On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 07:24:47PM +, 80n wrote:
Any share-however-you-like license has the properties you describe. We're
talking about share-alike here.
It may suit you, as a consumer of OSM data, to not give a damn about
contributing back to the project, but that's not what OSM is
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 07:33:44PM +, Rob Myers wrote:
back, and that having changed licences once it's important that OSM be
able to change/upgrade/whatever the licence in the future
I believe the contributor terms are too broad. I answered the poll in
favour of moving to the ODbL, but
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:03:51AM +, Matt Amos wrote:
any change away from that must be chosen by a vote of the OSMF
membership and approved by at least a majority vote of active
contributors.
if you want to be consulted about any future licensing change, just
join OSMF or continue to
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:03:51AM +, Matt Amos wrote:
any change away from that must be chosen by a vote of the OSMF
membership and approved by at least a majority vote of active
contributors.
I also think the definition of an active contributor is too narrow. I
actually think it should
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:44:53AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Oh yes it does, because if someone isn't active any more it will become
harder and harder to get an opinion out of him. Someone who is not
active any more will often have lost interest or lost his life, that's
why, while
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:44:53AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Oh yes it does, because if someone isn't active any more it will become
harder and harder to get an opinion out of him. Someone who is not
active any more will often have lost interest or lost his life, that's
why, while
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:44:53AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Unless you're willing sign something that says I agree that OSMF will
make two attempts to contact me at my registered e-mail address with
information on how to vote on an upcoming license change suggestion, and
if I don't react
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 07:09:30PM +0100, Mike Collinson wrote:
I believe there was a discussion that viral does necessarily mean
reciprocal, hence the use of the word. I'll check tomorrow if no one else
comes back.
If you get down to various meanings already documented in English,
neither
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 12:43:09AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
but while we’re
trying to prevent all sides equally
Preventing all sides equally is indeed something we're aiming at, with
all our hearts ;-)
Yes, thanks for that. I noticed not long after I sent the mail, but
didn’t think
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 09:27:58PM +1000, John Smith wrote:
LC's have their own mailing list... as for the rest, some of it seems
like tagging, some of it is non-mapping about imagery which judging by
your standards should be on it's own mailing list etc etc etc
Meh. If it’s about
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 02:08:51PM -0500, Joseph Booker wrote:
Sylpheed Claws can reply to list as well
and how many people have ever heard of that, let alone use it!
Probably very few, since it is called Claws Mail now :)
No, you get double the chance of having heard of it!
This
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 12:48:32PM +, Ed Avis wrote:
If you prefer web interfaces, you can participate in this list via
http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap. That is what I am doing
now.
I’ll add Nabble[1] into the pot.
[1]: http://www.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-f1218.html
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 01:11:02PM +0100, Nick Barnes wrote:
To my mind, nobody ought to be able to edit live map data unless:
1 - They have uploaded n tracks,
2 - They have had m edits approved by a moderator
3 - They are vouched for by somebody who has made many many edits
(insert 'and'
On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 01:55:30PM +0100, OJ W wrote:
Instead, I’d like to see a way of saying someone has verified the data
without changing it.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Checked_by
I’ve seen that proposal before, and it feels a little “icky”. The
comment by
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 08:11:21AM +1000, Roy Wallace wrote:
There are two issues here: 1) what should be tagged and 2) what should
it be tagged with.
For 1), what should be tagged? Definitely the bridge. For two reasons:
firstly, clearance under a bridge is an attribute of the bridge.
What
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 08:01:45AM +0100, Simon Ward wrote:
What of bridges that cross multiple ways of different heights?
Sorry. I see that this has been commented on elsewhere in the thread.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 03:37:35PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Pieren wrote:
It is a technical discussion because everybody can revert changes anyway.
True. Everyone can delete all of London anyway. This doesn't mean that
we have a button on the web page that says: Delete all of London.
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 03:30:01PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
If you have enough room then we prefer the URLs for OSM and CC written
out. There is some info here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F
Now that we
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 08:25:54PM +0200, Thomas Schäfer wrote:
Well we're largely dependent on UCL (and Bytemark to a lesser extent)
being able to allocate us IPv6 addresses for our machines.
Have you asked ? (this year, not in the Dark Ages)
I don’t know about UCL (I imagine as a
On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 11:14:47AM +0100, Richard Bullock wrote:
Well that's different. If there genuinely are two different signs - then you
would have to tag both. The legal situation might also be technically
slightly unclear.
So you would have one style of tagging in the UK, and a
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 08:45:20AM +0100, Peter Miller wrote:
I have been looking at the coverage of maxspeed limit data for highways
in the UK and we seem to have a right mix of styles.
Here is the data for bug chunk of England while avoiding including
anything from France or Ireland
On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 09:34:32PM +0100, Richard Bullock wrote:
Of course the actual true height of the bridge does convert.
1 foot is exactly equal to 0.3048m - by definition
Forgive me if I don’t go around measuring the true height of each
bridge. (That’s before we come to arched
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 10:26:14PM +0300, Niklas Cholmkvist wrote:
What EXIF data does JOSM use to position the photo? I managed to add the
DateTimeOriginal or Date Taken: field to it, thinking it's the only
EXIF field JOSM needs.
Is this the only field that JOSM needs to position the photo?
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 08:14:49AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
What I'm concerned with is mainly: How big is the risk of someone
whitewashing our data from the contractual part of the ODbL, then
introducing it to a large jurisdiction without something like a database
directive (the US?),
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 09:41:27PM +0200, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
I very much agree about OpenAerialMap -- if we can't trust the
OpenAerialMap contributors about the licensing why should any person
in OSM trust any other OSM contributor rather than start redrawing
everything they can from
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 05:20:09PM +0200, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
Do you really think we can work that network-color table out, and make
software that fits into osm2pgsql to derive the shields**?
** I don't like the word shield. We use frakking rectangles.
Like these ones?
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 05:21:35PM +, Ed Avis wrote:
Additionally, when you upload a track you should be able to specify how it was
made, with checkboxes for 'foot', 'bike', 'car', 'boat', 'plane'. (If it has
a
mixture, tick several boxes.)
You can use tags for that: I’ve tagged most of
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 07:59:48AM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
Hold on there. Defined? defined by whom. If you mean its in map features
then that's cool because I put them there :-D
On the other hand Map Features isn't a rule book or a prescribed standard.
Its guidance on how you might
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 08:54:30PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
Maybe we should remove the Export tab when it is out of commision?
Yes, because the users of all the other export modes that aren't
dependent on the mapnik database would love that.
There’s nothing like a bit of dry sarcasm to
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 04:21:47PM +0100, sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote:
Yeah, I find highway=path a good permanent shortcut for
highway=cycleway+foot=yes+bicycle=yes without having to guess if
highway=footway isn't more clever because BOTH are to go on that... path
Maybe we should just call
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 03:31:51PM +, John McKerrell wrote:
edible map? nom nom nom
Cake! \o/
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 07:32:06PM +, Andrew M. Bishop wrote:
Peter Childs pchi...@bcs.org writes:
I decided that what would be fun to implement is a routing algorithm
that can find the best (shortest or quickest) route between any two
OSM highway nodes. I know that there are other
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 07:02:17PM +, Andrew M. Bishop wrote:
This is really neat. it's good to see a few excellent routers occuring
because of OSM.
I think your one is quite powerful for the ability to customise the
weighting, nice!
Also, any plans to release the source for the
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 07:31:46PM +, Chris Andrew wrote:
Andrew,
Would you consider the GPL licence?
Name ideas:
Tora- The Open Routing Algorithm?
Already used for the Toolkit for Oracle[1].
[1]: http://tora.sourceforge.net/
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:39:01AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
What I wanted to say was that, to a certain degree, *any* certainty is
better than a random assortment of may, might, the project
consensus seems to be that..., i am not a lawyer but..., depending
on your jurisdiction, and
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 07:02:09PM +0100, Ulf Möller wrote:
Thinh Nguyen of Creative Commons has posted detailed comments on the
ODbL on the co-ment website.
I think I’ve seen many of those arguments from the Science Commons
project before, and they still gloss over the question of “what if
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 10:47:43PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Simon Ward wrote:
They fail to note that if there are no rights in some jurisdiction, then
the database is free anyway, and so are derivatives.
As you know I'm pro-PD anyway but one thing that specifically strikes a
chord
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 07:11:06PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
Do you think that, just possibly, having to change the tagging on every
single road in the database to implement your scheme might make it just
a tad impractical...
Oh, there are only 20‐odd million. Piece of cake ;)
Simon
--
A
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 08:26:14PM -0400, Russ Nelson wrote:
On Mar 15, 2009, at 6:00 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
why are we bothering with switching OSM to 1.0 at all?
Why not just wait for the 1.1 fixed version?
1) Because ODbL 1.0 is better than C-By-SA
So far that is one thing that
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 02:25:24PM -0400, Russ Nelson wrote:
Earlier, I proposed that certain datasets should be immutable; whether
by policy or mechanism as needed. I propose importing the NYS DEC
Lands as an immutable set of data. If you read this exchange with
Robert Morrell, you
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 09:30:33PM +1100, Liz wrote:
I don't find a telephone conference acceptable.
While Frederick mentions the troubles of language, I don't want to be on the
phone at 0200 local time. I'd rather be asleep, and my critical faculties
probably would be asleep at that time
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:21:01AM +, Rob Myers wrote:
coast of the US for example. But I've been involved in both of two
meetings where decisions arrived at in the morning were reversed in
the evening, and that didn't make the first group very happy at all.
I think that, due to the
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:21:49AM +, Nick Black wrote:
The purpose of the call on Saturday is to offer an additional channel of
communication around the license - its intended to supplement the mailing
lists and wiki
Thanks, that’s what I expected to hear.
What I'd hope would come out
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 08:15:23PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Very often CC-BY-SA items will be conveyed with contractual
restrictions: Andy A cited the other day that the cycle map has its own Ts
Cs, for example.
So has CloudMade; they say that you may access
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 09:42:54AM -, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
wrote:
One thing we should not loose sight of in this process is what OSM is
collecting, and thus the limit of what we might wish to see contributed
back. The locations of butterflies and endangered species are examples
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 05:32:20PM -0800, SteveC wrote:
I think it would be a beautiful day if it was seen as bad form to use
'IANAL' and everything like that was instead rephrased as 'lets ask a
lawyer and I wont give you my opinion'
Ugh, so we’re not to question the lawyers now and just
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 09:55:39AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
(Has someone told you that you're overly concerned about your Fake self?
He seems to make an appearance in every second post you write.)
Fake Steve C = Steve C, you know it. He just tries to make it out that
it’s all Richard F. ;)
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 03:33:45AM -0800, Donald Allwright wrote:
I would be very keen to take a leaf out of the GPL world here, and license
the data under
ODBL 1.0 or later.
The GPL gives the licensor the choice (section 14. Revised Versions of
this License.[1]):
“If the Program
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 11:18:48AM +, Ed Avis wrote:
You have discussed some elaborate plans about what data from a non-relicensing
contributor would have to be deleted and what would have to be kept.
Are you responding to my mail, or one earlier in the thread? I stated
that everything
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 09:40:08AM -0500, Richard Weait wrote:
I see SVG as just another image. Raster or Vector; the image format is
not a problem. […}
The problem is behaviour. In this case the potential problem is Some
Jerk trying to use OSM database without living up to their license
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 03:28:10PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with the
license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer the
following questions:
My take:
- do you delete only data from contributors who explicitly say 'no' to
the
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 05:21:02PM +0100, Tobias Knerr wrote:
because of a change to the data, but the (unpublished) tools creating
the images, thus nothing of use would be contributed back to the free
world with ODbL.
Then we need to make sure as many tools as possible are free software,
and
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 09:11:13PM +, OJ W wrote:
Regardless of who they are, why should we give them complete control
over the license? It seems, if they were to decide to for example make
our project PD, neither the OSMF Board, nor the OSMF members, nor anyone
else could do anything
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 12:33:56AM +0100, MP wrote:
This could be perhaps optimized: if user A creates some
highway=road, user B changes it to residential and user C changes it
to secondary. A and C agrees to new license, B won't.
But contribution of B was completely removed by C's edit, so it
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 05:05:00AM +, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
This needs a safeguard to allow for email addresses temporarily not
working. I’m not even sure this is the right thing to do anyway. It’s
far safer getting rid of a user’s data than it is assuming ownership of
it.
Some
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 08:08:58AM +, Peter Miller wrote:
I do not read the ODbL this way. I read that only persons bound by the
license/contract are prohibited from reverse engineering.
Clarification here is needed.
When we find an issue like this then lets document it on the wiki and
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 01:40:47PM +0100, jean-christophe.haes...@dianosis.org
wrote:
* Waivers : thankfully I cannot legally waive my moral rights in my
country, but I think it is unfair to require this form any person in the
world.
While I agree to collective attribution, I share some of
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 10:35:21AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Simon Ward wrote:
this could mean that
anyone running osm2pgsql importing minutely data updates would possibly
have to make available a ''psql dump of the whole planet'' for any
snapshot time where someone cares to request
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 11:30:41AM -0500, Russ Nelson wrote:
Creative Commons license (by-sa). or under the ODbL. If you choose not to
give us your email address, or your email address stops working, you
waive all right to ownership of your edits.
This needs a safeguard to allow for email
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 05:59:40AM +, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
I do regularly import some osm data into PostGIS and reproject it inside the
database. Would it be enough to tell where to download the original OSM data
and what script to run, or should I really make a dump from my imported and
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 11:51:24AM +, Dair Grant wrote:
I'm not sure what format a file containing all of the alterations would
take. Does this mean a machine-readable list of the exact transformations
that were performed, or simply a human-readable summary of the
transformations made?
I
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:42:57PM -0500, John Wilbanks wrote:
I am not speaking for CC the organization here - there have been no
conversations to my knowledge about doing a compatibility check between
ODbL and CC licensing. But, I would remind everyone that the current
official CC policy
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:58:04PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Having to grant access to pgsql data base
---
In this use case we look at someone who does nothing more than taking
OSM data and rearranging it according to fixed rules, e.g. by running it
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 01:04:26PM +, Shaun McDonald wrote:
Could we do the same? We define a closed way for the main area where
people can stand and then define children of that using polygons
again, with an is_in tag?
Don't use the is_in tag, use a relation.
I agree, but some
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 04:00:22PM +, LeedsTracker wrote:
The concept of fair use is something which differs from one jurisdiction to
another. [snip]
I know, though the principle is in UK law:
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p09_fair_use
That page is a little misleading.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:48:17AM -, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
wrote:
Having thought about this a bit overnight I personally feel that the project
should have an OSM specific blog that gets used for OSM community
announcements, worthy news items and OSMF announcements.
This could
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 07:51:12PM +, Dave Stubbs wrote:
Oneway is strange in that as well as yes/no you can have oneway=-1
for one way in the opposite direction of the way, and I still can't
work out why that is necessary.
Because none of the editors had a reverse way tool :-). I
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 03:54:56PM +0100, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
El Domingo, 8 de Febrero de 2009, Maarten Deen escribió:
With one step 50% over the target.
Apparently the API server has gotten scared that it is going to be
replaced. I can't get any data from it at all.
Has it gone in
On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 11:49:49PM -0800, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I removed the link on 14th January because, as the above comment suggested,
the page wasn't finished enough to be the first documentation that a
newcomer to OSM might see.
Uhm, it’s a wiki, there’s a whole lot in that wiki
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 04:07:37AM +0100, Ulf Lamping wrote:
It's a *lot* easier to navigate through 20 or more subpages than to
read/search in exactly one page?!?
When it takes about a minute for the page to load, yes, I may as well
just do a search on the wiki since I’d get a response in a
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 05:45:11PM +, Thomas Wood wrote:
2009/1/31 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
I would suggest the following changes in the wiki:
- replace vote by opinion poll
- replace I approve/I oppose by I like it/I don't like it
- replace approved feature status by valuable
-
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 07:01:17PM +0100, Lars Aronsson wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to ask for a number of arguments for or
against a proposal? Then people would have to contribute more
arguments, instead of more votes.
This is ultimately more desirable. Wikipedia has a policy that
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 02:50:37PM -0500, Russ Nelson wrote:
On Jan 27, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Manfred Podzkiewitz wrote:
Hello, i have a question about the handling of unoffical, or ethnic,
or
historic names of towns and villages.
The TIGER import in the USA uses name_1 for alternate
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 04:36:08PM -0500, Matthias Julius wrote:
This doesn’t account for multiple names in the same language, though. I
can also imagine a place having several old names over time, while
old_name=* really only allows for one.
IMHO there really needs to be a well defined
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 08:59:26PM +, 80n wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:41 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
* WHAT changes can be made to the license once it is accepted;
If section 11 of the GDFL 3.1 is anything to go by [1], then pretty much
anything is possible.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 01:41:06AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
* WHAT changes can be made to the license once it is accepted;
I think this should be limited to avoid overstepping. We define the
basic things we want the licence to do—collective attribution, share
alike for derived data sets,
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 04:00:58AM -0800, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
sward wrote:
By having a closed development process, and publishing drafts
for review, OSMF have forced the process to involve rounds
of consultation.
It's not OSMF's licence. It is a third-party licence which OSM is
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 04:07:38PM +, Rob Myers wrote:
By having a closed development process, and publishing drafts for
review,
I don't understand what an open development process for a legal document
would look like if not iterated drafting and comment.
There should be another
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 05:41:41AM -0800, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
sward wrote:
Communications with Jordan have apparently broken down.
Mikel's e-mail of 15th Jan, which post-dates the minutes you're quoting
from, said Jordan had been involved in a meeting with them the previous day,
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 11:30:19AM +, Peter Miller wrote:
OSM Open Data License
There are many comments already on legal-talk that I won't repeat here. I
do however note from the minutes that all communications with Jordan had
broken down. Also that No hosting option for the licence is
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 08:37:32PM +, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Yay for 0.6 going live in March.
\o/
Can we take this opportunity to finally disable anonymous editing?
Yes, please.
Yeah, it’s just an “I agree” post, sorry.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 06:49:52PM -, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
wrote:
When I selected postal_code I was mindful that postcode is not used to
denote the code universally. In the US its ZIP (Zone Improvement Plan) code
for instance. postal_code appeared to me to be sufficiently
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 01:56:46PM +0100, Steven Le Roux wrote:
yes the problem was around pymedia, which seemed unmaintained...
great you managed using it ! could you share this build ? i didn't
manage it last time I tried...
Get the Pymedia 1.3.7.3 source, and apply the attached patch. It
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 01:33:59PM +, Simon Ward wrote:
Get the Pymedia 1.3.7.3 source, and apply the attached patch. It
defines HAVE_LRINTF in the setup which stops it from redeclaring
lrintf() which Debian with GCC 4 already has. Run ‘python setup.py
install’.
I forgot to mention
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 12:18:31PM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
I asked for a Garmin Legend HCx for Christmas, on the recommendation of
various people in this group, and am now trying to connect it to my
Linux computer to do some real-time mapping. Has anyone got this device
working with
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 02:09:26AM +0100, Steven Le Roux wrote:
I would like this one :
http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/rendering/party/
But last time I tried, the python code of the video.py was obsolete
regarding the sid's dependancies.
Hmm… it’s not “obsolete” with respect to
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 02:30:29PM -0800, Juan Lucas Dominguez Rubio wrote:
Hello I have installed the latest JOSM (v 1178) and I cannot install the
wmsplugin (v 12588). When I restart JOSM I get the message : 'plugin requires
JOSM update: wmsplugin'.
This happens both on Windows Vista
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 11:38:28AM +, Chris Hill wrote:
I wish there was better imagery for this area
I didn’t get a quadcopter for Christmas, maybe next year.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 10:07:06AM +, Tim Waters (chippy) wrote:
Well even so, it would probably be against the terms of use etc from
Google, and they can ask for it to be taken down, so whilst it may be
useful, it cannot be used...
It’s up to Google to do that, we can’t speak for them.
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:09:40PM +, Thomas Wood wrote:
I brought this up in IRC a few weeks back, and I know its been brought
up before that.
It's also appeared on the mls before, Richard's response pretty much
sums it up..
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 02:34:13PM +0100, Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
A possible consideration for a future API is to move the check there:
JOSM uploads, and indicates what data sources were used in the editing
session. Server checks
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 03:14:14PM +0100, Gustav Foseid wrote:
In addition, I have had a hard time finding anything in Google Earth terms
that limits tracing, as opposed to Google Maps where this is stated very
clearly.
Just searching for “google earth terms of service” gives (among other
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 03:58:26PM +0100, Gustav Foseid wrote:
Are those really terms for Google Earth and not for Google Maps? I get a
Norwegian translation on that URL, that does not mention Google Earth at
all.
The English version is clearly titled as I have already indicated
“Google
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 03:38:16PM +, Peter Miller wrote:
Have we lost the State of the Map Domain recently?
Google still quotes OSM content for the URL, but the URL itself now
points to a link farm!
http://www.stateofthemap.org/
I guess we did, then someone realised. Extracts from
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 01:22:22AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
A possible consideration for a future API is to move the check there:
JOSM uploads, and indicates what data sources were used in the editing
session. Server checks, sees GoogleWMS, replies “I’m sorry Dave, I’m
afraid I can’t
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 02:48:24PM +, Peter Miller wrote:
I am pleased to be able to announce that after discussions between
various OSM contributors and the DfT / Traveline over the past months we
are now able to make this announcement just in time for Xmas :)
A lovely Christmas
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 10:42:01PM +0200, Nic Roets wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote:
Why do people use _ instead of , seems very cumbersome really.
Because
* it's been an OSM convention (standard) since 2006. No one voted and
the wiki wasn't
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 04:29:29PM +, Andy Allan wrote:
be running, which is in the future and the timetable changed this
week[1].
[…]
[1] hypothetically, but actually did quite recently for the UK rail
network, which is a useful illustration.
If you’re lucky they’ll give you advanced
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 03:07:30AM +, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
There's a Debian port taking shape in branches/ports/debian which is of
relevance to this thread.
/me suddenly gains an interest
I'd already got an svn checkout but hadn't got as far as doing anything
with it.
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:24:29AM +, Steve Chilton wrote:
OSM appears in the 100 top sites for the year ahead list in UK's
Guardian newspaper today:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/dec/18/internet-websites
I like the comment for Where’s the Path:
“Let down by OS's absurd
101 - 200 of 253 matches
Mail list logo
