2011/11/23 Frederik Ramm :
> But I think that the specific example under discussion here actually falls
> short of even this lowered bar. It is quite possible for me to grab a whole
> Way in JOSM and move it one metre to the left (which makes me the last
> editor of, potentially, hundreds of untagg
On 24 November 2011 05:09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> But I think that the specific example under discussion here actually falls
> short of even this lowered bar. It is quite possible for me to grab a whole
> Way in JOSM and move it one metre to the left (which makes me the last
> editor of, potential
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Jo wrote:
[ ... ]
> I do have a suggestion to help identify which tags/properties are the
> ones contributed by somebody who declined or who can't be reached. Now
> I have to go an dig in the history to check who added names and other
> properties, when recreating
80n wrote:
> It's not like it's going to be hard to recreate all this stuff. It
> didn't take long to create in the first place and remapping it
> is going to be a lot of fun isn't it?
Yep, exactly. It's actually surprisingly easy, especially with features such
as railway lines that are easily
>> It's not like it's going to be hard to recreate all this stuff. It
>> didn't take long to create in the first place
>
>
> ... when we had a fraction of the community we have now, less accurate
> aerial imagery and no secondary data sources to compare against. Re-mapping
> not only removes the l
Hi,
On 11/23/2011 06:22 PM, 80n wrote:
I don't see how it could be in anyone's interest to taint the map by
leaving in nodes that could, just possibly, be claimed to infringe
someone's rights.
I part agree, part disagree with that.
I don't think that our bar should be "no data that could, jus
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2011/11/23 Frederik Ramm :
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 11/23/11 15:16, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote:
> >>
> >> Currently, the LWG intends to delete all nodes ever created by
> >> decliners or non-responders.
> >
> > That is correct as far as I
2011/11/23 Frederik Ramm :
> Hi,
>
> On 11/23/11 15:16, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote:
>>
>> Currently, the LWG intends to delete all nodes ever created by
>> decliners or non-responders.
>
> That is correct as far as I know.
Would it legally be possible to keep those nodes that don't have tags
o
Hi,
On 11/23/11 15:16, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote:
Currently, the LWG intends to delete all nodes ever created by
decliners or non-responders.
That is correct as far as I know.
There is no contributor who has ever contributed even a 50% majority
of nodes on these routes. However, they wou
Sorry, I have accidentally pressed the enter button before writing my text.
That's the technical disadvantage of an old-fashioned mailing list!
Currently, the LWG intends to delete all nodes ever created by decliners or
non-responders. This would be detrimental for long routes, as I have calcula
--
NEU: FreePhone - 0ct/min Handyspartarif mit Geld-zurück-Garantie!
Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
11 matches
Mail list logo
