Someoneelse wrote:
Thanks Andy. Makes sense to me. Do you know if there is anywhere
a list of proposed Sustrans routes (not based on OS mapping
hopefully) that could be used for fact-checking some of the more
wishful proposed cycle ways in OSM?
Andy R and I have a list of three-digit NCN
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
Honestly both solutions are kind of ugly because they mess up
edits history. If some data is PD then it should be possible to just
retain it in the event of a license change, the SQL query is unlikely
to change its legal status.
Surely you understand that the
!i! wrote:
But to be hornest, we aren't legal experts, so it would be great to
get a statement of people that are more aware of all of the legal aspects.
1. You cannot apply extra conditions to the licence (CC-BY-SA 4a, as you
say).
2. Your website may have its own terms of use that restrict
80n wrote:
It's not like it's going to be hard to recreate all this stuff. It
didn't take long to create in the first place and remapping it
is going to be a lot of fun isn't it?
Yep, exactly. It's actually surprisingly easy, especially with features such
as railway lines that are easily
Václav Řehák wrote:
Any tile server provided by the app author will be way behind in
the updates. I expect the Locus tile server to be updated once in
a week or so making it unusable for my weekend mapping trips.
I think this, sadly, falls under the category of collateral damage. The 1%
of
Serge Wroclawski wrote:
I encourage you and others to get involved in the Foundation (ie
become members, get active on the lists, tell the board your feelings,
vote)
You missed out the most important one:
help
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Gert Gremmen wrote:
Using this O-trick violates the copyright of the previous
owner, just as copying from google would violate their
terms of service.
As they have been for at least three years now, Gert, your opinions about
Potlatch are 100% venting and 0% actual knowledge
Andreas Labres wrote:
1. accessability with low cost air carriers
...and please remember those of us who try to travel by sustainable means,
too. :)
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Portugal-proposal-for-the-SOTM-2012-tp6990490p6995954.html
Michael Collinson wrote:
We suggest that re-mapping by individuals is more important
initially than automated revert scripts as it puts back often more
and better content than was taken out. We'd like therefore
promote that and to concentrate on tools to help folks easily
see what needs
ThomasB wrote:
the April 1st is mentioned in the LWG minutes and in a
LWG mail to legal talk. However, as a non native english
speaker I am a bit confused by the vague wording. Is
the date final, if nothing material happens in the meantime
Yes - barring unforeseen circumstances (of
Andrew Laughton wrote:
Perhaps you could explain to us what happens if a third party takes
OSM data, and publishes it without any attribution at all.
Would they be in violation of the Open Database License ?
Yes.
The summary (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/) says:
[crosspost removed]
80n wrote:
Most importantly it allows subsequent copies of the produced work to be
made with no attribution.
No, it doesn't. An attribution statement without a downstream requirement
is not reasonably calculated. This has been gone over ad nauseam in
legal-talk.
Richard
Craig Loftus wrote:
Do make comments/suggestions on the wiki pages... the tags we're
using are still evolving.
I have changed craft|industrial=cider_house to craft|industrial=cider
(and the same for perry).
A cider house is a pub that predominantly serves cider, not a producer.
There is no
Steve Doerr wrote:
The Oxford English Dictionary got it wrong then:
*cider-house* n. a building in which cider is made.
Far be it for me to criticise the august OED (though I'm more of a Chambers
man), but yes, it did.
http://www.thecoronationtap.com/ - Clifton's original, and still it's only,
Andy Mabbett wrote:
Aston Manor Brewery in Birmingham no longer makes ales; just cider, on
an industrial scale - yet retains the word Brewery in its name. :-(
I'd argue it doesn't really make anything recognisable as cider, either,
but that's a whole different argument. ;)
(not quite fair -
Craig Loftus wrote:
We have real cider now as well?
Yep, although I think it's less of a binary yes/no than with real ale.
CAMRA has a lengthy definition at
http://www.camra.org.uk/page.aspx?o=aboutciderandperry , though it's worth
noting that cider-drinkers generally don't regard CAMRA with
Someoneelse wrote:
I believe that it's both, actually. It was the Bass Museum, then
got closed and eventually reopened under its current name
after the musical chairs enforced by the MMC when Interbrew
had to sell Bass to Coors.
FWIW I think it was the Bass Museum; then the Coors Visitor
Graham Jones wrote:
This will inevitably be subjective
So we don't do it. :)
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability
From a given scenario, a tag/value combination is verifiable if and only if
independent users when observing the same feature would make the same
observation every
Michal Migurski wrote:
Maybe someone (heh) could do a purpose-built fork of Potlatch
designed especially for pulling in address info without displaying
any other road data to eliminate confusion
You probably don't even need to fork it. I suspect you could get most of the
way there with a
Andy Mabbett wrote:
Generally speaking, is it best to use the full URL;
UKNIWM_URL = http://www.ukniwm.org.uk/server/show/conMemorial.2049
or the unique ID part:
UKNIWM_ID = 2049
Generally we have taken the approach that such data should not be included
in OSM; we are not a mashup centre for
The Welsh Government is creating a 850-mile Coast Path, to incorporate
long-established routes such as the Pembrokeshire Coast Path, more
recent ones such as the Ceredigion Coast Path, and new sections. It's
set to open in May 2012.
Work seems to be progressing well:
Brian Prangle wrote:
what do you call places where they make cider/perry?
awesome
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Drinking-Map-of-UK-tp6945690p6946350.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Ilya Zverev wrote:
Hi! A month ago we said bye to Yahoo imagery due to the shutting
down of some of their services. But it is still available in both
Potlatch versions.
As Tom says, the situation with permission has not changed either way.
Yahoo have slightly extended the switch-off period
Serge Wroclawski wrote:
I go back to my central point: We're spending a lot of time
blocking people and explaining to people why they're blocked.
Let's find a way to turn this adversarial relationship into a
cooperative one. Do you have a suggestion on how to do this?
I do.
If I read you
Zsombor Szabó wrote:
This way browsing and bulk downloading users can clearly be
identified on the server side and throttled or banned if necessary.
It's good that you're making changes, but there's two misapprehensions that
need clearing up.
Firstly, our sysadmins are unpaid volunteers who
Mark S wrote:
Looking at the wiki (route=road) it seems to suggest a relation can
be used here.
Road route relations are useful in the US, and some other countries, where a
section of road can belong to two routes.
In the UK, each road can only belong to one route (i.e. an unambiguous ref=
Colin Smale wrote:
* there are lots of stretches of roads with (ostensibly) two UK
numbers (segment is shared between two routes)
Nope - there aren't. That's a popular misconception.
Where (for example) the A11 disappears into the A14 east of Cambridge, for
example, the road really is only
Serge Wroclawski wrote:
I'm writing this response for two reasons. First, because I want
you, Dimka, and the rest of the Israeli community to read it.
You're not representing your side very well based on the forums.
For reference, the thread cited is here:
Pieren wrote:
More in general, I don't like mappers adding manually tons of
'FIXME' tags because they don't know or remember or are too
lazy to check again. This a way to say 'pff, I'm tired now. So
please, the next person checking this area, finish my work in
priority. If you don't know,
Pieren wrote:
d) Add a short stub tagged highway=path
You can't tell without a fixme whether something is a stub because it's
incomplete, or because it really is like that.
Example: http://osm.org/go/eutFfSar-- . That looks very much like a stub
because bridleways don't peter out in the middle
Kev js1982 wrote:
Whats the best way of finding these, the only one i have seen is the
ito analysis but they dont offer zooming in :-(
OSM Inspector is very good. And hopefully Frederik will be along in a minute
to tell you how to use it from within Potlatch. :) Until then -
John Sturdy wrote:
Could the site put up a message if the wrong version of flash
is running?
Yep, Grant is working on upgrading us to swfobject 2.x (the Flash embedding
code) which gives auto-upgrade and all sorts of wondrous stuff.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Peter Dobratz wrote:
Yes, OSMF US shouldn't mandate a certain tagging scheme,
but they could certainly help to facilitate a consensus among
the community.
I'm definitely of the small government party for what OSMF (and by
extension local chapters) should do.
But one of the roles of OSMF,
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Really? Are there people who say I'd rather not map because there is
no consensus on the roads tagging? Are those people the 20,000
missing mappers in the US?
I don't think it's all 20,000, no. :) But it's certainly significant and it
is - correction, it _should_ be -
Peter Miller wrote:
Correct. I think the actual message is 'couldn't load the map'. Sometimes
it will load the data eventually if one persists, but generally it is
better to give it a rest for a few hours and try later. It only occurs
using Potlatch 2 btw, Potlatch 1 still works fine and
Tim Waters (chippy) wrote:
I also think that a voluntary opt-in review system would work - and
only really needs someone to write one, and a JOSM plugin, and a
Potlatch 2 patch.
I'll very happily patch P2, assuming the please review functionality can
be built into the core Rails site. (OSM
Gregory wrote:
How would the reviewer be selected?
Why do you need to select a reviewer?
The OWL-powered changeset listing could highlight those changesets where
review has been requested. Experienced mappers browsing the recent changes
(as experienced mappers do) would see these, and contact
Ed Avis wrote:
Yet again we see the lazy armchair mappers trying to 'map' areas they have
never visited. Instead of wasting time with dubious-quality Ordnance
Survey
maps why don't we organize some mapping parties and community outreach
to the penguins?
That's a terrific idea!
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
90% of my mapping is in such areas - gps, josm and repeated visits
to the area are needed. Camera and laser range finder are a plus.
JOSM is absolutely not needed for GPS surveying - you can use it if you
like, but I do pretty much all my mapping in Potlatch with GPS
jerjozwik wrote:
something known going on here? must i install adobe flash?
Pretty much. If you don't like installing any proprietary software on your
machine then your best bet is to use JOSM or Merkaartor.
Gnash bugs should really be reported on the Gnash bugtracker. :)
cheers
Richard
--
[follow-ups should be to legal-talk yadda yadda]
Russ Nelson wrote:
What about the people who didn't agree to the CT, but whose data is
in the public domain?
See
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-August/006608.html
et seq.
Given that LWG doesn't appear to be changing
Ed Avis wrote:
Why not do what Wikipedia did and work together with the licence authors
(in
this case Creative Commons and Open Data Commons) to provide an automatic
upgrade clause? Then nothing need be deleted.
I expressly asked this a couple of years ago:
There's a curious statement in the LWG minutes for 2nd August
(https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1252tt382df).
Folks who have declined the new contributor terms but said their
contributions are public domain.
There has been a suggestion that such contributions should be
maintained in
[apologies for posting to talk rather than osmf-talk - very bizarrely, I
appear to have been *un*subscribed from osmf-talk upon renewing my
membership. Go figure. :) For those not following, the issue is the
application of a large number of Skobbler employees to join OSMF, shortly
before the OSMF
Richard Weait wrote:
OSMF have permission to publish data as CC-By-SA, and in future
from most contributors as ODbL. OSMF have no permission to
publish data as PD at this time. TIGER PD data came from PD
TIGER data sources. If the usernames in question have a PD
source for the data
[cc:ed to tagging@, suggest follow-ups go there]
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
+1, in Germany or Italy you will hardly find any place where a
pedestrian can't pass but a cyclist can. There will be either a
combined or segregated foot/cycleway instead of a bicycles only
cycleway. On the contrary
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Exactly my point. Great Britain is fine with ref=M1 despite there
being an M1 in many other countries - and even in Northern
Ireland, part of the same country.
There are some little-known fields in OSM data called latitude and
longitude, which allow you to find out
Mike N. wrote:
Those with established and often-edited cycle routes are always
complaining that they're broken. The most recent case is this week:
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=13524
Last editor was JOSM, and if his analysis was correct, the most
recent edit broke the
[Forwarding two messages to the list from Angelika Voss - her messages
have been rejected but there's no sign of them in the admin interface
AFAICT. -- Richard, legal-talk admin]
Hello,
I would like to get your oppinion regarding the ODbL for the use case
described below. I have asked
[second forwarded message -- Richard, legal-talk admin]
Hello again,
for one more use case I would like to get your oppinion regarding the
ODbL. Your answers are relevant for our research, and could be relevant
for Muki Haklay and others who compare OSM with other reference
datasets to
Tomas Straupis wrote:
I would like such combined ways to indicate that they are
created for BOTH cyclists and walkers (especially then this
would include segregated ones).
They do indicate that. That's what the blue dots mean.
A better suggestion would be show a different rendering for those
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Which brings me back to something I mentioned earlier - I would like
to have some kind of link server where you can go and say I
want a permanent link to this OSM object, then the server says
ok, I have investigated the object you mentioned and I'd say I
make the
Gregor Horvath wrote:
OSM provides uri's to ID's which are linked to names of
physical objects. Example:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1381574156
No. It doesn't.
OSM does not provide URIs to anyone. OSM has an _editing_ API. It's here
to facilitate edits to the end product, which
Jo Walsh wrote:
A way to drag base layer like in JOSM.
Hold Space and drag.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Bing-imagery-alignment-in-Potlatch-2-tp6638302p6638356.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hélène PETIT a écrit:
Puis je suis partie à la recherche d'autres groupes de modification
appartenant au user anonyme.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Anonymous_edits
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2007-November/020022.html
Steve Coast wrote:
Hi Robert
Was this resolved with (I believe) Henk's email?
Robert and Steve - has there been any progress on this yet?
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-ODbL-OK-tp6545997p6633300.html
Sent from the Great Britain
Steve Doerr wrote:
I once heard of a radio presenter who read out a request from
someone living in 'Bewry Street Edmunds'!
Eeeek.
/me goes off to add not_name=Loogabarooga
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
I'd say the opposite is true. If it's pronounced Saint Albans
then that is the name.
Pronunciation in English only ever serves to mislead. :)
Increasingly you can treat St as a valid spelling of the word saint,
rather than merely an abbreviation. No (educated)
John Smith wrote:
The person that started this thread is in New Zealand...
...and started it with the comment does anyone here know what st albans
in uk is actually called then?. Robin has also mapped parts of Britain -
such as Repton, not far from where I'm sitting now.
Richard
John Smith wrote:
The period after St. is the correct way in English to abbreviate
Saint, where as the abbreviation of street doesn't have a period.
Not in British English, it isn't.
_Saint._ St or S. is better than St. for the abbreviation (see PERIOD IN
ABBR.); Pl. Sts or SS.
That's from
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I think it is actually written St Albans as stated above.
Indeed. In British English orthography, Saint in place and streetnames is
always written as St. (It's not such an anomaly: Mrs as an honorific is
never expanded, either.)
Mind you, British English orthography
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Oh, that's relatively benign. There are people with that name who
would try to grab attention with ℳ∡ℝℸⅈℿ or something.
Oh, we really should produce a map which renders the name High Street as
H16H 5tr33t, etc.
It could be called Open1337Map.
cheers
Richard
--
View
Ed Avis wrote:
Interesting slip... of course I meant to say 'contacting'...
:)
So are there cases where people are thumbing their nose at the licence,
but somehow if we used ODbL they would fall into line?
Couldn't tell you that without reading their minds! I honestly don't know
how many
Tordanik wrote:
I see that the ODbL fits your particular use case nicely. But as
you acknowledge, things look different for people with other
use cases. I expect that I'm one of those people whose favourite
use cases won't benefit from ODbL - quite the opposite, in fact.
I can certainly
Tordanik wrote:
Currently, we offer reasonable terms to good guys. Bad guys might
be able to squeeze out a bit more in some jurisdictions if they can
live with bad press and severed community ties.
That doesn't happen a lot, though - as far as I can tell - and the
possibility just doesn't
Toby Murray wrote:
User balrog-kun has explicitly declined the license. He ran a bot
that expanded abbreviations in TIGER street names in the western
US which means that virtually every named street west of the
Mississippi shows up as tainted in P2.
*BUT*
He has explicitly stated
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
There's a draft statement in the LWG minutes a few
weeks ago [2]. I wonder if LWG got round to approving this
at their most recent meeting...
They have now done so!
In response to community requests, the LWG formally clarifies as follows:
The intent of the
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
In the mean time, could I suggest that other mappers
don't start replacing my contributions just yet.
Speaking personally: sure. I'm happy to leave your stuff alone for a week. I
think replacing Etienne's contributions in the areas I'm interested in will
keep me
Richard Mann wrote:
Now there was me thinking it was just a Potlatch problem. I'll
delete my 5 as soon as P2 has the facility (and I can find it).
You can delete a relation in P2 by selecting it in the Advanced view (which
means you'll have to have selected a member of that relation, of
Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
I don't know about forbitting orphaned relations but it
would certainly be helpful if the editors would show a big
red warning sign if somebody tries to upload an empty
relation.
No. That would be entirely disproportionate. Empty relations don't do anyone
any harm.
Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
Wouldn't it be much easier to silently delete all empty relations
when uploading the data? From a user point of view the result should
be the same and you don't have to mess around with undo.
It would certainly be easier, but I don't believe it's the Right Way To
Do It.
Marc SIBERT a écrit:
le fork, c'est *le* changement de licence. Après tout, le projet fosm
n'est que le maintient de l'existant (la branche principale !).
98.7% vs 1.3% (d'aprés http://fred.dev.openstreetmap.org/license)? Ceci
n'est pas un fork.
Christophe Merlet (RedFox) wrote:
Plus de 400 000 contributeurs OSM. Seul 29264 ont dit oui aux
nouveaux termes du contributeur... Même pas 8%...
Moins de 140 000 contributeurs OSM [1]: number of users != Number of
contributors.
29 264 ont dit oui. De plus, environ 59 000 contributeurs
Frederik Ramm wrote:
I must congratulate David on his decision.
[...]
If any of you, at any time, feel that they seriously wish someone
else in the project to burn in hell; if you can't sleep because
someone was wrong on the mailing list; if you're thinking of ways
to take revenge on the
Guy Collins wrote:
Excuse this question if it has been answered in a wiki somewhere, but I
would very much like to know who owns copyright of any data contributed
under the Open Database Licence?
The brief answer is: the mapper does, just as they do under our current
licence (CC-BY-SA).
SimonPoole wrote:
there is a fair chance that either the data could be relicensed
under CC-by (which might be compatible with the ODbL)
Absolutely. The Australian government data is CC-BY already (I'm not sure
where this idea it's CC-BY-SA comes from). Negotiating compatibility with
ODbL need
John Smith wrote:
Unless you plan to enforce attribution as a minimum for produced
works
I'm not quite sure what I've done to deserve this Groundhog Day
treatment and be condemned to relive the same mailing list postings
again and again.
4.3 You must include a notice associated with the
David Murn wrote:
I think the biggest problem people in .au had was that there were some
issues which were specific to the Australian usage of OSM (imports of
gov data, etc). Those who sought to change the licence claimed to be
listening to people, but when Australian mappers raised issues, we
On 11/07/2011 10:13, John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 19:04, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
they don't have to be the same licence. That unambiguously works with ODbL
(4.5a): whether it works with CC is a moot point because CC is unclear for
data licensing, but it's likely that
On 11/07/2011 10:52, John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 19:29, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
It's not using it under a licence other than CC-BY-SA. A Collective
Database or Collective Work means that the ODbL part of it is under ODbL
and the CC-BY-SA part is under CC-BY-SA. This
David Groom wrote:
Are you sure? ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database
in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent
databases ..'. Therefore if you cut out Australia it cant be part
of a collective database, because it is not the whole database in an
David Groom wrote:
Which seems to me to that you are agreeing with my point, that these
are derivative databases, not collective databases as you first argued.
No: one is a Derivative Database (ODbL) and the other a Derivative Work
(CC-BY-SA), but the combination of the two is a Collective
David Groom wrote:
Well for a start 4.8 only comes into play when you communicate a
derivative database
Which you are doing, as part of a Collective Database. Incorporating a
Derivative Database into a Collective Database does not absolve you of
ODbL's requirements, or remove its freedoms, for
I think it's reasonably obvious by now that the two sides in this debate
aren't ever going to be reconciled.
It's not exclusively an .au problem, but it is mostly. If you look at
any of the analysis done recently, Australia simply hasn't taken to
ODbL+CT in the way that other countries have.
John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 00:02, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
Germany 90.1%
Great Britain 89.1%
France 96.8%
North America 96.4%
Russia 97.2%
Australia 48.4%
You didn't show Albania which has an even low acceptance rate,
John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 07:54, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
Indeed, I was concentrating on the big guys. Albania isn't a big guy. Not
sure what your point is about imports but neither GB nor Germany have
particularly significant numbers of imports - the only major
John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 08:16, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
Can we not - both sides - agree to work on building up our own projects, and
making them as attractive as possible to users old and new, rather than
knocking the other one?
But my comment before sets the
Maarten Deen wrote:
Turn restrictions, maximum speeds, oneway streets, even the value
of the highway tag is not a geographical fact.
Sure they are.
If I walk about 20 yards from my front door, there's a no entry sign at a
certain lat/long. If I walk a bit further along, facing the other way,
Hi all,
As the licence change draws on, we will inevitably be looking at remapping
objects touched by a decliner.
I'm interested in how we (as users) tackle something like this:
user A (agrees) surveys and maps
user B (agrees) refines geometry and tags
user C (agrees)
Tom Chance wrote:
So I suspect it's potentially breaching copyright, and a matter of
judgement as to whether it's worth the risk. For example, if you
were copying in data from a commercial web site whose business
model was based around that data (like a listing of pubs) you
might get
David Earl wrote:
Even then, to infringe database copyright under UK law you would have to
copy a substantial part of the database. Checking or obtaining a few
names against such a list isn't database copyright infringement
Oh, absolutely. The thing I've always been anxious about, though, is
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
So presumably we also need confirmation from Ordnance
Survey that they're happy for their content to be
distributed under DbCL (or at least under the ODbL+DbCL
combination).
I think that's a red herring, isn't it? ODbL imposes additional requirements
over and
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
In the context of OSM, the fact that the contents will be under
DbCL will enable users to make use insubstantial extracts
without having to provide any attribution or share-alike or anything
else.
Again, as I said, insubstantial is statute law - both the EU
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
So if I understand what you're saying correctly, because there
are already provisions in UK law (and possibly elsewhere) that
allow you to make use of insubstantial parts of a work in any
way you want without infringing any copyright or database rights,
we
Mike Collinson wrote:
I would like to thank the Ordnance Survey for their kind consideration
and the speed in which they were able to give a response.
...and thank you, Mike and Henk, for taking this on.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
David Groom wrote:
We also have be mindful of the OSM guideline of substantial [1], which
seems to indicate that only very small extracts counts as insubstantial.
I think the thing about these guidelines is that they are meant to be
Community Guidelines: here's what the OSM community expects
Jonathan Harley wrote:
Really I'm at a loss to see the point of the share-alike clause (4.4).
I can't think of a use-case for OSM where processing the database
doesn't reduce the amount of information.
The canonical case, often cited by those who say OSM needs a share-alike
licence, is to
Frederik Ramm wrote:
If, on the other hand, out of the black box comes a derived database,
then you can simply share *that* database and nobody cares what
happened in the black box, because you only have to share the last
in a chain of derived databases that leads to a produced work, right?
Toby Murray wrote:
I mentioned something about cardinal direction relation roles on
IRC last night and I think it was RichardF thought they were
silly because he had no concept of a north/south vs east/west
highway.
Probably not me, but you're right, and it's not a question we have to
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Yes, but is there a point of doing this within the same changeset?
Yes, of course there is. If you're using an online editor you should save
early and save often. When the user chooses to start/finish a changeset has
no bearing on that.
cheers
Richard
--
View this
601 - 700 von 1720 matches
Mail list logo
