Re: [OSM-talk] iPhoto for iOS Not Using Google Maps

Spod wrote: > http://512pixels.net/iphoto-for-ios-not-using-google-maps/ http://www.refnum.com/tmp/apple.html (thanks Dair!) will show you the tiles they're using. Seems to be TIGER in the States but OSM in lots of other places... cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19

Re: [OSM-talk] iPhoto for iOS Not Using Google Maps

Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Seems to be TIGER in the States but OSM in lots of other places... ...and the consensus is that the data is from some time late March/early April 2010. Yes, really. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/iPhoto-for-iOS-

Re: [OSM-talk] iPhoto for iOS Not Using Google Maps

Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: Looks like they're using a old (pre-2011) planet dump for the data. Yep, we've now pinned it down to 1st-7th April 2010. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/

Re: [OSM-talk] iPhoto for iOS Not Using Google Maps

On 08/03/2012 10:41, Yves wrote: I think this is part of the fun searching for the datasource, there is no attribution, right? Indeed. A couple of us are having discussions about how to get this addressed. Stay tuned. cheers Richard ___ talk mail

[OSM-talk] Nice problem to have

* 3500 tiles per second. Seriously. In Grant's words on Twitter: "Massive jump in #OpenStreetMap traffic due 2 Apple news: t.co/nB4ffgYy Fighting fires 2 keep systems up" * switch2osm.org fell over. Yep, so many people wanting to find out about switching to OpenStreetMap that WordPress crapped

Re: [OSM-talk] No attribution on osm.org?

Andrew Ayre wrote: > I can't imagine why the majority wouldn't agree on improving > attribution. I think the attribution is great as it is. There's a whacking great big OSM logo and a big "Copyright & licence" link that leads to a more cogent and helpful explanation of the licence than anything fo

Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about Incentives to contribute to OSM

Serge Wroclawski wrote: > This may appear on its surface to be an odd question, especially > to someone in academia, but our community is predicated > on the premise of communal sharing. *ahem* Speak for yourself. I engage with OSM because I believe that open geographic data should exist, and t

Re: [OSM-talk] Way with only one single node

Stephan Knauss wrote: > Some editors create these ways. The most prominent one is Potlatch. > The Ticket is open since two years. xybot trys to correct some of > the problems until a bugfix is made in potlatch. xybot does not help its cause by having the same ticket for Potlatch 1 and Potlatch 2

Re: [OSM-talk] Way with only one single node

[copied to potlatch-dev, followups probably better there] Steve Bennett wrote: > One thing we could add (in addition to trying to fix bugs in the > various places 1-length ways could be created) would be a > general filter at save time that prevents any 1-length ways > being sent back to the datab

[OSM-talk] Calm down, dear

In the UK there's a really annoying TV advert in which Michael Winner (past-it film director and restaurant critic) urges "Calm down, dear. It's only a commercial". You can find it on YouTube if you want. Our beloved (ahem) Prime Minister used the phrase to slap down a critic in the House of Common

Re: [OSM-talk] Truth about media hype in Microsoft lending big support and big dollars to OSM ?

Pieren wrote: > we have a "media hype" (or media excitement ?) about Microsoft > investing "big dollars" in OSM. [...] > Where is the truth here ? I'm sure we'd all like to know! I'm not aware of any announcement being made or (say) any formal contact this year between Microsoft and OSMF. cheers

Re: [OSM-talk] Geofabrik downloads post-licence-change

Stefan Keller wrote: > Am I right that there are currently no updates available since > April 9th at /osm/ and there doesn't exist the new > /openstreetmap/ directory neither because we are waiting for > the OSM board's approval of the new license? No, it's nothing to do with OSM(F) board appro

Re: [OSM-talk] Licence status in Potlatch2, and data deletion?

Steve Bennett wrote: > The "show licence status" in Potlatch2 is no longer working for me. Works fine for me. You might just have hit a temporary WTFE outage. > Also, could we have an update on what is happening with data deletion? Henk has just posted http://blog.osmfoundation.org/2012/04/26/li

Re: [OSM-talk] Licence status in Potlatch2, and data deletion?

Steve Bennett wrote: > It's been like this for at least a week for me, I think. Can you > definitely see licence info in, say, Melbourne? I see no red > outlines, and no "no"/"partial" etc above the advanced editor. Presume that's Melbourne, Australia rather than the nice little Derbyshire town te

Re: [OSM-talk] Bing coverage relations, in particular 1298962

Someoneelse wrote: > Regardless of the "perhaps the map shouldn't render unknown things > just because of name=blah" issue, I'd argue that metadata such as > this really doesn't belong in OSM. Agreed. OSM is not the world's sole repository of co-ordinate data, and nor should it be. This would b

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes

Richard Mann wrote: > My point is that tagging should allow both types of routes to be > recorded We tag what's on the ground, whether it's route signage, cycle-specific infrastructure, or a giant woolly mammoth (http://url.ie/f9ts). Are you suggesting a deviation from that? cheers Richard -

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes

Richard Mann wrote: > You'd have to ask the City of Utrecht whether their "main cycle routes" > are signed. Well, ok, I wasn't really asking what "I'd have to ask", more what "your point is". :) If the routes are signed, that's good. If there are measurements that can be tagged in OSM (vehicles p

Re: [OSM-talk] Cycleways and Access tags: Left, Right, Forward, Backward?

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > simply draw cycleways with separate carriageways like any > other highway with its own way in OSM and you resolve > lots of issues, including distinct surfaces and restrictions. Yes. Absolutely that. Things like cycleway=track were a hack back in the day when we onl

[OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey

For those who don't live on Twitter: The UK Government has just announced its decision on freeing Ordnance Survey data. Full document is at http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/corporate/pdf/1528263.pdf Quick summary of what'll be released: - medium-resolution vector data (Meridian2), inclu

Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size

Martin Fossdal Guttesen wrote: > it should be a nobrainer to automaticly remove surrounding > whitespace in potlatch when a user enters one I agree. Since it's so easy, I look forward to your patch. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/xybot-edit-area-size-t

Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(Trolley)

John F. Eldredge wrote: > Well, we could always use handcart, rather than cart, so as to specify > that > we don't mean the horse-drawn variety. And then I suggest we go to hell in it[1]. cheers Richard [1] otherwise known as the tagging@ list -- View this message in context: http://gis.6383

Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(Trolley)

John Smith wrote: > You might want to wikifiddle a bit > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Proposal_Page > > That page and others still suggest that the talk list be used for tag > discussions... Good point - had spotted one of those references but not the other. Fixed. May I therefo

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?

jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: > Does OSM have any guidelines about software that is hosted > on the wiki? Can people just make software under any license > and then put it on the wiki for free advertising ? It is not in any sense "hosted" on the wiki. If it were hosted on OSMF servers

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?

David Murn wrote: > I can see both points of this argument, but while James seems to be > asking for consistency within OSM, everyone seems to be making excuses > as to why there doesnt have to be consistency. Welcome to OSM. We're not consistent. We're a glorious anarchic mess. That's why the

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

Felix Hartmann wrote: > Sadly though many people in OSM are not able to leave their small > focussed mind and cannot espace their caged mind and try to use a > motorist perspective to do bicycle autorouting (e.g. CycleStreets > or > Cycle_routes/cyc

[OSM-talk] Flash and open source

Occasionally the subject of Flash and free software comes up here in relation to Potlatch. I would encourage people to sign the petition at http://openplayer.net/ encouraging Adobe to make the Flash Player open source. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing

Re: [OSM-talk] Flash and open source

john whelan wrote: > Yes but a problem with Flash is it is a major security hole. My considered opinion on that theory is "bollocks". It's a frickin' browser plugin, if the browser is letting it access your l337 credit card details then the browser probably ought to address its plugin architect

Re: [OSM-talk] Flash and open source

John Smith wrote: > Browser plugin security is a joke and has been for a very long time, > and as far as I'm aware nothing has been reported publicly that > anything is being done to fix the situation. I think (though I'm absolutely no expert on the situation) that Chrome and Safari are working t

Re: [OSM-talk] Flash and open source

john whelan wrote: > "In order to reduce the threat of successful exploitation of Web > browsers, administrators should maintain a restrictive policy regarding > which applications are allowed within the organization. […] Browser > security features and add-ons should be employed wherever possible

Re: [OSM-talk] Flash and open source

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > Adobe has explicitly said in the past that they can't open source it > because they've used a lot of parts in in that they've licensed from > somewhere else. http://www.adobe.com/de/products/eula/third_party/flashplayer/ Pretty much all the "all rights reserved" s

Re: [OSM-talk] older GPS Tracks not displaying in Potlatch

Dave F. wrote: > Older gps traces (10 months+) don't appear to be displaying when I > click on The Icon (G) in Potlatch. > > They're still listed in GPS Traces & are PUBLIC. > > Is there a time limit for their visibility? Potlatch pulls them down 10k (IIRC) at once to avoid boggling the server

Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki contributions

Frederik Ramm wrote: > I don't think that an a patch for the rails port which lets people > add feedback would be difficult to do http://www.skobbler.co.uk/osmbugs Skobbler rocks. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/new-logo-tp5046672p5064419.html

Re: [OSM-talk] new logo

Robert Martinez wrote: > Now, could everybody still in doubt please do a simple google > image search for "good logo" and check for logos that tell a story! > I bet you'll hardly find any. Robert, I think you have produced a good logo. Not an outstanding one, like (to quote two of my favourites

Re: [OSM-talk] Navigation Debug Map Style Available

Richard Welty wrote: > which is a perfectly good theory, and very fussy in practice. i > am unfamiliar with any jurisdiction which enforces speed > limits to fractions of km/h or mph. There are signs on the UK canals which inform the boater that the speed limit is 6.43kph. I kid you not. cheer

[OSM-talk] Yahoo Maps to be provided by Nokia

"Nokia will be the exclusive, global provider of Yahoo!'s maps and navigation services" http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?&ReleaseID=472765 Nokia, of course, owns data provider Navteq, which in the grand scheme of things is a rival to OSM. Yahoo! currently offers OSM the ri

Re: [OSM-talk] Italian Government approved the use of official data for OpenStreetMap updates

Simone Cortesi wrote: > We are still dealing out on how to use this thru editors which do > not make use of WMS access to imagery. > > Will potlatch or mapzen get WMS anytime soon? Potlatch 1 will never have WMS support. Spherical Mercator is sufficiently hardwired into the code that supporti

Re: [OSM-talk] Flash to JS+SVG ?

John Smith wrote: > Smokescreen, a 175KB, 8,000-line JavaScript-based Flash player > written by Chris Smoak at RevShock, a mobile ad startup, and to > be open-sourced 'in the near future.' Wow. Just wow. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Flash-to

Re: [OSM-talk] Custom rendering of a small map

Gervase Markham wrote: > It would take an age to change it all manually in the SVG. What are > my options for a custom render? FWIW: Halcyon, the Flash rendering engine used in Potlatch 2, uses a simple CSS-like style language called MapCSS and would be an easy way right now to produce a bitmap

Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch and NearMap sourcing - what? why?

Steve Bennett wrote: > I just noticed that Potlatch has started saving the source, when > using nearmap[1], as "source=http://www.nearmap.com/kh/ > zxy=!,!,!" rather than just "source=nearmap". No it hasn't. > Several issues here: > 1) That format looks broken - surely those should be numbers,

Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch and NearMap sourcing - what? why?

On 10 Jun 2010, at 02:01, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Richard Fairhurst > wrote: >> trac called, it wants its job back. >> >> It is really really really unhelpful to bring up every little thing on the >> mailing lists rather than

Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch and NearMap sourcing - what? why?

On 10 Jun 2010, at 18:12, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> I would. It already happens and it's right that it does. Trac's UI is >> much, much better for this sort of thing. > > As a bug reporter, I find that the trac UI suck

Re: [OSM-talk] WolframAlpha uses OpenStreetMap data

Tim McNamara wrote: > [stuff about scope of share-alike] > [stuff about whether a share-alike or an attribution-only licence is > better] Hello Tim; you are new here, I think (and welcome!). There is a bit of prior discussion on this. About five years' worth, in fact. :) If you'd like to look th

Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!

David Paleino wrote: > [...] it seems like that was a unilateral decision made by Richard. > [...] Richard says "I think the wiki may be wrong" > [...] Richard, please don't take this as a personal attack :) For the avoidance of doubt I should perhaps point out that this is another Richard. chee

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share-A-Like (non-) Verifiability because they are not publicly accessable

Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > Andy Allan writes: >> If they have geographic data that we don't have, and they mix it >> with OSM data, then the whole point is that we end up with access >> to their geographic data. > [...] > You are obviously reading section 4.5 in a different way that I do. > [...

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share-A-Like (non-) Verifiability because they are not publicly accessable

Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > Users must just take care that they do not edit cable lines according to > what they see on the OSM map, otherwise all of the cable network data > will be considered to be derived from OSM data and thus fall under odbl. Very very broadly yes, but actually at that point (

Re: [OSM-talk] [Candidacy] AGM Foundation 2010 - Girona

John Smith wrote: > Actually there is a 3rd option, some people prefer cc-by... By and large the "holy war" is share-alike vs non-share-alike. Attribution is kind of a sideshow; IMX most 'PD' advocates (myself included) would be equally content, maybe even more so, with an attribution licence suc

Re: [OSM-talk] [Candidacy] AGM Foundation 2010 - Girona

Oliver (skobbler) wrote: > Some people might want to achieve a wider use for humanitarian > projects. Then address referencing won't help and a license change > won't change either. There needs to be common understanding of > the vision where OSM is seen in five years from now. No, there does

Re: [OSM-talk] [Candidacy] AGM Foundation 2010 - Girona

Oliver (skobbler) wrote: > It might be true that OSM is the best map in the world for cycling > and the best map in the world for humanitarian use. If the higher > goal of OpenStreetMap is to become the best map for cycling and > the best map for humanitarian use I will not complain. I did not

Re: [OSM-talk] [Candidacy] AGM Foundation 2010 - Girona

Oliver (skobbler) wrote: > How do you want to find the right licensing, funding and communication > approach (to avoid the word strategy) without having a strategic goal? By encouraging a welcoming, meritocratic environment in which talented people are able to do cool things. It's worked extraor

Re: [OSM-talk] Why quality is more important than routing speed

John F. Eldredge wrote: > Recently, I have been using Potlatch, with the Yahoo aerial-photos > background, > to clean up some errors in data that originated with the TIGER import. > According to the Potlatch documentation on the wiki, if I drag a node > belonging to one way onto a node belongi

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding a relation to a relation in Potlatch

Maarten Deen wrote: > Is it possible to add a relation to a relation in Potlatch? I've > tried some things but haven't found a way yet. No, not currently in Potlatch 1. You can in Potlatch 2. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Adding-a-relation-to-a

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL

Liz wrote: > I am campaigning, actively for no change. > Please do not ask me to change my opinion. > I have said consistently that the Australian section of the map stands to > lose an enormous amount of data in a change to ODbL. So let's say Australia wants to stick with CC licences because mo

[OSM-talk] Potlatch 2 Public Alpha

Hi all, (Deep breath) I'm delighted to unveil a test version of Potlatch 2, the all-new, completely rewritten version of OpenStreetMap's online editor. You can play with it at http://www.geowiki.com/ . It talks to the main OSM server and you can make real edits with it. This is a public al

Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch 2 Public Alpha

Dave F. wrote: One thing I can't find is GPX tracks (key: G). Has it not been implemented yet or am I going blind? Not yet! It's next on the list. But you can load a GPX from somewhere on the web (Flash permission stuff notwithstanding) using the vector layers stuff in the "Background" menu.

Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch 2 Public Alpha

Andy Allan wrote: I think the point where it's good enough to start thinking about replacing Potlatch 1 on the edit tab is still a long way off. It's much more likely that, when it moves out of alpha, Potlatch 2 appears and gets used on other sites first since it's much easier to customize. In

Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch 2 Public Alpha

Julio Costa Zambelli wrote: I agree. Actually I was thinking on how to integrate P2 with a new design for our Chilean website. The idea of integrating Potlatch with our own website graphics/color scheme, instead of sending people to a completely different website/graphic (openstreetmap.org) as w

Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...

Ulf Lamping wrote: > For example remember positions like Richard Fairhursts in the thread > (I know that it's not an "official" OSMF/LWG position) Of course it isn't. I'm not on the OSMF board let alone LWG; indeed, I actively told OSMF earlier this year that I did not intend to assist it in any

Re: [OSM-talk] Error loading Yahoo-Images in Potlatch

Peter Herison wrote: > Now the strage part: Closed FF. Cleared browser cache without hope > but... After starting FF again, the error-images were gone. I could > continue editing like before and see all Yahoo-Images. Even these > tiles that has errors before. > I tried the same here at home (agai

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing "free and open license"

Peteris Krisjanis wrote: > Is there any actual mapper who strictly don't like SA? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Users_whose_contributions_are_in_the_public_domain (I reply merely to inform rather than to prolong the debate, as sticking my head into a grinder is already seeming like

Re: [OSM-talk] renaming rendering layers

Richard Weait wrote: > Should we continue to name the osm.org tile layers by the > renderers they use? Is overloading the terms mapnik and > osmarender as both a tile layer, style file and rendering > library confusing? We had this discussion way way way way back, and I vaguely remember sugge

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD declaration non binding?

TimSC wrote: > In that case, is it legally sound if I download my own contribution > due, to database rights? Difficult to say - I can see an argument either way. A database right certainly exists and governs extraction from the database; but if what you're extracting is exactly what you put in

Re: [OSM-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

ll be sued by the copyright holder, right? I look forward to Richard Fairhurst suing Richard Fairhurst for violating the license on Richard Fairhurst's data. *facepalm* cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-License-Cut-over-and-critical-mass-tp53

Re: [OSM-talk] Revert requests in general

Ben Last wrote: > the edits that we're submitting all come from one user > (that represents NearMap) since we don't (and can't) require > users of our site to all be registered with OSM. Um... this is the sort of stuff that really, really needs to be discussed first. Whenever it has been raise

Re: [OSM-talk] Revert requests in general

Ben Last wrote: I'm not sure I agree. We don't want to put barriers in the way of an average user (and I use that term to explicitly distinguish between the average map site user and a mapping enthusiast) making simple corrections such as adding address information or naming un-named streets. I

Re: [OSM-talk] Revert requests in general

Frederik Ramm wrote: I kind of understand your situation but I think the way forward would be to either use OpenStreetBugs or set up an OpenStreetBugs like system yourself, maybe integrate that in your editor - so that users without an OSM account can only place OSB markers, and those (the slight

Re: [OSM-talk] Revert requests in general

Ben Last wrote: In particular ODbL+CT will require a contractual relationship (i.e. the contributor terms) between OSMF and the user. If >> you are not exposing the user to the sign-up process, they >> are not agreeing to this contract. No, they're agreeing to terms and conditions with us. We

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution of OSM on nearmap.om?

Ben Last wrote: > More seriously, though, this question has already been raised, and we > follow the guidelines at > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F > and "credit OpenStreetMap in the same way and with the same > prom

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

Anthony wrote: > And who told you that OSM is a collection of unoriginal facts? I did, last time I did some mapping. I faithfully recorded where the paths, gates and stiles were, rather than pulling some fictitious locations out of my ass. I realise that you've been far too busy trolling the mai

Re: [OSM-talk] Revert requests in general

Nick Black wrote: > The current mechanism by which Mapzen and Mapzen POI Collector > users authenticate against OSM is horrible for users. At the risk of being really hand-wavy and imprecise, I'd just say: Twitter's OAuth UI is really exemplary. It's a great demonstration of how to get it right.

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

Peteris Krisjanis wrote: > I respect PD guys, but in overall, I start to grow to openly > dislike their attitude. Could you cite who these alleged PD guys are, please? Thanks in advance. I'm getting increasingly exasperated with people projecting this big bogeyman (or strawman. A big man made o

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

80n wrote: Isn't it going to present some complicated management problems if the LWG changes the contributor terms at this stage in the process? No, not in this case. The proposal is a subset of the powers currently available to OSMF, not a superset. It is the existing CT _minus_ the option o

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

Anthony wrote: > What about a tracing of a photograph of a flower? [...] > What about a tracing of a photograph of a lake, as viewed from > an aircraft? Bauman v Fussell may be relevant here. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Frederik-declares-war

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

80n wrote: > Why don't you try this. Import some Ordnance Survey Street View data > into OSM, then render it as a Produced Work with the ODbL required > attribution I've written fairly extensively on this in talk-gb, but to reiterate a posting from May: > To comply with ODbL for data obtained

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

80n wrote: > This is quite a good place to start: > http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Copyright_protection_of_databases It's good to see licence sceptics starting to look at the case law too. There are of course a million things you could say about rights pertaining to factual compilations in the US.

Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA derived ODbL data

John Smith wrote: > I'm not being petty in the least, I want a compromise, but others > have outright refused to even consider any kind of a compromise > that will save years of work without resorting to shady legal tactics. Hey, now that's not fair. The reason I suggested to LWG that they dro

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > I like this test because it will make things easy. No fuzzy shades of grey > like some Richard is suggesting. I'm not suggesting, I'm reporting. You might like things to be easy but that isn't the way the law works... or we wouldn't have been having this discussion for th

Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 72, Issue 43

John Smith wrote: > No idea about printed maps, but several sites recently only linked > to an attribute page on their site, rather than displaying it on top > of the map, so maybe having a small lookup table of major > contributors that can be linked to would be suitable? We do. :) www.openst

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] ODBL vote (was Re: Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people)

[Apologies for continuing cross-post, please follow-up to OSM legal-talk.] Sam Vekemans wrote: So my question is weather or not, at a later date, I can change my choice (based on new information which would want me to change my mind).? As a general point, if you declare that something is "pu

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

Tom Hughes wrote: > Which is clearly in conflict with the CTs which require you to > grant OSMF a license to sublicense any data you upload under > a license of their choosing subject only to a constraint that > the license they choose is "open and free" which clearly does > not restrict their

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributor Terms

permit new users to sign up > to the new license terms. Eventally new contributions will outnumber > the old. > > This decision was made in a meeting between four people: myself, > Steve Coast, Richard Fairhurst and Mike Collinson and is clearly > documented her

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributor Terms

Correcting myself: > My clear recollection of it is that we decided to ask new > contributors to agree to ODbL+CT should be "to ODbL and a contents licence". CT wasn't on the table then. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Contributor-Terms-tp5415290p5419

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms

[moved from t...@] Dave F. wrote: On 13/08/2010 10:34, Richard Fairhurst wrote: ...(This is one of the reasons I'm not greatly enamoured of the upgrade clause in CT 3.) Am I understanding this correctly? Of the people that drafted the CT, 50% now don't like it? The Contrib

Re: [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms

Chris Browet wrote[1]: > The fact that many key players (SteveC, Frederik, Richard(?)) in the > project also have commercial interests in the OSM data Wut? I don't have any commercial interest in OSM, at all. I'm a magazine editor. We do have maps in our magazine but we (well, I) make them usi

Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch for Newbies

Steve Bennett wrote: > I note someone below saying Potlatch 2 will only have the offline > mode. Ugh. That's a real pity. Live mode is more complex to code (and, hence, a potential source of bugs) by an order of magnitude. Stuff like merging ways and undo is incredibly convoluted in P1 because of

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

Pieren wrote: > Question 1 : is "culvert" commonly used by native english speakers ? > Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ? It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them. cheers Richard -

Re: [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor

Pieren wrote: > Question 1 : is "culvert" commonly used by native english speakers ? > Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ? It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them. cheers Richard -

Re: [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing

Russ Nelson wrote: > Second, because it will do minimum damage to the > community (the discussion here is evidence that the community > WILL be badly harmed by relicensing). We'll lose people whichever way it goes. I guess, for example, that Etienne might not contribute to an ODbL-licensed OSM.

Re: [OSM-talk] Feature Proposal - Voting - Craft

Peter Körner wrote: > after two weeks without contradictions, I'll open up voting for > the Craft proposal: > Please, this stuff belongs on tagg...@. If there is a tagging suggestion that you really really feel that talk@ HAS to

Re: [OSM-talk] Exceeded API bandwidth limit, now what?

Frederik Ramm wrote: > [helpful response] I've wikified this for the Developer FAQ: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ#I.27ve_been_blocked_from_the_API_for_downloading_too_much._Now_what.3F cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Exceeded-A

Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers

Nic Roets wrote: > This is because a gate with no access tags > implies that nothing can go through. Where on earth do you get that idea from? barrier=gate states that there's a gate. The thing about gates, as opposed to (say) walls, is that you can open them to get through. Here are some pictu

Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers

Nic Roets wrote: >> Nic Roets wrote: >>> This is because a gate with no access tags >>> implies that nothing can go through. >> Where on earth do you get that idea from? >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barrier >in the sidebar under 'implies' >And AFAIK that rule goes back to 2008. Wow. Th

Re: [OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers

Nic Roets wrote: So to obtain a definition of barrier=gate, you want me to do the following No, I want you to follow Ben Laenen's excellent posting which was much more succinct and clear than I could ever be. Follow-ups to tagg...@. Richard ___ t

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

Kevin Cordina wrote: > As to the usefulness - a map compiled from purely the OS streetview > data would serve one of my purposes for OSM data (rendering > nameless maps of streets and natural features) 100% perfectly, so > it is not a fair assumption that more data = more value. If you want a

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

Kevin Cordina wrote: > As to the usefulness - a map compiled from purely the OS streetview > data would serve one of my purposes for OSM data (rendering > nameless maps of streets and natural features) 100% perfectly, so > it is not a fair assumption that more data = more value. If you want a

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM User Testing

SteveC wrote: > We need to think of some simple tasks for new users to complete, and > we'll put them together over on this wiki page. Add a street? Find a > mailing list? Add a point of interest? What should they do? That's > up to you. At the risk of stating the really bleeding obvious, ther

Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch2 and shp files

Sam Vekemans wrote: > Does anyone know if there are plans to ipliment the auto-conversion > of shp files to be used in the foreground of the potlatch2 environment? Not automatically converted into the foreground, no. The idea is that you load them as a vector background layer, and you can then e

Re: [OSM-talk] Ongoing bulk uploads of GPS traces?

Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > There was a Russian transport mob who managed to completely > overload the track upload system trying to put up gps traces to > the main database. Separate hosting would keep that from > happening - WA is on the same huge scale as Russia. Different issue. The issue with

Re: [OSM-talk] Response to A critique of OpenStreetMap

Mike N. wrote: > And along those lines, based on the constructive criticism, the default > map shown on the main OSM page should be a "pretty map", using > tiles from Mapquest, while mappers that have a need to view more > details can select one of the existing map styles. 41latitude is a rea

Re: [OSM-talk] Response to A critique of OpenStreetMap

Kate Chapman wrote: Point 1: I'm not denying that the data in the U.S. is messed up. On the other hand I can't count the number of times people say things that I summarize to 'God, why are you Americans too stupid, lazy or import crazy to map your own country?" It really makes people want to co

Re: [OSM-talk] Response to A critique of OpenStreetMap

Peter Körner wrote: > Valent Turkovic wrote: >> On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:41:30 -0400, Anthony wrote: >>> Once OSM goes ODbL, I'd expect that Mapquest will stop licensing their >>> tiles under a free license. >> They distribute it now for free? Why? > They are forced to by the CC-BY-SA License. ...i

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >