Sorry for responding to this late. Just because a specific source has been legally "OK"ed doesn't imply that an import of all the data from a specific source is warranted and should continue on for all times. The import guidelines are silent on this, but I would suggest that revisiting and reviewing such undertaking now and then would really make sense.
Not only because we've learnt lots of things in the many, I believe 9, years since the LINZ import started, but further because in those 9 years the community has likely completely changed, a quick check indicated that 20 times more people have mapped in NZ than when the import started. As the complaint at hand nicely illustrates, maybe going back and checking what the community thinks is appropriate now would be a good idea, instead of trudging along on a course set by 100 people many years back. Simon Am 18.08.2017 um 03:24 schrieb Andrew Harvey: > On 16 August 2017 at 23:29, Richard <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 07:44:00AM -0400, john whelan wrote: >>>> They have data for all of New Zealand >>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_New_Zealand>'s roads, >>> released under a license which is compatible with that of OSM. >>> >>> Has the Open Data license been cleared by the legal working group? >> soneone else has to answer that but I was under the impression that >> the LINZ has been looked at in detail. It seems to be an import effort >> that is underway since many years. > LINZ completed the OSMF CC BY waiver so it should be all okay. > > See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#LINZ and > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:OSM_waiver_-_LINZ.pdf > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
