On 8 April 2011 05:47, John Henderson <[email protected]> wrote: > It wouldn't be nearly so bad if we could simply agree to the new terms for > objects outside Nearmap coverage (and for future contributions), but have > our "contaminated" work removed.
Well our first priority should be to try and get an agreement with Nearmap. Hopefully to allow use of their imaging ongoing, but if that turns out not to be possible to hope that they may just allow existing work to be kept. In the unfortunate eventuality that Nearmap derived data has to be removed from the main OSM trunk, then we will need a few tools to do this effectively. I'm sure a tool along the lines of what you have suggested is technically feasible. But as I previously said, we are going to have to claw some positivity back if we are going to maintain OSM as a useful data set if the licence/contributor terms change is forced. Given the effort put into the mapping of these areas, I think it is worth a bit more a bit more to keep as much data as possible intact. I don't want to sit by and watch it dissolve. Ian. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
