On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Anthony wrote:
> I tend to agree with you, but:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:IMG_6783.JPG
>
> Are both of those bridges layer=1? At least the road one, and arguably
> both, are effectively at "ground level".
>
> Right now I have the ditch with no l
2009/12/15 Anthony :
> Okay, but here's the thing. We don't put a fence at layer=1, even though
> it's on top of the ground. Because then it wouldn't be a barrier to travel
> along the ground.
It's attached to the ground... bridges are usually above at least some
ground level thing...
_
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Anthony wrote:
> So I've used barrier=entrance for the node where the way and the ditch
> cross.
>
More specifically, barrier=entrance and bridge=yes.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstree
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:47 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/12/15 Steve Bennett :
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:36 PM, John Smith
> wrote:
> >> I tend to mark bridges as layer=1 and anything at ground level I don't
> >> set a layer tag, which seems the most logical to me since ditches
> >> aren't
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:36 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/12/15 Steve Bennett :
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Anthony wrote:
> >> In a park is a ditch. There is a very small bridge going over the
> ditch.
> >> I've tagged the ditch with barrier=ditch. Should the ditch be layer=-1?
> >>
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett :
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:36 PM, John Smith wrote:
>> I tend to mark bridges as layer=1 and anything at ground level I don't
>> set a layer tag, which seems the most logical to me since ditches
>> aren't under the ground etc.
>
> The one benefit of marking waterways la
2009/12/15 Anthony :
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:31 PM, John Smith
> wrote:
>>
>> 2009/12/15 Anthony :
>> > No, if you break copyright law you can be taken to court to make sure
>> > you
>> > don't break copyright law in the future. If "break licenses", then,
>> > well,
>> > it depends on the li
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:31 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/12/15 Anthony :
> > No, if you break copyright law you can be taken to court to make sure you
> > don't break copyright law in the future. If "break licenses", then,
> well,
> > it depends on the license. In the case of CC-BY-SA, if you
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:36 PM, John Smith wrote:
> I tend to mark bridges as layer=1 and anything at ground level I don't
> set a layer tag, which seems the most logical to me since ditches
> aren't under the ground etc.
The one benefit of marking waterways layer=-1 (particularly for long
ones)
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett :
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> In a park is a ditch. There is a very small bridge going over the ditch.
>> I've tagged the ditch with barrier=ditch. Should the ditch be layer=-1?
>> Even though the park is layer=0?
>
> Layers are only there to exp
2009/12/15 Anthony :
> Browsewrap may or may not be enforceable. And even if it is enforceable any
> judgment for damages would probably be minimal. But I'm willing to abide by
> the terms of service of the sites that I visit, at least when I take the
> time to read them. Not doing so is effecti
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett :
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> Read Jacobsen v. Katzer, and the commentary on it, and then get back to us.
>
> Wasn't there some case where one company sued another for not making
> source code available as required?
There has been a lot of these,
2009/12/15 Anthony :
> No, if you break copyright law you can be taken to court to make sure you
> don't break copyright law in the future. If "break licenses", then, well,
> it depends on the license. In the case of CC-BY-SA, if you breach the terms
You are confusing contracts with licenses, wo
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Anthony wrote:
> Read Jacobsen v. Katzer, and the commentary on it, and then get back to us.
Wasn't there some case where one company sued another for not making
source code available as required?
Also, what jurisdiction are you referring to there?
Steve
__
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 9:50 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/12/15 Anthony :
> > CC-BY-SA isn't "enforcible" on anything. It grants rights, it doesn't
> take
> > them away.
>
> It's a license, if you break licenses on software you can be taken to
> court to make sure you do follow them in future and
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 9:41 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/12/15 Anthony :
> > Ah, but I don't plan on ever visiting the OSM website when and if they
> > switch to the ODbL.
>
> I doubt just visiting the OSM website without some kind of click
> wrapper similar to nearmap.com does would force you to
2009/12/15 Anthony :
> CC-BY-SA isn't "enforcible" on anything. It grants rights, it doesn't take
> them away.
It's a license, if you break licenses on software you can be taken to
court to make sure you do follow them in future and are punished for
past digressions. So while it grants rights, th
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Anthony wrote:
> Well, this particular thread was asking "Why can't we run both [CC-BY-SA and
> the ODbL] indefinitely?" I gave one answer. Because the terms of CC-BY-SA
> disallow it.
Aren't you misreading the terms? Say there is user A, with work W,
licensed C
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Anthony wrote:
> In a park is a ditch. There is a very small bridge going over the ditch.
> I've tagged the ditch with barrier=ditch. Should the ditch be layer=-1?
> Even though the park is layer=0?
Layers are only there to explain the relative heights of things
2009/12/15 Anthony :
> Ah, but I don't plan on ever visiting the OSM website when and if they
> switch to the ODbL.
I doubt just visiting the OSM website without some kind of click
wrapper similar to nearmap.com does would force you to agree with ODBL
for just using the website. On the other hand
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 9:21 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/12/15 Anthony :
> > CC-BY-SA says this: "You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work
> that
> > alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise
> of
> > the rights granted hereunder."
> >
> > The ODbL attempts
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 9:28 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/12/15 Anthony :
> > Yeah, well, a contract can't be enforced against people who agree to it.
>
> I think you meant disagree, but only if you have a suitable
> license/legal method that can enforce that term
>
I meant "don't agree".
> And
In a park is a ditch. There is a very small bridge going over the ditch.
I've tagged the ditch with barrier=ditch. Should the ditch be layer=-1?
Even though the park is layer=0? Should I use barrier=entrance on the node
where the ways overlap, bridge=yes on the bridge (which means splitting the
2009/12/15 Anthony :
> Yeah, well, a contract can't be enforced against people who agree to it.
I think you meant disagree, but only if you have a suitable
license/legal method that can enforce that term
> And don't you know, I have a contract on my web site which says that my data
> can't be use
2009/12/15 Anthony :
> CC-BY-SA says this: "You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that
> alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of
> the rights granted hereunder."
>
> The ODbL attempts to do exactly that.
Correct, but the reason for ODBL is because som
CC-BY-SA says this: "You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that
alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of
the rights granted hereunder."
The ODbL attempts to do exactly that.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstr
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:57 AM, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/12/15 Anthony :
> > In any case, if OSM decides to take the position that my contributions
> are
> > not copyrightable, and therefore they are free to incorporate them into
> an
> > ODBL project, that means I can take their ODBL project an
Andre
It is/was a software problem. What you are seeing on hypercube is the fixed
version. The patch will be deployed to the other servers as soon as I'm
sure it's stable.
There's also another patch I'm working on at the moment relating to queries
returning extra relations that are outside the b
2009/12/15 Anthony :
> Again, I don't remember saying that. And if I did, I apologize.
Sorry if I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure you mentioned it.
> In any case, if OSM decides to take the position that my contributions are
> not copyrightable, and therefore they are free to incorporate them in
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:17 AM, John Smith wrote:
> Perhaps my previous hints were too subtle, but you've stated that
> cc-by-sa isn't enforceable in your jurisdiction so how will you use
> something unenforceable to prevent it from being relicensed as ODBL?
>
Again, I don't remember saying tha
Serge,
Check out Quantum GIS, it is a powerful OpenSource desktop GIS that is
evolving pretty rapidly. It also includes a plugin architecture, so
people can write their own Python plugins. http://www.qgis.org/
OSGEO maintains a list of educational content in their wiki:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wi
2009/12/15 Anthony :
> My primary reason for not wanting to release my data as PD is that I don't
> want to support OSM if it decides to go with the ODbL. A street map
> licensed under ODbL is not something I find worthy of my (uncompensated)
> support, and the fact that the project would go from
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Brendan Morley wrote:
> "Actually, I've decided I'm not going to release my data as PD. I prefer
> copyleft. I prefer CC-BY-SA. It keeps people from taking my data and
> incorporating it into data under more restrictive licenses. Like ODbL."
>
> I'm assuming this i
Your considered vote on this proposal will be appreciated.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dog_off-leash_area
--
www.openstreetmap.org - "Io mappo il mio quartiere, tu mappi il tuo, tutti
quanti insieme mappiamo l'intero pianeta"
___
Hi List!
I've just discovered that two of the three XAPI servers return
incomplete data when trying to get a relation with tag search. The
relation itself, the nodes and the ways are returned but the ways and
nodes are empty with tags or members.
Try the following requests and you should see what
2009/12/14 Brendan Morley :
> Well it got mixed up as soon as "most maps you think of as free actually
> have legal or technical restrictions" collided with the existence of
> ShareAlike.
No, your assumptions are bumping into the share a like provision, you
assumed something that someone else assu
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:43:38 +1000, John Smith wrote:
>2009/12/14 Brendan Morley :
>> So why not put a wall down the middle of the house and protect that with a
>> proper lock if you like, and leave the other half open for visitors to
>> freely use "in creative, productive, or unexpected ways" wi
2009/12/14 Brendan Morley :
> And that requirement has a chilling effect (holds you back) on some
> "productive ways". Hypothetical example: I want to put my fast food joints
> on a map. If I licenced from a typical commercial provider, I pay a one time
> consideration, produce my mashed up work, a
2009/12/14 Steve Bennett :
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:37 PM, John Smith
> wrote:
>>> What is being lost though?
>>
>> When Google sucks up data what's being lost is supporting the greater
>> good, Google just sucks up all the data they can for their own good.
>
> To be fair to google, I've had
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:43:38 +1000, John Smith wrote:
>2009/12/14 Brendan Morley :
>> the large print promised to address
>> "holding back people from using them in creative, productive, or unexpected
>> ways"? SA still holds them back somewhat.
>I disagree, it doesn't hold you back from any of t
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:37 PM, John Smith wrote:
>> What is being lost though?
>
> When Google sucks up data what's being lost is supporting the greater
> good, Google just sucks up all the data they can for their own good.
To be fair to google, I've had a lot of fun with google maps (before I
2009/12/14 Brendan Morley :
> I agree! (-:
>
> When pondering this earlier today I realised one of the fundamental
> ambiguities is:
>
> Is freedom/openness enforced on the dataset *itself*? Or
> Is freedom/openness enforced on your right to *use* that dataset?
>
> I'd always assumed the second opt
2009/12/14 Brendan Morley :
> I suppose you would have hated contributing to Linux then.
GPL has similar sharing required by ODBL, if you had said BSD you
might have had a point, MS and others have taken BSD code and given
nothing back, they have recently been shown to have used GPL code and
as a
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:08:15 +1000, John Smith wrote:
>2009/12/14 Brendan Morley :
>> And the copyleft mindset of the LWP continues to perpetuate substantial
>> "legal [...] restrictions on [...] use." So really, the OSM project
has
>> failed to deliver on this latent demand.
>I've seen the sa
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:06:36 +1000, John Smith wrote:
>2009/12/14 Brendan Morley :
>> What is *materially removed* from you if your "labour is used to
>> commercially benefit others" and/or "commercial companies [are] just sucking
>> up all
>> the data and not giving hardly anything back in return
2009/12/14 Peter Childs :
> CCbySA says you must attribute where it came from, ODbl make no such
> demand. So by following ODbl you break CCbySA. and the law is
> about black and white not shades of grey.
CC-BY is attributation, CC-BY-SA is attributation + sharing changes
under the same licens
2009/12/14 Brendan Morley :
> I've seen the links and I trust I'm clear on what the LWP is up to. However
> that's not what I signed up for, to be honest. I mean it's an
> "OpenStreetMap" not a CopyleftMap or anything that unambiguous. I got sold
> on the blurb on that wiki page and didn't really n
2009/12/14 Brendan Morley :
>>Google has a lot of data and are good at getting more, be it official
>>or crowdsourced. It would be a huge loss for the collective knowledge
>>of everyone if this data escapes the virus. I can't afford that loss,
>>maybe you can.
>
> What is being lost though?
When G
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:45:44 +, Peter Childs wrote:
>2009/12/14 Brendan Morley :
>> Maybe I missed something in the discussion but...
>>
>> Why must there be migration to the new licence? Why can't we run both
>> indefinitely?
>>
>>
>Because there are things you can do with one that you can
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:50:12 +, Matt Amos wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Brendan Morley
>wrote:
>> Maybe I missed something in the discussion but...
>>
>> Why must there be migration to the new licence?
>mainly because the current license doesn't work. that is; in some
>jurisdict
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:48:17 +0100, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>2009/12/11 Shalabh :
>> Ok, heres a question I have been meaning to ask for long. What is the big
>> deal if the big, bad G takes a chunk of data from OSM and uses it? Do I
>> care? No. If anything, I would be happy that we created som
2009/12/14 Brendan Morley :
> And the copyleft mindset of the LWP continues to perpetuate substantial
> "legal [...] restrictions on [...] use." So really, the OSM project has
> failed to deliver on this latent demand.
I've seen the same comments regarding GPL v BSD licenses, free and
open are r
2009/12/14 Brendan Morley :
> What is *materially removed* from you if your "labour is used to
> commercially benefit others" and/or "commercial companies [are] just sucking
> up all
> the data and not giving hardly anything back in return if they extend the
> map"?
I'm not a source of free labour
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Peter Childs wrote:
> CCbySA says you must attribute where it came from, ODbl make no such
> demand. So by following ODbl you break CCbySA. and the law is
> about black and white not shades of grey.
Well, it's a bit more subtle than that, really. When you dua
Brendan Morley wrote:
> Why must there be migration to the new licence? Why can't we run both
> indefinitely?
A major reason for introducing ODbL is that many believe CC-by-SA to
only inadequately protect our data (so that it might be possible in some
jurisdictions to use our data without respec
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:17:41 +1000, John Smith wrote:
>If people or companies are benefiting, why shouldn't there be some
>expectations to return the benefits to everyone, not just hoard it
>away for the benefit of commercial operators if they themselves are
>benefiting from it?
The home page of
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Peter Childs wrote:
> CCbySA says you must attribute where it came from, ODbl make no such
> demand.
ODbL does make such a demand, see:
http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/
http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ (sections 4.2 and 4.3)
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Brendan Morley wrote:
> Maybe I missed something in the discussion but...
>
> Why must there be migration to the new licence?
mainly because the current license doesn't work. that is; in some
jurisdictions it isn't able to enforce the attribution and share-alike
Hi,
Brendan Morley wrote:
> Another question that didn't seem to be addressed:
> What is Yahoo's stance towards the OdbL? In regards to its imagery?
Yahoo has always maintained that our deriving data from their imagery is
covered by their terms of use, which would make their stance towards
ODb
2009/12/14 Brendan Morley :
> Maybe I missed something in the discussion but...
>
> Why must there be migration to the new licence? Why can't we run both
> indefinitely?
>
>
Because there are things you can do with one that you can't do with
the other, and there are things you must do with one a
"Actually, I've decided I'm not going to release my data as PD. I prefer
copyleft. I prefer CC-BY-SA. It keeps people from taking my data
and incorporating it into data under more restrictive licenses. Like ODbL."
I'm assuming this is your comment Anthony? (I'm starting to lose track of the
If you fork the project, and fund the upkeep of new servers,
bandwidth, etc, then sure.
But even if you could do that, which one would I contribute to? I'm
not going to do everything twice...
Cheers, Joseph
2009/12/14 Brendan Morley :
> Maybe I missed something in the discussion but...
>
> Why
Another question that didn't seem to be addressed:
What is Yahoo's stance towards the OdbL? In regards to its imagery?
Brendan
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Maybe I missed something in the discussion but...
Why must there be migration to the new licence? Why can't we run both
indefinitely?
Brendan
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:56:46 +1000, John Smith wrote:
>2009/12/13 Anthony :
>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:17 PM, John Smith
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The problem I have with that is my labour is used to commercially
>>> benefit others and in turn nothing they do would have to be returned
>>> to the commun
> it works on name: key=pair only or something extra for wikipedia
> linkages?
it works on name:xx tags, where xx is the language code of one of the
wikipedias:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SiteMatrix
Peter
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstr
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> So where does someone like me begin? Is there a good book I can read?
> A video course online?
>
> I realize that many universities offer a GIS class, but I'm wondering
> if this is something that can be relatively self-taught?
I've seen online refere
Just a reminder that the RFC period for the feature
"causeway=embankment/piling/yes" is nearly over, so if you have any
comments or questions, please put them forward in the next couple of days.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Causeway
--
Randy
__
--
Randy
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
69 matches
Mail list logo
