Hi everyone,
As I work to bring CommonMap to fruition I'm heartened that I'm not the only one
that wants to see it happen.
If you're handy to Brisbane tonight then come join the CommonMap association as
part of the Samford Mapping Party
2010/1/16 morb@beagle.com.au:
Hi everyone,
As I work to bring CommonMap to fruition I'm heartened that I'm not the only
one
that wants to see it happen.
If you're handy to Brisbane tonight then come join the CommonMap association
as
part of the Samford Mapping Party
On 16/01/2010, at 9:32 AM, John Smith wrote:
This seems like a spurious argument, ok your suggestion will allow
both projects to profit from your data, but any additions can't be
shared back with your suggested project, nor will Google share any of
it's data back, unless it's in Google's own
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 12:16 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
It's all a matter of tradeoffs and what is most important to you - being able
to use it for whatever you want, or getting the most data in OSM.
Well said. Funny thing is, they're not independent - i.e. making OSM
data
2010/1/16 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 12:16 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
It's all a matter of tradeoffs and what is most important to you - being
able to use it for whatever you want, or getting the most data in OSM.
Well said. Funny thing is,
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 2:43 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
If we can get people making editors to add tags to changesets based on
your license preference then any PD data, even if it's changed later
to become ODBL, can be collected.
...
the changeset might be good enough, as
2010/1/16 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
Interesting. But the catch is, as you say, only what is edited from
existing PD data. And if you have different mappers using different
If that's too much of a limitation then more drastic action would be
needed, nothing will please everyone all the
7 matches
Mail list logo
