On 5/15/2015 4:08 PM, Rafael Avila Coya wrote:
The license is CC-by 3.0 (I forgot to put the 3.0). It's not only me
that I think that we comply with the attribution, as we mention the
source of the data as Fortius One Inc. in each single segment, each
boundary relation and each changeset (now Fortius One Inc. is GeoIQ,
part of ESRI), with the source=* tag.
Back in 2013 you already mention that what the folks from Nepal were
proposing as attribution was good enough, pointing that some people
disagree on that:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2013-August/002054.html
. Is this the Legal Working Group opinion too? Apart from all of that,
I don't give even one on one million that GeoIQ will complain about
this in any way whatsoever.
https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1X7vAOXg7O7SGiGgUV8_2C_1LtmNt7mgCmoh5YYm9IvY/pub
item 8 has the LWG minutes on the matter, and
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2015-April/010552.html
is a higher level summary.
I documented the pcodes already. The pcodes are United Nation codes,
very important to facilitate identification of places (as you know, in
many countries names have many spelling alternatives, and no one is
the most "official", so having a unique code for each place is vital).
The pcodes solve this problem. We add also the old OCHA codes, as they
are still used by some organizations.
As you can see with the tags you're proposing adding, they are red
links, indicating the page doesn't exist. The wiki pages
Key:ocha:old_code and Key:ocha:pcode should be created and have
appropriate documentation.
I am puzzled by the ocha prefix for pcode, as it sounds like they are
not OCHA specific?
_______________________________________________
Imports mailing list
Imports@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
