On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 09:12 -0500, Mike N wrote:
> On 2/10/2011 9:01 AM, Anthony wrote:
> > Tracing aerials does not involve copying data.
>
>Tracing from Google's imagery not only violates their terms of usage,
> their spokespeople say that it's explicitly not allowed. There's
> nothing to
Damn, I assumed that it was either the 'evil twin' or 'amnesia' plot line.
On Feb 10, 2011, at 8:00 PM, Dermot McNally wrote:
> On 11 February 2011 01:34, Anthony wrote:
>
>> Oh my God. How many times do I have to say this? NO OBJECTS WERE INVOLVED.
>
> By now this is all at risk of getti
> On 11 February 2011 02:05, wrote:
>
> > Was there ever a sequel to that text adventure? It
> > kind of ended on a cliff-hanger ...
>
> Well there was a crucial bit where the protagonist left the planet...
Last bit I remember, the protagonist left the spaceship
to go onto the planet ... what
On 11 February 2011 02:05, wrote:
> Was there ever a sequel to that text adventure? It
> kind of ended on a cliff-hanger ...
Well there was a crucial bit where the protagonist left the planet...
Dermot
--
--
Igaühel on siin oma laul
ja ma oma ei leiagi üle
> * Anthony goes on to have in his possession simultaneously "tea" and
> "no tea", thereby solving one of the stickier puzzle in the
> Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy text adventure game[1]. Go Anthony!
Was there ever a sequel to that text adventure? It
kind of ended on a cliff-hanger ...
nick
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Toby Murray 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.
_
Does anyone think more discussion is going to yield anything useful?
It is obvious that Anthony is unwilling to accept a nearly universally
held community consensus. I initially thought that the wholesale
nuking of all his contributions was a little drastic. But his
continued anti-community behavio
On 11 February 2011 01:34, Anthony wrote:
> Oh my God. How many times do I have to say this? NO OBJECTS WERE INVOLVED.
By now this is all at risk of getting a little like a soap opera, and
like with soaps, there is a risk that people coming in at the middle
of a storyline will fail to grasp th
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier 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 co
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 contributions which have
absolutely nothing to do with my tracing from Google.
On 11 February 2011 01:11, Anthony wrote:
> Actually, let me correct that. A tiny fraction (less than 0.001%) of
> the OSM community has told me that by deleting contributions which
> have absolutely nothing to do with my tracing from Google.
What percentage has told you that that what you were
>> 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 tell
>>> 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
- Original Message -
From: "Anthony"
To: "Jean-Marc Liotier"
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 11:35 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: collateral damage (was: What the license
change is going to do to the map)
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Jean
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
> Either you "traced from Google" or "none of the edits were infringing".
> Those two assertions are mutually incompatible.
No they aren't.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://li
Anthony wrote:
I've repeatedly identified which
edits were infringing - NONE OF THE EDITS WERE INFRINGING.
I'm afraid there seems to be either a misunderstanding between us or a
contradiction on your part. Earlier in this thread you wrote :
> I said on a mailing list that I traced from Googl
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Tom Hughes 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
> assume they all
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:59:45 +
Chris Hill wrote:
> On 10/02/11 19:37, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:36:53 +0100
> > "Kay Drangmeister" wrote:
> > Let's get this completely fair, and remove all the work of others
> > who have been caught tracing from Google, admitted it whe
Am 10.02.2011 15:12, schrieb Grant Slater:
Message from Mikel 2 days ago explaining:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2011-February/001052.html
I believe the user-revert script used is fairly simple and does not
have direct access to the OSM database. The script does attempt to
On 10/02/11 19:37, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
Let's get this completely fair, and remove all the work of others who
have been caught tracing from Google, admitted it when challenged, and
only the work which was challenged has been removed. Work which may
also be traced from Google because it also was
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:36:53 +0100
"Kay Drangmeister" wrote:
> However: OSM data integrity is at stake, and you are endangering it,
> willfully and knowingly. While you seem to understand the reasoning
> behind the OSM contribution policy, you fail to obey it.
> You are endangering the work of th
Anthony wrote:
I thought I understood the policy. To cover your ass so Google can't
say you're encouraging people to break the TOS. But I've been told
that isn't it at all, and that you actually don't want people to trace
from Google.
Honesty - try it some day, it works !
__
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Kay Drangmeister wrote:
> Hi
>
> Am 10.02.2011, 15:24 Uhr, schrieb Anthony :
>
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 10 February 2011 14:24, Anthony wrote:
> It definitely doesn't. There's no "maybe" about it.
You seem to have missed my substantive point, so let me restate it:
You deliberately did something we as a community have chosen not to
do. You willfully put the work of others in jeopardy.
This is
Hi
Am 10.02.2011, 15:24 Uhr, schrieb Anthony :
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 it.
Since you are no judge I dare to object.
However: OSM data integrity is at
Regardless of what you believe, Google have said that they don't want
their imagery traced into OSM and OSM have said that they don't want
Google derived data in the database.
You polluted the database with data nobody wants and now have been
trolling the mailing lists ever since. That doesn't mak
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Dermot McNally wrote:
> On 10 February 2011 14:01, Anthony 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 it.
_
On 10 February 2011 14:01, Anthony wrote:
> Which, by the way, I denied. Tracing aerials does not involve copying data.
Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. Since I began mapping on OSM
(which was a while ago) the considered opinion of the project was
"Don't trace Google imagery. We're not sure
On 10 February 2011 13:52, Maarten Deen wrote:
> So, his edits were deleted by the OSM board? Why?
> And if not only his edits were deleted, but all nodes and ways he touched
> were deleted, why? Why not his edits reverted to the previous state?
>
Message from Mikel 2 days ago explaining:
http://
On 2/10/2011 9:01 AM, Anthony wrote:
Tracing aerials does not involve copying data.
Tracing from Google's imagery not only violates their terms of usage,
their spokespeople say that it's explicitly not allowed. There's
nothing to prevent them from planting 'Easter eggs' in their imagery to
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Maarten Deen 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 is AFAIK no
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:45:47 +0100, Matt Williams wrote:
On 10 February 2011 14:33, Maarten Deen wrote:
Am I the only one who is wondering what this whole thread is about?
Has
Anthony's edits been removed? If so, why?
I haven't heard of the license change actually being implemented
ATM, and
32 matches
Mail list logo
