Thanks for clarifying the WMS-C standard, I may have just read some 'best practices' or something that said PNG only.
Yes, I think broadly the technical plan is pretty good and Schuyler has captured this community's consensus fairly well. Perhaps develop some use cases and then spawn some discussions within groups of people who fit that usage case? Could be very useful for figuring out potential problems sooner than later. - bri On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Steven M. Ottens <[email protected]> wrote: > Brian Russo wrote: > >> If I'm not mistaken the 256^2 PNG restriction is because that is what the >> WMS-C standard specifies (A flaw in the standard IMO - most of our tiles are >> JPG). >> > The WMS-C standard doesn't specify the tilesize nor the format. The Web > spherical mercator however does specify a tilesize (256x256) so that > explains the 256x256 in the proposal. I do agree that it makes more sense to > use JPEG in stead of PNG for imagery tiles however. > > (Totally not trying to derail this main discussion) >> > (I'm derailing it even more) > > Overall I think your revised standard looks great though I admit I haven't >> pored over it in detail. >> >> I did have one question about licensing. >> >> "Each layer should be marked with the license of its source, including (at >> a minimum) descriptive text for the license, plus flags for public domain, >> attribution, non-commercial, and sharealike licensing. " >> >> I'm skeptical on the real utility of OAM if these sort of restrictions are >> put in place. My preference would be for including only public domain >> imagery. Anything else and I think we may just end up with a collage of >> differently licensed imagery and you have to jump through hoops to figure >> out what imagery is licensed under what etc.. Not to be dramatic, but I'd >> say it diminishes my interest in OAM as a large part of my interest is >> rooted in the problem that right now releasability/licensing issues is >> really the main draw for me. I.e. we can use the basemap and/or release >> products knowing that other people can use the basemap for "whatever". >> > You need to attach the license of the source data somehow to the layer. > Otherwise you end up in a legal swamp. > The other point you are raising; is OAM worthwhile (for a certain user) if > it contains non PD restrictions is a tough one. I'm not sure if CC-SA is a > good license: ' If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may > distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible > license.' This seems to mean that any map you create with OAM as a baselayer > is suddenly CC-SA*). We have to create use cases for the different license > to make clear how one can use a layer. (like > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases). Also we > need to think long and hard for the best license for our 'own' data (since > we cannot change the license from someone else's data). This however is a > completely different discussion and the technical proposal does give us the > freedom to do this in a different track, since it allows for tracking the > licenses of the data. In the end we still can create a baselayer later on > with only PD data so it can be used for 'whatever'. > > Regards, > Steven > > *) IANAL > > > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://openaerialmap.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_openaerialmap.org
