This sounds... vaguely positive?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chancellor-to-unlock-hidden-value-of-government-data
Gerv
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On 30/10/17 01:58, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> Would also be good to see a few suggestions for features.
Can we please have blue motorways and green A-roads? :-) Or do people
not like green A-roads because so many other things are green?
Gerv
___
On 23/10/17 00:53, Philip Barnes wrote:
> I have not lived in Leicestershire for six years and was not aware of
> any changes to the location of A Are you saying it is no longer close
> to the main entrance and accessed from Infirmary Close?
If I remember correctly, it's currently accessed via
I had cause to go to Leicester A on Saturday. It was renewed in April
(Google Earth suggests there was a big building project), and the map
has not been updated, and so it's not clear on OSM where the drop-off
is, or which is the associated multi-storey. The road I think it is, is
part
On 29/05/17 12:02, Brian Prangle wrote:
> There's been a suggestion that OSMUK lobbies for the statutory right to
> receive copies of the legal orders which change Public Rights of Way as
> it can be slow for any official changes to make their way onto the
> Definitive Map and then be picked up
On 25/09/16 21:34, Gervase Markham wrote:
> The end result is that I still can't type UK postcodes into Nominatim,
> the main OSM search engine, and depend on getting useful results back.
The maintainers of Nominatim have kindly explained what would be needed
to finally fix this:
On 26/09/16 09:39, Chris Hill wrote:
> Please do not add postcode centroids to the map. They are not real, do
> not exist and do not belong in the OSM DB.
Just so we know, what is your view of the correct way for OSM search
engines to allow searching on postcode data from around the world? Do
you
On 25/09/16 21:47, Owen Boswarva wrote:
> I can't see any reason why there should be a problem using Code-Point
> Open in OSM, now that Ordnance Survey has applied the Open Government
> Licence in place of its own licence. If you read further down, the wiki
> page gives examples of OSM projects
I hope this isn't a silly question, but: it seems like all the projects
to free the UK postcode database (like npemap and freethepostcode)
closed down five or more years ago when the OS release CodePoint Open.
However, this data set is not suitable for use in OSM, according to:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2016-03-22a.520.1
And there seems to be some more open data on the way from the OS. Do we
know for certain whether or not it will be OSM-able?
Gerv
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
On 18/02/15 13:52, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
In the immediate future, it won't have much effect, since we already
had separate permission to use all but one of the OS Open Data
products. The exception was CodePoint Open. Once OS updates their
licence page
On 19/02/15 11:11, Tom Hughes wrote:
Why would it make any difference? As far as I know Nominatim already
uses the Codepoint Open data?
Well, if it did, wouldn't it be able to find every postcode in Britain?
The Results from OpenStreetMap Nominatim section of the search results
often turns up
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSMF_Members_Request_for_General_Meeting
It seems to me like this motion, if passed, would cause 3 members of the
board to have to resign (Henk, Oliver and Dermot), and mean that those
people plus Steve Coast and Mikel Maron could not stand again for at
least
On 07/06/13 16:02, John F. Eldredge wrote:
In my experience, usually only one stall in a public restroom will have
the larger size and handrails needed for wheelchair use. I have only
seen a few extra-large restrooms which were equipped to handle more than
one wheelchair-using person at a
The on-street parking restrictions around our church are complex. I'd
love to make a map on a web page, where you could put into a form widget:
Day of week: Friday
Start parking: 8am
End parking: 10am
and it would colour the sides of the road and the car parks with green
(free), yellow (pay), or
OFCOM is having a consultation on the PAF:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/postcode-address-file/summary/PAF.pdf
This includes the pricing structure and the possibility of it being made
open data.
Deadline is 21st March (i.e. soon).
Gerv
On 27/01/13 15:38, the Old Topo Depot wrote:
You may want to cross post to the broader talk list as well, as I have
heard rumors of work related to this but have no knowledge regarding status.
I read via Gmane, so I could be wrong, but I thought this _was_ the
broad talk list for OSM...
Gerv
(Sorry I'm late back to this discussion.)
On 27/01/13 11:39, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
If you want to make it happen, the best way to do this is to take part in
the project to port the current stylesheet to Carto:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto
and to make sure that
On 18/01/13 14:29, Gervase Markham wrote:
Who do we need to talk to or where do we need to file a bug to get this
request considered officially?
Anyone?
Gerv
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 13/01/13 21:23, Christian Quest wrote:
You can see what zoom level 19 looks like with Mapnik/cartocss style
on
http://layers.openstreetmap.fr/?zoom=19lat=48.87206lon=2.30069layers=B
That's so much better than 18; all the shops are labelled.
Gerv
On 15/01/13 04:09, Jaakko Helleranta.com wrote:
But I would say in any case that the reality as I see it builds
increasing need for very high zoom levels. ... I recently switched to
OsmAnd on my Android because it zooms upto level 23
Ah, that might be where I saw higher zoom levels. I use
My memory may be playing tricks on me, but I'm sure it was once possible
to zoom in 1 more level than it is now, on the slippy map on
openstreetmap.org. This was useful because often what is simply an icon
at z=18 will turn into an icon plus a business name at z=19,
particularly when there are
On 05/11/12 17:27, David Prime wrote:
Now, my question is whether I should import this into OSM. Obviously the
data is very useful (every store is categorised: metro, express, extra,
etc) but the licencing situation is murky. Anyone want to weight in on
whether I should do an import?
I know
On 12/03/12 11:57, Dan Avis wrote:
I'm not talking about importing them, because I understand some people
are leery of the potential copyright issues, and because it's not an on
the ground source. That's fine; I'm side-stepping that question
(hopefully!) and instead asking: Can the osm.org
On 08/12/11 13:13, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Google have finally done it: they've switched from TeleAtlas to Google
map data in the UK.
Anyone know what that means for routing? There's a bad route near my
house which fools people often, like the Sainsburys delivery man. I
submitted a correction
On 04/07/11 13:53, Michael Collinson wrote:
At the moment, this excludes Code-Point Open, (postcode) data since they
are awaiting a response from Royal Mail who have rights in that dataset.
I just dropped in to find out why I still can't search for most full UK
postcodes using Nominatim, and if
On 15/07/10 03:27, Liz wrote:
A majority of *contributors* have not voted, not even a majority of
contributors who edited anything in the last year.
Offering a vote to those who paid a fee in pounds or euros to belong to a
particular organisation (OSMF) and ignoring the far larger group who were
On 12/07/10 16:52, Liz wrote:
Now Gerv, what is your lower limit?
for
number of contributors overall?
number of active contributors
quantity of data?
I do not accept that a decision can be made without the numbers being set
*first*.
OK, let's say we do what you say. I define my limits, you
On 11/07/10 04:18, Kai Krueger wrote:
So far the the impressions I got from the members of the licensing group
vary from anywhere between e.g. 10% data loss is acceptable to as high as
90% data loss is acceptable (as long as a majority of signed up accounts
agree), which means as far as I can
On 09/06/10 08:54, Tom Hughes wrote:
Well editing the archives isn't really a supported operation - you
basically do it by going in and editing the raw messages and then
rebuilding all the HTML pages that make up the archive.
I know it's easy to tell other people what to do, but... if you had
On 08/06/10 14:58, Tom Hughes wrote:
Can it be fixed?
Nope.
Wow, that really sucks. (Not your fault, of course.) Is there a bug on
file with the mailing list manager software? URLs should be permanent,
particularly to archives. As Frederik's situation points out, this could
be really
On 05/06/10 10:09, Gervase Markham wrote:
My first effort involved an SVG export of the Mapnik image from the main
website. This is pretty good; the only problem is that the roads are
unnecessarily narrow and so the road names are small and hard to read.
In the end, I went with this. I would
On 07/06/10 20:32, Colin Marquardt wrote:
FWIW, these icons here are awesome: http://www.sjjb.co.uk/mapicons/
Those _are_ awesome.
Gerv
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 07/06/10 11:49, Gervase Markham wrote:
It was me who said that, actually. Here are a few comments, mostly in
relation to the Mapnik style:
Oops. That is, in comparison to the Mapnik style. The comments are, of
course, about Osmarender.
Gerv
On 09/06/10 19:47, Nick Black wrote:
Sorry you've hit problems with our TCs - its certainly not our
intention to block your use. So long as you respect the terms of
CC-by-SA and don't exceed the limits on the use of our Vector Stream
Server, posted here:
On 06/06/10 17:46, Gary68 wrote:
could you please be a little bit more precise what you don't like at
osmarender and especially mapgen.pl?
It was me who said that, actually. Here are a few comments, mostly in
relation to the Mapnik style:
On 06/06/10 13:52, Seventy 7 wrote:
Yes, Maperitive would be ideal. Although the SVG export is not yet done,
quality (ie large) bitmaps can be done with a scale command to smooth
out pixellation.
I got as far as getting it running (it needs System.Window.Forms; on
Ubuntu, run
sudo apt-get
Hi,
I'd like to render a map of about a square mile or so of the town of
Bromley, in Kent, for the information sheet for my wedding in August (yay!).
http://osm.org/go/0EEBWURG
I want to make the map, then remove a few bits which I don't need and
add stuff to it like bigger labels on some
On 05/06/10 12:12, Jochen Topf wrote:
Cloudmade uses OSM like everybody else under CC-BY-SA. They can't change that
license, they can't restrict what you can do with it.
But if I use their stylesheets and their site to generate maps, they can
restrict what I can do with the resulting
On 14/05/10 23:51, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
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 architecture.
Sadly, the definition of how browser plugins work means that they are
On 18/05/10 10:05, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
firefox jetpack
Jetpacks are alternatives to extensions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Add-on_%28Mozilla%29
not plugins.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_%28computing%29#Plug-ins_and_extensions
for an explanation. I agree the
On 23/02/10 23:42, SteveC wrote:
You don't seem to make any realistic suggestions for moving forward
and just, instead, suggest potlatch is fine as is the front page.
That doesn't seem to be in touch with the reality of every newbie who
encounters the project, does it?
Steve: There's an
On 24/02/10 17:19, Tom Hughes wrote:
I completely disagree. We're running a project to map the world, not a
project to provide an end user site to compete with google maps.
I claim false dichotomy.
With code, the best way to hook someone into your project is to make it
super-easy to get the
On 23/02/10 21:16, Mike Collinson wrote:
- British spelling licence noun used. (can anyone confirm that I am
right in leaving verb license, sublicense as is, I am too long abroad).
That is correct. In standard (British :-) English, licence is the noun
and license is the verb.
- defining
On 09/02/10 17:06, Mike Collinson wrote:
At the moment, we are trying to address some concerns raised by OSM
and OSMF members about the new Contributor Terms. These have been
slightly modified and the latest version can be seen here
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms
On 06/01/10 19:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2010/1/6 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com mailto:g...@ir.bbn.com
We should remember that the purpose of maps is to represent reality to
map users, not to make political points.
says who? Maps have always and in all ages been means of
The new Contributor Terms contain the equivalent of a joint copyright
assignment to the OSMF. That makes this recent article by Michael Meeks
on copyright assignment in free software very relevant:
http://www.gnome.org/~michael/blog/copyright-assignment.html
Of course, not all of the pros and
On 09/12/09 09:48, Ed Avis wrote:
A related question is that if a fork happened, could it then be merged back
into the main OSM project?
Just like any other ODbL contribution, this could only be done if the
contributors signed the Contributor Terms, or the OSMF agreed to waive
the signing of
On 08/12/09 15:14, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
Right, so this is one thing that isn't being made so clear. It's been
said multiple times that the ODbL transition in summary is the spirit
of CC-By-SA taken and made into a proper license for a database. But
actually it's the spirit of CC-By-SA +
On 25/11/09 21:59, Roy Wallace wrote:
This raises another interesting question, that is, whether highways=*
should *necessarily* express logical paths of travel, or whether
they are just a convenient way to represent an *area* used as a path
of travel, as a placeholder for future, more
On 08/10/09 01:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
oh yes, there are. oneway=no, maxspeed=no, drinkable=no, building=no,
area=no, noexit=no (really, it is just used 803 times, but we could
add it to millions of ways), access=no, actually many tags do
have some no-values in the db, also if it
On 06/10/09 18:19, John Smith wrote:
I have no idea about Europe/England to be honest, never been in any
European countries.
Oops, sorry for the assumption there.
Most roads in Australia tend to be named, even some basic concrete
slab colvets that aren't even real bridges get named.
OK. The
On 06/10/09 19:15, DavidD wrote:
If you have 10 people in the same area chasing an unnamed road then a
noname tag isn't going to solve the actual problem. A road in OSM that
has been surveyed by a single person is tagged identically to a road
that has a dozen gps tracks and has been checked by
On 06/10/09 15:18, Dave Stubbs wrote:
a) what are you actually marking?
- no name in OSM -- we know that already
- the mapper didn't find a name -- so we shouldn't check again?
Probably not, no. Just as when a mapper adds a postbox, someone else
doesn't think he's added a postbox. I
On 06/10/09 05:37, John Smith wrote:
It sounds like he made it to see which roads needed surveying to
acquire their name, however I'm still confused why people use
noname=yes when the street does have a name but not a street sign, as
I posted before there is actually a few streets near here on
On 06/10/09 16:49, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
It's useful *as a guide*, or a tool. What some people seem to be unable
to grasp is that *it's OK for a road to appear in red on NoNames*. You
don't have to eliminate them completely. It's just a guide, not a gospel.
A road appearing in red means that
On 05/10/09 11:04, Dave Stubbs wrote:
As the person whose first came up with a no-names map for London
(well, actually it was a named map of London, turned into a nonames
map on SteveC's suggestion), I have an *official leadership
announcement* to make:
There shall be no tagging of unnamed
On 03/10/09 06:00, John Smith wrote:
No we need a committee to decide upon a core set of values that people
should use where possible instead of naming the same thing 10
different ways, the argument over boolean values just highlights the
point.
OK, sorry, I thought that someone was
On 03/10/09 04:00, Matt Amos wrote:
are you suggesting that the best way forward is for some authority to
decree that there is One True Way of tagging noname roads and forcing
all mappers, editors and renderers to support it?
No, the best way forward is for some authority to decree that there
On 03/10/09 00:49, DavidD wrote:
Just start making the decisions and build the thing on top of OSM. It
wouldn't even be that difficult to start off. Just take planet.osm and
strip unapproved tags and build up from there.
So OSM is in a state where it only becomes usefully consistent if you
On 03/10/09 01:08, Frederik Ramm wrote:
It may be your way to try and understand a conversation by looking not
at what has been said, but at who said it and what that might reveal
about their personal situation, upbringing, education, employment or
other circumstances.
I'm used to this from
On 03/10/09 05:16, Andrew Errington wrote:
If you see a street on the map with no name displayed you might think one
of two things:
1) The street has no name (and you might hum a tune by U2)
2) The street has a name but it has not been recorded
Either way, it doesn't matter.
It darn well
On 03/10/09 09:24, James Livingston wrote:
Just do what I and a lot of other people have done - give up on the
wiki being useful, and just go ahead and tag it however you like,
checking tagwatch and similar to see what other people are actually
using.
tagwatch tells you what tags people are
On 01/10/09 04:14, Russ Nelson wrote:
I'm tired of this silly true/false 1/0 yes/no up/down left/right
in/out fore/aft port/starboard debate/debacle. It's trivial, it's
stupid, we could just as easily toss a coin as engage in any rational
debate about how binary values should be expressed.
On 01/10/09 04:26, John Smith wrote:
I still like Shaun's idea of a committee
We really, really need a committee to decide what values we are going to
standardize for binary true and false?
If that's true, we are doomed. How on earth are we going to make any
difficult decisions stick?
Gerv
On 01/10/09 10:40, Frederik Ramm wrote:
If we have open issues in the community that we cannot find a good
solution to, then the reason for this is not that we simply lack a good
Führer who tells us what is right and what is wrong;
Frederik,
I may be entering dangerous waters here, but I'm
this, and that is that the information
necessary to produce a tailored and consistent dataset has been preserved.
Say there was an Andy Allan scheme of tagging which rated highways from
1 (biggest) to 10 (smallest). There's also a Gervase Markham scheme of
tagging which rates them from 1 (smallest) to 10 (biggest).
How does one
On 28/08/09 13:07, wynnd...@lavabit.com wrote:
On 27/08/09 12:13, Jack Stringer wrote:
lock=yes
lock_name=Withrington Bottom Lock
When you are tagging a way, you can't use name= because that will
already contain the name of the canal. Hence lock_name=.
Why would you want to repeat the
On 27/08/09 12:13, Jack Stringer wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dlock_gate
Shows to tag both ends of the lock. If there is a name just to use name.
This was the original tag. However, it has various problems - for
example, it makes it hard to render a lock as a single
On 27/08/09 14:27, Mike Harris wrote:
On a related canal issue, I have a problem with deciding how to tag a canal
bridge as a segment of a way. The way will often already have name= and ref=
tags as a highway; but I want to add a name= and ref= tag for the canal
bridge. Not keen on name_1 or
On 26/08/09 21:42, Mikel Maron wrote:
IMO, the wiki should reflect the current collective thinking. If the
collective thinking is in disagreement,
then the wiki should show both sides, equally, with _respectful_
disagreement.
If, however many years after starting the project, we are in
On 10/08/09 15:49, Tom Chance wrote:
- Tags are proposed on the wiki, no change to current practice
- If the proposal throws into question existing, accepted tags, defer the
proposal to small working groups
- These working groups study the wider questions and formulate a complete
proposal for
On 30/07/09 09:26, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) wrote:
much more. Since many countries have two different signs for max legal
height and max physical height, and its usages can be very different, why
not allow this in tags?
Can you provide sample images for such signs? I confess I find it hard
On 08/07/09 12:13, Stephen Gower wrote:
Actually, for what it's worth (probably very little) the very original file
is provided as a PDF on the section of
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/location_of_every_post_box_that
marked from Royal Mail Group and dated 13 June 2008. The only reason
On 02/07/09 20:53, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
People care because it has been standardized and is being implemented
by major players: http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source.html
Here's a bookmarklet which will geolocate you using the API, and
redirect you to a map of your location with a
On 06/07/09 10:51, Frankie Roberto wrote:
The most obvious implementation we could do would be where users visit
the slippy map without having a location set in their cookie. Currently
we guess at a location via IP address, but it would be good (and not
difficult) to use the geolocation API
On 01/07/09 11:18, Ed Avis wrote:
Can the manually located postboxes, based on OSM data and a list of
postbox street locations from the Royal Mail, be added to OSM?
Yes. But have you checked with Matthew Somerville, the author of that
tool? AIUI it's already integrated with OSM. I did the
On 24/06/09 06:56, SteveC wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Privacy_Policy_-_Discussion_Draft
The Mozilla project has a privacy policy which I would suggest is rather
friendlier, while still being lawyer-approved - at least, US lawyers.
I'm sure I could arrange for you to be able
On 04/06/09 14:25, Josh wrote:
hello there is a very important petition in my signature I would
appreciate if you would sign it please.
Hi Josh,
Do you know about NVDA?
http://www.nvda-project.org/
It's a high-quality, free and open source screen reader for Windows.
There are also free
On 02/06/09 21:16, Matías Iturburu wrote:
Lately we have been interested in osm and, after noting that our town
isn't in osm, we would like to upload all our catography to osm (it's
quite a chunk of data). As a matter of taste we would like for the tiles
on our (printed) maps, to be the same
On 03/06/09 09:10, Gervase Markham wrote:
In
practice, that means putting an small attribution credit on the map.
And, as a private emailer pointed out, to allow anyone to copy it
without paying a fee. Which might be thought to be a big deal, but you
can hardly reproduce an atlas
On 27/05/09 20:51, Yann Coupin wrote:
Just saw this, thought you might be interested...
OpenStreetMap Sends UK Volunteer Mapper To Antigua
http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/lBKqJKP3gSE/article.pl
Yes, we've been submitting the press release to various places. Feel
free to send
On 14/05/09 11:23, Christoph Boehme wrote:
We are currently importing public transport information for the UK
(NaPTAN) and are having a similar problem with existing data in OSM. Our
approach is to tag the imported data specially so that it can easily be
found in the database but does not show
On 13/05/09 14:23, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Sounds like: We have a honest desire to sue the shit out of you if you
violate any of our 52 random rules but we will grudgingly refrain from
doing so if laws in your jurisdiction should have the nerve of being
against us. ;-)
That's only if the rest
On 12/05/09 09:37, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Claiming copyright on something where you are not reasonably sure of
actually having it is, in my eyes, a FUD maneouvre worthy of players
like the OS, but something that we should make an attempt to steer clear of.
The way of avoiding it seeming to be
On 07/04/09 18:32, Jani Patanen wrote:
Actually, for a while now mkgmap has been able to create maps where you
can search for streetnames.
Brilliant! Are there docs on this anywhere?
Gerv
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On 07/04/09 09:42, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
The Garmin eTrex Legend HCx was what we went for for running mapping parties
and they are very popular with attendees. Very easy to use, has a high
sensitivity receiver (a must), displays OSM mapping, logs a new track file
to the SD
On 14/03/09 20:32, Ulf Möller wrote:
OSFM is trying to get ODbL 1.0 in place as soon as possible and fix
problems in version 1.1 later on.
The difficulty with doing that is that people who are approached about
relicensing their data might say no, because the licence is broken in
ways X, Y and
On 09/03/09 15:29, Rob Myers wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Gervase Markhamgerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
On 08/03/09 21:02, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Sure; but how likely is it that we'll still be at ODbL v1.0 at that
time? Since our license can be upgraded to a later version, so can the
On 08/03/09 21:02, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Sure; but how likely is it that we'll still be at ODbL v1.0 at that
time? Since our license can be upgraded to a later version, so can the
list of compatible SA licenses for Produced Works.
We could; but not every SA license is well-known. For maximum
The question has been raised in these discussions about the ODbL's
reverse-engineering provisions, and their compatibility or otherwise
with share-alike licenses. Here is my analysis and suggestions.
1) The ODbL wishes to prevent people regenerating the Database from
Produced Works.
ODbL
On 05/03/09 10:56, Dair Grant wrote:
People have been talking about the licence issue for years (literally; there
was an hour-long panel about it at SOTM 2007), and we have nothing to show
for it other than a large number of I'm not a lawyer, but... threads.
We know there are issues with the
On 04/03/09 04:28, SteveC wrote:
We blame Steve because he's evil. We blame the process because it took
too long. We blame the working group for not being quicker. We figure
the foundation must be culpable. We write long rants about how it's a
dire emergency...
I don't see any of that, at
On 04/03/09 10:51, MP wrote:
Thayt is the worst thing - now you don't know who will agree to new
license and who don't (unless you have some magic crystal ball). So
you don't know which data are going to be removed and how much of them
would it be until the last moment.
Right. And then we
On 03/03/09 09:43, Frederik Ramm wrote:
4. People who don't dislike ODbL per se but dislike the manner in which
it was brought about, and thus feel rushed/excluded. People who make
sensible suggestions for improvement but see their suggestions brushed
away or simply ignored because this would
The GPLv3 public revision process was 18 months in multiple phases, and
it was based on an existing licence. We are trying to analyse a
completely new and untested one and get it to a final version in 1 month.
I don't advocate the N years that the GPLv3 took, but currently the plan
says:
2nd
On 03/03/09 18:23, Andy Allan wrote:
We've been talking about the ODbL for a lng time now, way more
than 18 months. It's not completely new. The previous draft was dated
April 2008. If you're new to the discussions, then welcome, but don't
make like the ODbL has never been seen before and
On 28/02/09 12:21, 80n wrote:
What percentage of data would other people feel willing to see
sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license? We should
probably exclude mass donated data as 90% is probably TIGER anyway. So
what percentage of *user contributed* data would other
On 12/02/09 11:43, GIS wrote:
By a donation we are able distribute data to osm, google and yahoo.
Data are in DGN and TAB formats.
How do we get further on uploading on osm?
We might need help due to slow internet connections in the Arctic.
Hi Karl,
That's great news :-) The difficulty is
When making canal maps, it is useful to know which way is the official
towpath for the canal. Determining this programatically without a
relation would be difficult and prone to error, so I have proposed a
simple relation to associate the two. Voting is now open:
1 - 100 of 260 matches
Mail list logo
