On 20 July 2010 08:58, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
FYI, a simpler method:
- navigate to town on openstreetmap.org
- select noname from the + menu on the right
Some people complained that the cloudmade noname layer can be horribly
out of date, basically they cache a tile and don't
On 18 July 2010 23:00, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
an amicable arrangement. I am not suggesting backmail! After all, the whole
point of PD is that people can do what they want with the data.
I fail to see how you can force people to dual license as PD, since
you even acknowledge
On 19 July 2010 03:41, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I am happy that OSMF have added the PD option to the relicensing question,
and I will try to convince as many mappers as possible to tick it. It makes
no difference for the legal side of implementing ODbL but I hope that the
On 18 July 2010 20:31, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Is it totally hopeless to contact these contributors and ask them for their
agreement?
It kind of rubs me the wrong way when anyone brings up problems and
the first response (and usually the only one) is to always fob off the
work
On 18 July 2010 21:07, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
but they haven't commented about the contributor terms, I sent them an
email about this but I'm waiting to hear back. If they balk at either
that would mean everything mapped from their imagery, which in several
rural
It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data
from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention
new users that already agreed to the new CTs shouldn't be deriving
data from Nearmap.
___
talk mailing list
On 18 July 2010 21:43, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
Is this an issue with the third (licensing/relicensing/sublicensing)
clause? I never fully agreed with it in the first place.
Yup, the license could be changed to a non-share alike license in
future, and some people are trying to push
On 18 July 2010 22:19, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
This also shows that simply asking if contributors will allow their
contributions to come under the ODbL is not enough. I imagine many have
That may be ok, but the CTs go a step further and have future licenses
as being fairly open
On 19 July 2010 03:36, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Why? Because the project is growing very fast and attracting more data all
the time. If Google or Nearmap don't want to play ball that's fine - just
look at the hundreds of other companies and organisations that do, like Bing
and
On 19 July 2010 03:36, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
It's similar to those people saying that we should do whatever Google says we
should do, so they can just use our data.
Since you're bringing up Google, what about Yahoo, any official word
from them on ODBL or the new CTs?
On 19 July 2010 03:54, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
John, you're painting a dystopian view based on a couple of key things - that
1) nearmap would never change their mind and 2) the 'same thing' could happen
at any point.
The email I received from their CEO was fairly definite about the
On 19 July 2010 04:02, Sami Dalouche sko...@free.fr wrote:
If the move is for pure theoretical, GNU/Stallman-like ideology, then it
is likely to create way more damage than it would save.
However, if the move is about saving the project from a legal
perspective, then it's probably better to
On 19 July 2010 03:56, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
We had this discussion years ago now and they were fine with it. As with
everything else, they weren't allowed by legal to say anything publicly and
were just waiting for the actual changeover.
That covers current licenses, what about
On 19 July 2010 04:08, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Do you think nearmap are being reasonable?
I don't think they are.
Why are we changing to another share alike license if this isn't
reasonable? I fail to see the logic here.
There are a variety of downsides with working with open
On 19 July 2010 04:11, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first
basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to
contribute anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second
think it would be
On 19 July 2010 04:30, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
Also, if we really cared about share-alike, we would have it apply to
produced works - that would encourage companies to give back.
Judging by a same straw poll, very few people cared about SA extending
to produced works, and the
On 19 July 2010 05:12, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Only if a later license change were to go non-SA. An hypothetical
situation that you have created.
I'm not the only one, since some people are already proposing to push
a change to CC0 after the CTs are agreed to.
On 19 July 2010 05:17, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 July 2010 05:12, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Only if a later license change were to go non-SA. An hypothetical
situation that you have created.
I'm not the only one, since some people are already proposing
On 19 July 2010 05:37, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
You are creating yet another theoretical situation, John. Suddenly,
in your perspective, the community is clamouring for the next license
change and the next license change after that? I don't see it
happening.
If you are going
On 19 July 2010 06:18, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
On 18/07/10 19:39, John Smith wrote:
On 19 July 2010 04:30, TimSCmapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
Also, if we really cared about share-alike, we would have it apply to
produced works - that would encourage companies
On 19 July 2010 06:27, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
I know you like to have personal flame war, but in nutshell ODBL is
share alike, so no problems here. I have two questions though:
1) Why we need CT in first place
2) What section 3 is about
On 19 July 2010 06:44, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
So, problem is, while ODBL is fine as SA license (for data that is),
CT requires to give OSMF rights to republish data under license which
so far by CT can be also non-share-alike, right?
The CT is also likely to conflict with
On 19 July 2010 07:59, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Okay - you're saying that nearmap's concern is attribution?
Surprisingly no, they don't require attribution, which is weird in and
of itself, but do require any derived map data to be made available
under a share alike license, so that they
On 19 July 2010 09:04, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
I don't recall seeing the nice folks from NearMap posting on this
thread. I do recall an assertion from another poster that NearMap is
firm on the map data being Share-Alike, as is will be under ODbL. But
no quotations attributed
On 19 July 2010 12:35, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that Steve's post is not just a harmless rant, but
contains an implication, whether purposeful or not, that some mappers,
namely stay-at-home sons (and daughters?), are less equal than others.
Perhaps this should
I sent an email to Nearmap today to clarify about licensing of derived
data, the gist of the response was they won't accept anything less
than a share alike license, while the ODBL may be compatible, the new
Contributor Terms (CTs) aren't so on top of all the cc-by data going
bye bye, all the
It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data
from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention
new users that already agreed to the new CTs shouldn't be deriving
data from Nearmap.
___
Talk-au mailing list
On 18 July 2010 22:10, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 18 July 2010 12:53, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data
from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention
new users
On 18 July 2010 22:19, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 18 July 2010 12:36, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I sent an email to Nearmap today to clarify about licensing of derived
data, the gist of the response was they won't accept anything less
than a share alike
On 18 July 2010 23:29, Ken Bosward kbosw...@bosward.net wrote:
I'm wondering how to fix up Lake Illawarra?
Does it need to be fixed, or does pre-processing software need to be fixed?
Should it be the case that the coastline tag should only be on the actual
coast (and should also be used to
On 17 July 2010 10:27, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
I’m probably missing something again… Please explain how you will not be
able to make an informed decision once the license question has been put
to contributors.
I will, but at that point I will no longer have any chances to
exercise
On 17 July 2010 18:34, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also
the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ...
No, someone was claiming cc-by licenses we're valid in Australia, as a
reason to change to ODBL, if that
On 17 July 2010 20:11, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
If this is the case then given that the CC licences are copyright licences
what would they apply to in the OSM database in Australia?
The court case in question was over facts, dates and times and show
names, IceTV who instigated this
On 17 July 2010 21:57, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english?
I was thinking about a different email, however it's the same case but
has the wrong interpretation as to the scope.
On 17 July 2010 22:04, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 July 2010 21:57, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english?
I was thinking about a different email, however it's the same case but
has the wrong
On 18 July 2010 00:53, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
There has been discussion in the past about how creative the various
levels of OSM are (my personal opinion is raw data:not, edited and combined
ways:possibly, rendered maps:definitely). The outcome wasn't to rely on
creativity. ;-)
On 18 July 2010 06:23, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote:
What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity?
I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*.
You implied one or more people made that claim, what was their
reasoning for this?
On 18 July 2010 15:18, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
On 15/07/10 14:34, John Smith wrote:
How many governments can change a constitution without less than 50%
voting,
Of the people?
The US and the EU, to name but two.
When did EU member nations agree to become a country
On 17 July 2010 13:07, Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.com wrote:
Consider two cases:
1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF
view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone.
2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then
On 17 July 2010 18:34, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also
the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ...
No, someone was claiming cc-by licenses we're valid in Australia, as a
reason to change to ODBL, if that
On 17 July 2010 21:57, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english?
I was thinking about a different email, however it's the same case but
has the wrong interpretation as to the scope.
On 17 July 2010 22:04, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 July 2010 21:57, Heiko Jacobs heiko.jac...@gmx.de wrote:
Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english?
I was thinking about a different email, however it's the same case but
has the wrong
On 18 July 2010 09:49, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
The original Murray River trace was either made by swampwallaby using vmap or
by a few of us tracing from Landsat.
The only surveyed points then would have been bridges and bridge piers.
Ross' problem was that the Murray River is using ABS
On 18 July 2010 12:10, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
The admin boundaries don't get moved with road/railway realignment and
therefore without change from the original source we should not be moving
them. So if they are not connected to railways/roads etc then errors will
not be
On 18 July 2010 09:49, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
The original Murray River trace was either made by swampwallaby using vmap or
by a few of us tracing from Landsat.
The only surveyed points then would have been bridges and bridge piers.
Ross' problem was that the Murray River is using ABS
On 18 July 2010 12:10, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
The admin boundaries don't get moved with road/railway realignment and
therefore without change from the original source we should not be moving
them. So if they are not connected to railways/roads etc then errors will
not be
On 18 July 2010 12:33, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
always, but this is the exception and without reading a ton of legal
precedents.
and without reading a ton of legal precedents and other documentation
on boundaries we'd only be left guessing, or doing what we do now,
leaving
On 16 July 2010 19:57, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, this is ridiculous. Of course I've agreed to CC-BY-SA. The ODbL
didn't even exist when I joined OSM - and you know that fine and well
Etienne, you were there too when there was only 3 of us mapping in SW
London. So it's a
On 16 July 2010 20:23, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
No, he was making the point that CC-BY-SA has 100% support amongst all
the contributors, since we all agreed to it, and is using that to
suggest that nobody wants to relicense and that anyone who does needs
to fork the project.
On 16 July 2010 20:39, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I wouldn't exactly say I am unhappy with the status quo. It's like living in
a house where experts say it is going to fall apart any minute - you might
like to be able to retain the status quo but it's not on the menu. The
status
On 17 July 2010 02:44, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
In Australia, there was an important decision last year in the High
Court involving TV schedules:
http://www.copyright.org.au/news/news_items/cases-news/2009-cases/u29768/
I've been told that Telstra (white/yellow pages owner among
On 17 July 2010 04:07, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
Did you think there would be no losers? The project can’t please
everyone. If you care that much, why not campaign with reasons against
the license change, and encourage lots of OSMers to disagree with it. If
you’re lucky you might
On 17 July 2010 04:58, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Is that a desired safeguard against OKFN releasing bad new license
versions, or is it an oversight?
That clause most likely makes cc-by data incompatible, since a free
and open license may not require attribution, regardless if you
On 17 July 2010 14:59, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
As John Smith has pointed out, actually finding out the real status of
the boundary could be a lot of work, but it would be valuable.
I also said no one wants to spend the time and effort
On 16 July 2010 16:29, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote:
While Nearmap for Tamworth and Armidale would be nice, surveyors have been
hard at work in both.
Aerial imagery can do things like landuse, not just roads, which is a
lot harder to get or even see from ground level...
On 16 July 2010 20:31, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote:
If you want to make requests, http://forum.Nearmap.com/ :)
I did some time ago :)
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
On 15 July 2010 18:55, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
OSM has a clear mandate for the change. A majority (more than half) of the
electorate voted, and a clear majority of the votes were for the change.
Less than 49% of those eligible to vote, voted for the change, I don't
see this as a
On 16 July 2010 01:05, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
On this logic, almost no government in the world has a mandate to do
anything.
How many governments can change a constitution without less than 50%
voting, that's essentially what we're talking about here, not just
whether to
On 16 July 2010 01:15, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote:
OK, let's say we do what you say. I define my limits, you define your
limits, every single member of the LWG defines theirs, lots of other
contributors do too. We now have a big pile of limits.
I've also come to the conclusion
On 16 July 2010 07:13, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The correct way to make any significant and contentious change to a project
is to fork it. Significant changes that are not universally supported will
I'm not sure this would be doable, to do that you'd need twice the
amount of resources
On 16 July 2010 09:26, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
My dream scenario is OSMF polls contributors with unbiased supporting
documentation, they abide by the result and then I work a PD fork (different
people and areas have different licensing situations). I might even license
my
On 15 July 2010 20:28, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
How all that will work in practice, I don't know.
That's the point, no one can know at this point, and if people are
afraid to vote for odbl because of this things are likely to be a lot
worst off.
Thanks to Lakeyboy for pointing out Nearmap planned coverage areas PDF:
http://www.nearmap.com/assets/pdf/coverage/NearMap-PhotoMap-Coverage.pdf
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
On 16 July 2010 15:35, Babstar babsta...@gmail.com wrote:
While we're on the requests, please an an extension from Mittagong west
If we're on to requests :)
I'd still like Tamworth, NSW the area has 55k+ people according to
wikipedia, and Armidale, NSW isn't far away with another 20k+
people...
On 14 July 2010 19:25, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
However, I'd be interested in hearing what you think. Could you put
some numbers on what would make you feel comfortable? I've tried such
an exercise myself (and came to the same conclusions as the LWG in the
end) but that doesn't
On 14 July 2010 17:59, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote:
A lot of the points in this thread was already discussed by others and me
around 2009. The whole license (change) discussion in 2009 (to my
understanding) boiled down to: Become member of the OSMF or shut up and
follow our
On 14 July 2010 19:08, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
See also http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes if
you are interested in seeing what's been involved in the LWG so far.
How about defining some specific points about what an acceptable loss
of data will be,
On 14 July 2010 20:59, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
What do you suggest would be acceptable / unacceptable?
I would consider things to fail if more than 5-10% of data disappears
in any region. At the very least it would be demoralising for anyone
that spent even a few hours working to
On 15 July 2010 04:56, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
[I re-added attribution for John Smith that appears to have been
dropped during context trimming.]
Pretty sure Kai was responsible for this sentiment on the legal list thread.
Right, the contributor terms state 2/3 of active
There has been a slightly disturbing thread on the legal-talk list
about defining critical mass, so far things aren't any closer to being
defined and statistics are being abused to suit positions:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-July/003453.html
At this stage I'll not be
On 13 July 2010 06:25, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Then now the question : how can we determin if we use 'name' or 'operator'
if it is one or the other ? e.g. restaurants or hotel might or might not be
part of a chain, thus might be tagged with 'name' or 'operator'. Shall know
the door to
On 13 July 2010 06:59, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
I would say the exact opposite. The tag 'name' is what you see on the
facade. The (optional) tag 'operator' is the name of the chain but we should
not suggest to not use 'name' otherwise we will have different tagging when
On 13 July 2010 07:25, Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com wrote:
Side note: John, Do you seriously check health certificates before
tagging restaurants?
I don't usually tag name, just operator, I just mentioned that to
point out the name is easy to locate if people did want to tag it.
On 13 July 2010 07:18, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
I think operator has been mis-used. It appears in a lot of JOSM presets
where I believe it is incorrect.
This is an argument over the use of english as a language and tags
that look like english words and how people interrupt
On 13 July 2010 08:51, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
Is operator correct, though? Many well-known chains are franchises, where
the actual operator is a company or individual that is named on the business
license or health certificate.
The confusion has probably come about from
I wonder what the odds of this ending up on google in the next 6 months will be.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-27.27381lon=153.0753zoom=15layers=B000FTF
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
On 12 July 2010 10:05, Simon Biber simonbi...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
What about adding to those tags
* leisure: pitch
Didn't seem big enough to play football or cricket...
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
On 12 July 2010 12:35, Simon Biber simonbi...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
John Henderson snow...@gmx.com
Is the alternative to make (almost) the entire coastline a fishing pitch?
Only where there are designated fishing areas. And by that I mean something
that's visible on the ground, like a place
On 11 July 2010 06:43, Chris Dombroski cdombroski+...@icanttype.org wrote:
I ask because I think this is the cause of stupid GPS directions at times
make a left, followed by a slight right
Isn't that a problem with the routing software, not the data?
-- Forwarded message --
From: Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu
Date: 10 July 2010 18:06
Subject: [OSM-talk] Announcing help.openstreetmap.org
To: OpenStreetMap Announce annou...@openstreetmap.org, OpenStreetMap
Talk t...@openstreetmap.org
I'm be pleased to be able to announce a new
On 10 July 2010 20:48, Craig Feuerherdt craigfeuerhe...@gmail.com wrote:
The postcode with the largest variation to Vicmap is 3496 (Horsham) with
almost 5,500km 'missing'
Do any postcodes come close or exceed what Vicmap has?
___
Talk-au mailing list
On 11 July 2010 09:50, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
I presume that you refer to paragraph three of the contributor terms
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms
3. OSMF agrees to use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a
database and only under the terms of
Mapquest is also planning to spent $1mill to improve OSM data in the US:
http://vector1media.com/spatialsustain/openstreetmap-gains-great-traction-this-week.html
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 10 July 2010 07:56, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
Sure, but it’s beta anyway, so I think people wouldn’t be expecting too
much from it. Still nice that they render it at least.
I wonder how often they'll update their DB/tiles...
___
talk
On 9 July 2010 17:44, Simon Biber simonbi...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
eDuShi (meaning eCity) has made cool real isometric 3D maps of many cities
in
China. The style is somewhere in between cartoon and reality, but obviously
much
Looks like simcity...
As people should now be aware there is currently there is an issue,
not so much with ODBL, but the new Terms and Conditions people have to
agree to stating that OSM can change to other free licenses in
future without requiring consent, while in theory this is a great idea
since if there is a
On 10 July 2010 10:15, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
If you have imported data you got from someone else (other than public
domain), you can't legally agree to the CTs. Since I've imported some data
into OSM under my main account, I can't strictly click I Agree on that
On 8 July 2010 17:16, Neil Penman ianaf4...@yahoo.com wrote:
Useful as some govt or corporate contributed data may be the really valuable
data is that contributed by individual mappers. One of the things that set
OSM apart from other maps was that although it might have had data missing,
On 8 July 2010 18:15, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
Which brings up the Contributor Terms. Even if it is compatible, we need to
either get them to agree to the CTs (very unlikely) or get an exemption from
requiring that. I asked on legal-talk a while ago about who gets those
On 8 July 2010 20:29, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
This would be one of the reasons I have decided to leave OSMF out of my life
in future.
I have asked this question too.
Even if the license change over does go ahead with the TCs as they are
we still have the option to fork the data and run
On 8 July 2010 20:52, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
But to get back to the point of your question about the percentage
required for changeover. Do you have a preference or suggestion for
percentage of contributors and or percentage of data that would be
right for the changeover?
On 8 July 2010 23:30, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Simple percentage of contributors might be too limiting as a bright
line as contributions follow a long tail.
See the lowest graph on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats
I wouldn't do it on percentage of contributors, since the
On 9 July 2010 00:35, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
You can find 10% of users who contribute 90% of the data. I would be
really disappointed if only 10% of users accepted the upgrade.
I'm not talking about 10% of users in general, I'm talking about a
specific 10% of users that made
On 9 July 2010 01:12, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
I understand what you mean. I would consider it a failure only 10% of
contributors accepted the license upgrade. My vision of OpenStreetMap
You might see it as a failure, but those 10% are the most critical,
otherwise the project
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ODbL/Upcomingoldid=497888diff=next
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
On 8 July 2010 07:13, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
I don't think that they are compatible.
My experience of law is small and it is an opinion only.
I've said for a while that I agree in principal with the license
change, but the devil was always in the details. I was under the
impression that
On 8 July 2010 07:31, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
Bureaucrats have their own agendas
and are most unlikely to want to share property
GIS knowledge is power, undiluted and building up your own GIS threatens many
systems.
Regardless of bureaucratic agendas, the fact is if OSM
This also has me concerned, that there isn't a predefined level that
would trigger a change over... or there is, but they aren't telling
anyone what it is...
-- Forwarded message --
From: John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
Date: 7 July 2010 04:23
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk
On 25 June 2010 07:56, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
You could always have highway=link.
But some links ARE motorway rules and some ARE trunk road so just saying
link does not work.
highway=*
link=yes
I
On 6 July 2010 17:22, Oliver (skobbler) osm.oliver.ku...@gmx.de wrote:
I understand that is was decided by the OSMF board that funding is supposed
to become a more structured activity. What would you say to someone
interested in funding? OpenStreetMap doesn't have a strategic goal; it's
never
801 - 900 di 3639 matches
Mail list logo
