Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Therefore distributing a Produced Work as public domain, with no
attribution requirement, does _not_ fulfil your obligation to include a
notice... reasonably calculated to make any Person... aware. So you
can't do it. The most permissive licence which may be used
On 7 June 2010 16:39, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Richard,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Secondly, some people (e.g. Frederik) have raised a concern that it
might be possible to create Produced Works without the attribution that
Ordnance Survey requires, by licensing the Produced
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:
[...snip...]
Maybe we should also start a
campaign to ask them to dual license under ODbL+DbCL as well as
CC-By...
Right, there's no way we can ever discuss this licensing without
getting one thing
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:
[...snip...]
Maybe we should also start a
campaign to ask them to dual license under ODbL+DbCL as well as
CC-By...
Right, there's no way we can ever discuss this licensing without
On the contrary, OS have given explicit permission to distribute their data
under CC-BY. I quote:
This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed
content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under any Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence.
This seems
On the contrary, OS have given explicit permission to distribute their data
under CC-BY. I quote:
This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed
content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under any
Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0
On the contrary, OS have given explicit permission to distribute
their data
under CC-BY. I quote:
This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons
licensed
content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under
any Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence.
...Ed Avis wrote on 08/06/2010 12:40:
Ian Spencerianmspen...@... writes:
This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed
content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under any
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence.
It doesn't
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
On the contrary, OS have given explicit permission to distribute their data
under CC-BY. I quote:
This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed
content to create a derivative work that can be
On 6 Jun 2010, at 22:31, Matt Amos wrote:
+1... or -1 as well? not sure how the arithmetic of these is supposed
to work. anyway, i agree with phil.
cheers,
matt
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Phil James
peerja...@googlemail.com wrote:
At risk of being a fly in the ointment, judging
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:
Is anybody sure that the OS's attribution requirements are adequately
addressed by current practice, and when moving to ODbL later?
Under ODbL it will be possible to use non-substantial amounts of data
from OSM without any attribution (this is not disputed),
On 7 June 2010 13:08, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:
Is anybody sure that the OS's attribution requirements are adequately
addressed by current practice, and when moving to ODbL later?
Under ODbL it will be possible to use non-substantial amounts of data
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:05:22 +0200, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
wrote:
SNIP
Before anyone starts massively using OS data for anything else than a
comparison, I strongly suggest to get a very clear view of this, either
by having the OS say yes ok or at least getting a statement from
On 7 Jun 2010, at 14:12, David Ellams wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:05:22 +0200, Frederik Ramm
frede...@remote.org
wrote:
SNIP
Before anyone starts massively using OS data for anything else than a
comparison, I strongly suggest to get a very clear view of this,
either
by having the OS
Peter Miller wrote:
I note that the OS data is CCBY not CCBYSA which may be relevant to
the issue, I don't know. I have also noted that the government
clearly wants the data to be used and is unlikely to sue, however the
Foundation have stated that they will remove all data that is
derived
Richard,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Secondly, some people (e.g. Frederik) have raised a concern that it
might be possible to create Produced Works without the attribution that
Ordnance Survey requires, by licensing the Produced Work as public
domain - which would not require recipients of
Hello everyone,
I would like to suggest as a sort of Project of the week for the UK
for people to pick a random town or village somewhere in the UK that so
far has poor coverage and trace it's roads from OS OpenData StreetView.
Despite the various claims over the years that the UK road will be
Kai,
I think this is a good idea, and a very well presented argument - a push to
get UK OSM coverage up would make the uk dataset more useful (more chance of
being able to search for an address etc.).
I think it would be worth treating a 'blind' tracing (as opposed to tracing
an area that you
If you are tracing from StreetView please, please, please properly source your
ways:
source=OS_OpenData_StreetView
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Attributing_OS
Tim
--- On Sun, 6/6/10, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com
We've never bothered adding verified=no for tracing from Yahoo maps with
Potlatch, or adding new roads in the city with only very rough GPS accuracy,
or any of the other sources of OSM data, many of which are often worse in
quality
than the Ordnance Survey data (which, from all I've seen, is
I've support this 'project of the week' and I've already tested the idea in
a small area.
If you look around the web for critical views on Openstreetmap it does look
like the big chunks of missing streets puts people off.
A few opinions to add.
1. If you know how to convert the shapefile, use
Kai Krueger wrote:
So let us try and accelerate this a bit by everyone picking a small
random town or village somewhere in the UK and trace the roads from
StreetView.
How about concentrating on the stuff that you can't get from a ground
survey? Woodland, most waterways, that sort of
I like the idea for a project of the week using OS OpenData StreetView, but
would suggest that before we add lots of new roads we work hard to get roads
which are already in OSM properly named. Firstly it is improving data which is
already there, secondly it using a second, independent, data
Hi,
Kai Krueger wrote:
I would like to suggest as a sort of Project of the week for the UK
for people to pick a random town or village somewhere in the UK that so
far has poor coverage and trace it's roads from OS OpenData StreetView.
Is anybody sure that the OS's attribution requirements
At risk of being a fly in the ointment, judging by the largely
favourable responses to this idea, I for one would like to register
myself as
-1.
Rant Please don't map an area if you are not familiar with it. I have
done some armchair mapping, but only where I am familiar with the area,
and
+1... or -1 as well? not sure how the arithmetic of these is supposed
to work. anyway, i agree with phil.
cheers,
matt
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Phil James peerja...@googlemail.com wrote:
At risk of being a fly in the ointment, judging by the largely
favourable responses to this idea,
On 6 June 2010 22:13, Phil James peerja...@googlemail.com wrote:
...I just feel that blatant, blind copying of OS data is
prostituting what I thought Open
Street Map was meant to be about./Rant
OK, I've got my tin hat on: standing by for incoming... ;-)
Phil.
I've got a lot of
On 7 June 2010 05:18, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com wrote:
The OS data is been treated as a replacement and hard work isnt being
deleted. The OS data is only being used to add data that is not currently
present, or to mark up blunders.
Oops, That should have read The OS data is
28 matches
Mail list logo
