:10 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 7:35 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I understand this, we would then have all the cons of
cc-by-sa (e.g. that some mayor mapping company could rip us off)
Show us the
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Tobias Knerr writes:
Russ Nelson wrote:
Unless somebody has a theory under which there will be more mappers
suing more users, the only rational conclusion can be that the license
change will hurt OSM, and not
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:13 AM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2011 01:53, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 23:36 +0100, 80n wrote:
Do you think that Google haven't considered the possibilty of
incorporating OSM data into their MapMaker
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
He knows perfectly well, because he has been told a thousand
times, that one of the countries where CC-BY-SA doesn't work for our data is
his country of residence, the USA.
Being told something is not equivalent to
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
The revert script used to remove Anthony's edits (which were traced
from Google) was a basic revert script which only used API methods.
There were also mistakes made like reverting the items anthony had
deleted
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
David Murn wrote:
Out of interest Grant, what other large-scale open source projects have
changed their licence the way that OSM has? In fact, changed their
licence full-stop..?
Wikipedia went from GFDL to
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
CC-BY-SA works exactly as intended. In fact, the
license even explicitly states its intent: Nothing in this License
is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any uses free from copyright
or rights arising from limitations
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 8:37 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
the contract you signed when accepting older versions CTs will of
course not be changed or automatically updated by newer versions of
these CTs (like the current one). But that does not necessarily imply
that
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess the problem with continuing to allow CC distribution of the
data is that that would leave OSM unprotected in those jurisdictions
where CC isn't recognised for map data.
1) What jurisdictions would that be?
2) If
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
The name of the company is McDonalds, so anything belonging to them should
be McDonalds's.
http://www.facebook.com/McDonalds?v=photos
McDonald's's Photos LOL
Of course, the correct way is to punt, like Wikipedia: The
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 7:00 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 13:54 -0700, flambe...@gmail.com wrote:
There are currently three (3) main files - one for the United States,
one for Canada and one for Europe.
This is great, but the US is 300m, Canada 34m and
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Brian Wilson br...@wildsong.biz wrote:
...and USPS database is probably 5-10 years out of date.
What USPS database are you talking about? My understanding is that
the USPS maintains an extraordinarily up-to-date list of unique valid
addresses.
A copy of it would
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Brian Wilson br...@wildsong.biz wrote:
You'd be better off trying to get tax assessor data on a county by
county basis and then create centroids from the parcels.
I've tried that, and it works great for individual residences. But
it's useless for apartments and
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Brian Wilson br...@wildsong.biz wrote:
You'd be better off trying to get tax assessor data on a county by
county basis and then create centroids from the parcels.
I've tried that, and it works great
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Steven Johnson sejohns...@gmail.com wrote:
To my knowledge the DSF is not available as a public domain data
set; back in the '90's, the US Census Bureau had to get Congressional
permission to use it for creating the Master Address File (MAF).
The USPS claims
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Andrew Ayre a...@britishideas.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
(*) Incidentally, if you'd like to buy a copy of the database and give
it to me, I'd be willing to be the guinea pig who redistributes it, or
Buying the database and giving it to you is probably against
any flip-flopping for osm map too?
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20110216-320609/SC-flip-flops-again-rules-laws-creating-16-cities-constitutional
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
another first for osm? ;-)
On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 14:02 +0800, maning sambale wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=11.1059lon=122.6434zoom=14layers=M
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote:
Please check the license of GADM. Before importing.
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Anthony G. Balico
anthony.bal...@gmail.com wrote:
Bing map tracing is making the province's road network takes shape. Am
now planning to upload the administrative boundaries
Carrollwood Bicycle Emporium (48467), a bicycle shop, to a shopping
center. On October 12, Anthony added an address to this bicycle shop. The
removal of his data yesterday removed the shop completely, instead of
simply taking it back to my original contribution (location, name, shop tag
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Here's what happened. Grand plaza was mapped as one single building.
I deleted that one building in order to map it as 3 separate
buildings, because that's essentially what it is (3 buildings, with a
shared roof/awning/whatever
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Hillsman, Edward hills...@cutr.usf.edu wrote:
Hi Anthony,
Don't worry about it. You did great work on the area, because (I gather) you
live out there. I live and work quite a bit farther east, and I do most of my
mapping closer to where I live. I added
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Nope, that doesn't really help. Anthony posted a message out of the blue
with a before and after picture and later stated that The board voted to
delete my contributions, and this is the before and after.
Later someone (who
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 February 2011 14:01, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Which, by the way, I denied. Tracing aerials does not involve copying data.
Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't.
It definitely doesn't. There's no maybe about
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Kay Drangmeister k...@drangmeister.net wrote:
Hi
Am 10.02.2011, 15:24 Uhr, schrieb Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Which, by the way, I denied. Tracing aerials does not involve copying
data.
Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't.
It definitely doesn't. There's
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Hillsman, Edward hills...@cutr.usf.edu wrote:
This is not about my losing a few contributions; the information I need to
figure out what
was lost in this part of the map, and hints on how I can reconstruct what I
did, is there in
the my edits history. And
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Ed,
Hillsman, Edward wrote:
As an example, on September 5, 2009, I added Carrollwood Bicycle Emporium
(48467), a bicycle shop, to a shopping center. On October 12, Anthony
added an address to this bicycle shop
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
Where possible only infringing edits will be removed - I'm not sure why you
think we would or should do more than that. In this case the mapper refused
to cooperate with identifying which edits were infringing so we had to
Either you traced from Google or none of the edits were infringing.
Those two assertions are mutually incompatible.
No they aren't.
Anthony,
they might not be incompatible as far as you are concerned.
But they are incompatible as far as the OSM community is concerned. That is
a fact
OSM has repeatedly said it does not want contents that are derived
from Google tracing. It's very clear. OSM is not asking you whether you
think you are allowed to trace from Google. It is telling you that as a
community we don't want you to trace from Google.
Yes. And it's telling me
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote:
Anthony wrote:
OSM is not asking you whether you think you are allowed to trace
from Google. It is telling you that as a community we don't want
you to trace from Google.
Yes. And it's telling me that by deleting
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:54 PM, nicholas.g.lawre...@tmr.qld.gov.au wrote:
Anthony, when you traced from google imagery, what went into
OSM?
Nothing.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
And yes, if as much of the community agreed that 1+1=3 as agrees that
tracing from google is not desirable, then I would tag lanes=3 on 2
lane roads.
I wouldn't. And I think that pretty much sums this whole mess up.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:01 PM, nicholas.g.lawre...@tmr.qld.gov.au wrote:
So why did you say that you had traced from google imagery in
the first place? (if nothing went into OSM)
I think the more interesting question is, if I had demanded that all
my contributions to OSM be removed, would
http://www.sharedmap.org/bna.html
http://www.sharedmap.org/before.PNG
http://www.sharedmap.org/after.PNG
Warning: Viewing the before picture may cause you to never be able
to map OSM again. Also note that by visiting any of those URLs you
agree to the terms of service at
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Al Haraka alhar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
http://www.sharedmap.org/bna.html
http://www.sharedmap.org/before.PNG
http://www.sharedmap.org/after.PNG
I enjoy a thread that is well on its way to a flame war
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Al Haraka alhar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
http://www.sharedmap.org/bna.html
http://www.sharedmap.org/before.PNG
http://www.sharedmap.org
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Joseph Reeves iknowjos...@gmail.com wrote:
But that's got nothing to do with the licensing change - that's an
issue of you ripping off Google Maps.
It has nothing at all to do with me ripping off Google Maps. And
regardless of the *reason* the contributions are
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote:
On 9 February 2011 18:43, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Joseph Reeves iknowjos...@gmail.com wrote:
But that's got nothing to do with the licensing change - that's an
issue of you ripping
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I agree. Hopefully you can make it even better than it was before.
I'd definitely appreciate it.
Another place to work on is
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=27.967175lon=-82.550445zoom=18layers=M
It's not actually a bridge
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote:
I'm not a local at all so all I can do is 'armchair mapping' for this
area. It looks like some of the ways that have been removed were
previously imported from TIGER. It would be helpful if there was a
TIGER layer that we
-Original Message-
From: dipie...@gmail.com [mailto:dipie...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Anthony
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 6:47 PM
To: Ido Omer
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] (magical?) road detector
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Ido Omer ido.o...@microsoft.com wrote
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Ido Omer ido.o...@microsoft.com wrote:
Hi Steve,
What we currently exposed is a web service that given two points finds the
best road
between them (or at least what it considers as best, which can be really bad
sometimes)
We are not stopping people from
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Ido Omer ido.o...@microsoft.com wrote:
I am a researcher at Microsoft and I am currently working on the road
detector.
Hi Ido. The code to the road detector isn't at all open, is it?
___
talk mailing list
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
On 03/02/11 04:21, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net wrote:
I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the
license.
Mine is that the license
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
On 03/02/11 10:18, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Jonathan Harley wrote:
Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements
are free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use
OSM.
That's as
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
I've always understood that the intent of the
ODbL was not to change the spirit of OSM licensing, just to clarify it.
Whose intent are we talking about, here
The
license doesn't even mention data, and attribution is not enough.
OSM applies the license to data - the license attribution it requests
specifically mentions Map data.
Again, who wrote the license attribution request? Not me. In fact,
I'm not even sure what license attribution
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
On 02/02/11 16:15, Anthony wrote:
What is meant by content is unmodified? Obviously the printed base
map is going to be modified from the original database. So under your
interpretation, the part about the content
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
On 02/02/11 18:00, Peter Miller wrote:
And this one showing the location of the 'Trafford Law Centre' unless
the photo was also on a free license or moved so as not to obscure the
map.
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
On 02/02/11 17:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Jonathan Harley wrote:
Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the
sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database,
in which case
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 02/02/11 18:49, Jonathan Harley wrote:
For print, yes, that's about the size of it.
I don't see what print's got to do with it. Any rendering, whether to
paper or to a screen, changes the bits used
The
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Nonsense. The person visiting the website doesn't give the
instructions to the machine. The person providing the website does.
If you wrote a website which intentionally caused the computer of the
person visiting it to overheat
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
It is not, as you imply, a
reason for not agreeing to the Contributor Terms (these would still
allow us to go for CC 4.0 licenses)
It's not in itself a reason to not agree to the CT, but it does fairly
well eliminate most
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
I think Peter is right - as long as
the CC-BY[-SA] content is unmodified, it can be assembled with other things to
form a collective work. The CC-BY[-SA] licenses do not say that they still
have
to be separate and
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
The strict view expressed above by Frederick and others would mean that it
would be impossible to use osm mapping as a bacground for this crime data as
in the chart, 'Violent crime in the USA' unless the overlaid
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
Strongly agree. Whether started and/or spread by CC, OSM, both, or
neither, there definitely seems to be a common misconception that OSM
is simply a database of facts,
Well I for one still
I'd urge everyone, especially those who have not yet decided whether
or not to agree to the Contributor Terms, to read this post by Mike
Linksvayer of Creative Commons. Most relevantly he asks us to:
use CC licenses for data and databases now, participate in the 4.0
process, and upgrade when the
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:44 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/1/31 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
I think I agree with your earlier point that mp's are better than
colinear ways, but colinear ways are still better than parallel ways
for areas that do actually
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:02 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/1/31 Matt Williams li...@milliams.com:
The example that come to my mind is the case where an administrative
boundary is _defined_ by a river or stream for example.
Yes, the same came to my mind. But what
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:44 AM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
I could set up a proxy - on my squid to rewrite URL
'forbidden_image' to 'google' if I wanted.
In the latest version of JOSM it's actually quite trivial to bypass
the blacklist. No need to set up a proxy at all. Of
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
You aren't addressing the core question. Given that the new imagery
plugin has made it much simpler to accidentally infringe, is a URL
blacklist a suitable way to raise that barrier closer to where it was
a few weeks
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 7:18 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 January 2011 10:04, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
Frederik is also a member of the Data Working Group, along with
myself, who have to deal with the consequences of people recklessly
tracing in
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 7:21 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
On Sat, 2011-01-29 at 23:51 +1000, John Smith wrote: Thankfully the main
author of the software seems to want a more
general editor, not just one that works with OSM specific APIs etc.
This makes me wonder. Dirk has
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
No, seriously, it would be great if someone found a way to modify the API
(more precisely, the cgimap program) so that it accepts requests for larger
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Longer term though, there should almost surely be a tile based index.
Umm, yeah, please pretend I didn't say that :).
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:08 AM, MP singular...@gmail.com wrote:
But Potlatch is much slower, at least for me, once there are several
thousand primitives in view it will become quite unuseable.
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:22 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/1/24 Steve
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 7:34 AM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
I also honestly thought it was the first editor with non-sucky
relations support :)
I just checked and the relations support is much better than it was
last time I used it, and probably better than PL1 (once I can
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:40 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/1/24 Sebastian Klein basti...@googlemail.com:
Anthony wrote:
If I take notes of which parts I find least intuitive (the parts I
have to RTFM about, like how to reopen those right-side toolbarish
windows
Sarrat, Ilocos Norte. My humble hometown just got a TLC from me :)
Caution to the other local mappers, Bing map is off by few meters. Had
to tweak my josm, lucky there are gps traces to refer from.
On Sat, 2011-01-22 at 11:41 +0800, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
There's also Ilocos Norte. Paoay
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Steve Bennett wrote:
I wonder if anyone has ever made an OSM editor which is not
map-based, for just editing tags on objects.
http://rawedit.openstreetmap.fr/
Cool. That's useful for when you know the exact
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Cool. That's useful for when you know the exact lat/lon of the nodes
you want to place.
Well for those that don't go into cardiac arrest when they see the JOSM
splash screen, there's also Shift-D
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Vincent Pottier vpott...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 24/01/2011 00:25, Anthony a écrit :
I'm not quite sure why, but I really don't like JOSM. Of the four
main editors (others being PL1, PL2, and Merkaartor), it's my least
favorite.
I realy don't understand why.
I
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote:
Please don't feed the troll ...
C'mon now, if I wanted to troll I would have talked shit about PL1.
But in fact I like Potlatch. PL1 is by far my favorite of the 4. If
only it had support for FOSM and USGS high res
201 - 300 of 1311 matches
Mail list logo
