I was told at http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2708 to take this
here. Basically, the TIGER import has put a lot of duplicate nodes
where highways cross railways, power and pipe lines, and
administrative boundaries. The former should definitely be connected,
but it seems that power lines,
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lkrevert has reverted one of my
changesets. I contacted this user, but doubt I'll get a response,
since this is obviously not the primary account. I don't have the
tools to undo this revert, and that's probably not a good idea anyway
without some sort of
Oops - forgot to choose 'reply to all'. Sorry Fred for the duplicate.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Nathan,
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lkrevert has reverted one of my
changesets. I contacted this user, but doubt I'll
Frederik Ramm wrote:
However, Nathan, I see that for example in this way
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/12515816/history
you had removed *all* the tags from the way. I haven't investigated
further but maybe the reverter had to assume that there was some editing
error?
I deleted that
It's been a day with no response from lkrevert. Can somebody please
take care of this?
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lkrevert has reverted one of my
changesets. I contacted this user, but doubt I'll get a response
Anyone?
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
It's been a day with no response from lkrevert. Can somebody please
take care of this?
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lkrevert
Richard Weait wrote:
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Nathan Edgars II neroute2 at gmail.com
wrote:
It's been a day with no response from lkrevert. Can somebody please
take care of this?
I generally allow other mappers a week to respond to site-mail before
I send another note. They might
Richard Weait wrote:
What is in this (big) changeset that ikrevert reverted?
I fixed up the numbered routes in Columbia. You'll see that currently
some of the primary highways just dead-end, because TIGER often
doesn't have the correct routings for numbered routes. Restore the
changeset and you
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 Feb 2010, at 14:33 , Nathan Edgars II wrote:
And a week from now half the ways in the changeset will probably have
been edited, making a restoration very complicated. Is it the intent
here that those
First, I'm not trying to start an argument or even a civilized
discussion about our policies in this matter. I just found this
interesting.
http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:::NO::P3_FID:1196597
is Rosslyn Station, a former railway station in Pennsylvania. The
source cited for
In southern Illinois -
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.777lon=-88.689zoom=10layers=B000FTF
- user bhj867 has added a number of new highways, most notably the
motorways at Murphysboro, Carbondale, Marion, and Harrisburg, and the
trunk from Eldorado to New Haven. But it appears that these are
Response from bhj867:
Delete everything except the bypass, which is finished except the
Interchanges, and the Rollie Moore Drive. south of town. Also Route 45
IS 4 lane through the city all the way to ELdorado, everything else is
not real. Just A few proposed roads and crap that was added on.
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Tyler Ritchie tyler.ritc...@gmail.com wrote:
If someone is going going to truly vandalize a map I wouldn't expect them to
make the detailed map that is West Harrisburg. I would expect giant words
spelled out using streets, and changes to existing names and towns
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Nathan,
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Anyway, could someone please help me revert? I lack the coding skills
to do the automated part, but can do the resulting cleanup.
If you can try to give a slightly more algorithmic
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Just to be safe - this user has been active on 10 days between 13 September
09 and 22 April 10, uploading over 100 changesets altogether. All these
edits are to be removed, regardless of whether someone else touched the
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Nakor wrote:
I came to the OSM project to help create a better map of the world, not
to be insulted. Please remove the page
http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/dupe_nodes/heroes.html immediately.
The page is helpful and should not be removed.
To be less offensive,
A couple hours ago I made a bunch of edits in Potlatch and saved.
While editing the loading from the API was intermittent, and this
continued during the saving. I canceled the save and tried again, and
now it refuses to save or load anything. I also can't access any pages
on openstreetmap.org.
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
Nathan Edgars II schrieb:
A couple hours ago I made a bunch of edits in Potlatch and saved.
While editing the loading from the API was intermittent, and this
continued during the saving. I canceled the save and tried
Right now, the only mention of the on the ground rule on the wiki is
here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes#On_the_Ground_Rule
Should a separate page be created about how it applies more generally?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
I know this isn't the Cloudmade list, but a recent thread here got
some results. I used the feedback link but never got a response.
If you go to
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
In any case, more important than the etymology of the phrase map what's on
the ground is what it means and whether or not it's good advice. In terms
of its use in excluding verifiable information I think it is quite
problematic.
John F. Eldredge wrote:
From: Nathan Edgars II
In other words, if we know for sure that Long Street is officially the A1889,
it might make sense as a separate ref_unmarked=A1889 tag, like old_ref=A1,
but using the same tagging for signed and unsigned routes helps nobody.
It is not unusual
(sorry about the duplicate, Anthony; I forgot to send to all)
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
In other words, if we know for sure that Long Street
is officially the A1889, it might make
John Smith wrote:
If you wanted something more definite, police injury records could
provide alternative verifiability, if as John pointed out 5 people
were hurt or killed trying to cross a road than it's obviously not
safe.
Only if you do the same for other vehicles - highway with lots of
crashes
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
As others have said, foot=no when pedestrians are legally allowed is a
bad idea. As long as you walk against traffic, drivers will usually
see you
Alexander Menk wrote:
is there any better way for mapping very wide steps (100 m, half
circle) instead of putting lots of steps next to each other.
highway=steps area=yes?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
highway=motorway_junction with ref=[number] is used whenever there's
an exit/junction number, whether or not it's actually on a motorway.
But there are some numbered exits that are right at traffic signals,
which should be tagged highway=traffic_signals. Examples include
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Well it can't be highway=motorway_junction because motorways don't
have level crossings, right?
If this were a motorway_junction (it isn't) the exit number would be
in the ref tag on the exit node, so go with that.
In
David Paleino wrote:
Hello people,
does someone know the reasoning behind:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:highwaydiff=490719oldid=485601
?
Looking through his recent edits, I see
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.73928lon=-79.88822zoom=15layers=B000FTF
All around here there are missing ways. I can't tell exactly what
happened, but edits such as
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3128411 and
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3125973 (done at about
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Apollinaris Schoell
ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe better to revert these whole changesets.
No can do - I don't have the programming skills to handle a revert,
and JOSM's changeset manager doesn't seem to be able to do it.
This can be tricky if people have
colliar wrote:
I can not get onto any wiki page.
Any problems ?
It's down, and there also seems to be a problem with generating new
Mapnik tiles, for instance here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.3454lon=-75.9435zoom=12layers=B000FTF
This also affects downloading in JOSM - you can download
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
colliar wrote:
I can not get onto any wiki page.
Any problems ?
It's down, and there also seems to be a problem with generating new
Mapnik tiles, for instance here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.3454lon
Steve Bennett wrote:
Definitely. I would go so far as to say that two connected ways should
render identically to if they were a single way, except for the actual
differences in tags between them.
Not quite. Where a dual carriageway becomes a single carriageway, this
would wrap the name around
I've written a summary of the recent mailing list discussions on
links: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Link
Please discuss on its talk page.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Joseph Reeves wrote:
On 2 July 2010 12:41, Maarten Deen mdeen at xs4all.nl wrote:
- show them keepright.ipax.at
And http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/dupe_nodes/
God no. Not until it distinguishes between bad dupes (highway-highway
at county lines, to use a US example) and OK dupes
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
God no. Not until it distinguishes between bad dupes (highway-highway
at county lines, to use a US example) and OK dupes (highway-boundary).
Ok dupes do
Pieren wrote:
I don't understand you. If they don't follow and don't cross, then you don't
have duplicate nodes anyway...
The TIGER import has numerous topological errors, including many
highways crossing boundaries when they really don't (due to one or
both being in the wrong position). TIGER
Ed Avis wrote:
Nathan Edgars II neroute2 at gmail.com writes:
Depends what the way is. If it's a street, the area most likely stops
at the right-of-way line, and does not extend to the middle of the
street, so it would be incorrect to extend the area into the street.
On the other hand, if it's
Pieren wrote:
You missunderstood : the definition of the border IS the middle of the road
It may be the middle of the road *as it existed when the border was
defined*. It's usually not the middle of the road as it exists now,
unless there have been no changes, however slight, to the road
Maarten Deen wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2010 06:43, Chris Dombroski cdombroski+osm at icanttype.org
wrote:
I ask because I think this is the cause of stupid GPS directions at times
make a left, followed by a slight right
Isn't that a problem with the routing software, not the data?
Peter Herison wrote:
Does anyone encounter errors loading Yahoo-Images in Potlatch?
I'm not getting them at all; I reopened
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2950.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
I posted a question:
http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/153/how-do-you-tell-if-a-minor-service-road-is-accessprivate-destination-or-permissive
But I can't view it. Apparently others have been able to respond and
downvote it, but when I go to the above URL I get:
500 Server Error
sorry,
Heiko Jacobs-2 wrote:
But I don't will accept any data loss because only of legal reasons.
Wikipedia and other projects changed licence without any loss of data.
Unfortunately Wikipedia took advantage of a loophole: contributors agreed to
the current GFDL or any later version, and they
SteveC-2 wrote:
And I'll try to imagine your parents basement where you toil endlessly on
such counts.
Steve
stevecoast.com
If this is how the OSMF board conducts themselves, perhaps it's best to give
them as little power as possible over the data and its license.
--
View this
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:22 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 July 2010 12:07, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
If this is how the OSMF board conducts themselves, perhaps it's best to give
them as little power as possible over the data and its license.
Just
If a way is tagged tiger:reviewed=no, JOSM puts a highlight behind it,
and when you select it the red is a lot fatter. How do I disable this?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 4:37 AM, maning sambale
emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote:
Use the wireframe mode
Ctrl-R
That's ctrl-W, and I don't want all that, just disabling the highlight.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/8/2 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com:
If a way is tagged tiger:reviewed=no, JOSM puts a highlight behind it,
and when you select it the red is a lot fatter. How do I disable this?
Use new JOSM filter feature
Sebastian Klein wrote:
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
If a way is tagged tiger:reviewed=no, JOSM puts a highlight behind it,
and when you select it the red is a lot fatter. How do I disable this?
You can put
color.mappaint.standard.tiger_data=#80808000
in your advanced preferences
Sebastian Klein wrote:
There seems to be a general user interface problem here, as you are not
the first having trouble with loading custom styles.
To avoid noise on this list, we can try to resolve it on josm trac.
Please add Help-status report to the ticket.
I created a ticket -
Anthony-6 wrote:
http://www.bing.com/community/blogs/maps/archive/2010/08/02/bing-maps-adds-open-street-maps-layer.aspx
I may be wrong, but it looks like they've taken a static dump of the tiles
from earlier today, rather than a dump of the data. Some changes I just made
today
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Nathan Edgars II writes:
If a way is tagged tiger:reviewed=no, JOSM puts a highlight behind it,
and when you select it the red is a lot fatter. How do I disable this?
Delete tiger:reviewed=no after you've reviewed a road
SteveC-2 wrote:
One quote from the talk in particular comes to mind: it's a technique
that poisonous people can use to derail a consensus-based community from
actually achieving consensus. You have this noisy minority make a lot of
noise and people look and say 'oh wow there is no
I think I figured out what's been specifically bugging me about this.
When I joined OSM about eight months ago, I knew vaguely that there was a
license change process going on, and assumed the OSMF knew what they were
doing. (I still think they know, but I now have concerns about what they're
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
So the newbies have chosen to join this mailing list, so they at least have
seen the list of mailinglists. Why didn't they join legal? or dev= because
they're not interested in those topics, they have enough to do with
On 12/7/2011 6:47 PM, Kate Chapman wrote:
There are a lot of road classifications already in the wiki for
example here is the one for the US:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Road_Classification
This has a number of problems:
On 12/7/2011 7:42 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 12/7/2011 6:47 PM, Kate Chapman wrote:
There are a lot of road classifications already in the wiki for
example here is the one for the US:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Road_Classification
This has a number of problems:
http
On 12/7/2011 7:31 PM, Kate Chapman wrote:
But if the road classification matches to the actual
utility of the road why not use it.
It doesn't in the U.S.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 12/7/2011 7:08 PM, Andrew Errington wrote:
I don't know for sure, but I expect that the initial list of road
classifications were derived from UK Ordnance Survey classifications:
Motorway - motorway
A road - primary
B road - secondary
'yellow' road - tertiary
'white' road - unclassified
What will happen to buildings that were drawn by a CT-agreeing mapper
but with tags copied from a red node?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 12/13/2011 11:57 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
What will happen to buildings that were drawn by a CT-agreeing mapper
but with tags copied from a red node?
Presumably nothing will happen, since there is no easy way of
identifying these. So this is an easy loophole - if you see any red
nodes
On 12/13/2011 2:02 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
People are increasingly deleting such content and replacing with new
content, often using the new sources which were not available when the
content was first input (e.g. Bing imagery and OS OpenData) and that's good.
Disagree. It's only good if
On 12/13/2011 2:30 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 12/13/2011 08:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Presumably nothing will happen, since there is no easy way of
identifying these. So this is an easy loophole - if you see any red
nodes that represent points of interest, replace them with building
On 12/13/2011 2:57 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 12/13/2011 08:47 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I have done many edits of this sort over the years. It has been standard
practice for a long time. Any tainting has already happened.
I am not talking about any tainting that has happened
It would be useful to have an idea of how many objects have been edited
by a red user *and then edited by someone else*. These are the biggest
problem in terms of damage.
It's also important to keep in mind that relations are the most
vulnerable of all, and do not show up on this view.
On 12/13/2011 4:03 PM, Graham Jones wrote:
I see there are three potential reasons for someone neither accepting
nor declining the terms:
* They really do not agree with them, but for some reason that I can
not think of they decide not to click the 'decline' button - These
are an
How does the OSMF plan to handle split or combined ways?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 12/13/2011 4:25 PM, john whelan wrote:
The intentions don't matter here, its to be able to defend the new
licensing / copyright in court you need to show all the content has come
from people who have accepted the new license.
Which is impossible because of the common practice of copying
On 12/13/2011 4:46 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote:
Even in law exists the distinction between crimes done willingly and
those done unwillingly or without knowledge. You don't get necessarily
out of the case without any harm if you didn't know or didn't want it,
but often you have to do/pay/be
On 12/13/2011 5:03 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
No. The only thing I was talking about was that if you should have the
audacity to publicly proclaim loopholes in the process and that you
intend to use them, I will block your account.
I have already used them many times as part of normal editing,
How about before we start attempting to rescue anything from the OSMF,
we make sure we know what we're doing? What is the proper way to edit an
object that has been modified by a decliner? What is the proper way to
do this to a relation, especially one with many members and many
revisions? How
On 12/13/2011 6:38 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Because we gain nothing from major contributors holding out until the
very last day and then, smilingly, tell us you know what, I've decided
to disagree after all. That's four winter months wasted when they could
have been perfectly well used for
The other thing that's needed is a way to mark an object as clean. For
example, if a red mapper added name=Citgo to an existing gas station,
and I verify that it's Citgo (and maybe add other tags such as address),
how do I prevent the OSMF from reverting it?
I recently updated JOSM to the latest tested (though it still has the
sluggishness issues I reported a few months ago) and can no longer
download from the Overpass API. When I try to download
On 12/14/2011 4:13 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
Could you point on the wiki which problems will arise by not changing
at all - or posing a future transition to a next version of the
Creative Commons license?
I've read through many discussions, and the only reasons I've seen for
changing the
I will look at a single suburban roadway: Westwood Boulevard in the
International Drive tourist area south of Orlando.
This started out as a TIGER way:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/11197961/history
80n (orange) and kyrbyboy (red) have made some improvements to
alignment, but have
On 12/14/2011 9:45 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
It has been explained already but I'll repeat it - OSMF/LWG has not yet
decided what they will do with regards to the finer points of complex
object relicensing. This means that none of your questions above has an
answer. And OSMF is not going to
On 12/14/2011 11:56 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
3. The list moderators need to step up and do their jobs. This
nonsense is disruptive and it needs to end. Discussion is fine, but
inflammatory language and lies are not.
Could you have made a more inflammatory post?
(Well, sure, you could have,
On 12/15/2011 8:21 AM, Mikel Maron wrote:
Please continue any detailed discussion of this topic to legal-talk ...
that's what it's for.
The question is not what's legally true, but what conditions the OSMF
will require an object to satisfy to not be reverted. So it actually
belongs on
Has there been any information as to how the OSMF will handle relations
when deleting or reverting tainted objects? It is much easier for a
relation to be tainted than a way; all that needs to be done is the
splitting of a single member to ruin the entire relation. For example,
31 of the
On 12/18/2011 8:45 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 12/18/2011 04:34 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Has there been any information as to how the OSMF will handle relations
when deleting or reverting tainted objects?
No.
I'll write something on legal-talk.
I'll reply here because (a) I'm
On 12/21/2011 8:01 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Sounds like a policy decision to me - you can either be too cautious or
too careful but probably never do it exactly right.
And we really need to know how the OSMF is treating these common cases
before we start the process of minimizing damage.
On 12/26/2011 6:50 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
I've updated the license change view on OSMI with new rules. It will
now
* treat untagged nodes as clean if moved by an agreeing mapper
* treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if
these tags are not present any more in
On 12/26/2011 9:09 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Dear unknown person using the pseudonym Nathan Edgars II,
Does this mean that the OSMF has decided that these cases will not be
reverted, or do we still have no idea?
I will not cave in to your childish refusal to read osmf-talk by
repeating what
On 12/26/2011 9:21 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 12/27/2011 03:09 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I will not cave in to your childish refusal to read osmf-talk
Or legal-talk, rather.
I do read legal-talk, and have seen no such decision by the OSMF.
On 12/31/2011 1:48 AM, Michal Migurski wrote:
In the bottom-right corner is the wiki Image Of The Week, which is so often the
home of solid gold output from the OSM community, whether it's new renders or
photos of mappers.
I beg to differ. Pulling a few examples:
On 1/3/2012 4:25 AM, Pieren wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
This is the area that we still need to get some agreement on :(
Current rendering does not take any notice of start and stop dates ...
These tags have been created for periodic events,
On 1/3/2012 5:04 AM, Pieren wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Nathan Edgars II
If someone does this in my area, I'll revert the deletion as vandalism.
Funny. I also consider adding non-existing stuff as vandalism. I
hope we will never contribute on the same areas...
Live and let live
On 1/3/2012 7:08 AM, Pieren wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote:
So don't remove legitimate data (which includes
historic features) in the name of reverting vandalism, or you too will
eventually get burned.
Then many, many people will be burned.
On 1/10/2012 10:24 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
Some of these ways haven't been touched since Bing imagery became
available. I'm guessing improvements are probably more the norm than
reductions in quality.
What probably gets lost most often is various improvements made such as
number of lanes,
On 1/10/2012 12:16 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
In short, this remapping exercise I'm doing actually leads to better
data quality. So I disagree with your assertion that the license
change is a disruptive change for little or no benefit.
So what you're saying is that you're only improving
On 1/11/2012 10:30 PM, Nick Hocking wrote:
OSM inspector gives a pessimistic view at a distance because red is so
bright and (in Australia) one could be forgiven for thinking...
Oh dear, Sydney and Adelaide are goners.
However your CleanMap shows that there is a lot of hope for both
although
It's my view that odbl=clean is essentially a loophole - that is, if the
OSMF actually pays attention to it when mass-reverting. But given that
it seems to be accepted, I'm wondering about the following case:
A non-agreeing mapper changes a bunch of roads from residential to
secondary, using
Since there's been no response, I plan to start doing this.
On 1/13/2012 6:49 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
It's my view that odbl=clean is essentially a loophole - that is, if the
OSMF actually pays attention to it when mass-reverting. But given that
it seems to be accepted, I'm wondering about
On 1/15/2012 11:09 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 01/15/2012 05:03 PM, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
in my opinion, obdl=clean is the ugliest thing in the whole license
change so far...
i can't believe this would be automatically accepted on april 1st.
I'm happy to debate the issue on
On 1/15/2012 3:00 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
Frederik Ramm writes:
I am amazed at the constant disregard of legal-talk, a list that was
created *precisely* for license questions.
These questions have nothing to do with the law, and everything to do
with how the community edits.
Actually
On 1/15/2012 12:34 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
According to this, deletions will not be reverted:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F#Deletions_are_not_tainted
Now that's just stupid. Can you imagine what a random town where an
ungood mapper has done some joining
On 1/15/2012 9:38 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
The OSMF seems determined to avoid any edge cases by being very
conservative.
Maybe in some cases, but with respect to splitting and joining ways,
they're being extremely liberal and assuming that a new way ID is a new
way wrt licensing. That is,
On 1/17/2012 6:28 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2012/1/17 Maarten Deenmd...@xs4all.nl:
On 2012-01-16 23:27, Robin Paulson wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=-36.878407lon=174.741523zoom=19
the landuse polygon has an orange highlight on it, why does it do that?
Just a hint on
1 - 100 of 889 matches
Mail list logo
