Pieren wrote:
Anyone round here ever seen the film 'Groundhog Day'?
If you mean it's a desperate fud which will never end, I understand.
Yes. If we separate the horrid neologism into its three component parts -
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt - then I'm entirely with you on that.
We are Uncertain as
F. Heinen wrote:
Z,akskjsjkjdi
That certainly wins the prize for the most coherent posting in this thread.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Licensing-Working-Group-tp6199509p6207146.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at
Francis Davey wrote:
droit d'auteur does not (as I understand the term) include
database right. Its un droit des producteurs de bases de données
rather than un droit d'auteur (forgive my atrocious French - its been
nearly 30 years since I studied it).
Nearly 20 years here, but FWIW,
Francis Davey wrote:
I hope that makes sense and is not too mad.
Absolutely. I guess what the Wikipedia article tells us is that informally
(if incorrectly) one is often called the other and that, perhaps, is where
the confusion in the French translation lies.
cheers
Richard
--
View this
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
[some stuff]
Apparently CT 1.2.4 in French have just this moment gone live:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms/FR
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Request-for-clarification
rldhont a écrit:
Dans Potlatch tu ne peux pas créer de relation de relation donc
la relation line.
Tu peux créer une relation de relations avec Potlatch 2:
- Choisis la relation route (Advanced - double-clique)
- Choisis Advanced et puis Add to
- Choisis la super-relation line (ou New
Richard Bullock wrote:
Do we *really* need to be tagging national speed limits on individual
ways?
E.g. the vast majority of roads ought to be one of;
*residential roads subject to 30mph
*rural roads subject to NSL
Perhaps we could tag the ones that differ from the above - and let
Gilles Bassière wrote:
Eventually, I used a custom tag for my latest edit: hiking=passage
[5] but I'm not sure this can make sense for other mappers
I _think_ I'd call that a traverse. Generally that would apply to a
passage with significant movement in the x/y axes as well as the z axis!
Graham Jones wrote:
I didn't bother rendering the whole country with these because everyone
said how awful and useless Merridian2 was
Meridian2 isn't awful or useless at all. It's an excellent dataset for
quickly making street maps at (say) 1:100k or even 1:50k. I use it a lot.
It is
Tom Roche wrote:
How best to use OSM to map non-existent features for planning
purposes, e.g., for public charrettes?
This shouldn't be mapped in the main OpenStreetMap database. OSM is for
mapping real, verifiable locations, not hypotheticals.
Rather, you should set up your own OSM install on
Joseph Reeves wrote:
without explaining in layman's terms what this means.
http://old.opengeodata.org/2008/01/07/the-licence-where-we-are-where-were-going/index.html
Follow-ups to legal-talk please, so that those here who have made their mind
up one way or the other don't have to read the whole
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Please don't do this, as mappers may have completely opposite ideas
of what is ideal or scary.
+1. OSM is for facts, not subjective judgments.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Dave F. wrote:
Potlatch has changed it's defaults for footpaths from foot=yes to
access=designated (Designated button), or access=yes (Allowed
button) in version 2.
Eeek, has it? I shall look at that...
cheers
Richard
who also strongly dislikes the prissy 'highway=path+access tags' system
This is getting crazy.
Exhibit 1:
http://twitter.com/#!/maproomblog/status/39053538692698112
Whoever imported CanVec in Aylmer, Quebec obliterated hours of work and
introduced hundreds of errors. #osm #openstreetmap #whybother
Once again, some keyboard jockey has decided that his l337 import
Vladimir Vyskocil wrote:
It seems there is no XAPI server available for a long time,
what's going on ? Is this service deprecated ?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/iandees/diary/12916
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2011-January/021742.html
cheers
Richard
--
View this
David Murn wrote:
If the service isnt designed to be portable (it only runs on one
system currently, in the world), then who cares about java,
why isnt it written in optimized C or some other similarly
lowish level language, rather than java?
Your search - murn site:svn.openstreetmap.org
Edward Hillsman wrote:
We refer to the OSM community, and the need to respect the work of
others. The way this particular situation was handled could have done
a much better job of respecting the work of others. If software needs
to be modified to make it easier to show such respect, then
Peter Miller wrote:
however the most important thing is for water features to be
continuous under bridges
Absolutely. Otherwise some of OSM's resident under-bridge-dwellers might be
misled into thinking there was no water, fall in and drown. And we wouldn't
want that!
cheers
Richard
--
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
We wouldn't tolerate anything so disconnected from reality on the map,
Yes, we'd fix it.
Up to a point.
We have scarce resources. We don't have enough mappers and we _certainly_
don't have
Matthias Meißer wrote:
Sorry for the mistake, but as everybody knows, this can happen, even
if you fight alone against a dozen of wikipages ;)
Anything I say here will only get me into trouble so I better not. :)
But I don't see why did you removed the template completely instead
of
Matthias Meißer wrote:
well your theorem on getting all with one shot is great, but this
doesn't work for me. Things (esp. on the wiki) are to large to do it
in one step.
So if you don't know, put a FIXME there. It's what we do on the map.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Stephan Knauss wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, but the current TOU seam not to allow it to be used
in our editors.
My understanding of this Bing term is that it's _intended_ to mean not
available for use in an editor that is only available under commercial
terms, e.g. the ArcGIS plugin. I agree
Stephan Knauss wrote:
Oh, I was tricked by the wiki page stating it's GPL...
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potlatch2
Wow. Who on earth added that?
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/magical-road-detector-tp5993637p5998760.html
Sent from
David Murn wrote:
You mean, as author of potlatch
Only one of the authors.
you dont have the potlatch wiki page on watch for edits? I also
notice the edit you made, removed the entire software info block from
the wiki page, not just changed the licence. Was that intentional?
Yep. Way too
Ed Avis wrote:
This is the one thing that perturbs me too about using the OS data. Back
in
the days when we only had Yahoo, I would not tag the name on a way until
I had walked all the way down it checking for footpaths. If I'd only
explored
part of the way, I would tag the name on
Peter Miller wrote:
To be clear, I have no idea who might write this bot or when
So I propose we call it Bot Nukem Forever. :)
Why isn't the UK complete yet? Amazingly, in a worldwide community of
350,000 registered users (with thousands in the UK), we have:
- just three people working
Brief expansion of previous point:
Ed Avis wrote:
So I did hesitate about adding name=Newton Road to a street which I had
not visited. But then I considered the folk living on that street typing
its
name into Nominatim and getting no results.
Let's see what Wikipedia does (and when you
davespod wrote:
I’ve created a first attempt at a short tutorial video for
adding POIs using Potlatch 2.
That is absolutely _brilliant_!
My faith in human nature is restored. :) Do you have a file you could e-mail
me? If so I'll embed it into P2 this weekend.
Now off to look at Tom's
Jonathan Harley wrote:
Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements
are free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use
OSM.
That's as may be, but to restate the point made by Frederik, you can't
simply wish away what the licence _actually_ _says_, simply
Jonathan Harley wrote:
On 03/02/11 14:23, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net
wrote:
OSM applies the license to data - the license attribution it requests
specifically mentions Map data.
Again, who wrote the license attribution request? Not me.
Peter Miller wrote:
Any thoughts?
Very, very sceptical.
We are slowly coming out of a dismal winter and getting back into the season
when we can do real surveying. That is, and always will be, OSM's strength.
If a bot can fix OSM by mashing it up with OS data, it can just as easily
post the
Tom Chance wrote:
But what about the Lleyn Peninsula in Gwynedd, north west Wales? I've
worked on Criccieth and the surrounding area for years, some others
have done bits in a few other towns, but most of the county and the
peninsula are still very bare after 5-6 years of OSM.
I don't
Ed Avis wrote:
We do also have real data on the effect of not doing imports - the towns
which are almost completely unmapped.
So let's go and map them. It's worked very well so far.
Am I missing something?
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Ed Avis wrote:
'Worked very well so far' is the part I disagree with. The OSM model has
worked well for densely populated, prosperous areas. It's not at all
clear
that it is working well for remoter ones. If it were, we would not be
having this conversation.
I spend half my week in
Jonathan Harley wrote:
Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the
sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database,
in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work
based on a database, ever.
For print, yes, that's about the size of it.
Daniel Sabo wrote:
This is a really bad idea. Drawing collinear features by sharing
nodes is NEVER a good idea beyond 1 or 2 shared corners,
that's what multipolygons are for.
Disagree very very strongly.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Steve Bennett wrote:
I'm thinking this would be a useful feature to add to Potlatch -
loading and saving files from disk. (If possible within Flash)
That'll happen when we migrate from requiring Flash Player 9 to Flash Player
10, but we're not ready for that yet.
cheers
Richard
--
View
Sam Vekemans wrote:
It's a good think that potlatch2 doesn't restrict APIs :)
[...]
Oops, I mean restrict Imagery URLs.
... sorry got carried away on the last message :)
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
If you wade through the whole conversation on the josm-dev mailing
list you would be aware
that
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Come on people. There's enough editors for everyone. There's a ton
of reasons, for *every* editor, why someone would use or not use
it. Personally I am glad that this is so
Absolutely.
I'd also add that transferring your expectations of how one editor works
onto
Martin wrote:
I am not sure for newer potlatch, but the few times I was forced to
use it (why the hell there is undelete api available only for Potlatch
and not as XML?)
Hey, calm down. Less of the why the hell, please.
The reason Potlatch 1 can undelete is because I wrote the undelete
Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote:
IMHO not related to the proposal:
- potlatch can not handle the proposal/nested relations correctly:
The latest version of Potlatch (Potlatch 2) handles nested relations
excellently. About 10 seconds' research would have told you that.
Richard
Tom Chance wrote:
Can our resident waterways experts comment on the most appropriate
tagging for navigable rivers in the UK?
For example, I see you’re allowed to use a boat on the Thames along
navigable parts with a license… does that mean it should be “boat=yes”
or “boat=permissive”?
Graham Jones wrote:
I just added navigable rivers and it looks a bit more like a network now.
There are still a few odd gaps to investigate though.
That's putting it mildly. :)
I knew our waterway coverage was erratic but I hadn't realised it was _that_
poor. Navigable rivers are particularly
Jerry Clough wrote:
I'd also second TomH: there are lots of things showing as navigable which
look
odd: Cromford Canal from Cromford to Ambergate (now a nature reserve, and
possibly an SSSI)
That is navigable, and navigated, though not as much as it was when first
restored in the 1980s
Someoneelse wrote:
I suspect that you could probably get a larger boat along the top
bit (just south of Ambergate) without too many issues, but I think
the bottom bit had signs suggesting not to disturb anything.
From WW's most recent article on the Cromford:
As a gateway to the World
Hi all,
Sending this to talk-gb@ first (rather than tagging@ or talk@) as I'm
just floating an idea...
I've long wanted to get motor traffic levels on rural roads into OSM.
Traffic levels make a huge difference to the enjoyability of rural
cycling, and would enable really fun rendering
Kevin Peat wrote:
I think in my part of the SW the large majority of highway=unclassified
would be =1 car a minute average so just from a tagging perspective
it would be a lot easier just tagging those few that are busier.
I'm very envious... if only I could say the same of the large
Richard Mann wrote:
Traffic planners typically measure motor-vehicles-per-day (and
quote it to the nearest thousand), so I'd do traffic=1000, with
advice somewhere that you can use 1000* off-peak cars-per
minute as an approximation.
Whatever - I tend to leave that sort of stuff to the
Andy Mabbett wrote:
An interesting piece of work. Scilly Isles, with 57 roads mapped, rank
higher than my home town, Birmingham, with 8,972 mapped.
ITYM the Scilly Isles, with 0 roads missing, rank higher than my home town,
Birmingham, with 206 roads missing.
Also,
Andy Mabbett wrote:
Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_the_glass_half_empty_or_half_full?
Touché. :)
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Update-to-OSM-Analysis-tp5944227p5944598.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at
Graham Jones wrote:
I think I have got an alternative way of doing it - the Openlayers
Permalink control can take a 'base' parameter, which is the url
base that it links to (like http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit).
It is working on http://maps.webhop.net/canals now.
That works brilliantly
Someoneelse wrote:
For example, the simple editor in P2 doesn't show either note
or the way ID (it is supposed to be simple after all; the
advanced editing view does show both).
FWIW my ambition for P2 is to have a non-prescriptive, friendly quality
inspector that will tell you about the
Chris Moss wrote:
Shouldn't maps allow you to concentrate on whatever you're
interested in? Can someone please explain to me how or if
this can be done with openstreetmap?
It can certainly be done if you're prepared to put the effort in. Bear in
mind that OSM isn't really an end user map
Chris Saunter wrote:
2) Browser based viewer using javascript - this could be a
hybrid bitmap/vector renderer that annotates bitmap tiles
FWIW Potlatch 2's renderer, Halcyon, is fully stylable (using MapCSS) and
also exists as a stand-alone SWF applet that you can simply drop into any
Andy Robinson wrote:
Richard, have you got (or know of) an example of this which is up and
running and accessible somewhere?
There's an old old version at http://www.geowiki.com/halcyon/ . I'll
try and put a new version up this weekend.
cheers
Richard
Chris Moss wrote:
Richard's point that OSM is a data project rather than an end user
map website puzzles me. I can understand that in server terms
there are huge demands but isn't one of the ways of coping with
that by being selective about the data that's given out.
We're a data
Hello all,
I note with some alarm the very complex, relation-heavy proposal for
mapping simple public transport objects.
Could I have your assurance that the proponents of this proposal will
also be providing good-quality patches for the three principal editors
(Potlatch, JOSM,
André Joost wrote:
No need to panic, you don't *have* to use relations.
I'm not panicking as a mapper. As a mapper I have exactly 0.0 interest
in mapping bus stops.
I'm anxious as an editor (co-)author.
If such relations become widespread, they will (without explicit
support) appear in
David Murn wrote:
Crikey, dont let them see the Old Eyre Highway across southern
Australia, or the Outback Highway[1] across Central Australia.
Together over 3000km of highly travelled road, connecting the
western coast of the country to the central/eastern regions.
Just goes to show the
Asztalos Attila wrote:
On 11-Jan-2011 15:51, Richard Mann wrote:
Which is not to say that knowing which roads are cobbled
wouldn't be handy sometimes (but I probably think of this
as something you need to render for yourself (cue ad for
Maperitive...))
I certainly see the merit of the
Alex Mauer wrote:
Which one were you thinking of? I count two road types in your list:
highway=track and highway=unclassified. And it could be other highway=*
types too.
highway=track doesn't imply a road round here; clearly YMV.
It’s still better to use highway=road even if it turns
Alex Mauer wrote:
Sounds like the usage is wrong “round there” then. The example image on
the wiki[1] clearly shows a road
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fr%C3%BChlingslandschft_Aaretal_Schweiz.jpg
I think if you described that as a road in the UK you'd have the Trades
Descriptions
davespod wrote:
If we assume that the reading of ODBL in the LWG minutes is correct,
then ODBL would not require attribution of OSM's sources in produced
works (e.g., maps), rather only attribution of the OSM database.
I'm restating what I said in
Gorm E. Johnsen wrote:
They seem to be evenly spread over the planet and was
depreciatedhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Deprecated_features
almost three years ago.
Depreciated means reduced in value. You mean deprecated, but you can
only deprecate a feature from the wiki docs, not from the
Mike Collinson wrote:
Thanks, David. Bother. Either it refers only to Royal Mail-tainted
Code-Point data as immediately above the text or the OS are pulling
a fast one by re-writing the OGL ... making it effectively their old
problematic license. Assuming the latter we'll need to lobby.
John Smith wrote:
Erm doesn't that invalidate the flexibility or relicense in future
people keep going on about?
I think Mike already answered that one at
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-January/005716.html
.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
davespod wrote:
Richard wrote:
Mike Collinson wrote
It incorporates the Open Government License for pubic sector
information
I sincerely hope it doesn't say that!
I'm afraid it does.
For those who are similarly humourously challenged may I point out that I
have checked and no, the OS
Richard Mann wrote:
But (unless I've missed something) that doesn't deal with the
issue that the CTs reserve the right to switch the data to
(amongst other things) a non-attribution licence at a future date.
Attribution is guaranteed by the Contributor Terms (section 4), which
continue
Richard Mann wrote:
Ah. So maybe I did miss something. Are those now the CTs I'm
agreeing to if I click the magic button?
I believe (I'm not on LWG) that the intention is to give them one more
tidying-up review and then make them live behind the magic button. I don't
think they're there yet.
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
hopefully OS will switch to the new Open Government License soon,
which is explicitly compatible with ODbL.
They switched today. :)
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Mike Collinson wrote:
given that at least one contributor has been pointlessly editing my
personal contributions apparently so that they are no longer ODbL-ready,
sickly sadly all too possible.
That's vandalism, of course. Could you share their user ID?
cheers
Richard
(Rather
John Smith wrote:
I still don't understand how data could be accepted on that basis
in the first place, either there has to be firm statements that such
data would be removed, not may be removed
As I said to Robert last night, I don't think you need to explicitly write
we will not do
Ed Avis wrote:
I think that actions speak louder than words
svn is that way
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5891828.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at
John Smith wrote:
On 5 January 2011 22:41, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
As I said to Robert last night, I don't think you need to explicitly
write
we will not do anything illegal into the Contributor Terms
[...]
What's with the comparisons of contract law and criminal law
Gert Gremmen wrote:
Free data needs no license or CT.
I agree! I'm really glad you - like me and many others - are dedicating your
data to the public domain. No licence, no CT.
Once OSM continues under new license and CT
(as currently presented) I demand to have my owned data withdrawn.
Oh,
John Smith wrote:
I was under the impression that only the US had personal copyright
infringement as a criminal offence...
It's an offence in EW whether personal or commercial. For a business, it's
an offence to distribute copyrighted material without licence; for an
individual, it's an
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
Clause 2 requires contributors to make a large grant of IP rights
to OSMF on any content added to OSM. I believe that the intent
here is actually that you only grant OSMF the rights necessary
for them to act as described in clauses 3 and 4.
Agreed.
Lets now
Rob Myers wrote:
On 04/01/11 15:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
OS OpenData is AIUI compatible with ODbL and the latest Contributor
Terms.
[citation needed]
(http://fandomania.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/xfiles1.jpg)
:)
I keep meaning to sit down and write a long blog post about
John Smith wrote:
That might work for ODBL which has attribution requirements, although
if produced works are exempt from attribution requirements
They're not. ODbL 4.3 requires attribution on produced works.
and the CT allows for license changes to non-attribution licenses
It doesn't. CT 4
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
ODbL 4.3 requires that the source database be attributed, not any
data sources that went into making that database.
As I said, to understand the attribution chain in ODbL, I find it helpful
to consider OSM as a Derivative Database of OS OpenData (i.e. Extracting
I wrote:
As I said, to understand the attribution chain in ODbL, I find it
helpful
to consider OSM as a Derivative Database of OS OpenData (i.e.
Extracting or Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the
Contents in a new Database).
To take the example given in ODbL 4.3a,
Peter Miller wrote:
I will currently be one of the people locked out because I have used
the Ordnance Survey open data which is apparently incompatible with
the new license.
OS OpenData is AIUI compatible with ODbL and the latest Contributor Terms.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in
SteveC wrote:
Specifically I'm wondering if everyone has androids because we're all
open source nuts or if it's more balanced? Only the data will show.
I have a Samsung B130. It's fantastic. You can make phone calls on it, and
stuff. Actually, no. You can make phone calls on it.
According to
Dave F. wrote:
Hmm.. FYI as the problem seems to occur over most of Bristol I should
tell you I've been adding the residential areas to a multi-polygon
(Relation 1277566) Their number complexity (inner outer areas) have
grown considerably; maybe by too much.
Having had a brief look at it I
Dave F. wrote:
It appears that it could be the volume of entities as when I pan in to
the centre from more rural areas it's fine until it reach densely
tagged areas. If I pan quick enough it's fine until the screen has
displayed the vast majority of ways.
Could one of you post a permalink to
Tim Francois wrote:
I case you haven't received one privately yet:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2lat=51.46925lon=-2.60749zoom=17
Brilliant - thank you (and Dave) for that. There's some particular
data there which is causing P2 to throw an error. When I open it in
Flash
Stefan de Konink wrote:
I'm really wondering who is pulling the strings there, because now
it is even more trivial to see how much better we are. Anyone is
seeing this happening in their area's as well?
Certainly in the UK there's a lot more 'Google-sourced' data appearing on
the maps,
Andrew Harvey wrote:
We need to find a norm as a community so we don't have
this conflict.
We do have a norm as a community. 99% of people are tracing from Bing
imagery and you're not.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
David Murn wrote:
So, can you tell from every edit you did, whether you used nearmap as
a reference while doing the edit? If so, you must be one of the very
small percentage of people who tagged 100% every change they made
or one of the very large percentage of people not from Australia.
Toby Murray wrote:
The source is documented in both the changeset comments and on the
nodes themselves. I saw a conversation on IRC to the effect that the
data is indeed PD so there don't seem to be any worries on that front
at least.
A simple assertion that this is PD isn't good enough.
Stefan de Konink wrote:
Come on, this is non-sense. If someone accepted the CT and imports the
data, it should be enough.
No. By that logic we'd never revert data which is clearly traced from
infringing sources. We can, and we do.
The OSM map is a single collaborative project, not a
John Smith wrote:
In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government
Licence) openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences
(ODC-By and ODbL).
Nice bait and switch...
Goodness me, John, do you have to be so confrontational about _everything_?!
In your first
Simon Poole wrote:
That however does require the importer/mapper to raise the
issue to a level where that support exists. As the LWG has
pointed out, that hasn't worked in the past, and there is IMHO
no reason to believe that it will magically start working in the
future.
Oh, sure,
Simon Poole wrote:
Asking a mapper community with a majority of non-lawyer,
non-native English speakers to determine if two licenses are
compatible (one of which will always be quite complex) with
some degree of certainty is just a joke.
Not at all. Most imports will fall under one of a
Sam Larsen wrote:
you cannot create permanent, offline copies of the imagery
Isn't this why we couldn't use SPOT imagery for HOT in Pakistan using
Potlatch - we were only able to use JOSM ( others) due to local
caching of tiles in Potlatch. Is this an issue?
No. Caching is not
Andrew Harvey wrote:
I am yet to see a license.
http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details has a set of terms of use
embedded in the post specifically for OSM. It's a Scribd document and
therefore requires Flash Player. There is also a PDF download link. If you
are unable to see the
David Groom wrote:
If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD
They don't, rendering the rest of your e-mail moot. I mean, personally I
think it'd be lovely if they did, but they don't. I'm slightly amazed that
anyone can consider this who has ever read any licence-related postings by
the chairman
Andrew Harvey wrote:
But that is opengeodata.org, not Microsoft, you would need a
license from Microsoft.
It was posted on OGD by a Microsoft employee and I can confirm I've had the
exact same licence sent from a Microsoft e-mail address. I believe there'll
be a Bing Maps blog post going up
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I believe there'll be a Bing Maps blog post going up soon on the same
topic.
http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com
Andrew Harvey wrote:
Just to clarify is this
http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html the document
which contains the license grant?
No; the document is the one embedded in the OpenGeoData posting
(http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details). Like I say I'd envisage
it might be
801 - 900 di 1720 matches
Mail list logo
