On 29/07/2009, at 5:45 AM, Jack Stringer wrote:
Should we be charging to upgrade businesses details on OSM?
I think it should be free. You could pay OSM to have a OSM member put
all the details onto the map for them, saving them signing up etc. But
I would not like to see charging being the
On 01/08/2009, at 1:36 AM, SLXViper wrote:
Those untagged nodes sometimes show up quite a lot, depending on the
area. In one case there were a lot of untagged nodes along a way, each
very close to another node belonging to the way. All untagged ones
were
created by a potlatch user, I think
On 01/08/2009, at 7:38 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Well, you can do this, but most routers will try not to use
residential roads if there is another way.
Maybe things are different over in Europe than here in Australia. My
Garmin when using commercial maps and a friend's NavMan are both
On 02/08/2009, at 9:56 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
yes. A residential road should be avoided if possible (slow, dangerous
and noisy for residents / playing kids), while I don't see this in
industrial or commercial context.
Not having been to Europe I can't say for sure, I wouldn't say that
On 03/08/2009, at 11:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2009/8/3 James Livingston doc...@mac.com:
In any case, if you have a router that does this kind of thing,
wouldn't it be better to base it off landuse=residential/industrial?
the problem is, that it is far more timeconsuming to check
On 05/08/2009, at 5:54 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
The sign says 4WD ONLY - I therefore suggest that 4wd_only is indeed
the correct terminology, at least in regions (e.g. Australia) where
the sign appears as such and the phrase is in common use.
While true, it would also be useful to know whether
On 06/08/2009, at 12:58 AM, Renaud Martinet wrote:
There has been a lot of discussion on the talk-fr list but once we
came to a consensus,
it was easy to put in place because we have our own MapFeatures
page. Probably
you should have one also...
That might work for countries where
On 09/08/2009, at 8:17 AM, Jason Cunningham wrote:
Wood and Forest have not had clear definitions for centuries in the
UK, and as Mike Harris states the trees within Forests were
incidental (the famous Sherwood Forest was mostly heathland).
Just because it's called a Forest doesn't mean
On 12/08/2009, at 3:51 PM, Nop wrote:
There is no consent on which way to go to express the strict use case.
I think the only two solutions are to either have this be country-
specific (at which point routers/renderers have to start knowing these
kinds of things), or we have highway=cycleway
On 12/08/2009, at 8:14 PM, Pieren wrote:
Note that in France, pedestrians are not allowed on cycleways. I don't
see why we should add foot=no now in all cycleways in France. I read
somewhere that some motorways in US gives access to bicycles. Does it
mean that we have to add bicycle=no to all
On 12/08/2009, at 10:38 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
But if there is no default for foot, then what is
routing software to do? If it uses the way, the default is yes, and
if
doesn't, it's no. So the notion of no default does not make at lot of
sense to me.
...
With highway=path, the wiki
On 16/08/2009, at 2:20 AM, Tom Chance wrote:
Probably sensible to start with something more manageable than path/
highway.
Maybe the forest/wood debate.
Sounds good to me. The important thing is that the group has their
goals set out explicitly, so they know exactly what they should be
On 20/08/2009, at 10:29 AM, Andrew Ayre wrote:
If I draw the outline of a strip mall (a connected string of shops)
this
represents several businesses together. If I then put nodes on them
and
give the nodes names Mapnik won't render the names unless they are
amenities. But not all
On 24/08/2009, at 8:53 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
I don't like this, because before is arbitrary. If the stop
requirement applies to the intersection, I think it should be applied
to the intersection itself (either directly or as a member of a
relation).
I agree that these kind of things should
On 25/08/2009, at 10:22 PM, John Smith wrote:
--- On Tue, 25/8/09, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
Or we could just always use a relation, so that mapping and
software
don't have to check for two different things, when editing
and
processing data respectively.
Or in other words
On 25/08/2009, at 9:37 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
What is everyone's preference? I quite like the relation described at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop
In fact, that relation avoids the need to split the way at the
junction if the stop sign applies in
On 26/08/2009, at 1:38 PM, John Smith wrote:
I agree, we need more tags to describe the railway crossing's
feature set, boom_gate=no, lights=no etc, however this is a special
case for stop signs because they will exist either side of the
junction and never applies to the railway line.
On 26/08/2009, at 1:10 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
I think the point here is that of being able to see easily what has
been
applied to the data. Nodes and ways are easy to see, but this extra
data
is probably not so obvious as you would not know that a node ON the
way
actually has extra
On 26/08/2009, at 7:31 PM, Liz wrote:
we've had a lot of trouble in Au because group X decided that
unmarked was
landsat and they would mark survey, and group Y decided that
unmarked was
survey and they would mark landsat
I take the approach that unmarked is landsat, yahoo, or something
On 27/08/2009, at 9:09 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I'd say the only thing you know for sure is that the source is unknown
unless it is explicitly tagged. I wouldn't assume anything besides
that. There are people who don't upload their traces (i personally
always do) and who have all rights
On 28/08/2009, at 9:23 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
On 08/28/2009 03:46 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
If dieterdriest has found a number of people who've been ignoring the
definition,
Nobody (that I know of) has been ignoring the definition. It's just
that the definitions didn't match the
On 10/09/2009, at 7:01 PM, Valent Turkovic wrote:
how should I map this -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/valent_turkovic/3900795904/
highway=cycleway + pedestrian=yes
OR
highway=footway + bicycle=yes
Are these two the same? What is the difference?
Be prepared for a long drawn out
On 10/09/2009, at 8:05 PM, John Smith wrote:
2009/9/10 James Livingston doc...@mac.com:
Because of the presence of the bicycle symbol on the ground, I'd say
highway=cycleway;bicycle=designated;foot=yes. If that wasn't there,
I'd say footway=yes;bicycle=yes
Isn't that redundent?
I assume
On 10/09/2009, at 8:32 PM, David Earl wrote:
Therein lies the problem with each of these debates that comes up
every couple of months - while everyone would agree* that cycleways
accommodate cyclists, the rules vary around the world about what
else is allowed by default.
I don't see
On 22/09/2009, at 10:57 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2009/9/22 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
It is possible to represent different surfaces and different
maxspeeds
without using more than one way. maxspeed:lane=130;110;
surface:lane=asphalt;concrete. That's not necessarily the best
On 28/09/2009, at 11:16 PM, Gustav Foseid wrote:
Well... There is no copyright that expires after 15 years. Sui
generis database rights expire after 15 years, but copyright is
hardly very relevant for an OpenStreetMap database dump.
In Europe maybe - however there are countries where
On 28/09/2009, at 2:22 PM, Marcus Wolschon wrote:
25A-25C should work with addr:interpolation=alphabetic .
However not all software that supports interpolation at all,
supports this interpolation-mode yet.
25-25A would not.
I'm not sure you how you can interpolate things like this correctly
On 03/10/2009, at 7:02 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
More examples from the Mozilla project: if one vocal group want
something one way, and another vocal group want something the other
way
in Firefox, the _worst_ thing you can do is make it a preference so
that
both sides can have what they
On 02/10/2009, at 7:12 PM, Nigel Magnay wrote:
That's fine, so long as the tags themselves are namespaced. Otherwise,
just as now, the semantics get confused.
I.E, It should be the case that if I tag as
FredericRamm:interesting=true
Going this route is really just reinventing XML, without
On 03/10/2009, at 12:53 PM, Jeremy Adams wrote:
If different regions want to use the map for different purposes,
display different tags, etc then they can apply their localization
when they create their map.
It's not so much that there are different uses, but a lot of the
assumptions
On 03/10/2009, at 1:16 PM, Andrew Errington wrote:
If I am a map maker then I know whether or not the street has a name,
because I've been there and seen it. I can look at the map and see
that
this street has no name, but I know that it does. So I will edit
the data
to make it right.
On 03/10/2009, at 1:24 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
I suggest instead that in cases such as these, SteveC should bless one
of them with his Holy Water of Antioch (and the number of the tags
shall be 3, no more and no less). His blessing will tip the stable
disconvergance in one direction.
For
On 03/10/2009, at 4:25 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
Wikipedia has much less need for consistency than we do (e.g. it
doesn't
matter if one article is in American English and another in Australian
English; articles are not machine-parsed) and yet they have all
sorts of
mechanisms for
On 03/10/2009, at 5:02 PM, John Smith wrote:
This was not only highly frustrating but demoralising and as a result
I've not been bothered tagging any more school zones because I don't
see a point until there is a One True Way to tag school zones.
Just do what I and a lot of other people have
On 03/10/2009, at 5:02 PM, Konrad Skeri wrote:
Time to end this debate
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boolean_values
How precisely is that going to end the debate?
a) Voting isn't the way to do this. It either needs consensus or a
dictator.
b) Lots of people don't care
On 03/10/2009, at 5:02 PM, Konrad Skeri wrote:
Time to end this debate
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boolean_values
Oh, and this:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/VotingOnTheWikiIsStupid
___
talk mailing
On 03/10/2009, at 5:54 PM, Konrad Skeri wrote:
Consensus will never happen and we don't have a dictator, which makes
voting the option left.
I actually agree that we just need to pick one, and since yes seems
to be the most commonly used one, that should be it. However, I just
don't see how
On 03/10/2009, at 4:29 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
Because sometimes, occasionally, a benevolent dictator (a phrase
used by
lots of open source projects) has to break deadlock and dictate.
Things
are working well when that power is used very, very rarely, but it
needs
to exist. Mozilla
On 05/10/2009, at 7:54 PM, David Earl wrote:
* Three new primitives, tagkey for describing the k part of tags,
tagvalue for the v part of tags and tagdescription separated off to
allow for multiple descriptions in multiple languages without having
to
download all the data for languages
On 05/10/2009, at 8:18 PM, Marc Schütz wrote:
IMO (a) is the correct way to do this.
...
For a road, we can either choose to map it as a linear object (this
is the common case), or we can map its geometry more exactly by
using an area. In both cases, however, the object in our database
On 06/10/2009, at 10:58 PM, David Earl wrote:
On 06/10/2009 13:35, James Livingston wrote:
I can see things getting ickier than they are now if you can just
go around adding new shop= values, without having some prior
discussion to what it means. If I saw a suggested option
On 06/10/2009, at 11:30 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
so far, all the responses seem to indicate that everyone thinks
linking to OSM data by ID is OK. what about Andy's idea, though? is it
OK to take a location, name and possibly an ID as well to perform
fuzzy linking?
my view is that all the
On 11/10/2009, at 12:08 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
This proposal includes the deletion of all voting-related stuff
including the casted votes of the past.
I'd say that this helps prove the point that different people reading
different things into what pages on the wiki say. The proposal
On 03/12/2009, at 10:19 PM, Mike Collinson wrote:
- Whether friendly or unfriendly, they never have any obligation to merge in
their data improvements into our database.
- However, you or I can.
Does that make sense?
I completely agree that they don't have to do anything towards merging
On 03/12/2009, at 10:19 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
That was my interpretation too. It appears to me that if some well-meaning
body released a set of data under the ODbL (which presumably we recommend as
an appropriate licence for geodata) then the OSM project would not be able to
use it. In other
On 06/12/2009, at 8:44 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Tom Hughes schrieb:
Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another
vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to
relicense.
With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th
On 06/12/2009, at 10:05 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
James Livingston wrote:
For example, I have inferred road positions from the CC-BY-licensed
Queensland DCDB-lite dataset, and have uploaded national park and
world-heritage areas from the CC-BY dataset on data.australia.gov.au.
As I'm
On 11/12/2009, at 8:02 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
so we don't need imported data?
In most cases we don't need imported data, but it can be useful. For example
rather than painstakingly crafting the entire coastline of Australia from a few
GPS traces and a lot of imagery (much is relatively
On 18/06/2010, at 4:56 PM, Ben Last wrote:
The existing editors (and I include Potlatch, JOSM and MapZen in that) are
powerful and well suited to users who understand mapping and OSM and are
motived to deal with the UI complexity, but are not at all well suited to
generalist users who want
On 23/06/2010, at 8:56 PM, Andy Allan wrote:
Don't worry, it hasn't actually changed the meaning of anything - it's
just that the wiki is now wrong. The easy way to fix the situation is
to correct the wiki - it's as straightforward as that.
You could argue the wiki is now wrong, but you could
On 17/06/2010, at 2:21 AM, Mike Collinson wrote:
If you have been involved in bulk import of data from third-parties, may I
ask you to check that this is on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue .
Why? Now we have final versions of everything, the License Working Group is
On 09/07/2010, at 1:07 AM, David Carmean wrote:
They use a shapefile generated from
a filtered snapshot of OSM data--leaving only roads--as a base layer.
If they do nothing else but serve this one-time snapshot as a base
layer, what are their obligations?
My opinion is that since they've
On 09/07/2010, at 12:24 AM, Matt Amos wrote:
I agree with Andy. This is what I understand the ODbL to be saying.
Unfortunately, as with any legal text, its difficult to read and this is an
unavoidable consequence of the legal system. If you need interpretation of
the license, new or old,
On 14/07/2010, at 10:28 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
I'm no expert on this sort of thing, but there are probably a lot of
well known pitfalls to avoid when trying to run an inclusive
international project in many languages. I'd think having English-only
discussion at a set time
On 14/07/2010, at 9:52 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 14 July 2010 20:59, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
What do you suggest would be acceptable / unacceptable?
I would consider things to fail if more than 5-10% of data disappears
in any region. At the very least it would be demoralising
On 30/07/2010, at 9:52 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
For me, very frequently, the changeset just represents a random bunch
of edits I happened to be doing at one time, with not much cohesion.
There are different suburbs all in the same changeset as I flitted
about.
My editing falls into two
On 14/04/2011, at 6:57 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
This method seems a much more satisfactory way of doing things to me
-- assuming it could work legally (IANAL). We would still have the
flexibility to re-license if we needed to without individual mappers
being able to hold their data
On 14/04/2011, at 8:06 AM, Francis Davey wrote:
On 13 April 2011 22:24, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
* If so, how do we know what data must be removed in a switch to ODbL?
That clause doesn't appear to put any obligation on you to remove
data. All it requires of you
On 30/09/2009, at 1:00 AM, Matt Amos wrote:
yes. but since there hasn't been any case law on what substantial
means (at least in europe, yet)
The reason I asked was because we had decision (Nine Network vs IceTV)
from our High Court a few months ago, regarding the meaning of
substantial
On 26/09/2009, at 3:02 AM, Mike Collinson wrote:
- A very much re-worked Contributor Terms is now virtually complete
and you can see a snapshot at
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1kqzg8dhr
.
Something I just thought of that would probably be worth talking about
- how does the
On 03/12/2009, at 6:12 AM, Mike Collinson wrote:
We have now fully updated the OSM Contributors agreement section of the
main proposal. I hope that meets concerns about clarity of the change-over
process.
http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf
A while ago on the
On 09/12/2009, at 11:46 AM, Anthony wrote:
A transfer of copyright is a transfer of exclusive rights. In the US, and
probably in other jurisdictions as well, it must be signed and in writing.
One key difference is that someone who is granted a nonexclusive license does
not have the power
On 12/12/2009, at 7:07 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
But if the foundation wants to have copyright in the data I think
it's trivial for it to have some by doing *some* of the maintenance
edits on behalf of the foundation or one person (or more) transferring
their rights instead of everyone
On 11/02/2010, at 8:14 PM, Stefan Neufeind wrote:
Agreed, trying to ask them would be a good thing. Has helped in some
cases in the past where authorities (city government or the like)
re-thought their license :-)
The Australian Toilet Map data got discussed on talk-au back in December, and
On 15/06/2010, at 7:24 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
2. create a data set derived from OSM with number of road kilometres in
each tile
I'd argue that this step could be seen as creating a Produced Work not a
derived database. Consider if you rendered a heat map of OSM where each pixel
in the
On 13/07/2010, at 10:47 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
Anybody who can suggest a way to accurately predict the
user numbers and data % and location and the extent where blank spots
might arise should help us to allay these fears. But I think that
there are simply too many variables to predict the
On 16/07/2010, at 6:35 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
ODbL is a comparable licence to BY-SA, with the main change being that it has
actually been written to cover data. If people don't relicence because they
are afraid not enough people will relicence then that will be a bit of a
self-fulfilling
On 16/07/2010, at 6:28 PM, Andy Allan wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:53 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
There's only one undeniable fact in this whole affair. Exactly 100% of all
contributors have signed up to CC-BY-SA and have indicated that they are
willing to contribute their data under
On 17/07/2010, at 4:12 AM, Simon Ward wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:01:08PM +1000, James Livingston wrote:
* It also uses contract law, which makes things a *lot* more complicated
Despite my strong bias towards copyleft, I thought this was a problem
with the license. Unfortunately
On 17/07/2010, at 4:58 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I noticed something that had escaped my attention until now. The
contributor terms say that OSMF will release the data under ODbL 1.0,
CC-BY-SA 2.0 or another free and open license accepted by 2/3 of active
members.
Notice the absence of
On 17/07/2010, at 6:34 PM, Heiko Jacobs wrote:
Michael Barabanov schrieb:
Consider two cases:
1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF
view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone.
2. Current license does cover the OSM data.
On 20/07/2010, at 9:10 AM, Emilie Laffray wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, violating a contract and making the data
available doesn't make the data public domain.
Indeed.
The relevant question is then Is hosting a copy of ODbL licensed material
(e.g. a planet dump) on your website without
On 26/08/2010, at 2:12 AM, Simon Ward wrote:
I don’t know if that’s how legal types read it, but couldn’t it also be
taken transitively as follows:
1. CTs allow licensing under ODbL 1.0;
2. ODbL 1.0 allows licensing under a compatible licence, or later
version of the ODbL;
3. By (1)
On 25/08/2010, at 5:41 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
There is also a very practical reason against fixing anything, and
*specifically* a share-alike requirement, in the CT, and that is that in
order to make *clear* what you want you will have to write half a license
into the CT.
I completely
On 30/08/2010, at 10:03 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
If the majority of the community (including OSMF and the sysads who run the
servers) agrees with the license change, why should the onus of forking be on
the license-change agreers? If this is indeed the case, then the ones who
should
On 30/08/2010, at 3:04 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
Perfect. So the new license is being shown as possibly non effective
against such an attack.
I've asked about this case before on the list, and gotten no real response
about it.
Consider for example if someone in the US[0]
On 30/08/2010, at 3:24 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
I think that was already sorted out under the issue of wikipedia point
importing,
the OSM data is under the jurisdiction of England and has to obey
english copyright law. no?
No, people are bound by the copyright law where they
On 27/08/2010, at 1:36 AM, Anthony wrote:
Or you could just assign the task of deciding what it means to
someone. Whether or not a future license is share alike shall be
determined by a vote of the OSMF board.
Sure, except I don't know that will really help. If people want certainty that
all
On 04/09/2010, at 10:30 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
If it absolutely has to be one thing or the other I'd say it is a Produced
Work.
Does it have to be though? I can't see anything in the ODbL that says Derived
Database and Produced Work are mutually exclusive.
A produced work is:
a work (such as
on my account
into those I can agree for and those I can't? and what licenses are the
CTs compatible with? ?
3) On the above, how do I split the edits on my account?
--
James Livingston
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
Hi all,
With the upcoming requirement to accept/decline the contributor terms, I
thought it was about time to figure out whether and how I can agree to them.
I've had a look around but can't see any FAQs for the contributor terms, just
for the ODbL part. I'm sure I can't be the only person in
On 5 June 2011 22:35, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
John Smith wrote:
He is yet to back up his claims about people using the data
I don't think it makes a difference. If I have one set of data with a
questionable copyright situation and no street names, and another set of
data
On 5 June 2011 10:09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I know for a fact that among the current disagreeing mappers there are some
who intend to stay with OSM and who are just holding out until the last
minute;
As far as I can tell, doing that is the only way to say I don't like the
On 23 June 2011 03:29, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
In today's operating systems, whether something is in a file or in memory
is a boundary that might easily get blurred. It would be kind of strange if
one algorithm that chooses to build a giant data structure in memory (using,
On 29/06/2011, at 4:25 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
On 06/29/11 05:21, James Livingston wrote:
I don't think it would be treated differently, because I believe that an
in-memory data structure would still be a database (in the ODbL and
database right sense of database). I don't see how the storage
On 16 June 2011 21:08, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
On 06/16/11 12:31, Dermot McNally wrote:
Not quite, based on what Richard is saying. It would allow future
relicensing but only if the new licence remained compatible with the
terms seen to be required by the OS (currently
On 14 August 2011 22:39, Henk Hoff o...@toffehoff.nl wrote:
Op 12-08-11 23:34, Nic Roets schreef:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Michael Kugelmannmichaelk_...@gmx.de
wrote:
While the first SOTM at Manchester (July 2007) there was a pannel about
the
license. BTW:
So, did the panel
On 19 August 2011 01:34, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:
* I think it's an open question as to whether it's permissible to
create a single layer of tiles from the two databases by overlaying
features from both. It could be argued that this is a collective work,
On 25 August 2011 02:00, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a different topic but last I heard the CT don't assure
everything you upload is ODbL compatible, but rather than your
contribution is compatible with all the licenses that may be chosen
by OSMF -- and that everything
On 28 November 2011 21:55, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.orgwrote:
I could render a map from OSM and then render something else on top of
it, say a commercially acquired set of hotel POIs. That would clearly be a
Produced Work; I
On 30 November 2011 01:03, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
On 28/11/11 23:59, James Livingston wrote:
Depending on the rendering, it may not be the same. The placements of
name text can depend on other data so it's not on top of something else, or
POIs can be hidden
On 29 January 2012 09:03, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I'm sure it is going to be tackled one way or the other but it really
isn't the big issue some people seem to make of it. Splitting ways is a
common thing but it is only relevant for the license change if an agreer
splits a
On 14 February 2012 03:17, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
I believe there is some contention as to what in 1.a current licence
terms refers to, but it is at least consistent with the document to assume
that it refers to the licences listed in 3., so both CC-by-SA 2.0 and ODbL
+ DbCL1.0 ,
On 05/01/2009, at 12:51 PM, Roy Rankin wrote:
This has raised in my mind the question of how should registered clubs
such as RSL and sports clubs be tagged. They tend to be very similar
to
pubs in that they usually serve alcohol, have gambling, and serve
food.
They differ from pubs by
On 12/01/2009, at 11:48 AM, Kim Hawtin wrote:
Any folks off to LCA09 next week?
http://linux.conf.au/
Feed like a catchup?
Perhaps we could do a BoF?
I'm unfortunately not going to make it down there, but I reckon there
should be some interested people around.
What would probably be a
legal system and other mechanisms when it doesn't.
Cheers,
James Livingston
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
On 28/02/2009, at 3:38 PM, Jim Croft wrote:
Putting words into their mouths, I think the argument would be that
the decision-making involved in selection, storage, management and
display of these fact is indeed a creative act, even though the facts
themselves aren't. A blank screen magically
On 16/06/2009, at 1:08 AM, Delta Foxtrot wrote:
Now does anyone have suggestions on how to basically drive the
entire town the most efficiently with the minimal amount of overlap,
or how does one plan such a feat.
There's a nice mathematical algorithm for figuring out that. All you
need
On 16/06/2009, at 1:52 PM, Liz wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Delta Foxtrot wrote:
Most likely I'll be returning via a different direction, I don't
particularlly like going out west, there is whole lots of nothing
inbetween
a few somethings.
OSM makes you look for somethings out there
On 24/06/2009, at 12:59 PM, John Smith wrote:
Also with my previous answer, you can get away with only 14 bytes
per point rather than 17, 3 bytes for time, 4 for lat, 4 for lon, 2
for time, 1 for hdop. Although if reset tracks that go over 65,000
seconds back to zero you could get away
1 - 100 of 188 matches
Mail list logo
