On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:
It is our main page and a closed project on the main page of OSM IMHO
doesn't suit well.
IMHO, a closed project on the main page is a good thing.
What is the purpose of the OSM web site? It is partly to provide a
Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
So I don't want OSM to get into arguments about opener than thou -
Ok, then let's not use open. Let's just say some things (where you can
look at how they're done as opposed to not being told) are better than
others.
Or is there anyone who disagrees - anyone who
Dair Grant wrote:
showcasing useful and innovative things that have been done with
OSM data is more important than trying to split ourselves into open (terms
and conditions will apply) and not.
If it is there to show what can be done with OSM data, it does a very
poor job. The only thing it
Hi,
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Ok, then let's not use open. Let's just say some things (where you can
look at how they're done as opposed to not being told) are better than
others.
That was unnecessarily provocative, I admit. I think I will settle for
the wording:
relevant material available
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
It needs to be one way or the other.
Personally I think it _should_ be promoting map renderings, but on it's
main map page it should be one that is truly open in the sense of OSM.
This sense of OSM seems to have been
Tobias Knerr wrote:
In order to truly show what's possible, we would need to completely
redesign that front page into a featured products catalogue that could
list routing applications, Garmin converters, OSM clocks, renderers,
paper maps and so on. This would, of course, include closed
Dave F. wrote
Tobias Knerr wrote:
In order to truly show what's possible, we would need to completely
redesign that front page into a featured products catalogue [...]
It doesn't have to be completely redesigned, just a link saying:
And here's some other great ways in which OSM can be
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
I think it's high time this was done. IMO, OCM should be removed from
the main map options asked persuasively to rename themselves as they're
not really open, are they?
I'll ask you for one favour - when you are talking
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
As for the name, it was originally The OpenStreetMap Cycle Map and I
pondered long and hard on the use of the word The in the title since
that sounded a bit exclusive. Eventually I gave up worrying about it
since there
Hi,
Andy Allan wrote:
And most of all, I don't want someone
to make something that looks just like opencyclemap but with one or
two changes and call it their own
But isn't that what is bound to happen? (At least if a fraction of the
unhappiness about OCM translates in coding traction...)
Richard,
In my view, what matters is someone's _overall_ contribution to OSM, not
their unquestioning adherence to the doctrine of free.
I am not talking about classifying *people* into properly open and
proprietary - I wanted to classify *projects*.
The author of, say, openmtbmap can be
Dave F. wrote:
John Smith wrote:
2010/1/2 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
I think it's high time this was done. IMO, OCM should be removed from
the main map options asked persuasively to rename themselves as they're
not really open, are they?
What do you suggest
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Just because user X does something propietary with OSM data doesn't mean
that he is less of a nice guy. However (on the other hand) just because
he is a nice guy doesn't mean that something proprietary he produces
should be treated as if it was part of the family.
But
Am 02.01.2010 14:57, schrieb Richard Fairhurst:
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Just because user X does something propietary with OSM data doesn't mean
that he is less of a nice guy. However (on the other hand) just because
he is a nice guy doesn't mean that something proprietary he produces
should be
FreeCycleMap? :)
Yeah, why not?
What's your definition of Free? Beer, speech or freedom? Following
your argument we'd have to call it
NoUpFrontFinancialCostToTheUser(ApartFromBandwidth)CycleMap
Or we channel the communities abilities into mapping rather than
arguing about this ;-)
2010/1/2
Joseph Reeves wrote:
FreeCycleMap? :)
Yeah, why not?
What's your definition of Free? Beer, speech or freedom? Following
your argument we'd have to call it
NoUpFrontFinancialCostToTheUser(ApartFromBandwidth)CycleMap
Or we channel the communities abilities into mapping rather
2010/1/2 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com
But, remove it from the main page where it appears comparable with OSM
in the open sense, which it clearly isn't.
+1, IMHO it should not be an option on the main map page as it is less
open than OSM. Instead we could have other projects there, that are
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
+1, IMHO it should not be an option on the main map page as it is
less open than OSM. Instead we could have other projects there,
that are as open as OSM (and that preferably cover the whole
planet, don't know how much of those there are at the moment).
Right.
Sarah,
Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
More of (a) would be lovely. Speaking of it, is the source code behind
the OSM Inspector available somewhere? It might provide very instructive
to see how you do the data processing.
There's nothing special about the inspector itself and if anyone is
interested
Hi,
first of all, I wasn't intending this to become an opencyclemap
bashing thread. I wasn't even aware that there is something non-open
about opencyclemap; I was prompted by your quote of openmtbmap. I didn't
have a hidden agenda -
I'm not saying we should try to shame non-open solutions
2010/1/3 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
The Garmin map page that Ulf mentioned, where you have a green/red
source available column, is very much what I was thinking of - maybe
green/red is too harsh and it should indeed be gold/silver, but the
table overall does not create the impression
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
+1, IMHO it should not be an option on the main map page as it is
less open than OSM. Instead we could have other projects there,
that are as open as OSM (and that preferably cover the whole
planet, don't know how much of those there
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Your argument about flash players and JVMs leads nowhere; I am not
talking about openness of the target infrastructure but openness of the
process.
I know you're not.
Nonetheless neither you nor I have a monopoly on defining open. People
on this list have, in the past,
John Smith wrote:
2010/1/2 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
I think it's high time this was done. IMO, OCM should be removed from
the main map options asked persuasively to rename themselves as they're
not really open, are they?
What do you suggest they rename to?
FreeCycleMap? :)
Dave F. wrote:
John Smith wrote:
2010/1/2 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
I think it's high time this was done. IMO, OCM should be removed from
the main map options asked persuasively to rename themselves as they're
not really open, are they?
What do you suggest
Joseph Reeves wrote:
FreeCycleMap? :)
Yeah, why not?
What's your definition of Free? Beer, speech or freedom? Following
your argument we'd have to call it
NoUpFrontFinancialCostToTheUser(ApartFromBandwidth)CycleMap
Or we channel the communities abilities into mapping rather
Hi,
I'm breaking this out of talk-gb and into talk.
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Sadly [the openmtbmap author]
refuses to open-source his code
(http://openmtbmap.org/faq/#i-would-like-to-have-a-look-into-the-style-file-for-mkgmap),
which is entirely his prerogative but a shame
2010/1/2 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
Maybe it is time for us at OSM to make a distinction between
(a) open projects in the sense and spirit of OSM, where scripts, style
files, and everything else is open and license-wise available for
everyone to look at and build upon, and
(b)
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
I'm breaking this out of talk-gb and into talk.
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Sadly [the openmtbmap author]
refuses to open-source his code
(http://openmtbmap.org/faq/#i-would-like-to-have-a-look-into-the-style-file-for-mkgmap),
which is entirely his
Colin Marquardt wrote:
As a proud member of the (a) category[1], I'm all for it :)
Cheers
Colin
1 - http://mapnik-utils.googlecode.com/svn/sandbox/cascadenik/hike_n_bike/,
http://gitorious.org/alpha-hillshading/alpha-hillshading/trees/master
Err.. Sorry Colin, I read the readme other
2010/1/2 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
I think it's high time this was done. IMO, OCM should be removed from
the main map options asked persuasively to rename themselves as they're
not really open, are they?
What do you suggest they rename to?
FreeCycleMap? :)
Frederik Ramm wrote:
We cannot, and do not want to, trademark the words open, free and
the like, but I think we could be a little bit more assertive about whom
we consider to be a kindred spirit and who is doing his own thing, and
apply the tiniest amount of pressure for people to upgrade from
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
I'm breaking this out of talk-gb and into talk.
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Sadly [the openmtbmap author]
refuses to open-source his code
(http://openmtbmap.org/faq/#i-would-like-to-have-a-look-into-the-style-file-for-mkgmap),
which is entirely his
33 matches
Mail list logo
