On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
On 12/01/2010 02:31 PM, David Groom wrote:
- Original Message - From: Anthony o...@inbox.org Isn't
http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details the prior written
consent from Microsoft.
I'm not sure
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's the fact that we have an actual documentation of the
permission to trace. Yahoo's is pretty much just an unwritten/informal
agreement.
Except that at the point we don't. At this point, we have an unclear
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:42 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
- Original Message - From: Anthony o...@inbox.org
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 Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:34 AM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
Whereabouts is the prior written consent from Microsoft which would enable
us to trace and thus create derivative works?
David
[1] http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details
Isn't
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 12/01/2010 11:40 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
fx99 wrote:
2 Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant
to OSMF
and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, .
can somebody explain
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Robin Paulson schrieb:
or am i missing a tag? do i need to tag parks, etc. with area=yes
foot=yes, access=yes or would that be a case of tagging for the
routing engine
Note that in some park, stepping on the grass is
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:29 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 15:30 +, Ed Avis wrote:
As a rough rule, leisure=park and landuse=grass could be considered walkable,
unless tagged access=no or access=private.
You may also find timed access restrictions
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 5:22 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 11:43 -0500, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:29 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 15:30 +, Ed Avis wrote:
As a rough rule, leisure=park and landuse
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Felix Hartmann extremecar...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think routing over areas will ever work well. It might work for 2-3
areas and that is already really difficult for calculation. Just routing
onto an open space is no problem, but calculating a route over a
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Robin Paulson robin.paul...@gmail.com wrote:
but it's getting away form the point: parks are
only one implementation/manifestation of the situation. i'm enquiring
about routing across areas in general, and whether anyone does/will do
it.
I don't think anyone
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Just take the n ways which connect to the area, and
run
http://www.loria.fr/~lazard/Publications/Curvature-constrained_shortest_path_in_a_convex_polygon/Curvature-constrained_shortest_path_in_a_convex_polygon.html
Actually
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 6:57 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 12:01 +1300, Robin Paulson wrote:
That's nonsense. A way does not show a right of passage. A
particularly tagged way shows a right of passage. And a park is a
particularly tagged way.
No,
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Robin Paulson robin.paul...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 December 2010 13:14, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I'd love it. It's a feature I'm quite looking forward to. One day
OSM will be able to route me from Linkwood Avenue to Pine Bay Drive
through the park
(http
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 7:48 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 19:14 -0500, Anthony wrote:
That's nonsense. A way does not show a right of passage. A
particularly tagged way shows a right of passage. And a park is a
particularly tagged way
One day OSM will be able to route me from Linkwood Avenue to Pine Bay
Drive
through the park
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.07187lon=-82.550402zoom=18layers=M),
saving me 50 minutes of walking.
Imagine if you tried to save 50min by getting routed across Albert
Park[1].
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
Isn't the content the users provide just facts (at least the
coordinates, some tags could be questionable)?
I don't think it's quite that simple. If I draw a complex
intersection on a piece of paper, that's
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 6:02 AM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
I can see the legal line of thought for paying to belong to a company /
organisation.
I can too. Annual membership dues provide a mechanism for a member to
1) show who they are (thereby making it more difficult to obtain
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
1. OSMF needs a written out strategic plan.
Hear, hear.
The equivalent of Patches welcome in this case is:
OSMF is a democratically elected body.
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net wrote:
The LWG say that the new CT are a sub-set of CT 1.0.
They clearly are not, as of the 1.2 draft. Among other things, the
section 2 grants are expanded, to include database right or any
related right.
Maybe we should work on that bit then. Not give the individual an
opt-out right, but instead force OSMF to publish. Something like: As a
condition of this agreement, OSMF agrees not only to license the
database under the licenses given, but also to make the database
publicly available or so.
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 4:08 AM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net wrote:
No, a license cannot protect any work or restrict what one can do with the
work. It can only give permissions. Of course, these permissions might
have some conditions (like BY-SA). The protection comes from the law
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Rob Myers r...@... writes:
What seems to throw people when we are talking about geodata in a
database rather than a collection of poems/photos/songs is the
granularity of the contents. But it doesn't really matter whether we
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Picture yourself next to 100 people who
have come after you, who have taken what you have given to the project and
who have built on it, improved it, made it their project.
Do you *really* think it is right to say:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I would sincerely ask
anyone who feels the desire to pull the rug from under the project's feet in
10 years time if the project doesn't do what one likes: please recosider,
and if you still cannot trust the project
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
How can we have the hubris to say we know what's best
for OSM in 10 years?
Preserving the right to opt out of future changes doesn't say that.
On the contrary, it is an expression of uncertainty over the future.
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Anthony,
you seem to be missing context. I have re-added the quote from Mike to
which I replied:
On 11/26/10 16:53, Anthony wrote:
If you have a license, then make it closed, dont leave any loopholes
or blank
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 3:27 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
I think everyone agrees that detailed legal discussion belongs on the legal
list.
Questions such as how any licence transition should proceed, deletion of
existing
bits of map, and how to organize the voting process are not
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 4:59 AM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
Any posting of topics specifically covered by a list is now not only
arrogant, but demeaning to the whole community (on talk) in that they
are assumed to be incapable of subscribing to another list and choosing
what subjects
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 4:36 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Have a look at commercial data and OSM and do a diff, what are the main
things missing?
The main thing missing is consistency. You'll often find a highly
detailed section of map right next to a much more sparsely detailed
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote:
I would be surprised if there is any realistic way to crowdsource 99% of
addr:housenumber in the US. It's mindnumbing work, dangerous in some areas
where pedestrians and bikes are not safe.
In most areas of the US you can
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
The CT is a separate issue, and that was only ratified in (I believe)
2010 in its current form.
Ratified by the LWG. Neither the membership nor the community got to
vote on it.
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
Since the data isn't covered by BY-SA, if I recreate the data it isn't
covered by BY-SA.
Is the data covered by ODbL? If you recreate the data is it covered by ODbL?
___
legal-talk
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/19/2010 01:43 PM, Anthony wrote:
The ODbL does not *say* (i.e. contain
the text) you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY.
Combined with the DbCL it might be the case that you can do so, but
the ODbL does
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
For me, as a PD advocate, the more licenses you license the stuff under the
better as it will combine the loopholes of every single one.
If, however, you intend to protect our data by putting it under a
share-alike
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Richard Fairhurst rich...@... writes:
Yes. ODbL is very clear that there's an attribution requirement (4.3).
Yes, that's right, but I also wanted to ask about the other requirement that
at times has been ascribed to the ODbL:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Rob Myers r...@... writes:
It's enforcable for much the same reason that if you send ten of your
friends a few seconds of a Lady Gaga song and they put them back
together to make the original track, whether they realise it or not
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Exactly. And the copyright (or DB right) in the original data is an
entirely separate issue.
Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original
data
but you do get a licence to all copyright interest
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/18/2010 05:28 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
Indeed, this is another point of contention where different people say
different
things about what the ODbL permits or does not permit. And it's not some
abstract conundrum but part
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Anthony o...@... writes:
However, this part remains: Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You
hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a
worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Anthony o...@... writes:
Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original
data but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of
map you received
As you have correctly pointed out
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Anthony o...@... writes:
The way I read it, Your Contents = the material contributed by You,
as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work
So, if I just bulk-uploaded data from somewhere else, the 'Your
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
You would not imagine the record company saying on the one hand 'yes, you can
make short clips of our music and release them as CC-BY' but on the other hand
'no, if you try to exercise the rights granted by the CC-BY licence
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes:
No, the data contributed to OSM must be licensed to OSMF under the
contributor terms:
You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a
worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 11/17/10 04:26, Anthony wrote:
They left what process? The goal of the process was not to find a
license like the ODbL. The goal of the process was to address the sui
generis database right within the CC
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 11/17/2010 04:25 AM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
A bigger problem, in my mind, would be facilitating a fracturing of the
copyleft universe.
ODbL Produced Works may be BY-SA.
Possibly. But if so that BY-SA doesn't extend to
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:30 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:19 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone care to point to the language in ODbL that would stop someone
tracing
from a Produced Work? I
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
I release all my OSM work as
public domain anyway and believe that CC-BY-SA is a deeply inequitable
licence when applied to data.
I really don't get this. What is inequitable about CC-BY-SA? The
requirement to
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 6:23 AM, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote:
It strikes me as two issues - changing to ODbL and, separately, the inclusion
of a
clause in the CTs allowing a future unspecified relicensing by the OSMF. The
two
aren't, necessarily, interlinked.
And for some reason the part
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
I really don't get this.
We have been through this before. I have no interest in engaging with you
Why would you send an email to the list explaining that? By doing so
aren't you engaging with me
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
If Creative Commons had been more friendly towards the data licensing issue,
a similar window could have been opened in a hypothetical CC-BY-SA 3.1
If Creative Commons wanted to support the export of sui generis
database
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Conversely, if OSM
resolved to stick with CC-BY-SA then I'd leave as would several others.
You'd leave if OSM resolved to stick with CC-BY-SA? Why? When did
you decide that CC-BY-SA was so horrible, and why do you
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:20 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
If someone was to approach OSM and say they were using OSM data in their
project, but their projects licence was changing and therefore they'd
like OSM to relicence our data under some licence theyve created for
their
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
The discussion started with the license change map
http://osm.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/map/, and someone said that the bits
that are red on the license change map will be deleted. That person was
asked to use would, not
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Florian Lohoff wrote:
The above shows me there is no place for dissent in this project.
There is place for dissent. There's no place however (a) for license
discussions on talk and (b) for failing to apply simple
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:02 AM, Fabian Schmidt
fschm...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de wrote:
Am 11.11.10 schrieb Anthony:
What exactly does it mean for a way to be created and edited only by
people who did accept the ODBL? Specifically, are you looking at the
underlying nodes
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
The original point was you wanted to find area which would be
negatively impacted by your proposal. People have shown you several
now.
The proposal was for Florida. The example was from Maryland.
Meanwhile, here in
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Fabian Schmidt
fschm...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de wrote:
Out of 68 million ways 46%
are created and edited only by people who did accept the ODBL.
What exactly does it mean for a way to be created and edited only by
people who did accept the ODBL?
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:37 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
From looking at a few different cities in this map, it is quite telling
what areas support the licence and which areas will be devastated by the
data loss.
On the bright side, the removal of 90% of the human-edited
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:31 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 22:25 +0100, Laurence Penney wrote:
For the record, I'm 100% against OSM becoming a place for general
historical data ...
Just out of interest, are you 100% against OSM keeping recent history
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
David Murn writes:
On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 22:58 -0400, Russ Nelson wrote:
Apollinaris Schoell writes:
I consider it improving osm by a human mapper according the spirit
of the project instead a container full
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 6:28 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
If we're only talking about administrative boundaries, thats a different
story, as theres no easy way to verify that data on-the-ground
Since when is no easy way to verify equivalent to unable to be
corrected? If the
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
We're not talking about human surveyed data- that is already addressed
by tiger_reviewed- we're talking about disassociating the original
feature from an import from its current incarnation.
That doesn't even make any
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Steven Johnson sejohns...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 This is why I object to removing the TIGER tags in the US. Retaining the
source and lineage of data (or, as it turns out NOT
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
hmm, sorry got the wrong name here
Oops. Sure screwed up your ad hominem reasoning. Hilarious.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 5:04 PM, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote:
Does it matter?
Does it matter that there is some company out there that is making
lots of money selling map data while violating our (very
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:01 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/11/3 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Why? According to the very organization distributing the data, the
license doesn't apply.
Well, isn't it more it might not apply? Maybe we won't win a case
but maybe we would
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 6:36 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 November 2010 02:40, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
Currently the checkbox has absolutely no bearing on the license that
your data is distributed under. It really is just a statement of
purpose which is
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Rather than jumping to an answer The tags
shall be this! can we look at what our ideal goals would be?
Sure, in this order: Avoid ambiguity. Avoid subjectivity. Avoid
redundancy. Add detail. Try to maintain as much
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
On 10/30/10 8:32 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Richard Weaitrich...@weait.com wrote:
Rather than jumping to an answer The tags
shall be this! can we look at what our ideal goals would
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
But a stop sign isn't a restriction; it has the main effect of slowing
average speed. If our router is so precise that the seconds added by a
stop sign count, it can easily calculate the nearest intersection to
each
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/26/2010 12:15 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
These rendering decisions are completely unrelated to the discussion
of how shields might best be tagged.
This portion of the thread clearly moved on to a different but
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/26/2010 12:42 PM, Anthony wrote:
As for the question of tagging, basically you can use relations, or
you can hack something up to simulate relations (specifically, to
handle the very common situation where
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:23 AM, Markus Lindholm
markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote:
What constitutes a primary tag?
A tag which is meant to be exclusive of other primary tags. To avoid
infinite recursion, amenity is a primary tag.
How should one know which tags are considered primary when
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Peter Wendorff
wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote:
Let's take the following entities:
A museum showing old buildings arranged to villages from the far past (there
are a lot of in Germany, but also in other countries). As that's not a
building (it includes
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 7:09 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
everything can be something you might want to navigate to, so this is
a bad definition IMHO.
The fact that categories are used as keys is a bad design. So, whatever.
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/21/2010 07:12 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
The point of admin_level is *not* primarily to record which governments
are
above another. It’s to indicate
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
So if we have whole-multiple-counties=5 (eg
NYC) county=6 township=7 city/town=8 then it would make sense
everywhere.
What would be an example of a township that would be at admin_level=7?
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:29 AM,
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/20/2010 03:59 PM, Anthony wrote:
Can someone please turn off my need to constantly enter a capatcha
(User:User_5528)?
Is it because you’re adding external references? That always triggers a
CAPTCHA…
I can't
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/21/2010 08:06 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Greg Troxelg...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
So if we have whole-multiple-counties=5 (eg
NYC) county=6 township=7 city/town=8 then it would make sense
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Kevin Sharpe
kevin.sha...@btinternet.com wrote:
I think
the solution is to host the database on sourceforge with an PDDL license and
then automatically upload the data to OSM.
If you're going to do that, you might want to look into hosting the
database in
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Jim McAndrew j...@loc8.us wrote:
There are townships in other states that are managed differently, but in PA
and NJ, they are just county subdivisions, and are not points to put on a
map.
I think you're right here, though I probably would indicate the
township
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Peter Budny pet...@gatech.edu wrote:
Anthony o...@inbox.org writes:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Jim McAndrew j...@loc8.us wrote:
There are townships in other states that are managed differently, but in PA
and NJ, they are just county subdivisions
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/20/2010 03:01 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
Townships are at the same level as cities/towns/villages/other
municipalities[1], [2]. I’m sure someone correct me if I’m wrong, but my
understanding is you won’t find a chunk of
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Peter Budny pet...@gatech.edu wrote:
Anthony o...@inbox.org writes:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Peter Budny pet...@gatech.edu wrote:
Anthony o...@inbox.org writes:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Jim McAndrew j...@loc8.us wrote:
There are townships
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
None of this has anything to do with place=*, which discusses
settlements, not administrative divisions.
IOW, a municipality may also be a settlement, but then, it may not be.
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Alex Mauer ha
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/20/2010 03:24 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
Not all US states use the same administrative hierarchy.
Yeah, but for example we use the same admin_level regardless of whether it’s
called a county, a borough, or a
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
At the very least it would be nice to have a table outlining exactly
what municipality or minor civil division means for each state.
Is there one somewhere already? Should I start one?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Okay, here's another wrench to throw in:
In Pennsylvania: School districts can comprise of one single
municipality, like the School District
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Brad Neuhauser
brad.neuhau...@gmail.com wrote:
To save you some work, you might look at this report, Government
Organization, published in 2002 by the
Census: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/gc021x1.pdf
Oh, I'm only planning on doing PA, NJ, and FL. Also
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Oh, I'm only planning on doing PA, NJ, and FL. Also maybe NY, as it's
the other one of the four states I've lived in.
Okay, well, I started New York, and concluded that it doesn't fit into
the design of admin_levels.
---
[New York
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Oh, I'm only planning on doing PA, NJ, and FL. Also maybe NY, as it's
the other one of the four states I've lived in.
Okay, well, I started New York, and concluded
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
I’d put town at 7, city and village at 8, based on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_New_York#Town and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_New_York#Village
Specifically,
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/20/2010 05:37 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Why can't something with admin_level=x cross a border with admin_level
less than x? There are a
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/20/2010 05:37 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Why can't something
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Kevin Sharpe
kevin.sha...@btinternet.com wrote:
I posted these questions to the Forum and it was suggested that I try here;
We wish to add to OSM data relating to electric vehicle charge point
locations and capabilities. However, it is not clear to me whether
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Kevin Sharpe
kevin.sha...@btinternet.com wrote:
In what jurisdiction?
People will be adding data worldwide.
Basically, I think you have three choices. 1) You consider your data
to be valuable enough to hire a lawyer to try to figure out a way to
keep people
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Kevin Sharpe
kevin.sha...@btinternet.com wrote:
Do you [Kevin] want your data to be usable without restriction, or are you
trying to restrict it?
We want the data to be available without restriction.
Okay, I misunderstood you, and I'm going to have to pass on
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Antony Pegg anttheli...@gmail.com wrote:
Or, to put it another, even simpler way, Anthony - I hope that in some small
way, when you have a choice of commercial map/directions vendors to use for
some / any reason (if you ever do, not to offend your refined
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/18/2010 04:54 PM, Anthony wrote:
First of all, the ref tags aren't valid. The numbers are references
of *routes*, not of *ways*.
[snip]
You could equally say “the name tags aren’t valid; the names are references
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Don't tag for the renderer.
Don't tag *incorrectly* for the renderer.
Exactly!
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk
401 - 500 of 1311 matches
Mail list logo
