Andrew Harvey wrote:
Is this available from Microsoft somewhere or a Microsoft web site?
It was posted on OpenGeoData by a Microsoft employee and I had a copy
e-mailed to me (in advance) by a Microsoft employee. Like I've said at least
twice now :) , it may need some firming up so please don't
Felix Hartmann wrote:
Is source=bing verified?
Else it is pretty bad to start mapping
As already posted, there is no formal requirement in the Bing licence to use
a source tag, but it's good OSM practice anyway. FWIW Potlatch 2 has
source=Bing as the preset tag.
Richard
--
View this
Sebastian Klein wrote:
I don't really understand this paragraph, does it mean they want us
to give them the vector data we trace from their imagery, so they
can use it any form?
No. Bear in mind that us means Microsoft when you read this:
| [2] 5. Your Content. Except for material that we
Dave F. wrote:
I get a 404 error for P2 via Mapquest through geowiki It loads
the editor displays a selected background but no data
Could you try the Geowiki instance again? I've just tweaked a little problem
that was showing up. (I tend to forget people use the Yahoo imagery. Roll on
Bing.
Steve Bennett wrote:
Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
1. OSMF needs a written out strategic plan.
Hear, hear.
The equivalent of Patches welcome in this case is:
OSMF is a democratically elected body. Candidates welcome. I guess 2011's
elections will take place at the start of July as
Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
b) Many people contribute to OpenStreetMap and would prefer a Public
Domain license.
[...]
I do not know, however, whether people in group b are interested in a
compromise or whether a fork of OpenStreetMap is seen as inevitable
anyway.
Plenty of PD
[follow-ups to legal-talk please]
David Murn wrote:
I have no interest in the legal detail of the licence, only
interested in talking about the ramifications of the licence
on our map data, no matter how many times people try
to derail this important issue to a legal mailing list.
It is
Luke W. (lakeyboy) wrote:
Is there already a usable URL out there that can
be put into Potlatch 2 or other editors?
You could in theory use Bing right now in Potlatch 2 if you run your own
instance, but although the code's been written, none of the public instances
(Geowiki, MapQuest, or even
Grant Slater wrote:
Same answer for the Potlatch...
http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/1602/how-can-i-use-microsofts-aerial-imagery-in-potlatch
Potlatch 2 can now, as of five minutes ago, display Bing-format tiles. We're
waiting for the official start tracing announcement, and any
Ed Avis wrote:
It's curious that two of the strongest defences of 'strong share-alike'
come
from yourself and Richard F. - but both of you prefer public domain. I,
too, would prefer public domain over the ODbL. What's going on?
Shouldn't we stop adding more legalese and just focus on
David Murn wrote:
the problem is that the powers-that-be dont seem to want to
address the problematic terms and simply tell people the
decisions have already been made, and to cease discussion.
Hardly the way to run an open community project.
I realise the phrase assume good faith is
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
I don't agree with ODBL. I don't think that it is right that those
providing manipulated data eg data ready for a navigation app
(Navit, Garmin format) should have to provide access to a planet
dump of OSM as well.
They don't have to.
ODbL 4.6b: You must also offer
80n wrote:
You are not free to ignore the share-alike clause. You are simply avoiding
it by not publishing the combined work.
The ever-unreliable dictionary on this Mac defines publish as print
(something) in a book or journal so as to make it generally known: we pay
$10 for every letter we
80n wrote:
I see the example. Are you saying that this is a problem? It
looks perfectly fine to me.
Depends what you mean by problem.
If I were to contrast Scenario A (applying styles programmatically as in the
geowiki.com example, and delivering it via a Flash applet) and Scenario B
80n wrote:
There's a disconnect in your argument.
No, there isn't, because:
Your evenings of effort and your knowledge, skill and personal
judgement are not subject to CC-BY-SA licensing and are irrelevant.
The end product of all that effort is the thing that is relevant. That
end
Ed Avis wrote:
Do you mean to say that the earlier statement is true - that it's not
possible to produce truly public domain, unrestricted map tiles or
printed maps from the ODbL data?
Yes. ODbL is very clear that there's an attribution requirement (4.3).
(I believe that the reasonably
[follow-ups to legal-talk, where this thread really should have started]
Kevin Peat wrote:
Personally I don't care if the current license is weak as most
organisations will respect its spirit and if a few don't who cares,
it doesn't devalue our efforts one cent. I can't see how changing
to an
Kevin Peat wrote:
But isn't the bit that's causing the bulk of the discussion a limited part
of the
CTs, not ODbL per se?
For most people, yes, though there are a few people for whom ODbL per se is
unpalatable (I think 80n is one, but he can correct me if I'm wrong).
Personally I don't have
Ed Avis wrote:
I feel the same way but I come to different conclusions because of
different starting assumptions.
Sure. YMMV and no two people come at this with the same philosophy. My
strongly-held belief is that, just as it's generally accepted that to
discriminate against fields of
Anthony wrote:
I really don't get this.
We have been through this before. I have no interest in engaging with you -
the sole person about whom I'll say that after six years in this project -
as a result of the ad hominem you resorted to last time round. I will
happily talk to Etienne, John,
Mikel Maron wrote:
Is there an easy way to track deletions only in a particular area?
When editing the area in Potlatch, you can press 'U' (for undelete) to find
deleted ways, and recover them if you desire.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Mikel Maron wrote:
that works great, thanks
how does potlatch recover this information? is there an API method I haven't
noticed?
Only in Potlatch 1's AMF API at present, but you can call this from
Perl, Python or Ruby if you're feeling brave:
Craig Loftus wrote:
I wasn't suggesting that Oxford was mapped using OpenData licensed
content.
I was actually using the visualisation with the understanding that there
was
a strong OSM community in Oxford and that the visualisation might
therefore
be used as a proxy measure of those who
S Omeone wrote:
OpenStreetMap has of cause something similar with OpenStreetBugs
(which Google may well have used as inspiration), but unfortunately,
as too often, less convenient.
[...]
Can we perhaps learn something from Google of how to build a nice user
friendly crowd sourcing of
Mike Harris wrote:
But bear in mind that a search on highway=footway would
perhaps miss most bridleways and byways that are
often also public rights of way.
Like I said, You'd obviously need to be slightly 'fuzzy' about it.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
I do this already to some extent but the only problem is that the
comments are linked to the path's OSM ID. Obviously if the path is
split, or deleted and redrawn, the OSM ID then becomes invalidated
so it's tricky to ensure that comments remain associated with the
Ed Avis wrote:
Sure (if you accept that the street sign put up by the council is
more authoritative than the Ordnance Survey's database, which
actually I doubt).
A quick glance at the local OS map shows me a street name that anyone in the
town would know was wrong (Crawborough Road, should
Gorm E. Johnsen wrote:
Again: Left and right co-exist nicely. I do not propose to convert between
them. That is of course up to the individual mapper.
Again: What I _do_ propose, is to rename a tag on some elements. From
top to bottom in the example.
It's all right, you can stop explaining.
Dave F. wrote:
In fact tagging it highway=*, ford=yes makes it *easier* for routers
as they have to do less checking to see whether the ways on each
side are the same.
Hang on a sec. :)
Gorm has already changed highway=ford on _ways_ to ford=yes,
highway=something_or_other. This has
Peter Körner wrote:
Valent Turkovic wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:41:30 -0400, Anthony wrote:
Once OSM goes ODbL, I'd expect that Mapquest will stop licensing their
tiles under a free license.
They distribute it now for free? Why?
They are forced to by the CC-BY-SA License.
...is evidently
Mike N. wrote:
And along those lines, based on the constructive criticism, the default
map shown on the main OSM page should be a pretty map, using
tiles from Mapquest, while mappers that have a need to view more
details can select one of the existing map styles.
41latitude is a really
Kate Chapman wrote:
Point 1: I'm not denying that the data in the U.S. is messed up. On
the other hand I can't count the number of times people say things
that I summarize to 'God, why are you Americans too stupid, lazy or
import crazy to map your own country? It really makes people want to
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
There was a Russian transport mob who managed to completely
overload the track upload system trying to put up gps traces to
the main database. Separate hosting would keep that from
happening - WA is on the same huge scale as Russia.
Different issue. The issue with
Sam Vekemans wrote:
Does anyone know if there are plans to ipliment the auto-conversion
of shp files to be used in the foreground of the potlatch2 environment?
Not automatically converted into the foreground, no. The idea is that you
load them as a vector background layer, and you can then
Jean-Francois (Jeff) Faudi wrote:
La liste des applications pourra être completée ultérieurement
mais actuellement la décision est de ne fournir la donnée
qu'au sein d'applications clients lourds et non d'applications
web. Désolé pour les utilisateurs de Potlach pour l'instant.
Nous
SteveC wrote:
We need to think of some simple tasks for new users to complete, and
we'll put them together over on this wiki page. Add a street? Find a
mailing list? Add a point of interest? What should they do? That's
up to you.
At the risk of stating the really bleeding obvious, there's
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
I ask once more
from where did OSMF get a mandate to change the licence?
It doesn't. That's why it's asking the rights-holders to change the licence
for the data which they've contributed[1].
What OSMF does have, though, is a mandate to host whatever it likes at
TimSC wrote:
It may be possible to argue that OSMF did try to engage the
community. Rather than me try to make the case, it's more
fun seeing what justifications people are trying to use on the
mailing list!
Seriously?
You actually see this as some sort of trolling contest, trying to get
Ed Avis wrote:
However, under the proposed licence change and contributor terms, OSM
would
not be able to participate fully in this commons. Although the ODbL would
allow others to take the OSM data and combine it with other ODbL or
permissive-
licensed data sources, the OSM project
kevin wrote:
The issue here is a licence has been chosen, that appears incompatible
with current practise
Think you've got your chronology the wrong way round there.
Blog post on moving to ODbL: January 2008. [1]
OS OpenData released: April 2010.
Richard
[1]
Kevin Cordina wrote:
As to the usefulness - a map compiled from purely the OS streetview
data would serve one of my purposes for OSM data (rendering
nameless maps of streets and natural features) 100% perfectly, so
it is not a fair assumption that more data = more value.
If you want a
Kevin Cordina wrote:
As to the usefulness - a map compiled from purely the OS streetview
data would serve one of my purposes for OSM data (rendering
nameless maps of streets and natural features) 100% perfectly, so
it is not a fair assumption that more data = more value.
If you want a
Hi all,
There seems to be a bit of confusion on which cycle routes are tagged
as RCN (Regional) and which as LCN (Local).
I think, at first, the idea was that the three tags would correspond
to the three types of numbered routes in the UK: NCN for the National
Cycle Network (white
Nic Roets wrote:
This is because a gate with no access tags
implies that nothing can go through.
Where on earth do you get that idea from?
barrier=gate states that there's a gate. The thing about gates, as opposed
to (say) walls, is that you can open them to get through.
Here are some
Nic Roets wrote:
Nic Roets wrote:
This is because a gate with no access tags
implies that nothing can go through.
Where on earth do you get that idea from?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barrier
in the sidebar under 'implies'
And AFAIK that rule goes back to 2008.
Wow. The OSM wiki
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
The ODbL already doesn't enforce viral attribution on derivatives
of produced works
I don't intend to go over the argument on this again, but treat this message
as a little stake in the ground with I disagree with the above statement
written on it.
cheers
Frederik Ramm wrote:
[helpful response]
I've wikified this for the Developer FAQ:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ#I.27ve_been_blocked_from_the_API_for_downloading_too_much._Now_what.3F
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Peter Körner wrote:
after two weeks without contradictions, I'll open up voting for
the Craft proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Craft
Please, this stuff belongs on tagg...@.
If there is a tagging suggestion that you really really feel that talk@ HAS
to
Steve Doerr wrote:
No problem: once the bulk import has been done, a bulk delete
of any boundaries not derived from OS Opendata is done, so
there is no potential for conflict/duplication.
Er, no. If people want a carbon copy of OS OpenData, the OS download site is
that way.
Unlike OSM
Dave F. wrote:
I'm trying to understand the new license Contributor Terms and
how they stand when compared specifically with OS OpenData.
I'm after *facts* about the re-license as they're worded at the moment.
Blimey, can't imagine that catching on.
Trying to be as dispassionate as
(Replying to two messages at once as they seem related)
Anthony wrote:
But it's quite a leap from some databases (e.g. white pages)
are non-copyrightable in some jurisdictions and databases
are non-copyrightable. In fact, I'd say it's quite plainly false.
Oh, absolutely. Copyright and
TimSC wrote:
I would have hoped the guy who established moderation on the lists
would have thought to avoid insulting people. Will the other
moderators do their job or just rally round Steve, regardless what
he says on the list?
There are no other moderators. Apart from Steve's
Anthony wrote:
Given your arguments on this list, I'd guess you're quite prepared
to believe anything that might help prevent you from admitting
that you are wrong.
At this point the argument has departed from factual/philosophical to ad
hominems, so I'll bow out. To anyone who's listened,
Anthony wrote:
[Jane Smith]
copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the
means of Production.
Are there any moderators here?
Can we get this troll banned please.
I'm the list administrator for legal-talk. I'm not quite sure what offence
'Jane Smith' might have committed
Ole Brandenburg wrote:
I would be thankful if someone can point me in the right direction.
We plan to use the OSM API for our map tool (at stepmap.de).
We currently have a list of roughly 1,500 pre-defined maps and
a zoom-feature that enables users to create their own map/region.
The OSM
Russ Nelson wrote:
Second, because it will do minimum damage to the
community (the discussion here is evidence that the community
WILL be badly harmed by relicensing).
We'll lose people whichever way it goes.
I guess, for example, that Etienne might not contribute to an ODbL-licensed
OSM.
Anthony wrote:
Another possibility is to assign the task of deciding what share
alike means to Creative Commons. Of course, that isn't likely
to work if you want to go with the ODbL...
I suspect CC's answer would be similar to
Pieren wrote:
Question 1 : is culvert commonly used by native english speakers ?
Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ?
It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely
because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them.
cheers
Richard
--
Pieren wrote:
Question 1 : is culvert commonly used by native english speakers ?
Is that a term mainly used by civil engineers ?
It's in very frequent use among boaters on the British canals, largely
because the ruddy things keep collapsing and taking the canal with them.
cheers
Richard
--
Steve Bennett wrote:
I note someone below saying Potlatch 2 will only have the offline
mode. Ugh. That's a real pity.
Live mode is more complex to code (and, hence, a potential source of bugs)
by an order of magnitude. Stuff like merging ways and undo is incredibly
convoluted in P1 because of
Phillip Barnett wrote:
Potlatch is still offering Opendata as a layer, with no warning as to the
potential problem vis a vis existing contributions. Shouldn't we be
dropping this rather quickly?
I like the we there - much better than the usual Richard. Really looking
forward to the patch to
Chris Browet wrote[1]:
The fact that many key players (SteveC, Frederik, Richard(?)) in the
project also have commercial interests in the OSM data
Wut?
I don't have any commercial interest in OSM, at all. I'm a magazine editor.
We do have maps in our magazine but we (well, I) make them
Michael Collinson wrote:
I have moved this from [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing
begins to legal talk as it is worth further discussion in
view of dilemmas faced by our Australian community. I
understand that CC-BY-SA is currently a preferred vehicle
for releasing government data.
Is
Francis Davey wrote:
Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote
Is it? I thought most of the Australian Government data was
CC-BY - a much easier problem.
But still incompatible with the contributor terms in the sense
that a CC-BY licensee does not have sufficient rights to agree
to the new license terms. Eventally new contributions will outnumber
the old.
This decision was made in a meeting between four people: myself,
Steve Coast, Richard Fairhurst and Mike Collinson and is clearly
documented here:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/e/e3/Osmf_boardminutes_20080320
Correcting myself:
My clear recollection of it is that we decided to ask new
contributors to agree to ODbL+CT
should be to ODbL and a contents licence. CT wasn't on the table then.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
[moved from t...@]
Dave F. wrote:
On 13/08/2010 10:34, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
...(This is one of the reasons I'm not
greatly enamoured of the upgrade clause in CT 3.)
Am I understanding this correctly?
Of the people that drafted the CT, 50% now don't like it?
The Contributor Terms
[Apologies for continuing cross-post, please follow-up to OSM legal-talk.]
Sam Vekemans wrote:
So my question is weather or not, at a later date, I
can change my choice (based on new information which would want me to
change my mind).?
As a general point, if you declare that something is
Tom Hughes wrote:
Which is clearly in conflict with the CTs which require you to
grant OSMF a license to sublicense any data you upload under
a license of their choosing subject only to a constraint that
the license they choose is open and free which clearly does
not restrict their
Anthony wrote:
What about a tracing of a photograph of a flower? [...]
What about a tracing of a photograph of a lake, as viewed from
an aircraft?
Bauman v Fussell may be relevant here.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
80n wrote:
Why don't you try this. Import some Ordnance Survey Street View data
into OSM, then render it as a Produced Work with the ODbL required
attribution
I've written fairly extensively on this in talk-gb, but to reiterate a
posting from May:
To comply with ODbL for data obtained
80n wrote:
This is quite a good place to start:
http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Copyright_protection_of_databases
It's good to see licence sceptics starting to look at the case law too.
There are of course a million things you could say about rights pertaining
to factual compilations in the US.
John Smith wrote:
I'm not being petty in the least, I want a compromise, but others
have outright refused to even consider any kind of a compromise
that will save years of work without resorting to shady legal tactics.
Hey, now that's not fair.
The reason I suggested to LWG that they drop
Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
I like this test because it will make things easy. No fuzzy shades of grey
like some Richard is suggesting.
I'm not suggesting, I'm reporting. You might like things to be easy but that
isn't the way the law works... or we wouldn't have been having this
discussion for the
John Smith wrote:
No idea about printed maps, but several sites recently only linked
to an attribute page on their site, rather than displaying it on top
of the map, so maybe having a small lookup table of major
contributors that can be linked to would be suitable?
We do. :)
Ed Avis wrote:
Anthony writes:
I'm currently working on a fork.
I'm still hopeful that people will find some compromise, and it won't be
needed. (Myself I would be quite happy if the project chose a dual
licence.) But if a fork proves necessary, I'll be happy to help.
My impression
Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
I respect PD guys, but in overall, I start to grow to openly
dislike their attitude.
Could you cite who these alleged PD guys are, please? Thanks in advance.
I'm getting increasingly exasperated with people projecting this big
bogeyman (or strawman. A big man made
80n wrote:
Isn't it going to present some complicated management problems if the
LWG changes the contributor terms at this stage in the process?
No, not in this case. The proposal is a subset of the powers currently
available to OSMF, not a superset. It is the existing CT _minus_ the
option
Nick Black wrote:
The current mechanism by which Mapzen and Mapzen POI Collector
users authenticate against OSM is horrible for users.
At the risk of being really hand-wavy and imprecise, I'd just say: Twitter's
OAuth UI is really exemplary. It's a great demonstration of how to get it
right.
Liz wrote:
As you realise, in my jurisdiction, CC-by-SA is a better licence than
ODbL,
as it has been well checked and has government use.
No. It isn't that simple.
Two recent, very high-profile judgements in Australia both repudiate the
notion that copyright can protect collections of
David Groom wrote:
personally I'm still waiting for a reply to the question I asked on
this list on 20 July entitled Query over Contributor Terms.
Just as a reminder, the address of the Licensing Working Group is not
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org . :)
If you have a 'blocker'-type issue and
Anthony wrote:
And who told you that OSM is a collection of unoriginal facts?
I did, last time I did some mapping. I faithfully recorded where the paths,
gates and stiles were, rather than pulling some fictitious locations out of
my ass.
I realise that you've been far too busy trolling the
David Ellams wrote:
With one exception, the routes themselves are not
signed/marked (though they follow waymarked paths).
Don't tag them unless they're waymarked, _unless_ either they're proposed to
be waymarked (in which case you could do so with a state=proposed tag on
the relation), or
Ben Last wrote:
I'm not sure I agree. We don't want to put barriers in the way of an
average user (and I use that term to explicitly distinguish between
the average map site user and a mapping enthusiast) making simple
corrections such as adding address information or naming un-named
streets.
Frederik Ramm wrote:
I kind of understand your situation but I think the way forward would be
to either use OpenStreetBugs or set up an OpenStreetBugs like system
yourself, maybe integrate that in your editor - so that users without an
OSM account can only place OSB markers, and those (the
Ben Last wrote:
In particular ODbL+CT will require a contractual relationship
(i.e. the contributor terms) between OSMF and the user. If
you are not exposing the user to the sign-up process, they
are not agreeing to this contract.
No, they're agreeing to terms and conditions with us. We
Ben Last wrote:
More seriously, though, this question has already been raised, and we
follow the guidelines at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F
and credit OpenStreetMap in the same way and with the same
Ben Last wrote:
the edits that we're submitting all come from one user
(that represents NearMap) since we don't (and can't) require
users of our site to all be registered with OSM.
Um... this is the sort of stuff that really, really needs to be discussed
first.
Whenever it has been raised
,
right?
I look forward to Richard Fairhurst suing Richard Fairhurst for violating
the license on Richard Fairhurst's data.
*facepalm*
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-License-Cut-over-and-critical-mass-tp5333864p5333989.html
Sent from
Andy Allan wrote:
Never mind what Richard says
Always good advice. ;)
1) You can't actually put anything into the public domain in most
jurisdictions. [...]
2) There's clearly not enough legalese there for it to be effective :-)
The BSD licence is pretty short and to the best of my
TimSC wrote:
In that case, is it legally sound if I download my own contribution
due, to database rights?
Difficult to say - I can see an argument either way. A database right
certainly exists and governs extraction from the database; but if what
you're extracting is exactly what you put in
Richard Weait wrote:
Should we continue to name the osm.org tile layers by the
renderers they use? Is overloading the terms mapnik and
osmarender as both a tile layer, style file and rendering
library confusing?
We had this discussion way way way way back, and I vaguely remember
Apologies for butting in on your mailing list - thought this one was
sufficiently non-US specific it deserved an answer.
Toby Murray wrote:
Yes, navigation is a pain. The map features page is a pretty
good index of things to map but it often links to proposal or stub
pages (like the doctors
Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
Is there any actual mapper who strictly don't like SA?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Users_whose_contributions_are_in_the_public_domain
(I reply merely to inform rather than to prolong the debate, as sticking my
head into a grinder is already seeming like
will be overwhelming.
Interesting accusation. Are you accusing all ODbL proponents of
having this plan? Or just the LWG? Or do you care to name anyone
in particular? Because otherwise your accusations aren't very
constructive.
The minutes show that Steve Coast, Richard Fairhurst, Mike Collinson
Ulf Lamping wrote:
For example remember positions like Richard Fairhursts in the thread
(I know that it's not an official OSMF/LWG position)
Of course it isn't. I'm not on the OSMF board let alone LWG; indeed, I
actively told OSMF earlier this year that I did not intend to assist it in
any
Peter Herison wrote:
Now the strage part: Closed FF. Cleared browser cache without hope
but... After starting FF again, the error-images were gone. I could
continue editing like before and see all Yahoo-Images. Even these
tiles that has errors before.
I tried the same here at home (again)
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
I still don't agree with this approach. It doesn't sit with my idea of
democracy. When people vote they need to know for what they
are voting, and what the cut off marks are considered to be.
It's not a vote.
It's a request by the OpenStreetMap Foundation for you
Dave F. wrote:
One thing I can't find is GPX tracks (key: G). Has it not been
implemented yet or am I going blind?
Not yet! It's next on the list. But you can load a GPX from somewhere on
the web (Flash permission stuff notwithstanding) using the vector layers
stuff in the Background menu.
Andy Allan wrote:
I think the point where it's good enough to start thinking about
replacing Potlatch 1 on the edit tab is still a long way off. It's
much more likely that, when it moves out of alpha, Potlatch 2 appears
and gets used on other sites first since it's much easier to
customize.
901 - 1000 di 1720 matches
Mail list logo
