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:
[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 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
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
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
--
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
--
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.
Peter Körner wrote:
after two weeks without contradictions, I'll open up voting for
the Craft proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Craft
Please, this stuff belongs on tagg...@.
If there is a tagging suggestion that you really really feel that talk@ HAS
to
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:
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
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. The OSM wiki
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
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
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, there's
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
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
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 really
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
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.
...is evidently
Gorm E. Johnsen wrote:
Again: Left and right co-exist nicely. I do not propose to convert between
them. That is of course up to the individual mapper.
Again: What I _do_ propose, is to rename a tag on some elements. From
top to bottom in the example.
It's all right, you can stop explaining.
Dave F. wrote:
In fact tagging it highway=*, ford=yes makes it *easier* for routers
as they have to do less checking to see whether the ways on each
side are the same.
Hang on a sec. :)
Gorm has already changed highway=ford on _ways_ to ford=yes,
highway=something_or_other. This has
S Omeone wrote:
OpenStreetMap has of cause something similar with OpenStreetBugs
(which Google may well have used as inspiration), but unfortunately,
as too often, less convenient.
[...]
Can we perhaps learn something from Google of how to build a nice user
friendly crowd sourcing of
Mikel Maron wrote:
Is there an easy way to track deletions only in a particular area?
When editing the area in Potlatch, you can press 'U' (for undelete) to find
deleted ways, and recover them if you desire.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Mikel Maron wrote:
that works great, thanks
how does potlatch recover this information? is there an API method I haven't
noticed?
Only in Potlatch 1's AMF API at present, but you can call this from
Perl, Python or Ruby if you're feeling brave:
Ed Avis wrote:
Do you mean to say that the earlier statement is true - that it's not
possible to produce truly public domain, unrestricted map tiles or
printed maps from the ODbL data?
Yes. ODbL is very clear that there's an attribution requirement (4.3).
(I believe that the reasonably
Ed Avis wrote:
It's curious that two of the strongest defences of 'strong share-alike'
come
from yourself and Richard F. - but both of you prefer public domain. I,
too, would prefer public domain over the ODbL. What's going on?
Shouldn't we stop adding more legalese and just focus on
Grant Slater wrote:
Same answer for the Potlatch...
http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/1602/how-can-i-use-microsofts-aerial-imagery-in-potlatch
Potlatch 2 can now, as of five minutes ago, display Bing-format tiles. We're
waiting for the official start tracing announcement, and any
[follow-ups to legal-talk please]
David Murn wrote:
I have no interest in the legal detail of the licence, only
interested in talking about the ramifications of the licence
on our map data, no matter how many times people try
to derail this important issue to a legal mailing list.
It is
Dave F. wrote:
I get a 404 error for P2 via Mapquest through geowiki It loads
the editor displays a selected background but no data
Could you try the Geowiki instance again? I've just tweaked a little problem
that was showing up. (I tend to forget people use the Yahoo imagery. Roll on
Bing.
Felix Hartmann wrote:
Is source=bing verified?
Else it is pretty bad to start mapping
As already posted, there is no formal requirement in the Bing licence to use
a source tag, but it's good OSM practice anyway. FWIW Potlatch 2 has
source=Bing as the preset tag.
Richard
--
View this
Simon Poole wrote:
That however does require the importer/mapper to raise the
issue to a level where that support exists. As the LWG has
pointed out, that hasn't worked in the past, and there is IMHO
no reason to believe that it will magically start working in the
future.
Oh, sure,
Toby Murray wrote:
The source is documented in both the changeset comments and on the
nodes themselves. I saw a conversation on IRC to the effect that the
data is indeed PD so there don't seem to be any worries on that front
at least.
A simple assertion that this is PD isn't good enough.
Stefan de Konink wrote:
Come on, this is non-sense. If someone accepted the CT and imports the
data, it should be enough.
No. By that logic we'd never revert data which is clearly traced from
infringing sources. We can, and we do.
The OSM map is a single collaborative project, not a
David Murn wrote:
So, can you tell from every edit you did, whether you used nearmap as
a reference while doing the edit? If so, you must be one of the very
small percentage of people who tagged 100% every change they made
or one of the very large percentage of people not from Australia.
Stefan de Konink wrote:
I'm really wondering who is pulling the strings there, because now
it is even more trivial to see how much better we are. Anyone is
seeing this happening in their area's as well?
Certainly in the UK there's a lot more 'Google-sourced' data appearing on
the maps,
SteveC wrote:
Specifically I'm wondering if everyone has androids because we're all
open source nuts or if it's more balanced? Only the data will show.
I have a Samsung B130. It's fantastic. You can make phone calls on it, and
stuff. Actually, no. You can make phone calls on it.
According to
Peter Miller wrote:
I will currently be one of the people locked out because I have used
the Ordnance Survey open data which is apparently incompatible with
the new license.
OS OpenData is AIUI compatible with ODbL and the latest Contributor Terms.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
Clause 2 requires contributors to make a large grant of IP rights
to OSMF on any content added to OSM. I believe that the intent
here is actually that you only grant OSMF the rights necessary
for them to act as described in clauses 3 and 4.
Agreed.
Lets now
Mike Collinson wrote:
given that at least one contributor has been pointlessly editing my
personal contributions apparently so that they are no longer ODbL-ready,
sickly sadly all too possible.
That's vandalism, of course. Could you share their user ID?
cheers
Richard
(Rather
Gorm E. Johnsen wrote:
They seem to be evenly spread over the planet and was
depreciatedhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Deprecated_features
almost three years ago.
Depreciated means reduced in value. You mean deprecated, but you can
only deprecate a feature from the wiki docs, not from the
Alex Mauer wrote:
Which one were you thinking of? I count two road types in your list:
highway=track and highway=unclassified. And it could be other highway=*
types too.
highway=track doesn't imply a road round here; clearly YMV.
It’s still better to use highway=road even if it turns
Alex Mauer wrote:
Sounds like the usage is wrong “round there” then. The example image on
the wiki[1] clearly shows a road
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fr%C3%BChlingslandschft_Aaretal_Schweiz.jpg
I think if you described that as a road in the UK you'd have the Trades
Descriptions
David Murn wrote:
Crikey, dont let them see the Old Eyre Highway across southern
Australia, or the Outback Highway[1] across Central Australia.
Together over 3000km of highly travelled road, connecting the
western coast of the country to the central/eastern regions.
Just goes to show the
Asztalos Attila wrote:
On 11-Jan-2011 15:51, Richard Mann wrote:
Which is not to say that knowing which roads are cobbled
wouldn't be handy sometimes (but I probably think of this
as something you need to render for yourself (cue ad for
Maperitive...))
I certainly see the merit of the
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Come on people. There's enough editors for everyone. There's a ton
of reasons, for *every* editor, why someone would use or not use
it. Personally I am glad that this is so
Absolutely.
I'd also add that transferring your expectations of how one editor works
onto
Martin wrote:
I am not sure for newer potlatch, but the few times I was forced to
use it (why the hell there is undelete api available only for Potlatch
and not as XML?)
Hey, calm down. Less of the why the hell, please.
The reason Potlatch 1 can undelete is because I wrote the undelete
Daniel Sabo wrote:
This is a really bad idea. Drawing collinear features by sharing
nodes is NEVER a good idea beyond 1 or 2 shared corners,
that's what multipolygons are for.
Disagree very very strongly.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Steve Bennett wrote:
I'm thinking this would be a useful feature to add to Potlatch -
loading and saving files from disk. (If possible within Flash)
That'll happen when we migrate from requiring Flash Player 9 to Flash Player
10, but we're not ready for that yet.
cheers
Richard
--
View
Jonathan Harley wrote:
Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the
sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database,
in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work
based on a database, ever.
For print, yes, that's about the size of it.
Jonathan Harley wrote:
On 03/02/11 14:23, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net
wrote:
OSM applies the license to data - the license attribution it requests
specifically mentions Map data.
Again, who wrote the license attribution request? Not me.
Stephan Knauss wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, but the current TOU seam not to allow it to be used
in our editors.
My understanding of this Bing term is that it's _intended_ to mean not
available for use in an editor that is only available under commercial
terms, e.g. the ArcGIS plugin. I agree
Stephan Knauss wrote:
Oh, I was tricked by the wiki page stating it's GPL...
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potlatch2
Wow. Who on earth added that?
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/magical-road-detector-tp5993637p5998760.html
Sent from
David Murn wrote:
You mean, as author of potlatch
Only one of the authors.
you dont have the potlatch wiki page on watch for edits? I also
notice the edit you made, removed the entire software info block from
the wiki page, not just changed the licence. Was that intentional?
Yep. Way too
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
We wouldn't tolerate anything so disconnected from reality on the map,
Yes, we'd fix it.
Up to a point.
We have scarce resources. We don't have enough mappers and we _certainly_
don't have
Matthias Meißer wrote:
Sorry for the mistake, but as everybody knows, this can happen, even
if you fight alone against a dozen of wikipages ;)
Anything I say here will only get me into trouble so I better not. :)
But I don't see why did you removed the template completely instead
of
Matthias Meißer wrote:
well your theorem on getting all with one shot is great, but this
doesn't work for me. Things (esp. on the wiki) are to large to do it
in one step.
So if you don't know, put a FIXME there. It's what we do on the map.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Edward Hillsman wrote:
We refer to the OSM community, and the need to respect the work of
others. The way this particular situation was handled could have done
a much better job of respecting the work of others. If software needs
to be modified to make it easier to show such respect, then
Vladimir Vyskocil wrote:
It seems there is no XAPI server available for a long time,
what's going on ? Is this service deprecated ?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/iandees/diary/12916
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2011-January/021742.html
cheers
Richard
--
View this
David Murn wrote:
If the service isnt designed to be portable (it only runs on one
system currently, in the world), then who cares about java,
why isnt it written in optimized C or some other similarly
lowish level language, rather than java?
Your search - murn site:svn.openstreetmap.org
This is getting crazy.
Exhibit 1:
http://twitter.com/#!/maproomblog/status/39053538692698112
Whoever imported CanVec in Aylmer, Quebec obliterated hours of work and
introduced hundreds of errors. #osm #openstreetmap #whybother
Once again, some keyboard jockey has decided that his l337 import
Joseph Reeves wrote:
without explaining in layman's terms what this means.
http://old.opengeodata.org/2008/01/07/the-licence-where-we-are-where-were-going/index.html
Follow-ups to legal-talk please, so that those here who have made their mind
up one way or the other don't have to read the whole
Tom Roche wrote:
How best to use OSM to map non-existent features for planning
purposes, e.g., for public charrettes?
This shouldn't be mapped in the main OpenStreetMap database. OSM is for
mapping real, verifiable locations, not hypotheticals.
Rather, you should set up your own OSM install on
Gilles Bassière wrote:
Eventually, I used a custom tag for my latest edit: hiking=passage
[5] but I'm not sure this can make sense for other mappers
I _think_ I'd call that a traverse. Generally that would apply to a
passage with significant movement in the x/y axes as well as the z axis!
F. Heinen wrote:
Z,akskjsjkjdi
That certainly wins the prize for the most coherent posting in this thread.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Licensing-Working-Group-tp6199509p6207146.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at
Pieren wrote:
My first intention was to ignore this message but I cannot
Anyone round here ever seen the film 'Groundhog Day'?
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Okay-this-is-just-cool-Lockport-NY-tp6225128p6227765.html
Sent from the General
Pieren wrote:
Anyone round here ever seen the film 'Groundhog Day'?
If you mean it's a desperate fud which will never end, I understand.
Yes. If we separate the horrid neologism into its three component parts -
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt - then I'm entirely with you on that.
We are Uncertain as
Project of the Week: Mother's Day. Map your mother.
As, of course, amenity=your_mum.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/April-fools-that-should-have-been-tp6234058p6234432.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
80n wrote:
There is zero chance that any large organisation would try to use
OSM's CC-BY-SA licensed map data and think that they would
get away with it.
I agree with you here FSVO large.
I doubt we have to worry about Google, Tele Atlas or Navteq consistently and
deliberately using OSM data
Ed Avis wrote:
What's not clear is how the ODbL+DbCL licence would help this
situation. It would at least straightforwardly permit the publishing
of map tiles without any attribution or share-alike requirement
Disagree. (This has been gone over ad nauseam on legal-talk, I'm just
pointing it
Ed Avis wrote:
So do the produced map tiles (a Produced Work under the ODbL,
I think, or am I mistaken there to?) have to be distributed under
the ODbL also - or can you use any distribution terms as long
as it has attribution - or what?
ODbL 4.3 allows you to distribute Produced Works
Ed Avis wrote:
To answer my own question - I guess that 'reasonably calculated to
make...' suggests you should include an attribution notice and ask
downstream users to respect it - although it doesn't mandate any
particular choice of licence. So we would still have the attribution
Jochen Topf wrote:
Don't be so hard on the Strategic Working Group. After months of talks
they have actually done something! I think we should celebrate that!
After dipping their toes into many important subjects for the future of
OSM they have chosen the logo change as the most important
Frederik Ramm wrote:
It would be great if we could somehow reboot and arrive at
something sane again.
Superb posting. +1 to all of that.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-Logo-in-the-Wiki-tp6319413p6321156.html
Sent from the General
Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
I was wondering if anyone is working on Ipad support for
openstreetmap.org?
AIUI gesture (touch-screen) support is in the latest development builds of
OpenLayers, and will be available on osm.org when they make an official
release.
cheers
Richard
--
View this
Ben Robbins wrote:
[...]
Please take this to talk-gb.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Tracks-and-there-place-in-society-tp6389100p6389114.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Ben Robbins wrote:
All we need is a phisical list, and an access list.
Um, we have that already.
For physical tags, we have:
highway=footway, or
highway=cycleway, or
highway=bridleway, or
highway=track
See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Duck_tagging. If it quacks like a
Ben Robbins wrote:
Also, I have no idea how to take this to talk-gb, except by simply
replying there not here, and breaking up a string of responses. I did
however justify why it's here, which your welcome to read. I'm still
struggling some what with getting these replies in the right place,
Richard Weait wrote:
Any thoughts or widely accepted customs regarding this?
I'd use a length of either railway=disused or railway=abandoned.
IMX it only takes a year or so for a disused railway, often called OOU in
the UK (out of use), to become unsuitable for trains to turn up and go.
On
TimSC wrote:
Yes, I attended to previous LWG teleconference and I asked for LWG,
as a committee, to enter into direct negotiations with me, an
individual mapper. The draft minutes are online [1].
Thanks for the link, which I see contains your conditions. As I know there
are people on this
Komяpa wrote:
Glad to announce the first release of Kothic JS map rendering engine.
There's live demo on http://kothic.org/js/
This is seriously amazing.
This is possibly the first thing that brings the promise of it's open
source, make your own maps into the realms of possibility for your
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Graham Jones wrote:
In my day job I look after quite a few decision
making processes to help our organisation make difficult
decisions. I always say that I will have failed if at the end
of the day we have to resort to a vote to decide what to do
That's good. But
[sorry, just noticed this one]
Lennard wrote:
the editor can hide all nodes with a certain tag
Potlatch doesn't do it, but it seems it's a feature just waiting for a
developer.
Potlatch can do it fairly trivially; just give it a MapCSS stylesheet that
doesn't render said tag.
cheers
Richard
TimSC wrote:
This issue not just one person's hobby horse - its an issue that is very
topical and very relevant.
Think you're missing an IMHO in there... and that's rather the point.
I can list plenty of things that I personally think are more topical and
relevant. I'm sure others on this list
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
That means we can mix it with OSM, but not contribute it back to
OSM because the new contributor terms don't allow using ODbL
licensed data.
The standard Contributor Terms don't have to be the only Contributor Terms.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in
TimSC wrote:
Richard, can't we just live and let live? You're profile has the wise
words to avoid endless discussions and go do stuff. I think it is
possible since we recently dropped a discussion that was going nowhere,
at your suggestion [5]. I respected your request - live and let live. I
am
Eric Marsden wrote:
Reading odbl.de, 60% of users have accepted the new contributor terms
in Europe (40% in the USA, the proportion worldwide is not shown).
There 417k users. So (extrapolating) 200k have not accepted the
new terms and 190k have accepted.
Hopefully the decision on whether to
David Groom wrote:
However your argument above completely fails to refer to Clause 2
of the CT's
(and Robert Whittaker wrote similarly)
Yes. It's my belief that 2 onwards have to be read in the context of 1a/1b.
There would be no point having 1a/1b if that were not the case; and my
reading of
Hi all,
I'm pleased to announce Potlatch 2.2 is live.
New features include:
- Greatly improved vector background layer support (load shapefiles in
the background and bring elements through one-by-one), including
reprojection from OSGB
- Control-drag an area to select multiple elements
-
NopMap wrote:
Well, if it is to be this way...
...then maybe it would be a good opportunity for you to help!
Why not volunteer to help LWG in its communications with the German
community? It seems a shame to lament that things are as usual and not do
anything about it.
cheers
Richard
--
David Groom wrote:
Apologies if this feature exists in all of the mainstream editing
software.
JOSM has a MOTD feature. Potlatch doesn't (and won't) because it's always
used when embedded within a website which can choose to display whatever
message it likes: indeed, osm.org does sometimes
NopMap wrote:
How should that work - without concrete information posted anywhere?
Ok. How do you fancy volunteering to be the person who posts the concrete
information, then?
You seem to be under the impression that magic communication fairies will
crop up and make everything ok. It doesn't
David Murn wrote:
Maybe you dont understand the role of office-bearers of a
'non-profit' foundation. Sure, they are volunteers, but if they
dont have the time to do the job they volunteered for properly,
then it only hurts the community they claim to serve.
Indeed. And if they don't, you
NopMap wrote:
Yeah, sure, I'll just burn some incense, look deep into my
crystal ball and guess what everybody has been doing.
Why do you need to do that? Why don't you e-mail LWG and say: I think
you've been having difficulties with your communications. I'd like to
volunteer to be your
ThomasB wrote:
And what do you think a laywer will say when asked
when the community using the license has no idea?
The community has a perfectly good idea, as indeed you would do if you
actually read the licence. ;)
Under ODbL you are publicly using a Produced Work from a Derived Database.
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
Since recently was decided that in NL
cookies are subject to explicit permission of
the users, I'd think that Openstreetmap provides
information on what information and settings are
actually used by OSM.
Ok then.
OSM per se doesn't store
Markus Lindholm wrote:
But there's no need to store them on the client, as all users have to
log in the preferences can be stored server-side. Atleast I throw away
all cookies when I close the browser.
That works for osm.org but not on a third-party Potlatch deployment, where
it would require
Steve Doerr wrote:
In that case, could it be made to remember custom
backgrounds from one session to the next? If I want
to use the UK postcode layer, I have to add it manually
every time.
Sure - as ever, put it in a trac ticket. Stuff mentioned passingly on
mailing lists gets forgotten.
Adam Hoyle wrote:
Sorry to be dumb/lazy, and I'm sure you've told me before, but please can
you point me at the Potlatch2 trac/svn etc.
trac is the same for all of OSM: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ . Make
sure to select potlatch2 as the component. And only set the priority to
critical if it
jaakkoh wrote:
This may well be my first post to the talk list
Brave soul. :) (But welcome, seriously.)
Browsing a little with the new license status option of Potlatch 2.2
I'm seeing unfortunately lot of red on the map (and some orange,
too).
Don't get too disheartened.
To take your
John Smith wrote:
The attribution was put into the JS file, but I'm looking into why
that doesn't display.
You probably need a DG file instead.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
701 - 800 of 1720 matches
Mail list logo
