date:20120306

[talk-ph] OSM vs. RoadGuide.ph redux

2012-03-06 Per discussione Eugene Alvin Villar

Hi guys,

Early last year, I did a visual comparison of between the OSMPH Garmin
map and the Garmin map produced by RoadGuide.ph, concentrating on
areas where OSM is better (since RoadGuide, by default, has more data
than OSM): http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com/posts/is_rg_better_than_osm

I did a follow-up comparison almost one year later and you can see the
results here: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RoadGuide.ph/Data_comparison_with_OSM

The lesson is the same as with last year: Use both maps if you can
since they complement each other. :-)

Don't know what RoadGuide.ph is? Here's a primer:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RoadGuide.ph

___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

2012-03-06 Per discussione Michael Collinson

I am trying to find a solution that will allow the UMP project in Poland 
to continue using OSM data and therefore reciprocally allow OSM to keep 
a large amount of data that went into making the initial road map of 
Poland and which is still there.  The UMP project collects road routes 
within Poland and makes routable maps for Garmin devices publishes its 
data under CC-BY-SA.  I hope that they will consider ODbL in the future, 
but that is their choice and I am sure that they will want to see how we 
fare first.


From what I understand of how UMP uses OSM data, (which may not be 100% 
right yet), I have made the following draft statement. May I ask you:


- as an OSM community member, are you happy for the OSMF to make such a 
statement?


- is it true?

- can you see any negative consequences?


The OSMF acknowledges the kind help of UMP project and its members in 
creating the OSM map of Poland. The OSMF acknowledges that the UMP 
project is similar in spirit; providing geodata that is free and open. 
Provided that UMP continues to publish its data under a free and open 
license, the OSMF is happy to allow UMP to use OSM data for verifying 
road routes within Poland.  UMP may also provide a layer of non-highway 
data made from OSM data or OSM map-tiles within its Garmin maps; the 
OSMF believes that this is allowed by the basic ODbL license and that no 
special permission is required. (DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY!)


The key line for me is the OSMF is happy to allow UMP to use OSM data 
for verifying road routes within Poland ... this is probably granting 
permission for something not completely within the ODbL.


Mike

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

2012-03-06 Per discussione Ed Avis

Legally there's no downside for granting extra permissions.  They are
additive on top of whatever licence is used and don't damage anyone
else's use of the data.  However, it is not in the spirit of the
community terms for OSMF to grant exemptions or extra permissions -
particularly not if they are specific to one user, which looks like
favouritism.

So I suggest, firstly, any extra permission granted should be to
everyone on equal terms or not at all; and secondly, if you believe
that the permission notice is necessary as an addition to the ODbL
(rather than just a clarification of what is already the legal
situation) then its text needs to be approved by the OSMF board and a
2/3 vote of active contributors.

--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

2012-03-06 Per discussione Frederik Ramm


Hi,

On 03/06/12 10:55, Michael Collinson wrote:

The OSMF acknowledges the kind help of UMP project and its members in
creating the OSM map of Poland. The OSMF acknowledges that the UMP
project is similar in spirit; providing geodata that is free and open.
Provided that UMP continues to publish its data under a free and open
license, the OSMF is happy to allow UMP to use OSM data for verifying
road routes within Poland.


I don't think there is a process for granting special permissions to 
anyone; this could only work through a license change (where the new 
license is basically ODbL for everyone but for UMP the following extras 
are established...).


The only way I can see this fly is for OSMF to publish their 
interpretation of ODbL that allows whatever UMP want to do.


Personally, I don't think that *verifying* their data against OSM data 
(in the sense of flagging potential problems, as long as they don't copy 
our data outright) would be a valid use of our data that would not 
create a derived database. (The database that contains the results of 
the analysis might be derived and have to released.)



UMP may also provide a layer of non-highway
data made from OSM data or OSM map-tiles within its Garmin maps; the
OSMF believes that this is allowed by the basic ODbL license and that no
special permission is required.


Are Garmin maps databases or produced works? If they are databases then 
UMP would have to make sure that the ODbL licensed OSM layer is 
accessible separately and would have to make users aware that it is 
ODbL. If they are produced works, then UMP would have to make the 
derived non-highway database available under ODbL. If UMP were not 
willing or able to do that, and OSMF were intent on removing this burden 
from UMP, then OSMF could offer to publish a derived non-highway 
database themselves, which would lead to UMP only having to point to 
that database and say there's our source and it's ODbL.


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09 E008°23'33

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

2012-03-06 Per discussione Ed Avis

Is there a way to provide what UMP want by making a Produced Work (which could 
be
public domain or CC) rather than a Derived Database?

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

2012-03-06 Per discussione Richard Fairhurst

Michael Collinson wrote:
- as an OSM community member, are you happy for the OSMF to make
such a statement?
- is it true?
- can you see any negative consequences?

I'm with Ed and Frederik on this one, I'm afraid - I don't see any way in
which we can afford additional permissions on a one-off basis under
ODbL+current CTs; nor do I think that we should do so except universally
(i.e. to everyone, worldwide, not just to one project in one country).

The question raised by Frederik is whether verifying their data against OSM
data creates a derived work. As ever, ask in a different jurisdiction, get
a different answer, but there is at least one case that suggests that it may
(Singapore maybe?).

If we were to say we don't think verifying data creates a derived work,
would the great mass of OSM mappers be content to see Google (for example)
use our effort to determine where new streets are; send the StreetView
cars/satellites out; and have the new streets on Google Maps within a couple
of days? I'm sure they wouldn't - indeed, I suspect many of those who've
signed the CTs would feel cheated if they were told that it would permit
this.

So... sorry, but no, I don't think it'll work. :(

cheers
Richard

--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Feedback-requested-OSM-Poland-data-tp5540425p5541176.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Post-Changeover Attribution

2012-03-06 Per discussione Rob Myers

On 06/03/12 18:07, Michael Collinson wrote:
 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ/ODbL3a. I would like to use
 OpenStreetMap maps. How should I credit you?

I recommend Map tiles copyright OpenStreetMap, licenced CC-BY-SA, as
that works better with BY-SA's requirement of a copyright notice.
Spelling out Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike v3.0 and adding
years to each notice wouldn't hurt either.

I also recommend using the *word* copyright rather than (c), as it is
my understanding that the English word has international legal weight
but the copyright symbol or its ASCII equivalent doesn't.

For offline works, CC recommend this text (sorry for the url):

https://creativecommons.org/choose/non-web-popup?q_1=2q_1=1field_commercial=yfield_derivatives=safield_jurisdiction=field_format=field_worktitle=field_attribute_to_name=field_attribute_to_url=field_sourceurl=field_morepermissionsurl=lang=en_GBn_questions=3

Other than that, the FAQ is excellent but I do obviously recommend
getting someone who IAL to take a look at it. I know that adding endless
boilerplate legal text is bad, but more legal text is better than more
misunderstanding.

- Rob.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Post-Changeover Attribution

2012-03-06 Per discussione Mike Linksvayer

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
On 06/03/12 18:07, Michael Collinson wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ/ODbL 3a. I would like to use
OpenStreetMap maps. How should I credit you?

I recommend Map tiles copyright OpenStreetMap, licenced CC-BY-SA, as
that works better with BY-SA's requirement of a copyright notice.

BY-SA doesn't require a copyright notice. It requires keeping intact
copyright notices that are provided, as well as license notice. Given
that copyright is automatic, many licensors don't provide the former,
though it may be useful to do so anyway for education. The notices
provided by CC don't include an explicit copyright notice.

Spelling out Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike v3.0 and adding
years to each notice wouldn't hurt either.

It seems to me space is at a premium in the corner of a map or a
caption, and spelling out doesn't gain much, but that's just my
opinion.

Just as an experiment in brevity

©OpenStreetMap data ODbL[ tiles BY-SA]

With OpenStreetMap, ODbL, and BY-SA linked to the obvious
places, [] when tiles used.

I also recommend using the *word* copyright rather than (c), as it is
my understanding that the English word has international legal weight
but the copyright symbol or its ASCII equivalent doesn't.

That's the oddest thing I've read today. Really?

For offline works, CC recommend this text (sorry for the url):

https://creativecommons.org/choose/non-web-popup?q_1=2q_1=1field_commercial=yfield_derivatives=safield_jurisdiction=field_format=field_worktitle=field_attribute_to_name=field_attribute_to_url=field_sourceurl=field_morepermissionsurl=lang=en_GBn_questions=3

Nobody has ever sent a request for a copy of a license via post,
AFAIK. :) But the full license URL should be provided, not
www.creativecommons.org. Same is true of ODbL which says If
hyperlinks are not possible, You should include the plain text of the
required URI’s with the above notice.

IANALetc
Mike

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Post-Changeover Attribution

2012-03-06 Per discussione Rob Myers

On 06/03/12 20:30, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
 
 I also recommend using the *word* copyright rather than (c), as it is
 my understanding that the English word has international legal weight
 but the copyright symbol or its ASCII equivalent doesn't.
 
 That's the oddest thing I've read today. Really?

Para 7 here, I may have been wrong about the copyright symbol:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html

Grepping Berne for the word English doesn't immediately show anything
germane to this however.

 For offline works, CC recommend this text (sorry for the url):

 https://creativecommons.org/choose/non-web-popup?q_1=2q_1=1field_commercial=yfield_derivatives=safield_jurisdiction=field_format=field_worktitle=field_attribute_to_name=field_attribute_to_url=field_sourceurl=field_morepermissionsurl=lang=en_GBn_questions=3
 
 Nobody has ever sent a request for a copy of a license via post,
 AFAIK. :)

Oh I'm disappointed now. :-)

- Rob.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?

2012-03-06 Per discussione Steve Bennett

Hi all,
  Could someone explain exactly what will be happening on April 1?
Will we really be purging all data from decliners? And if so, is this
not terrible timing, given the recent, high-profile signups of
companies like foursquare?

Given that many people are now actively remapping, is there any
prospect of pushing back the cutover deadline? Is there any reason not
to? Why do we want to reveal a map with huge holes in it to the world,
rather than doing the remapping privately, to minimise disruption to
data consumers?

Steve
(I previously asked a version of this question on talk).

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-talk] Victoria seems to be missing.

2012-03-06 Per discussione Paul Johnson

Looked at http://www.mapdust.com/detail/1978573 and noticed there doesn't
seem to be any ways, but the nodes that belonged to the missing ways are
still there.  History only indicates Acrosscanadatrails as being the only
person who has touched those nodes.  Quite confused as to what happened
here.  Could anybody provide some insight into what happened to the missing
ways?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Map Co-ordinates for towns, etc in UK

2012-03-06 Per discussione Nathan Edgars II


On 3/3/2012 8:24 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:

We don't have zero-point markers in the USA, either, at least not from my 
experience.  However, the highway departments seem to be referring to some point in or 
near the center of the cities, judging from the distances shown.


Sometimes it's to the center (usually the courthouse or city hall?) and 
sometimes to the city limits. The only zero point I know of (that's not 
intended for only one road) is the Zero Milestone in DC, and its use 
never caught on.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Map Co-ordinates for towns, etc in UK

2012-03-06 Per discussione Nathan Edgars II


On 3/6/2012 8:53 AM, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) wrote:

On 3/3/2012 9:04 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

Sometimes it's to the center (usually the courthouse or city hall?)
and sometimes to the city limits. The only zero point I know of
(that's not intended for only one road) is the Zero Milestone in DC,
and its use never caught on.


There's also Mile 0 for US 1 in Key West.


That's for one route. Most routes with mileposts have a mile 0, but it's 
where the route begins, not necessarily some sort of town center.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

2012-03-06 Per discussione Michael Collinson


On 06/03/2012 15:34, Ed Avis wrote:

Is there a way to provide what UMP want by making a Produced Work (which could 
be
public domain or CC) rather than a Derived Database?

   
UMP only collect road routes. With the caveat that I probably still do 
not understand *exactly* the intended use, (if anyone knowledgeable 
wants to jump in, please do), I think the issue breaks into two parts.


The first issue is to augment their Garmin map. So, yes, it is very 
likely they could use our data as an independent Produced Work layer.


The second issue is that they are very reasonably asking reciprocity - 
if OSM can continue to use UMP road data, so UMP should be able to use 
OSM road data.  And that is the difficult one.  I was hoping to work 
with defining what use actually meant.  It is possible that UMP would 
never actually want to copy in an OSM road or any details about it into 
the UMP project database.  They just want to be able to compare the road 
networks, see if there is anything missing or potentially anomalous and 
go out and independently map it. Frederik puts it well:


Personally, I don't think that *verifying* their data against OSM data 
(in the sense of flagging potential problems, as long as they don't copy 
our data outright) would be a valid use of our data that would not 
create a derived database. (The database that contains the results of 
the analysis might be derived and have to released.) 


However, if I were in UMP, I would want to be cautious and seek 
clarification from OSMF.  Which is what I am seeking to give.  Doing it 
specifically for another free and open project with known goals seems 
safe, doing it for anyone- as Ed, Frederick and Richard are reasonably 
suggesting - seems dangerous without very carefully defining what 
verifying could mean, and more importantly, what it does not mean.  If 
we do not find a resolution, it will be a great shame for both projects.


Stumped,
Mike


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

2012-03-06 Per discussione Frederik Ramm


Hi,

On 03/06/2012 02:36 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Personally, I don't think that *verifying* their data against OSM data
(in the sense of flagging potential problems, as long as they don't copy
our data outright) would be a valid use of our data that would not
create a derived database. (The database that contains the results of
the analysis might be derived and have to released.)


Oops. Tripped over my own negative here. I wanted to say: As long as 
they just compare stuff and verify, I think it's ok and they won't be 
affected by viral ODbL-ness.


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

[OSM-talk] Mapnik slower than usual?

2012-03-06 Per discussione Nathan Edgars II

Is it just me, or are there more timeout magnifying glasses than usual? 
Is this due to the Osmarender server going down?


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Post-Changeover Attribution

2012-03-06 Per discussione Michael Collinson

The LWG want to get a community-agreed wording prepared for how we want 
folks to attribute us after license change-over.


There is a wiki page courtesy of Richard Fairhurst that makes a good 
edit point. Please take a look:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ/ODbL 3a. I would like to 
use OpenStreetMap maps. How should I credit you?


Mike
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Victoria seems to be missing.

2012-03-06 Per discussione Paul Johnson

On Mar 6, 2012 10:11 AM, Andrew Allison andrew.alli...@teksavvy.com
wrote:

 On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 16:43 -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
  Looked at http://www.mapdust.com/detail/1978573 and noticed there
  doesn't seem to be any ways, but the nodes that belonged to the
  missing ways are still there.  History only indicates
  Acrosscanadatrails as being the only person who has touched those
  nodes.  Quite confused as to what happened here.  Could anybody
  provide some insight into what happened to the missing ways?

 Canada has started / selectively purged some non-compliant data.
 Probably caused what you are seeing.

Oh, man, next month is gonna suck.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Victoria seems to be missing.

2012-03-06 Per discussione Paul Norman

Removing a limited set of objects was proposed by rweait in
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2012-March/004589.html.
What was actually removed went beyond what was discussed. I proposed rolling
them back in
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2012-March/004599.html but
no one replied.

 

What do you think the best route is? I had been working on pulling out the
CanVec/Geobase imports and restoring the data to a consistent state by
adding back in major highways and coastlines, but the removals stopped that.

 

From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] 
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 4:43 PM
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [OSM-talk] Victoria seems to be missing.

 

Looked at http://www.mapdust.com/detail/1978573 and noticed there doesn't
seem to be any ways, but the nodes that belonged to the missing ways are
still there.  History only indicates Acrosscanadatrails as being the only
person who has touched those nodes.  Quite confused as to what happened
here.  Could anybody provide some insight into what happened to the missing
ways? 

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] FourSquare and OSM

2012-03-06 Per discussione Steve Bennett

So at the risk of pointing out the obvious: aren't we about to start
purging data from decliners? Last I heard, we're begin[ning] the
process of database re-building and hope to complete by 2012-04-01.
Are we about to start inflicting maps with big holes, missing roads
etc on these big sites that have finally made the decision to start
trusting OSM with their core business?

Or will the intermediary service provided by MapBox etc somehow protect them?

Discuss.

Steve

On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Frans Thamura fr...@meruvian.org wrote:
 hi all

 we have great news that foursquare using OSM now

 anyone working with Fq? which API that osm using ?

 the ruby one?

 F

 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] FourSquare and OSM

2012-03-06 Per discussione Joseph Reeves

Or will the intermediary service provided by MapBox etc somehow protect them?

MapQuest is updated minutely? So changes to the database are going to
be felt by FourSquare, Nestoria, et al pretty immediately. This is
pretty off topic, of course...

Presumably the good folks behind the license change will say that any
short-term damage to OSM caused by removing data is outweighed by the
benefits of a new license; the ODbL even, possibly, makes data
exchange with these 3rd parties more secure in the long term.

That's the optimistic way of putting it. You could be a pessimist and
say that OSM data is already hugely inconsistent and full of holes,
missing roads and imaginary data.

I guess it just depends on how you judge the contents of your glass
(or mailing list).

Cheers, Joseph





On 6 March 2012 22:15, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 So at the risk of pointing out the obvious: aren't we about to start
 purging data from decliners? Last I heard, we're begin[ning] the
 process of database re-building and hope to complete by 2012-04-01.
 Are we about to start inflicting maps with big holes, missing roads
 etc on these big sites that have finally made the decision to start
 trusting OSM with their core business?

 Or will the intermediary service provided by MapBox etc somehow protect them?

 Discuss.

 Steve

 On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Frans Thamura fr...@meruvian.org wrote:
 hi all

 we have great news that foursquare using OSM now

 anyone working with Fq? which API that osm using ?

 the ruby one?

 F

 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] FourSquare and OSM

2012-03-06 Per discussione Steve Bennett

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Joseph Reeves iknowjos...@gmail.com wrote:
 Presumably the good folks behind the license change will say that any
 short-term damage to OSM caused by removing data is outweighed by the
 benefits of a new license; the ODbL even, possibly, makes data
 exchange with these 3rd parties more secure in the long term.

Ouch. So after years of laboring in the background, we finally make a
splash on the world scene, getting picked up by some pretty prominent
sites. Weeks later, we start removing large slabs of data, because of
an arcane licensing debate that no one outside OSM gives a toss about.

If this actually happens, it will be by far the stupidest thing OSM
has ever done. But maybe I'm misunderstanding the meaning of that
phrase about database rebuilding?

 That's the optimistic way of putting it. You could be a pessimist and
 say that OSM data is already hugely inconsistent and full of holes,
 missing roads and imaginary data.

I can't speak for other countries, but in my city (Melbourne,
population 4 million, second biggest in Australia), parts of the
largest freeway, right near the centre of town, are currently on the
chopping board. That's a lot worse than any other everyday missing
roads, holes etc.

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] FourSquare and OSM

2012-03-06 Per discussione Steve Bennett

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 If this actually happens, it will be by far the stupidest thing OSM
 has ever done. But maybe I'm misunderstanding the meaning of that
 phrase about database rebuilding?

Since I'm getting some off-list snark about this, let me make clear:

1) I'm not arguing against the licence change
2) I am participating in remapping
3) I'm questioning deleting large amounts of data from our map on the
self-imposed deadline of April 1

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] FourSquare and OSM

2012-03-06 Per discussione sabas88

2012/3/7 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com

 On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
  If this actually happens, it will be by far the stupidest thing OSM
  has ever done. But maybe I'm misunderstanding the meaning of that
  phrase about database rebuilding?

 Since I'm getting some off-list snark about this, let me make clear:

 1) I'm not arguing against the licence change
 2) I am participating in remapping
 3) I'm questioning deleting large amounts of data from our map on the
 self-imposed deadline of April 1


I agree with you.
The license change is ok but: the big sites (Foursquare) must have the
possibility to use the CC-BY-SA database also after the 1st April, till we
have remapped almost all lacking data.
I don't know if it's possible, but new contributions can be backported to
the old database?



  Steve


Regards,
Stefano


 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] FourSquare and OSM

2012-03-06 Per discussione Stephan Knauss


On 07.03.2012 05:23, Steve Bennett wrote:

3) I'm questioning deleting large amounts of data from our map on the
self-imposed deadline of April 1


Would it be even more clever for map tile providers like mapquest so 
simply stop updates for a week (or probably serve static tiles as of 
march 31) until the ODbL data reached a level the tile users are happy with?


It is the decision of tile providers how fast they update...

Stephan

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[talk-au] lake baroon missing

2012-03-06 Per discussione Chris Barham

Hi,
I'm away for a few months, but a friend just pointed out that Lake
Baroon has gone missing:
http://osm.org/go/ueSKIP02-
If anyone is inclined to fix please do
Chas

-- 

cbar...@pobox.com

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

1 2 3 >

1 - 100 di 244 matches

Mail list logo