But this is the problem; the "legal side of things" is the central
issue to OpenStreetMap at the moment. You can't simply try and
sideline a difficult issue by describing it as "legal".
No one is sidelining anything - if it's worthy of discussion, discuss
it with those who can answer the ques
On 6/14/2011 5:10 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
Also the current acceptance numbers are ~166,000 accepting, vs. 406 declined.
What is the "no response" count to the emails so far?
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.ope
On 9/10/2011 4:01 AM, Simon Poole wrote:
With the same list of 476 mappers I ran a modified version of my V1
script that gave the following numbers for objects created by "PD" mappers:
Nodes:1'195'041 (0.11%)
Highways: 92'374 (0.22%)
Other ways:74'139 (0.13%)
R
[From Talk..]
On 11/26/2011 1:01 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
there are some people whose edits we know we can keep somehow (even if
someone has to manually copy them and upload under their own account)
Is this a way that we might be able to retain a
declared-PD-but-CT-declining mapper's contrib
I'm wondering if it would be legal to trace from LandSat.com aerials.
Of course I would need to buy the CD myself and not be able to share the
actual imagery to anyone else, but would the usage license be compatible
with tracing OSM objects?
http://www.landsat.com/richland-county-south-carol
On 1/8/2012 10:16 AM, Mike Dupont wrote:
Hi, landsat is already available in a josm plugin
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landsat
i dont know if what you are planning to buy is better than that,
Thanks - I didn't make the connection with the JOSM plugin! That
answers my question.
On 1/28/2012 8:30 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
There is nothing fundamentally wrong or impossible about that.
But it does introduce more work for us (because we would have to
implement a way for the API to reject changes to tainted objects).
A notice could originate in the 2 most popular editor
