On 9 August 2010 00:07, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote: > It's nothing to do with PD. It's that I'm sick and tired of hearing we > cannot go ahead with ODbL because someone in Australia imported some > coastline.
And I've tried to explain numerous times that it goes well beyond coastlines, and that's only Australian data, and assuming data has been sourced and attributed properly it could be anywhere from 1/3rd to 1/2 the data for Australia. However no one has coded anything to properly analysis the losses so that's the best guess we can come up with at this stage. > There are many places in the world where we have the "second-best" data in > OSM because the best available data is not under a suitable license. That's > accepted, we're making do with that, it even encourages us. Until recently cc licensed data was more than suitable, now you are trying to turn the boat round mid-course and more than likely will not have time to dodge the on coming iceberg. > Now for the last half year I've had to listen to two or three people from > Australia whining about the proposed move to ODbL not being possible because > they have imported coastline. But in my eyes that's not at all different to And for the last while I've tried to correct your assumption, but you insist on making the same inaccurate claims as those you are complaining about. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
