On 5 August 2010 22:26, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Francis
> Indeed. Let's start getting specific. The threshold in the US is very low
> - which incidentally is where this "you can't copyright facts" stuff
> originated.
I may have missed that part of the discussion. If you mean that the U
Ma edastaks selle küsimuse laiemale kogukonnale: on kellelgi võimalus
minna sel ajal Wikipedia-koleegidele Valgamaal külla ja rääkida
OpenStreetMap-ist? Samal ajal peaksin ise Pärnu mapping party-l (ja
sellega seotud koolitusseminaril) olema, muidu oleksin ise kindlasti
käsi. Kui on, siis andke ot
On 08/05/2010 08:20 PM, Anthony wrote:
I don't think so. Ways contain geographical data, but they're more
than *just* geographical data.
I don't know what else they are.
The fact that the form is fixed on the hard drive is less important than
that it's fixed as a database or as an image enc
On 05/08/10 20:35, David Earl wrote:
Are you going to take the email address on trust? It is really very easy
to set up an OpenID provider which supplies any old email address on
request. (There are some I think you can trust in principle - we know
for example that Google and Yahoo provide verif
On 05/08/2010 14:44, Tom Hughes wrote:
If the OpenID provider supplies sufficient data (basically an email
address and nickname) then they need do little more than click OK to
accept the details and then accept the terms.
Are you going to take the email address on trust? It is really very easy
Bernhard,
The "*" is a wild card for the light number.
The Render Hint has one additional parameter, the suggested radius of the
sector arc that will appear on the chart.
All the previous items are to create the annotation.
You are correct about the limited range of seamarks available. As I said
Hi,
On 5 August 2010 17:09, Andy Allan wrote:
> Let's imagine nearmap have been running their new editor and
> 'cloaking' all their users under the one account for a couple of
> years, and that their editor is great and everyone wants to use it.
>
> * I want to run a mapping party in Sydney - who
On 05/08/10 14:50, Anthony chuntered on:
>>> Still waiting for that definition of geodata.
>> It's a contraction of "geographical data".
> I didn't ask for an expanded form, I asked for a definition.
You are aware that there are aspects to life that aren't connected to
copyright? Like the defi
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 1:42 PM, SteveC wrote:
> Ben if I read this right then you're hiding the users from OSM and we'll see
> a stream of edits from NearMap which are actually from multiple users. This
> is why CM/matt/others built the OAuth code so that mapzen etc didn't do that,
> because it
JohnSmitty wrote:
>
> Will they still need to register with OSM?
>
Have a look at the link to the source code I posted earlier (I know you are
a coder, so I can send you that way...).
You can also have a look at http://openid.dev.openstreetmap.org/ although
that is by now outdated, has it hasn
On 5 August 2010 23:44, Tom Hughes wrote:
> If the OpenID provider supplies sufficient data (basically an email address
> and nickname) then they need do little more than click OK to accept the
> details and then accept the terms.
That would probably satisfy Nearmap and others trying to minimise
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 05/08/10 14:37, Anthony wrote:
>
>> By the way, if you know the history of copyright, you'll know that
>> maps were one of the first two types of works which were protected.
>> When copyright was invented, it protected books and maps. The ide
On 05/08/10 14:42, John Smith wrote:
On 5 August 2010 23:34, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 05/08/10 14:33, John Smith wrote:
On 5 August 2010 23:27, Tom Hughes wrote:
Err actually, please don't start OpenID support from scratch as we
already
have a branch with more or less complete OpenID support!
On 5 August 2010 23:42, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hey Google, you can have our unoriginal facts but please don't copy the
> Osmarender map style, or the way we write our XML. Thanks.
Mapping isn't about recording pure fact, otherwise we'd simply convert
GPX data to map data automagically.
We are in
On 05/08/10 14:37, Anthony wrote:
By the way, if you know the history of copyright, you'll know that
maps were one of the first two types of works which were protected.
When copyright was invented, it protected books and maps. The idea
that copyright does not cover maps is very strange when you
On 5 August 2010 23:34, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 05/08/10 14:33, John Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 5 August 2010 23:27, Tom Hughes wrote:
>>>
>>> Err actually, please don't start OpenID support from scratch as we
>>> already
>>> have a branch with more or less complete OpenID support!
>>
>> Is that OpenID
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
Which is to say, sure, it *contains* a collection of unoriginal facts, but it
expresses
those facts in a unique way.
Hey Google, you can have our unoriginal facts but please don't copy the
Osmarender map style, or the way we write our XML. Thanks.
Bye
Frederik
_
On Aug 5, 2010, at 7:36 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> Anthony wrote:
>> And who told you that OSM is a collection of unoriginal facts?
>
> I did, last time I did some mapping. I faithfully recorded where the paths,
> gates and stiles were, rather than pulling some fictitious locations out of
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Anthony wrote:
> I've pretty much stopped uploading my maps to OSM precisely because of
> this switch to ODbL.
Basically, I don't trust you to delete all of my work and all of the
derivatives based on it, when you switch.
__
On Aug 5, 2010, at 7:23 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 5 August 2010 22:44, SteveC wrote:
>> Oh and BTW this exact dragging on is why I suggested we bound the problem by
>> signing up new users - so the problem doesn't grow every day with more and
>> more people.
>
> But that has it's own issues,
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> Anthony wrote:
>> And who told you that OSM is a collection of unoriginal facts?
>
> I did, last time I did some mapping. I faithfully recorded where the paths,
> gates and stiles were, rather than pulling some fictitious locations out o
On Aug 5, 2010, at 7:22 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 5 August 2010 22:43, SteveC wrote:
>> I agree, FUD isn't fun. But it's you and a couple of others having a
>> significant time sink effect on the people trying to move it forward.
>
> I'm not the one that came up with ambiguous wording for the
On Aug 5, 2010, at 7:13 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:25 AM, John Smith wrote:
>> You essentially have 2 camps here, the pragmatists who think anything
>> but minor data loss is unacceptable, and you have the idealists who
>> think even if we loose a most of data people will just
On 05/08/10 14:33, John Smith wrote:
On 5 August 2010 23:27, Tom Hughes wrote:
Err actually, please don't start OpenID support from scratch as we already
have a branch with more or less complete OpenID support!
Is that OpenID support from other sites, like Nearmap, or is that
OpenID support f
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Emilie Laffray
> wrote:
>> Hum, I think that quite a few things on Wikipedia can be considered
>> creative in the first place allowing for copyrights to kick in.
>> Hum, in Wikipedia, it is not the facts that is pr
Anthony wrote:
> And who told you that OSM is a collection of unoriginal facts?
I did, last time I did some mapping. I faithfully recorded where the paths,
gates and stiles were, rather than pulling some fictitious locations out of
my ass.
I realise that you've been far too busy trolling the mai
On 5 August 2010 23:27, Tom Hughes wrote:
> Err actually, please don't start OpenID support from scratch as we already
> have a branch with more or less complete OpenID support!
Is that OpenID support from other sites, like Nearmap, or is that
OpenID support from OSM?
___
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Emilie Laffray wrote:
> Hum, I think that quite a few things on Wikipedia can be considered
> creative in the first place allowing for copyrights to kick in.
> Hum, in Wikipedia, it is not the facts that is protected but the writing. In
> OSM, we are talking about
On 05/08/10 14:23, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
Ben, why not look at the Rails code and offer an OpenID authentication
mechanism. I can't speak for the administrators, but it seems like if
some simple solution could be created that solves this ongoing issue
with OpenID, that it would solve your probl
On 5 August 2010 12:44, Kai Krueger wrote:
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> One signup page, one E-Mail
>> confirmation, and then click "ok" for the OAuth page. How often does the
>> modern Internet user do that every day?
>>
> Exactly that is the problem! I have to sign-up to far too many accounts per
>
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:23 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 5 August 2010 22:44, SteveC wrote:
>> Oh and BTW this exact dragging on is why I suggested we bound the problem by
>> signing up new users - so the problem doesn't grow every day with more and
>> more people.
>
> But that has it's own issue
It seems to me we have two sides trying to reach the same end point.
Ben and NearMap want to make it easy for people to use and contribute to OSM.
Steve and Frederik want to ensure for technical and legal reasons that
the changes from NearMap users doesn't cause problems in the OSM
database.
It
On 5 August 2010 14:19, Anthony wrote:
>
> What makes you think that contractual element will offer any
> "protection" in Australia? Has an Australian court case upheld the
> enforcement of contractual restriction on people who didn't even know
> the contract existed?
>
> And who told you that O
On 5 August 2010 11:27, Erik Johansson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Ben Last wrote:
>> Actually... I'm not sure you would :) My reasoning is thus; OSM members are
>> interested in mapping, and relish the power of JOSM or Potlatch (I do
>> myself). You don't want a simpler editor, yo
Ben if I read this right then you're hiding the users from OSM and we'll see a
stream of edits from NearMap which are actually from multiple users. This is
why CM/matt/others built the OAuth code so that mapzen etc didn't do that,
because it's horrific.
The reason is pretty simple - the first l
On 08/05/2010 09:25 AM, John Smith wrote:
You essentially have 2 camps here, the pragmatists who think anything
but minor data loss is unacceptable, and you have the idealists who
think even if we loose a most of data people will just put new "freer"
data back in and we'll be able to then licens
Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> You're trying to remove two "barriers" at the same time, both quite
> unrelated:
>
> 1. The barrier of users having to sign up to OSM;
> 2. The barrier of a (supposedly) complicated editing process.
>
No, they are not really unrelated. If 1 is prerequisite of 2 (which
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Ben Last wrote:
> Actually... I'm not sure you would :) My reasoning is thus; OSM members are
> interested in mapping, and relish the power of JOSM or Potlatch (I do
> myself). You don't want a simpler editor, you want one that helps you do
> OSM mapping. The mot
On 5 August 2010 16:44, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On the other hand, doing "1" in the above, is relatively cheap; we could do
> that ourselves at any time by, say, allowing users to log in to OSM with any
> OpenID credentials (just like we do on help.openstreetmap.org). I guess we
> might even do th
On 5 August 2010 14:44, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> You're trying to remove two "barriers" at the same time, both quite
> unrelated:
> 1. The barrier of users having to sign up to OSM;
> 2. The barrier of a (supposedly) complicated editing process.
>
An interesting take on it :) But I disagree that t
40 matches
Mail list logo
