On 30 August 2010 18:34, Steffen dido_...@web.de wrot
[3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/13639
Why are the bus stops in the relation above separately mapped as a node
(IMHO correct), and yet again as a platform?
--
Best regards, mit freundlichen Grüssen, meilleurs sentiments,
On 29 August 2010 23:41, Eric Jarvies e...@csl.com.mx wrote:
Eric Jarvies
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 29, 2010, at 3:10 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
unless the work is copyrighted or copylefted as well. What right does
Y have to the data to begin
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:27 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com
wrote:
...why should the onus of forking be
on the license-change agreers? If this is indeed the case, then the ones
Am 29.08.2010 17:52, schrieb Rob Myers:
The longest running free software and free culture projects have had to
change their licences to reflect the changing environment in which they
exist. OSM will be no different.
Some of the longest running and most successful free software projects
did
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 07:24:25AM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Someone
in Germany might contribute data under CC-By-SA and be bound by it, and
someone in the US might extract that data as quasi-PD
On 08/30/2010 09:21 AM, jh wrote:
Some of the longest running and most successful free software projects
did not substantially *) change their license. Ever. And are doing just
fine.
*) apart from subtle upgrades like GPL vX to GPL v(X+1)
Some people think that GPL upgrades aren't subtle,
On 30 August 2010 20:03, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
The majority ( 50%) of GPL projects are now GPL 3. Which is hardly an
argument against allowing relicencing.
There is a little bit of a difference between changing versions that
are merely an extension of the existing license, than
On 08/30/2010 01:21 AM, John Smith wrote:
You are still making the assumption that copyright isn't valid at all,
to the best of my knowledge there has been no court case about map
data.
You are still assuming that copyright is universally valid despite court
cases that demonstrate that it
On 30 August 2010 20:12, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
No, this is about caring about the stated aims of the project rather than
fetishising a licence that is not even recommended for use on data by its
own authors.
I care less about the license than the data, and the only way to
ensure
Am 30.08.2010 12:03, schrieb Rob Myers:
On 08/30/2010 09:21 AM, jh wrote:
Some of the longest running and most successful free software projects
did not substantially *) change their license. Ever. And are doing just
fine.
*) apart from subtle upgrades like GPL vX to GPL v(X+1)
Some
On 08/30/2010 11:06 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 30 August 2010 20:03, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
The majority ( 50%) of GPL projects are now GPL 3. Which is hardly an
argument against allowing relicencing.
There is a little bit of a difference between changing versions that
are merely
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Rob Myers wrote:
If OSM ends up asking governments to reduce people's freedom to use map
data in order to restore that freedom, do you really think that would be
a good idea?
This is a new concept on the list, that OSM starts negotiations with
governments over licensing
On 30 August 2010 20:22, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
The part of my email that you didn't quote mentions that to some people, GPL
3 was seen as a major change.
No where near as major as switching from GPL to BSD, you can try and
spin it anyway you like, GPL2 to GPL3 was evolution, not
On 08/30/2010 11:28 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 30 August 2010 20:22, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
The part of my email that you didn't quote mentions that to some people, GPL
3 was seen as a major change.
No where near as major as switching from GPL to BSD, you can try and
spin it anyway
On 08/30/2010 11:44 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 30 August 2010 20:40, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
I would never claim that switching from the GPL to BSD was minor. Or, in the
majority of cases, wise. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
You are trying to claim that open
On 30 August 2010 20:59, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
That isn't a valid comparison. The ODbL is not a BSD-style licence.
*If* we were simply being asked about a change of license you'd have a
valid argument, but we're not, the CTs are very open ended with a very
low barrier for change to
Am 30.08.2010 12:16, schrieb John Smith:
On 30 August 2010 20:12, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
No, this is about caring about the stated aims of the project rather than
fetishising a licence that is not even recommended for use on data by its
own authors.
I care less about the license
2010/8/30 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
data will not be available under ODbL temporarily. I'm very sure it will
be re-mapped, probably within less than a year.
I disagree, especially without access to some of the existing data
sources, and so far no one is offering to come to
On 30/08/2010, at 10:03 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
If the majority of the community (including OSMF and the sysads who run the
servers) agrees with the license change, why should the onus of forking be on
the license-change agreers? If this is indeed the case, then the ones who
should
On 30/08/2010, at 3:04 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
Perfect. So the new license is being shown as possibly non effective
against such an attack.
I've asked about this case before on the list, and gotten no real response
about it.
Consider for example if someone in the US[0]
On 30/08/2010, at 3:24 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
I think that was already sorted out under the issue of wikipedia point
importing,
the OSM data is under the jurisdiction of England and has to obey
english copyright law. no?
No, people are bound by the copyright law where they
On 27/08/2010, at 1:36 AM, Anthony wrote:
Or you could just assign the task of deciding what it means to
someone. Whether or not a future license is share alike shall be
determined by a vote of the OSMF board.
Sure, except I don't know that will really help. If people want certainty that
all
On 08/30/2010 12:09 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 30 August 2010 20:59, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:
That isn't a valid comparison. The ODbL is not a BSD-style licence.
*If* we were simply being asked about a change of license you'd have a
valid argument, but we're not, the CTs are very open
On 08/30/2010 01:09 PM, James Livingston wrote:
On 30/08/2010, at 3:21 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
It's basically the same as copyright assignment. Which can work well for
projects of non-profit foundations.
It can yes, however there are a lot of developers who refuse to work on
projects that
2010/8/29 jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I haven't made a statement about the Kosovo information. I'm sure that
whoever has imported it has made sure it would be compatible with future
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
actually I feel that you treated this issue a little negligent. The
import guidelines stated since 5 March 2008 (quote):
At the time of writing (spring 2008),
well spring isn't in March (here)
spring starts shortly
so whoever wrote that was a
2010/8/31 Liz ed...@billiau.net:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
actually I feel that you treated this issue a little negligent. The
import guidelines stated since 5 March 2008 (quote):
At the time of writing (spring 2008),
well spring isn't in March (here)
spring starts
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
How does one decliner-changeset in the
middle of a chain of accepter-changestes effect the future data if the
decliner made one position change, and subsequent editors made further
position changes?
I'd say usually it
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
First go through all the nodes: If a node was positioned in a
particular place by an accepter, keep it, otherwise revert it to the
last accepter-positioned location. If no accepter positioned it
anywhere in the history, delete
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
First go through all the nodes: If a node was positioned in a
particular place by an accepter, keep it, otherwise revert it to the
last accepter-positioned location. If no accepter
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
First go through all the nodes: If a node was positioned in a
particular place by an accepter, keep it, otherwise revert it to
On 31 August 2010 04:22, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Then go through the tags. Start from the creation of the element. If
a tag was added by an accepter, keep it. If a tag created by an
accepter was modified by an accepter, make the modification.
What's the identity of the tag though, is
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:48 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 August 2010 04:22, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Then go through the tags. Start from the creation of the element. If
a tag was added by an accepter, keep it. If a tag created by an
accepter was modified by
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
With a leaky license like the CC-By-SA, the project as a whole gets the worst
of
both worlds, PD and share-alike.
And with ODbL, they get the worst of three worlds, PD, share-alike,
and EULA hell.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/30/2010 01:21 AM, John Smith wrote:
You are still making the assumption that copyright isn't valid at all,
to the best of my knowledge there has been no court case about map
data.
You are still assuming that copyright
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 08/30/2010 01:21 AM, John Smith wrote:
You are still making the assumption that copyright isn't valid at all,
to the best of my knowledge there has been
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
actually I feel that you treated this issue a little negligent. The
import guidelines stated since 5 March 2008 (quote):
At the time of writing (spring 2008),
For me, I heard about
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:04 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/8/31 Liz ed...@billiau.net:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
actually I feel that you treated this issue a little negligent. The
import guidelines stated since 5 March 2008 (quote):
At the
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 8:21 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
You also seem to care more about legal technicalities than the spirit
of the license, maybe some other map company could come in and take
the data and just use it, but then it becomes much harder for them to
in turn
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote:
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.
___
legal-talk mailing
I second that.
Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com this is a fake account, just
causing problems.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote:
copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Maybe we shouldn't abandon the relicensing effort, but start a new
relicensing effort, focussed on fixing the problems with CC-BY-SA
without adding on a dozen other special interest fixes like Produced
Works and Contributor Terms
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:55 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
I second that.
Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com this is a fake account, just
causing problems.
I use fake account yes, like Anthony and John Smith and 80n. Fake fake fake.
We have to
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:12 AM, Joe Richards geojoeli...@gmail.com wrote:
Unique colours/look and feel - we already have that, but perhaps it's time
to give up our own map rendering engine and look at Mapnik etc. We can
create a tile server, although obviously avoiding so would be desirable
Does anyone know if there is an easy way for a user (A) to receive
notifications (either by email or by some API query (RSS or Atom
results best, but any XML format would do)) for objects that have been
changed that the user (A) has at one point touched?
On 30 August 2010 08:59, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone know if there is an easy way for a user (A) to receive
notifications (either by email or by some API query (RSS or Atom
results best, but any XML format would do)) for objects that have been
changed that the
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 01:12:16AM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
Really, I am not worried about data integration, but getting data. It
does not bother me that other people cannot just take my work and use
it under a different license. My purpose in creating a map is just
that,
On 29/08/2010, at 19.35, Russ Nelson wrote:
I've re-thought this, and I think that the proper course of action,
which will do the least damage to the community, is to stay with
CC-By-SA. First, because all the data in OSM is already licensed
under that license. Second, because it will do
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 17:35, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
However, I have spoken with Steve Coast, founder of the project, and I
know that he is dead-set against public domain OSM data. Thus, the
second best thing to do, if you're going to threaten to sue
infringers, is a license
To me, the primary benefit of a free license is that the project has a 'life
of its own' beyond the host: if the host decides to stop hosting it, or
letting people edit, someone else can continue it as it had been. I don't
care about the viral effects of such a license except insofar as they
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:13, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
To me, the primary benefit of a free license is that the project has a
'life
of its own' beyond the host: if the host decides to stop hosting it, or
letting people edit, someone else can continue it as it had been. I
On 30 August 2010 19:36, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote:
- with CC-BY-SA, you'd have to ask every contributor the permission to fork
their data (or is only attribution needed? To whom then? The individual
contributors?)
Only if you wanted to change licenses, which is why OSM-F is asking
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:36:03AM +0200, Chris Browet wrote:
As far as I understand the licenses, nobody is permitted to fork the OSM
data without permissions, and it is thus not truly open:
- with CC-BY-SA, you'd have to ask every contributor the permission to fork
their data (or is only
Chris Browet wrote:
As far as I understand the licenses, nobody is permitted to fork the OSM
data without permissions, and it is thus not truly open:
cc-by-sa (and almost? every viral license) allows for forking as long as
said fork is under the same license. Note the number of Wikipedia
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:02, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Chris Browet wrote:
As far as I understand the licenses, nobody is permitted to fork the OSM
data without permissions, and it is thus not truly open:
cc-by-sa (and almost? every viral license) allows for forking
Chris Browet wrote:
cc-by-sa (and almost? every viral license) allows for forking as long as
said fork is under the same license. Note the number of Wikipedia forks
and
mirrors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks
Ok, thanks. And it would still be possible under
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
cc-by-sa (and almost? every viral license) allows for forking as long as
said fork is under the same license. Note the number of Wikipedia forks and
mirrors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
cc-by-sa (and almost? every viral license) allows for forking as long as
said fork is under the same license. Note the number of Wikipedia forks
Hi all,
We recently had a bridge temporarily removed for the SAIL 2010 event
in Amsterdam[1].
I tagged it access=no with date_on and date_off time restriction tags
as suggested on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access, hoping
it would be picked up by Mapnik as well.
It turns out it is not
On 30 August 2010 21:52, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:
We recently had a bridge temporarily removed for the SAIL 2010 event
in Amsterdam[1].
I tagged it access=no with date_on and date_off time restriction tags
as suggested on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access, hoping
it
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:59 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 August 2010 21:52, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:
We recently had a bridge temporarily removed for the SAIL 2010 event
in Amsterdam[1].
I tagged it access=no with date_on and date_off time restriction
On 30 August 2010 22:06, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:
While you can't take browser caching into account, in my experience
the main tile server manages to keep tiles updated fairly well these
days - good enough for one-off (non-repeating) access restrictions
with a day resolution to
On a similar topic...
What is the problem with duplicate nodes, exactly?
Thanks,
Brendan
On 30/08/2010 12:05 AM, Nakor wrote:
Please do not run automatic merge tools in the US. Doing this you will
connect entities that should not (e.g. river with road). This is due
to the source of the
Brendan Morley-3 wrote:
On a similar topic...
What is the problem with duplicate nodes, exactly?
In general, there's no problem.
However many specific cases of duplicate nodes are problematic, for example
when roads should be connected at a node, but instead each ends at a
different
What is the problem with duplicate nodes, exactly?
The only time they are an actual problem is when the map data does not
represent reality - when a roads cross in a physical intersection, but in
OSM only have 2 nodes at the same location instead of a shared node, or a
closed polygon in
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.auwrote:
On a similar topic...
What is the problem with duplicate nodes, exactly?
They are created when you import data from a source that does not use our
way-node model, esp. when the import is done in stages, e.g. at the
When was this discussed? I do scan dev but missed this - again, in my
experience, tile updating is quite snappy.
Martijn
martijn van exel +++ m...@rtijn.org
laziness - impatience - hubris
http://schaaltreinen.nl/
twitter / skype: mvexel
flickr: rhodes
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:08 PM, John
On 30 August 2010 22:36, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:
When was this discussed? I do scan dev but missed this - again, in my
experience, tile updating is quite snappy.
Sorry, my original post was to dev, the second thread was on the talk list:
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 2:40 AM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
Then mark the reasons it's not suitable. We have this same discussion
with cycling (in fact, Peter Miller had an entire presentation on this
issue at SOTM09 - he just suggested the wrong solution :-) ). One
persons
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:29 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 30 August 2010 17:24, Albertas Agejevas a...@pov.lt wrote:
Want an example of a use case DB integration? Consider flight
simulators. It would be good to have scenery generated by combining
data from OSM with
On 30/08/2010 14:53, Steve Bennett wrote:
So you could end up mapping highway=path; bicycle=yes; width=1;
surface=dirt; in great detail, and totally miss the fact it's
unrideable.
Use mtb:scale and/or sac_scale, to tag how ridable/hikable it is.
2010/8/30 Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com:
Or you are not supposed to route over them. My routing engine merge those
nodes during the compile phase and then does route over them.
and how does it determinate, that the 2 nodes are really one, and it
isn't disconnected on purpose?
cheers,
Martin
Hi All,
I think the use of the existing tagging schemes for bicycle
suitability is the way to go - no point inventing another scheme.
One that I would like to use though is a scale for wheelchair accessibility.
I envisage a scheme along the lines of the mtb one where you could
have the range:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:26 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2010/8/30 Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com:
Or you are not supposed to route over them. My routing engine merge those
nodes during the compile phase and then does route over them.
and how does it determinate,
I don't know if there already is such a scheme, but it makes sense to me. In
addition to tagging the trail as a whole, it would also make sense to tag any
particularly difficult sections, such as using the incline= tag on steep
sections, and width= on particularly narrow sections. This would
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
That reads like SteveC's personally against it, therefore we have to
do something else. I'd hope the legal process isn't that cabal like
in practice.
Here's the thing: a BDFL, to retain his authority, must be careful not
to make arbitrary decisions based on
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.
On 30 August 2010 12:11, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:02, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
cc-by-sa (and almost? every viral license) allows for forking as long as
said fork is under the same license. Note the number of Wikipedia forks
and
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:34 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.comwrote:
On 30 August 2010 12:11, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:02, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
cc-by-sa (and almost? every viral license) allows for forking as long as
Hi all,
Summer is almost over in the northern hemisphere (sorry to break the news).
Time to start thinking about where the 5th edition of State of the Map will
be held next year.
The call for venues is open at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/State_Of_The_Map_2011/Bid Submit your
bid before
On 31 August 2010 06:51, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote:
That is not true as 80n has shown. It's an anti-thetan license with pseudo
GPL clauses and is Racist against Australians.
While some love to keep confusing the issue and keep saying that most
speaking out are against the ODBL,
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 3:05 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
On 31 August 2010 06:51, Jane Smith janesmith...@gmail.com wrote:
That is not true as 80n has shown. It's an anti-thetan license with
pseudo
GPL clauses and is Racist against Australians.
While some love to keep
Jane Smith is probably the same person as fake Steve C. Lynch 'em.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
Jane Smith is probably the same person as fake Steve C. Lynch 'em.
No I am concerned mapper like You who doesn't want to use real name.
We should not lynch anyone apart from those who are killing the map with the
'new
Ik ben ook nog niet klaar met de Poi's; 'k was weg afgelopen week. 'k Zal
het je melden.
Op 22 augustus 2010 20:24 schreef Frank Steggink stegg...@steggink.org het
volgende:
Ja, ondanks de dreigende luchten met 14 man. IMO goede opkomst :)
Artikel op blog:
Nog 5 dagen en dan zal de definitieve keuze voor de 3de Mapping Party
2010 worden gemaakt.
Mappen in Edelhertendorp .. Putten dus.
Alle gegevens vind je op
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Netherlands_Mapping_Parties_2010#Putten
Heb je zin en wil je nog mee kiezen link dan door
FYI. As per
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#One_feature.2C_one_OSM-object
I've removed a whole bunch of nodes where the same feature was mapped
out as a way. I made sure not to loose any tags in the process.
Changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5634963.
I
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:15:12 +1000
Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
FYI. As per
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#One_feature.2C_one_OSM-object
I've removed a whole bunch of nodes where the same feature was mapped
out as a way. I made sure not to loose any tags in
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:15:12 +1000
Do you really think this was a good idea before discussing it on the list?
I did ask on the newbies list before about what to do here, I was told
that deleting the nodes was the best
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:15:12 +1000
Do you really think this was a good idea before discussing it on the list?
I did ask on the newbies list before about what to do here, I was told
that deleting the nodes was the
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote:
The original disscussion was more than 12 months ago so not sure where you
would find it now.
If it was 1 year ago, maybe those renders and searches have been fixed by now?
The OSM Mapnik style used on the main page
Am 28.08.10 14:02, schrieb Holger s...@der:
Hallo Liste,
danke für die Infos und Hinweise.
Eine Frage hätte ich noch. Warum wird der name Tag der Relation nicht
mit auf der Karte ausgewertet? Also warum steht nicht in meinem Fall
Maria-Pawlowna-Promenadenweg auf dem Weg?
Das würde dann bei dem
Am 29.08.10 14:13, schrieb Werner König:
Hallo Liste,
ich möchte ein account, um plugins für josm in das Repositorium auf dem
Server zu schreiben.
Dafür sollte ich nach meinem Wissenstand den Benutzer TomH kontaktieren.
Auf der Webseite http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TomH findet man
jedoch
Am 27.08.10 17:44, schrieb Wolfgang Wienke:
Hallo! Am 27.08.2010 14:23, schrieb Georg Feddern:
Auf http://sourceforge.net/projects/navipowm/files/ unten den Baum
Browse Files for NaviPOWM - All Files -- Navipowm --- 0.2.4
Dort hatte ich gesucht, fand aber nur PC-Versionen.
Wenn du weit
Holger s...@der wrote:
Eine Frage hätte ich noch. Warum wird der name Tag der Relation nicht
mit auf der Karte ausgewertet? Also warum steht nicht in meinem Fall
Maria-Pawlowna-Promenadenweg auf dem Weg?
Weil die Karte dann unlesbar wird. Streckenweise führen auch schon mal 5
Routen
Ich persönlich würde ein verbessertes Datenmodell sehr zu schätzen wissen und
denke es würde nicht nur die Anwendung der Daten deutlich erleichtern,
sondern auch die Attraktivität des Projektes steigern und den Einstieg für
Neu- und Gelegenheitsmapper deutlich vereinfachen.
Auf der anderen Seite
Felix Hartmann extremecar...@googlemail.com wrote:
Gerne, wenn die Odbl zu einer SA Lizenz abgeaendert wird. Sprich wenn
nicht nur die Datenbank frei sein muss, sondern auch das daraus
erstellte Produkt und keine DRM Mechanismen erlaubt werden (samt
Aenderung in CT dass dieser Fakt zentral
Am Sonntag 29 August 2010, 18:44:59 schrieb Werner König:
Nein so ist das ganze nicht, unter diesem link werden map's und andere
gis_sachen angeboten, Werbung
konnte ich keine erkennen. Ein click auf diesen link lohnt sich
(vielleicht).
Doch, das ist ne hundordinäre Werbeseite.
Deren
Hallo Liste,
NopMap schrieb:
Holger s...@der wrote:
Eine Frage hätte ich noch. Warum wird der name Tag der Relation nicht
mit auf der Karte ausgewertet? Also warum steht nicht in meinem Fall
Maria-Pawlowna-Promenadenweg auf dem Weg?
Weil die Karte dann unlesbar wird. Streckenweise
Hallo Lars,
Am 6. Juli 2010 12:43 schrieb Lars Francke lars.fran...@gmail.com:
Ich denke spätestens Ende Juli werde ich mal wieder ein
ausführlicheres Statusupdate schreiben.
kannst du schon Erfolge vermelden?
Ciao André
___
Talk-de mailing list
1 - 100 di 326 matches
Mail list logo
