Hi All,
Does anyone know if we have lost the use of NearMap as a background or is
there an issue with Potlatch 1.4?
Thanks,
Michael Hampson
Ph: 02 4739 4938
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Thanks Emilie,
Regards,
Michael Hampson
Ph: 02 4739 4938
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Emilie Laffray
emilie.laff...@gmail.comwrote:
On 15 September 2010 14:16, Michael Hampson mc.hamp...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Does anyone know if we have lost the use of NearMap as a background
On 15 September 2010 14:28, Michael Hampson mc.hamp...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone know if we have lost the use of NearMap as a background or is
there an issue with Potlatch 1.4?
Nearmap withdrew their support for the people using the new contributor
terms. The OpenStreetMap foundation is
Bloody Hell. They have even blocked the custom field. I have a lot of choice
words to say right now but shall refrain until I calm down! All over a bloody
licencing dispute (which I don't like getting involved in unless I have to,
which that time has now come)
On 15/09/2010, at 11:58 PM, Grant
On Wed, 15 September, 2010 11:28:29 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
Just to clarify, we have not concluded discussions with NearMap and
discussion
is still positive. The removal of the NearMap option in Potlatch was prompted
a
few weeks by back, but was only actioned
Nestoria have launched an OSM option in Australia.
http://blog.nestoria.com.au/big-thank-you
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
On 15 September 2010 15:14, Simon Biber simonbi...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
Who was it prompted by? Did NearMap themselves request it?
There was a specific question from a AU community member to NearMap if
the option should be removed. They said yes. -- Third hand, I was not
part of the discussion.
On 16 September 2010 00:37, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
I believe John Smith initially suggested it to NearMap. Ben Last at NearMap
No, I posted the question publicly to the legal talk list, my concern
wasn't just about Nearmap but any source that may be too easy to
access by
On 16 September 2010 00:37, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Nestoria have launched an OSM option in Australia.
http://blog.nestoria.com.au/big-thank-you
Wonder if they'll ditch OSM when the data is reverted due to the poor
quality previously available...
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 1:30 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 September 2010 00:37, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
I believe John Smith initially suggested it to NearMap. Ben Last at NearMap
No, I posted the question publicly to the legal talk list, my
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Luke Woolley lswool...@gmail.com wrote:
Bloody Hell. They have even blocked the custom field. I have a lot of choice
words to say right now but shall refrain until I calm down! All over a bloody
licencing dispute (which I don't like getting involved in unless
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 1:59 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 September 2010 03:48, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Legal argument aside. Frankly it makes my head hurt. If a vendor
decides to stop allowing OSM use of their resources, we should say
Thanks for what
On 16 September 2010 04:02, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
That said, there is no answer right now for what will happen regarding
NearMap imagery in the future. Currently, OSM users may not use
NearMap imagery for deriving data for OSM.
Only users that have agreed with the new
On 16 September 2010 04:12, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
bad. This isn't a competition with a winner and loser. The fact is
that NearMap don't want OSM users using their imagery right now. So
we shouldn't.
This isn't true, they don't want to allow their data to be submitted
under
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 23:16:34 +1000
Michael Hampson mc.hamp...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Does anyone know if we have lost the use of NearMap as a background
or is there an issue with Potlatch 1.4?
There are other editors, assuming that you have not agreed to the new
Contributor Terms.
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:15 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 September 2010 04:12, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
bad. This isn't a competition with a winner and loser. The fact is
that NearMap don't want OSM users using their imagery right now. So
we
On 16 September 2010 07:31, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
I don't think that your recommendation is in the best interest of
OpenStreetMap or OSM contributors.
You left off 3, there is going to be a fork as cc-by-sa and any such
contributions from Nearmap will be happily accepted.
Also
On 16 September 2010 07:31, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
I don't think that your recommendation is in the best interest of
OpenStreetMap or OSM contributors.
Actually how can you or anyone else make this statement in good faith
when most of the contributors have never been asked what
On 16 September 2010 07:58, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Or did you mean CommonMap?
http://commonmap.info
Unlikely, since CommonMap is cc-by, not cc-by-sa...
Or did you mean SharedMap?
http://www.sharedmap.org
At this stage this is run and used by a single person, perhaps this
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:48 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 September 2010 07:31, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
I don't think that your recommendation is in the best interest of
OpenStreetMap or OSM contributors.
Actually how can you or anyone else make this
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:05 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 September 2010 07:58, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
You overlook the obvious, that discussion can lead to additional
rights grants from publishers.
And how many years must we wait before they'll be
On 16 September 2010 08:11, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
This old saw again, JohnSmith? Every time the community is asked,
they support progress in the form of ODbL rather than the
inappropriate CC-By-SA. Here is the latest feedback for you.
Yes and how many said they haven't even
On 16 September 2010 08:15, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
It will take forever if you never start the discussion. ;-)
I was under the impression the LWG was already talking to Nearmap,
however I don't have a problem with the current license, so I don't
see a point in wasting it to
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:20 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 September 2010 08:15, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
It will take forever if you never start the discussion. ;-)
I was under the impression the LWG was already talking to Nearmap,
Sure. Aren't there
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:20 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 16 September 2010 08:15, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
It will take forever if you never start the discussion. ;-)
I was
Some datasets are ok to use, what the CT fails to mention is the fact
that the OSMF can made the decision on weather or not to accept a
dataset.
Specifically because the humble contributor cannot guarantee that they
represent or have the exact 'direct permission' as it could have been
just a
On 16 September 2010 02:12, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
NearMap have requested that their imagery not be available in
Potlatch, and have changed their license on their web site to remove
explicit permission for OpenStreetMap. That is their right and their
decision.
On Wed, Sep
27 matches
Mail list logo
