On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 17:08, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
We have had a request for another big open organisation to re-use our
contributor terms [1] and summary [2] .
Both the terms and the summary are by default already published under
CC-BY-SA 2.0. However, my initial
Hi,
apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have
posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs
could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.
I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
Hi all,
We have started training some people about how to go about OSM, using the H.O.T
training manual. JOSM is a good editor, but was wondering why it's the only
one that was included in the manual.
Otherwise the manual is concise, we are even including potlatch 2 as one of the
training
So now we're remapping???
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping
states you can just delete a node and add a new one to resolve a license issue.
I can hardly imagine that is legally right.
Greets,
Floris Looijesteijn
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
The key is to have your own valid source for the information. If your can
source the data in a license compatible way and recreate the node yourself
without the use of the old node, then it's all good.
if (*ra4 != 0xffc78948) { return false; }
On 13 Dec 2011, at 09:29, Floris Looijesteijn
That's exactly why I'm asking.
Most nodes ('information type' nodes like POI) can not be easily
verified by another
source except for resurveying.
I think that should be made more clear on the remapping page.
Or am I being paranoid? :)
Greets,
Floris
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Thomas
Go ahead, it's a wiki.
I found a way to make screencasts. Would it be useful to create a
screencast of an editing session with JOSM, while I'm resolving license
issues?
Jo
2011/12/13 Floris Looijesteijn o...@floris.nu
That's exactly why I'm asking.
Most nodes ('information type' nodes like
Hi,
Floris Looijesteijn o...@floris.nu wrote:
Most nodes ('information type' nodes like POI) can not be easily
verified by another source except for resurveying.
It is true that information type nodes will require re-surveying or
good knowledge.
It is however not true that these
Oh course, that's right. I was talking about single nodes, not part of a way.
I've added a little note to the wiki.
Greets,
Floris Looijesteijn
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Floris Looijesteijn o...@floris.nu wrote:
Most nodes
Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
I think that should be made more clear on the remapping page.
You mean the fact that the _very_ _first_ _sentence_ of the main page
content is
Remapping means 'replacing with new content'. It does not mean simply
copying the old content - that might infringe the
I just think it's unclear...
deleting and recreating is probably not considered copying by some people.
greets,
floris
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
I think that should be made more clear on the remapping page.
You
- Original Message -
From: Michal Migurski m...@stamen.com
To: Talk Openstreetmap talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 6:33 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] What's wrong with this picture?
On Dec 12, 2011, at 8:38 AM, David Groom wrote:
I recently made some updates to
Let me get this straight. In the past, FormerMapper created a node or a way
under the license as it stood. NewMapper, who has agreed to the new license
terms, has modified the node or way by changing the alignment or location, or
adding detail based on observation in the field-correcting what
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:24, Douglas Musaazi douglasmusa...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi all,
We have started training some people about how to go about OSM, using the
H.O.T training manual. JOSM is a good editor, but was wondering why it's
the only one that was included in the manual.
Otherwise
2011/12/13 Hillsman, Edward hills...@cutr.usf.edu
Let me get this straight. In the past, FormerMapper created a node or a
way under the license as it stood. NewMapper, who has agreed to the new
license terms, has modified the node or way by changing the alignment or
location, or adding detail
Has anyone used HOT's Task management for cleaning maps of dirty
elements? This could improve involvement and progression checking..
Janko Mihelić
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
What will happen to buildings that were drawn by a CT-agreeing mapper
but with tags copied from a red node?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
There are some people [1] who are starting to get upset about the fact that
contributions that they are making will get deleted on April 1st.
Innocent contributors who know little or nothing about the license change
are happily editing roads that will soon get deleted. There's little to
tell
Wow, that's scary, most of the major towns around where I live are going to
cease to be.
Actually, I've just looked in more detail at some of the areas I've been
editing, and think there is a bug somewhere.
For example (there are a lot more examples):
On 13 December 2011 11:52, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Remapping means 'replacing with new content'. It does not mean simply
copying the old content - that might infringe the original mapper's rights.
Is that statement even correct? If editing old content after May 12
doesn't
Adam Hoyle wrote:
For example (there are a lot more examples):
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-0.81228lat=51.72366zoom=17
shows a path with red nodes, but I added that and no-one else has edited
If you look at the history of each node, you can see who's edited it.
In this case,
There's no bug there
If you examine more closely you'll notice that those 7 nodes were added by
user 'ngent'. You're probably listed as the only contributor to the path
because it was part of a longer path which was cut in 2 by you (when you cut
up ways you get listed as original author of one
Hi Adam,
Yes, you have definitely accepted the new terms. You can check the UK
list at http://odbl.de/great_britain.html
I opened the same location with the on-line Potlatch editor
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=51.723507lon=-0.812403zoom=18
It looks like the way itself is yours
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:08 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
[ ... ]
Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content?
And that would allow reconciling and improving that non-CT data how?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
80n wrote:
Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content?
There is certainly an issue here, and what you describe as non-CT content
can take two forms.
There is content that will not be relicensed. This is the content input by
those who have declined the Contributor Terms.
I agree that it
On 12/13/2011 11:57 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
What will happen to buildings that were drawn by a CT-agreeing mapper
but with tags copied from a red node?
Presumably nothing will happen, since there is no easy way of
identifying these. So this is an easy loophole - if you see any red
nodes
On 12/13/2011 2:02 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
People are increasingly deleting such content and replacing with new
content, often using the new sources which were not available when the
content was first input (e.g. Bing imagery and OS OpenData) and that's good.
Disagree. It's only good if
I've started work on producing Garmin maps based on Frederiks data:
http://odbl.poole.ch/garmin/
While still very experimental, they should already be useful.
Simon
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
This will sound like I'm ranting, and if it does, that's not my intent. I'm
really wanting to help creating additional problems. So . . .
It won't help improving and reconciling the non-CT data. But it will keep
anyone else from adding (and then losing) data to features slated for deletion.
Fascinating, I was always taught that reliability was the most important
thing to end users.
In Ottawa it looks like many footpaths, steps etc will be the big losers.
The imported road network looks fine.
So it looks like the tools and specialist maps for the disabled, ones that
make use of
On 12/13/2011 2:30 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 12/13/2011 08:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Presumably nothing will happen, since there is no easy way of
identifying these. So this is an easy loophole - if you see any red
nodes that represent points of interest, replace them with building
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:30 PM, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote:
Fascinating, I was always taught that reliability was the most important
thing to end users.
In Ottawa it looks like many footpaths, steps etc will be the big losers.
The imported road network looks fine.
So it looks
Hi,
On 12/13/2011 08:47 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I have done many edits of this sort over the years. It has been standard
practice for a long time. Any tainting has already happened.
I am not talking about any tainting that has happened in the past
without people having thought about it.
On 12/13/2011 2:57 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 12/13/2011 08:47 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I have done many edits of this sort over the years. It has been standard
practice for a long time. Any tainting has already happened.
I am not talking about any tainting that has happened in the
On 12/13/2011 2:27 PM, Hillsman, Edward wrote:
Thinking in terms of a NEW user, who is already facing a steep learning
curve to contribute to OSM, and who has by default accepted the new CT,
and may not even know about the license change, such a person has every
right to expect that his/her
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
I have done many edits of this sort over the years. It has been standard
practice for a long time. Any tainting has already happened.
Yeah expanding nodes into buildings is pretty standard practice for me
whenever I'm
It would be useful to have an idea of how many objects have been edited
by a red user *and then edited by someone else*. These are the biggest
problem in terms of damage.
It's also important to keep in mind that relations are the most
vulnerable of all, and do not show up on this view.
Thank you all - I was looking at the Way, not the individual points, and it was
obviously one that was there before I started mapping that I then edited.
Is the process for deciding whether or not to delete a node set in stone? I am
fairly sure that I have moved the majority of those nodes from
Is the process for deciding whether or not to delete a node set in stone?
I am fairly sure that I have moved the majority of those nodes from where
they were originally (I am fairly sure because there was originally only 1
path on OSM going up the hill when there are 2 different paths on the
On 12/13/2011 4:03 PM, Graham Jones wrote:
I see there are three potential reasons for someone neither accepting
nor declining the terms:
* They really do not agree with them, but for some reason that I can
not think of they decide not to click the 'decline' button - These
are an
Hi Richard,
On 13 Dec 2011, at 18:34, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
In this case, opening the area in Potlatch 2 shows those nodes highlighted
in orange, which P2 uses to mean someone who edited this way hasn't
responded to the CTs yet. You can click on any of these nodes and then,
using the
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree, it sounds mad, and I find it hard to believe that 'we' would do
this. Surely we need to apply a bit of pragmatism to this and think about
'reasonableness'?
I can see that it is reasonable to delete the
Adam Hoyle wrote:
is there something else I need to do?
It'll only work in the default, 'Potlatch' map style (not 'Network' or
'Wireframe' or others - I need to fix that!) but apart from that, yes, that
should be all you need to do.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
What you can do is create an osm file on your local hard drive, in JOSM
download a very small area with nothing in it. New download the area you
have made edits in as a separate download.
Select on username so user:xyz
Merge the selection onto your empty map and save it locally. Then after
the
The intentions don't matter here, its to be able to defend the new
licensing / copyright in court you need to show all the content has come
from people who have accepted the new license.
Its a lawyer thing and I'm not even sure that in the US OSM has a solid
case anyway. Street names are facts
How does the OSMF plan to handle split or combined ways?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 12/13/2011 4:25 PM, john whelan wrote:
The intentions don't matter here, its to be able to defend the new
licensing / copyright in court you need to show all the content has come
from people who have accepted the new license.
Which is impossible because of the common practice of copying
Adam,
On 12/13/2011 09:39 PM, Adam Hoyle wrote:
Is the process for deciding whether or not to delete a node set in
stone? I am fairly sure that I have moved the majority of those nodes
from where they were originally (I am fairly sure because there was
originally only 1 path on OSM going up the
and do those, and the other examples mentioned before show up in the
inspector as problematic?
i think they should.
gr,
floris
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
How does the OSMF plan to handle split or combined ways?
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:08 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
[ ... ]
Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content?
And that would allow reconciling and improving that non-CT data how?
I don't think I made any point
On 13 December 2011 21:25, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote:
The intentions don't matter here, its to be able to defend the new
licensing / copyright in court you need to show all the content has come
from people who have accepted the new license.
It will only come to court if someone
On 13 Dec 2011, at 21:20, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Adam Hoyle wrote:
is there something else I need to do?
It'll only work in the default, 'Potlatch' map style (not 'Network' or
'Wireframe' or others - I need to fix that!) but apart from that, yes, that
should be all you need to do.
Oh
On 13 December 2011 22:30, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/2011 4:25 PM, john whelan wrote:
The intentions don't matter here, its to be able to defend the new
licensing / copyright in court you need to show all the content has come
from people who have accepted the new
Am 13.12.2011 20:59, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
On 12/13/2011 2:57 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 12/13/2011 08:47 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I have done many edits of this sort over the years. It has been
standard
practice for a long time. Any tainting has already happened.
I am not
On 13 December 2011 22:03, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree, it sounds mad, and I find it hard to believe that 'we' would do
this. Surely we need to apply a bit of pragmatism to this and think about
'reasonableness'?
I can see that it is reasonable to delete the
On 12/13/2011 4:46 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote:
Even in law exists the distinction between crimes done willingly and
those done unwillingly or without knowledge. You don't get necessarily
out of the case without any harm if you didn't know or didn't want it,
but often you have to do/pay/be
On 13 Dec 2011, at 21:34, Frederik Ramm wrote:
On 12/13/2011 09:39 PM, Adam Hoyle wrote:
Is the process for deciding whether or not to delete a node set in
stone? I am fairly sure that I have moved the majority of those nodes
from where they were originally (I am fairly sure because there
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
80n wrote:
Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content?
There is certainly an issue here, and what you describe as non-CT content
can take two forms.
There is content that will not be relicensed. This is the
Adam Hoyle wrote:
Oh wow - I must have been on some long gone map
style, it's all looking very different now I've changed
the map style (and looking good too). Am I right in
saying that purple outlines mean things are part of
a hiking route, and green outline means foot route right?
Hi,
On 12/13/2011 10:52 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
We're not talking about crimes here, but about copyright status.
No. The only thing I was talking about was that if you should have the
audacity to publicly proclaim loopholes in the process and that you
intend to use them, I will block
80n wrote:
The two forms you describe are quite irrelevant and just muddy the water.
Can you answer the question, please?
You have edited a bunch of stuff in the North Cotswolds, which is an area
very near where I live and which I care about. I remember one changeset
called Cotswolds, another
On 13/12/2011 21:38, 80n wrote:
You've known for quite some time that non-CT content will ultimately get
deleted.
The original promise was that it requires a critical mass to proceed.
According to the OSMF wiki there are fewer than three quarters agreeing,
and some of the major countries
On 12/13/2011 5:03 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
No. The only thing I was talking about was that if you should have the
audacity to publicly proclaim loopholes in the process and that you
intend to use them, I will block your account.
I have already used them many times as part of normal editing,
On 13 December 2011 22:46, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote:
Am 13.12.2011 20:59, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
There is no difference in terms of acceptability under the ODBL+CT. Such
copying is either OK or not.
Even in law exists the distinction between crimes done willingly and
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:13 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
I think Frederik has managed to decimate more of London than five years of
bombing did during WW2 ;)
Your smiley is poor compensation for that analogy. You owe Frederik
and this list an apology. Shame, George, Shame!
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Could someone explain why the way_id 4776297 is reported as created
by non-agreers on osmi:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=5.98159lat=45.34536zoom=17overlays=wtfe_line_created
Current version is 21:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
It is important to note that the OSM Inspector view is not the final word
- not even an official word - on the question of what gets deleted. It is
just my interpretation of the current situation.
Frederik, If the OSM
Hi,
On 12/13/2011 11:20 PM, Pieren wrote:
Could someone explain why the way_id 4776297 is reported as created
by non-agreers on osmi:
[...]
we can see that version 1 has been created by user_7568 (user_id=7568):
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/user_7568
which is reported as accepted CT's
Hi all,
As of moments ago, 419 accounts have declined CT/ODbL. That sounds
like a large number, but it is fewer than 1% of the over 54,000
accounts who have accepted CT/ODbL.
Of the declining accounts, 56 have never submitted data to OpenStreetMap.
An additional 167 accounts have fewer than 10
Creative Commons recently confirmed that the next version of its
licences will attempt to cover sui generis database rights. Version 4.0
is planned to be available at the end of 2012. This was previously
mentioned here as a possible alternative to the destructive ODbL
process.
I don't see any
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011 12:34:34 PM UTC-6, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Adam Hoyle wrote:
For example (there are a lot more examples):
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-0.81228lat=51.72366zoom=17
shows a path with red nodes, but I added that and no-one else has edited
If
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:03 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.comwrote:
On 13/12/2011 21:38, 80n wrote:
You've known for quite some time that non-CT content will ultimately get
deleted.
The original promise was that it requires a critical mass to proceed.
According to the OSMF wiki
80n wrote:
David, many people have been coerced or suckered into agreeing. I've
been badgered many times (including three times today, on this very
thread by an OSMF board member).
No. I am badgering you to say what you will do, or explain why you will not
say. Obviously, I would prefer it
On 13 Dec 2011, at 21:59, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I can't emphasise enough the importance of contacting people and asking them
to agree. It really works.
Is there any tool out there that can highlight the red users in a given area?
Fredrick, is that at all possible to add to your excellent,
Eric,
Yes, it has been considered in the past. There even have been conference
calls between the LWG and CC about this subject.
Currently it is unknown what that this license will look like. Looking at
the current situation, the ODbL is a step forward from the current CC-BY-SA
2.0. When (in due
Critical mass is there, at a ratio of more than a 100/1 and that is of the
people who had to speak out their opinion. As far as I'm concerned, I don't
have a doubt the license change will proceed. So remapping makes a lot of
sense from now on and I'm glad I'm not the only one who is doing it any
Hi,
On 12/13/2011 11:41 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
No. I am badgering you to say what you will do, or explain why you will not
say.
Personally I feel that it is unfortunate that we're allowing people to
remain undecided for so long. Had 80n properly disagreed when he was
first asked, his
Yes, it is. Apologies for not pinging this list directly and
immediately, but now I'll point out two issue pages that might be of
particular personal interest to some of you, and of long-term interest
to OSM:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/ShareAlike (scope of SA and
potential compatibility
How about before we start attempting to rescue anything from the OSMF,
we make sure we know what we're doing? What is the proper way to edit an
object that has been modified by a decliner? What is the proper way to
do this to a relation, especially one with many members and many
revisions? How
On 12/13/2011 6:38 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Because we gain nothing from major contributors holding out until the
very last day and then, smilingly, tell us you know what, I've decided
to disagree after all. That's four winter months wasted when they could
have been perfectly well used for
Everyone, I'm seeing some really ugly and useless discussion on this thread.
Yes, there are some real technical issues to discuss with the final stages of
the license change, but those substantial issues are now lost in this thread.
Review the etiquette rules
On Tue, December 13, 2011 23:17, Jo wrote:
I'm also taking the opportunity to align all the other features on bing.
Have you checked the local alignment of Bing aerials? Where I am they can
be offset by as much as 20 metres! I have to realign the aerial photo
layer before tracing anything from
Hi John,
fyi, you can also create a new (empty) layer with ctrl+n.
cheers,
Martin
2011/12/13 john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com:
What you can do is create an osm file on your local hard drive, in JOSM
download a very small area with nothing in it. New download the area you
have made edits in
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote:
Critical mass is there, at a ratio of more than a 100/1 and that is of
the people who had to speak out their opinion.
That's not the point. Since not making a decision is the same as declining
for the purposes of data survival, deleting
David
I'm not quite sure where you got your numbers from, but it is clear that in
terms of outright deletions we are talking of less than 5%.
See odbl.poole.ch
Simon
David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com schrieb:
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote:
Critical mass is
2011/12/14 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote:
Critical mass is there, at a ratio of more than a 100/1 and that is of
the people who had to speak out their opinion.
That's not the point. Since not making a decision is the same
The numbers come from Frederik's map and some areas really look dramatic.
odbl.poole.ch and http://odbl.de come to very optimistic conclusions.
Possibly because they only consider the last contributor to an object or
another metric which doesn't hold water.
Jo
2011/12/14 Simon Poole
David Earl wrote:
I'll certainly be contacting people now Frederick has provided an easy
means to evaluate the data, but I'm not overly optimistic about people
replying - I run a membership database and find maybe 10% of people
change their email addresses each year, and half of those don't
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Adam Hoyle
adam.li...@dotankstudios.com wrote:
Is there any tool out there that can highlight the red users in a given
area?
In JOSM, use select-all (crtl-a) then look at the list of authors in
the author panel (alt-b). This will give you a list of accounts
Nathan Edgars II writes:
I have done many edits of this sort over the years. It has been standard
practice for a long time. Any tainting has already happened.
I agee with Nathan. I do this all the time. Mostly it's to GNIS POIs,
but the principle remains: some tainting of information cannot
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Henk Hoff toffeh...@gmail.com wrote:
Changing to ODbL or CC4 (possibly in the future) does not change the
presence of the Contributor Terms.
Is it possible to migrate from CC3 to CC4 without CTs?
Steve
___
talk
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Henk Hoff toffeh...@gmail.com wrote:
Changing to ODbL or CC4 (possibly in the future) does not change the
presence of the Contributor Terms.
Is it possible to migrate from CC3 to CC4
Hi,
On 12/14/11 05:51, Steve Bennett wrote:
Changing to ODbL or CC4 (possibly in the future) does not change the
presence of the Contributor Terms.
Is it possible to migrate from CC3 to CC4 without CTs?
Possible generally - I believe so. Advisable for us - I believe not.
Only recently a
Hoi Stefan,
Heb je hier al een response op gehad?
Gr,
Henk
2011/11/24 Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de
Goedeavond,
Ik kreeg vanavond het aanbod van een Ambulance rijder om de problemen die
zij aan hun kaartenboer terugmelden ook op te sturen naar OpenStreetMap.
Zij werken nu met CitiGIS
Hoi allen en vooral Stefan,
Ik heb de discussie op talk@osm over de licentieverandering weer flink
aangezwengeld,
dus laat ik dat hier nog eens dunnetjes over doen :)
Inmiddels zijn er veel gebruikers akkoord gegaan [1], ik had nog niet
eens gemerkt dat
3dshapes en AND dat inmiddels ook hebben
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Op 13-12-11 22:17, Henk Hoff schreef:
Heb je hier al een response op gehad?
Nog niet hier, en nog niet persoonlijk. Maar als iemand dit wil doen
vereist dat zeker enige 'educatie' aan de betreffende persoon wat
OpenStreetMap zou kunnen gebruiken.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Op 13-12-11 22:50, Floris Looijesteijn schreef:
Stefan is niet akkoord met de CT en ik verwacht ook niet dat dat
nog gaat gebeuren :)
Zoals nu al menig keer verteld:
GEEF ME EEN OPTIE OM CHANGESETS TE ACCEPTEREN EN IK GA AKKOORD VOOR
DIE
Hallo,
der OSM Inspector hat jetzt eine Lizenzwechselkarte, die taeglich
aktualisiert wird und alle (*) Objekte zeigt, die vermutlich vom
Lizenzwechsel betroffen sind: Auf tools.geofabrik.de/osmi gehen und dann
oben im Dropdown License Change auswaehlen. Oder:
Hi,
Ich denke, was wir bräuchten - und dann hielte ich es für sinnvoll -
wäre ein Kataster-Overlay, bei dem man zusätzliche Daten ablesen kann,
während man editiert.
Klar: Wir müssen auch dazu kommen, dass Leute aufhören, ausschließlich
von Luftbildern abzuzeichnen. Aber Ein
Hallo,
On 12/13/11 08:55, Markus wrote:
Wir tun gut daran, eventuelle negative Entwicklungen im Keim zu
entdecken und rechtzeitig umzusteuern.
Wenn es also OSMer gbt, die für OSM brennen, und das plötzlich
(meist schleichend oder mit bestimmten Ereignissen verbunden)
nicht mehr tun, dann sind
1 - 100 di 203 matches
Mail list logo
