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 are waiting for the OS issue to be > resolved before agreeing to the terms.
"The OS issue" is happily pretty much irrelevant to Oxford, as the city was surveyed to better-than-OSSV level before the OpenData release took place. So if we're to extrapolate from the Oxford example, we can safely conclude that there actually isn't a problem; the vast majority of data was contributed by mappers who will agree to ODbL _when_ _asked_ (A-I in my list). It just looks like there's a problem if you take this premature visualisation on trust without understanding the context. > I'm afraid you misread Mapper J, he has no particular interest in > copyright matters, but doesn't want to see his tag-fiddling, whatever > its perceived value, go to waste. I think you're assuming that you are Mapper J; you're not. I haven't enumerated you within A to J. I didn't think there was a lot of point restating your own preferences back to you as I guess you know them already. :) Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/ODBL-Coverage-tp5743624p5743971.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
