Hi,
I want to invite everyone to comment the (in central europe) already
widely used new Public Transport Schema:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport
Teddych
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Dominik Mahrer (Teddy teddy at teddy.ch writes:
I want to invite everyone to comment the (in central europe) already
widely used new Public Transport Schema:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport
Hello,
it's based on Oxomoa scheme, isn't it?
What's the
Hi Michael
In the new proposal I am missing some details on how to build relations:
1. Should the outward and return trip be represented as two separate
relations, as a single relation or is that up to the mapper?
Each direction should be in a separate relation. This is written in the
Anthony has discovered another Bing satellite image and this one
covers Sta. Praxedes and Claveria in Cagayan:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6582705
The location is a pretty odd place to have available satellite imagery
being remote and having no city nearby, but Claveria has an
And Jolo, Sulu as well: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?way=88478673
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony has discovered another Bing satellite image and this one
covers Sta. Praxedes and Claveria in Cagayan:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
CDO
CDO is OK based on my tracks yesterday.
--
cheers,
maning
--
Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden
wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
blog:
Nice post. Your comparison with contributions of effort to voluntary
organisations is a good one, and has changed my view on the inclusion of a
clause that allows the licence to be changed.
With a dose of AGF, and a removal of my lawyer hat, I see the point and that it
really should not be
John Smith wrote:
In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government
Licence) openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences
(ODC-By and ODbL).
Nice bait and switch...
Goodness me, John, do you have to be so confrontational about _everything_?!
In your first
I agree with Frederik's very nice comparison of OSM with volunteer
organizations as well.
I guess OSM should be viewed as a collection of geodata to which
Frederik, John, Liz, Steve, Steve, Steve, Steve, Richard, Richard,
Richard, et al have contributed to, instead of as a collection of
I should have phrased that differently: asking the individuals
in the mapper community It's clear that somewhere in
the community as a whole there is the knowhow or the money
to review licenses correctly (I wouldn't have suggested
a register of allowed data sources otherwise).
That however
On 07/12/10 23:49, Simon Poole wrote:
I'm not assuming anything.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
But I believe it is fair to say that we (as in the larger OSM community)
don't have an handle on imports in any respect.
Yes I'd agree with that.
-
Since I don't beleive the current approach to handling imports
in the CTs is workable: no I haven't made any effort to make
the CTs 3rd party license compatible. But, yes, I've made
an alternative suggestion.
Essentially it boils down to the mapper importing data on behalf
of the OSMF,
On 8 December 2010 18:51, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
John Smith wrote:
In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government
Licence) openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences
(ODC-By and ODbL).
Nice bait and switch...
Goodness me, John, do you
Hi,
what did you mean by the agency? What I said was not specific about one
agency. I used my example in portugal only for illustration. And neither did
I talk here about schedules: I let that part of the problem go, until I have
2 dollars to ask that question properly to lawyers that could
On 2010-12-08 14:25, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:05 AM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
And one of those problematic details is the OSMF. The OSMF was not
created to control the data. In fact, this was a key founding
principle. OSMF was created to support the project,
Do I have the right to add this info like that? I know that wikipedia is
more like a journalistic thing, so you are more free to put whatever you
want, but still, I do not know precisely any applicable law in here!
And besides, you know, I think albatrans would hardly notice any changes in
a
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-08 14:25, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:05 AM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
And one of those problematic details is the OSMF. The OSMF was not
created to control the
In usa facts are not copyrightable. The facts about the transport are
allowed to be put into the wikipedia, if it is notable that is another
issue. Youc an also make a wikibook.org about the transportation in
france. I dont see why it would be a problem.
mike
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 3:40 PM,
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andreas Perstinger
As I understand it, there must be someone who owns the database because
otherwise you can't defend it legally. Would you prefer a single person?
I'm not sure what you mean by owns
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
By the way: The Foundation does not own the OpenStreetMap data, is
not the copyright holder and has no desire to own the data.
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/OSMF:About
___
legal-talk
The problem is, many people, even lawyers, told me that using timetables,
or using the gps to recreate transportation maps, or even use a
transportation map to extract the data about the transport lines, and
nothing else, would be without problem. And then, I got the answer of
Francis Davey, who
I dont think I can asnwer this question, my i suggest to write the
wikitravel or wikipeida articles and then to send them to the
companies to comment on. Or write to thel. first.
mike
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Andrei Klochko
transportspl...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is, many people,
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
As I understand it, there must be someone who owns the database because
otherwise you can't defend it legally. Would you prefer a single person?
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Andreas Perstinger
On 2010-12-08 15:46, Anthony wrote:
Who owns Wikipedia?
At the copyright level, the ownership is fragmented.
And yet that didn't stop the licence being changed.
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Anthony schrieb:
One alternative is status quo.
Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located
in some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've
heard, there are quite a few). :P
Robert Kaiser
___
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
One alternative is status quo.
Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located in
some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard, there
are quite a few). :P
This may work, but based on my experience about contacting these companies,
I doubt they will answer. But maybe i'll try it anyway: they may answer
after all. The problem is, by doing this I will always have parcelar
information: if one company agrees, that would not mean that the next one
would.
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law
regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm
going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap.
Or maybe Frederik can answer it:
On 2010-12-08 17:23, Anthony wrote:
Then no one should own the database right.
So we're back at the status quo which is in my opinion not the best
option (many uncertainties).
The OSMF certainly should
not, because a very small portion of contributors are members of the
OSMF.
I agree
Point is, if your article is valid and good according to the rules of
the wikipedia, then you can expect their help in defending you.
Wikitravel contains some schedules like here :
http://wikitravel.org/en/Natuna_Islands
http://wikitravel.org/en/Ilawa
http://wikitravel.org/en/Nyborg
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-08 17:23, Anthony wrote:
The OSMF certainly should
not, because a very small portion of contributors are members of the
OSMF.
I agree with you that more contributors should be members of the OSMF
On 8 December 2010 17:23, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The 1.0 CT doesn't even mention the database right. 1.2 (*) says that
the individual contributors grant the right to the OSMF, but according
to you the individual contributors can't have the right in the first
place.
I think there's
On 2010-12-08 18:23, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-08 17:23, Anthony wrote:
The OSMF certainly should
not, because a very small portion of contributors are members of the
OSMF.
I agree with you that more
On 2010-12-08 18:36, Francis Davey wrote:
There's a lot of complex law here, but my best guess is that the sui
generis right is first owned by the contributors collectively, so that
their permission is required for its use. There are problems with that
view, but other views are more problematic.
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2010-12-08 18:23, Anthony wrote:
That's probably a key reason for our difference of opinion. I'm one
of those individualists that Frederik was complaining about. I'm
quite wary of collectivism and the
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 December 2010 17:23, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The 1.0 CT doesn't even mention the database right. 1.2 (*) says that
the individual contributors grant the right to the OSMF, but according
to you the individual
On 8 December 2010 21:54, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
[snip]
2. Article 3 makes you transfer the ownership (not exclusive) of your
entered data to OSMF : That is a Problem !!
OSMF is gathering this way the (non exclusive)ownership of OSM as
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:58:07 +1000
John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 December 2010 12:44, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
Frederik seems to consistently misrepresent the license in this
sort of dishonest fashion,
Well at least I'm not
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 00:34:59 +
Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:55:26AM -0500, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
Assuming this question was asked in good faith, then I can tell you
for sure that agreement to a license via a click is indeed valid.
Firstly, it’s not
On 08/12/10 08:32, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:51 AM, Jowinfi...@gmail.com wrote:
Jaak, do you know that you can change the offset in most editors? Potlatch2
and JOSM. I suppose in Merkaartor too, but I don't know for sure.
But how do you know which direction to offset and
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
The usual sort of click-through 'agreement' has two buttons, one for
positive, and one for negative. Whether a click-through agreement with
two buttons for positive and none for negative can be enforced anywhere
is not
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 11:32:39AM +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:51 AM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote:
Jaak, do you know that you can change the offset in most editors? Potlatch2
and JOSM. I suppose in Merkaartor too, but I don't know for sure.
But how do you know
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:14 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote:
Failing that, maybe its time that more people started doing what Im
doing. Im quite an active mapper, as its something I enjoy doing with
my time. What Ive been doing for the past couple of months, is only
making minor
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
This is simply because we are at the voluntary phase of agreeing with
the CT right now. If you wholeheartedly agree with the CT, then you
can indicate your preference right now.
When we are at the mandatory phase,
You should not map from the Bing imagery area you know nothing more
about.
Why do people such make bold, absolutist statements like this with no
policy to back them up? There is no policy that says anything of the
sort. The above sentence is one author's opinion. It would be a very
good thing
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 22:01 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
You should not map from the Bing imagery area you know nothing more
about.
Why do people such make bold, absolutist statements like this with no
policy to back them up? There is no policy that says anything of the
sort. The above
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.orgwrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 22:01 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
You should not map from the Bing imagery area you know nothing more
about.
Why do people such make bold, absolutist statements like this with no
policy
On 8 December 2010 11:05, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote:
you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about.
Period.
People should be nicer to their parents. Period
Dermot
--
--
Igaühel on siin oma laul
ja ma oma ei leiagi
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 21:45:14 +1100, Andrew Harvey
andrew.harv...@gmail.com
wrote:
I've decided to just ignore the CTs for now, and continue to operate
under CC BY-SA. Others are doing this to, and you could too, assuming
you haven't agreed to the CTs and you don't actually plan to sit
around
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 12:10 +0100, Raphaël Pinson wrote:
you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more
about.
Period.
So, just to make that clear: when aerial imagery of, say, Pakistan, is
made
available to help mapping, I should not trace anything unless I've
On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:35:31 +0530
Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote:
you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about.
Period.
So how about Haiti? Colombia?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 22:37 +1100, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:35:31 +0530
Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote:
you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more
about.
Period.
So how about Haiti? Colombia?
exceptional circumstances sometimes need
On 8 December 2010 10:58, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
This is simply because we are at the voluntary phase of agreeing with
the CT right now. If you wholeheartedly agree with the CT, then you
can indicate
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote:
you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about.
If there's consensus for this view, get it documented on the wiki, and
call it policy.
Otherwise, it's just yet another round of pointless You must
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
Partially a rhetorical question... What would the project do if
someone uploaded data to OSM and then said they had not agreed to
contributing the data under CC-BY-SA?
In case you're misinterpreting my request: I
Simon Poole wrote:
That however does require the importer/mapper to raise the
issue to a level where that support exists. As the LWG has
pointed out, that hasn't worked in the past, and there is IMHO
no reason to believe that it will magically start working in the
future.
Oh, sure,
On 8 December 2010 13:18, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote:
you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about.
If there's consensus for this view, get it documented on the wiki, and
call it
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
I mean, am I the only one that thinks inventing commandments and
yelling them at each other is pointless?
I should apologise here for picking on two innocent individuals. I was
trying to offer a criticism of the culture
OpenStreetMap is still a wiki though? So if I find a future travel
destination missing from OSM, but covered by Bing, where's the harm in
tracing it? In many parts of the world there is no such thing as
local mappers and even if I did trace a load of crap into the
database, anyone else can come
Matt Williams wrote:
On 8 December 2010 13:18, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote:
you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about.
If there's consensus for this view, get it documented on
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 10:01:45PM +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
You should not map from the Bing imagery area you know nothing more
about.
Why do people such make bold, absolutist statements like this with no
policy to back them up?
Absolutist? 'Should not' is not 'must not'. And have you
I always forget the name of this wiki page, I think it is badly named as
they are not services but a list of map styles/viewers. But it is the
appropriate page you seek.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM_based_Services#Art
You can help!
Maps wanted for Wikipedia, Commons but data available for OSM.
see :
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:IUCN_red_list
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (also known as the IUCN Red
List or Red Data List), founded in 1948, is the world's most
comprehensive inventory of
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org
wrote:
you should not map from any imagery area you know nothing more about.
If there's consensus for this view, get it documented on the wiki, and
call it policy.
Article 3 is to me the problem:
The Wiki says:
3. OSMF agrees to use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database
and only under the terms of one of the following licenses: ODbL 1.0 for
the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database;
CC-BY-SA 2.0; or another
Article 3 is the problem to me:
The Wiki says:
3. OSMF agrees to use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database
and only under the terms of one of the following licenses: ODbL 1.0 for
the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database;
CC-BY-SA 2.0; or
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:33 AM, davespod osmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners_Guide_1.1
See item 3.*
Very interesting. That line was added by Ben in January 2009, and
that sentence hasn't been touched since.
So the question arises: does the
I have seen a similar error in google sat for the area of brod, in
kosovo. Bing is not even worth looking at for kosovo
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Jaak Laineste jaak.laine...@gmail.com wrote:
It is good news that Bing aerials are available. The bad news is that
Bing has made exactly
Gert,
Article 3 is to me the problem:
The legal-talk list would be a good place to discuss the wording of the
Contributor Terms.
Bye
Frederik
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Am 08.12.2010 22:59, schrieb Steve Bennett:
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:33 AM, davespodosmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners_Guide_1.1
See item 3.*
Very interesting. That line was added by Ben in January 2009, and
that sentence hasn't been touched
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:33 AM, davespod osmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm
wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners_Guide_1.1
See item 3.*
Very interesting. That line was added by Ben in January 2009, and
that sentence hasn't been touched since.
Bah! You're
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:46 PM, davespod osmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm wrote:
I have cancelled a trip to survey some lonely country lanes after someone else
remotely traced them.
A flying trip is only partway up the scale of desirability. What you
want is someone who really knows the area.
Hi,
Ulf Lamping wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners_Guide_1.1
See item 3.*
So the question arises: does the community support this view?
No.
I've changed the wording, trying to still say that tracing is *better*
if you have local knowledge, but local knowledge is not
Richard Mann wrote:
I wouldn't recommend remote tracing, but if you do it with due care,
or maybe to supplement stuff you have surveyed (or maybe even just
seen out of the window when passing),
I completely agree that supplementing stuff you have surveyed or even
tracing something you have
By the way, I don't think the intention is to suggest that it is not ok to
trace an area and then visit it to correct errors and add detail. It is when
you are not going to do that, it is frowned upon. I can understand why. I
have cancelled a trip to survey some lonely country lanes after
On 08/12/2010 21:59, Steve Bennett wrote:
So the question arises: does the community support this view?
Unlike the Life of Brian, here everyone does seem to be an individual -
I suspect that you'll get as many answers as there are mappers.
Speaking entirely personally, I do mostly only map
In my case, I have done a mixture of image-tracing (from the Yahoo aerial
imagery), and POI marking (from first-hand knowledge, and frequently from
ccordinates measures using my phone's GPS). All of my image-tracing has been
in areas that I had first-hand knowledge of. Since most of the
Am 08.12.2010 23:46, schrieb davespod:
By the way, I don't think the intention is to suggest that it is not ok to
trace an area and then visit it to correct errors and add detail. It is when
you are not going to do that, it is frowned upon. I can understand why. I
have cancelled a trip to survey
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 12:53 +, Joseph Reeves wrote:
local mappers and even if I did trace a load of crap into the
database, anyone else can come along and, providing they've got a
better data source than I, fix it.
please keep off India
--
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Am 09.12.2010 02:49, schrieb Kenneth Gonsalves:
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 08:59 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
(Personally, I would be arguing against it. Don't do X because the
result would be less accurate than if you did Y is an unhelpful kind
of perfectionism. The line makes the point that
At 2010-12-08 04:53, Joseph Reeves wrote:
OpenStreetMap is still a wiki though? So if I find a future travel
destination missing from OSM, but covered by Bing, where's the harm in
tracing it? In many parts of the world there is no such thing as
local mappers and even if I did trace a load of
At 2010-12-08 14:46, davespod wrote:
I have cancelled a trip to survey some lonely country lanes after someone else
remotely traced them. Had I gone, the map would have gained POIs instead of
just a line. But it scarcely seemed worth the trip for what might have been
a couple of postboxes and
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 03:16 +0100, Ulf Lamping wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=13.03175lon=77.56565zoom=17layers=M
before the conference I did a rough sketch from satellite imagery.
On
arrival at the spot I found that the ground reality was totally at
variance with the
Henk,
Ik stoor mij aan het zinnetje :
We zijn erg coulant in mijn beleving.
OSM, dat zijn wij allen.
Niemand heeft het recht om coulant te zijn tegen de community.
After all, OSMF is ook maar een zelfbenoemd groepje would be regelneven.
Oh , ja ik ben zelf ook lid van OSMF ;))
Gert
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
Oh , ja ik ben zelf ook lid van OSMF ;))
:o Gert :o ben nu nu opeens lid van de dark force ;)
Stefan
___
Talk-nl mailing list
Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
De enige representatieve poll die ooit gehouden is zegt iets heel
anders: http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w
Waar is die poll aangekondigd? Ik had hem nog niet eerder gezien maar nu
ingevuld.
Kwestie van interpretatie
Het is toch overduidelijk dat er straks data verwijderd moet gaan worden
als dit allemaal doorgaat? Dus ja, dan moet er ook geblocked worden...
Als er uiteindelijk beslist wordt[1] om over te gaan naar ODbL, dan moeten
inderdaad de non-compliant accounts worden geblokkeerd. Dat is evident.
Gert,
2010/12/8 ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl
Henk,
Ik stoor mij aan het zinnetje :
We zijn erg coulant in mijn beleving.
OSM, dat zijn wij allen.
Niemand heeft het recht om coulant te zijn tegen de community.
Coulant moet je zien dat de OSMF niet
2010/12/8 Lennard l...@xs4all.nl
Henk, is er bij een niet-akkoordverklaring nog een mogelijkheid om in de
toekomst, en voor de ODbL-switch, alsnog akkoord te gaan?
Ja
Gr,
Henk
___
Talk-nl mailing list
Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
Henk , Nu doe je het weer !!
“Coulant moet je zien dat de OSMF niet bezig om mensen zaken door de strot te
duwen”
OSMF is in het geheel niet bevoegd om iemand iets door de strot te duwen en ook
Niet om dat te ontkennen! OSMF is gewoon een groepje OSM-ers als alle anderen.
OSM is
Henk, is er bij een niet-akkoordverklaring nog een mogelijkheid om in
de
toekomst, en voor de ODbL-switch, alsnog akkoord te gaan?
Andersom kennelijk niet, blijkens de discussie op talk !
Gert
Van: talk-nl-boun...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-nl-boun...@openstreetmap.org] Namens
Hoi Henk,
Ik heb anderhalve vraag:
- kun je ergens zien hoeveel users al gestemd hebben en hoeveel niet (dat
zijn 4 categorieen)?
- mij bekruipt het gevoel dat we 'oude' waarden als 2/3 meerderheid gaan
toevoegen om radertjes soepeler te laten lopen, terwijl dat op een
eenvoudige manier met
On 8-12-2010 20:10, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
Henk, is er bij een niet-akkoordverklaring nog een mogelijkheid om in de
toekomst, en voor de ODbL-switch, alsnog akkoord te gaan?
Andersom kennelijk niet, blijkens de discussie op talk !
Dat is wel heel begrijpelijk.
2010/12/8 ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl
OSM is niet van OSMF !
De OSMF is de officiële rechtspersoon die de OSM-database publiceert.
Gert
*
*
Henk
___
Talk-nl mailing list
Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
Rene,
2010/12/8 Rene Dohmen
rdohmen+osm-talk...@gmail.comrdohmen%2bosm-talk...@gmail.com
Hoi Henk,
Ik heb anderhalve vraag:
- kun je ergens zien hoeveel users al gestemd hebben en hoeveel niet (dat
zijn 4 categorieen)?
Op http://planet.openstreetmap.org/users_agreed/users_agreed.txt
Wanneer heeft de OSMF de OSM-staat uitgeroepen ?
Gert
Van: talk-nl-boun...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-nl-boun...@openstreetmap.org] Namens Henk Hoff
Verzonden: woensdag 8 december 2010 21:13
Aan: OpenStreetMap NL discussion list
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Licentie - update
On 8-12-2010 21:12, Henk Hoff wrote:
De OSMF is de officiële rechtspersoon die de OSM-database publiceert.
Leest het niet correcter als: De OSMF is een officiële rechtspersoon
die de OSM-database publiceert. ?
--
Lennard
___
Talk-nl mailing
De grafische weergave geeft het idee dat grofweg de helft (qua omvang)
accoord gaat, er staan echter maar ongeveer 5500 userid's in de lijst: is
dat 5500 van 280.000 users? Dat zou betekenen dat omvangrijk werk al zeker
meegenomen wordt, maar kleiner detailwerk niet.
Zie ik dat goed?
mvg,
Rene
Henk Hoff wrote:
Hier kun je een visuele weergave zien van hoeveel data er beschikbaar is
onder ODbL http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/treemap.png
Kan er ook eens een treemap gemaakt worden waar de imports uit zijn
weggelaten?
Ben
___
Talk-nl
On 8-12-2010 21:34, Rene Dohmen wrote:
De grafische weergave geeft het idee dat grofweg de helft (qua omvang)
accoord gaat, er staan echter maar ongeveer 5500 userid's in de lijst:
is dat 5500 van 280.000 users? Dat zou betekenen dat omvangrijk werk al
zeker meegenomen wordt, maar kleiner
1 - 100 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
