> Am 13/mar/2014 um 00:28 schrieb "Frank Little" :
>
> We model bridges and tunnels in a specific way in OSM which means we do not
> need to add additional layer tags (but feel free if you do want to).
IMHO we do not yet model explicit bridges or tunnels at all, we only add
attributes to roa
On 13.03.2014 00:28, Frank Little wrote:
> Tobias Knerr wrote:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/default_layer_for_bridge_and_tunnel
>>
[...]
> This is however not the "implicit layer tags" argument which Richard Z.
> gives, which he suggests means:. "so every tunnel and bridg
Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
The "entry level editor" could reasonably limit new users to "entry
level edits".
Messing with anything with a relation is not a first edit kind of
activity.
What if the entry level editor said "hey, this is too complex, map
something else
and gain some experience and come
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:06:41PM -0400, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Pieren writes:
> > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Frank Little wrote:
> > > Richard Z wrote
> >
> > > As mapped, the waterway=stream (Way #138911739) runs underground
> (layer=-1),
> > > probably through a culvert given the wa
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21221
>
> Looking forward to your comments,
No, thanks, the licence is good as it is.
--
-S
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://list
Hello everyone -
I've been sitting on writing about the detrimental effects of
OpenStreetMap's share-alike license (ODbL) for a while and finally decided
to, um, share. I've been listening long to many OpenStreetMappers I respect
a ton telling me it's not so bad and it's just what we're stuck with
De : Alex Barth
Hello everyone -
I've been sitting on writing about the detrimental effects of
OpenStreetMap's share-alike license (ODbL) for a while and finally
decided to, um, share. I've been listening long to many
OpenStreetMappers I respect a ton telling me it's not so ba
Read this and substitute OSM for Wikipedia:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/13/google_stabs_wikipedia_in_the_front/
The moral is: if you're a contributor to an "open" web resource, then
beware: the hippy ethos simply marks you out as a mug. Unless you
protect and license your work, you *wil
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Alex Barth wrote:
> Hello everyone -
>
> I've been sitting on writing about the detrimental effects of
> OpenStreetMap's share-alike license (ODbL) for a while and finally decided
> to, um, share. I've been listening long to many OpenStreetMappers I respect
> a to
Richard Weait wrote
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Alex Barth <
> alex@
> > wrote:> Hello everyone ->> I've been sitting on writing about the
> detrimental effects of> OpenStreetMap's share-alike license (ODbL) for a
> while and finally decided> to, um, share. I've been listening long to man
Oh yes yes yes, let's have some real fun again, let's change the Licence !
Yves
On 03/13/2014 03:26 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
Hello everyone -
I've been sitting on writing about the detrimental effects of
OpenStreetMap's share-alike license (ODbL) for a while and finally
decided to, um, share. I'
On 13.03.2014 15:31, Simone Cortesi wrote:
>> Looking forward to your comments,
>
> No, thanks, the licence is good as it is.
Far from it, there's a lot that's wrong with the ODbL:
First of all, it's too hard to understand. Even on legal-talk, you often
don't get useful statements about what is
Under which license would you share it? And why?
OSM offers you so many opportunities, I wonder what could be missing.
On Mar 13, 2014 11:28 AM, "Alex Barth" wrote:
> Hello everyone -
>
> I've been sitting on writing about the detrimental effects of
> OpenStreetMap's share-alike license (ODbL) f
I wrote an unpublished blog article a week ago (obviously not in
response to post of Alex) that I've put online now
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonPoole/diary/21225
It might be of interest where IMHO Alex didn't get it quite right.
Simon
___
On Thursday 13 March 2014, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> >
> > No, thanks, the licence is good as it is.
>
> Far from it, there's a lot that's wrong with the ODbL:
>
> First of all, it's too hard to understand. Even on legal-talk, you
> often don't get useful statements about what is and what isn't
> allow
Besides predicting that exactly that would happen with Wikipedia once
google started providing WP based excerpts, I don't think that it is
really an argument pro/con any specific licence*.
WP historically was the sole consumer and distributor of WP data of
note, in the case of OSM that has bee
I've posted a comment on Alex post, but I need to clarify a few things.
The part were I also think ODbL may be a problem is regarding collaborating
with government agencies where share-alike is required.
It is a pitty that these agencies cannot join OSM because of ODbL, not
because they just want
Alex,
I agree with you!
Figured I'd speak up as it always seems the no votes get all the attention
on the list.
-Jake
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Christian Quest wrote:
> I've posted a comment on Alex post, but I need to clarify a few things.
>
> The part were I also think ODbL may be a p
Jake,
On 13.03.2014 20:17, Jake Wasserman wrote:
> Figured I'd speak up as it always seems the no votes get all the
> attention on the list.
This is not a vote; it is a discussion. Although the distinction becomes
blurred sometimes, in discussions it is common to think about an issue,
balance the
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On 13.03.2014 20:17, Jake Wasserman wrote:
> > Figured I'd speak up as it always seems the no votes get all the
> > attention on the list.
>
> This is not a vote; it is a discussion. Although the distinction becomes
> blurred sometimes, in d
Am 13.03.2014 15:26, schrieb Alex Barth:
Looking forward to your comments,
No! Stay at Share alike to avoid misuse of open data! Compare it to the
GPL which is frequently used in OS-Sortware.
Best regards,
Michael.
___
talk mailing list
talk@opens
21 matches
Mail list logo
