Dear experts,
I rendered some area by mapnik from France and Germany derived from
Europe.osm.bz2.
But some part of them are blue. is it some problem with small coast line in
this case? or no, that is because of some thing else?
please see the attachment.
Thank you in advance,
Saphy
<>_
On 15 June 2011 11:56, David Murn wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 10:39 +0800, James Andrewartha wrote:
>> On 15 June 2011 09:36, Richard Weait wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Ben Last wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi all
>> >> As promised, with apologies for the delay, here is the statement fr
On 15 June 2011 09:36, Richard Weait wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Ben Last wrote:
>>
>> Hi all
>> As promised, with apologies for the delay, here is the statement from
>> NearMap regarding submission of derived works of our PhotoMaps to OSM.
>
> Dear Ben,
>
> Thank you for providing
Hello Everyone,
I am organising event to do online mapping, to increase the enrichment
of OSM maps, also we have set up a lab to train the students and to
make them able to work on OSM on that day.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hack_the_Map
So My point is that, just like mapping parties inclu
Hi all,
This is in reference to the poll here: http://doodle.com/s2zg64vyaup72dcw
An idea: can we try to make this discussion more constructive? I have
tried to do so here, probably with mixed success. I am beginning to be
burdened with non-constructive messages and we really don't have time
Parveen,
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Parveen Arora wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> I am organising event to do online mapping, to increase the enrichment
> of OSM maps, also we have set up a lab to train the students and to
> make them able to work on OSM on that day.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap
+1 Much appreciated, both the statement itself and Ben's efforts to get it.
Mike
On 15/06/2011 03:36, Richard Weait wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Ben Last wrote:
Hi all
As promised, with apologies for the delay, here is the statement from NearMap
regarding submission of derived
TimSC wrote:
Richard, can't we just live and let live? You're profile has the wise
words to avoid "endless discussions" and go do stuff. I think it is
possible since we recently dropped a discussion that was going nowhere,
at your suggestion [5]. I respected your request - live and let live. I
am
Hello
The latest planet file which we have downloaded is OK and we have
started with the import
Since osm2pgsql does not work for us since there is no sufficient memory
we have tried with osmosis
Now the reading part is OK since we have 4GB of ram and we also have an
additional partition over
On 6/15/2011 4:53 AM, Parveen Arora wrote:
Please give your valuable suggestions to make it better, also add the
points that you wants to take care about during this kind of online
event event.
Just a note for the local venue - in many recent cases, the student
edit activities will result in
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 22:33 +0200, Michael Collinson wrote:
> As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this
> Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will
> mean that anyone who has explicitly declined the new contributor terms
> will no longer
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Mike N wrote:
> Just a note for the local venue - in many recent cases, the student edit
> activities will result in an automatic block on that IP address. The
> automatic block is necessary to block those downloading large areas via the
> API.
You mean to block
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Mike N wrote:
> On 6/15/2011 4:53 AM, Parveen Arora wrote:
>>
>> Please give your valuable suggestions to make it better, also add the
>> points that you wants to take care about during this kind of online
>> event event.
>
> Just a note for the local venue - in m
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Parveen Arora wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> I am organising event to do online mapping, to increase the enrichment
> of OSM maps, also we have set up a lab to train the students and to
> make them able to work on OSM on that day.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/H
I'm also very interested in this.
Thanks John
On 15 June 2011 06:44, Andy Street wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 22:33 +0200, Michael Collinson wrote:
> > As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this
> > Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This
On 6/15/2011 7:00 AM, Parveen Arora wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Mike N wrote:
Just a note for the local venue - in many recent cases, the student edit
activities will result in an automatic block on that IP address. The
automatic block is necessary to block those downloading larg
Hi all,
One of my colleagues and I have completed a report on developing multimodal
trip planners. The report focuses on open-source software, and open data
sources such as OpenStreetMap and public transportation data in GTFS format.
The report is available at
http://www.nctr.usf.edu/2011/
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
First of all, thanks for your valuable response.
> I'm sure there have been similar events before.
Yes, I also thinks that there are many.
> I apologize for being
> critical of your event. It seems to me that training new mappers
> about OSM
Dear Ed,
Wonderful. I've just had a quick look at the executive summary and
will likely go through the rest of it in the next week. Looking
forward to reading the rest of it.
Best regards,
Richard
http://www.nctr.usf.edu/2011/05/enabling-cost-effective-multimodal-trip-planners-through-open-tra
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Street"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change
process
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 22:33 +0200, Michael Collinson wrote:
As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to mo
Mike Collinson wrote:
>
> I would emphasise there is currently no need to remove data from the
> live database since the license is still CC-BY-SA. I believe there is no
> urgency to do so until acceptances have been maximised, local issues
> that have a near term solution have been addressed
On 15/06/11 11:44, Andy Street wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 22:33 +0200, Michael Collinson wrote:
>> As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this
>> Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will
>> mean that anyone who has explicitly declined
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
> It seems a bit backward to block my new contributions just because
> nobody got around to talking to the OS folks yet...
There have been several attempts to engage with OS, if I remember
correctly, both by LWG and by individual mappers. They
Hi,
could someone familiar with the area have a look at this border. It
looks wrong but I hesitate to armchair-fix it from thousands of miles away.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=11.0612&lon=-85.2039&zoom=14&layers=M
(If you don't see a strange zig-zagging line then someone else has fixe
On 15 June 2011 14:41, Richard Weait wrote:
> There have been several attempts to engage with OS, if I remember
> correctly, both by LWG and by individual mappers. They've been
> resistant.
There would presumably be no need to "engage with OS" if LWG was happy
that the OS OpenData License was co
On 15/06/11 14:41, Richard Weait wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
>> It seems a bit backward to block my new contributions just because
>> nobody got around to talking to the OS folks yet...
> There have been several attempts to engage with OS, if I remember
> correctly
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
> On 15/06/11 14:41, Richard Weait wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
>>> It seems a bit backward to block my new contributions just because
>>> nobody got around to talking to the OS folks yet...
>> There have been s
Am 15.06.2011 16:17, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> Hi,
>
> could someone familiar with the area have a look at this border. It
> looks wrong but I hesitate to armchair-fix it from thousands of miles away.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=11.0612&lon=-85.2039&zoom=14&layers=M
>
> (If you don't
On 15/06/2011 14:41, Richard Weait wrote:
What seems backward to me is deciding to use a previously
and famously "verboten" source for your edits without being perfectly
clear that those edits are now permitted.
Where was it pronounced it was forbidden?
Under CC it was acceptable at the time o
On 15 June 2011 14:41, Richard Weait wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
>
>> It seems a bit backward to block my new contributions just because
>> nobody got around to talking to the OS folks yet...
>
> There have been several attempts to engage with OS, if I remember
>
On 16 June 2011 01:47, Dave F. wrote:
> It's only as the deadline draws near that those in favour of the change are
> trying to put the blame on the mappers for there potentially being a
> conflict. I find this irritating.
No, this isn't a new thing, this has pretty much existed ever since
people
On Tuesday 14 June 2011 19:28:52 Pieren wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Richard Fairhurst
wrote:
> > Just as a factual point:
> >
> > The Contributor Terms were posted to the mailing lists in September 2009
> > as far as I can see:
> >
> >
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/leg
> "mc" == Michael Collinson writes:
mc> As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4
mc> this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically
mc> practical. This will mean that anyone who has explicitly declined
mc> the new contributor terms will no longer be a
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Eric Marsden wrote:
> > compared to over 191,000 who now contribute under the new terms.
>
> This is disingenuous communication,
>
>
+1.
Correct me if I am wrong but I remember a statement in last SOTM saying that
90% of the new accounts are never uploading anyth
On 15/06/2011 16:55, John Smith wrote:
On 16 June 2011 01:47, Dave F. wrote:
It's only as the deadline draws near that those in favour of the change are
trying to put the blame on the mappers for there potentially being a
conflict. I find this irritating.
No, this isn't a new thing, this has p
Eric Marsden wrote:
> Reading odbl.de, 60% of users have accepted the new contributor terms
> in Europe (40% in the USA, the proportion worldwide is not shown).
> There 417k users. So (extrapolating) 200k have not accepted the
> new terms and 190k have accepted.
>
> Hopefully the decision on whethe
Richard Weait writes:
> Please include real field work as part of your event. It is that real
> field work that provides the very best, most current, data to a
> mapper.
Just one caveat to Richard's note: It's reasonable to use aerial
photographs as a positional reference for your personal kno
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> [1] I suspect that when obvious bot edits are stripped out, the figure will
> be a lot higher, especially in America. Certainly, looking around my local
> area, the only significant "non-relicensable" objects are ways edited by
> someone
Kate, I appreciate your dislike of all the worry about the license,
and I agree with it. My biggest take-away from being on the Open
Source Initiative board of directors for 13 years was that: community
matters; licenses don't. So here we have a situation where 20% of the
people think it's really i
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 14:49 -0400, Josh Doe wrote:
> Perhaps it is trivial, but I have yet to hear of anyone working on a
> script or even pseudocode as to how the "cleanup" will be performed.
>
> Seems like an important item to address IMHO.
> -Josh
According to the implementation plan, sometime
Am 14.06.2011 22:33, schrieb Michael Collinson:
I would emphasise there is currently no need to remove data from
> the live database since the license is still CC-BY-SA.
I believe there is no urgency to do so until acceptances
have been maximised, local issues that have a near term solution
hav
Am 15.06.2011 06:59, schrieb Russ Nelson:
Michael Collinson writes:
> As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this
> Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will
> mean that anyone who has explicitly declined the new contributor terms
- Original Message -
From: "David Murn"
To: "Josh Doe"
Cc: ; "Richard Fairhurst"
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change
process
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 14:49 -0400, Josh Doe wrote:
Perhaps it is trivial,
Back in 2006 I wrote the following when it still wasn't clear what the
ODbL acceptance terms would be like:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 22:10, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> If someone presents me with a boolean "Do you allow relicensing under
> the ODbL" I'll have to say no because some of my edits
- Original Message -
From: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason"
To: "OpenStreetMap blather"
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 12:06 AM
Subject: [OSM-talk] Can I say "yes" to the ODbL if I can't account for
100%of my data?
Back in 2006 I wrote the following when it still wasn't clear what the
O
Exactly my own situation, except following poor advice I accepted the new
CT. Apparently it is not possible to change the CT status and my formal
request to have my suspect data deleted seems to have been ignored.
My recommendation is not to accept the CT, and reenter those items that you
did fro
If only there were a way to indicate the *source* of a given object...
This is obviously hindsight and doesn't help at this point in your
situation but seriously... The source=* tag: use it.
Toby
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:48 PM, john whelan wrote:
> Exactly my own situation, except following p
On 16 June 2011 04:54, Russ Nelson wrote:
> As usual, the majority is right, and the minority (both 20%'s!) are
> wrong. The question that we need to worry about is not the legal terms
> of the license, but instead: will changing the license hurt the
> community more than leaving it alone. I'm not
On 6/15/2011 7:41 AM, Hillsman, Edward wrote:
One of my colleagues and I have completed a report on developing
multimodal trip planners. The report focuses on open-source software,
and open data sources such as OpenStreetMap and public transportation
data in GTFS format. The report is available a
Heiko Jacobs-2 wrote:
>
> Am 15.06.2011 06:59, schrieb Russ Nelson:
>> Michael Collinson writes:
>> > As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4
>> this
>> > Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This
>> will
>> > mean that anyone who has ex
I have seen the tags "AND_a_nosr_p=" and "source=AND"
associated with some nodes in OpenStreetMap. For example:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/245622615/history
Would anyone know what the context for these tags is? I can't seem
to find documentation for the 'AND_a_nosr_p' tag, or t
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/AND
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Joseph Koshy wrote:
> I have seen the tags "AND_a_nosr_p=" and "source=AND"
> associated with some nodes in OpenStreetMap. For example:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/245622615/history
>
> Would anyone know w
Heiko Jacobs writes:
> Am 15.06.2011 06:59, schrieb Russ Nelson:
> > Michael Collinson writes:
> > > As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this
> > > Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This
> > will
> > > mean that anyone who ha
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/AND
Thanks, a reference has been added to the wiki page for 'Key:source'.
-- Koshy
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
wrote:
> I've been away for a while. But it seems to me from reading the terms
> that I can't say yes to them in good faith, not because I don't want
> to, but because I remember I derived a few things from external
> CC-BY-SA, and I can't n
55 matches
Mail list logo
