Jan 17, 2019, 5:51 PM by openstreet...@stereo.lu:
> If you use a special source you can’t share, and the local community
> understands and is cool with it, no one is in trouble.
>
What about someone not from local community attempting to check whatever data
import
was a copyright violation?
Paul:
In the Preamble of the guidelines it says "It's not a policy", but you
say they are a policy.
Cheers,
Rafael.
O 10/01/19 ás 21:34, Paul Norman escribiu:
On 2019-01-10 10:19 a.m., Christoph Hormann wrote:
Since it is on the OSM wiki and there is no statement indicating
otherwise does
Hi Martijn,
I was thinking of disclosed sources that can’t easily be shown, for example,
imagery that doesn’t exist yet, or where you have to enter a special agreement
to be given access, or out-of-copyright analogue sources that haven’t been
digitised.
We agree that this should be
On Thursday 17 January 2019, Guillaume Rischard wrote:
>
> What we mean is that we’ll intervene for edits the community has
> issues with, and that we will not intervene for merely not following
> the guidelines.
Note the guidelines themselves claim that they represent "consensus".
Without
Hi Guillaume,
Thanks, that clarifies it for me.
Just to be clear, where you mention 'special sources' -- those would still need
to be vetted for compatibility with ODbL, and that would need to be done in the
open. I don't think anyone, individual or organization, should be able to get
away with
Hi Martijn,
Gladly. I seem to recall that this is also one of the points that you asked
questions about during the board meeting.
What we mean is that we’ll intervene for edits the community has issues with,
and that we will not intervene for merely not following the guidelines. Maybe a
few
Just saw Dorothea has now created a page for the Guidelines instead of a
PDF:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines
That is much better. Thanks.
Further suggestion: Add a small note there that unofficial translations
are available on the OSM wiki (Spanish and
On Monday 14 January 2019, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> I am happy to see that the official version has now been published on
> the OSMF web site. I changed
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines
> accordingly.
Seriously?
This is the worst variant possible - link to a
I am happy to see that the official version has now been published on the OSMF
web site. I changed
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines accordingly.
--
Martijn van Exel
m...@rtijn.org
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019, at 13:59, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could you
Hi Guillaume, DWG,
Thanks for the conclusion. I asked in a different email on this thread to post
this on the OSMF web site, to have a permanent, immutable copy that we can
refer to when it comes to enforcing / disputes.
I am a confused about the statement 'not following the organised editing
Hi,
Could you please put the version that was approved up at
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines ? As it is
now, the text as approved is available at
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/1/13/Organised_editing_guidelines_version_20180908.pdf
(I assume this is
On Thursday 10 January 2019, Paul Norman wrote:
>
> We just discussed this internally, the reason we've got them on the
> publicly editable wiki even though it's a policy is the number of
> links to/from the page make it more useful on the this wiki instead
> of the OSMF one.
I have no objections
On 2019-01-10 10:19 a.m., Christoph Hormann wrote:
Since it is on the OSM wiki and there is no statement indicating
otherwise does this mean we can start improving the guidelines now?;-)
If you can edit them to be closer to the text approved by the OSMF board ;)
We just discussed this
On Thursday 10 January 2019, Guillaume Rischard wrote:
> The Data Working Group is happy to announce that our new Organised
> Editing Guidelines have now been officially put online on the wiki at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines
Since it is on the OSM wiki and
Jan 10, 2019, 4:26 PM by openstreet...@stereo.lu:
> I believe that no other project, open or proprietary, has faced this exact
> issue before.
>
AFAIK Wikipedia had (and has) exactly the same problem - ranging from well
meaning people
(that frequently caused problem) through low-paid people
The Data Working Group is happy to announce that our new Organised Editing
Guidelines have now been officially put online on the wiki at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines
I'm happy to answer any questions here. In the meanwhile, here's my updated
report.
We at
16 matches
Mail list logo
