Hello
So, first I apologise for writing in English. My German is very poor.
Several people have volunteered to translate back and forth.
Recently I had the luck and privilege to travel to some places in
Germany, Italy and other countries and meet OSMers. This was very
educational and I
Dear all
One of the things that's resulted from getting help with the license
process is that it's been noticed we don't have a lot of the legal
furniture, and thus protection and clarity, found frequently
elsewhere. We've been offered some fairly standard privacy and terms
of use
On 14 Jun 2009, at 01:49, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
There are no full history dumps currently - having such dump would
enable this type of query quite easily.
I am sure we will have them at some point in time.
Well, there could be slight problem with pre-0.6 data (no order in
relations)
Hi
Linked off of stateofthemap.org are the SOTM '08 videos:
http://blog.signal2noise.ie/~eason/sotm08/
But they're incomplete and super, super, super slow to load.
So does anyone know if the rest will be put up?
And, can anyone mirror them somewhere useful?
Best
Steve
On 12 Jun 2009, at 18:54, Richard Degelder wrote:
William Lachance wrote:
Look at this from another angle: Should we split up all the existing
OSM
road data that people have put in to add in GeoBase UUID information?
The simple answer is that at some point we are going to have to.
If
On 16 Jun 2009, at 05:55, Simone Cortesi wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org
wrote:
http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/three.jpg
I don't find that too bad actually. But it has no map on the first
page.
I vehemently stated that we're about data,
Isn't that skewed by what the import process to 0.6 defined as a
changeset?
On 16 Jun 2009, at 07:24, Simone Cortesi wrote:
hi,
just a minor stats:
it took us 4 years: from april 2005 to go from changeset 1 to
1.000.000 in april 2009.
We are now, after only 2 months, already at
On 16 Jun 2009, at 11:38, Tim Waters (chippy) wrote:
One of the main annoyances that people tell me that they have with OSM
is that whenever they visit the site, the map shows them just the UK.
I thought that the IP 2 geo stuff was in there to make it default to
the country it thinks you're
On 16 Jun 2009, at 14:15, Stefan de Konink wrote:
SteveC wrote:
On 16 Jun 2009, at 09:51, Stefan de Konink wrote:
Eric Pritchett wrote:
I'm sure there are more advantages,
There is; there is no trade mark on the name :)
There isn't on openstreetmap either.
Ok, the first time they refused
On 16 Jun 2009, at 14:27, Stefan de Konink wrote:
SteveC wrote:
Wrong again. The ™ was applied for the logo and the name
So 'mark' means to me 'name' so OpenStreetMap was protected if it
was granted, yes?
If, yes.
in the UK and Europe and the Foundation owns the whole problem
So there are bits and pieces on traffic lights on the wiki
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Traffic_Lights
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals
On 9 Jun 2009, at 06:27, John Wilbanks wrote:
Puneet Kishor, who is a Science Commons Fellow looking at geospatial
data and climate change, will be attending and hoisting the facts
can't
be copyrighted flag.
Er, sounds like a red herring to me since they can have database
rights and be
I could in theory make it, and I even considered it for about 10
seconds... but I couldn't think what I'd get out of it other than
frustration.
DRM for maps, sorry GeoDRM... what can you say but FAIL ?
Best
Steve
On 5 Jun 2009, at 08:10, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
Hi all,
Maybe this is
On 1 Jun 2009, at 22:36, Sam Vekemans wrote:
I decided not to add these tag to the
'TR_1760009_1roads_segment_GeoBase', because the Geobase roads are
more uptodate, and dont want people to be updating the area will the
most complete data. The house numbering system, of having it
.
Parts of Devon/Cornwall spring to mind.
Cheers
STEVEs
-Original Message-
From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of SteveC
Sent: 30 May 2009 15:54
To: Talk GB; Talk Openstreetmap
Subject: [Talk-GB] Isle of Wight 2
Remember how
Stupid question, you guys importing addressing too?
On 31 May 2009, at 21:38, Michael Barabanov wrote:
It is nice to see more people importing the GeoBase data. Are you
going to be doing more areas in BC?
Yes, starting with adjacent areas to south and east.
Michael.
On Sun, May 31,
I think that'd be super cool.
On 1 Jun 2009, at 13:27, Richard Weait wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 11:08 +0100, SteveC wrote:
Stupid question, you guys importing addressing too?
The Canadian government data does not include addressing information
for
all jurisdictions. This area (British
On 1 Jun 2009, at 01:57, Alan Millar wrote:
Has anyone actually done ANY implementation of a relation-based
addressing
system in OSM yet? I've yet to see any actual examples of either data
collection or use; I've only seen wiki proposals so far.
Matt loves Karlsruhe relations
In any case
Remember how awesome the wales mapping weekend was last year?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Welsh_Mapping_Party_Weekend
Remember the Isle of Wight mapping weekend 3 years ago? It was super
awesome, we had 30 odd people, local TV, press and stuff
On 2 May 2009, at 14:10, Johnny Rose Carlsen wrote:
Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com
wrote:
drove into a new housing estate ... yes but, what's in it for
you?
Why does a painter paint?
Why play football?
Why give
at 01:24, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Hi
We, the legal working group have been asked as a result of a chat in
the SOTM working group call (which mike and I were also on) to
propose
talk(s) about the license at SOTM.
Today in our call we brainstormed a little around a few ideas and we
this
process. Please ping me if you can help.
On 11 May 2009, at 10:54, SteveC wrote:
Dear all
The various mailing lists have grown well organically and there are
great contributions, debate and discussion on them.
In order to more efficiently and clearly trickle down announcements
like server
All
The foundation today discussed the perceived need for a working group
to help people import data.
We know there are highly talented individuals out there who are able
to find data to import, have the social skills and time to get data
holders to release it to OSM, have the legal
Dear all
The various mailing lists have grown well organically and there are
great contributions, debate and discussion on them.
In order to more efficiently and clearly trickle down announcements
like server downtime to the local lists, we've created a 'list of
lists' for people to help
On 7 May 2009, at 08:42, Mikel Maron wrote:
Selection of invited experts will be made by the Ordnance
Survey.
Guess they won't be having people from OSM then :-)
Best
Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
Hi
We, the legal working group have been asked as a result of a chat in
the SOTM working group call (which mike and I were also on) to propose
talk(s) about the license at SOTM.
Today in our call we brainstormed a little around a few ideas and we
thought it would be good to flesh them out
Dear all
Today the license working group had a 2 hour phone call with OSMFs
council to run through a large number of open issues, use cases and so
on which had been generated on the wiki and this list.. We found it
super useful and we're planning another soon.
Grant is collating the
On 6 May 2009, at 16:04, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Mike Collinson wrote:
The new text is available at
http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ and includes diff
versions so that you can see clearly what changes are made.
With 0.9, we identified the problem of produced works not being
Hi
We've put together a practical definition for the OSMFs point of view
on what a substantial extract is, or isn't
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_Defined
And we'd like help similarly with building a practical definition of
Produced Work. Here's how
Is there anyone here from the CPH area that can be a contact for
organising an OSM event? We've been offered some space to do something
near a conference, reboot 11. Please drop me a line.
PS the Denmark wiki page needs love, doesn't even link to the DK
mailing list. Well, now it does.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Drew Hemment d...@futureeverything.org
Date: 1 May 2009 12:55:14 PDT
To: Steve Coast st...@asklater.com
Subject: climate bubbles environment 2.0
Hi Steve
Please can you send details of these projects to your networks,
announcement attached and link here
I don't see a clear explanation as to why there is ambiguity if you
don't do turn restrictions at the end of ways on the wiki. There is
some stuff in the talk page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:restriction
Anyone care to provide an explanation?
The reason I ask is
Has there been any discussion on what people here feel 'substantial'
means in the context of the definitions of the ODbL? I've banged
around the wiki looking but might might have missed it. Here's the
first important bit relevant to this in the ODbL:
Extraction – Means the permanent or temporary
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:34:05 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I don't see a clear explanation as to why there is ambiguity if you
don't do turn restrictions at the end of ways on the wiki. There is
some stuff in the talk page
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:32, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:25:36 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:34:05 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com
wrote:
I don't see a clear explanation as to why
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:34, Tobias Knerr wrote:
SteveC wrote:
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote:
If both from and to ways continue after the via point and neither is
one-way, there's two possible ways to interpret it: the restriction
could apply when coming from either
Frederik
It was something I was going to do. We haven't discussed it, yet, at
the LWG calls and will at the next meeting. I strongly agree with you.
Best
Steve
On 27 Mar 2009, at 08:39, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
I am of the opinion that there absolutely needs to be a
presentation
http://www.stateofthemap.org/2009/03/25/help-us-make-a-logo/
The SOTM working group is pleased to announce a call for logo designs.
Our existing logos have served us well and the time is right to look
further afield to make sure we have the best design possible. We’ve
put together a Design
On 21 Mar 2009, at 14:35, Simon Ward wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 07:02:09PM +0100, Ulf Möller wrote:
Thinh Nguyen of Creative Commons has posted detailed comments on the
ODbL on the co-ment website.
I think I’ve seen many of those arguments from the Science Commons
project before, and
On 22 Mar 2009, at 06:08, 80n wrote:
Thinh Nguyen of Creative Commons writes:
While some complexities are introduced by differences in background
legal doctrines, others are introduced by the ODbL scheme itself.
These two points about the complexity of the ODbL are important ones
that
On 23 Mar 2009, at 05:47, John Wilbanks wrote:
From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
Though I have a lot of time for CC in general, and agree with their
general
stance that PD is the ideal way to go, I don't really find that a
very
useful response.
I count 20 occurrences of
On 23 Mar 2009, at 06:44, John Wilbanks wrote:
But open data is much more than just science and education. It's more
than OSM; it's more than maps. The assiduous
how-late-is-my-sodding-train-today people on our town website, for
example, are creating a database that could potentially be
I rather stupidly forgot the bit about the winning entry would entitle
the creator to a free weekend ticket to SOTM:
The winning entry will be rewarded with a full weekend ticket to
SOTM!
Best
Steve
On 25 Mar 2009, at 09:51, SteveC wrote:
http://www.stateofthemap.org/2009/03/25/help-us
On 25 Mar 2009, at 11:34, Andy Allan wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 5:36 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On 22 Mar 2009, at 06:08, 80n wrote:
The complexity arguments are largely superfluous.
[...]
I get in my car every day and drive to work without knowing
how the engine management
Dear all
Due to some phone problems for one of our number being unable to dial
in to the call, we decided that we should postpone by a day to sort
those issues out. We covered a little ground - essentially that we've
not had back feedback from OSMFs lawyer yet and some slight changes to
On 16 Mar 2009, at 17:55, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Osmdbstats2.png
and I wonder why there is a sudden drop in the node count immediately
before commencing the TIGER import. - It looks as if half our database
was deleted immediately
On 16 Mar 2009, at 18:55, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
SteveC wrote:
the old tiger import, which was very broken, was deleted
Thanks all. - I thought that the old import had been deleted long
before that but I think now I remember that it had been deleted from
current and was still alive
another fantastic
1. Someone makes a mistake
2. ???
3. It's Steves fault
Bet you were itching to make todays Guardian mistake my fault too, eh?
I can tell you Frederik that I and the rest of us at CloudMade take
great pains to explain the differences between CM and OSM
On 4 Mar 2009, at 23:51, Nop wrote:
2. Provide translations of this in the major languages. Most people
speak English to some degree, but some don't and something of this
importance and with so much legalese involved does need to be in
your
native language to be sure you understood it.
On 4 Mar 2009, at 23:42, Nop wrote:
Hi!
SteveC schrieb:
To me this is similar to ignorance of the law is no defence. The
data, people and facts are out there and it's not our job to serve
them up to you in the specific best way you want. We will help all
we can when you ask
On 5 Mar 2009, at 00:14, Nop wrote:
Hi!
SteveC schrieb:
We've not always done a great job of communicating for a variety of
reasons but it was never with malice.
But you have actually succeeded in making quite a number of people
suspect malice - and warn others about that.
I do
On 4 Mar 2009, at 23:24, 80n wrote:
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:48 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On 4 Mar 2009, at 08:12, Gervase Markham wrote:
So lets concentrate on that. Lets build a better process. Lets
build a
consensus.
Absolutely! As long as you allow us the time
On 5 Mar 2009, at 01:11, Peter Miller wrote:
On 5 Mar 2009, at 00:29, SteveC wrote:
For your interest my company's lawyer (acting for ITO World Ltd)
is hoping to have her response together in relation to the license
by the end of tomorrow. My company will review her comments
On 4 Mar 2009, at 18:03, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
SteveC wrote:
One of the things I didn't mention in my long post an that most of
you clearly don't understand is that a court takes *intent* in to
account as guidence in any license dispute. So like case law you
can spend all
On 4 Mar 2009, at 22:27, Nic Roets wrote:
My second question goes to those who live in the various countries
that aren't bankrupt... oh I mean those that aren't in the UK. How is
the community there? Is it bad? Is it good? How can we help. What are
Just to give you an idea of how crazy
On 5 Mar 2009, at 00:55, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Steve,
(Has someone told you that you're overly concerned about your Fake
self? He seems to make an appearance in every second post you write.)
I love him. I want to *be* him.
SteveC wrote:
Over IM and email I've had some really positive
On 4 Mar 2009, at 19:46, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Thursday 05 March 2009 07:37:28 SteveC wrote:
My second question goes to those who live in the various countries
that aren't bankrupt... oh I mean those that aren't in the UK. How is
the community there? Is it bad? Is it good? How can we
On 5 Mar 2009, at 04:50, Gustav Foseid wrote:
Are you stirring dissent? Are you trying to build
a consensus?
I have provided my view, that the idea behind the license is better
than the current CC-BY-SA, but that some legal aspects needs to be
sorted out. We have one person from a major
You too Andy, great post.
On 5 Mar 2009, at 02:57, Andy Allan wrote:
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:40 AM, MP singular...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. At least when you expect 10 people to go along and the
issue
has the potential to break OSM apart, it would not be a bad idea
to send
monthly
Great post Dair!
On 5 Mar 2009, at 02:04, Dair Grant wrote:
Nop wrote:
I want to correct something here, there is this view of 100,000
users
needing consent. The number is in fact far smaller for people who
ever
made an edit (about 30% of the users). It's vastly smaller still for
On 5 Mar 2009, at 03:35, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Andy Allan wrote:
1) Make the plan and the draft public. Ask for feedback.
2) Wait for feedback to be taken into account and expect/hope for a
final version of the ODbL
3) See if the OSMF board approves
4) See if OSMF members like what
On 5 Mar 2009, at 08:36, David Earl wrote:
(lost track of who said this, but...)
Very unlikely, derived individual coordinates are facts. I've asked
multiple lawyers about this personally.
Are you saying that facts that are derived from a Produced Work are
not covered by the reverse
I disagree Grant I think the first agenda item should be how to pull
in more people, how to open up the process and have people contribute
and connect better now that the license is finally out.
Best
Steve
On 4 Mar 2009, at 15:09, Grant Slater wrote:
License working group meeting minutes
Oh my fault, sorry
On 4 Mar 2009, at 17:04, Grant Slater wrote:
SteveC wrote:
I disagree Grant I think the first agenda item should be how to pull
in more people, how to open up the process and have people contribute
and connect better now that the license is finally out.
Confusion
On 4 Mar 2009, at 11:27, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Steve reluctant to publish publicly as it would invite another
round of changes.
Blimey, if you talk to people, they might have ideas and suggestions
or even want to CHANGE something. Better keep things to yourself and
complain later.
On 4 Mar 2009, at 04:01, Peter Miller wrote:
My main criticism in relation to license Steve is not that you are
'evil' but that you have been absent. Your last post in relation to
the license on legal-talk was over three months go (25th Nov).
Given that you are the only person who has
with volunteers...
there are pros and cons.
Then just keep pointing to the web page that outlines the structures,
processes and notes/minutes/FAQs etc.
Best of luck to you, Jordan and everyone else.
Regards,
Tom
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 20:28:32 -0800, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Where
On 4 Mar 2009, at 08:12, Gervase Markham wrote:
So lets concentrate on that. Lets build a better process. Lets
build a
consensus.
Absolutely! As long as you allow us the time to (i.e. slow down and
stop
trying to get it done by the end of March!), then I'm all for that :-)
Maybe I'm
On 4 Mar 2009, at 16:08, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
Basically, you get enough people (and pay for their memberships) in
order to
buy their votes, in order to eject the current chairman, yadda
yadda yadda.
If you're unhappy with the current chairman you don't
I think others have responded well to most of your rant, if not the
please point it out and I'll respond.
On 3 Mar 2009, at 23:33, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Hi!
I'm not sure you're aware, but you're currently on the best way to
make
the license to kill phrase come true!
First of all: If
On 4 Mar 2009, at 06:49, LeedsTracker wrote:
2009/3/4 Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es:
On the other hand, I'm absolutely sure that the ODbL will fail and be
exploited. The same way that the GPL2 was exploited by TiVo. I'm
absolutely
sure the ODbL will not address problems in
On 4 Mar 2009, at 12:02, Nop wrote:
Hi!
Iván Sánchez Ortega schrieb:
El Miércoles, 4 de Marzo de 2009, Ulf Lamping escribió:
Hopefully you know and trust the lawyers, foundation, whoever, ...
involved. WE PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THEM SO WHY SHOULD WE MAGICALLY
TRUST
THEM?!?
Because they
On 4 Mar 2009, at 12:28, Nop wrote:
Hi!
Russ Nelson schrieb:
Hopefully you know and trust the lawyers, foundation, whoever, ...
involved. WE PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THEM SO WHY SHOULD WE MAGICALLY
TRUST
THEM?!?
You can't. There is no magic wand to create trust. Only through
time
On 4 Mar 2009, at 14:53, Russ Nelson wrote:
On Mar 4, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Nop wrote:
And I never heard of it until now. And wasn't in OSM when it was
posted.
Fair enough, but any time you join a group there will be efforts
underway which you haven't contributed to, not know about, nor
On 4 Mar 2009, at 16:57, Matt Amos wrote:
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:49 AM, MP singular...@gmail.com wrote:
3. Define a way for feedback from the community. Maybe some
unoffical
votes would have given an impression on how well a particular idea
would
have worked.
Maybe put up a poll
On 4 Mar 2009, at 16:20, Nop wrote:
Hi!
Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb:
Out of curiosity, what would have been better? The licence has been
recognised to be a problem for years, it was known well before I
joined. It's been discussed at almost every OSM meeting I've been at.
But you're
On 4 Mar 2009, at 16:40, MP wrote:
I personally had no idea about the license change before it got posted
on this list few days ago and I am contributing to OSM for more than
year and half...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RpSv3HjpEw
Best
Steve
On 4 Mar 2009, at 07:00, Jason Cunningham wrote:
Hi All
I've read through a bundle of licence emails, and there is one
aspect that worries me, which hopefully someone can clarify.
From my understanding (and I dont speak legalese), under the CCBYSA
license you can take OSM data, create
On 4 Mar 2009, at 10:26, Dave Stubbs wrote:
2009/3/4 Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:38 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com
wrote:
They used the map to pin the locations - the points did not come
from
some other map. Therefore it is derived (this is
by the way OSMF asked for. I can't remember if it
was Richard 'fake stevec' F, andy or me. But I remember the discussion
vividly when we met Jordan I think the first time.
So if they're just pinning the
locations on the paper map, that's fine. But if they are reading off
the
lat/lon from
On 4 Mar 2009, at 15:56, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Matt Amos wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.uk
wrote:
Your 8 year old kids would be obliged to license their butterfly
data under the ODbL [1] and attribute OSM.
[1] Ignoring potential bug in 0.9
On 4 Mar 2009, at 17:39, SteveC wrote:
You can come to my house and I will make you dinner and you can
inspect under my bed there is no satanic portal to the 3rd circle of
Hell. In fact you are all welcome. I will cook you my awesome (awsum)
organic, 100% Free Of Everything cracked pepper
On 27 Feb 2009, at 05:04, Ben Laenen wrote:
It looks like we finally got some kind of License plan for the step
towards the new license, so everyone check
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan
Let me start with the obvious questions first:
* why don't
Where to begin?
Well FakeSteveC hasn't blogged so far so it's all going fine if that's
your metric.
I've replied to a ton of messages, no doubt in an evil conspiratorial
way to own your souls in the netherworld. I hope it's been a useful
braindump on a lot of issues and we can build
My last reply tonight, I have to go but:
On 4 Mar 2009, at 17:41, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
SteveC wrote:
Very unlikely, derived individual coordinates are facts. I've
asked multiple lawyers about this personally.
There is a popular project in Switzerland called openaddresses.ch
Where to begin?
Why don't we start with the beautiful community we've built and the
stunning map can be the backdrop. On this canvas lets spread the
pieces of the puzzle and see if we can put a few things together.
We have incredible coders. We have mappers that stay up all night
adding
Something that's come up a few times in chatting to people is the
front page design of the website and how it's been pretty static for a
long time. That's pretty cool as nobody has felt the need to hack it
away and it's sprouted some cool additions with time. But there are
some things that
On 17 Feb 2009, at 00:18, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
SteveC wrote:
As you both know several years of work went in to that blog, and
not just by me. Maybe you should both think twice before
dismissing it all.
It would help if, instead of
* singling out participants (you both
the development and
progress of OSM in the early months/years. Steve, would you be ok with those
entries being copied?
Cheers
Andy
-Original Message-
From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-
boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of 80n
Sent: 17 February 2009 11:02 AM
To: SteveC
Cc
On 16 Feb 2009, at 11:31, Peter Miller wrote:
On 15 Feb 2009, at 14:29, 80n wrote:
So, what makes opengeodata.org the official OpenStreetMap blog
anyway? It's linked prominently on the OSM front page. Who
contributes to it? I have an account there and most posts appear
to be
No... because anybody could post any content there and it's not always
very relevant either.
Best
Steve
On 15 Feb 2009, at 11:15, OJ W wrote:
The OSM front page has a news blog link - should that go to
http://blogs.openstreetmap.org/ rather than
http://www.opengeodata.org/ ? (gives
Albertas - we will look urgently at this.
On 7 Feb 2009, at 12:57, Liz wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Albertas Agejevas wrote:
I am bringing this up in the public forum again as our correspondence
with the OSMF secretary Andy Robinson appears to have no results. On
7 October 2008 Andy informed
I just wanted to point out some fun donations
http://donate.openstreetmap.org/
as you can follow along here:
http://donate.openstreetmap.org/comments/
CloudMade is donating £2k.
Richard Weait dropped $1,000 !
My personal favourite:
Johnny Carlsen donated £5 because I
I can't make it but just a note that this is superb it's happening
On 30 Jan 2009, at 11:24, Colin McGregor wrote:
Just a quick reminder note, there will be a mapping party in
Toronto, Ontario
When: Saturday, January 31, 2009 1:00 PM
Where
Aroma Espresso Bar
500 Bloor St W
Toronto ON
I can't make it but just a note that this is superb it's happening
On 30 Jan 2009, at 11:24, Colin McGregor wrote:
Just a quick reminder note, there will be a mapping party in
Toronto, Ontario
When: Saturday, January 31, 2009 1:00 PM
Where
Aroma Espresso Bar
500 Bloor St W
Toronto ON
Thanks :-)
On 23 Jan 2009, at 01:35, LeedsTracker wrote:
2009/1/23 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
Anyone feel like updating the JOSM screenshots to the 21st
century :-)
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM
Done!
cheers,
LT
Best
Steve
/wiki/Trademark
I have exchanged a number of emails with the foundation over the past
month on this matter about some changes that have been made since the
board meeting however I fail to see how what has been done protects
the project. I would invite SteveC or Andy to explain on this list
what
Dear all
We had a review call today on the technical side of OSM and one of the
things that came up was the transition to API 0.6
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Protocol_Version_0.6
API 0.6 is the latest and greatest in OSM APIs and brings scrummy
goodness like changesets.
I really don't have time to do your homework for you, but maybe
someone on talk-ca@ or newbies@ will help you.
Best
Steve
On 6 Jan 2009, at 18:33, Nyaladzani Nkhwanana wrote:
Hi Steve,
My name is Nyaladzani Nkhwanana, a Masters student at the university
of New Brunswick, Fredericton,
Seriously, super, awesome cool.
On 23 Dec 2008, at 09:37, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
It is with great pleasure, and not just a little excitement, that I
can
announce that the mappers in Birmingham having set the task of
completing
the whole of the city by Christmas have
501 - 600 of 730 matches
Mail list logo
