2010/11/2 Iván Sánchez Ortega :
> http://ivan.sanchezortega.es/glittermap/
Excellent. Now all it needs is some !
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Let's keep license change discussions to legal-talk. I suspect that
whoever is doing this either just found "free" data and chose not to
read the fine print or just didn't care once they had the data. Which
license we are currently using probably wasn't even considered so it
doesn't matter to this
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:01 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2010/11/3 Anthony :
>> Why? According to the very organization distributing the data, the
>> license doesn't apply.
>
> Well, isn't it more "it might not apply"? Maybe we won't win a case
> but maybe we would actually.
I think "quite l
2010/11/3 Anthony :
> Why? According to the very organization distributing the data, the
> license doesn't apply.
Well, isn't it more "it might not apply"? Maybe we won't win a case
but maybe we would actually.
cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
ta
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 5:04 PM, john whelan wrote:
>> Does it matter?
>
> Does it matter that there is some company out there that is making
> lots of money selling map data while violating our (very generous)
> licensing terms? Yes... Yes I th
Err, are you alright? "TEH GLITTERMAP!!!1!" LAWLZ!
So let's see hw many people actally use teh glitterthing...
2010/11/2 Iván Sánchez Ortega :
> On Tuesday 02 November 2010 20:32:15 Kay Drangmeister wrote:
>> After lots of discussions about how layered maps could be made more user
>> friendly, her
On Tuesday 02 November 2010 20:32:15 Kay Drangmeister wrote:
> After lots of discussions about how layered maps could be made more user
> friendly, here's an easy fix: a desaturated mapnik base layer.
Desaturated? Black & white? That's your idea of user-friendly??
Everyone knows that user-friend
On 2 November 2010 22:14, Richard Mann wrote:
> As far as I am concerned anyone is free to use the data I've put into
> OSM, as long as they let me have access to a reasonable amount of
> stuff in return. Share and share alike.
>
> I'd rather they'd kept the data, and offered to allow some to be
>
As far as I am concerned anyone is free to use the data I've put into
OSM, as long as they let me have access to a reasonable amount of
stuff in return. Share and share alike.
I'd rather they'd kept the data, and offered to allow some to be
available in exchange.
Richard
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 5:04 PM, john whelan wrote:
> Does it matter?
Does it matter that there is some company out there that is making
lots of money selling map data while violating our (very generous)
licensing terms? Yes... Yes I think it does matter.
Toby
___
Am 02.11.2010 22:58, schrieb Toby Murray:
Hmm this isn't the first time that OSM data has found its way into
some 3rd party platform via some unnamed "provider." Do google, etc
not ask any questions about the data source from these providers? Or
are the provider(s) lying about it?
There's a d
Does it matter?
Cheerio John
On 2 November 2010 17:58, Toby Murray wrote:
> Hmm this isn't the first time that OSM data has found its way into
> some 3rd party platform via some unnamed "provider." Do google, etc
> not ask any questions about the data source from these providers? Or
> are the p
Hi Kay,
I like the idea of a more subdued style for use as backdrop maps. I think this
one still has too much contrast for that purpose.
I propose something along the lines of
http://maps.cloudmade.com/?lat=52.371826&lng=4.928055&zoom=12&styleId=26171&opened_tab=0
May I take this opportunity
Hmm this isn't the first time that OSM data has found its way into
some 3rd party platform via some unnamed "provider." Do google, etc
not ask any questions about the data source from these providers? Or
are the provider(s) lying about it?
Toby
___
talk
Am 02.11.2010 21:34, schrieb Richard Weait:
I thought the style was very nice before everybody hammered your server. ;-)
One more thing:
yources to all styles rendered on the toolserver are here:
http://svn.toolserver.org/svnroot/p_osm/styles/
Peter
__
Am 02.11.2010 21:34, schrieb Richard Weait:
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Peter Körner wrote:
Please be patient with the toolserver, most tiles in the bw-mapnik and
bw-noicons style are not yet rendered, so there're still a lot 404 error,
but this will solve itsself as soon as the maps are in
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Peter Körner wrote:
> Please be patient with the toolserver, most tiles in the bw-mapnik and
> bw-noicons style are not yet rendered, so there're still a lot 404 error,
> but this will solve itsself as soon as the maps are in a wider use.
I thought the style was ve
Please be patient with the toolserver, most tiles in the bw-mapnik and
bw-noicons style are not yet rendered, so there're still a lot 404
error, but this will solve itsself as soon as the maps are in a wider use.
Peter
Am 02.11.2010 20:32, schrieb Kay Drangmeister:
Hi
After lots of discussio
Hi
After lots of discussions about how layered maps could be made more user
friendly, here's an easy fix: a desaturated mapnik base layer. For even
reduced information, a "no icons" form of the map is presented.
Here is an example set:
original mapnik:
http://toolserver.org/~osm/styles/?zoom=17
Am 02.11.2010 09:41, schrieb Ed Parsons:
once we learned this we removed the data as quickly as possible.
I think this is the essence of not being evil :)
Although we feel unable to license OSM data at present
Would this change with a switch ODbL?
Peter
_
Dave F. wrote:
> In fact tagging it highway=*, ford=yes makes it *easier* for routers
> as they have to do less checking to see whether the ways on each
> side are the same.
Hang on a sec. :)
Gorm has already changed highway=ford on _ways_ to ford=yes,
highway=something_or_other. This has happ
On 02/11/2010 10:27, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Gorm E. Johnsen wrote:
Again: Left and right co-exist nicely. I do not propose to convert between
them. That is of course up to the individual mapper.
Again: What I _do_ propose, is to rename a tag on some elements. From
top to bottom in the example.
On 2 November 2010 10:27, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> Maybe one day someone will come up with a smart, genuinely beneficial idea
> like that, and we can migrate the ford tagging over time. But they haven't
> done yet.
>
>
This isn't a theoretical discussion, these edits have been going on since
Ed - Big thumbs up for the quick response to this. Makes one wonder though -
how much OSM data lives in Google Maps without us / you knowing about it, and
what measures can you take / are in place to prevent and detect this?
Martijn
Martijn van Exel +++ m...@rtijn.org
Laziness – Impatience – Hu
2010/11/2 Richard Fairhurst :
> Tag migrations do happen. Sometimes there are good reasons. I think, for
> example, that moving highway=gate to barrier=gate was a sensible change and
> enabled finer-grained tagging in the 'barrier' tag. But it was largely a
> consensus-driven change and the databa
On 2 November 2010 14:11, Ed Parsons wrote:
> Although we feel unable to license OSM data at
> present, we remain supporters of the project, and we will without question
> act in a similar way if the rights of the OSM community and your data is
> abused.
Thats cool . Glad to hear from you ed . y
Gorm E. Johnsen wrote:
> Again: Left and right co-exist nicely. I do not propose to convert between
> them. That is of course up to the individual mapper.
> Again: What I _do_ propose, is to rename a tag on some elements. From
> top to bottom in the example.
It's all right, you can stop explaini
2010/11/2 Gorm E. Johnsen :
> I don't _have_ to change the nodes. I ask if it's a good idea.
asking is always good.
> And I asked (in the original post) for comments on the wiki.
-1, discussions are better held on the ML IMHO. That's the purpose.
Use the wiki to document the outcome.
> Most
Last week Steve Coast contacted us to let us know that he had identified
what may have been OpenStreetMap data in Google Maps of Colombia. We
investigated the matter and determined that one of our providers had indeed
included OSM data in the data-set they provided to us, once we learned this we
r
On 2 November 2010 00:19, Andrew Errington wrote:
> ford=yes on a way means (to me) that this segment of the way is often covered
> with water. ford=yes on a node means (to me) that the ford is very short.
Except in drier areas where they mostly aren't covered with water... :)
_
30 matches
Mail list logo
