Re: [OSM-talk] PBF and perl?
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 16:20, Gary68 wrote: > just browsed the PBF wiki page and svn and didn't find any perl support. > is there any module out there to read PBF files? Yes, see Google::ProtocolBuffers on CPAN[1]. 1. Found by entering "protocol buffer" into search.cpan.org. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Hi, Kevin Peat wrote: Are there any concrete examples of share-alike actually benefitting OSM? It seems like a good thing for software projects but for OSM I don't really see the benefit. One of the "benefits" massively touted by some Australian project members (but also, less loudly, by others e.g. years ago Chris Schmidt with his MassGIS import) is that there's more data we can import if we use a license that those who own the data agree with. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Ed Avis wrote: > Richard Fairhurst writes: > > >>It's curious that two of the strongest defences of 'strong share-alike' > come > >>from yourself and Richard F. - but both of you prefer public domain. I, > >>too, would prefer public domain over the ODbL. What's going on? > > >Basically, OSM has several outspoken people who won't countenance a > >permissive licence (e.g. Etienne and Steve). If you'd like to try and > >convince them of the error of their ways you're a braver man than I am. > > 80n is also an outspoken person who won't countenance ODbL or the proposed > contributor terms - so I don't think he weighs on the side favouring ODbL > rather than PD. When I spoke with him I think his main concern was > attribution: > 80n, is that correct? So a CC-BY licence might be acceptable. Would you > as > a 'public domain' proponent accept attribution-only as good enough? > > My view is that both the BY and SA elements of the current license are good for the project. The attribution element is good because it ensures that the contributors get some credit. It's the only thing they get out of it and since the whole success of OSM depends on the kindness of contributors I think it's the least that we can do for them. The share-alike element is also a force for good because it enables downstream contributions to be added back into OSM. It ensures that downstream users play fair with the content and prevents many inequitable uses. I see that OSM has thrived with the current license. I see that contributors and consumers understand what is expected and on the whole comply with the spirit of the license. Major transgressions are usually corrected quickly and apologies made. So that's what's good about the current license. Agreed, there are a few use cases where it would be nice if the license worked better (I think Richard, in particular, suffers from one of these) but no license is ever going to be a perfect fit. We've seen that all too clearly from the attempt to craft ODbL+CT specifically to our needs. As for what's wrong with ODbL, there are many problems. ODbL is a complex license that is hard for the layman to understand and hard for people to comply with. It relies on different types of law (copyright, database right and contract law), all of which are complex fields with very different characteristics and nuances. And these very greatly between jurisdictions. There are novel elements in ODbL (in particular the belief that the database right extends to reverse engineered content in produced works) that will only be watertight once they have been tested in the courts. The relationship between ODbL and DbCL is not very clear and I'm not convinced that lawyers really understand the distinction between a database and it's content. I'm certain that it isn't understood by most ordinary people. The implications of DbCL are murky at best. The belief that the data is the resource that needs to be protected and that it is not currently protected by copyright law is a misunderstanding of how existing copyright law applies to cartography. Copyright can exist in a work in *whatever* form it takes and a digital representation is just one of those forms. Cartography is fundamentally different from the data in telephone directories and copyright in maps is a well understood and proven principle. Moving on to the Contributor Terms. Well, they are just a big mistake. OSM's content is enormously valuable. Vesting the control of it to an organisation which has such a poor record of good governance is likely to make it a very attractive and easy target for some unscrupulous body. I fear the outcome of that. As for the change process itself. It is using very dubious methods to achieve consensus and that will taint the project long after the license change is completed. The process itself is uncontrolled with no mentor and no kill switch. Everyone involved in the LWG is I believe acting in good faith, I believe they are all doing their best to get a satisfactory outcome, unfortunately there is nobody and nothing in the process that is able to call time and bring it to a halt. So it will keep trundling along for another year or two until there really isn't anyone left to care. In summary, my biggest concern is that ODbL will kill the project. The change process itself is causing chronic damage and continues to weaken everyone's resolve and believe. OSM is a wonderful thing. It has succeeded fantastically and achieved what many thought was impossible. The current license may not be perfect but it works damn well and we should be very careful about trying to fix something that isn't very much broken. 80n PS if I had to choose, with a gun to my head, between ODbL and PD for OSM then I would opt for PD. I just don't think ODbL is workable, at least PD would work even if I don't agree with it. > You're right, though, that there are others within the project w
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On 22 November 2010 18:32, Ed Avis wrote: > it was simply assumed right from the outset that share-alike is > the 'consensus'... > Are there any concrete examples of share-alike actually benefitting OSM? It seems like a good thing for software projects but for OSM I don't really see the benefit. Kevin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] South Pole?
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 17:59 +0100, Rob wrote: > even more "polution" > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=0.445&lon=-1.674&zoom=10&layers=M That has a different cause. Someone did upload data putting buildings here which have since been removed: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/75383193 What you are seeing is a few tiles which have escaped the re-rendering process after the data was removed. Jon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Richard Fairhurst writes: >>It's curious that two of the strongest defences of 'strong share-alike' come >>from yourself and Richard F. - but both of you prefer public domain. I, >>too, would prefer public domain over the ODbL. What's going on? >Basically, OSM has several outspoken people who won't countenance a >permissive licence (e.g. Etienne and Steve). If you'd like to try and >convince them of the error of their ways you're a braver man than I am. 80n is also an outspoken person who won't countenance ODbL or the proposed contributor terms - so I don't think he weighs on the side favouring ODbL rather than PD. When I spoke with him I think his main concern was attribution: 80n, is that correct? So a CC-BY licence might be acceptable. Would you as a 'public domain' proponent accept attribution-only as good enough? You're right, though, that there are others within the project who don't think a permissive licence is the right choice. But it seems to have never been given a fair shake - it was simply assumed right from the outset that share-alike is the 'consensus', and then that was used to bring in a whole lot of legalese to close off possible loopholes, giving ODbL as the unchallengeable end result which must now be pushed through at all costs. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] Localisation and better search in Taginfo
I just put the new version of Taginfo (http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/) online. Taginfo now supports multiple languages. Currently only English and German, but other languages can be added easily. Not all texts are translated yet. By default Taginfo uses the language selected in your browser. Using the drop-down-box on the top right you can override this. The language choice will then be stored in a cookie. If you want to help translating: The translations are in the git repository at https://github.com/joto/taginfo/tree/master/web/i18n/ . The format should be obvious from the existing files. In the medium term this should probably be done through translatewiki or so, maybe somebody wants to take this on. In addition I have redone the whole search. Keys and values are now searched using a prefix search, so "max" will find "maxspeed" but not "betamax". Parts of a key or value separated by colons, whitespace, or similar are searched separately. If you search for something like "=residential" (without the quotes but with the equals sign) all values with "residential" in them are found regardless of the key. Something like "highway=residential" also works. The search has an autocompletion function which finds frequently appearing tags. The Taginfo pages contain an OpenSearch description, you can easily add the Taginfo search to your browser. In Firefox for instance you can click on the icon to the left of the search field and choose "Add Taginfo". The search isn't perfect. There are many difficulties, for instance it should be fast and not need too many server resources. Thats why there is no substring search. And the search should be as intuitive and easy to use as possible. Making the equals sign "magic", interpreting it in a special way is an experiment. It makes some searches very easy, but sometimes it doesn't do what you want. We'll see how that works out in practice. If you are interested in technical details: Taginfo uses a fullext index created by the FTS3 module included in Sqlite. For the autocompletion a special table containing common keys and key/value combinations is used. Its (re-)created on every data import. Have fun experimenting! Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] South Pole?
even more "polution" http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=0.445&lon=-1.674&zoom=10&layers=M 2010/11/15 Toby Murray : > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Nakor wrote: >> My next question is then: what is the correct place to >> report it? > > Trac. But it has already been reported there: > > http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/1327 > > Toby > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] PBF and perl?
hi, just browsed the PBF wiki page and svn and didn't find any perl support. is there any module out there to read PBF files? thanks gerhard gary68 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] So how *do* you get GPS waypoints into OSM?
Steve Bennett gmail.com> writes: > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/767553/OSM/waypoints/waypoints.zip Try WP1.gpx - WP12.gpx http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/JRA/traces I added the same fake two node track to each file somewhere from the area of the first WP file. -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] So how *do* you get GPS waypoints into OSM?
My GPS unit produces separate POI / waypoint files in addition to trackpoint files. Combining the two produces a file that can be visualised and traced in Potlatch: Waypoint files may not be timestamped, so using a text editor, add timestamps to each waypoint in the format 2010-10-06T11:15:27Z Then cut the block of waypoints and paste at the end the list of trkpoints. You might want to edit the trkpoints to just a few in the vicinity of the waypoints. The resulting file: version="1.1" creator="" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"; xmlns="http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0"; xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0 http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0/gpx.xsd";> lon="-1.6299166">02010-10-06T11:15:20Z0.0 kmh lon="-1.6299165">02010-10-06T11:15:21Z0.0 kmh lon="-1.6299163">02010-10-06T11:15:22Z0.0 kmh lon="-1.6299162">02010-10-06T11:15:23Z0.0 kmh >2010-10-06T11:15:27Z0POI 1 lon="-1.62686897">2009-01-05T12:55:17Z0POI 2 >2009-01-05T12:55:18Z0POI 3 >2009-01-05T12:55:19Z0POI 4 -- Upload the file with visibility as "Private", edit with save, and the wpts show up as orange spots. The name is revealed on mouse over. Delete file when finished. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] So how *do* you get GPS waypoints into OSM?
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:30:15 -0400 , Donald Campbell II wrote: I'd just add that depending on your GPS the waypoints may not be in the GPX files. For example with Garmin GPS devices the Waypoints are stored in the internal memory and must be extracted using GPSBabel or similar. The GPX files copied off when in USB Disk mode will only be tracks. this is not true of all Garmins. my 255WT includes any waypoints in the GPX files i offload. richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] So how *do* you get GPS waypoints into OSM?
> One rule: no JOSM. I have a preference for online tools if possible. Thanks to RichardF's help on irc I can confirm that I've managed to display one of the waypoint files from my GT31 as a background vector layer in Potlatch 2. I uploaded the .gpx file to my own website and added crossdomain.xml as per wiki instructions (and RichardF's reminder). I then renamed the .gpx as .xml as my web host was blocking the file as an unknown file extension and it was easier to rename than define .gpx (though I did try). If you want to test then use this link for an instance of Potlatch 2: http://random.dev.openstreetmap.org/potlatch2/potlatch2.html?lat=52. 323538300&lon=-1.939108300 and select http://www.loach.me.uk/test.xml as the background layer file (GPX format). It contains only one waypoint (M000). I'll remove the test files in a day or two, for those reading this belatedly (or from the archives)... Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] So how *do* you get GPS waypoints into OSM?
On 22/11/10 12:40, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > The reason for not accepting GPX with just waypoints is obviously that > timestamps are wanted as an evidence to prove that OSM mappers have been on > place instead of copying waypoint lists from the web. Wrong. Apart from anything else waypoints in GPX files do have timestamps, or at least the ones my GPS produces do. The reason can be found here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FAQ#Why_didn.27t_my_GPX_file_upload_properly.3F Which will tell you this: "The reason for this is that if you reset many GPS units or download map data to them, then you often get copyrighted data put in the GPX. The most famous example is that if you reset a Garmin GPS unit then it will put the locations of the Garmin offices around the world as waypoints on the unit. I happen to think that's a pretty bonkers reason, but it is the reason it wasn't done as far I understand it. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] So how *do* you get GPS waypoints into OSM?
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Next option - is there someone here who could do this for me? I have > about 10 or so waypoint files. Maybe some brilliant JOSM user can show > me how it's done. Err, if so: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/767553/OSM/waypoints/waypoints.zip Thanks in advance, Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] So how *do* you get GPS waypoints into OSM?
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > You can upload waypoints with GPX file, but only if the same GPX file has at > least one formally valid track. Formally valid means that the track has > timestamps. You can add a fake track into your GPX waypoint file by hand with > some text editor and then it will be possible to upload it. Once it is on the > server you can continue with selecting "Edit" from the list of traces and do > the > rest with Potlatch. Ok, well, I've just had a go at this, and it didn't work for me. The track came through, but no waypoints. Maybe I got something wrong in the .gpx. > The reason for not accepting GPX with just waypoints is obviously that > timestamps are wanted as an evidence to prove that OSM mappers have been on > place instead of copying waypoint lists from the web. I do not know how > effective it is in preventing this. Was this a real problem? Seems like a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. A pretty common use case (get waypoints. upload waypoint file.) is being deliberately unsupported to prevent one of many possible forms of vandalism/copyright infringement. Maybe if there was some kind of "trusted" flag, who knows. Anyway, that's a real pity. Next option - is there someone here who could do this for me? I have about 10 or so waypoint files. Maybe some brilliant JOSM user can show me how it's done. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Ed Avis wrote: > It's curious that two of the strongest defences of 'strong share-alike' > come > from yourself and Richard F. - but both of you prefer public domain. I, > too, would prefer public domain over the ODbL. What's going on? > Shouldn't we stop adding more legalese and just focus on transitioning > OSM to PD or attribution-only? Good luck with that, as the phrase goes. :( Basically, OSM has several outspoken people who won't countenance a permissive licence (e.g. Etienne and Steve). If you'd like to try and convince them of the error of their ways you're a braver man than I am. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Best-license-for-future-tiles-tp5747363p5762573.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] So how *do* you get GPS waypoints into OSM?
Ok, maybe not into the osm gpx layer, but the files saved into the trace list still include the waypoints, and those waypoints can be used by potlatch. Steve On 22 Nov 2010 12:37, "Tom Hughes" wrote: > On 22/11/10 11:41, steve brown wrote: > >> The gpx uploader does support them as long as they are in the right format. > > No it doesn't. There's a lot of history here but it was basically > deliberate that it doesn't import them. > > Tom > > -- > Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) > http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] openstreetmap in some flash advertising
Rob Myers wrote: > On 11/21/2010 08:53 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > > Legally they might have to attribute OSM but I'm really thankful > > they don't, because what they have to sell is some shady software > > that claims to be able to "locate" people when in reality it's just > > an x-ray pornocam style rip-off and I would't want to see OSM > > mentioned in that context. > > BY-SA does allow you to request the removal of attribution from > derivative works (BY-SA 2.0 Generic 4.a). This might be useful in > future to preventing OSM becoming associated with any other outbreaks > of pornocamvertising. How does that work? Does is require all contributors to agree on it?, or is there another way? - Johnny ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] So how *do* you get GPS waypoints into OSM?
Steve Bennett gmail.com> writes: > > Hi all, > Can anyone suggest any workflow, tools, whatever to get the > waypoints that I have captured on my GPS (tourist attractions, hotels > etc) into OSM? I understand the GPX upload interface doesn't support > them. Just looking for some way to get an object in the right spot so > I can edit it in Potlatch. Hi, You can upload waypoints with GPX file, but only if the same GPX file has at least one formally valid track. Formally valid means that the track has timestamps. You can add a fake track into your GPX waypoint file by hand with some text editor and then it will be possible to upload it. Once it is on the server you can continue with selecting "Edit" from the list of traces and do the rest with Potlatch. The reason for not accepting GPX with just waypoints is obviously that timestamps are wanted as an evidence to prove that OSM mappers have been on place instead of copying waypoint lists from the web. I do not know how effective it is in preventing this. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] So how *do* you get GPS waypoints into OSM?
On 22/11/10 11:41, steve brown wrote: > The gpx uploader does support them as long as they are in the right format. No it doesn't. There's a lot of history here but it was basically deliberate that it doesn't import them. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] So how *do* you get GPS waypoints into OSM?
Am 22.11.2010 12:36, Steve Bennett: Hi all, Can anyone suggest any workflow, tools, whatever to get the waypoints that I have captured on my GPS (tourist attractions, hotels etc) into OSM? I understand the GPX upload interface doesn't support them. Just looking for some way to get an object in the right spot so I can edit it in Potlatch. One rule: no JOSM. I have a preference for online tools if possible. Try the Web applet version of JOSM: http://josm.openstreetmap.de/applet Claudius ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] So how *do* you get GPS waypoints into OSM?
On 22/11/2010 12:20, Steve Bennett wrote: So...what's the right format? I have a feeling I've been down this road before and didn't get very far. It really doesn't seem like a very obscure thing I'm trying to do here. Workarounds? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Have a look at: http://www.openstreetmap.org/traces/tag/Limestone_Way That search should get you to a GPX file that contains mostly waypoints. There is one track point in it, so that the upload doesn't barf. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] So how *do* you get GPS waypoints into OSM?
I'd just add that depending on your GPS the waypoints may not be in the GPX files. For example with Garmin GPS devices the Waypoints are stored in the internal memory and must be extracted using GPSBabel or similar. The GPX files copied off when in USB Disk mode will only be tracks. So if you're not seeing the waypoints it may be that you haven't gotten them off the device yet. In that case, I hope you haven't already deleted them from the device. :-o -Don. P.S. This is good info for the newbies list as well. *Hi all, Can anyone suggest any workflow, tools, whatever to get the waypoints that I have captured on my GPS (tourist attractions, hotels etc) into OSM? I understand the GPX upload interface doesn't support them. Just looking for some way to get an object in the right spot so I can edit it in Potlatch. One rule: no JOSM. I have a preference for online tools if possible. Thanks,* ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] So how *do* you get GPS waypoints into OSM?
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:41 PM, steve brown wrote: > The gpx uploader does support them as long as they are in the right format. > Potlatch also supports them and shows them like temporary nodes. So...what's the right format? I have a feeling I've been down this road before and didn't get very far. It really doesn't seem like a very obscure thing I'm trying to do here. Workarounds? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] So how *do* you get GPS waypoints into OSM?
The gpx uploader does support them as long as they are in the right format. Potlatch also supports them and shows them like temporary nodes. Stece On 22 Nov 2010 11:39, "Steve Bennett" wrote: > Hi all, > Can anyone suggest any workflow, tools, whatever to get the > waypoints that I have captured on my GPS (tourist attractions, hotels > etc) into OSM? I understand the GPX upload interface doesn't support > them. Just looking for some way to get an object in the right spot so > I can edit it in Potlatch. > > One rule: no JOSM. I have a preference for online tools if possible. > > Thanks, > Steve > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] So how *do* you get GPS waypoints into OSM?
Hi all, Can anyone suggest any workflow, tools, whatever to get the waypoints that I have captured on my GPS (tourist attractions, hotels etc) into OSM? I understand the GPX upload interface doesn't support them. Just looking for some way to get an object in the right spot so I can edit it in Potlatch. One rule: no JOSM. I have a preference for online tools if possible. Thanks, Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] using wiktionary.org on map feature pages
... and *we* can also edit wiktionary.org ... but lets not go their eithor ... I already agreed to the 1st responce, and i'm creating a separate wiki website for 'international map feature standards' .. which is a combination of the many different maps that are around the world. I'll only be adding in the .osm tags when a standard is known, and already used by mapping agencies ... like Natural Resources Canada (canvec) and clearly defined like Linz. ... with a link to the osm wiki. So it's in the reverse order, as the 'OpenMapFeatures' (if that's what it will be called) cheers, sam On 11/21/10, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: >> Surely it will just reinforce the idea that tag keys and values should be >> interpreted as their literal dictionary meanings, which for many of our >> tags >> is completely wrong. > > Seconding this. The definition of power=pylon is whatever *we* decide > it is, not whatever wiktionary decides it is. Don't even go there. > > Steve > -- Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blogs: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/ http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans Skype: samvekemans IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #osm-ca Canadian OSM channel (an open chat room) @Acrosscanadatrails ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
