Dave F. wrote
> Tobias Knerr wrote:
>> In order to truly show what's possible, we would need to completely
>> redesign that front page into a "featured products" catalogue [...]
> It doesn't have to be completely redesigned, just a link saying:
>
> "And here's some other great ways in which OSM ca
Tobias Knerr wrote:
> In order to truly show what's possible, we would need to completely
> redesign that front page into a "featured products" catalogue that could
> list routing applications, Garmin converters, OSM clocks, renderers,
> paper maps and so on. This would, of course, include "closed"
2010/1/3 Andy Allan :
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Dave F. wrote:
>
>> It needs to be one way or the other.
>> Personally I think it _should_ be promoting map renderings, but on it's
>> main map page it should be one that is truly open in the sense of OSM.
>
> This "sense of OSM" seems to hav
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Dave F. wrote:
> It needs to be one way or the other.
> Personally I think it _should_ be promoting map renderings, but on it's
> main map page it should be one that is truly open in the sense of OSM.
This "sense of OSM" seems to have been redefined recently, to n
Hi,
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Ok, then let's not use "open". Let's just say some things (where you can
> look at how they're done as opposed to not being told) are "better" than
> others.
That was unnecessarily provocative, I admit. I think I will settle for
the wording:
"relevant material avail
Dair Grant wrote:
> showcasing useful and innovative things that have been done with
> OSM data is more important than trying to split ourselves into "open" (terms
> and conditions will apply) and not.
If it is there to show what can be done with OSM data, it does a very
poor job. The only thing i
Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> So I don't want OSM to get into arguments about "opener than thou" -
Ok, then let's not use "open". Let's just say some things (where you can
look at how they're done as opposed to not being told) are "better" than
others.
Or is there anyone who disagrees - anyo
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
It is our main page and a closed project on the main page of OSM IMHO
> doesn't suit well.
>
IMHO, a "closed" project on the main page is a good thing.
What is the purpose of the OSM web site? It is partly to provide a way for
end-users
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Your argument about flash players and JVMs leads nowhere; I am not
> talking about openness of the target infrastructure but openness of the
> process.
I know you're not.
Nonetheless neither you nor I have a monopoly on defining open. People
on this list have, in the past,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> +1, IMHO it should not be an option on the main map page as it is
>> less "open" than OSM. Instead we could have other projects there,
>> that are as open as OSM (and that preferably cover the whole
>> planet, don't know how much of t
2010/1/3 Frederik Ramm :
> The Garmin map page that Ulf mentioned, where you have a green/red
> "source available" column, is very much what I was thinking of - maybe
> green/red is too harsh and it should indeed be gold/silver, but the
> table overall does not create the impression that the non-op
Hi,
first of all, I wasn't intending this to become an opencyclemap
bashing thread. I wasn't even aware that there is something non-open
about opencyclemap; I was prompted by your quote of openmtbmap. I didn't
have a hidden agenda -
I'm not saying we should try to shame non-open solutions
Sarah,
Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
> More of (a) would be lovely. Speaking of it, is the source code behind
> the OSM Inspector available somewhere? It might provide very instructive
> to see how you do the data processing.
There's nothing special about the inspector itself and if anyone is
interest
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> +1, IMHO it should not be an option on the main map page as it is
> less "open" than OSM. Instead we could have other projects there,
> that are as open as OSM (and that preferably cover the whole
> planet, don't know how much of those there are at the moment).
Rig
2010/1/2 Dave F.
> But, remove it from the main page where it appears comparable with OSM
> in the open sense, which it clearly isn't.
>
+1, IMHO it should not be an option on the main map page as it is less
"open" than OSM. Instead we could have other projects there, that are as
open as OSM (a
Joseph Reeves wrote:
>>> FreeCycleMap? :)
>>>
>> Yeah, why not?
>>
>
> What's your definition of Free? Beer, speech or freedom? Following
> your argument we'd have to call it
> NoUpFrontFinancialCostToTheUser(ApartFromBandwidth)CycleMap
>
> Or we channel the communities abilities into m
>> FreeCycleMap? :)
> Yeah, why not?
What's your definition of Free? Beer, speech or freedom? Following
your argument we'd have to call it
NoUpFrontFinancialCostToTheUser(ApartFromBandwidth)CycleMap
Or we channel the communities abilities into mapping rather than
arguing about this ;-)
2010/1/
Am 02.01.2010 14:57, schrieb Richard Fairhurst:
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Just because user X does something propietary with OSM data doesn't mean
>> that he is less of a nice guy. However (on the other hand) just because
>> he is a nice guy doesn't mean that something proprietary he produces
>> sh
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Just because user X does something propietary with OSM data doesn't mean
> that he is less of a nice guy. However (on the other hand) just because
> he is a nice guy doesn't mean that something proprietary he produces
> should be treated as if it was part of the family.
But
Dave F. wrote:
> John Smith wrote:
>
>> 2010/1/2 Dave F. :
>>
>>
>>> I think it's high time this was done. IMO, OCM should be removed from
>>> the main map options asked persuasively to rename themselves as they're
>>> not really open, are they?
>>>
>>>
>> What do you suggest
John Smith wrote:
> 2010/1/2 Dave F. :
>
>> I think it's high time this was done. IMO, OCM should be removed from
>> the main map options asked persuasively to rename themselves as they're
>> not really open, are they?
>>
>
> What do you suggest they rename to?
>
> FreeCycleMap? :)
Yeah, wh
Richard,
> In my view, what matters is someone's _overall_ contribution to OSM, not
> their unquestioning adherence to the doctrine of "free".
I am not talking about classifying *people* into "properly open" and
"proprietary" - I wanted to classify *projects*.
The author of, say, openmtbmap ca
Hi,
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I'm breaking this out of talk-gb and into talk.
>
> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > Sadly [the openmtbmap author]
> > refuses to open-source his code
> > (http://openmtbmap.org/faq/#i-would-like-to-have-a-look-into-the-style-file-for-mkgmap),
> >
> > which is ent
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> We cannot, and do not want to, trademark the words "open", "free" and
> the like, but I think we could be a little bit more assertive about whom
> we consider to be a kindred spirit and who is doing his own thing, and
> apply the tiniest amount of pressure for people to upgra
2010/1/2 Dave F. :
> I think it's high time this was done. IMO, OCM should be removed from
> the main map options asked persuasively to rename themselves as they're
> not really open, are they?
What do you suggest they rename to?
FreeCycleMap? :)
___
t
Colin Marquardt wrote:
> As a proud member of the (a) category[1], I'm all for it :)
>
> Cheers
> Colin
>
> 1 - http://mapnik-utils.googlecode.com/svn/sandbox/cascadenik/hike_n_bike/,
> http://gitorious.org/alpha-hillshading/alpha-hillshading/trees/master
Err.. Sorry Colin, I read the readme & ot
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm breaking this out of talk-gb and into talk.
>
> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
>> Sadly [the openmtbmap author]
>> refuses to open-source his code
>> (http://openmtbmap.org/faq/#i-would-like-to-have-a-look-into-the-style-file-for-mkgmap),
>>
>> which is en
2010/1/2 Frederik Ramm :
> Maybe it is time for us at OSM to make a distinction between
>
> (a) open projects in the sense and spirit of OSM, where scripts, style
> files, and everything else is open and license-wise available for
> everyone to look at and build upon, and
>
> (b) proprietary projec
Hi,
I'm breaking this out of talk-gb and into talk.
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Sadly [the openmtbmap author]
> refuses to open-source his code
> (http://openmtbmap.org/faq/#i-would-like-to-have-a-look-into-the-style-file-for-mkgmap),
>
> which is entirely his prerogative but a shame none
29 matches
Mail list logo
