Hi,
as you probably know I'm running statistics on the raw count of
objects processed by the OSMI view and making Munin graphs of them here:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html
I'm afraid that there has been an error in some of the graphs (example
graph with problem shown here
http
Quoting Ed Avis :
writes:
2) good faith - are we making a reasonable effort to remove the IP of
folks who have not given us permission to continue? I certainly agree
with Ed that we should treat ex-contributors no differently to any IP
owner ... but feel we are already doing that in this and o
Quoting Ed Avis :
writes:
2) good faith - are we making a reasonable effort to remove the IP of
folks who have not given us permission to continue? I certainly agree
with Ed that we should treat ex-contributors no differently to any IP
owner ... but feel we are already doing that in this and o
writes:
>2) good faith - are we making a reasonable effort to remove the IP of
>folks who have not given us permission to continue? I certainly agree
>with Ed that we should treat ex-contributors no differently to any IP
>owner ... but feel we are already doing that in this and other
>co
Sorry, I appreciate your taking the time to go through the arguments on this
but I think I have said all I have to say about node positions. I'll let others
decide whether what I wrote makes sense.
--
Ed Avis
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@o
Quoting Ed Avis :
Simon Poole writes:
- mapper A (who has agreed to the CTs) creates a way
- mapper B (who has not agreed) adjusts the way's geometry, creating
some new nodes
- mapper C (who has agreed) adjusts the position of those nodes
In this case the third edit would have
Am 21.12.2011 14:50, schrieb Ed Avis:
Simon Poole writes:
In general we have assumed that for example tracing from aerial imagery
and similar sources does not create a derived work in which the creator
of the imagery has rights (not that I necessarily agree with that). The
requirement has alwa
Simon Poole writes:
>>- mapper A (who has agreed to the CTs) creates a way
>>- mapper B (who has not agreed) adjusts the way's geometry, creating
>> some new nodes
>>- mapper C (who has agreed) adjusts the position of those nodes
>>
>>In this case the third edit would have to be
Am 21.12.2011 14:15, schrieb Ed Avis:
Simon Poole writes:
If you take an existing tainted way and move it they way is still going
to go, so what is your point again?
Are we not talking about the following situation:
- mapper A (who has agreed to the CTs) creates a way
- mapper B (who
Simon Poole writes:
>If you take an existing tainted way and move it they way is still going
>to go, so what is your point again?
Are we not talking about the following situation:
- mapper A (who has agreed to the CTs) creates a way
- mapper B (who has not agreed) adjusts the way's geome
Am 21.12.2011 13:34, schrieb Ed Avis:
Simon Poole writes:
If somebody is improving the geometry of a way because he is
interpolating from the available information (may that be GPS traces of
other ways) then he is doing exactly that,
That is exactly it: "improving" the geometry of a way. Not
On 21 December 2011 12:43, Ed Avis wrote:
> andrzej zaborowski writes:
>>>- is a mapper declaration of odbl=clean interesting and helpful in
>>>reconciling the data base?
>>
>>Definitely, and I think odbl=no would also be useful to mark objects
>>that are known to come from ODbL-incompatible sour
Simon Poole writes:
>If somebody is improving the geometry of a way because he is
>interpolating from the available information (may that be GPS traces of
>other ways) then he is doing exactly that,
That is exactly it: "improving" the geometry of a way. Not replacing it.
If you take an existi
Please don't confuse the matter by treating tagged and untagged notes
the same.
If somebody is improving the geometry of a way because he is
interpolating from the available information (may that be GPS traces of
other ways) then he is doing exactly that, just because he is reusing an
exist
Richard Weait writes:
>We consider that the creation of an
>object and its id to be a system action rather than individual
>creative contribution.
However, 'the creation of an object and its id' never occurs by itself.
At a minimum, you create an object with id and lat/lon, and that location da
A common way to adjust a node position is to move it halfway between
the old one and the new one. For example, if there is already a way
on the map traced from GPS but you have a new GPS trace for it which
is a bit different, it would be unwise to adjust it to exactly fit
your new trace. But you
2011/12/21 ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen :
> I think it's relevant that node changes as suggested
> should involve stand alone nodes only (such as POI).
> Once they are part of a structure of say a building or a road, water
> or any area, the nodes should be considered a "composition
andrzej zaborowski writes:
>>- is a mapper declaration of odbl=clean interesting and helpful in
>>reconciling the data base?
>
>Definitely, and I think odbl=no would also be useful to mark objects
>that are known to come from ODbL-incompatible sources but whose
>contributors accepted Contributor
I think the test must be the same as for any other data which OSMF does not have
permission to use. If a mapper added a node by copying from Google Maps, but
then another mapper moved it to a different position using a permitted data
source, is it okay to keep that node in the database?
--
Ed Av
On 20 December 2011 21:27, Richard Weait wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> LWG would like feedback on a couple of items relating to cleaning
> tainted data as we all prepare for the data base transition.
>
> Draft minutes are here.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ZIQSl0xXpUFbqTeknz61BYgfCINDTzlA
I think it's relevant that node changes as suggested
should involve stand alone nodes only (such as POI).
Once they are part of a structure of say a building or a road, water
or any area, the nodes should be considered a "composition" rather
then 4 nodes.
While the underlying structure is a geogr
21 matches
Mail list logo
