On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think that the misconception from which CC is now distancing themselves is
that data should be licensed CC0, not OSM is a databae of facts.
Do you think they are also distancing themselves from the position
that
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think that the misconception from which CC is now distancing themselves is
that data should be licensed CC0, not OSM is a databae of facts.
Do you think
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Personally I'm hoping for a CC-BY-SA which states explicitly that it
does not cover unoriginal facts and that it only covers the expression
half of the idea/expression divide.
Ugh, sorry for the imprecise language (this is why I'm
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Joao Neto joao.p.n...@gmail.com wrote:
Great points Anthony. Thanks for sharing!
To be honest I think the share-alike aspect of the license is too
restrictive and working against the project. The most successful projects in
the open source / community space
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
I think there has been a bit of a crossed wire between 'scientific data' and
'anything which can be considered as data'. The position that scientific data
sets should be placed in the public domain seems reasonable (IMHO) but
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1sC0SrG_R6OkRDdC3IJKlmDEn2pYTY2DZfcpSLFdiBBU
You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to
authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our current
licence terms.
What are the current license terms? Right now it means,
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:18 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/1/12 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
As I said, highway=road is not defined as unknown classification, it
is defined as a road of unknown classification.
IMHO that's just a bad definition, because if you don't
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 01/12/2011 11:39 AM, Anthony wrote:
Which I suppose is one of my main questions. If a way is tagged with
highway=road, and nothing else, should a router route motor vehicle
traffic down it? I would think the answer
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
On 11/01/11 11:05, David Murn wrote:
On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 19:47 +, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 10/01/11 19:00, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
American usage would be to refer to that as a road, just not a very
high-quality road.
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 4:54 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
Well, I dunno/care about what the definition is in every state, but the
definition of highway=road in the OSM wiki (since I believe we're all
talking about OSM here, and not some other localised schema):
From
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:59 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 20:39 -0500, Anthony wrote:
So, while 'road' may mean a tarred bit of bitumen in the UK, and it
means something passable by a vehicle in Australia, in the OSM context
it means an unknown
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The wiki is confusing, though. It puts highway=residential,
highway=track, highway=service, and highway=pedestrian under the
subcategory of roads, but it puts highway=cycleway, highway=footway,
and highway=bridleway under
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Alex Mauer wrote:
Which one were you thinking of? I count two road types in your list:
highway=track and highway=unclassified. And it could be other highway=*
types too.
highway=track doesn't imply a road
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
After ungluing a node, move one of them just a little bit.
If the road is straight at the would-be intersection, you should just
delete the node, right?
At the same time, having these nodes there isn't such a bad thing - at
least
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:54 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
But why write routers for the one case thats
theoretically possible, instead of the millions that are not only
possible, but already in existance?
So your router doesn't tell people to jump off bridges.
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
A very large percentage of what we map now will still be valid in 120 years
time
Database rights only last 15 years, though, and facts can't be copyrighted.
___
legal-talk
stating about people thinking the data is
owned by people isn't the full store, in fact I think it was Anthony
that pointed this out the other day about people collaborating on a
movie project and having a certain expectation about the licensing at
the end of it
Yes, I remember - he used
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:11 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 January 2011 01:02, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
But you are right in that there is a weakness because people are not
guaranteed a right
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Such an opt-out clause
would mean: We're not a community building something together, we're a pot
where everyone can temporarily put their personal contribution but remove it
at any time.
On the rest, we're going to
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing
terms.
It's my impression that this statement reflects the fundamental
philosophical reason why you seem to disagree with all versions
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 01/04/11 14:59, Dave F. wrote:
On 04/01/2011 02:52, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Dave F.dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Being curious in return, why are you curious?
Well, he does work
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
But you are right in that there is a weakness because people are not
guaranteed a right to contribute.
[]
But what could we do?
Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing
terms. Even an
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
Specifically I’m wondering if everyone has androids because we’re all open
source nuts or if it’s more balanced? Only the data will show.
I've got an Android of some kind. While I'm willing to put up with
proprietary
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
The *main* reason for the active-contributor definition is that we need to
exclude those who are dead, unreachable, or have lost interest, from the
decision
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
If you look at Android from the view point of the end user or the
hacker, it's quite closed. DRM, binary drivers, and the mobile
operators occasionally blocking tethering applications.
How are mobile operators blocking
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
On 12/30/10 5:09 PM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
My guess (without having run a query) is that the Biitig Road entries in
the database may not have any values tagged for town name and county name,
and that Nominatim
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
On 1/1/11 12:59 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Richard Weltyrwe...@averillpark.net
wrote:
On 12/30/10 5:09 PM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
My guess (without having run a query
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
On 1/1/11 1:43 PM, Anthony wrote:
It looks to me like the core database is correct. Biittig Road
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/5629489) is not in Averill
Park (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
3) there's a post office, which delivers to a Very Large Area, much
larger than the boundaries of the CDP. the actual postal addressing
is what people going
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
but i did find a workaround. i added
is_in=Averill Park, NY, US
to Biittig Road
Which is incorrect. Biittig Road is not in Averill Park.
Just like Linkwood Ave is not in Tampa, Florida. And Altair Drive is
not in
what i still don't get is how it figures out the correct zip code of
12018
for the displayed result string, i guess there's some research to be
done yet.
I've back ported some code from the new version a couple of weeks back
which tries to improve postcode handling for addresses but this is
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
and be reserved for specific categories of motor vehicles.
This would eliminate a large number of Interstates out west.
Maybe it would. Is that a problem
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
and be reserved
Coverage in Tampa is no better than Yahoo, and much worse than the
USGS high res ortho.
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:
I just checked the MS campus in Redmond, WA - there's nothing beyond
21 there either it seems.
Martijn van Exel +++...@rtijn.org
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:23 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 December 2010 16:23, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Coverage in Tampa is no better than Yahoo, and much worse than the
USGS high res ortho.
Most of Europe hi-res areas are same or slightly better than Yahoo!, I
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 4:44 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, this still needs a change in the database schema and the API
because currently there's no such attribute that the editors could
use.
If you're going to change the database schema, I vote for just making
IDs
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Milo van der Linden m...@dogodigi.net wrote:
It would be interesting to have editor support for estimating the building
height depending on that displacement, or depending on the extent of the
shadow - that would have to be calibrated for each imagery and
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Milo van der Linden m...@dogodigi.net
wrote:
It would be interesting to have editor support for estimating the building
height depending on that displacement, or depending on the extent
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-23 04:14, Anthony wrote:
I guess... Isn't Bing supposed to be coming out with a more clear
license? This would be one point for them to clarify.
Good point. I think the discussion here
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I believe you could also do other things with traced data but that would
then be subject to the normal license, not the special license they granted
to OpenStreetMap.
And how do believe they achieve that? Through
I certainly didn't read it that way. The Bing license says you must
contribute traced data to openstreetmaps.org, but it doesn't say you
can't also contribute traced data to a fork.
After it has been contributed to openstreetmap.org, one can get it from
openstreetmap.org(dump maybe)
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-22 01:24, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org
wrote:
This rule means that everything that is traced from Bing before OSM stops
publishing under CC
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
This rule means that everything that is traced from Bing before OSM stops
publishing under CC-BY-SA will be available to the world, forever, under
CC-BY-SA. But a hypothetical CC-BY-SA fork would not be allowed to accept
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:32 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
In other words, this license makes no grants of rights to publish derived
works
under any particular license, over and above what was already there.
That's probably a combination of the fact that Microsoft doesn't own
that right in
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Because your statement is simply wrong in the generality you made it.
Then show why I'm wrong, don't say that I may be right in some
jurisdictions and you aren't sure if I'm right in others.
For example in Germany simple
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote
None of that even shows that German courts use the term derivative
work, let alone define tracings of aerial photographs to be under the
definition of that term.
It's extremly unlikely
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 19/12/10 21:52, Anthony wrote:
What is the German equivalent
of a 'derived work'? And, if you're saying it's different, then how
can you say it's equivalent?
Your local copyright law almost certainly mentions adaptation
Google Maps 5.0 for Android adds vector graphics (including arbitrary
zoom and rotation) and offline usage/rerouting.
Looks like something to strive for. Gutsy of them to release the
vector data, IMO.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/under-hood-of-google-maps-50-for.html
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
On 18/12/10 18:17, Anthony wrote:
Google Maps 5.0 for Android adds vector graphics (including arbitrary
zoom and rotation) and offline usage/rerouting.
Just like MapDroyd has been doing with OSM data for ages you mean
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
Country and state borders are
pretty carefully defined by law and treaties, and it's unlikely that an
individual user is more correct than a current government-sourced dataset.
The government has an obvious
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
First of all, can we agree as a group to hold off on importing or applying
any TIGER 2010 data until we come up with a way to apply changes in a
uniform and somewhat organized manner?
I don't see why TIGER 2010 should be
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
2) Imports with existing data on the same area are nearly impossible
+10. Unless the import is done manually, I don't foresee it being a
positive thing. I'd love to be proven wrong, though.
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
First of all, can we agree as a group to hold off on importing or
applying
any TIGER
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Jukka Rahkonen
jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi wrote:
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:
On 12/14/10 10:28, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
I do not really believe that the turnout percentage in any OSM poll
would reach
66.7 percent, even if we count just the active
Also, the idea that the vote could be conducted via email is rather
humorous. Can't wait to see the dispute over the hanging chads in
that scenario.
I'm not sure why its humerous. There seems (to me) to be nothing wrong
in principle in holding a vote by email or indeed by any other
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 December 2010 15:21, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I wouldn't suggest a paper ballot either.
What would you suggest?
I'd suggest that people go to a URL, log in, check a box which says I
haven't already voted under
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I'd suggest that people go to a URL, log in, check a box which says I
haven't already voted under another account, and click Yes or No.
Their IP address would be recorded so that the committee overseeing
the vote could manually
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 3:15 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 December 2010 22:46, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
It's unclear to me whether a 2/3 majority of active contributors have
to vote yes, or merely 2/3 of some unspecified quorum of active
contributors.
It is extremely
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
Besides that, when do you plan on citing a source that isn't copyrighted
when you're mapping? If that's your only source, you can't use it:
That's plagerism.
I thought plagiarism is when you *don't* cite your sources.
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On 12/14/2010 08:47 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Paul Johnson
baloo-PVOPTusIyP/sroww+9z...@public.gmane.org wrote:
Besides that, when do you plan on citing a source that isn't copyrighted
when
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
It's not clear what the denominator is supposed to be.
2/3 of me are still trying to understand you, the rest are yelling he's
crazy! - can you clarify what you mean?
It's unclear to me whether a 2/3
One word: awesome!
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Totor totor_...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi all,
Just a quick note on the imagery.
I still have problems stitching them with Hugin.
More details here : http://osm.totor.ph/
I was able to align part of the pictures further, using
QGIS. Still
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 December 2010 14:08, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
If 67% is not clear in legalese, then legalese is stupid, IMHO. Let's
abolish all legal rules and make contributing fun instead, then.
There's no such thing
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/12/10 12:42, Simon Ward wrote:
We got new licences to choose from that countered
“Tivoisation” and software as a service issues. Let’s not also forget
We did. Which is precisely my point. The Linux kernel cannot move
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
OSMF would have to block 1000s [1] of contributors/mappers for a
period of at least 10 months, stop them from creating new accounts and
do this all without upsetting the rest of the contributors
(electorate).
demonstrating that data is PD in those jurisdictions.
WHAT about IANAL in my message don't you understand?
I do apologize. The formatting in the email I used made it appear that was a
quote from Anthony. I also apologize to Anthony.
I'm just more confused now.
The claim being made by you and Robert
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:46 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Share alike is a very simple thing to define. If you receive
something you can only distribute it under exactly the same terms that
you received it.
Share alike was a term invented by CC. They define it, in plain
English, as If you
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Just a note to say that it is not universally agreed that the ODbL is
free and open. I don't consider it to be a free licence because of the
contract-law provisions. However I seem to be in a very small minority
(perhaps a
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
1) You can't take things out of the public domain.
Of course you can't. But you can AFAIK (still, IANAL, bare that in mind)
make new contributions or a derived work and put that under any different
terms
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Ed Avis schrieb:
Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined.
Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear definition of
how active contributors are defined?
There's not a clear definition of how
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
One alternative is status quo.
Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located
in
some
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
Anthony:
Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law
regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm
going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap.
Please name the jurisdictions
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:39 AM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
Gert wants OSMF to align open and free with a formal definition used
by a respected organisation specialising in open and free licences /
software / data.
Who? If CC does it, they probably aren't going to include ODbL
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-08 14:25, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:05 AM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
And one of those problematic details is the OSMF. The OSMF was not
created to control the data
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andreas Perstinger
As I understand it, there must be someone who owns the database because
otherwise you can't defend it legally. Would you prefer a single person?
I'm not sure what you mean by owns
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
By the way: The Foundation does not own the OpenStreetMap data, is
not the copyright holder and has no desire to own the data.
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/OSMF:About
___
legal-talk
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-08 15:46, Anthony wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by owns the database. The copyright?
The database right? Something else?
I mean the database right. For the european database directive (which is a
protection for the investment into the database
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
One alternative is status quo.
Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located in
some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard, there
are quite a few). :P
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law
regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm
going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap.
Or maybe Frederik can answer it:
http
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-08 17:23, Anthony wrote:
The OSMF certainly should
not, because a very small portion of contributors are members of the
OSMF.
I agree with you that more contributors should be members of the OSMF
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-08 18:23, Anthony wrote:
That's probably a key reason for our difference of opinion. I'm one
of those individualists that Frederik was complaining about. I'm
quite wary of collectivism
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 December 2010 17:23, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The 1.0 CT doesn't even mention the database right. 1.2 (*) says that
the individual contributors grant the right to the OSMF, but according
to you the individual
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
There is *no* way for OSMF to, for example,
* license the data under a non-free or non-open license
Free according to whom? Open according to whom?
* license the data under a license not agreed to by 2/3 of active
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
To change the CT, all they have to do is 1)
require all contributors to sign a new CT. 2) Wait 3 months. 3) Have
a vote on the new CT among the users who have already signed the new
CT. Anyone who refused to sign the new CT would
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
On 05/12/2010 22:07, Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Dave F.dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
As long as there are external ways connecting to the area, a router
should
be able to find the appropriate
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:42 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
However, please understand that
most of us use routing software, expecting it not to try and take
shortcuts across unmapped areas.
Who said anything about taking shortcuts across *unmapped* areas? How
in the world would
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
The CT isn't a license, it's a terms of agreement. That means you've
given OSMF a license to the data, and now you're asking them to revoke
that license.
This would be (moral if not legal) equivalent of someone offering
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
PR is more important than legal. As most people on this list know, with
CC-BY-SA being next to invalid for Geodata in the US, any of the big US
players could long have taken our data an run. Why haven't they?
Because they
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
On 05/12/2010 22:07, Anthony wrote:
- which, if all they
know about is the perimeter, is probably a good thing.
Eh? I thought you said you'd love it if it cut
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:11 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 18:21 -0500, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:42 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
However, please understand that
most of us use routing software, expecting it not to try
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
As long as there are external ways connecting to the area, a router should
be able to find the appropriate entrances exits by tracking the perimeter.
I thought they were already able to do that, but maybe not.
Surely they
menu then choose Bing
Sat. Now you're good to go :)
Anthony
On Sat, 2010-12-04 at 22:42 +1100, Noli Sicad wrote:
How do I start traces Bing Maps Imagerty (e.g. Iligan) using JOSM.
Steps
1. Download the latest josm-latest.jar
2. In terminal (linux)
java -jar josm-latest.jar
3. Install
You're welcome Noli, happy to help.
Hurry with the experiments and there's a looot of things to do :)
On Sat, 2010-12-04 at 23:24 +1100, Noli Sicad wrote:
Hi Anthony,
Now I got it.
I will do experimental editing and tracing.
Thanks a lot.
Regards, Noli
On 12/4/10, Anthony G
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 December 2010 15:43, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I have no idea why it was actually put there, but one positive thing
it does (besides nullifying the ODbL) is that it puts us all on an
equal footing with OSMF
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
David Groom wrote:
If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD
They don't, rendering the rest of your e-mail moot. I mean, personally I
think it'd be lovely if they did, but they don't. I'm slightly amazed that
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Rather, as Francis pointed out: A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting
the licence? It does happen you know :-).
Or, as ever with OSM, never attribute to conspiracy that which can be
adequately explained by
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 3 December 2010 16:21, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
Rather, as Francis pointed out: A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
However, I don't know of any jurisdiction where clear, plain language,
unintended consequences are unenforcible.
And, actually, you can ignore that I've even said that. I don't see
the point in arguing over this. Suffice it to say
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Personally I'm delighted that Bing is happy to work with us, and I think
their attitude to permitting tracing without claiming a share in any
(allegedly) resulting IP reflects very well on them when compared to Google
Are we allowed to trace yet? Am killing time for zambo area
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.comwrote:
We should also check whether the imagery is aligned correctly.
I looked at Calamba and the imagery seems to be shifted WNW by around
5 meters compared to
301 - 400 of 1311 matches
Mail list logo
