Not if you want to make a better map for OSM.
Well, if your definition of better includes open, then no.
I'm afraid that the number of people using iPhones will be quite small
compared to normal phones, no matter how much you want it. Perhaps it's
the £1000 you have to shell out.
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 12:29:33AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Well, if your definition of better includes open, then no.
Sometimes when talking about OSM I say provocatively that we're so
ruthlessly pragmatic that we would even switch to Oracle if someone
gave us the stuff for free and it
bvh wrote:
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 12:29:33AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Well, if your definition of better includes open, then no.
Sometimes when talking about OSM I say provocatively that we're so
ruthlessly pragmatic that we would even switch to Oracle if someone
gave us the stuff for
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 11:20:52AM +, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Sure, but it's possible to be an open geodata kind of guy without
being a free software kind of guy. Just because I'm insistent about
the cleanliness of our map data doesn't mean I want to give up my Mac
and all the
bvh wrote:
Moreover, I don't think your position is internally consistent. The
data is
nearly useless without the programs to do something interesting
with it. What good would it be for the geo data to be open if the
preferred way of accessing it is closed?
I think preferred is the key.
Hi,
Well, if your definition of better includes open, then no.
Sometimes when talking about OSM I say provocatively that we're so
ruthlessly pragmatic that we would even switch to Oracle if someone
gave us the stuff for free and it worked better than what we currently
have.
Nick's comment is
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 04:29:55PM +, Nick Black wrote:
Odd advice from a mailing list of an _open_ source/data/whatever project.
Not if you want to make a better map for OSM.
Well, if your definition of better includes open, then no.
a better perspective. At least for that one there
7 matches
Mail list logo
